The Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia Volume 1 of 28

Pop­ula­tion.—The pop­ula­tion in 1867 at the time of the ces­sion from Rus­sia is es­ti­mat­ed at 30,000, of which two-​thirds were Es­ki­mo and oth­er In­di­ans. Pop­ula­tion re­turned in 1880, 33,426; in 1890, 32,052; in 1900, 63,592, of whom ap­prox­imate­ly 48% were whites, 46% na­tives and 6% Japanese and Chi­nese; (1910 cen­sus) 64,356. The Asi­at­ics are em­ployed in the salmon can­ner­ies. The na­tives of Alas­ka fall un­der four eth­no­log­ic races: the Es­ki­mo or In­nu­it—of these the Aleuts are an off­shoot; the Haidas or Kaigani, found prin­ci­pal­ly on Prince of Wales Is­land and there­abouts; the Thlinkits, rather wide­ly dis­tribut­ed in the “Pan­han­dle”; and the Tin­nehs or Atha­pas­cans, the stock race of the great in­te­ri­or coun­try. In 1800 the pure-​blood­ed na­tives num­bered 23,531, of whom 6000 were Haidas, Thlinkits or oth­er na­tives of the coastal re­gion, 1000 Aleuts, 3400 Atha­pas­cans and 13,100 Es­ki­mo. The na­tives have adopt­ed many cus­toms of white civ­iliza­tion, and on the Aleu­tians, and in coastal Alas­ka, and in scat­tered re­gions in the in­te­ri­or ac­knowl­edge Chris­tian­ity un­der the forms of the Or­tho­dox Greek or oth­er church­es. The rapid ex­haus­tion in late years of the cari­bou, seals and oth­er an­imals, once the food or stockin-​trade of the Aleuts and oth­er races, threat­ens more and more the swift de­ple­tion of the na­tives. They have al­so felt the fa­tal in­flu­ence of the liquor traf­fic. From 1893 to 1895 the Unit­ed States ex­pend­ed $55,000 to sup­port the na­tives of the Fur Seal Is­lands. This pol­icy threat­ens to be­come a con­tin­ued ne­ces­si­ty through­out much of Alas­ka. There is a small gov­ern­ment In­di­an reser­va­tion on Afog­nak Is­land, near Ko­di­ak. The white pop­ula­tion is ex­treme­ly mo­bile, and few towns have an as­sured or def­inite fu­ture. The pros­per­ity of the min­ing towns of the in­te­ri­or is de­pen­dent on the fick­le for­tune of the gold-​fields, for which they are the dis­tribut­ing points. Sit­ka, Juneau (the cap­ital) and Dou­glas, both cen­tres of a rich min­ing dis­trict, Sk­ag­way, ship­ping point for freight for the Klondike coun­try (see these ti­tles), and St Michael, the ocean port for freight­ing up the Yukon, are the on­ly towns ap­par­ent­ly as­sured of a pros­per­ous fu­ture. Wrangell (for­mer­ly Fort St Diony­sius, Fort Stikine and Fort Wrangell), found­ed in 1833, is a di­lap­idat­ed and tor­pid lit­tle vil­lage, of some in­ter­est in Alaskan his­to­ry, and of tem­po­rary im­por­tance from 1874 to 1877 as the gate­way to the Cas­siar mines in British Columbia. Its in­hab­itants are chiefly Thlinkit In­di­ans.

Gov­ern­ment.—Alas­ka, by an act of Congress ap­proved the 7th of May 1906, re­ceived the pow­er to elect a del­egate to Congress. Be­fore this act and the elec­tions of Au­gust 1906 Alas­ka was a gov­ern­men­tal dis­trict of the Unit­ed States with­out a del­egate in Congress. Its ad­min­is­tra­tion rests in the hands of the var­ious ex­ec­utive de­part­ments, and is part­ly ex­er­cised by a gov­er­nor and oth­er res­ident of­fi­cials ap­point­ed by the pres­ident. It is a mil­itary dis­trict, a cus­toms dis­trict (since 1868), is or­ga­nized in­to a land dis­trict, and con­sti­tutes three ju­di­cial di­vi­sions. In 1867-1877 the gov­ern­ment was in the hands of the de­part­ment of war, al­though the cus­toms were from the be­gin­ning col­lect­ed by the de­part­ment of the trea­sury, with which the ef­fec­tive con­trol rest­ed from 1877 un­til the pas­sage of the so-​called Or­gan­ic Act of 17th May 1884. This act ex­tend­ed over Alas­ka the laws of the state of Ore­gon so far as they should be ap­pli­ca­ble, cre­at­ed the ju­di­cial dis­trict and a land dis­trict, put in force the min­ing laws of the Unit­ed States, and in gen­er­al gave the ad­min­is­tra­tive sys­tem the or­ga­ni­za­tion it re­tained up to the re­forms of 1899-1900. The his­to­ry of gov­ern­ment and po­lit­ical ag­ita­tion has cen­tred since then in the de­mand for gen­er­al land leg­is­la­tion and for an ad­equate civ­il and crim­inal law, in protests against the en­force­ment of a liquor pro­hi­bi­tion law, and in ag­ita­tion for an ef­fi­cient­ly cen­tral­ized ad­min­is­tra­tion. As the gen­er­al land laws of the Unit­ed States were not ex­tend­ed to Alas­ka in 1884, there was no means, gen­er­al­ly speak­ing, of gain­ing ti­tle to any land oth­er than a min­ing claim, and so far as any method did ex­ist its cost was ab­so­lute­ly pro­hibitive. Af­ter par­tial and in­ad­equate leg­is­la­tion in 1891 and 1898, the reg­ular sys­tem of land sur­veys was made ap­pli­ca­ble to Alas­ka in 1899, and a gen­er­ous home­stead law was pro­vid­ed in 1903. An ad­equate code of civ­il and crim­inal law and pro­vi­sions for civ­il gov­ern­ment un­der im­proved con­di­tions were pro­vid­ed by Congress in 1899 and 1900. The ag­ita­tion over pro­hi­bi­tion dates from 1868; the act of that year or­ga­niz­ing a cus­toms dis­trict for­bade the im­por­ta­tion and sale of firearms, am­mu­ni­tion and dis­tilled spir­its; the Or­gan­ic Act of 1884 ex­tend­ed this pro­hi­bi­tion to all in­tox­icat­ing liquors. The coast of Alas­ka of­fers ex­cep­tion­al fa­cil­ities for smug­gling, and liquor bas al­ways been very plen­ti­ful; ju­ries have steadi­ly re­fused to con­vict of­fend­ers, and trea­sury of­fi­cials have reg­ular­ly col­lect­ed rev­enue from sa­loons ex­ist­ing in de­fi­ance of law. The pro­hi­bi­tion law is still up­on the statute-​books. The chief weak­ness­es in the colo­nial ad­min­is­tra­tion of the ter­ri­to­ry, par­tic­ular­ly pri­or to 1900—but on­ly to a slight­ly less ex­tent since—have been de­cen­tral­iza­tion and a lax civ­il ser­vice. The con­comi­tants of these have been ir­re­spon­si­bil­ity and in­ef­fi­cien­cy. The gov­er­nor has rep­re­sent­ed the pres­ident with­out pos­sess­ing much pow­er; the de­part­ment of war has had illde­fined du­ties; the de­part­ment of jus­tice has, in the­ory, had charge of the gen­er­al law; the de­part­ment of the in­te­ri­or has ad­min­is­tered the land law; the agents of the bu­reau of ed­uca­tion have su­per­in­tend­ed the stock­ing of Alas­ka with rein­deer; the Unit­ed States Fish Com­mis­sion has in­ves­ti­gat­ed the con­di­tion of ma­rine life with­out hav­ing pow­ers to pro­tect it. The trea­sury de­part­ment has chart­ed the coasts, sought to en­force the pro­hi­bi­tion law, con­trolled and pro­tect­ed the fur seals and fish­eries, and in­ci­den­tal­ly col­lect­ed the cus­toms. Since the cre­ation of the de­part­ment of com­merce and labour (1903), it has tak­en over from oth­er de­part­ments some of these scat­tered func­tions. All in all, the gov­ern­ment has proved it­self with­out pow­er to pro­tect the most valu­able in­dus­tries of the dis­trict, and for many years there has been talk of a reg­ular ter­ri­to­ri­al gov­ern­ment. The pauci­ty of per­ma­nent res­idents and the pover­ty of the lo­cal trea­sury seem to make such a so­lu­tion an im­pos­si­bleone.

His­to­ry.—The re­gion now known as Alas­ka was first ex­plored by the Rus­sian of­fi­cers Cap­tain Vi­tus Bering and Chirikov in I 741 They vis­it­ed parts of the coast be­tween Dixon En­trance and Cape St Elias, and re­turned along the line of the Aleu­tians. Their ex­pe­di­tion was fol­lowed by many pri­vate ves­sels manned by traders and trap­pers. Ko­di­ak was dis­cov­ered in 1763 and a set­tle­ment ef­fect­ed in 1784. Span­ish ex­pe­di­tions in 1774 and 1775 vis­it­ed the south-​east­ern coast and laid a foun­da­tion for sub­se­quent ter­ri­to­ri­al claims, one in­ci­dent of which were the Noot­ka Sound seizures of 1789. Cap­tain James Cook in 1778 made sur­veys from which the first ap­prox­imate­ly ac­cu­rate chart of the coast was pub­lished; but it was re­served for Van­cou­ver in 1793-1794 to make the first charts in the mod­ern sense of the in­tri­cate south-​east­ern coast, which on­ly in re­cent years have been su­per­seded by new survel’s. Ow­ing to ex­cess­es com­mit­ted by pri­vate traders and com­pa­nies, who robbed, mas­sa­cred and hideous­ly abused the na­tive In­di­ans, the trade and reg­ula­tion of the Rus­sian pos­ses­sions were in 1799 con­fid­ed to a se­mi-​of­fi­cial cor­po­ra­tion called the Rus­sian-​Amer­ican Com­pa­ny for a term of twen­ty years, af­ter­wards twice re­newed for sim­ilar pe­ri­ods. A monopoly of the Amer­ican trade had pre­vi­ous­ly been grant­ed in 1788 to an­oth­er pri­vate com­pa­ny, the Shohkof. Alexan­der Bara­nov (1747–1819); chief res­ident di­rec­tor of the Amer­ican com­pa­nies (1790-1819), one of the ear­ly ad­min­is­tra­tors of the new com­pa­ny, be­came fa­mous through the suc­cess­es he achieved as gov­er­nor. He found­ed Sit­ka (q.v.) in 1804 af­ter the mas­sacre by the na­tives of the in­hab­itants of an ead­ier set­tle­ment (1799) at an ad­ja­cent point. The head­quar­ters of the com­pa­ny were at Ko­di­ak un­til 1805, and there­after at Sit­ka. In 1821 Rus­sia at­tempt­ed by ukase to ex­clude nav­iga­tors from Bering Sea and the Pa­cif­ic coast of her pos­ses­sions, which led to im­me­di­ate protest from the Unit­ed States and Great Britain. This led to a treaty with the Unit­ed States in 1824 and one with Great Britain in 1825, by which the ex­ces­sive de­mands of Rus­sia were re­lin­quished and the bound­aries of the Rus­sian pos­ses­sions were per­ma­nent­ly fixed. The last char­ter of the Rus­sian-​Amer­ican Com­pa­ny ex­pired on the 31st of De­cem­ber 1861, and Prince Mak­su­tov, an im­pe­ri­al gov­er­nor, was ap­point­ed to ad­min­is­ter the af­fairs of the ter­ri­to­ry. In 1864 au­thor­ity was grant­ed to an Amer­ican com­pa­ny to make ex­plo­rations for a pro­posed Rus­so-​Amer­ican com­pa­ny’s tele­graph line over­land from the Amur riv­er in Siberia to Bering Strait, and through Alas­ka to British Columbia. Work was be­gun on this scheme in 1865 and con­tin­ued for near­ly three years, when the suc­cess of the At­lantic ca­ble ren­dered the con­struc­tion of the lme un­nec­es­sary and it was giv­en up, but not un­til im­por­tant ex­plo­rations had been made. In 1854 a Cal­ifor­ni­an com­pa­ny be­gan im­port­ing ice from Alas­ka. Very soon there­after the first Of­fi­cial over­tures by the Unit­ed States for the pur­chase of Rus­sian Amer­ica were made dur­ing the pres­iden­cy of James Buchanan. In 1867, by a treaty signed on the 30th of March, the pur­chase was con­sum­mat­ed for the sum of $7,200,o00, and on the 18th of Oc­to­ber 1867 the for­mal trans­fer of the ter­ri­to­ry was made at Sit­ka.

Since its ac­qui­si­tion by the Unit­ed States the his­to­ry of Alas­ka has been main­ly that of the evo­lu­tion of its ad­min­is­tra­tive sys­tem de­scribed above, and the vary­ing for­tunes of its fish­eries and seal­ing in­dus­tries. Since the gold dis­cov­er­ies a won­der­ful ad­vance has been made in the ex­plo­ration of the coun­try. A mil­itary reser­va­tion has been cre­at­ed with Fort Michael as a cen­tre. The two events of great­est gen­er­al in­ter­est have been the Fur Seal Ar­bi­tra­tion of 1893 (see BERING SEA AR­BI­TRA­TION), and the . Alas­ka-​Cana­di­an bound­ary dis­pute, set­tled by an in­ter­na­tion­al tri­bunal of British and Amer­ican ju­rists in Lon­don in 1903. The bound­ary dis­pute in­volved the in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the words, quot­ed above, in the treaties of 1825 and 1867 defin­ing the bound­ary of the Rus­sian (lat­er Amer­ican) pos­ses­sions, and al­so the de­ter­min­ing of the lo­ca­tion of Port­land Canal, and the ques­tion whether the coastal gir­dle should cross or pass around the heads of the fjords of the coast. The tri­bunal was an ad-)udi­ca­tion board and not an ac­tu­al court of ar­bi­tra­tion, since its func­tion was not to de­cide the bound­ary but to set­tle the mean­ing of the An­glo-​Rus­sian treaty, which pro­vid­ed for an ide­al (and not a phys­ical) bound­ary. This bound­ary did not fit in with ge­ograph­ical facts; hence the ad­ju­di­ca­tion was based up­on the mo­tive of the treaty and not up­on the lit­er­al in­ter­pre­ta­tion of such elas­tic terms as “ocean,’, “shore” and “coast-​line.” The award of the tri­bunal made in Oc­to­ber 1903 was ar­rived at by the favourable vote of the three com­mis­sion­ers of the Unit­ed States and of Lord Alver­stone, whose ac­tion was bit­ter­ly re­sent­ed by the two Cana­di­an com­mis­sion­ers; it sus­tained in the main the claims of the Unit­ed States.

AU­THOR­ITIES.—W. H. Dall and M. Bak­er, “List of Charts, Maps, and Pub­li­ca­tions re­lat­ing to Alas­ka”, in Unit­ed States Pa­cif­ic Coast Pi­lot, 1879; Month­ly Cat­alogue Unit­ed States Pub­lic Doc­uments, No. 37 (1898), and Bul­letin 227, Unit­ed States Ge­olog­ical Surve8′ (1904), for of­fi­cial doc­uments; H. H. Ban­croft, Alas­ka 1710–f8&5) pp. 595-609; and var­ious oth­er bib­li­ogra­phies in ti­tles men­tioned be­low, es­pe­cial­ly in Brooke’s The Ge­og­ra­phy and Ge­ol­ogy of Alas­ka.

Gen­er­al.–Unit­ed States Month­ly Sum­ma­ry of Com­merce Fi­nance, Ju­ly 1903, “Com­mer­cial Alas­ka, 1867-1903. Area, Pop­ula tion, Pro­duc­tions, Com­merce . . .”; W. H. Dall, Alas­ka and its Re­sources (Boston, 1870); C. Sum­ner, Speech on “Ces­sion of Rus­sian-​Amer­ica to the Unit­ed States,” in Works, vol. xi. (Boston, 1875): C. H. Mer­ri­am, ed­itor, Hal­rri­man Alas­ka Ex­pe­di­tion (New York, 1901-1904, 3 vols.).

Phys­iog­ra­phy and Cli­mate.—Unit­ed States De­part­ment of War, Ex­plo­rations in Alas­ka, 1864-1900 (Wash­ing­ton, 1901); Unit­ed States Ge­olog­ical Sur­vey, An­nu­al Re­ports since 1897—“The Ge­og­ra­phy and Ge­ol­ogy of Alas­ka: A Sum­ma­ry of Ex­ist­ing Knowl­edge,” by Al­fred H. Brooks (Wash­ing­ton, 1905; Pro­fes­sion­al Pa­per, No. 45), with var­ious maps (see Na­tion­al Ge­ograph­ic Mag., May 1904, lor a map em­body­ing all knowl­edge then known); “Al­ti­tudes in Alas­ka” (Bul­letin 100, by H. Gan­nett); “Ge­ograph­ic Dic­tio­nary of Alak­sa” (Bul­letin 299, Wash­ing­ton, 1906), by M. Bak­er; Unit­ed States Post Of­fice, “Map of Alas­ka” (1901); Unit­ed States Coast and Geode­tic Sur­vey, Bul­letins and maps; Bul­letin Amer­ican Ge­ogra­phieal So­ci­ety, Febru­ary 1902, F. S. Schrad­er, “Work of the Unit­ed States Ge­olog­ical Sur­vey in Alas­ka”; Jour­nal of Franklin In­sti­tute, Oc­to­ber and Novem­ber 1904, W. R. Aber­crom­bie—“The Cop­per Riv­er Coun­try of Alas­ka”; I. C. Rus­sell, Glaciers of North Amer­ica. . . . Ivan Petroff, Re­port

In­dus­tries.–Unit­ed States Cen­sus, 1880, Ivan Petroff, Re­port on the Pop­ula­tion, In­dus­tries and Re­sources of Alas­ka; Unit­ed States Cen­sus, 1890 and 1900; on rein­deer, Fif­teenth An­nu­at Re­port on In­tro­duc­tion of Do­mes­tic Rein­deer in­to Alas­ka, by Shel­don Jack­son (Wash­ing­ton, 1906); on agri­cul­ture, Unit­ed States De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture, Ex­per­iment Sta­tions, Bul­letin Nos. 48, 62, 82 . . . (1898-1900); Seal and Salmon Fish­eries and Gen­er­al In­dus­tries of Alas­ka, 1868-1805 (Wash­ing­ton, 1898) (Unit­ed States Trea­sury, al­so 55 Congress, 1 Ses­sion, House Doc­ument 92, vols. vi.-x.), 4 vols.; D. S. Jor­dan et al., The Fur Seals and Fur Seal Is­lanids (or Pe­port of ln.: al­so many spe­cial re­ports on the seals pub­lished by the voln.: al­so many spe­cial re­ports on the seals pub­lished by the Unit­ed States Trea­sury: for Re­port of British seal ex­perts, Cre­at Britain, For­eign Of­fice Cor­re­spon­dence, Unit­ed States, No. 3 (1897), No. 1 (1898).

His­to­ry and Gov­ern­ment.–H. H. Ban­croft, Alas­ka, 1730-1885 (San Fran­cis­co, 1886); W. H. Dall, “Alas­ka as it was and is, 1863-1893,” in Bul­letin of the Philadel­phia So­ci­ety of Wash­ing­ton, xi­ii.; Gov­er­nor of Alas­ka, An­nu­al Re­port to the Sec­re­tary of the In­te­ri­or; Fur Seal Ar­bi­tra­tion, Pro­ceed­ings (Wash­ing­ton, 1895, 46 vols.l: al­so Great Britain, For­eign Of­fice Cor­re­spon­dence, Unit­ed States, Nos. 6, 7, 8 (1893), No. 1 (1895); Alaskan Bound­ary Tri­bunal, Cas­es, Counter-​cas­es, Ar­gu­ments, At­lases of Unit­ed States and Great Britain (Wash­ing­ton, 1903 seq.); and a rich pe­ri­od­ical lit­er­ature.

Pop­ula­tion, Na­tives.–Unit­ed States Na­tion­al Mu­se­um, Ann. Re­port (1896); W. Hough, “Lamp of the Es­ki­mo” (long, and of gen­er­al in­ter­est): F. Knapp and R. L. Childe, The Thlin­kets of South-​East­ern Alas­ka (Chica­go, 1896).

1 At Ko­di­ak, the month­ly means range from 28 deg. to 33 deg. with a to­tal range from -10 deg. to 82 deg. F., as against -5 deg. to 87 deg. F. at Sit­ka; the av­er­age tem­per­ature is 40.6 deg. F., rain­fall 59 in.

2 At St Michael the mean an­nu­al tem­per­ature is about 26 deg. , the month­ly means run from about -2 deg. to 54 deg. , and the ex­treme record­ed tem­per­atures from about -55 deg. to 77 deg. F.; at Port Clarence the an­nu­al mean is 22 deg. lmonth­ly means -7 deg. to 51 deg. F.; ex­treme range of tem­per­ature, -38 deg. to 77 deg. F.; at Point Bar­row the an­nu­al mean is 7.70 F’., month­ly means -18.6 deg. to 38.1 deg. F., ex­treme range of tem­per­ature -55 deg. to 65 deg. F.

3 The mean an­nu­al tem­per­ature on the Yukon at the in­ter­na­tion­al line is about 21 deg. F., the month­ly means run from -17 deg. to 60 deg. F., the range of ex­treme tem­per­atures from -80 deg. to 90 deg. F.

4 At Fort Yukon five years’ records showed mean sea­son­al tem­per­atures of 14 deg. , 60 deg. , 17 deg. , and -23.8 deg. F. for spring, sum­mer, au­tumn and win­ter re­spec­tive­ly: at Holy Cross Mis­sion 20 deg. , 59 deg. , 36 deg. and 0.95 deg. , at Nu­la­to 29 deg. , 60 deg. , 36 deg. and -14 deg. . `

5 The Har­ri­man ex­pe­di­tion col­lect­ed in two months 1000 species of in­sects, of which 344 species (and 6 gen­era) were new to sci­ence.

6 The trees here grow as large as 10 in. in di­am­eter and 40 or 50 ft. high; the branch­es do nor spread, even where there is room, so ihat the tallest tree has a top on­ly four or five feet broad; the roots, which can­not pen­etrate the shad­ed and frozen soil, spread over the ice or shal­low­ly in­to the tun­dra car­pet­ing, and of­ten on­ly by their mat­ted nei­work pre­vent the fall of the trees.

7 280 species of moss­es prop­er, of which 46 were new to sci­ence, and 16 va­ri­eties of peat moss (Spho­gnum) were list­ed by the Har­ri­man ex­pe­di­tion; and 74 species or va­ri­eties of ferns.

8 The val­ue of the to­tal ar­od­uct of Alas­ka’s fish can­ner­ies was in 1905 $7,735,782, or 29.3% of the to­tal for the Unit­ed States; in 1900 it was 17.4% of the coun­try’s to­tal.

9 Seat­tle, Sit­ka and Valdez are con­nect­ed by ca­ble; tele­graoh lines run from the Pan­han­dle in­land to the Yukon and down its val­ley to Fort St Michael.

ALAS­SIO, a town of Lig­uria, Italy, on the N.W. coast of the Gulf of Genoa, in the province of Genoa, 57 m. S.W. of the town of the same name by rail. Pop. (1901) 5630. It is main­ly no­tice­able as a health re­sort in win­ter and a bathing-​place in sum­mer, and has many ho­tels. The an­chor­age is safe, and the bay full of fish; the har­bour has a cer­tain amount of trade. The old town con­tains one or two in­ter­est­ing church­es, and com­mands a fine view.

ALAS­TOR, in Greek mythol­ogy, the spir­it of re­venge, which prompts the mem­bers of a fam­ily to com­mit fresh crimes to ob­tain sat­is­fac­tion. These crimes ne­ces­si­tate fur­ther acts of vengeance, and the curse is thus trans­mit­ted from gen­er­ation to gen­er­ation. The word is al­so used for a man’s evil ge­nius, which drives him to sin with­out any provo­ca­tion; a man so driv­en is some­times called Alas­tor. The ep­ithet is ap­plied to Zeus and the Erinyes as the deities of re­venge and pun­ish­ment.

ALA-​TAU (“Var­ie­gat­ed Moun­tains”), the name of six moun­tain ranges in Asi­at­ic Rus­sia. Three of these are in the gov­ern­ment of Semiryechen­sk in Cen­tral Asia, all be­long­ing to the Tian­shan sys­tem:—(1) the Terskei Ala-​tau, south of and par­al­lel to the lake of Is­syk-​kul; (2) the Kunghei Ala-​tau, and (3) the Trans-​Ili Ala-​tau, both N. of and par­al­lel to the same lake; and (4) the Dzun­gar­ian Ala-​tau, ly­ing N. of the Ili de­pres­sion. The first three link to­geth­er the Tian-​shan and the Alexan­der Range. Their mean el­eva­tion is 6000–7000 ft.; their cul­mi­nat­ing point, Tal­gar, on a trans­verse ridge be­tween (2) and (3), reach­es 15,000 ft.; the lim­its of per­pet­ual snow run at 11,000-11,700 ft. The Dzun­gar­ian Ala-​tau reach a max­imum al­ti­tude of 11,000 ft. and have a mean al­ti­tude of 6250 ft. From the mid­dle of the Alexan­der Range an­oth­er range (5) called Ala-​tau, or Ta­las­tau, strikes west by south. The name Ala-​tau al­so en­ters in­to the des­ig­na­tion of (6), a range be­tween the up­per Yeni­sei and the up­per Ob, in the gov­ern­ment of Tom­sk, name­ly, the Kuznet­sk Ala-​tau, form­ing an out­li­er of the Al­tai Moun­tains, and reach­ing 6000-7000 ft. in al­ti­tude.

ALAU­NA, ALAUNUS, the Celtic names of two rivers, &c., in Ro­man Britain. Hence the mod­ern Al­lan Wa­ter, riv­er Alyn, &c.

ALA­VA, DON MIGUEL RI­CAR­DO DE (1770-1841), Span­ish gen­er­al and states­man, was born at Vit­to­ria in 1770. He served first in the navy, and had risen to be cap­tain of a frigate when he ex­changed in­torthe army, re­ceiv­ing cor­re­spond­ing rank. He was present as a ma­rine at the bat­tle of Trafal­gar on board the flag­ship of his un­cle Ad­mi­ral Ala­va. In pol­itics he fol­lowed a very de­vi­ous course. At the as­sem­bly of Bay­onne in 1808 he was one of the most promi­nent of those who ac­cept­ed the new con­sti­tu­tion from Joseph Bona­parte as king of Spain. Af­ter the na­tion­al ris­ing against French ag­gres­sion, and the de­feat of Gen­er­al Dupont at Bailen in 1808, Ala­va joined the na­tion­al in­de­pen­dent par­ty, who were fight­ing in al­liance with the En­glish. The Span­ish Cortes ap­point­ed him com­mis­sary at the En­glish head­quar­ters, and the duke of Welling­ton, who re­gard­ed him with great favour, made him one of his aides-​de­camp. Be­fore the close of the cam­paign he had risen to the rank of brigadier-​gen­er­al. On the restora­tion of Fer­di­nand, Ala­va was cast in­to prison, but the in­flu­ence of his un­cle Ethenard, the in­quisi­tor, and of Welling­ton se­cured his speedy re­lease. He soon con­trived to gain the favour of the king, who ap­point­ed him in 1815 am­bas­sador to the Hague. It was there­fore his re­mark­able for­rune to be present at the bat­tle of Wa­ter­loo with Welling­ton’s staff. He is sup­posed to have been the on­ly man who was present at both Wa­ter­loo and Trafal­gar. Four years lat­er he was re­called ow­ing, it is said, to the marked kind­ness he had shown to his ban­ished fel­low-​coun­try­men. On the break­ing out of the rev­olu­tion of 1820 he was cho­sen by the province of Ala­va to rep­re­sent it in the Cortes, where he be­came con­spic­uous in the par­ty of the Ex­al­la­dos, and in 1822 was made pres­ident. In the lat­ter year he fought with the mili­tia un­der Fran­cis­co Balles­teros and Pablo Muril­lo to main­tain the au­thor­ity of the Cortes against the rebels. When the French in­vest­ed Cadiz, Ala­va was com­mis­sioned by the Cortes to treat with the duc d’An­gouleme, and the ne­go­ti­ations re­sult­ed in the restora­tion of Fer­di­nand, who pledged him­self to a lib­er­al pol­icy. No soon­er had he re­gained pow­er, how­ev­er, than he ceased to hold him­self bound by his promis­es, and Ala­va found it nec­es­sary to re­tire first to Gibral­tar and then to Eng­land. On the death of Fer­di­nand he re­turned to Spain, and es­pous­ing the cause of Maria Christi­na against Don Car­los was ap­point­ed am­bas­sador to Lon­don in 1834 and to Paris in 1835. Af­ter the in­sur­rec­tion of La Gran­ja he re­fused to sign the con­sti­tu­tion of 1812, declar­ing him­self tired of tak­ing new oaths, and was con­se­quent­ly obliged to re­tire to France, where he died at Bareges in 1843.

Fre­quent and hon­ourable men­tion of Ala­va is made in Napi­er’s His­to­ry of the Penin­su­lar War, and his name is of­ten met borh in lives of the duke of Welling­ton and in his cor­re­spon­dence.

ALA­VA, one of the Basque Provinces of north­ern Spain; bound­ed on the N. by Bis­cay and Guipuz­coa, E. by Navarre, S. by Logrono, and W. by Bur­gos. Pop. (1900) 96,385; area 1175 sq. m. The countship of Trevi­no (190 sq. m.) in the cen­tre of Ala­va be­longs to the province of Bur­gos. The sur­face of Ala­va is very moun­tain­ous, es­pe­cial­ly on the north, where a part of the Pyre­nees forms its nat­ural bound­ary. It is sep­arat­ed from Logrono by the riv­er Ebro, and its oth­er rivers are the Zador­ra and the Ayu­da. The cli­mate is mild in sum­mer, fit­ful in au­tumn and spring, and very cold in win­ter, as even the plains are high and shut in on three sides by moun­tains snow-​clad dur­ing sev­er­al months. The soil in the val­leys is fer­tile, yield­ing wheat, bar­ley, maize, flax, hemp and fruits. Oil and a poor kind of wine called cha­coli are al­so pro­duced. Many of the moun­tains are clothed with forests of oak, chest­nuts, beech­es and oth­er trees, and con­tain iron, cop­per, lead and mar­ble. Salt is al­so found in large quan­ti­ties; but min­ing and quar­ry­ing are not prac­tised on a large scale; on­ly lead, lig­nite and as­phalt be­ing worked. There are min­er­al wa­ters in many places. Oth­er lo­cal in­dus­tries of some im­por­tance in­clude smelt­ing, and man­ufac­tures of beds, fur­ni­ture, rail­way car­riages, match­es, pa­per, sweets and woollen and cot­ton goods. Bread-​stuffs. colo­nial prod­ucts and ma­chin­ery are large­ly im­port­ed. Few provinces in Spain are in­hab­it­ed by so la­bo­ri­ous, ac­tive and well-​to-​do a pop­ula­tion. The pri­ma­ry schools are nu­mer­ous­ly at­tend­ed, and there are very good nor­mal schools for teach­ers of both sex­es, and a mod­el agri­cul­tur­al farm: The pub­lic roads and oth­er works of the province are ex­cel­lent, and, like those of the rest of the Basque provinces, en­tire­ly kept up by lo­cal ini­tia­tive and tax­es. Rail­ways from Madrid to the French fron­tier, and from Saragos­sa to Bil­bao, cross the province. The cap­ital is Vi­to­ria (pop. 1900, 30,701), which is the on­ly town with more than 3500 in­hab­itants.

For a fuller ac­count of the his­to­ry, peo­ple and cus­toms of Ala­va, see BASQUES and BASQUE PROVINCE, with the works there cit­ed. A very elab­orate bib­li­ograo­hy is giv­en in the Cat­al­ogo de las obras ref­er­entes a las provin­cias de Ala­va y Navar­ra, by A. A. Salazar (Madrid, 1887.) The fol­low­ing books by i. I. Lan­dazuri y Ro­marate con­tain much ma­te­ri­al for a provin­cial his­to­ry:–His­to­ria ec­cle­si­as­ti­ca, &c. (Pam­plona, 1797); His­to­ria civ­il, &c. (Vi­todes, 1798); Com­pen­dios his­tori­cos de la ciu­dad y vil­las de . . . Ala­va, &c. (Pam­plona, 1798); Su­ple­men­to a’ los cu­atro li­bros de la his­to­ria de . . . Ala­va (Vi­to­ria, 1799); and Los varones il­lus­tres Alavens­es Vi­to­ria, 1798). See al­so M. Risco in vol. 33 of His­pania Sagia­da, by H. Flo­rez, &c. (Madrid, 1754-1879).

ALB (Lat. al­ba, from al­bus, white), a litur­gi­cal vest­ment of the Catholic Church. It is a sack-​like tu­nic of white linen, with nar­row sleeves and a hole for the head to pass through, and when gath­ered up round the waist by the gir­dle (cin­gu­lum) just clears the ground. Albs were orig­inal­ly quite plain, but about the 10th cen­tu­ry the cus­tom arose of or­na­ment­ing the bor­ders and the cuffs of the sleeves with strips of em­broi­dery, and this be­came com­mon in the 12th cen­tu­ry. These at first en­cir­cled the whole bor­der; but soon it be­came cus­tom­ary to sub­sti­tute for them square patch­es of em­broi­dery or pre­cious fab­rics. These “parures” “ap­par­els” or “or­phreys” (Lat. parun’ae, gram­mala, au­rifeisia, &c.), were usu­al­ly four in num­ber, one be­ing sewn on the back and an­oth­er on the front of the vest­ment just above the low­er hem, and one on each cuff. When, as oc­ca­sion­al­ly hap­pened, a fifth was added, this was placed on the breast just be­low the neck open­ing. These “ap­par­elled albs” (al­bae paratae) con­tin­ued in gen­er­al use in the West­ern Church till the 16th cen­tu­ry, when a ten­den­cy to dis­pense with the parures be­gan, Rome it­self set­ting the ex­am­ple.

The growth of the lace in­dus­try in the 17th cen­tu­ry has­tened the pro­cess by lead­ing to the sub­sti­tu­tion of broad bands of lace as dec­ora­tion; oc­ca­sion­al­ly, as in a mag­nif­icent spec­imen pre­served at South Kens­ing­ton, near­ly half the vest­ment is thus com­posed of lace. At the present time, so far as the Ro­man Catholic Church is con­cerned, ap­par­elled albs are on­ly in reg­ular use at Mi­lan (Am­brosian Rite), and, par­tial­ly, in cer­tain church­es in Spain. The de­cree of the Con­gre­ga­tion of Rites (May 18, 1819) says noth­ing about ap­par­els, but on­ly lays down that the alb must be of white linen or hemp cloth. There is no def­inite rule as to the ma­te­ri­al or char­ac­ter of the or­na­men­ta­tion, and at­tempts have been made, es­pe­cial­ly in Eng­land, to re­vive the use of the ap­par­elled alb.

In the Ro­man Church the alb is now reck­oned as one of the vest­ments prop­er to the sac­ri­fice of the Mass. It is worn by bish­ops, priests, dea­cons and sub­dea­cons un­der the oth­er eu­charis­tic vest­ments, ei­ther at Mass or at func­tions con­nect­ed with it. It is some­times al­so worn by cler­ics in mi­nor or­ders, whose prop­er vest­ment is, how­ev­er, the sur­plice–it­self a mod­ifi­ca­tion of the alb (see SUR­PLICE.) The alb is sup­posed to be sym­bol­ical of pu­ri­ty, and the priest, when putting it on, prays: “Make me white and pu­ri­fy my heart, O Lord,” &c. In the mid­dle ages the parures, which orig­inal­ly had no mys­tic in­ten­tion what­ev­er, were tak­en to sym­bol­ize the wounds of Christ; whence prob­ably is de­rived the cus­tom sur­viv­ing at the cathe­dral of Tole­do, of the singers of the Pas­sion on Good Fri­day be­ing vest­ed in ap­par­elled albs.

In Eng­land at the Ref­or­ma­tion the alb went out of use with the oth­er “Mass vest­ments,” and re­mained out of use in the Church of Eng­land un­til the rit­ual re­vival of the 19th cen­tu­ry. It is now worn in a con­sid­er­able num­ber of church­es not on­ly by the cler­gy but by acolytes and servers at the Com­mu­nion. Where the rit­ual, as in most cas­es, is a re­vival of pre-​Ref­or­ma­tion us­es and not mod­elled on that of mod­ern Rome, these albs are fre­quent­ly ap­par­elled. For the ques­tion of its le­gal­ity see VEST­MENTS.

Both the alb and its name are de­rived ul­ti­mate­ly from the tu­ni­ca al­ba, the white tu­nic, which formed part of the or­di­nary dress of Ro­man cit­izens un­der the Em­pire. As such it was worn both in and out of church, the few no­tices re­main­ing which sug­gest a spe­cial tu­nic for min­is­ters at the Eu­charist mere­ly im­ply­ing that it was not fit­ting to use for so sa­cred a func­tion a gar­ment soiled by ev­ery­day wear. The date of its def­inite adop­tion as a litur­gi­cal vest­ment is un­cer­tain; at Rome— where un­til the 13th cen­tu­ry it was known as the lin­ea or camisia (cf. the mod­ern Ital­ian cam­ice for alb)—it seems to have been thus used as ear­ly as the 5th cen­tu­ry. But as late as the 9th and 10th cen­turies the al­ba is still an ev­ery­day as well as a litur­gi­cal gar­ment, and we find bish­ops and syn­ods for­bid­ding priests to sing mass in the al­ba worn by them in or­di­nary life (see Braun, p. 62). Through­out the mid­dle ages, more­over, the word al­ba was some­what loose­ly used. In the me­dieval in­ven­to­ries are some­times found al­bae, de­scribed as red, blue or black; which has led to the be­lief that albs were some­times not on­ly made of stuffs oth­er than linen, but were coloured. It is clear, how­ev­er, from the de­scrip­tions of these vest­ments that in some cas­es they were ac­tu­al­ly tu­ni­cles, the con­fu­sion of terms aris­ing from the sim­ilar­ity of shape (see DAL­MAT­IC); in oth­er cas­es the colour ap­plied to the parures, not to the albs as a whole. Silk albs ap­pear in the in­ven­to­ries, but on­ly very ex­cep­tion­al­ly.

The equiv­alent of the alb in the an­cient Church­es of the East is the stichar­ion (stichar­ion) of the Or­tho­dox Church (Ar­me­ni­an shapik, Syr­ian Kuti­na, Cop­tic sto­ichar­ion or tu­ni­ah.) It is worn gir­dled by bish­ops and priests in all rites, by sub­dea­cons in the Greek and Cop­tic rites. By dea­cons and lec­tors it is worn un­gir­dled in all the rites. The colour of the vest­ment is usu­al­ly white for bish­ops and priests (this is the rule in the Cop­tic Church); for the oth­er or­ders there is no rule, and all colours, ex­cept black, may be used. Its ma­te­ri­al may be linen, wool, cot­ton or silk; but silk on­ly is the rule for dea­cons. In the Ar­me­ni­an and Cop­tic rites the vest­ment is of­ten elab­orate­ly em­broi­dered; in the oth­er rites the on­ly or­na­ment is a cross high in the mid­dle of the back, save in the case of bish­ops of the Or­tho­dox Church, whose sticharia are or­na­ment­ed with two ver­ti­cal red stripes (pota­moi, “rivers”). In the East as in the West the vest­ment is spe­cial­ly as­so­ci­at­ed with the rit­ual of the Eu­charist.

The whole sub­ject is ex­haus­tive­ly treat­ed by Fa­ther Joseph Braun in Die litur­gis­che Gewan­dung (Freiburg im Breis­gau, 1907). See al­so Bib­li­og­ra­phy to the ar­ti­cle VEST­MENTS.

AL­BA, a town and epis­co­pal see of Pied­mont, Italy, on the riv­er Tanaro, in the province of Cu­neo. From the town of the same name it is 33 m. N.E. di­rect; it is 42 m. S.S.E. of Turin by rail. Pop. (1901) 13,900. It con­tains a fine cathe­dral, with a Goth­ic fa­cade, re­con­struct­ed in 1486, and is an im­por­tant com­mer­cial cen­tre. It oc­cu­pies the site of the an­cient Al­ba Pom­peia, prob­ably found­ed by Pom­peius Stra­bo (con­sul 89 B.C.) when he con­struct­ed the road from Aquae Statiel­lae (Ac­qui) to Au­gus­ta Tau­ri­no­rum (Turin). Prob­ably this was the road tak­en by Dec­imus Bru­tus when he suc­ceed­ed, af­ter the rais­ing of the siege of AIuti­na in 43 B.C., in oc­cu­py­ing Pol­len­tia just be­fore Mark Antony’s cav­al­ry came in sight. Al­ba was the birth­place of the em­per­or Per­ti­nax. It be­came an epis­co­pal see de­pen­dent on Mi­lan in the 4th cen­tu­ry. A small mu­se­um of lo­cal an­tiq­ui­ties was es­tab­lished in 1897.

See F. Eu­se­bio in At­ti del Con­gres­so In­ter­nazionale di Scien­ze Storiche (Rome, 1904), vol. v. p. 485.

AL­BACETE, an in­land province of south-​east­ern Spain, formed in 1833 out of the north­ern half of Mur­cia, and bound­ed on the N. by Cuen­ca, E. by Va­len­cia and Al­icante, S. by Mur­cia, and W. by Grana­da and Jaen. Pop. (1900) 237,877; area 5737 sq. m. The north­ern part of Al­bacete be­longs to the high plains of New Castile, the south­ern is gen­er­al­ly moun­tain­ous, tra­versed by low ranges or iso­lat­ed groups of hills, which cul­mi­nate in the Sier­ra de Al­caraz on the bor­ders of Grana­da, where sev­er­al sum­mits reach 5000 ft. Be­sides many small­er streams, two large rivers wa­ter the province, the Se­gu­ra in the south-​west, and the Jficar in the north-​east; both ris­ing be­yond the bor­ders of Al­bacete, and ul­ti­mate­ly flow­ing in­to the Mediter­ranean. The fer­tile glens of the Al­caraz dis­trict are rich­ly wood­ed, and of­ten, from their mul­ti­tude of fruit trees, re­sem­ble the huer­tas or gar­dens of Al­icante; but broad tracts of land are des­ti­tute of trees, and suit­able on­ly for pas­ture. These bar­ren re­gions are thin­ly peo­pled; and for the whole of Al­bacete the den­si­ty of pop­ula­tion (41.3 per sq. m. in 1900) is low­er than in any oth­er Span­ish province, ex­cept So­ria.

The cli­mate is gen­er­al­ly mild and healthy, al­though, among the high­er moun­tains, the snow lies for sev­er­al months. Wheat and oth­er ce­re­als are cul­ti­vat­ed, with fruits of many kinds, olives, and vines which yield a wine of fair qual­ity; while saf­fron is large­ly pro­duced, and some at­ten­tion is giv­en to the­keep­ing of bees and silk­worms. Stock-​farm­ing, for which the wide plains af­ford ex­cel­lent op­por­tu­ni­ties, em­ploys many of the peas­antry; the bulls of Al­bacete are in de­mand for bull­fight­ing, and the hors­es for mount­ing the Span­ish cav­al­ry. There is al­so a good breed of mules. Sul­phurous and oth­er min­er­al springs, both hot and cold, ex­ist in sev­er­al dis­tricts, and de­posits of sil­ver, iron, cop­per, sul­phur, coal and oth­er min­er­als have been dis­cov­ered; but the ex­ploita­tion of these is re­tard­ed by lack of com­mu­ni­ca­tions, and, apart from build­ing ma­te­ri­als, sul­phur and salt, the ac­tu­al out­put is in­signif­icant. Man­ufac­tures are al­most con­fined to the spin­ning of hemp, and the mak­ing of coarse cloth, porce­lain, earth­en­ware and cut­lery. Brandy dis­til­leries are nu­mer­ous, and there is some trade in wood; but no lo­cal in­dus­try can ri­val agri­cul­ture and stock-​breed­ing, which fur­nish the bulk of the ex­ports. Al­bacete (pop. 1900, 21,512), the cap­ital, and the oth­er im­por­tant towns of Al­mansa (11,180) and Hellin (12,558), are de­scribed un­der sep­arate head­ings. Al­caraz, which gives its name to the moun­tain range al­ready men­tioned, is a pic­turesque old town with the ru­ins of a Moor­ish cas­tle, and a fine Ro­man aque­duct; pop. (1900) 4501. Caudete (5913), Chin­chilla, or Chin­chilla de Monte-​Aragon (6680), La Ro­da (7066), To­bar­ra (7787), Vil­lar­rob­le­do (10,125) and Yeste (6591) are im­por­tant mar­kets for the sale of agri­cul­tur­al pro­duce. The rail­way from Madrid to Al­bacete pass­es south-​west­ward to Chin­chilla, where it bi­fur­cates, one line go­ing to Mur­cia, and the oth­er to Al­icante. A large part of the province is on­ly ac­ces­si­ble by road, and even the main high­ways main­tained by the state are ill kept. Ed­uca­tion is very back­ward even in the towns; many of the in­hab­itants car­ry arms; and crimes of vi­olence are not in­fre­quent.

AL­BACETE, the cap­ital of the above province, on the Madri­dAl­icante rail­way, and at the con­flu­ence of the riv­er Bal­azote with the canal of Maria Christi­na, which flows in­to the riv­er Jficar, 16 m. N. Pop. (1900) 21,512. Al­bacete com­pris­es the pic­turesque old up­per town and the new or low­er town, with iaw­Courts, schools, bar­racks, hos­pi­tals, a coun­ci­hhall, a bull-​ring and oth­er mod­ern build­ings, most­ly erect­ed af­ter the city be­came a provin­cial cap­ital in 1833. It is sur­round­ed by a fer­tile plain, and has con­sid­er­able trade in saf­fron and agri­cul­tur­al pro­duce. A great mar­ket, chiefly for the sale of cat­tle, is held an­nu­al­ly in Septem­ber, and ex­tends over sev­er­al days. The man­ufac­ture of match­es is aid­ed by the ex­is­tence of sul­phur work­ings in the vicin­ity; and Al­bacete for­mer­ly had an ex­ten­sive trade in cut­lery, from which it was named the Sheffield of Spain. De­spite the im­por­ta­tion of cut­lery from Eng­land and Ger­many, Al­bacete is still fa­mous for its dag­gers, which arc held in high re­pute by Spaniards. They are formidable weapons, of coarse man­ufac­ture, but with rich­ly or­na­ment­ed han­dles; and they fre­quent­ly bear prover­bial in­scrip­tions suit­able to their mur­der­ous ap­pear­ance.

AL­BA FU­CENS (mod. Albe), an an­cient Ital­ian town oc­cu­py­ing a lofty sit­ua­tion (3347 ft.) at the foot of the Monte Veli­no, 4 m. N. Of Avez­zano. It was orig­inal­ly a town of the Ae­qui, though on the fron­tier of the Mar­si, but was oc­cu­pied by a

loied by a

Ro­man colony (304 B.C.I ow­ing to its strate­gic im­por­tance. It lay on a hill just to the north of the Via Va­le­ria, which was prob­ably pro­longed be­yond Tibur at this very pe­ri­od. In the Sec­ond Punic war Al­ba at first re­mained faith­ful, but af­ter­wards re­fused to send con­tin­gents and was pun­ished. Af­ter this it be­came a reg­ular place of de­ten­tion for im­por­tant state pris­on­ers, such as Syphax of Nu­midia, Perseus of Mace­do­nia, Bi­tu­itus, king of the Arverni. It was at­tacked by the al­lies in the So­cial War, but re­mained faith­ful to Rome; and its strong po­si­tion ren­dered it a place of some im­por­tance in the civ­il wars. Its pros­per­ity, in the im­pe­ri­al pe­ri­od, can on­ly be in­ferred from the num­ber of in­scrip­tions found there. It is chiefly re­mark­able for its fine­ly pre­served for­ti­fi­ca­tions. The ex­ter­nal walls, which have a cir­cuit of about 2 m., are con­struct­ed of polyg­onal ma­son­ry; the blocks are care­ful­ly joint­ed, and the faces smoothed. With our present knowl­edge of such con­struc­tions, their date can­not cer­tain­ly be de­ter­mined. They are not pre­served to any very con­sid­er­able height; but the ar­range­ment of the gates is clear­ly trace­able; as a rule they come at the end of a long, straight stretch of wall, and are placed so as to leave the right side of any at­tack­ing force ex­posed. On the north there is, for a length of about 150 yds. a triple line of de­fences of lat­er date (pos­si­bly added by the Ro­man colonists), inas­much as both the city wall prop­er and the dou­ble wall thrown out in front of it are part­ly con­struct­ed of con­crete, and faced with fin­er polyg­onal ma­son­ry (in which hor­izon­tal joints seem to be pur­pose­ly avoid­ed). A mile to the north of the city a huge mound with a ditch on each side of it (but at a con­sid­er­able dis­tance from it) may be traced for a cou­ple of miles. With­in the walls there are hard­ly any build­ings of a lat­er date. Ex­ca­va­tions have on­ly been made ca­su­al­ly, though re­mains of build­ings and of roads can be traced, and al­so an ex­ten­sive sys­tem of un­der­ground pas­sages per­haps con­nect­ed with the de­fences of the place. The hill at the west­ern ex­trem­ity was oc­cu­pied by a tem­ple of the Tus­can or­der, in­to which was built the church of S. Pietro; this con­tains an­cient columns, and some re­mark­ably fine spec­imens of Cos­matesque work. It is the on­ly monas­tic church in the Abruzzi in which the nave is sep­arat­ed from the aisles by an­cient columns. The col­le­giate church of S. Nico­la in the vil­lage con­tains a re­mark­able stau­rothe­ca of the 11th (?) cen­tu­ry, and a wood­en trip­tych in im­ita­tion of the Byzan­tine style with enam­els of the 13th cen­tu­ry.

A very good de­scrip­tion of the site, with plans, is giv­en by C. Promis, L’An­ti­chi­ta di Al­ba Fu­cense (Rome, 1836). (T. As.)

AL­BA LON­GA, an an­cient city of Latium, sit­uat­ed on the west­ern edge of the Al­banus La­cus, about 12 m. S.E. of Rome. It was, ac­cord­ing to tra­di­tion, found­ed by As­ca­nius, and was the old­est of all Latin cities—the moth­er in­deed of Rome, by which, how­ev­er, it was de­stroyed, it is said un­der Tul­lus Hos­til­ius. By this act Rome suc­ceed­ed to the hege­mo­ny of the Latin league. It has by many to­pog­ra­phers been placed be­tween the Al­banus Mons and the Al­banus La­cus, ac­cord­ing to the in­di­ca­tion giv­en by. Diony­sius (i. 66), at the monastery of Palaz­zo­lo; but the po­si­tion is quite un­suit­able for an an­cient city, and does not at all an­swer to Livy’s de­scrip­tion, ab situ por­rec­tae in dor­so ur­bis Al­ba lon­ga ap­pel­la­ta; and it is much more prob­able that its site is to be sought on the west­ern side of the lake, where the mod­ern Cas­tel Gan­dol­fo stands, im­me­di­ate­ly to the north of which the most im­por­tant part of the ar­cha­ic necrop­olis was sit­uat­ed. Con­fir­ma­tion of this may be found in Ci­cero’s de­scrip­tion (Pro Milone, 85) of the de­struc­tion of the shrines and sa­cred groves of Al­ba by the con­struc­tion of Clodius’s vil­la, in the lo­cal ap­pli­ca­tion of the ad­jec­tive Al­banus, and in the po­si­tion of Cas­tel Gan­dol­fo it­self, which ex­act­ly suits Livy’s de­scrip­tion. No traces of the an­cient city, ex­cept of its necrop­olis, the tombs of which are over­laid with a stra­tum of peperi­no 3 ft. thick, are pre­served. The view that the mod­ern Al­bano oc­cu­pies the site of Al­ba Lon­ga was com­mon­ly held in the 15th and 16th cen­turies, but was dis­proved by P. Clu­ver (1624). But it is cer­tain that no city took the place of Al­ba Lon­ga un­til com­par­ative­ly late times. The name Al­banum, from about 150 B.C. till the time of Con­stan­tine, meant a vil­la in the Al­ban ter­ri­to­ry. The em­per­ors formed a sin­rle es­tate out of a con­sid­er­able part of this dis­trict, in­clud­ing ap­par­ent­ly the whole of the lake, and Domi­tian was es­pe­cial­ly fond of re­sid­ing here. The im­pe­ri­al vil­la oc­cu­pied the site of the present Vil­la Bar­beri­ni at Cas­tel Gan­dol­fo, and con­sid­er­able re­mains of it still ex­ist. To the south was a camp for the im­pe­ri­al body­guard, with baths, an am­phithe­atre, a large wa­ter reser­voir, &c. The first le­gion known to have been quar­tered there is the II. Parl­hi­ca, found­ed by Sep­ti­mius Severus; but it was prob­ably con­struct­ed ear­li­er. In some of the tombs of these le­gionar­ies coins of Max­en­tius have been found, while the Liber Pon­tif­ealis records that Con­stan­tine gave to the church of Al­bano “om­nia sch­eneca de­ser­ta vel do­mos in­tra urbem Al­ba­nensem,’, which has gen­er­al­ly been tak­en to re­fer to the aban­doned camp. It was at this pe­ri­od, then, that the civ­itas Al­ba­nen­sis arose. The lapis Al­banus is a green grey vol­canic stone with black and white grains in it (hence the mod­ern name. De­peri­no). much used for build­ing ma­te­ri­al.

See T. Ash­by in Jour­nal of­philol­ogy, xxvii., 1901, 37. (T. As.) AL­BAN, SAINT, usu­al­ly styled the pro­tomar­tyr of Britain, is said to have been born at Veru­lami­um (the mod­ern St Al­bans in Hert­ford­shire) to­wards the close of the 3rd cen­tu­ry, and to have served for sev­en years in Rome in the army of the em­per­or Dio­cle­tian. On his re­turn to Britain he set­tled at his na­tive place and was put to death as a Chris­tian dur­ing the per­se­cu­tion of Dio­cle­tian (c. 286–303). Ac­cord­ing to tra­di­tion, when peace was re­stored, great hon­ours were paid to his tomb. A church was built on the spot, c. 793, by King Of­fa of Mer­cia. A monastery was sub­se­quent­ly added, and around it the present town of St Al­bans grad­ual­ly grew up. Pope Adri­an IV., who was born in the neigh­bour­hood, con­ferred on the ab­bot of St Al­ban’s the right of prece­dence over his fel­low ab­bots, a right hith­er­to at­tached to the abbey of Glas­ton­bury. St Al­ban is com­mem­orat­ed in the Ro­man mar­ty­rol­ogy on the 22nd of June; but it is im­pos­si­ble to de­ter­mine with cer­tain­ty whether he ev­er ex­ist­ed, as no men­tion of him oc­curs till the mid­dle of the 6th cen­tu­ry.

See U. Cheva­lier, Reper­toire des sources his­toriques (1905), i. 95; D. Hardy, De­scrip­tive Cat­alogue (1862), I. i. 3-34, ii. 688.

AL­BANI, or AL­BANO, FRANCESCO (1578-1660), Ital­ian painter, was born at Bologna. His fa­ther was a silk mer­chant, and in­tend­ed to bring up his son to the same oc­cu­pa­tion; but Al­bani was al­ready, at the age of twelve, filled with so strong an in­cli­na­tion for paint­ing, that on the death of his fa­ther he de­vot­ed him­self en­tire­ly to art. His first mas­ter was De­nis Calvert, with whom Gui­do Reni was at the same time a pupil. He was soon left by Calvert en­tire­ly to the care of Gui­do, and con­tract­ed with him a close friend­ship. He fol­lowed Gui­do to the school of the Carac­ci; but af­ter this, ow­ing to mu­tu­al ri­val­ry, their friend­ship be­gan grad­ual­ly to cool. They kept up for a long time a keen com­pe­ti­tion, and their mu­tu­al em­ula­tion called forth some of their best pro­duc­tions. Notwith­stand­ing this ri­val­ry, they still spoke of each oth­er with the high­est es­teem. Al­bani af­ter hav­ing great­ly im­proved him­self in the school of the Carac­ci, went to Rome, where he opened an acade­my and resid­ed for many years. Here he paint­ed, af­ter the de­signs of An­ni­bal Carac­ci, the whole of the fres­coes in the chapel of San Diego in the church of San Gi­aco­mo degli Spag­nuoli. His best fres­coes are those on mytho­log­ical sub­jects, of which there is a large num­ber in the Verospi, now Tor­lonia Palace. On the death of his wife he re­turned to Bologna, where he mar­ried a sec­ond time and resid­ed till his death. His wife and chil­dren were very beau­ti­ful and served him for mod­els. The learn­ing dis­played in the com­po­si­tion of his pic­tures, and their minute elab­ora­tion and exquisite fin­ish, gave them great celebri­ty and en­ti­tle them to a dis­tinc­tive place among the prod­ucts of the Bolog­nese school. A num­ber of his works are at Bologna, and oth­ers at Flo­rence, the Lou­vre, Dres­den and St Pe­ters­burg. Among the best of his sa­cred sub­jects are a “St Se­bas­tian” and an “As­sump­tion of the Vir­gin,” both in the church of St Se­bas­tian at Rome. He was among the first of the Ital­ian painters to de­vote him­self to the paint­ing of cab­inet pic­tures. A rare etch­ing, the “Death of Ui­do,” is at­tribut­ed to him.

AL­BANI, the stage name of MARIE, LOUISE EM­MA CE­CILE LA­JE­UNESSE (1847- ), Cana­di­an singer, who was born at Cham­bly, in the province of Que­bec, on the 27th of Septem­ber 1847. She made her first pub­lic ap­pear­ance in Mon­tre­al, at the age of sev­en, and af­ter­wards stud­ied in the Unit­ed States, Paris and Italy. In 1870 she made her first ap­pear­anceatmessi­na, and af­ter two suc­cess­ful sea­sons ap­peared in Lon­don in 1872 with the Roy­al Ital­ian Opera. Lat­er she aban­doned opera for or­ato­rio. and sang at all the prin­ci­pal fes­ti­vals. She has made sev­er­al tours of Cana­da and of the Unit­ed States, and in 1886 sang at the open­ing of the Colo­nial and In­di­an Ex­hi­bi­tion in Lon­don the ode writ­ten by Ten­nyson for the oc­ca­sion. She fre­quent­ly sang be­fore Queen Vic­to­ria, the Ger­man em­per­or and oth­ers of the crowned heads of Eu­rope, and re­ceived nu­mer­ous marks of their es­teem. In 1897 she was award­ed the gold Beethoven medal by the Lon­don Phil­har­mon­ic So­ci­ety, “as a mark of ap­pre­ci­ation of her ex­cep­tion­al ge­nius and mu­si­cal at­tain­ments, and of her gen­er­ous and artis­tic na­ture.” She mar­riedin 1878 Ernest Gye, the the­atri­cal man­ag­er. Her stage name of Madame Al­bani was tak­en from that of an ex­tinct Ital­ian fam­ily.

See Mor­gan, Cana­di­an Men and Wom­en of the Time (1898).

AL­BA­NIA, the an­cient name of a dis­trict in the east­ern Cau­ca­sus, con­sist­ing, ac­cord­ing to Stra­bo (xi. 4. 1-8), of the val­ley of the Cyrus (Kur) and the land ly­ing be­tween it and the Cau­ca­sus range from Iberia to the Caspi­an Sea, i. e. the mod­ern Shir­van. In re­al­ity the Al­bani in­hab­it­ed al­so the moun­tain val­leys and the land to the north to­wards Sar­ma­tia, the mod­ern Dagh­es­tan (Pliny vi. 39). Diony­sius of JIali­car­nas­sus quotes a tra­di­tion that the name arose from the al­leged fact that the peo­ple were the de­scen­dants of em­igrants from Al­ba in Italy, but it would seem that the race was of Les­ghi­an (not Geor­gian) de­scent. Stra­bo de­scribes them as tall, well made, and in char­ac­ter sim­ple and hon­est; he says that pay­ment was in kind and that the peo­ple could not count be­yond a hun­dred. They wor­shipped the sun, and more par­tic­ular­ly the moon, the lat­ter be­ing per­haps iden­ti­cal with the great Na­ture God­dess of Asia Mi­nor(see GREAT MOTH­ER OF THE GODS), and be­lieved in sooth­say­ing and the virtue of hu­man sac­ri­fice. Old age was held in high hon­our, but it was sac­ri­lege to speak, or even to think, of the dead. The race was no­madic, and lived on the abun­dant nat­ural fruits of the land. In Stra­bo’s time they ap­pear to have been ruled by a sin­gle king, though pre­vi­ous­ly there were twen­ty-​six, each one rul­ing over a com­mu­ni­ty dis­tinct on­ly in point of lan­guage. The Al­bani be­came known to the Ro­mans dur­ing Pom­pey’s pur­suit of Mithra­dates the Great (65 B.C.), against which they are said to have op­posed a force of 60,000 foot and 20,000 cav­al­ry. Pom­pey ex­act­ed from them a nom­inal sub­mis­sion, but their in­de­pen­dence was not se­ri­ous­ly af­fect­ed by the Ro­mans. In the reign of Hadri­an their ter­ri­to­ry was in­vad­ed by the Alani (Th. Momm­sen, Provinces ofthe Ro­man Em­pire, Eng. trans., 1886), and lat­er they fell un­der the Sas­sanid rule. They were driv­en fi­nal­ly in­to Ar­me­nia by the Khaz­ars, and ceased to ex­ist as a sep­arate peo­ple. The dis­trict sub­se­quent­ly suf­fered un­der the suc­ces­sive in­va­sions of Huns, Varangians (who cap­tured the chief town Bar­da in the 10th cen­tu­ry) and Mon­gols. (See CAU­CA­SIA, His­to­ry; AR­ME­NIA.)

AL­BA­NIA, a por­tion of the Turk­ish em­pire ex­tend­ing along the west­ern lit­toral of the Balkan Penin­su­la from the south­ern fron­tier of Mon­tene­gro to the north­ern con­fines of Greece. Al­ba­nia is per­haps the least-​known re­gion in Eu­rope; and though more than a hun­dred years have passed since Gib­bon de­scribed it as “a coun­try with­in sight of Italy, which is less known than the in­te­ri­or of Amer­ica,” but lit­tle progress has yet been made to­wards a sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of this in­ter­est­ing land and its in­hab­itants. The wild and in­ac­ces­si­ble char­ac­ter of the coun­try, the fierce and law­less dis­po­si­tion of the peo­ple, the dif­fi­cul­ties pre­sent­ed by their lan­guage and their com­plex so­cial in­sti­tu­tions, and the in­abil­ity of the Turk­ish au­thor­ities to af­ford a safe con­duct in the re­mot­er dis­tricts, com­bine to ren­der Al­ba­nia al­most un­known to the for­eign trav­eller, and many of its ge­ograph­ical prob­lems still re­main un­solved. A por­tion of the Mirdite re­gion, the Mat dis­trict, the neigh­bour­hood of Di­bra, Jako­va and Ipek and oth­er lo­cal­ities have nev­er been thor­ough­ly ex­plored. The north­ern bound­ary of Al­ba­nia un­der­went some al­ter­ation in con­se­quence of the en­large­ment of Mon­tene­gro, sanc­tioned by the Berlin Treaty (Ju­ly 13, 1878); ow­ing to sub­se­quent ar­range­ments pro­vid­ing for the ces­sion of Dul­cig­no to Mon­tene­gro (Novem­ber 25, 1880) in ex­change for the dis­tricts of Pla­va and Gusinye, re­stored to Turkey, the fron­tier-​line (fi­nal­ly set­tled De­cem­ber 1884) now as­cends the Boy­ana from its mouth to Lake Sass (Shas), thence pass­es north­ward. and cross­ing Lake Scu­tari sep­arates the dis­trict of Kutch Kraina on the N. from the ter­ri­to­ries of the Gru­da, Hot and Kle­ment tribes on the S.; leav­ing Gusinye and Pla­va to the S.E., it turns to the N.W. on reach­ing the Mokra Plan­ina, and then fol­lows the course of the Tara riv­er. On the S., Al­ba­ni­an ter­ri­to­ry was cur­tailed ow­ing to the ac­qui­si­tion of the Ar­ta dis­trict by Greece (May 1881), the riv­er Ar­ta now form­ing the fron­tier. On the E. the chains of Shar, Gram­mos and Pin­dus con­sti­tute a kind of nat­ural bound­ary, which does not, how­ev­er, co­in­cide with eth­ni­cal lim­its nor with the Turk­ish ad­min­is­tra­tive di­vi­sions. North-​east­ern Al­ba­nia forms part of the Turk­ish vi­layet of Kosso­vo; the north­ern high­lands are in­clud­ed in the vi­layet of Shko­dra (Scu­tari), the east­ern por­tion of cen­tral Al­ba­nia be­longs to the vi­layet of Mona­stir, and the south­ern dis­tricts are com­prised in the vi­layet of Ian­ni­na. The bound­aries of the three last-​named vi­layets meet near El­bas­san. The name Al­ba­nia (in the Tosk di­alect Ar­be­ria, in the Gheg Ar­be­nia), like Al­ba­nia in the Cau­ca­sus, Ar­me­nia, Al­bany in Britain, and Au­vergne (Ar­ve­ni­aj in France, is prob­ably con­nect­ed with the root alb, alp, and sig­ni­fies “the white or snowy up­lands.”

Phys­ical Fea­tures.–The moun­tain sys­tem is ex­treme­ly com­plex, es­pe­cial­ly that of the north­ern re­gion. On the E. the great Shar range, ex­tend­ing in a south-​west­er­ly di­rec­tion from the neigh­bour­hood of Pr­ishti­na to thatof Di­bra, is con­tin­ued to­wards the S. by the ranges of Gram­mos and Pin­dus; the en­tire chain, a pro­lon­ga­tion of the Alpine sys­tems of Bosnia and Dal­ma­tia, may be de­scribed as the back­bone of the penin­su­la; it forms the wa­ter­shed be­tween the Aegean and the Adri­at­ic, and cul­mi­nates in the lofty peak of Li­ubotrn, near Kalka­ndele, one of the high­est sum­mits in south-​east­ern Eu­rope (8858 ft.). The coun­try to the west of this nat­ural bar­ri­er may be di­vid­ed ge­ograph­ical­ly in­to three dis­tricts—north­ern, cen­tral and south­ern Al­ba­nia. The riv­er Shkumb sep­arates the north­ern from the cen­tral dis­trict, the Vios­sa the cen­tral from the south­ern. The high­land re­gion of north­ern Al­ba­nia is di­vid­ed in­to two por­tions by the low­er course of the Drin; the moun­tains of the north­ern por­tion, the Bies­ka Malzi­is, ex­tend in a con­fused and bro­ken se­ries of ridges from Scu­tari to the val­leys of the Ibar and White Drin; they com­prise the rocky group of the Prokle­tia, or Ac­cursed Moun­tains, with their nu­mer­ous ram­ifi­ca­tions, in­clud­ing Mount Velechik, in­hab­it­ed by the Kas­ti­at and Shkrel tribes, Bukovik by the Hot, Golesh by the Kle­ment, Skulsen (7533 ft.), Ba­ba Vrkh (about 7306 ft.), Maranay near Scu­tari, and the Bas­trik range to the east. South of the Drin is an­oth­er com­plex moun­tain sys­tem, in­clud­ing the high­lands in­hab­it­ed by the Mirdites and the Mat tribe; among the prin­ci­pal sum­mits are De­ja Maz­zukht, Mal-​i Vels, Kra­ba, Toli and Mnela. Cen­tral Al­ba­nia dif­fers from the north­ern and south­ern re­gions in the more un­du­lat­ing and less rugged char­ac­ter of its sur­face; it con­tains con­sid­er­able low­land tracts, such as the wide and fer­tile plain of Musse­ki, tra­versed by the riv­er Simen. The prin­ci­pal sum­mit is To­mor (7916 ft.), over­hang­ing the town of Be­rat. South­ern Al­ba­nia, again, is al­most whol­ly moun­tain­ous, with the ex­cep­tion of the plains of Ian­ni­na an­dar­ta; the most note­wor­thy fea­ture is the rugged range of the Tchi­ka, or Khi­mara moun­tains, which skirt the sea-​coast from south-​west to north-​east, ter­mi­nat­ing in the lofty promon­to­ry of Glos­sa (an­cient Acro­cer­au­nia.) Far­ther in­land the Mishke­li range to the north-​east of Lake Ian­ni­na and the Ne­mertzi­ka moun­tains run in a par­al­lel di­rec­tion. In the ex­treme south, be­yond the basin of the Kala­mas, the moun­tains of Sull and Olyzi­ka form a sep­arate group. The rivers, as a rule, flow from east to west; ow­ing to the ra­pid­ity of their de­scent none are nav­iga­ble ex­cept the Boy­ana and Ar­ta in their low­er cours­es. The prin­ci­pal rivers are the Boy­ana, is­su­ing from Lake Scu­tari, and con­se­quent­ly re­gard­ed as a con­tin­ua­tion of the Mon­tene­grin Moratcha, the Drin, formed by the con­flu­ence of the White and Black Drin, which, flow­ing re­spec­tive­ly to the south and north through a long val­ley at the foot of the Shar range, take a west­er­ly di­rec­tion af­ter their junc­tion, the AIa­tia, the Arzen, the Shkumb (an­cient G:e:iu­sos), the Simen (Ap­sos), formed by the junc­tion of the De­vol and Er­gene, the Vios­sa (Aous), which ow­ing to the trend of the Khi­mara range takes a north-​west­er­ly di­rec­tion, the Rala­mas (Thyamis) and the Ar­ta (Arachthos), flow­ing south in­to the Am­bra­ci­ah Gulf. A por­tion of the stream of the Drin has found its way in­to the Boy­ana chan­nel; the re­sult has been a rise in the lev­el of Lake Scu­tari and the in­un­da­tion of the ad­ja­cent low­lands. A pro­pos­al to con­fine the Drin to its for­mer course by means of a dyke, and to ease the down­flow of the Boy­ana by a canal open­ing nav­iga­tion to Lake Scu­tari, has long been con­sid­ered by the Turli­ish au­thor­ities. The great lakes of Scu­tari (135 sq. m.) and Ochri­da (107 sq. m.) are among the most beau­ti­ful in Eu­rope; the wa­ters of Ochri­da, which find an out­let in the Black Drin, are of mar­vel­lous clear­ness. Lake KI­ahk, south by east of Ochri­da, is drained by the De­vol. The wa­ters of the pic­turesque Lake Ian­ni­na (24 sq. m.) find an is­sue by kataboth­ra, or un­der­ground chan­nels, in­to the Am­bra­cian Gulf. The lake of Butrin­to (Buthro­tum) is near the sea-​coast op­po­site Cor­fu.

Cli­mate.—The cli­mate is healthy in the up­lands, though sub­ject to vi­olent changes; in the val­leys fever is very preva­lent, es­pe­cial­ly in the basins of the Boy­ana, the low­er Drin and the Simen. The win­ter is short, but ex­ceed­ing­ly cold; snow re­mains on the Prokle­tia and oth­er moun­tains till Au­gust, and some­times through­out the year. The sum­mer tem­per­ature in the plains is that of south­ern Italy; in the moun­tain dis­tricts it is high dur­ing the day, but falls al­most to freez­ing-​point at night. The sea-​coast is ex­posed to the fierce bo­ra, or north wind, dur­ing the spring.

Nat­ural Prod­ucts.–The moun­tains of Al­ba­nia are said to be rich in min­er­als, but this source of wealth re­mains prac­ti­cal­ly un­ex­plored. Iron and coal are prob­ably abun­dant, and sil­ver-​lead, cop­per and an­ti­mo­ny are be­lieved to ex­ist. Cold mines were worked in an­tiq­ui­ty in the Drin val­ley, and sil­ver mines in the Mirdite re­gion were known to the Vene­tians in the mid­dle ages. At Selin­itza, near Avlona, there is a re­mark­able de­posit of min­er­al pitch which was ex­ten­sive­ly worked in Ro­man times; min­ing op­er­ations are still car­ried on here, but in a some­what prim­itive fash­ion. The splen­did forests, of which there are 70,000 acres in the vi­layet of Scu­tari alone, are un­der­go­ing a rapid pro­cess of de­struc­tion, as in oth­er lands un­der Turk­ish rule. The prin­ci­pal trees are the oak, the val­onia oak, the beech. ash, elm, plane, celtis, poplar and wal­nut, which give way in the high­er re­gions to the pine and fir. The oak forests near Di­bra, where char­coal­mak­ing is a con­sid­er­able in­dus­try, and the beech-​woods of the Pr­ishti­na dis­trict, are es­pe­cial­ly re­mark­able. The sumach is large­ly grown in the Mirdite dis­trict; its leaves are ex­port­ed to Tri­este for use in tan­ner­ies and dye­works. In 1898 the ex­port of val­onia was es­ti­mat­ed at L. 11,200, of sumach at L. 2400. Of fruit-​trees the white mul­ber­ry, cher­ry and wild pear are plen­ti­ful; the chest­nut and wal­nut are some­times met with, and the olive is grown in the low­land and mar­itime dis­tricts. The ex­por­ta­tion of olive oil in 1808 was val­ued at L. 24,000. The greater part of the coun­try is ad­mirably suit­ed to viti­cul­ture, and wine of tol­er­able qual­ity is pro­duced. To­bac­co is grown ex­ten­sive­ly in south­ern Al­ba­nia, es­pe­cial­ly near Be­rat and in the up­per val­ley of the Vios­sa, but the quan­ti­ty ex­port­ed is small. The means of sub­sis­tence are main­ly pro­vid­ed by the cul­ti­va­tion of grain and cat­tle-​rear­ing. Notwith­stand­ing the prim­itive con­di­tion of agri­cul­ture, the de­fi­cien­cy of com­mu­ni­ca­tions and the dam­age caused by fre­quent in­un­da­tions, Al­ba­nia fur­nish­es al­most the en­tire corn sup­plu of the Dal­ma­tian coast and is­lands. Maize is the favourite grain for home con­sump­tion, but con­sid­er­able quan­ti­ties of this ce­re­al, as well as bar­ley, rye and oats are ex­port­ed. The to­tal ex­port of ce­re­als in 1808 was val­ued at L. 70,800. Sheep and goats form al­most the on­ly wealth of the moun­taineers of north­ern Al­ba­nia; large cat­tle are found on­ly on the plains. The slopes of Pin­dus af­ford ex­cel­lent pas­ture for the flocks of the Vlach shep­herds. The ex­port of raw hides and wool is con­sid­er­able; in 1898 these com­modi­ties were val­ued re­spec­tive­ly at L. 90,400 and L. 24,000. The lakes and rivers of Al­ba­nia abound in fish. The sco­ranze (Alb. ser­aga), a kind of sar­dine, is tak­en in great quan­ti­ties in Lake Scu­tari; it is salt­ed and smoked for home con­sump­tion and ex­por­ta­tion. Sea-​fish­ing is al­most whol­ly ne­glect­ed. There are salines at Avlona and oth­er places on the coast.

Com­merce anid In­dus­tries.–The ex­ports in 1898 were es­ti­mat­ed at L. 480,000, the im­ports at L. 1,360,000, the for­mer com­pris­ing agri­cul­tur­al pro­duce, live stock, hides, wool, cheese, eggs, poul­try, olive oil, val­onia, sumach leaves, tim­ber, skins of wild an­imals, silk, to­bac­co and salt­ed fish, the lat­ter man­ufac­tured ar­ti­cles, cloth, hard­ware, fur­ni­ture, firearms, gun­pow­der, sug­ar, cof­fee, &c. The monopoly of Al­ba­ni­an com­merce for­mer­ly Dossessed by Venice has de­scend­ed to Aus­tria-​Hun­gary; the trade with oth­er coun­tries, ex­cept Italy, is in­con­sid­er­able. Ow­ing to the pover­ty of the peo­ple, cheap Aus­tri­an goods find a read­ier sale than the more ex­pen­sive and sol­id British man­ufac­tures. The mar­itime traf­fic is large­ly con­duct­ed by the steam­ers of the sub­si­dized Aus­tri­an-​Lloyd com­pa­ny, Tri­este be­ing the prin­ci­pal com­mer­cial cen­tre; the coast­ing trade is car­ried on by small Greek and Turk­ish sail­ing ves­sels. The trade of the north­ern and west­ern dis­tricts has to some ex­tent been di­vert­ed to Sa­loni­ca since the open­ing of the rail­ways from that town to Mitro­vitza and Mona­stir. The de­vel­op­ment of com­merce is re­tard­ed by lack of com­mu­ni­ca­tions; the coun­try Dossess­es no rail­ways and few roads. Sev­er­al rail­way lines have been pro­ject­ed, but there is no great prob­abil­ity of their con­struc­tion un­der ex­ist­ing po­lit­ical con­di­tions. The Via Eg­na­tia, the great Ro­man high­way to the east, is still used; it runs from Du­raz­zo (Dyrrhachi­um) to El­bas­san and Ochri­da. Ian­ni­na is con­nect­ed by car­riage-​roads with Mona­stir, Agii Saran­ta and Pre­veza. As a rule, how­ev­er, bri­dle-​paths sup­ply the on­ly means of com­mu­ni­ca­tion. The na­tive in­dus­tries are in­con­sid­er­able, and many of them are in a lan­guish­ing con­di­tion. The man­ufac­ture of high­ly or­nate firearms, yataghans and oth­er weapons at Scu­tari, Jako­va and Prizren has de­clined, ow­ing to the im­por­ta­tion of mod­ern ri­fies and re­volvers. Gold and silk em­broi­dery, fil­igree work, mo­roc­co and rich­ly-​braid­ed jack­ets are pro­duced for home use and for sale in Bosnia, Mace­do­nia and Mon­tene­gro.

Pop­ula­tion—-The pop­ula­tion of Al­ba­nia may be es­ti­mat­ed at be­tween 1,600,000 and 1,500,000, of whom 1,200,000 or 1,100,000 are Al­ba­ni­ans. Of the oth­er races the Slavs (Serbs and Bul­gars) are the most nu­mer­ous, pos­si­bly num­ber­ing 250,000. Ser­vian set­tle­ments ex­ist in var­ious parts of north­ern Al­ba­nia; there is a strong Bul­gar­ian colony in the neigh­bour­hood of Di­bra and Ochri­da; far­ther south, Mount Zy­gos and the Pin­dus range–the “Great Walachia” of the mid­dle ages—are in­hab­it­ed by Vlachs or Tz­intzars, who pos­si­bly num­ber 70,000. Some Turk­ish colonies are al­so found in the south-​east­ern dis­tricts. There is a con­sid­er­able Greek-​speak­ing pop­ula­tion in Epiros (in­clud­ing many Ma­hommedan Al­ba­ni­ans), which must, how­ev­er, be dis­tin­guished from the gen­uine Greeks of Ian­ni­na, Pre­veza and the ex­treme south; these may be es­ti­mat­ed at 100,000. The pop­ula­tion of the vi­layet of Scu­tari is giv­en as 237,000, that of the vi­layet of Ian­ni­na as 552,000. The prin­ci­pal towns are Scu­tari (Al­ba­ni­an Shkoder, with the def­inite ar­ti­cle Shko­dr-​a), the cap­ital of the vi­layet of that name, pop. 32,000; Prizren, 30,000; Ian­ni­na (of­ten in­cor­rect­ly writ­ten Ioan­ni­na), cap­ital of the south­ern vi­layet, 22,000; Jako­va, 12,000; Di­bra, 15,000; Pr­ishti­na, 11,000; Ipek (Slav. Petch), 15,000; Be­rat, 15,000; Ochri­da, 11,000; Tirana, 12,000; Ar­gy­rokas­tro, 11,000; Ko­rtcha (Slav. Goritza), 10,000; El­bas­san (per­haps an­cient Al­ba­nop­olis), 8000; Met­zo­vo, 7500; Pre­veza, 6500; Avlona, 6000; Du­raz­zo, 5000; Par­ga, 5000; Butrin­to, 2000; and Kroia, the an­cient fortress of Scan­der­beg, 5000. All these, ex­cept El­bas­san, Met­zo­vo and Kroia, are de­scribed in sep­arate ar­ti­cles.

The Al­ba­ni­ans are ap­par­ent­ly the most an­cient race in south­east­ern Eu­rope. His­to­ry and leg­end af­ford no record of their ar­rival in the Balkan Penin­su­la. They are prob­ably the de­scen­dants of the ear­li­est Aryan im­mi­grants, who were rep­re­sent­ed in his­tor­ical times by the kin­dred Il­lyr­ians, Mace­do­nians and Epirots; the Mace­do­nians and Epirots are be­lieved by Hahn to have formed the core of the pre-​Hel­lenic Tyrrheno-​Pelas­gian pop­ula­tion which in­hab­it­ed the south­ern por­tion of the penin­su­la and ex­tend­ed its lim­its to Thrace and Italy. The Il­lyr­ians were al­so “Pelas­gian,” but in a wider sense. Of these cog­nate races, which are de­scribed by the Greek writ­ers as bar­barous or non-​Hel­lenic, the Il­lyr­ians and Epirots, he thinks, were re­spec­tive­ly the pro­gen­itors of the Ghegs, or north­ern, and the Tosks, or south­ern, Al­ba­ni­ans. The Via Eg­na­tia, which Stra­bo (vii. frag­ment 3) de­scribes as form­ing the bound­ary be­tween the Il­lyr­ians and Epirots, prac­ti­cal­ly cor­re­sponds with the course of the Shkumb, which now sep­arates the Ghegs and the Tosks. The same ge­og­ra­pher (v. 2. 221) states that the Epirots were al­so called Pelas­gians; the Pelas­gian Zeus was wor­shipped at Dodona (Homer, Il. xvi. 234), and the neigh­bour­hood of the sanc­tu­ary was called Pelas­gia (Herodotus ii. 56). The mean­ing of the term “Pelas­gian” is, how­ev­er, too ob­scure to fur­nish a ba­sis for ethno­graph­ical spec­ula­tion; in the time of Herodotus it may have al­ready come to de­note a pe­ri­od rather than a race. The name Tosk is pos­si­bly iden­ti­cal with Tus­cus, Etr­uscus, while the form Tyrrhenus per­haps sur­vives in Tirana. The large num­ber of Slavon­ic lo­cal names in Al­ba­nia, even in dis­tricts where no trace of a Slavon­ic pop­ula­tion ex­ists, bears wit­ness to the ex­ten­sive Ser­vian and Bul­gar­ian im­mi­gra­tions in the ear­ly mid­dle ages, but the orig­inal in­hab­itants grad­ual­ly oust­ed or as­sim­ilat­ed the in­vaders. The de­ter­mi­na­tion with which this re­mark­able race has main­tained its moun­tain stronghold through a long se­ries of ages has hith­er­to met with scant ap­pre­ci­ation in the out­side world. While the hero­ism of the Mon­tene­grins has been laud­ed by writ­ers of all coun­tries, the Al­ba­ni­ans—if we ex­cept By­ron’s eu­lo­gy of the Su­loits—still re­main un­sung. Not less no­tice­able is the tenac­ity with which iso­lat­ed frag­ments of the na­tion have pre­served their pe­cu­liar char­ac­ter­is­tics, lan­guage, cus­toms and tra­di­tions. The Al­ba­ni­ans in Greece and Italy, though sep­arat­ed for six cen­turies from the par­ent stock, have not yet been ab­sorbed by the sur­round­ing pop­ula­tions.

The Al­ba­ni­ans, both Ghegs and Tosks, call them­selves Shku­petar, and their land Shku­pe­nia or Shku­pe­ria, the for­mer be­ing the Gheg, the lat­ter the Tosk form of the word. Shku­petar has been var­ious­ly in­ter­pret­ed. Ac­cord­ing to Hahn it is a par­ticip­ial from shkyipoij, “I un­der­stand,” sig­ni­fy­ing “he who knows” the na­tive lan­guage; oth­ers in­ter­pret it with less prob­abil­ity as “the rock-​dweller,” from shkep, shkip, N. Alb. shkamp, “rock.” The des­ig­na­tions Ar­ber (Gr. ‘Ar­ban­ites, Turk. Ar­naoi­it), de­not­ing the peo­ple, and Ar­be­nia or Ar­be­ria, the land, are al­so, though less fre­quent­ly, used by the Al­ba­ni­ans. A dis­trict near Kroia is lo­cal­ly known as Ar­be­nia; the Tosk form Ar­be­ria strict­ly ap­plies on­ly to the moun­tain re­gion near Avlona. The re­gion in­hab­it­ed by a more or less ho­mo­ge­neous Al­ba­ni­an pop­ula­tion may be rough­ly marked out by a line drawn from the Mon­tene­grin fron­tier at Be­rane to Mitro­vitza and the Ser­vian fron­tier near Vranya; thence to Uskub, Prilep, Mona­stir, Flo­ri­na, Kas­to­ria, Ian­ni­na and Par­ga. These lim­its, how­ev­er, are far from in­clud­ing all the mem­bers of a wide­ly scat­tered race. The Al­ba­ni­ans in Greece, whose set­tle­ments ex­tend over At­ti­ca, Boeo­tia, the dis­trict of Corinth and the Ar­gol­id penin­su­la, as well as south­ern Eu­boea and the is­lands of Hy­dra, Spet­zae, Poros and Salamis, de­scend from Tosk im­mi­grants in the 14th cen­tu­ry. They played a bril­liant part in the War of In­de­pen­dence (1821-1829), and to-​day sup­ply the Greek army with its best sol­diers. They were es­ti­mat­ed by Leake at 200,000. A large num­ber still speak the Al­ba­ni­an lan­gaage; many of the old­er men, and a con­sid­er­able pro­por­tion of the wom­en, even in the neigh­bour­hood of Athens, are ig­no­rant of Greek. The Al­ba­ni­an set­tle­ments in south­ern Italy and Sici­ly were found­ed in 1444, 1464 and 1468; mi­nor im­mi­gra­tions fol­lowed in the three suc­ceed­ing cen­turies. In south­ern Italy there are 72 Al­ba­ni­an com­munes, with 154,674 in­hab­itants; in Sici­ly 7 com­munes, with 52,141 in­hab­itants. The Ital­ian and Si­cil­ian Al­ba­ni­ans are of Tosk de­scent, and many of them still speak a vari­ation of the Tosk di­alect. There are al­so sev­er­al Al­ba­ni­an set­tle­ments in Eu­ro­pean Turkey and Asia Mi­nor, some found­ed by mil­itary colonists who re­ceived grants of land from suc­ces­sive sul­tans, oth­ers ow­ing their ori­gin to en­forced mi­gra­tions af­ter in­sur­rec­tions in Al­ba­nia. The on­ly gen­uine di­vi­sion of the Al­ba­ni­an race is that of Ghegs and Tosks; the Li­aps, who in­hab­it the dis­trict be­tween the Vios­sa and the sea, and the Tshams or Chams, who oc­cu­py the coast-​land south of the Kala­mas, are sub­di­vi­sions of the Tosk fam­ily. The name Gheg (Gege-​a) is not adopt­ed by the Ghegs them­selves, be­ing re­gard­ed as a nick­name; the des­ig­na­tion Tosk (Toske-​a) is re­strict­ed by the Tosks to the in­hab­itants of a small re­gion north of the low­er Vios­sa (Toske­ria).

Na­tion­al Char­ac­ter­is­tics.—While the oth­er prim­itive pop­ula­tions of the penin­su­la were ei­ther hel­lenized or la­tinized, or sub­se­quent­ly ab­sorbed by the Slavon­ic im­mi­gra­tion, the Al­ba­ni­ans to a great ex­tent re­mained un­af­fect­ed by for­eign in­flu­ences. Re­tain­ing their orig­inal lan­guage and pre­serv­ing the cus­toms and in­sti­tu­tions of re­mote an­tiq­ui­ty, they present a dis­tinct type, and dif­fer in many es­sen­tial par­tic­ulars from the oth­er na­tions of the penin­su­la. The Ghegs es­pe­cial­ly, notwith­stand­ing their fierce and law­less char­ac­ter, their su­per­sti­tion, ig­no­rance and preda­to­ry propen­si­ties, pos­sess some note­wor­thy qual­ities rarely found in east­ern Eu­rope: sim­ple, brave, faith­ful, and some­times ca­pa­ble of de­vot­ed at­tach­ment, these wild moun­taineers make ex­cel­lent sol­diers and trust­wor­thy re­tain­ers; they have long fur­nished a body­guard to the sul­tan and, like the Tosks, are much em­ployed as kavass­es and at­ten­dants at for­eign em­bassies and con­sulates in the East. The na­tive dis­po­si­tion of the Tosks has been mod­ified by in­ter­course with the Greeks and Vlachs; while the Gheg de­votes his at­ten­tion ex­clu­sive­ly to fight­ing, rob­bery and pas­toral pur­suits, the Tosk oc­ca­sion­al­ly oc­cu­pies him­self with com­mer­cial, in­dus­tri­al or agri­cul­tur­al em­ploy­ments; the Gheg is stern, mo­rose and haughty, the Tosk live­ly, talkative and af­fa­ble. The nat­ural an­tipa­thy be­tween the two sec­tions of the race, though less ev­ident than in for­mer times, is far from ex­tinct. In all parts of Al­ba­nia the vendet­ta (gyak, jak) or blood-​feud, the prim­itive lex tal­io­nis, is an es­tab­lished us­age; the du­ty of re­venge is a sa­cred tra­di­tion hand­ed down to suc­ces­sive gen­er­ations in the fam­ily, the vil­lage and the tribe. A sin­gle case of homi­cide of­ten leads to a se­ries of sim­ilar crimes or to pro­tract­ed war­fare be­tween neigh­bour­ing fam­ilies and com­mu­ni­ties; the mur­der­er, as a rule, takes refuge in the moun­tains from the avenger of blood, or re­mains for years shut up in his house. It is es­ti­mat­ed that in con­se­quence of these feuds scarce­ly 75% of the pop­ula­tion in cer­tain moun­tain­ous dis­tricts die a nat­ural death. A truce (bessa, lit­er­al­ly “faith,” “pledge”), ei­ther tem­po­rary or per­ma­nent, is some­times ar­ranged by me­di­ation, or among the Ghegs, by the in­ter­ven­tion of the cler­gy; a gen­er­al bessa has oc­ca­sion­al­ly been pro­claimed by spe­cial irade of the sul­tan, the restora­tion of peace be­ing cel­ebrat­ed with elab­orate cer­emonies. So strin­gent are the obli­ga­tions of hos­pi­tal­ity that a house­hold is bound to ex­act repa­ra­tion for any in­jury done to a guest as though he were a mem­ber of the fam­ily. No trav­eller can ven­ture in­to the moun­tain dis­tricts with­out the bessa of one of the in­hab­itants; once this has been ob­tained he will be hos­pitably wel­comed. In some dis­tricts there is a fixed price of blood; at Ar­gy­rokas­tro, for in­stance, the com­pen­sa­tion paid by the homi­cide to the rel­atives of his vic­tim is 1200 pi­as­tres (about L. 10), at Khi­mara 2000 pi­as­tres; once the debt has been ac­quit­ted am­ica­ble re­la­tions are re­stored. Notwith­stand­ing their com­plete sub­jec­tion, wom­en are treat­ed with a cer­tain re­spect, and are of­ten em­ployed as in­ter­me­di­aries in the set­tle­ment of feuds; a wom­an may tra­verse a hos­tile dis­trict with­out fear of in­jury, and her bessa will pro­tect the trav­eller or the stranger. Wom­en ac­com­pa­ny their male rel­atives to the bat­tle-​field for the pur­pose of tend­ing the wound­ed and car­ry­ing away the dead. The bride brings no dowry to her hus­band; she is pur­chased at a stip­ulat­ed price, and earnest-​mon­ey is paid at the be­trothal, which usu­al­ly takes place while the con­tract­ing par­ties are still chil­dren. It is cus­tom­ary for young men who are at­tached to each oth­er to swear eter­nal broth­er­hood (com­pare the Slavon­ic po­bra­tim­st­vo); the con­tract is re­gard­ed as sa­cred, and no in­stance has been known of its vi­ola­tion. The cos­tume of the Tosks dif­fers from that of the Ghegs; its dis­tinc­tive fea­ture is the white plait­ed linen fus­tanel­la or pet­ti­coat, which has been adopt­ed by the Greeks; the Ghegs wear trews of white or crim­son na­tive cloth adorned with black braid, and a short, close-​fit­ting jack­et, which in the case of wealthy per­sons is em­bel­lished with gold lace. The fez is worn by both races, and in the north­ern high­lands yataghans and firearms are al­most in­vari­ably car­ried. The cos­tume of the Mirdite and Mat tribes is pe­cu­liar. It con­sists of a white felt cap, a long white tu­nic bound with a red gir­dle, white linen trousers and opin­ki, or san­dals.

Trib­al Sys­tem.—The trib­al or­ga­ni­za­tion in north­ern Al­ba­nia is an in­ter­est­ing sur­vival of the ear­li­est form of so­cial com­bi­na­tion; it may be com­pared in many re­spects with that which ex­ist­ed in the Scot­tish high­lands in the time of the Stu­art kings. The prac­ti­cal au­ton­omy which the Gheg moun­taineers en­joy has been won by a pro­longed and suc­cess­ful re­sis­tance to Turk­ish dom­ina­tion; as a rule they pay no tax­es, they are ex­empt from the con­scrip­tion, they know noth­ing of the Ot­toman law, and the few Turk­ish of­fi­cials es­tab­lished amongst them pos­sess no re­al au­thor­ity. Their on­ly obli­ga­tion to the Turk­ish gov­ern­ment is to fur­nish a con­tin­gent in time of war; the on­ly law they rec­og­nize is ei­ther tra­di­tion­al cus­tom (adet) or the un­writ­ten Ha­nun-​i Leks Duka­jinit, a civ­il and crim­inal code, so called from its au­thor, Le­ka Duka­ji­ni, who is sup­posed to have lived in the 13th or 14th cen­tu­ry. The tribe or mal (“moun­tain”) is of­ten com­posed of sev­er­al clans (phis-​i, pharea) or baryaks (lit­er­al­ly “stan­dards”) each un­der a chief or baryak­tar (stan­dard-​bear­er), who is, strict­ly speak­ing, a mil­itary lead­er; there are in each clan a cer­tain num­ber of el­ders or voivodes (Al­ba­ni­an kru-​y’e, pl. krenic-​te) who form a coun­cil and, like the baryak­tar, hold their oflice by hered­itary right; they pre­side over the as­sem­blies of the tribes­men, which ex­er­cise the supreme leg­isla­tive pow­er. The clan is gen­er­al­ly sub­di­vid­ed in­to small­er com­mu­ni­ties (ma­hale), each ad­min­is­tered by a lo­cal no­table or jo­bar. The jo­bars su­per­in­tend the ex­ecu­tion of the laws, col­lect fines and ad­min­is­ter cap­ital pun­ish­ment; they are in con­tact with the bu­luk-​bashi, or res­ident rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the tribe at Scu­tari, who forms the on­ly link be­tween the moun­taineers and the Turk­ish gov­ern­ment. He com­mu­ni­cates to the tribes­men the or­ders of the vali, which must be framed in ac­cor­dance with their cus­toms and in­sti­tu­tions. The tribes of north­ern Al­ba­nia, or Ghege­ria, may be clas­si­fied in sev­en groups as fol­lows:—-(1) The Mirdites, who in­hab­it the alpine re­gion around Orosh to the south-​east of Scu­tari–the most im­por­tant of all in re­spect of num­bers (about 17,000) and po­lit­ical in­de­pen­dence. A Ro­man Catholic tribe, oc­cu­py­ing an in­ac­ces­si­ble dis­trict, they have hith­er­to de­feat­ed ev­ery ef­fort of the Turks to en­croach on their au­ton­omy. Their hered­itary chiefs, or cap­idans, be­long to the fam­ily known as De­ra e Jon Markut (the house of John Mar­co), which has ruled for 200 years and is sup­posed to be de­scend­ed from Scan­der­beg. In 1868 the reign­ing chief, Bib Do­da, died, and his son and suc­ces­sor Prenk was de­tained as a hostage by the Turks. The Mirdites con­se­quent­ly re­fused to con­tribute their cus­tom­ary con­tin­gent to the Turk­ish army, and even­tu­al­ly Prenk was re­stored. His am­bigu­ous con­duct, how­ev­er, led to the despatch of two ex­pe­di­tions against the Mirdites and the dev­as­ta­tion of their ter­ri­to­ry. In 1880 Prenk was kid­napped by the Turk­ish au­thor­ities and ex­iled to Ana­to­lia; an­oth­er mem­ber of the rul­ing fam­ily was ap­point­ed kaimakam, but the Mirdites re­fused to obey him, and their dis­trict has ev­er since been in a state of an­ar­chy. No Moslem is al­lowed to re­main in Mirdite ter­ri­to­ry. (2) The Mi-​shko­drak (Up­per Scu­tari) group or con­fed­er­ation, al­so known as the Mal­sia-​Mad­he (Great High­lands), is com­posed of the Kle­ment, Grud-​a, Hot, Kas­trat and Shkrel tribes, which oc­cu­py the moun­tain­ous dis­trict north-​east of Scu­tari. OW­ing to the prox­im­ity of the cap­ital this group is com­par­ative­ly sub­ject to the Turk­ish pow­er, and pays a small an­nu­al trib­ute; the chiefs, who as­sess and col­lect the trib­ute, form a kind of ad­min­is­tra­tive coun­cil; the con­fed­er­ation has al­so an of­fi­cial rep­re­sen­ta­tive coun­cil at Scu­tari, called the Jibal, un­der the pres­iden­cy of a Serkarde or Moslem of­fi­cial. (3) The Duka­jin, whose ter­ri­to­ry lies be­tween that of the last-​named group and the dis­trict of Jako­va, in­clude the Pu­lati, Shal­la, Shoshi and oth­er tribes; they are more in­de­pen­dent and more sav­age than the Mi-​shko­drak, and have nev­er paid trib­ute from time im­memo­ri­al. (4) The Pu­ka group, known as “the Sev­en Baryaks of Pu­ka,” dwell on the south side of the riv­er Drin; the­yare nom­inal­ly ad­min­is­tered by a Turk­ish kaimakam, who is a mere spec­ta­tor of their pro­ceed­ings. (5) The Mal­sia Jakovs, a group of two Catholic and three Moslem tribes, ex­tend in the di­rec­tion of Jako­va, where they main­tain an of­fi­cial rep­re­sen­ta­tive; they are en­tire­ly ex­empt from tax­ation. (6,7) The Mal­sia-​Lezhs, who oc­cu­py the Alessio high­lands, and the Mal­sia Krues, who in­hab­it the re­gion north of Kro­la, live in a state of ex­treme pover­ty and pay no trib­ute; the Mal­sia Krues are much ad­dict­ed to brig­andage. To these sev­en groups, which are in­clud­ed un­der the gen­er­al ap­pel­la­tion of Malis­sori, or “high­landers,” may be added the Mal­sia of IAbra, who ex­tend to the west and north of that town, and form a large sep­arate group; they are no­to­ri­ous for their fierce law­less char­ac­ter, and main­tain them­selves by plun­der­ing the Bul­gar­ian peas­ants in their neigh­bour­hood. In gen­er­al the at­ti­tude of the Al­ba­ni­ans in the north-​east­ern dis­tricts to­wards the Slavon­ic peas­antry may be com­pared with that of the Kurds to­wards the Ar­me­ni­ans. In the re­gion east of Kroia the Mat tribe, which oc­cu­pies the up­per val­ley of the Ma­tra, presents an en­tire­ly dif­fer­ent or­ga­ni­za­tion; their dis­trict is gov­erned by four wealthy fam­ilies, pos­sess­ing hered­itary rank and in­flu­ence. To­wards the south the trib­al or­ga­ni­za­tion be­comes loos­er and is grad­ual­ly sup­plant­ed by a kind of feu­dal sys­tem; among the pow­er­ful aris­to­crat­ic hous­es may be men­tioned the Vliores at Avlona, who are stat­ed to own over 150 sq. m. of land, and the Top­tans at Tirana. The prin­ci­pal landown­ers, who re­side in for­ti­fied hous­es, are all Moslems; their es­tates are cul­ti­vat­ed on the metay­er sys­tem. Since the time of Ali Pasha, who broke the pow­er of the lo­cal chief­tains, south­ern Al­ba­nia has been sub­ject to the cen­tral Turk­ish pow­er; be­fore that pe­ri­od the moun­taineers of Suh and Khi­mara en­joyed an in­de­pen­dence sim­ilar to that of the Gheg tribes.

Re­li­gions.—The great ma­jor­ity of the Al­ba­ni­ans, prob­ably more than three-​fifths, are Moslems. The con­ver­sion of the Chris­tian pop­ula­tion to Is­lam ap­pears to have tak­en place dur­ing the 16th and 17th cen­turies. Like the Cre­tan Moslems and the Bul­gar­ian Po­maks, the Al­ba­ni­an Ma­hommedans re­tain many Chris­tian tra­di­tions and cus­toms; it is said that many thou­sands of them se­cret­ly ad­here to their orig­inal faith. In the vi­layet of Scu­tari they form about 55% of the pop­ula­tion; cen­tral Al­ba­nia is al­most en­tire­ly Moslem; in south­ern Al­ba­nia, how­ev­er, there is a con­sid­er­able Chris­tian pop­ula­tion, whose lim­its prac­ti­cal­ly co­in­cide with those of the Greek-​speak­ing dis­tricts. Of the Chris­tian pop­ula­tion (about 600,000), some 110,000 are Ro­man Catholic Ghegs, some 90,000 are Or­tho­dox Tosks, and some 400,000 are Or­tho­dox Slavs, Greeks and Vlachs. The Ro­man Catholic Ghegs ap­pear to have aban­doned the East­ern for the West­ern Church in the mid­dle of the 13th cen­tu­ry. Their bish­ops and priests, who Wear the mous­tache in def­er­ence to pop­ular prej­udice, are typ­ical spec­imens of the church mil­itant. Some of the Gheg tribes, such as the Pu­ka, Mal­sia Jakovs and Mal­sia Krues, are part­ly Ro­man Catholic, part­ly Moslem; among fel­lowtribes­men the dif­fer­ence of re­li­gion counts for lit­tle. The Mirdites are ex­clu­sive­ly Ro­man Catholic, the Mat-​i ex­clu­sive­ly Moslem. At the head of the Ro­man Catholic hi­er­ar­chy are the arch­bish­ops of Scu­tari (with three suf­fra­gans), Prizren and Du­raz­zo; the mitred ab­bot of St Alexan­der is the spir­itu­al chief of the Mirdites. The Or­tho­dox Church has metropoli­tans at Prizren, Du­raz­zo, Be­rat, Ian­ni­na and Ko­rtcha; the Bul­gar­ian exar­chate main­tains a bish­op at Di­bra. Of the Al­ba­ni­ans in Sici­ly the great ma­jor­ity (44791) re­main faith­ful to the Greek Church; in Italy 116,482 fol­low the Latin rit­ual, and 38,192 the Greek. All the Al­ba­ni­ans in Greece be­long to the Or­tho­dox Church.

Ed­uca­tion.—Ed­uca­tion is al­most non-​ex­is­tent, and the vast ma­jor­ity of the pop­ulati(m, both Chris­tian and Moslem, are to­tal­ly il­lit­er­ate. In­struc­tion in the Al­ba­ni­an lan­guage is pro­hib­it­ed by the Turk­ish gov­ern­ment for po­lit­ical rea­sons; a sin­gle­ex­cep­tion has been made in the case­of an Amer­ican school for girls at Ko­rtcha. There are Turk­ish pri­ma­ry and sec­ondary schools in some of the towns; in the vil­lage mosques in­struc­tion in the Ko­ran is giv­en by the imams, but nei­ther read­ing nor writ­ing is taught. The aris­to­crat­ic Moslem fam­ilies send their sons to be ed­ucat­ed in Con­stantino­ple or Vi­en­na. At Scu­tari a col­lege and a sem­inary are main­tained by the Je­suits, with the aid of the Aus­tri­an gov­ern­ment; the Fran­cis­cans have sev­er­al pri­ma­ry schools, and three lay schools are sup­port­ed by the Ital­ian gov­ern­ment; in all these in­sti­tu­tions Ital­ian is the lan­guage of in­struc­tion. There are two Ser­vian sem­inar­ies at Prizren. In south­ern Al­ba­nia there are Greek schools in the towns and a large Greek gym­na­si­um at Ian­ni­na. The priests of the Greek Church, on whom the ru­ral pop­ula­tion de­pend for in­struc­tion, are of­ten de­plorably ig­no­rant. The mer­chant fam­ilies of Ian­ni­na are Well ed­ucat­ed; the di­alect spo­ken in that town is the purest spec­imen of col­lo­qui­al Greek.

Lan­guage.—Al­ba­ni­an is pe­cu­liar­ly in­ter­est­ing as the on­ly sur­viv­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the so-​called Thra­co-​Il­lyr­ian group of lan­guages which formed the prim­itive speech of the penin­su­la. It has af­ford­ed an at­trac­tive study to philol­ogists, amongst whom may be men­tioned Malte-​Brun, Leake, Xy­lan­der, Hahn, Mik­losich and G. Mey­er. The anal­ysis of the lan­guage presents great dif­fi­cul­ties, as, ow­ing to the ab­sence of lit­er­ary mon­uments, no cer­tain­ty can be ar­rived at With re­gard to its ear­li­er forms and lat­er de­vel­op­ment. The ground­work, so far as it can be as­cer­tained, and the gram­mar are In­do-​Eu­ro­pean, but a large num­ber of words have been bor­rowed from the Latin or Ital­ian and Greek, and it is not al­ways easy to de­cide Whether the mu­ti­lat­ed and cur­tailed forms now in use rep­re­sent adopt­ed words or be­long to the orig­inal vo­cab­ulary. There is al­so a con­sid­er­able ad­mix­ture of Turk­ish and Slavon­ic words. Notwith­stand­ing cer­tain points of re­sem­blance in struc­ture and pho­net­ics, Al­ba­ni­an is en­tire­ly dis­tinct from the neigh­bour­ing lan­guages; in its re­la­tion to ear­ly Latin and Greek it may bc re­gard­ed as a co-​or­di­nate mem­ber of the Aryan stock. It pos­sess­es sev­en vow­els; among the con­so­nants are the as­pi­rat­ed d and t, as in Greek, and many oth­er sounds, such as b, d, sh, zh (French.j), and hard g, which are want­ing in Greek, but ex­ist in the Slavon­ic lan­guages. There are three de­clen­sions, each with a def­inite and in­def­inite form; the gen­itive, da­tive and ab­la­tive are usu­al­ly rep­re­sent­ed by a sin­gle ter­mi­na­tion; the voca­tive is formed by a fi­nal o, as mem­mo from memme, “moth­er.” The neuter gen­der is ab­sent. There are two con­ju­ga­tions; the pas­sive for­ma­tion, now Want­ing in most In­do-​Eu­ro­pean lan­guages, has been re­tained, as in Greek; thus kerko-​iy, “I seek,” forms kerko-​n-​em, “I am sought.” The,in­fini­tive is not found; as in Greek, Ru­ma­ni­an and Bul­gar­ian, it is re­placed by the sub­junc­tive with a par­ti­cle. The two aux­il­iary verbs are kam, “I have,” and yam, “I am.” An in­ter­est­ing and char­ac­ter­is­tic fea­ture of the lan­guage is the def­inite ar­ti­cle, which is at­tached to the end of the word: e.g. mik (“friend,” am­icus), mik-​u (“the friend”); kien (“dog”), kien-​i Shkumb, Shkumb-​i. The suf­fix-​ar­ti­cle like­wise ap­pears in Ru­ma­ni­an and Bul­gar­ian, but in no oth­er Latin or Slavo­bic lan­guage; it is in each case a form of the demon­stra­tive pro­noun. An­oth­er re­mark­able anal­ogy be­tween the Al­ba­ni­an and the neigh­bour­ing lan­guages is found in the for­ma­tion of the fu­ture; the Al­ba­ni­an do (3rd pers. sing. of do­va, “I will”), like the Greek tha, is pre­fixed with­out change to all per­sons of the verb: a sim­ilar us­age in Ser­vian and Bul­gar­ian, as well as in Ru­ma­ni­an (es­pe­cial­ly the Mace­do­nian di­alect), is pe­cu­liar to these lan­guages in the Slavon­ic and Latin groups. These and oth­er points of sim­ilar­ity, pos­si­bly on­ly ac­ci­den­tal, have led to the con­jec­ture that the prim­itive Il­lyr­ian lan­guage may have ex­ert­ed some kind of in­flu­ence on the oth­er id­ioms of the penin­su­la. In the ab­sence of lit­er­ary cul­ture the Al­ba­ni­an di­alects, as might be ex­pect­ed, are wide­ly di­ver­gent; the lim­its of the two prin­ci­pal di­alects cor­re­spond with the racial bound­aries of the Ghegs and Tosks, who un­der­stand each oth­er with dil­fi­cul­ty; the Al­ba­ni­ans in Greece and Italy have al­so sep­arate di­alects. In writ­ing Al­ba­ni­an the Latin char­ac­ter is em­ployed by the Ghegs, the Greek by the Tosks; nei­ther al­pha­bet su­fi­ices to rep­re­sent the man­ifold sounds of the lan­guage, and var­ious sup­ple­men­tary let­ters or dis­tin­guish­ing signs are nec­es­sary. In the use of these no uni­form sys­tem has yet been adopt­ed. An al­pha­bet of fifty-​two let­ters, some pre­sent­ing an­cient Phoeni­cian and Cre­tan forms, was found by Hahn in par­tial use at El­bas­san and Tirana; its an­tiq­ui­ty, how­ev­er, has not been es­tab­lished. The Tosks gen­er­al­ly use the Greek lan­guage for writ­ten com­mu­ni­ca­tions. The na­tive folk­lore and po­et­ry of the Al­ba­ni­ans can hard­ly com­pare with that of the neigh­bour­ing na­tions in orig­inal­ity and beau­ty. The ear­li­est print­ed works in Al­ba­ni­an are those of the Catholic mis­sion­ar­ies; the first book con­tain­ing spec­imens of the lan­guage was the Dic­tio­nar­ium Lati­no-​Epirolicum of Bianchi, print­ed in 1635. The lit­er­ature of the last two cen­turies con­sists main­ly of trans­la­tions and re­li­gious works writ­ten by ec­cle­si­as­tics, some of whom were na­tives of the Al­ba­ni­an colonies in Italy. The most note­wor­thy Al­ba­ni­an writ­er was Giro­lamo di Ra­da (b. 1815), a po­et, philol­ogist and col­lec­tor of na­tion­al folk­lore. Among his suc­ces­sors may be men­tioned Vin­cen­zo Dor­sa and Demetrio Ca­mar­da.

An­tiq­ui­ties.—Al­ba­nia abounds in an­cient re­mains, which as yet have been lit­tle ex­plored. Frag­ments of “Cy­clo­pean” struc­tures were dis­cov­ered by Hahn at Kret­zu­nista, Arin­ista, and oth­er sites in the dis­trict of Ar­gy­rokas­tro; the walls, part­ly “Cy­clo­pean,” of an an­cient city (per­haps Bullis) are Vis­ible at Gradisti on the Vios­sa. Ma­son­ry of this type, how­ev­er, oc­cur­ring in Il­lyr­ia and Dal­ma­tia (e.g. at Soala­to and on the is­land of Lesina) has been shown by mod­ern ar­chae­ol­ogists to be­long to the Ro­man pe­ri­od. In gen­er­al, the re­mains of the clas­si­cal epoch at­test the in­flu­ence of Ro­man rather than of Greek civ­iliza­tion. At Pol­li­na, the an­cient Apol­lo­nia, are the rem­nants of a Doric tem­ple, of which a sin­gle col­umn is still stand­ing. A lit­tle north of Pre­veza are the con­sid­er­able ru­ins of Nikopohs, found­ed by Oc­ta­vian to com­mem­orate the vic­to­ry of Ac­tium. At Khi­mara (anc. Chi­maera) the re­mains of an old Greek city may still be seen; at San­ti Quar­an­ta (anc. Cnch­es­mos) the walls and tow­ers of a lat­er town are in good preser­va­tion. Few traces re­main of the once cel­ebrat­ed Dyrrhachi­um. The ru­ins of Pan­dosia, Ephyra, Elatea, Phoenike, Bathro­tum, Akrolis­sos and oth­er towns may be iden­ti­fied. The most im­por­tant and in­ter­est­ing re­mains, how­ev­er, are those of Dodona (q.v..) Of the me­dieval ru­ins those of Kroia, the stronghold of Scan­der­beg, are the most in­ter­est­ing.

Me­dieval His­to­ry.—Af­ter the di­vi­sion of the Ro­man em­pire, the lands in­hab­it­ed by the Al­ba­ni­an race be­came provinces of the Byzan­tine em­pire; north­ern Al­ba­nia from Scu­tari to Be­rat formed the the­ma or province of Dyrrachi­um (Du­raz­zo, Al­ba­ni­an Dourtz), south­ern Al­ba­nia and Epirus the the­ma of Nikopo­lis. The coun­try was over­run by the Goths in the 4th and 5th cen­turies, but re­con­quered by Jus­tini­an in 535. In 640 north­ern Al­ba­nia was in­vad­ed by the Ser­bo-​Croats; it con­tin­ued with in­ter­rup­tions un­der Ser­vian rule till 1360. In 861 the Bul­gar­ians con­quered the south­ern por­tion of the coun­try and Epirus as far as Khi­mara; un­der their pow­er­ful tsar Sime­on (893-927), who de­feat­ed the Ser­vians, they es­tab­lished their rule on the Adri­at­ic lit­toral, ex­cept at Du­raz­zo, which re­mained Ilyzan­tine, and col­onized these re­gions in great num­bers. A new Bul­gar­ian dy­nasty, that of Shish­man, was found­ed at Ochri­da af­ter the death of Sime­on. Shish­man’s son Samuel (976-1014) cap­tured Du­raz­zo; he ex­tend­ed his sway over a great part of the Balkan Penin­su­la, but was even­tu­al­ly de­feat­ed in 1014 by the em­per­or Basil II., who put out the eyes of 15,000 Bul­gar­ian pris­on­ers. South­ern Al­ba­nia and Epirus fell once more un­der Byzan­tine rule, which, how­ev­er, was shak­en by nu­mer­ous re­volts. In 1081 the Nor­mans un­der Robert Guis­card pos­sessed them­selves of Du­raz­zo; Guis­card,s son Bo­he­mu­nd de­feat­ed the Greeks in sev­er­al bat­tles and again (1107) laid siege to Du­raz­zo, which had been sur­ren­dered to them by treach­ery; fail­ing to take the city, he re­tired to Italy in 1109. South­ern Al­ba­nia and Epirus re­mained un­der Byzan­tine dom­ina­tion till 1204, when, af­ter the cap­ture of Con­stantino­ple by the cru­saders, Michael Com­nenus, a mem­ber of the im­pe­ri­al fam­ily, with­drew to Epirus and found­ed an in­de­pen­dent sovereign­ty known as the Despotate of Epirus at Ian­ni­na; his realm in­clud­ed the whole of south­ern Al­ba­nia, Acar­na­nia and Ae­to­lia. The despotate of Epirus was held by the Com­nenus fam­ily till 1318, and by princes of the house of Orsi­ni till 1358. Mean­while Du­raz­zo, with Be­rat and Cen­tral Al­ba­nia, had passed in­to the hands of the Si­cil­ian kings of the house of An­jou, who ruled these re­gions, which they styled the “King­dom of Al­ba­nia,” from 1271 to 1368, main­tain­ing a con­stant war­fare with the Byzan­tine em­per­ors. The Ser­vians again in­stalled them­selves in Up­per Al­ba­nia about 1180, and the provinces of Scu­tari and Prizren were ruled by kings of the house of Ne­manya till 1360; Ste­fan Dushan (1331-1358), the great­est of these monar­chs, in­clud­ed all Al­ba­nia in his ex­ten­sive but short-​lived em­pire, and took the ti­tle of 1mper­otor Ro­ma­ni­ae Slavo­ni­ae et Al­ba­ni­ae (em­per­or of the Greeks, Slavs and Al­ba­ni­ans).

Pe­ri­od of Na­tive Rule.—Af­ter the death of Dushan and the break-​up of the Ser­vian em­pire, a new epoch be­gan when Al­ba­nia fell un­der the rule of chief­tains more or less of na­tive ori­gin. A por­tion of Up­per Al­ba­nia was ruled by the Bal­sha dy­nasty (1366-1421), which, though ap­par­ent­ly Ser­vian by de­scent, as­sim­ilat­ed it­self with its Al­ba­ni­an sub­jects and em­braced the faith of Pome. Alessio and a tract of the in­te­ri­or in the di­rec­tion of Ipek was gov­erned by the Duka­jin. The north­ern por­tion of the “king­dom of Al­ba­nia,” in­clud­ing Du­raz­zo and Kroia, was ruled by the fam­ily of Thopia (1359-1392) and af­ter­wards by that of Las­tri­ota, to which Scan­der­beg be­longed; the south­ern por­tion with Be­rat, by the Musa­ki (1368–1476). In the mid­dle of the 14th cen­tu­ry a great mi­gra­tion of Al­ba­ni­ans from the moun­tain­ous dis­tricts of the north took place, un­der the chiefs Jin Bua Spa­ta and Pe­ter Liosha; they ad­vanced south­wards as far as Acar­na­nia and Ae­to­lia (1358), oc­cu­pied the greater por­tion of the despotate of Epirus, and took Ian­ni­na and Ar­ta. In the lat­ter half of the cen­tu­ry large colonies of Tosks were plant­ed in the Morea by the despots of Mis­tra, and in At­ti­ca and Boeo­tia by Luke Ne­rio of Athens. As the pow­er of the Bal­shas de­clined, the Vene­tians to­wards the close of the 14th cen­tu­ry es­tab­lished them­selves at Scu­tari, Bud­ua, An­ti­vari and else­where in north­ern Al­ba­nia.

Pe­ri­od of Turk­ish Rule.—The ad­vance of the Turks in­to Al­ba­nia be­gan with the cap­ture of Ian­ni­na in 1431. For once in the his­to­ry of the coun­try the Al­ba­ni­an chiefs com­bined against the in­vad­er un­der a sin­gle lead­er, the cel­ebrat­ed Georce Eas­tri­ota (see SCAN­DER­BEG), who fought thir­teen cam­paigns in the pe­ri­od 1444–1466. In 1478 Kroia, which the Vene­tians had oc­cu­pied af­ter Scan­der­beg’s death, sur­ren­dered to Ma­hommed II., and in 1479 Scu­tari, af­ter a mem­orable de­fence by the Vene­tians and their Mon­tene­grin al­lies, was re­duced by block­ade. Nany of its na­tive Chris­tian de­fend­ers em­igrat­ed to Dall­ra­tia and Italy; oth­ers took refuge in the moun­tains with the Loiran Catholic Ghegs. In 1502 the Turks cap­tured Du­raz­zo, and in 1571 An­ti­vari and Dul­cig­no, the last Vene­tian pos­ses­sions in Al­ba­nia. Notwith­stand­ing the aban­don­ment of Chris­tian­ity by a large sec­tion of the pop­ula­tion af­ter the Turk­ish con­quest, the au­thor­ity of the sul­tans was nev­er ef­fec­tive­ly es­tab­lished, and suc­ceed­ing cen­turies present a record of in­ter­minable con­flicts be­tween the tribes­men and the Turks, be­tween the Chris­tians and the con­verts to Is­lam, or be­tween all com­bined and the tra­di­tion­al Mon­tene­grin en­emy. The de­cline of the Ot­toman pow­er, which be­gan to­wards the end of the 17th cen­tu­ry, was marked by in­creas­ing an­ar­chy and law­less­ness in the out­ly­ing por­tions of the em­pire. About 1760 a Moslem chief­tain, Mehemet of Bushat, af­ter ob­tain­ing the pasha­lik of Scu­tari from the Porte, suc­ceed­ed in es­tab­lish­ing an al­most in­de­pen­dent sovereign­ty in Up­per Al­ba­nia, which re­mained hered­itary in his fam­ily for some gen­er­ations. In south­ern Al­ba­nia Ali Pasha of Te­pe­len (b. about 1750), an able, cru­el and un­scrupu­lous man, sub­dued the neigh­bour­ing pashas and chiefs, crushed the Suliotes and Khi­mar­rliotes, and ex­er­cised a prac­ti­cal­ly in­de­pen­dent sovereign­ty from the Adri­at­ic to the Aegean. He in­tro­duced com­par­ative civ­iliza­tion at Ian­ni­na, his cap­ital, and main­tained di­rect re­la­tions with for­eign pow­ers. Even­tu­al­ly he re­nounced his al­le­giance to the sul­tan, but was over­thrown by a Turk­ish army in 1822. Short­ly af­ter­wards the dy­nasty of Scu­tari came to an end with the sur­ren­der of Mustafa Pasha, the last of the house of Bushat, to the grand vizier Reshid Pasha, in 1831.

The op­po­si­tion of the Al­ba­ni­ans, Chris­tian as well as Moslem, to the re­forms in­tro­duced by the sul­tan Mah­mud II. led to the dev­as­ta­tion of the coun­try and the ex­pa­tri­ation of thou­sands of its in­hab­itants. Dur­ing the next half-​cen­tu­ry sev­er­al lo­cal re­volts oc­curred, but no move­ment of a strict­ly po­lit­ical char­ac­ter took place till af­ter the Berlin Treaty (Ju­ly 13, 1878), when some of the Moslems and Catholics com­bined to re­sist the stip­ulat­ed trans­fer­ence of Al­ba­ni­an ter­ri­to­ry to Aus­tria-​Hun­gary, Servia and Mon­tene­gro) and the Al­bani­ian League Was formed by an as­sem­blage of chiefs at Prizren. The move­ment, which was in­sti­gat­ed by the Porte with the ob­ject of evad­ing the pro­vi­sions of the treaty, Was so far suc­cess­ful that the restora­tion of Pla­va and Gusinye to Al­ba­nia was sanc­tioned by the pow­ers, Mon­tene­gro re­ceiv­ing in ex­change the town and dis­trict of Dul­cig­no. The Al­ba­ni­an lead­ers, how­ev­er, soon dis­played a spir­it of in­de­pen­dence, which proved em­bar­rass­ing to Turk­ish diplo­ma­cyand caused alarm at Con­stantino­ple; their forces came in­to con­flict with a Turk­ish army un­der Dervish Pasha near Dul­cig­no (Novem­ber 1880), and even­tu­al­ly the league was sup­pressed. A sim­ilar ag­ita­tion on a small­er scale was or­ga­nized in south­ern Al­ba­nia to 1es­ist the ter­ri­to­ri­al con­ces­sions award­ed by the pow­ers to Greece. In the spring of 1903 se­ri­ous dis­tur­bances took place in north-​west­ern Al­ba­nia, but the Turks suc­ceed­ed in paci­fy­ing the re­volt­ed tribes­men, part­ly by force and part­ly by con­ces­sions. These move­ments were far from dis­play­ing a gen­uine­ly na­tion­al char­ac­ter. In re­cent years at­tempts have been made by Al­ba­ni­ans res­ident abroad to prop­agate the na­tion­al idea among their com­pa­tri­ots at home; com­mit­tees have been formed at Brus­sels, Bucharest, Athens and else­where, and books, pam­phlets and news­pa­pers are sur­rep­ti­tious­ly sent in­to the coun­try. Uni­ty of aim and ef­fort, how­ev­er, seems for­eign to the Al­ba­ni­ans, ex­cept in de­fence of lo­cal or trib­al priv­ileges. The growth of a wider pa­tri­ot­ic sen­ti­ment must de­pend on the spread of pop­ular ed­uca­tion; cer­tain­ly up to 1908 no ap­pre­cia­ble progress had been made in this di­rec­tion.

AU­THOR­ITIES.—F. C. H. Pouqueville, Voy­age de la Grece (Paris, 1820); W. M. Leake, Trav­els in North­ern Greece (Lon­don, 1835); J. G. von Hahn, Al­bane­sis­che Stu­di­en (Je­na, 1854), Reise durch die Ge­bi­ete des Drin und Var­dar (Vi­en­na, 1867); F. Bopp, Uber dos Al­bane­sis­che (Berlin, 1854); J. P. Fallmer­ay­er, Das al­bane­sis­che El­ement in Griechen­land (Mu­nich, 1864); N. Ca­mar­da, Sag­gio di gram­ma­tolo­gia com­para­ta sul­la lin­gua al­banese (Leghorn, 1865); Vis­count­ess Strang­ford, The East­ern Shores of the Adri­at­ic (Lon­don, 1865); H. F. Toz­er, Re­search­es in the High­lands of Turkey (Lon­don, 1869); F. Mik­losich, Al­banes. Forschun­gen (Vi­en­na, 1870); C. Hopf, Chroniques gre­co-​ro­maines inedites ou peu con­nues (Berlin, 1873); H. Hec­quard, His­toire et de­scrip­tion de la Haute Al­ban­ie ou Gue­garie (Paris, un­dat­ed); S. Gopchevich, Ober­al­ban­ien und seine Liga (Leipzig, 1881); V’. Ta­jani, Le Is­to­ria Al­bane­si (Saler­no, 1886); G. Gelchich, La Zed­da e la di­nas­tia dei Bal­shi (Spala­to, 1899); S. Lam­bros, `E ono­ma­tolo­gia tes ‘At­tikes kai h eis ten choran epike­sis ton .Al­banon in the ‘Epeteris tou Par­nas­sou (Athens, 1896); Theodore Ip­pen “Beitrige zur in­neren Geschichte der Turkei im 19. Jahrhun­dert speciell Al­ban­iens,” in the Os­ter­re­ichisch-​Un­garische Re­vue, vol. xxvi­ii.; A. Philipp­son, Thes­salia und Epirus (Berlin, 1897). See al­so Mur­ray’s Greece, ed. 1900, pp. 720-731 and 760-814, and Blue-​book Turkey, No. 15, Part ii., 1886. (J. D. B.)

AL­BANUS LA­CUS (mod. La­go di Al­bano), a lake about 12 m. S.E. of Rome. It is gen­er­al­ly con­sid­ered to have been formed by a vol­canic ex­plo­sion at the mar­gin of the great crater of the Al­banus Mons; it has the shape of a crater, the banks cf Which are over 400 ft. in height from the wa­ter-​lev­el, while the wa­ter is as much as 560 ft. deep in the S. por­tion. It is fed by sub­ter­rai­iean springs. Ac­cord­ing to the leg­end, the emis­sar­ium (out­let) which still drains it was made in 398-397 B.C., the Del­ph­ic or­acle hav­ing de­clared that Veri could onlybe tak­en when the wa­ters of the lake reached the sea. It is over a mile in length, hewn in the rock, and about 6 ft. high and 4 ft. broad; it has ver­ti­cal shafts at in­ter­vals, and a sluice cham­ber at its egress from the lake. In the time of Domi­tian the whole lake be­longed to the im­pe­ri­al do­main. (SEEAL­BA­LON­GA.)

AL­BANUS MONS (mod. Monte Ca­vo, from an ear­ly city of the name of Cabum? 1), the high­est point of the vol­canic Al­ban hills, about 13 m. S.E. of Rome, 3115 ft. above sea-​lev­el. It is up­on the line of the rim of the in­ner crater of the great vol­cano, While Tus­cu­lum and Al­gidus Mons mark the edge of the ear­li­er out­er crater, which was about 7 m. wide. The lakes of Al­bano and Ne­mi were prob­ably formed by vol­canic ex­plo­sions at the mar­gin of the great crater; though a view has al­so been ex­pressed that the basins are the re­sult of sub­si­dence. The name Al­banus Mons is al­so used gen­er­al­ly of the Al­ban group of hills in which there seem to have been some re­mains of vol­canic ac­tiv­ity in ear­ly Ro­man times, which cov­ered the ear­ly necrop­olis of Al­ba Lon­ga, and oc­ca­sion­al­ly pro­duced show­ers of stones, e.g. in the time of Tul­lus Hos­til­ius (Liv. i. 31), and per­haps much lat­er. In 193 B.C. it is record­ed (ib. xxxv. 9) that such a snow­er oc­curred at Ari­cia, Lanu­vi­um and on the Aven­tine. Up­on the Mons Al­banus stood the tem­ple of Jupiter La­tiaris, where the an­nu­al fes­ti­val of the Latin League was held. The foun­da­tions and some of the ar­chi­tec­tural frag­ments of the tem­ple were still in ex­is­tence un­til 1777, when they were used to build the Pas­sion­ist monastery by Car­di­nal York. The road which as­cend­ed to the tem­ple from the rim of the lake is still well pre­served.

1 See Th. Momm­sen in Bul­letino dell’ Is­ti­tu­to (1861), 206; Cor­pus In­scrip. Lat. (Berlin, 1887), xiv. 2228,

AL­BANY, DUKES OF. The ter­ri­to­ri­al des­ig­na­tion of Al­bany was for­mer­ly giv­en to those parts of Scot­land to the north of the firths of Clyde and Forth. The ti­tle of duke of Al­bany was first be­stowed in 1398 by King Robert III. on his broth­er, Robert Stew­art, ead of Fife (see I. be­low); but in 1425 it be­came ex­tinct. The duke­dom was re-​cre­at­ed, r. 1458, in favour of Alexan­der Stew­art, “lord of An­nan­dale and earl of March’, (see II. be­low), whose son and suc­ces­sor (see III. be­low) left no le­git­imate heir. The ti­tle of duke of Al­bany was next be­stowed up­on Hen­ry Stu­art, com­mon­ly known as Lord Darn­ley, by Mary, queen of Scots, in 1565. From him the ti­tle passed to his son, James VI. of Scot­land and I. of Eng­land. The ti­tle was by him giv­en, at his birth, to Charles, his sec­ond son, af­ter­wards King Charles I. By Charles II. it was again be­stowed, in 1660, on James, duke ot York, af­ter­wards King James II. On the 5th of Ju­ly 1716 Ernest Au­gus­tus, bish­op of Os­naburgh [Os­nabruck] (1715-1728), youngest broth­er of King George I., was cre­at­ed duke of York and Al­bany, the ti­tle be­com­ing ex­tinct on his death with­out heirs in 1728. On the 1st of April 1760 Prince Ed­ward Au­gus­tus, younger broth­er of King George III., was cre­at­ed duke of York and Al­bany; he died with­out heirs on the 17th of Septem­ber 1767. On the 29th of Novem­ber 1784 the ti­tle of duke of York and Al­bany was again cre­at­ed in favour of Fred­er­ick, sec­ond son of George III., who died with­out heirs on the 5th of Jan­uary 1827. The ti­tle of duke of Al­bany was be­stowed on the 24th of May 1881 on Prince Leopold, youngest son of Queen Vic­to­ria (see IV. be­low).

I. ROBERT STEW­ART, duke of Al­bany (c. 1345-1420), re­gent of Scot­land, was a son of King Robert II. by his mis­tress, Eliz­abeth Mure, and was le­git­ima­tized when his par­ents were mar­ried about 1349. In 1361 he mar­ried Mar­garet, count­ess of Mentei­th, and af­ter his wid­owed sis­ter-​in-​law, Is­abel, count­ess of Fife, had rec­og­nized him as her heir, he was known as the earl of Fife and Mentei­th. Tak­ing an ac­tive part in the gov­ern­ment of the king­dom, the earl was made high cham­ber­lain of Scot­land in 1382, and gained mil­itary rep­uta­tion by lead­ing sev­er­al plun­der­ing ex­pe­di­tions in­to Eng­land. In 1389 af­ter his el­der broth­er John, earl of Car­rick, had been in­ca­pac­itat­ed by an ac­ci­dent, and when his fa­ther the king was old and in­firm, he was cho­sen gov­er­nor of Scot­land by the es­tates; and he re­tained the con­trol of af­fairs af­ter his broth­er John be­came king as Robert III. in 1390. In April 1308 he was cre­at­ed duke of Al­bany; but in the fol­low­ing year his nephew David, duke of Rothe­say, the heir to the crown, suc­ceed­ed him as gov­er­nor, al­though the duke him­self was a promi­nent mem­ber of the ad­vis­ing coun­cil. Un­cle and nephew soon dif­fered, and in March 1402 the lat­ter died in prison at Falk­land. It is not cer­tain that Al­bany was re­spon­si­ble for the im­pris­on­ment and death of Rothe­say, whom the par­lia­ment de­clared to have died from nat­ural caus­es; but the scanty ev­idence points in the di­rec­tion of his guilt. Re­stored to the of­fice of gov­er­nor, the duke was cho­sen re­gent of the king­dom af­ter the death of Robert III. in 1406, as the new king, James I., was a pris­on­er in Lon­don; and he took vig­or­ous steps to pros­ecute the war with Eng­land, which had been re­newed a few years be­fore. He was un­able, or as some say un­will­ing, to ef­fect the re­lease of his roy­al nephew, and was soon faced by a formidable re­volt led by Don­ald Mac­don­ald, sec­ond lord of the Isles, who claimed the earl­dom of Ross and was in al­liance with Hen­ry IV. of Eng­land; but the de­feat of Don­ald at Har­law near Ab­erdeen in Ju­ly 1411 freed him from this dan­ger. Con­tin­uing al­ter­nate­ly to fight and to ne­go­ti­ate with Eng­land, the duke died at Stir­ling Cas­tle in Septem­ber 1420, and was buried in Dun­fermline Abbey. Al­bany, who was the ablest prince of his house, left by his first wife one son, Mur­dac (or Mur­doch) Stew­art, who suc­ceed­ed him as duke of Al­bany and re­gent, but at whose ex­ecu­tion in 1425 the duke­dom be­came ex­tinct.

See An­drew of Wyn­toun, The Oryg­ynale Cronyk­il of Scot­land, edit­ed by D. Laing (Ed­in­burgh, 1872-1879); John of For­dun, Scotichron­icon, con­tin­ued by Wal­ter Bow­er, edit­ed by T. Hearne (Ox­ford, 1722); and P. F. Tytler, His­to­ry of Scot­land (Ed­in­burgh, 1850). See al­so Sir W. Scott’s Fair Maid of Perth.

II. ALEXAN­DER STEW­ART, duke of Al­bany (c. 1454-1485), was the sec­ond son of James II., king of Scot­land, by his wife, Mary, daugh­ter of Arnold, duke of Gelder­land. Cre­at­ed duke of Al­bany be­fore 1458, he al­so re­ceived the lord­ship of the Isle of Man, and was af­ter­wards cap­tured by an En­glish ship when jour­ney­ing to Gelder­land in 1468. He was soon re­leased, and as he grew to man­hood be­gan to take part in the gov­ern­ment and de­fence of Scot­land, be­ing ap­point­ed in quick suc­ces­sion high ad­mi­ral, war­den of the march­es, gov­er­nor of Berwick and lieu­tenant of the king­dom. Soon, how­ev­er, he quar­relled with his broth­er, King James III. Some of his ac­tions on the march­es aroused sus­pi­cion, and in 1479 he was seized and im­pris­oned in Ed­in­burgh Cas­tle; but he soon made his es­cape, and reach­ing Paris in Septem­ber 1479 was wel­comed by King Louis XI. Louis, how­ev­er, would not as­sist him to at­tack his broth­er the king, and cross­ing to Eng­land he made a treaty with King Ed­ward IV. at Fother­ing­hay in June 1482. Like Ed­ward Bali­ol, he promised to hold Scot­land un­der En­glish suzerain­ty in re­turn for Ed­ward’s as­sis­tance, and with Richard, duke of Glouces­ter, af­ter­wards King Richard III., he marched at the head of the En­glish forces to Ed­in­burgh. Mean­while his sup­port­ers in Scot­land had seized James, and pro­fessed their readi­ness to rec­og­nize Al­bany, declar­ing at the same time their dis­trust of Glouces­ter. A com­pro­mise, how­ev­er, was ar­ranged, and the restora­tion of his lands and of­fices was promised to Al­bany, who in turn agreed to be faith­ful to James; but about the same time the duke with re­mark­able du­plic­ity had sworn he would keep the treaty with Ed­ward. Again he was ap­point­ed lieu­tenant of the king­dom, a truce was made with the En­glish, and James, re­leased from cus­tody, re­stored his broth­er and cre­at­ed him earl of Mar and Gar­ioch. The fra­ter­nal peace was soon dis­turbed. Fail­ing to ob­tain pos­ses­sion of the king’s per­son, Al­bany re­newed ne­go­ti­ations with Ed­ward, and in Febru­ary 1483 made a new treaty at West­min­ster on the lines of that of Fother­ing­hay. A fresh rec­on­cil­ia­tion fol­lowed be­tween the broth­ers, but in Ju­ly 1483, dur­ing Al­bany’s ab­sence in Eng­land, he was sen­tenced to death for trea­son. Af­ter mak­ing a raid on Lochmaben he went to France, where in 1485 he was ac­ci­den­tal­ly killed. Al­bany’s first wife was Cather­ine, daugh­ter of William, third earl of Orkney and first earl of Caith­ness, who bore him three sons and a daugh­ter. This mar­riage was dis­solved in 1478, and as its is­sue was re­gard­ed as il­le­git­imate the ti­tle of duke of Al­bany de­scend­ed to John (see be­low), his on­ly son by his sec­ond wife, Anne de la Tour d’Au­vergne. daugh­ter of Bertrand II., count of Au­vergne and of Bouil­lon, whom he mar­ried in 1480.

III. JOHN STEW­ART, duke of Al­bany (c. 1481-1536), re­gent Of Scot­land, was born about 1481. He was brought up in France, where he owned large es­tates, and held the of­fice of ad­mi­ral of France. In 1515, at the re­quest of the Scot­tish par­lia­ment, and in spite of Hen­ry VI­II.’s ef­forts to pre­vent him, Al­bany came to Scot­land, was in­au­gu­rat­ed re­gent in Ju­ly, and pro­ceed­ed to or­ga­nize re­sis­tance to the in­flu­ence of Eng­land and of Mar­garet Tu­dor, the queen dowa­ger, sis­ter of Hen­ry VI­II. In Au­gust he seized the lat­ter and her chil­dren at Stir­ling, and sub­se­quent­ly was oc­cu­pied in sup­press­ing the re­bel­lion of the Homes, An­gus (the sec­ond hus­band of Mar­garet), and James Hamil­ton, earl of Ar­ran; Alexan­der, third Lord Home, be­ing be­head­ed in Oc­to­ber 1516. Al­bany was de­clared on the 12th of Novem­ber heir to the throne, and on the 6th of June 1517 he re­turned to France. In Au­gust he con­clud­ed the treaty of Rouen, by which the al­liance be­tween France and Scot­land was re­newed and a daugh­ter of Fran­cis I. was to mar­ry James V., and next year he ob­tained the re­lax­ation of cer­tain dues on Scot­tish im­ports in­to France. Mean­while Mar­garet had re­turned im­me­di­ate­ly on Al­bany’s de­par­ture, and dis­or­ders had bro­ken out ow­ing to the ri­val­ry be­tween An­gus and Ar­ran. Fran­cis I. had se­cret­ly en­gaged him­self to Hen­ry VI­II. not to al­low Al­bany’s de­par­ture from France, but he re­turned at the close of 1521 and im­me­di­ate­ly be­came the ob­ject of Hen­ry VI­II.’s and Wolsey’s at­tacks. He rec­on­ciled him­self tem­porar­ily with Mar­garet, sup­port­ed her di­vorce from An­gus, and was now ac­cused by the En­glish gov­ern­ment, in all prob­abil­ity un­just­ly, of hav­ing se­duced her and of har­bour­ing schemes of mar­ry­ing her him­self, to­geth­er with de­signs against the life of the young king. These ac­cu­sa­tions were re­pu­di­at­ed by the Scots, and Hen­ry’s de­mand for the re­gent’s dis­missal re­fused. War broke out in 1522, and in Septem­ber Al­bany ad­vanced to with­in four miles of Carlisle with a large army. The Scots, how­ev­er, showed un­will­ing­ness to fight out­side their own fron­tiers, and Al­bany agreed to a truce and dis­band­ed his troops. On the 25th of Oc­to­ber he de­part­ed hasti­ly to France, leav­ing the bor­ders ex­posed to the en­emy. On the 25th of Septem­ber 1523 he once more land­ed in Scot­land, bring­ing with him sup­plies from France and a con­sid­er­able body of troops, and on the 3rd of Novem­ber, af­ter an un­suc­cess­ful at­tack on Wark, re­treat­ed hasti­ly, and quit­ted Scot­land fi­nal­ly on the 20th of May 1524. On the 30th of Ju­ly his re­gen­cy was ter­mi­nat­ed by the dec­la­ra­tion of James V. as king. He ac­com­pa­nied Fran­cis I. in his dis­as­trous Ital­ian cam­paign of 1525, be­ing de­tached to make a di­ver­sion in Naples against the Span­ish. Be­tween 1530 and 1535 he act­ed as French am­bas­sador in Rome, con­duct­ed Cather­ine de’ Medi­ci, his wife’s niece, to Paris on her mar­riage to Hen­ry (af­ter­wards Hen­ry II.) in 1534, and ne­go­ti­at­ed the mar­riage of James V.

The re­gent Al­bany was a sin­gu­lar­ly un­for­tu­nate com­man­der in the field, but a suc­cess­ful ruler and ad­min­is­tra­tor, and the Scot­tish court of ses­sion owed to him its in­sti­tu­tion. But he re­gard­ed him­self more the sub­ject of the king of France than of the king of Scot­land, sub­or­di­nat­ed the in­ter­ests of the lat­ter state to the for­mer, and dis­liked his of­fi­cial du­ties in Scot­land, where the ben­efits of his ad­min­is­tra­tion were large­ly di­min­ished by his want of per­se­ver­ance and fre­quent ab­sence. He ap­pears to have been a man of hon­ourable and straight­for­ward con­duct, whose char­ac­ter must be cleared from the as­per­sions of Wolsey and the En­glish au­thor­ities. He mar­ried his cousin Anne de la Tour d’Au­vergne, but left no le­gal is­sue, and all his hon­ours be­came ex­tinct at his death.

IV. LEOPOLD GEORGE DUN­CAN AL­BERT, duke of Al­bany, eighth child and youngest son of Queen Vic­to­ria, was born on the 7th of April 1853. The del­ica­cy of his health seemed to mark him out for a life of re­tire­ment, and as he grew old­er he evinced much of the love of knowl­edge, the ca­pac­ity for study and the in­ter­est in phil­an­thropic and ec­cle­si­as­ti­cal move­ments which had char­ac­ter­ized his fa­ther, the prince con­sort. He ma­tric­ulat­ed at Christ Church, Ox­ford, in Novem­ber 1872, liv­ing with his tu­tor at Wyke­ham House, St Giles’s, and dili­gent­ly pur­sued his favourite stud­ies of sci­ence, art and the mod­ern lan­guages. In 1876 he left the uni­ver­si­ty with the hon­orary de­gree of D.C.L., and resid­ed at Boy­ton House, Wilt­shire, and af­ter­wards at Clare­mont. On com­ing of age in 1874, he had been made a privy coun­cil­lor and grant­ed an an­nu­ity of L. 15,000. He trav­elled on the con­ti­nent, and in 1880 vis­it­ed the Unit­ed States and Cana­da. He was a trustee of the British Mu­se­um, a bencher of Lin­coln’s Inn, and con­tin­ued to take an ac­tive part in the pro­mo­tion of ed­uca­tion and knowl­edge gen­er­al­ly. Like his fa­ther and oth­er mem­bers of his fam­ily he was an ex­cel­lent pub­lic speak­er. On the 24th of May 1881 he was cre­at­ed duke of Al­bany, earl of Clarence and Baron Ark­low. On the 27th of April 1882 he mar­ried He­lene Fred­er­ica Au­gus­ta, princess of Waldeck-​Pyr­mont, and his in­come was raised by par­lia­ment to L. 25,000. Hav­ing gone to the south of France for his health in the spring of 1884, he was at­tacked by a fit, the cause or the con­se­quence of a fall in a club-​house at Cannes, on the 27th of March, and died very un­ex­pect­ed­ly on the fol­low­ing morn­ing. His death was uni­ver­sal­ly re­gret­ted, from the gen­tle­ness and gra­cious­ness of his char­ac­ter, and the de­sire and abil­ity he had shown to pro­mote in­tel­lec­tu­al in­ter­ests of ev­ery kind. He left a daugh­ter, born in Febru­ary 1883, and a posthu­mous son, Arthur Charles Ed­ward, born on the 19th of Ju­ly 1884, who suc­ceed­ed to the duke­dom of Al­bany, and who on the 30th of Ju­ly 1900 be­came duke of Saxe-​Coburg on the death of his un­cle.

AL­BANY, LOUISE MAX­IM­ILI­ENNE CAR­OLINE, COUNT­ESS OF (1752-1824), el­dest daugh­ter of Prince Gus­tavus Adol­phus of Stol­berg-​Ged­ern, was born at Mons on the 20th of Septem­ber 1752. In her youth she was a canoness of Ste. Wan­dru at Mons, but in her twen­ti­eth year she was af­fi­anced, at the in­sti­ga­tion of the duke of Berwick and with the se­cret con­nivance of the French Court, to Prince Charles Ed­ward Stu­art, “the Young Pre­tender,” self-​styled count of Al­bany. She was wed­ded to the prince at Mac­er­ata, near An­cona, on Good Fri­day 1774, and the mar­ried pair for over two years resid­ed in the old Stu­art palace at Rome. Pret­ty, in­tel­li­gent, charm­ing and wit­ty, Louise fas­ci­nat­ed Ro­man so­ci­ety, where­in she gained the nick­name of “Queen of Hearts.” The union, how­ev­er, which was ob­vi­ous­ly in­tend­ed to give an heir to the Stu­art prince, proved child­less, and Louise’s mar­ried life be­came far from hap­py. In 1774 the pair moved to Flo­rence, where in De­cem­ber 1780 Louise, ter­ri­fied at her hus­band’s vi­olence and fear­ing for the safe­ty of her life, fled to a neigh­bour­ing con­vent and threw her­self on the pro­tec­tion of her broth­er-​in-​law, Hen­ry Stu­art, Car­di­nal York, who in­vit­ed her to Rome. Louise had al­ready in Flo­rence formed the ac­quain­tance of the great Ital­ian trag­ic po­et, Vit­to­rio Al­fieri, who had been cap­ti­vat­ed by her en­gag­ing man­ners, her youth­ful beau­ty and her lit­er­ary pow­ers. The po­et now fol­lowed her to Rome, but the friend­ship be­tween Al­fieri and his sis­ter-​in-​law does not seem to have aroused any sus­pi­cion in the mind of Car­di­nal York un­til 1783, when, af­ter a vis­it to his broth­er in Flo­rence, he sud­den­ly re­quest­ed Pope Pius VI. to ban­ish Al­fieri from pa­pal ter­ri­to­ry. In 1784, how­ev­er, a le­gal sep­ara­tion be­tween the count and count­ess of Al­bany was ar­ranged, and by Charles’s death in 1788 Louise found her­self freed from mat­ri­mo­ni­al bonds. In com­pa­ny with Al­fieri (to whom ru­mour said she had been se­cret­ly mar­ried) she now vis­it­ed Paris and Lon­don, and was cor­dial­ly re­ceived at the En­glish court, George III. grant­ing her an an­nu­al pen­sion of L. 1600 from the privy purse. Re­turn­ing to Italy, Al­fieri and the count­ess set­tled at Flo­rence, where the po­et died on the 9th of Oc­to­ber 1803, and was buried in the church of San­ta Croce be­neath Cano­va’s vast mon­ument erect­ed at Louise’s ex­pense. The count­ess con­tin­ued to re­side in the house on the Lung’ Arno at Flo­rence, pa­tro­nis­ing men of sci­ence and let­ters and hold­ing night­ly re­cep­tions, at which all vis­itors were ex­pect­ed to treat their host­ess with the eti­quette due to reign­ing roy­al­ty. She died on the 29th of Jan­uary 1824 and was buried in San­ta Croce, where in the south transept a mar­ble mon­ument by Gio­van­nozzi and Santarel­li com­mem­orates her. By her will the count­ess be­queathed all her prop­er­ty, in­clud­ing many his­toric ob­jects of art and doc­uments, to the com­pan­ion of her old age, the French painter, Fran­cois Xavier Fab­re, who ul­ti­mate­ly gave the greater part of his lega­cy to the mu­se­um of his na­tive town of Mont­pel­li­er. Two ex­cel­lent por­traits of the count­ess of Al­bany and of Al­fieri, paint­ed by this artist, now hang in the Uf­fizi Gallery at Flo­rence.

See Ver­non Lee, The Count­ess of Al­bany (1884); March­esa Vitelleschi, A Court in Ex­ile. (H. M. V.)

AL­BANY, a riv­er of Cana­da, form­ing part of the bound­ary be­tween the province of On­tario and the dis­trict of Kee­watin. It ris­es in Lake St Joseph in 91 deg. 25, W. and 50 deg. 55′ N., and flows E.N.E. in­to James Bay, its to­tal length be­ing over 400 m. It is nav­iga­ble for near­ly half its length, to Mar­tin’s Falls. There are four Hud­son’s Bay Com­pa­ny’s posts on its banks, in­clud­ing Fort Al­bany at its mouth. The Ogo­ki and Kenoga­mi rivers are the prin­ci­pal trib­utaries.

AL­BANY, a city and the coun­ty-​seat of Dougher­ty coun­ty, Geor­gia, U.S.A., at the mouth of the Kin­chafoona Creek, and at the head of nav­iga­tion on the Flint riv­er, about 100 m. S.S.W. of Ma­con, about 200 m. S.W. of Sa­van­nah and about 203 m. N.E. of Pen­saco­la. Pop. (1890) 4008; (1900) 4606 (2903 of ne­gro de­scent); (1910) 8190. It is served by the Cen­tral of Geor­gia, the Geor­gia North­ern, the Seaboard Air Line, the Al­bany & North­ern and the At­lantic Coast Line rail­ways, and by steam­boats con­nect­ing it with Apalachico­la at the mouth of the Apalachico­la riv­er. Its im­por­tance is large­ly due to these trans­porta­tion fa­cil­ities and to the re­sources of the sur­round­ing coun­try, which pro­duces tim­ber, lime, cot­ton, In­di­an corn, sug­ar-​cane, wheat, oats, fruit, mel­ons, hay and veg­eta­bles. Al­bany ships much cot­ton, and has a cot­ton com­press, a cot­ton mill, cot­ton-​seed oil and guano fac­to­ries, brick yards, lum­ber mills and ice fac­to­ries. It is a sum­mer and win­ter re­sort and is the home of the Geor­gia Chau­tauqua. The city owns and op­er­ates the elec­tric-​light­ing plant and arte­sian wa­ter-​works. It was set­tled in 1836, was in­cor­po­rat­ed in 1838 and re­ceived its present city char­ter in 1907.

AL­BANY, a city and the coun­ty-​seat of Al­bany coun­ty, New Yrork, U.S.A., and the cap­ital of the state. It is sit­uat­ed on the W. bank of the Hud­son riv­er, just be­low the mouth of the Mo­hawk, 145 m. N. of New York City and 165 m. W. of Boston. Pop. (1880) 90,758; (1890) 94,923; (1900) 94,151, of whom 17,718 were for­eign-​born (6612 be­ing Irish, 5903 Ger­man, 1361 En­glish and 740 Rus­sian) and 1178 were ne­groes; (1910) 100,253. Al­bany is a ter­mi­nus of the New York Cen­tral & Hud­son Riv­er, the Delaware & Hud­son and the West Shore rail­ways, and is al­so served by the Boston & Maine rail­way, by the Erie and Cham­plain canals (be­ing a ter­mi­nus of each), by steam­boat lines on the Hud­son riv­er and by sev­er­al in­ter-​ur­ban elec­tric rail­ways con­nect­ing with neigh­bour­ing cities.

Al­bany is at­trac­tive­ly sit­uat­ed on a se­ries of hills ris­ing sharply from the riv­er. The old­er por­tions of the city are rem­inis­cent of Dutch colo­nial days, and some fine spec­imens of the Dutch and lat­er colo­nial ar­chi­tec­ture are still stand­ing. Per­haps the most fa­mous of these is the Schuyler man­sion (now St Fran­cis de Sales Or­phan Asy­lum), built in 1760-1761. The Van Rens­se­laer manor-​house, built in 1765, was pulled down in 1893 and was re­con­struct­ed on the cam­pus of Wil­hams Col­lege, Williamstown, Mas­sachusetts, where it is used as a fra­ter­ni­ty club-​house. Among the pub­lic build­ings, the finest is the new State Capi­tol, one of the largest and most im­pos­ing in Amer­ica. It oc­cu­pies a com­mand­ing po­si­tion in Capi­tol Square (7.84 acres), one of the high­est points in the city. It is built of white Maine gran­ite, and cost about $25,000,000. Its di­men­sions are 300 X 400 ft. The cor­ner-​stone was laid in 1871, and the build­ing was com­plet­ed, with the ex­cep­tion of the cen­tral tow­er and dome, in 1904. The leg­is­la­ture first met in it in 1879. The orig­inal de­signs were by Thomas Fuller, who al­so de­signed the par­lia­men­tary build­ings at Ot­tawa; but the plans un­der­went many changes, Isaac Gale Per­ry, Leopold Ei­dlitz and H. H. Richard­son be­ing as­so­ci­at­ed with the work be­fore its com­ple­tion. The beau­ti­ful “west­ern stair­case” of red sand­stone (from plans by Per­ry) and the sen­ate cham­ber (de­signed by Richard­son) are oer­haps the most no­table parts of the struc­ture. The build­ing hous­es the var­ious ex­ec­utive de­part­ments, the leg­is­la­ture and the court of ap­peals. A large and hand­some build­ing of white gran­ite was be­gun in 1908 di­rect­ly op­po­site the Capi­tol to ac­com­mo­date the de­part­ment of ed­uca­tion and the mag­nif­icent state li­brary (about 450,000 vol­umes). Oth­er im­por­tant build­ings are the old state hall, a hand­some white mar­ble build­ing erect­ed in 1842; the city hall, a beau­ti­ful French Goth­ic build­ing of pink gran­ite trimmed with red sand­stone, de­signed by H. H. Richard­son; the Fed­er­al Build­ing; the State aIu­se­um of Nat­ural His­to­ry; the gal­leries of the Al­bany In­sti­tute and His­tor­ical and Art So­ci­ety, in State Street, op­po­site the Capi­tol; Har­manus Bleeck­er Hall, a the­atre since 1898; and the Ten Ey­ck and Ken­more ho­tels. Among the finest of­fice build­ings are the struc­tures of the Al­bany City Sav­ings In­sti­tu­tion, Na­tion­al Com­mer­ical Bank, Union Trust Com­pa­ny, Al­bany Trust Com­pa­ny, the Na­tion­al Sav­ings Bank, First Na­tion­al Bank, the New York State Na­tion­al Bank (1803, prob­ably the old­est build­ing in the Unit­ed States used con­tin­uous­ly for bank­ing pur­pos­es) and the Al­bany Sav­ings Bank. The Fort Or­ange Club, the Catholic Union, the Al­bany Club, the Uni­ver­si­ty Club, the City Club of Al­bany, the Coun­try Club, the Ger­man Hall As­so­ci­ation and the Adel­phi Club are the chief so­cial or­ga­ni­za­tions. The prin­ci­pal church build­ings are the Cathe­dral of the Im­mac­ulate Con­cep­tion (Ro­man Catholic), a fine spec­imen of Goth­ic ar­chi­tec­ture, built of brown­stone, with spires 210 ft. high; the cathe­dral of All Saints (Protes­tant Epis­co­pal), an En­glish Goth­ic struc­ture of pink sand­stone de­signed by R. W. Gib­son and be­gun in 1883; St Pe­ter’s Epis­co­pal Church (French Goth­ic), of Hud­son Riv­er blue­stone; Em­manuel Bap­tist Church, of white gran­ite; the Madi­son Av­enue Re­formed Church; and St Joseph’s (Ro­man Catholic), of blue­stone and Caen stone with mar­ble trim­mings. Among the ed­uca­tion­al in­sti­tu­tions are the Al­bany Med­ical Col­lege (1839) and the Al­bany Law School (1851), both in­cor­po­rat­ed since 1873 with the Union Uni­ver­si­ty, the Col­le­giate De­part­ment of which is at Sch­enec­tady; the Al­bany Col­lege of Phar­ma­cy (1881), al­so part of Union Uni­ver­si­ty; the Al­bany Acade­my (1813), in which Joseph Hen­ry, while a mem­ber of the fac­ul­ty, per­fect­ed in 1826–1832 the elec­tro-​mag­net and be­gan his work on the elec­tric tele­graph; the Al­bany Acade­my for Girls, found­ed in 1814 as the Al­bany Fe­male Acade­my (name changed in 1906); and a State Nor­mal Col­lege (1890), with a Mod­el School. The hos­pi­tals and char­ita­ble in­sti­tu­tions in­clude St Vin­cent’s Or­phan Asy­lum, the Lath­rop Memo­ri­al (for chil­dren of work­ing moth­ers), Al­bany City Hos­pi­tal, the Home­opath­ic Hos­pi­tal, St Pe­ter’s Hos­pi­tal, the Al­bany City Or­phan Asy­lum and the House of the Good Shep­herd. There are a coun­ty pen­iten­tiary and a State ar­moury. The city has 95 acres of boule­vards and av­enues un­der park su­per­vi­sion and sev­er­al fine parks (17, with 307 acres in 1907), no­tably Wash­ing­ton (con­tain­ing Calver­ley’s bronze stat­ue of Robert Burns, and Rhind’s “Moses at the Rock of Horeb”), Beaver and Dud­ley, in which is the old Dud­ley Ob­ser­va­to­ry–the present Ob­ser­va­to­ry build­ing is in Lake Av­enue, south-​west of Wash­ing­ton Park, where is al­so the Al­bany Hos­pi­tal. In the beau­ti­ful ru­ral ceme­tery, north of the city, are the tombs of Pres­ident Chester A. Arthur and Gen­er­al Philip Schuyler. The city owns a fine wa­ter-​sup­ply and a fil­tra­tion plant cov­er­ing 20 acres, with a ca­pac­ity of 30,000,000 gal­lons dai­ly and stor­age reser­voirs with a ca­pac­ity of 227,000,000 gal­lons.

The first news­pa­per in Al­bany was the Gaze­tle, found­ed in 1771. The Ar­gus, found­ed in 1813 by Jesse Buel (1778–1839) and edit­ed from 1824 to 1854 by Ed­win Croswell (1797-1871), was lont­the or­gan of the co­terie of New York politi­cians known . as the “Al­bany Re­gen­cy,” and was one of the most in­flu­en­tial

Demo­crat­ic pa­pers in the Unit­ed States. Pre­vi­ous­ly to their hold­ing of­fice, Daniel Man­ning (1831-1887), sec­re­tary of the trea­sury in Pres­ident Cleve­land’s cab­inet, was pres­ident of the Ar­gus com­pa­ny, and Daniel Scott La­mont (1851-1905), sec­re­tary of war dur­ing Pres­ident Cleve­land’s sec­ond ad­min­is­tra­tion, was man­ag­ing ed­itor of the news­pa­per. The Evening Jour­nal, found­ed in 1830 as an an­ti-​Ma­son­ic or­gan, and for thir­ty-​five years edit­ed by Thur­low Weed, was equal­ly in­flu­en­tial as an or­gan of the Whig and lat­er of the Re­pub­li­can par­ty.

Al­bany is an im­por­tant rail­way and com­mer­cial cen­tre, par­tic­ular­ly as a dis­tribut­ing point for New Eng­land mar­kets, as a lum­ber mar­ket and–though to a much less ex­tent than for­mer­ly-​as a de­pot for tran­ship­ment to the south and west. Among the city’s man­ufac­to­ries are brew­eries, iron and brass foundries, stove fac­to­ries, knit­ting mills, cot­ton mills, cloth­ing fac­to­ries, slaugh­ter­ing and meat-​pack­ing es­tab­lish­ments, cigar and cigarette fac­to­ries, and man­ufac­to­ries of ad­he­sive pastes, court plas­ter, spring beds, ribbed un­der­wear, ani­line dyes, chem­icals, gas me­ters, fire-​brick, and glazed pa­per and card­board. The val­ue of the to­tal fac­to­ry prod­uct in 1905 was $20,208,715, which was 17% greater than that for 1900.

His­to­ry.—Al­bany was prob­ably the sec­ond place to be per­ma­nent­ly set­tled with­in the bor­ders of the orig­inal Thir­teen Colonies. It seems like­ly that French traders as­cend­ed the riv­er as far as the site of the present city in the first half of the six­teenth cen­tu­ry, and ac­cord­ing to some writ­ers a tem­po­rary trad­ing post was es­tab­lished here about 1540. Al­bany’s au­then­tic his­to­ry, how­ev­er, may be dat­ed from 1614, when Dutch traders built on Cas­tle Is­land, op­po­site the city, a post which they named Fort Nas­sau. Three years lat­er the fort was re­moved to the main­land, and near here in 1618 the Dutch made their first treaty with the Iro­quois. In 1624 ar­rived eigh­teen fam­ilies of Dutch Wal­loons, the first ac­tu­al per­ma­nent set­tlers, as dis­tin­guished from traders. In that year, on a hill near the site of the present Capi­tol, Fort Or­ange was built, and around it, as a cen­tre, the new town grew. At first it was known by the Dutch sim­ply as the “fuy­ck” (hoop), from the curve in the riv­er at this point, whence was soon de­rived the name Bev­er­fuvck or Bev­er­wvck. In 1629 the Dutch gov­ern­ment grant­ed to Kil­li­aen van Rens­se­laer, an Am­st­tr­dam di­amond mer­chant, a tract of land (24 sq. m.) cen­tring at Fort Or­ange. Over this tract, the first pa­troon­ship grant­ed in the colony, he had the usu­al pow­ers and rights of a pa­troon. The grant was named Rens­se­laer­wyck in his hon­our, be­came a “manor” in 1685, and re­mained in the fam­ily un­til 1853. The colonists whom he set­tled up­on his grant (1630) were in­dus­tri­ous, and “Bev­er­wvck” be­came in­creas­ing­ly pros­per­ous. From this time the town, on ac­count of its favourable com­mer­cial and strate­gic po­si­tion at the gate­way of the Iro­quois coun­try and at the head of nav­iga­tion on the Hud­son riv­er, was for a cen­tu­ry and a half one of the most im­por­tant places in the colonies. In 1664. with the trans­fer of New Nether­lands to En­glish con­trol, the name “Bev­er­wvck” was changed to “Al­bany”-one of the ti­tles of the duke of York (af­ter­ward James II.). In 1673 the town was acain for a short time un­der Dutch con­trol. In 1686 Gov­er­nor Don­aan grant­ed to Al­bany a city char­ter, which pro­vid­ed for an elect­ed coun­cil. The first may­or ap­point­ed by the aover­nor was Pe­ter Schuyler (1657-1724). In 1689 was held here the first in­ter-​colo­nial con­ven­tion in Amer­ica, when del­egates from Mas­sachusetts Bay, Ply­mouth, Con­necti­cut and New York met to treat with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Five Na­tions and to plan a sys­tem of colo­nial de­fence. Dur­ing the 18th cen­tu­ry there was a great in­flux of En­glish colonists, and in 1714 the first En­glish church was erect­ed. Dur­ing the French and In­di­an wars Al­bany was a start­ing-​point for ex­pe­di­tions against Cana­da and the Lake Cham­plain coun­try. In June 1754, in Dur­suance of a rec­om­men­da­tion of the Lords.of Trade, a con­ven­tion of rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Mas­sachusetts, Rhode Is­land, New Hamp­shire, Con­necti­cut, New Vork, Penn­syl­va­nia and Mary­land met here for the pur­pose of con­firm­ing and es­tab­lish­ing a clos­er league of friend­shiq with the Iro­quois and of ar­rang­ing for a Der­ma­nent union of the colonies. The In­di­an af­fairs hav­ing been sat­is­fac­to­ri­ly adiust­ed, the con­ven­tion, af­ter con­sid­er­able de­bate. in which Ben­jamin Franklin, Stephen Hop­kins and Thomas Hutchin­son took a lead­ing part, adopt­ed (Ju­ly 11) a plan forau­nionof the colonies, which was in great part sim­ilar to one sub­mit­ted to the con­ven­tion by Franklin. This plan pro­vid­ed for a rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ing body to be known as the Grand Coun­cil, to which each colony should elect del­egates (not more than sev­en or less than two) for a term of three years. This body was to have con­trol of In­di­an af­fairs, im­pose tax­es, nom­inate all civ­il of­fi­cers, au­tho­rize the open­ing of new lands to set­tle­ment, and in gen­er­al have charge of colo­nial de­fence, and of the en­list­ment, equip­ment and main­te­nance of an army. An ex­ec­utive or viceroy, to be known as the pres­ident-​gen­er­al, was to have the ve­to pow­er over the acts of the Grand Coun­cil and the right of ap­point­ment of mil­itary of­fi­cers. Fi­nal­ly, it was pro­vid­ed that the acts of the Grand Coun­cil should be valid un­less ve­toed by the crown with­in a pe­ri­od of three years. Nei­ther the British gov­ern­ment nor the grow­ing par­ty in the colonies which was clam­our­ing for colo­nial rights re­ceived the plan with favour— the for­mer hold­ing that it gave the colonies too much in­de­pen­dence, and the lat­ter that it gave them too lit­tle. 4.he strate­gic im­por­tance of Al­bany was ful­ly rec­og­nized dur­ing the War of In­de­pen­dence, and it was against Al­bany that Bur­goyne’s ex­pe­di­tion was di­rect­ed. Al­bany be­came the per­ma­nent state cap­ital in 1797. In 1839 it be­came the cen­tre of the “An­ti-​Rent War,” which was pre­cip­itat­ed by the death of Stephen van Rens­se­laer (1764-1839), the last of the pa­troons; the at­tempt of his heirs to col­lect over­due rents re­sult­ing in dis­tur­bances which ne­ces­si­tat­ed the call­ing out of the mili­tia, spread in­to sev­er­al coun­ties where there were large land­ed es­tates, and were not en­tire­ly set­tled un­til 1847.

See William Barnes, The Set­tle­ment and Ear­ly His­to­ry of Al­bany (Al­bany, 1864): J. Mun­sell, The An­nals of Al­bany (10 vols., Al­bany, 1859-1859: 2nd ed., 4 vols., 1869-1871); E. B. O’Callaghan, Doc­umen­tary His­to­ry of the State of New York, vol. iii. (Al­bany, 1850): A. J. Weise, The His­to­ry of the City of Al­bany (Al­bany, 1884); G. R. How­ell and J. Ten­ney, Bi-​cen­ten­ni­al His­to­ry of Al­bany (New York, 1886); Amasa I. Park­er, Land­marks of Al­bany Coun­ty (Syra­cuse, 1897); and Cuyler Reynolds, Al­bany Chron­icles; or Al­bany May­ors anid Con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous Chronol­ogy (Al­bany, 1907).

AL­BANY, a mu­nic­ipal town in the coun­ty of Plan­ta­genet, West Aus­tralia, on Princess Roy­al Har­bour, a branch of King George Sound, 352 m. by rail and 254 m. di­rect­ly S.S.E. of Perth. Pop. (1901) 3650. It is the chief health re­sort of the state, and its cli­mate is one of the finest in Aus­tralia; it has a mean an­nu­al tem­per­ature of 58.6 deg. F., and the sum­mer heat is nev­er ex­ces­sive. One of the fea­tures of the town is the Ma­rine Drive, some 5 1/2 m. in cir­cuit around the hills over­look­ing the har­bour. Al­bany has sev­er­al flour­ish­ing in­dus­tries, of which the chief are brew­ing, coach-​build­ing, print­ing and tan­ning. In ad­di­tion it has the finest har­bour in West Aus­tralia. A pier ex­tends for 1700 ft. in­to the sea, giv­ing safe ac­com­mo­da­tion to the large steam­ers which call at the port. The Great South­ern rail­way has a line to the sea­ward end of the pier, and af­fords di­rect com­mu­ni­ca­tion with the in­te­ri­or of the colony. The har­bour is pro­tect­ed by forts and there is a gar­ri­son in the town. King George Sound, of which Al­bany is the town­ship, was first oc­cu­pied in 1826 and a pe­nal set­tle­ment was es­tab­lished. No at­tempt was made to col­onize the lo­cal­ity un­til af­ter this set­tle­ment was giv­en up in 1831. Al­bany be­came a mu­nic­ipal­ity in 1871.

AL­BATEG­NIUS (c. 850–929), an Arab prince and as­tronomer, cor­rect­ly des­ig­nat­ed Ma­hommed ben Gebir al Batani, his sur­name be­ing de­rived from his na­tive town, Batan in Mesopotamia. From his ob­ser­va­tions at Ar­acte and Dam­as­cus, where he died, he was able to cor­rect some of Ptole­my’s re­sults, pre­vi­ous­ly tak­en on trust. He com­piled new ta­bles of the sun and moon, long ac­cept­ed as au­thor­ita­tive, dis­cov­ered the move­ment of the sun’s apogee, and as­signed to an­nu­al pre­ces­sion the im­proved val­ue of 55” Per­haps in­de­pen­dent­ly of Aryab­hat­ta (born at Patal­ipu­tra on the Ganges 476 A.D.), he in­tro­duced the use of sines in cal­cu­la­tion, and par­tial­ly that of tan­gents. His prin­ci­pal work, De Mo­tu Stel­larum, was pub­lished at Nurem­berg in 1537 by Melanchthon, in a blun­der­ing Latin trans­la­tion by Pla­to Tiburt­inus (fl. 1116), an­no­tat­ed by Re­giomon­tanus. A reprint ap­peared at Bologna in 1645. The orig­inal MS. is pre­served at the Vat­ican; and the Es­co­ri­al li­brary pos­sess­es in MS. a trea­tise of some val­ue by him on as­tro­nom­ical chronol­ogy. Al­bateg­nius takes the high­est rank among Arab as­tronomers.

See Houzeau, Bib­li­ogra­phie as­tronomique, i. 467; M. Marie, His­toire des sci­ences, ii. 113; R. Wolf, Geschichte der As­tronomie, p. 67; De­lam­bre, Hist. de l’as­tr. au moyen age, ch. ii.; Phil. Trans. 1693 (913), where E. Hal­ley sup­plies cor­rec­tions to some of the ob­ser­va­tions record­ed in De Mo­tu Stel­larum.

AL­BA­TROSS (from the Port. Al­ca­traz, a pel­ican), the name of a genus of aquat­ic birds (Diomedea), close­ly al­lied to the pe­trels, and be­long­ing, like them, to the or­der Tubina­res. In the name Diomedea, as­signed to them by Lin­naeus, there is a ref­er­ence to the myth­ical meta­mor­pho­sis of the com­pan­ions of the Greek war­rior Diomedes in­to birds. The beak is large, strong and sharp-​edged, the up­per mandible ter­mi­nat­ing in a large hook; the wings are nar­row and very long; the feet have no hind toe, and the three an­te­ri­or toes are com­plete­ly webbed. The best known is the com­mon or wan­der­ing al­ba­tross (D. ex­ulans), which oc­curs in all parts of the South­ern Ocean. It is the largest and strongest of all sea-​birds. The length of the body is stat­ed at 4 ft., and the weight at from 15 to 25 lb. . It some­times mea­sures as much as 17 ft. be­tween the tips of the ex­tend­ed, wings, av­er­ag­ing prob­ably from 10 to 12 ft. Its strength of wing is very great. It of­ten ac­com­pa­nies a ship for days–not mere­ly fol­low­ing it, but wheel­ing in wide cir­cles round it—with­out ev­er be­ing ob­served to alight on the wa­ter. and con­tin­ues its flight, ap­par­ent­ly un­tired, in tem­pes­tu­ous as well as in mod­er­ate weath­er. It has even been said to sleep on the wing, and Moore al­ludes to this fan­ci­ful “cloud-​rocked slum­ber­ing” in his Fire Wor­ship­pers. It feeds on small fish and on the an­imal refuse that floats on the sea, eat­ing to such ex­cess at times that it is un­able to fiy and rests help­less­ly on the wa­ter. The colour of the bird is white, the back be­ing streaked trans­verse­ly with black or brown bands, and the wings dark. Sailors cap­ture the bird for its long wing-​bones, which they man­ufac­ture in­to to­bac­co-​pipe stems. The al­ba­tross lays one egg; it is white, with a few spots, and is about 4 in. long. In breed­ing-​time the bird re­sorts to soli­tary is­land groups, like the Crozet Is­lands and the el­evat­ed Tris­tan da Cun­ha, where it has its nest–a nat­ural hol­low or a cir­cle of earth rough­ly scraped to­geth­er–on the open ground. The ear­ly ex­plor­ers of the great South­ern Sea cheered them­selves with the com­pan­ion­ship of the al­ba­tross in its drea­ry soli­tudes; and the evil hap of him who shot with his cross-​bow the bird of good omen is fa­mil­iar to read­ers of Co­leridge’s Rime of the An­cient Mariner. Sev­er­al species of al­ba­tross are known; for the small­er forms see MALLE­MUCK.

AL­BAY, a city and the cap­ital of the province of Al­bay, Lu­zon, Philip­pine Is­lands, near an in­let on the W. shore of the Gulf of Al­bay, 215 m. by wag­on-​road S.E. of Mani­la. Pop. (1903) 14,049; in Oc­to­ber 1907 the towns of Dara­ga (pop. 1903, 18,695) and Legaspi (pop. 1903, 9206) were merged with Al­bay, mak­ing its to­tal pop­ula­tion, on the ba­sis of the 1903 cen­sus, 41,950. Al­bay is one of the most im­por­tant cities of the Philip­pine Is­lands. It is built on lev­el ground near the S. base of Mount May­on, a beau­ti­ful vol­canic peak, 7916 ft. high, from which it is shel­tered by the Lin­guin hills. The sur­round­ing coun­try is one of the most im­por­tant hemp-​pro­duc­ing dis­tricts in the Philip­pines; sina­may is wo­ven here, and large quan­ti­ties of hemp are shipped from here to Mani­la. Co­coa, co­pra, sug­ar and sweet pota­toes are oth­er im­por­tant prod­ucts of the dis­trict. The lan­guage is Bi­col. The old town, called Cagsaua, which stood a short dis­tance E.N.E. of the new, was com­plete­ly de­stroyed by an erup­tion of the vol­cano in 1814 (about 1200 peo­ple be­ing killed), and the new town was al­most en­tire­ly de­stroyed by the in­sur­gents in Febru­ary 1900, an an­cient stone church of much beau­ty (in what was for­mer­ly Dara­ga) be­ing left stand­ing on an el­evat­ed site com­mand­ing a view of the sur­round­ing coun­try. The town was re­built on a larg­er scale by Amer­icans.

ALBE­DO (from Lat. al­bus, white), “white­ness,” a word used prin­ci­pal­ly in as­tron­omy for the de­gree of re­flect­ed light; the light of the sun which is re­flect­ed from the moon is called the albe­do of the moon.

ALBE­MAR­LE, EARLS AND DUKES OF. The name Albe­mar­le, which now forms the ti­tle of the earl­dom held by the En­glish fam­ily of Kep­pel, is an ear­ly vari­ant of the French Au­male (Lat. Al­ba dlar­la), oth­er forms be­ing Aube­mar­le and Aumer­le, and is de­scribed in the patent of no­bil­ity grant­ed in 1696-1697 by William III. to Arnold Joost van Kep­pel as “a town and ter­ri­to­ry in the duke­dom of Nor­mandy.”

The fief of Au­male (q. v.) was grant­ed by the arch­bish­op of Rouen to Odo of Cham­pagne, broth­er-​in-​law of William the Con­queror, who erect­ed it in­to a countship. On Odo’s death his son Stephen suc­ceed­ed not on­ly to the countship of Au­male, but to the lord­ships of Hold­er­ness, of Bytham in Lin­colnshire, &c., which were sub­se­quent­ly known as the “Fee and Hon­or of Albe­mar­le.” Stephen, who as a cru­sad­er had fought valiant­ly at An­ti­och, died about 1127, leav­ing by his wife Ha­wise, daugh­ter of Ralph de Mor­timer, a son—William of Blois, known as “le Gros.” William, who dis­tin­guished him­self at the bat­tle of the Stan­dard (1138), and shared with King Stephen in the de­feat of Lin­coln (1141), mar­ried Ci­ce­ly, daugh­ter of William Fitz­Dun­can, grand­son of Mal­colm, king of Scot­land, who as “la­dy of Hare­wood” brought him vast es­tates. He found­ed abbeys at Meaux in Hold­er­ness and at Thorn­ton, and died in 1179. His el­der daugh­ter and heiress Ha­wise mar­ried (1) William de Man­dev­ille, 3rd earl of Es­sex (d. 1189), (2) William de Fort­ibus (de Fors, de Fortz or des Forts1), (3) Bald­win de Be­tun or Bethune, all of whom bore the ti­tle of earls of Albe­mar­le.

Soon af­ter the death­pf Bald­win (Oc­to­ber 13, 1213), William de Fort­ibus, Ha­wise’s son by her sec­ond hus­band, was es­tab­lished by King John in the ter­ri­to­ries of the countship of Albe­mar­le, and in 1215 the whole of his moth­er’s es­tates were for­mal­ly con­firmed to him. He is de­scribed by Bish­op Stubbs as “a feu­dal ad­ven­tur­er of the worst type,” and for some time was ac­tive­ly en­gaged in the strug­gles of the Nor­man barons against John and Hen­ry III. He was one of the twen­ty-​five ex­ecu­tors of the Great Char­ter; but in the war that fol­lowed sid­ed with John, sub­se­quent­ly chang­ing sides as of­ten as it suit­ed his pol­icy. His ob­ject was to re­vive the in­de­pen­dent pow­er of the feu­dal barons, and he co-​op­er­at­ed to this end with Falkes de Breaute (q.v.) and oth­er for­eign ad­ven­tur­ers es­tab­lished in the coun­try by John. This brought him in­to con­flict with the great jus­ti­ciar, Hu­bert de Burgh, and in 1219 he was de­clared a rebel and ex­com­mu­ni­cat­ed for at­tend­ing a for­bid­den tour­na­ment. In 1220 mat­ters were brought to a cri­sis by his re­fusal to sur­ren­der the two roy­al cas­tles of Rock­ing­ham and Sauvey of which he had been made con­sta­ble in 1216. Hen­ry III. marched against them in per­son, the gar­risons fled, and they fell with­out a blow. In the fol­low­ing year, how­ev­er, Albe­mar­le, in face of fur­ther ef­forts to re­duce his pow­er, rose in re­volt. He was now again ex­com­mu­ni­cat­ed by the legate Pan­dulph at a solemn coun­cil held in St Paul’s, and the whole force of the king­dom was set in mo­tion against him, a spe­cial scu­tage-​the “scu­tag­ium de Bi­han”—be­ing vot­ed for this pur­pose by the Great Coun­cil. The cap­ture of his cas­tle of Bytham broke his pow­er; he sought sanc­tu­ary and, at Pan­dulph’s in­ter­ces­sion, was par­doned on con­di­tion of go­ing for six years to the Holy Land. He re­mained in Eng­land, how­ev­er, and in 1223 was once more in re­volt with Falkes de Breaute, the earl of Chester and oth­er tur­bu­lent spir­its. A rec­on­cil­ia­tion was once more patched up; but it was not un­til the fall of Falkes de Breaute that Albe­mar­le fi­nal­ly set­tled down as an En­glish no­ble. In 1225 he wit­nessed Hen­ry’s third re-​is­sue of the Great Char­ter; in 1227 he went as am­bas­sador to Antwerp; and in 1230 he ac­com­pa­nied Hen­ry on his ex­pe­di­tion to Brit­tany. In 1241 he set out for the Holy Land, but died at sea, on his way there, on the 26th of March 1242. By his wife Aveli­na of Mont­fichet, William left a son, al­so named William, who mar­ried (1) Christi­na (d. 1246), daugh­ter and co-​heiress of Alan, lord of Gal­loway, (2) in 1248 Is­abel­la de Red­vers (1237-1292-3), daugh­ter of Bald­win de Red­vers, earl of De­von and lord of the Isle of Wight. He played a con­spic­uous part in the reign of Hen­ry III., no­tably in the Mad Par­lia­ment of 1258, and died at Amiens in 1260. His wid­ow, Is­abel­la, on the death of her broth­er Bald­win, 8th earl of De­von, in 1261, cailed her­self count­ess of De­von. She had two chil­dren, Thomas, who died in 1269 un­mar­ried, and Aveli­na, who mar­ried (1269) Ed­mund Plan­ta­genet, earl of Lan­cast­er, and died with­out is­sue in 1274. The “Hon­or of Albe­mar­le” was claimed, in 1278, by John de Es­ton, or As­ton, as heir of Am­icia, younger daugh­ter of William le Gros; but he re­leased his right to the earl­dom of Albe­mar­le to the crown in ex­change for cer­tain lands in Thorn­ton.

The ti­tle of Albe­mar­le, thus ex­tin­guished, was sev­er­al times re­vived be­fore it be­came at­tached to the fam­ily of its present hold­ers. In 1385 Thomas of Wood­stock, duke of Glouces­ter, was sum­moned to pa­di­ament as “duke of Albe­mar­le,” but he seems nev­er sub­se­quent­ly to have used the ti­tle. In any case this cre­ation be­came ex­tinct with the death of his son Humphrey, duke of Glouces­ter, in 1399. In 1411 Thomas Plan­ta­genet, sec­ond son of Hen­ry IV., was cre­at­ed earl of Albe­mar­le and duke of Clarence, but at his death at the bat­tle of Beauge (March 22, 1421) these hon­ours be­came ex­tinct. That of Albe­mar­le was, how­ev­er, soon re­vived (c. 1423) in favour of Richard de Beauchamp, earl of War­wick, whose ti­tle of earl of Aumer­le, how­ev­er, died with him.

In 1660 Charles II. be­stowed the ti­tle of duke of Albe­mar­le on Gen­er­al Monk (q.v..) Monk’s hered­itary claim to this semiroy­al peer­age was a very shad­owy one, be­ing based–as was al­so his sub­or­di­nate style of Baron Beauchamp—on his de­scent from the youngest of the three co-​heiress­es of Richard, earl of War­wick, and, with yet more re­mote ap­pli­ca­bil­ity, on that from Arthur Plan­ta­genet, a nat­ural son of Ed­ward IV. The ti­tle be­came ex­tinct in 1688, on the death of Christo­pher, 2nd duke of Albe­mar­le.

Fi­nal­ly, as men­tioned above, the ti­tle of earl of Albe­mar­le was be­stowed by William III., with­out any shad­ow of hered­itary claim, on his Dutch favourite Arnold Joost van Kep­pel (see be­low), by whose de­scen­dants it is still held. The mo­tive for choos­ing this ti­tle was prob­ably that, apart from its dig­ni­fied tra­di­tions, it avoid­ed the dif­fi­cul­ty cre­at­ed by the fact that the Kep­pels had as yet no ter­ri­to­ri­al pos­ses­sions in the British Is­lands.

ARNOLD JOOST VAN KEP­PEL, 1st earl of Albe­mar­le, and lord of Voorst in Gelder­land (c. 1670-1718), son of Os­wald van Kep­pel and his wife An­na Geertru­id van Lin­tel­lo, was born in Hol­land about 1670. He be­came page to William III., ac­com­pa­nied him to Eng­land in 1688, and was made groom of the bed-​cham­ber and mas­ter of the robes in 1695. On the 10th of Febru­ary 1696f7 he was cre­at­ed earl of Albe­mar­le, Vis­count Bury and Baron Ash­ford. In 1700 William gave him lands of enor­mous ex­tent in Ire­land, but par­lia­ment obliged the king to can­cel this grant, and William then be­stowed on him L. 50,000. The same year he was made a knight of the Garter. Mean­while he had served both with the En­glish and Dutch troops, was ma­jor-​gen­er­al in 1697, colonel of sev­er­al reg­iments and gov­er­nor of Bois-​le-​Duc. Of hand­some per­son and en­gag­ing dis­po­si­tion, he ri­valled Port­land, whose jeal­ousy he aroused in the roy­al favour, pos­sessed William’s full con­fi­dence and ac­com­pa­nied him ev­ery­where. In Febru­ary 1702 he was sent by William. then pros­trat­ed with his last ill­ness, to Hol­land to ar­range the com­ing cam­paign, and on­ly re­turned in time to re­ceive William’s last com­mis­sions on his deathbed. Af­ter the death ofthe lat­ter, who be­queathed to him 200,000 guilders and some lands, he re­turned to Hol­land, took his seat as a no­ble in the states-​gen­er­al, and was made a gen­er­al of horse in the Dutch army. He joined the forces of the al­lies in 1703, was present at Ramil­lies in 1706 and at Oudenarde in 1708, and dis­tin­guished him­self at the siege of Lille. He com­mand­ed at the siege of Aire in 1710, led Marl­bor­ough’s sec­ond line in 1711, and was gen­er­al of the Dutch forces in 1712, be­ing de­feat­ed at De­nain af­ter the with­draw­al of Or­monde and the En­glish forces and tak­en pris­on­er. He died on the 30th of May 1718, aged 48. He mar­ried Geertru­id, daugh­ter of Adam van der Deni­jn, by whom, be­sides a daugh­ter, he had a son, William Anne, who suc­ceed­ed him as 2nd earl of Albe­mar­le.

Of the lat­er earls men­tion need on­ly be made of the sixth, GEORGE THOMAS KEP­PEL (1799–1891), British gen­er­al, sec­ond son of the fourth earl, born on the 13th of June 1799. Ed­ucat­ed at West­min­ster School he en­tered the army as en­sign, 14th Foot, in 1815. He joined his reg­iment in Bel­gium and took part in the Wa­ter­loo cam­paign and the march to Paris, joined the sec­ond bat­tal­ion in Cor­fu, and was trans­ferred to the 22nd Foot, with which he served in Mau­ri­tius and at the Cape, re­turn­ing home in 1819, when he was ap­point­ed equer­ry to the duke of Sus­sex. Pro­mot­ed to a lieu­tenan­cy in the 24th Foot, he was trans­ferred to the 20th Foot, and went to In­dia, where he was aide-​de-​camp to the mar­quess of Hast­ings un­til his res­ig­na­tion in 1823, when Kep­pel re­turned to Eng­land, trav­el­ling over­land through Per­sia, Moscow and St Pe­ters­burg. He pub­lished in 1825 an ac­count of his trav­els, en­ti­tled Jour­ney from In­dia to Eng­land. He was aide-​de-​camp to the Mar­quess Welles­ley, lord-​lieu­tenant of Ire­land, for two years, was pro­mot­ed cap­tain in the 62nd Foot, stud­ied in the se­nior de­part­ment of the Roy­al Mil­itary Col­lege at Sand­hurst, and in 1827 ob­tained a half-​pay unattached ma­jor­ity. He did not again serve on full pay, but rose to be a gen­er­al. In 1829 he vis­it­ed the seat of the Rus­so-​Turk­ish war and was with the British fleet in Turk­ish wa­ters. In 1832 he was re­turned in the Whig in­ter­est to the first re­formed par­lia­ment as mem­ber for East Nor­folk and sat un­til 1835. He was pri­vate sec­re­tary to the pre­mier, Lord John Rus­sell, in 1846, and M.P. for Lyming­ton from 1847 to 1849. He suc­ceed­ed to the ti­tle on the death of his broth­er in 1851. He died in 1891 and was buried at Quiden­ham, Nor­folk. He wrote an ac­count of a Jour­ney across the Balka­ns, Mem­oirs of the Mar­quis of Rock­ing­ham, and an au­to­big­ra­phy en­ti­tled Fifty Years of My Life.

See G. E. C(ock­ayne), Com­plete Peer­age, 8 vols. (Lon­don, 1887). For the two Williams de Fort­ibus, see s.v. Prof. T. F. Tout’s ar­ti­cles in the Dict. of Nat. Biog.

1 The name was de­rived from Fors, a com­mune in the can­ton of Pra­hecq in Poitou. It is spelt Forz in a deed of 1233, and the best ver­nac­ular form is, ac­cord­ing to Thomas Sta­ple­ton (Pref­ace to the Liber de An­tiq­ui­tate, Cam­den Soc., 1846, p. xxxiv. note), de Fortz.

AL­BEN­GA, a town and epis­co­pal see of Lig­uria, Italy, on the N.W. coast of the Gulf of Genoa, in the province of Genoa, 521 m. S.W. of Genoa by rail. Pop. (1901) 6248. Al­ben­ga is the an­cient Al­bum In­gaunum or Al­bingaunum, the chief town of the In­gau­ni, one of the most im­por­tant of the Lig­uri­an tribes, whose ter­ri­to­ry reached as far as Genoa. Un­der the em­pire it was a mu­nicpi­um; an in­scrip­tion records the restora­tion of the walls, fo­rum, har­bour, &c., by Con­stan­tius A.D. 354. A lit­tle way out­side the town to the E. is a well-​pre­served Ro­man bridge near­ly 500 ft. long and 11 1/2 ft. wide, with IO arch­es, each with a span of 37 ft. It be­longed to the coast road and is now known as Ponte Lun­go. To the S. of the town is a con­spic­uous mon­ument, 27 ft. high, in the form of a rect­an­gu­lar pil­lar, re­sem­bling a tomb; but as there is no trace of a door to a sepul­chral cham­ber it may be a shrine. In the town it­self there are no Ro­man re­mains; but there is a good Goth­ic cathe­dral in brick, and an in­ter­est­ing oc­tag­onal bap­tis­tery, at­tribut­ed to the 8th or oth cen­tu­ry, the arch­es be­ing sup­port­ed by an­cient columns, and the vault­ing dec­orat­ed with mo­saics. Some of the me­dieval palaces of Al­ben­ga have lofty brick tow­ers.

See A. d’An­drade in Re­lazione dell’ Uf­fi­cio Re­gionale per la Con­ser­vazione dei mon­umen­ti del Piemonte e del­la Lig­uria (Turin, 1899), 114 seq.

AL­BERONI, GIULIO (1664-1752), Span­ish–Ital­ian car­di­nal and states­man, was born near Pi­acen­za, prob­ably at the vil­lage of Fioren­zuo­la, on the 31st of May 1664. His fa­ther was a gar­den­er, and he him­self be­came first con­nect­ed with the church in the hum­ble po­si­tion of verg­er in the cathe­dral of Pi­acen­za. Hav­ing gained the favour of Bish­op Barni he took priest’s or­ders, and af­ter­wards ac­com­pa­nied the son of his pa­tron to Rome. Dur­ing the war of the Span­ish suc­ces­sion Al­beroni laid the foun­da­tion of his po­lit­ical suc­cess by the ser­vices he ren­dered to the duke of Ven­dome, com­man­der of the French forces in Italy; and when these forces were re­called in 1706 he ac­com­pa­nied the duke to Paris, where he was favourably re­ceived by Louis XIV. In 1711 he fol­lowed Ven­dome in­to Spain as his sec­re­tary. Two years lat­er, the duke hav­ing died in the in­ter­val, Al­beroni was ap­point­ed con­sular agent for Par­ma at the court of Philip V. of Spain, be­ing raised at the same time to the dig­ni­ty­of count. On his ar­rival at Madrid he found the princesse des Ursins all but om­nipo­tent with the king, and for a time he judged it ex­pe­di­ent to use her in­flu­ence in car­ry­ing out his plans. In con­cert with her he ar­ranged the king’s mar­riage with Eliz­abeth Far­nese of Par­ma. The in­flu­ence of the new queen be­ing ac­tive­ly ex­ert­ed on Al­beroni’s be­half, he speed­ily rose to high po­si­tion. He was made a mem­ber of the king’s coun­cil, bish­op of Mala­ga, and in 1715 prime min­is­ter, and was raised to the dig­ni­ty of car­di­nal in 1717. His in­ter­nal pol­icy was ex­ceed­ing­ly vig­or­ous. The main pur­pose he put be­fore.him­self was to pro­duce an eco­nom­ic re­vival in Spain by abol­ish­ing in­ter­nal cus­tom-​hous­es, throw­ing open the trade of the In­dies and re­or­ga­niz­ing the fi­nances. With the re­sources thus gained he un­der­took to en­able King Philip V. to car­ry out an am­bi­tious pol­icy both in Italy and in France. The im­pa­tience of the king and his wife gave the min­is­ter no time to ma­ture his plans. By pro­vok­ing Eng­land, France, Hol­land and the Em­pire at once it brought a flood of dis­as­ter on Spain for which Al­beroni was held re­spon­si­ble. On the 5th of De­cem­ber 1719 he was or­dered to leave Spain, Eliz­abeth her­self hav­ing tak­en an ac­tive part in procur­ing the de­cree of ban­ish­ment. He went to Italy, and there had to take refuge among the Apen­nines, Pope Clement XI., who was his bit­ter en­emy, hav­ing giv­en strict or­ders for his ar­rest. On the death of Clement, Al­beroni bold­ly ap­peared at the Con­clave, and took part in the elec­tion of In­no­cent XI­II. (1721), af­ter which he was for a short time im­pris­oned by the pon­tiff on the de­mand of Spain. At the next elec­tion (1724) he was him­self pro­posed for the pa­pal chair, and se­cured ten votes at the Con­clave which elect­ed Bene­dict XI­II. Bene­dict’s suc­ces­sor, Clement XII. (elect­ed 1730), named him legate of Raven­na, in which ca­pac­ity he in­curred the pope’s dis­plea­sure by the strong and un­war­rantable mea­sures he adopt­ed to re­duce the lit­tle re­pub­lic of San Mari­no to sub­jec­tion to Rome. He was con­se­quent­ly re­placed by an­oth­er legate in 1740, and soon af­ter he re­tired to Pi­acen­za. Clement XII. ap­point­ed him ad­min­is­tra­tor of the hos­pi­tal of San Laz­zaro at Pi­acen­za in 1730. The hos­pi­tal was a me­dieval foun­da­tion for the ben­efit of lep­ers. The dis­ease hav­ing dis­ap­peared from Italy, Al­beroni ob­tained the con­sent of the pope to the sup­pres­sion of the hos­pi­tal, which had fall­en in­to great dis­or­der, and re­placed it by a col­lege for the ed­uca­tion of sev­en­ty poor boys for the priest­hood, un­der the name of the Col­le­gio Al­beroni, which it still bears. He died on the 16th of June 1752, leav­ing a sum of 600,000 ducats to en­dow the sem­inary he had found­ed, and the residue of the im­mense wealth he had ac­quired in Spain to his nephew. Al­beroni left a large quan­ti­ty of manuscripts; but the gen­uine­ness of the Po­lit­ical Tes­ta­ment, pub­lished in his name at Lau­sanne in 1753, has been ques­tioned.

An His­toire du Car­di­nal Al­beroni up to 1719 was pub­lished by Jean Rous­set de Mis­sy at the Hague in 1719. A lauda­to­ry life, Sto­ria del Car­di­nale Giulio Al­beroni, was pub­lished by Ste­fano Bersani, a priest ed­ucat­ed at his col­lege, at Pi­acen­za, in 1861. Giulio Al­beroni e il suo se­co­lo, by Gio­van­ni Bianchi (1901), is briefer and more crit­ical. See al­so Let­tres in­times de J. Al­beroni, edit­ed by M. E. Bour­geois (1892).

AL­BERT (1522-1557), prince of Bayreuth, sur­named THE WAR­LIKE, and al­so AL­CIB­IADES, was a son of Casimir, prince of Bayreuth, and a mem­ber of the Fran­co­ni­an branch of the Ho­hen­zollern fam­ily. Born at Ans­bach on the 28th of March 1522, he lost his fa­ther in 1527 and came un­der the guardian­ship of his un­cle George, prince of Ans­bach, a strong ad­her­ent of the re­formed doc­trines. In 1541 he re­ceived Bayreuth as his share of the fam­ily lands, and as the chief town of his prin­ci­pal­ity was Kulm­bach he is some­times re­ferred to as the mar­grave of Bran­den­burg-​Kulm­bach. His rest­less and tur­bu­lent na­ture marked him out for a mil­itary ca­reer; and hav­ing col­lect­ed a small band of sol­diers, he as­sist­ed the em­per­or Charles V. in his war with France in 1543. The peace of Crepy in Septem­ber 1544 de­prived him of this em­ploy­ment, but he had won a con­sid­er­able rep­uta­tion, and when Charles was prepar­ing to at­tack the league of Schmal­ka­lden, he took pains to win Al­bert’s as­sis­tance. Shar­ing in the at­tack on the Sax­on elec­torate, Al­bert was tak­en pris­on­er at Rc­ch­litz in March 1547 by John Fre­deack, elec­tor of Sax­ony, but was re­leased as a re­sult of the em­per­or’s vic­to­ry at Muhlberg in the suc­ceed­ing April. He then fol­lowed the for­tunes of his friend Mau­rice, the new elec­tor of Sax­ony, de­sert­ed Charles, and joined the league which pro­posed to over­throw the em­per­or by an al­liance with Hen­ry II. of France. IIe took part in the sub­se­quent cam­paign, but when the treaty of Pas­sau was signed in Au­gust 1552 he sep­arat­ed him­self from his al­lies and be­gan a cru­sade of plun­der in Fran­co­nia. Hav­ing ex­tort­ed a large sum of mon­ey from the burghers of Nurem­berg, he quar­relled with his sup­port­er, the French king, and of­fered his ser­vices to the em­per­or. Charles, anx­ious to se­cure such a fa­mous fight­er, glad­ly as­sent­ed to Al­bert’s de­mands and gave the im­pe­ri­al sanc­tion to his pos­ses­sion of the lands tak­en from the bish­ops of Wurzburg and Bam­berg; and his con­spic­uous brav­ery was of great val­ue to the em­per­or on the re­treat from Metz in Jan­uary 1553. When Charles left Ger­many a few weeks lat­er, Al­bert re­newed his depre­da­tions in Fran­co­nia. These soon be­came so se­ri­ous that a league was formed to crush him, and Mau­rice of Sax­ony led an army against his for­mer com­rade. The ri­val forces met at Siev­er­shausen on the 9th of Ju­ly 1553, and af­ter a com­bat of un­usu­al fe­roc­ity Al­bert was put to flight. Hen­ry II., duke of Brunswick, then took com­mand of the troops of the league, and af­ter Al­bert had been placed un­der the im­pe­ri­al ban in De­cem­ber 1553 he was de­feat­ed by Duke Hen­ry, and com­pelled to fly to France. He there en­tered the ser­vice of Hen­ry II., and had un­der­tak­en a cam­paign to re­gain his lands when he died at Pforzheim on the 8th of Jan­uary 1557.

See J. Voigt, Mork­graf Al­brecht Al­cib­iades von Bran­den­burgKulm­bach (Berlin, 1852).

AL­BERT I. (c. 1100-1170), mar­grave of Bran­den­burg, sur­named THE BEAR, was the on­ly son of Ot­to the Rich, count of Bal­len­st­edt, and Ei­li­ka, daugh­ter of Mag­nus Bil­lung, duke of Sax­ony. He in­her­it­ed the valu­able Sax­on es­tates of his fa­ther in 1123, and on his moth­er’s death, in 1142, suc­ceed­ed to one-​half of the lands of the Bil­lungs. About 1123 he re­ceived from Lothair, duke of Sax­ony, the mar­gravi­ate of Lusa­tia, and, af­ter Lothair be­came Ger­man king, ac­com­pa­nied him on the dis­as­trous ex­pe­di­tion to Bo­hemia in 1126, when he suf­fered a short im­pris­on­ment. In 1128 his broth­er7in-​law, Hen­ry II., mar­grave of the Sax­on north mark, died, and Al­bert, dis­ap­point­ed at not re­ceiv­ing this fief, at­tacked Udo, the suc­ceed­ing mar­grave, and was con­se­quent­ly de­prived of Lusa­tia by Lothair. In spite of this, he went to Italy in 1132 in the train of the king, and his ser­vices there were re­ward­ed, in 1134, by the in­vesti­ture of the north mark, which was again with­out a ruler. For three years he was oc­cu­pied in cam­paigns against the Wends, and by an ar­range­ment made with Pribis­laus, duke of Bran­den­burg, Al­bert se­cured this dis­trict when the duke died in 1150. Tak­ing the ti­tle mar­grave of Bran­den­burg, he pressed the war­fare against the Wends, ex­tend­ed the area of his mark, did much for the spread of Chris­tian­ity and civ­iliza­tion there­in, and so be­came the founder of the mar­gravi­ate of Bran­den­burg. In 1137 his cousin, Hen­ry the Proud, had been de­prived by King Con­rad III. of his Sax­on duchy, which was giv­en to Al­bert. Af­ter meet­ing with some suc­cess in his ef­forts to take pos­ses­sion, he was driv­en from Sax­ony, and al­so from his mark by Hen­ry, and com­pelled to take refuge in South Ger­many, and when peace was made in 1142 he re­nounced the Sax­on duke­dom and re­ceived the coun­ties of Weimar and Or­la­munde. It was pos­si­bly at this time that Al­bert was made arch-​cham­ber­lain of the Em­pire, an of­fice which af­ter­wards gave the mar­graves of Bran­den­burg the rights of an elec­tor. A feud with Hen­ry the Li­on, duke of Sax­ony, was fol­lowed, in 1158, by a pil­grim­age to the Holy Land, and in 1162 Al­bert ac­com­pa­nied the em­per­or Fred­er­ick I. to Italy, and dis­tin­guished him­self at the storm­ing of Mi­lan. In 1164 he joined a league of princes formed against Hen­ry the Li­on, and peace be­ing made in 1169, Al­bert di­vid­ed his ter­ri­to­ries among his six sons, and died on the 13th of Novem­ber 1170, and was buried at Bal­len­stadt. His per­son­al qual­ities won for him the sur­name of “the Bear,” and he is al­so called by lat­er writ­ers “the Hand­some.”

See L. von Heine­mann, Al­brecht der Bar (Darm­stadt, 1864). AL­BERT III. (1414–1486), elec­tor of Bran­den­burg, sur­named ACHILLES be­cause of his knight­ly qual­ities, was the third son of Fred­er­ick I. of Ho­hen­zollern, elec­tor of Bran­den­burg, and was born at Tanger­munde on the 9th of Novem­ber 1414. Af­ter pass­ing some time at the court of the em­per­or Sigis­mund, he took part in the war against the Hus­sites, and af­ter­wards dis­tin­guished him­self whilst as­sist­ing the Ger­man king, Al­bert II., against the Poles. On the di­vi­sion of ter­ri­to­ry which fol­lowed his fa­ther’s death in 1440, Al­bert re­ceived the prin­ci­pal­ity of Ans­bach; and al­though his re­sources were very mea­gre he soon took a lead­ing place among the Ger­man princes, and was es­pe­cial­ly promi­nent in re­sist­ing the at­tempts of the towns to ob­tain self-​gov­ern­ment. In 1443 he formed a league di­rect­ed main­ly against Nurem­berg, over which town mem­bers of his fam­ily had for­mer­ly ex­er­cised the rights of bur­grave. It was not un­til 1448, how­ev­er, that he found a pre­text for at­tack, and the war which last­ed un­til 1453 end­ed in a vic­to­ry for the Nurem­berg­ers, and the recog­ni­tion of their in­de­pen­dence. He sup­port­ed the em­per­or Fred­er­ick III. in his strug­gle with the princes who de­sired re-​forms in Oier­many, and in re­turn for this loy­al­ty re­ceived many marks of favour from Fred­er­ick, in­clud­ing ex­ten­sive ju­di­cial rights which aroused con­sid­er­able ir­ri­ta­tion among neigh­bour­ing rulers. In 1457 he ar­ranged a mar­riage be­tween his el­dest son John, and Mar­garet, daugh­ter of William III., land­grave of Thuringia, who in­her­it­ed the claims up­on Hun­gary and Bo­hemia of her moth­er, a grand­daugh­ter of the em­per­or Sigis­mund. The at­tempt to se­cure these thrones for the Ho­hen­zollerns through this mar­riage failed, and a sim­ilar fate be­fell Al­bert’s ef­forts to re­vive in his own favour the dis­used. ti­tle of duke of Fran­co­nia. The sharp dis­sen­sions which ex­ist­ed among the princes over the ques­tion of re­form cul­mi­nat­ed in open war­fare in 1460, when Al­bert was con­front­ed with a league un­der the lead­er­ship of the elec­tor pala­tine, Fred­er­ick I., and Louis IX. (the Rich), duke of Bavaria-​Land­shut. Worsted in this strug­gle, which was con­clud­ed in 1462, Al­bert made an al­liance with his for­mer en­emy, George Pode­brad, king of Bo­hemia, a step which caused Pope Paul II. to place him un­der the ban.

In 1470 Al­bert, who had in­her­it­ed Bayreuth on the death of his broth­er John in 1464, be­came elec­tor of Bran­den­burg ow­ing to the ab­di­ca­tion of his re­main­ing broth­er, the elec­tor Fred­er­ick II. He was soon ac­tive­ly en­gaged in its ad­min­is­tra­tion, and by the treaty of Pren­zlau in 1472 he brought Pomera­nia al­so un­der his suprema­cy. Hav­ing es­tab­lished his right to levy a ton­nage on wines in the mark, he is­sued in Febru­ary 1473 the im­por­tant dis­po­si­tio Achil­lea, which de­creed that the mark of Bran­den­burg should de­scend in its en­tire­ty to the el­dest son, while the younger sons should re­ceive the Fran­co­ni­an pos­ses­sions of the fam­ily. Af­ter treat­ing in vain for a mar­riage be­tween one of his sons and Mary, daugh­ter and heiress of Charles the Bold, duke of Bur­gundy, Al­bert hand­ed over the gov­ern­ment of Bran­den­burg to his el­dest son John, and re­turned to his Fran­co­ni­an pos­ses­sions. In 1474 he mar­ried his daugh­ter Bar­bara to Hen­ry XI., duke of Glo­gau, who left his pos­ses­sions on his death in 1476 to his wid­ow with re­ver­sion to her fam­ily, an ar­range­ment which was re­sist­ed by Hen­rv’s kins­man, John II., duke of Sagan. Aid­ed by Matthias Corv­inus, king of Hun­gary, John in­vad­ed Bran­den­burg, and the Pomera­ni­ans seized the op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­volt. Un­der these cir­cum­stances Al­bert re­turned to Bran­den­burg in 1478, com­pelled the Pomera­ni­ans to own his suprema­cy, and af­ter a stub­born strug­gle se­cured a part of Duke Hen­ry’s lands for his daugh­ter in 1482. His main at­ten­tion was af­ter­wards claimed by the busi­ness of the Em­pire, and soon af­ter tak­ing part in the elec­tion of Max­im­il­ian as king of the Ro­mans he died at Frank­fort on the 11th of March 1486. He left a con­sid­er­able amount of trea­sure. His first wife was Mar­garet of Baden, by whom he had six chil­dren; and his sec­ond was Anne of Sax­ony, by whom he had thir­teen.

Al­bert was a man of re­lent­less en­er­gy and bound­less am­bi­tion, who by rea­son of his phys­ical and in­tel­lec­tu­al qual­ities was one of the most promi­nent princes of the 15th cen­tu­ry.

See Das kaiser­liche Buch des Mark­grafen Al­brecht Achilles, Fer­kur­furstliche Pe­ri­ode, 1440-1470, edit­ed by C. Hofler (Bayreuth, 1850); Kur­furstliche Pe­ri­ode, edit­ed by J. von Min­utoli (Berlin, 1850); Quel­len­samm­lung zur Geschichte des Haus­es Ho­hen­zollern, Band I., edit­ed by C. A. H. Burkhardt (Je­na, 1857); O. Franklin, Al­brecht Achilles und die Nurem­berg­er, 1444-1453 (Berlin, 1866); Poli­tis­che Ko­rre­spon­denz des Kur­fursten Al­brecht Achilles, 1486, edit­ed by F. Priebatsch (Leipzig, 1894-1898); J. G. Droy­sen, Geschichte der preussis­chen Poli­tik (Berlin, 1835-1886).

AL­BERT (FRAN­CIS CHARLES AU­GUS­TUS AL­BERT EM­MANUEL) (1819-1861), prince-​con­sort of Eng­land, was born at Bose­nau on the 26th of Au­gust 1819. He was the sec­ond son of the hered­itary duke of Saxe-​Coburg-​Gotha (be­long­ing to the Ernes­tine or el­der branch of the roy­al fam­ily of Sax­ony) by his first wife, the princess Louise of Saxe-​Gotha-​Al­tenburg (d. 1831), from whom the duke was sep­arat­ed in 1824. His fa­ther’s sis­ter mar­ried the duke of Kent, and her daugh­ter, af­ter­wards Queen Vic­to­ria of Eng­land, Prince Al­bert’s wife, was thus his first cousin. They were born in the same year. Al­bert and his el­der broth­er, Ernest, were close com­pan­ions in youth, and were ed­ucat­ed un­der the care of Con­sis­to­ri­al­rath Florschutz, sub­se­quent­ly pro­ceed­ing to the uni­ver­si­ty of Bonn. There Prince Al­bert de­vot­ed him­self es­pe­cial­ly to nat­ural sci­ence, po­lit­ical econ­omy and phi­los­ophy, hav­ing for teach­ers such men as Fichte, Schlegel and Perthes; he dili­gent­ly cul­ti­vat­ed mu­sic and paint­ing, and ex­celled in gym­nas­tic ex­er­cis­es, es­pe­cial­ly in fenc­ing. The idea of a mar­riage be­tween him and his cousin Vic­to­ria had al­ways been cher­ished by their un­cle, King Leopold I. of Bel­gium, and in May 1836 the duke of Saxe-​Coburg-​Gotha and his two sons paid a vis­it to Kens­ing­ton Palace, where Princess Vic­to­ria, as she then was, lived, for the pur­pose of mak­ing ac­quain­tance for the first time. The vis­it was by no means to the taste of King William IV., who dis­ap­proved of the match and favoured Prince Alexan­der of Or­ange. But Leopold’s plan was known to Princess Vic­to­ria, and William’s ob­jec­tions were fruit­less. Princess Vic­to­ria, writ­ing to her un­cle Leopold (May 23, 1836), said that Al­bert was “ex­treme­ly hand­some”; and (June 7) thanked him for the “prospect of great hap­pi­ness you have con­tribut­ed to give me in the per­son of dear Al­bert. He pos­sess­es ev­ery qual­ity that could be de­sired to ren­der me per­fect­ly hap­py.’, No for­mal en­gage­ment was en­tered in­to, but the sit­ua­tion was pri­vate­ly un­der­stood as one which in time would nat­ural­ly de­vel­op. Af­ter the queen came to the throne, her let­ters show her in­ter­est in Al­bert’s be­ing ed­ucat­ed for the part he would have to play. In the win­ter of 1838-1839 the prince trav­elled in Italy, ac­com­pa­nied by Baron Stock­mar, for­mer­ly Leopold’s doc­tor and pri­vate sec­re­tary, and now the queen’s con­fi­den­tial ad­vis­er. On the 10th of Oc­to­ber 1839 he and Ernest went again to Eng­land to vis­it the queen, with the ob­ject of fi­nal­ly set­tling the mar­riage. Mu­tu­al in­cli­na­tion and af­fec­tion at once brought about the de­sired re­sult. They be­came def­inite­ly en­gaged on the 15th of Oc­to­ber, and on the 10th of Febru­ary 1840 the mar­riage was cel­ebrat­ed at the chapel-​roy­al, St James’s.

The po­si­tion in which the prince was placed by his mar­riage, while it was one of dis­tin­guished hon­our, was al­so one of con­sid­er­able dif­fi­cul­ty; and dur­ing his life­time the tact­ful way in which he filled it was very in­ad­equate­ly ap­pre­ci­at­ed. The pub­lic life of the prince-​con­sort can­not be sep­arat­ed from that of the queen, and it is un­nec­es­sary here to re­peat such de­tails as are giv­en in the ar­ti­cle on her (see VIC­TO­RIA, QUEEN.) The prej­udice against him, on ac­count of what was re­gard­ed as un­due in­flu­ence in pol­itics, was nev­er ful­ly dis­si­pat­ed till af­ter his death. His co-​op­er­ation with the queen in deal­ing with the po­lit­ical re­spon­si­bil­ities which de­volved up­on the sovereign rep­re­sent­ed an amount of con­sci­en­tious and self-​sac­ri­fic­ing labour which can­not eas­ily be ex­ag­ger­at­ed; and his wis­dom in coun­cil could on­ly be re­al­ized, out­side a very small cir­cle, when in lat­er years the ma­te­ri­als for the his­to­ry of that time be­came ac­ces­si­ble. He was in­deed a man of cul­tured and lib­er­al ideas, well qual­ified to take the lead in many re­forms which the Eng­land of that day sore­ly need­ed. He was spe­cial­ly in­ter­est­ed in en­deav­ours to se­cure the more per­fect ap­pli­ca­tion of sci­ence and art to man­ufac­tur­ing in­dus­try. The Great Ex­hi­bi­tion of 1851 orig­inat­ed in a sug­ges­tion he made at a meet­ing of the So­ci­ety of Arts, and owed the greater part of its suc­cess to his in­tel­li­gent and un­wea­ried ef­forts. He had to work for its re­al­iza­tion against an ex­traor­di­nary out­burst of an­gry ex­pos­tu­la­tions. Ev­ery stage in his project was com­bat­ed. In the House of Peers, Lord Brougham de­nied the right of the crown to hold the ex­hi­bi­tion in Hyde Park; in the Com­mons, Colonel Sibthorp proph­esied that Eng­land would be over­run with for­eign rogues and rev­olu­tion­ists, who would sub­vert the morals of the peo­ple, filch their trade se­crets from them, and de­stroy their faith and loy­al­ty to­wards their re­li­gion and their sovereign. Prince Al­bert was pres­ident of the ex­hi­bi­tion com­mis­sion, and ev­ery post brought him abu­sive let­ters, ac­cus­ing him, as a for­eign­er, of be­ing in­tent up­on the cor­rup­tion of Eng­land. He was not the man to be balked by talk of this kind, but qui­et­ly per­se­vered, look­ing al­ways to the prob­abil­ity that the man­ufac­tur­ing pow­er of Great Britain would be quick­ened by bring­ing the best man­ufac­tured prod­ucts of for­eign coun­tries un­der the eyes of the me­chan­ics and ar­ti­sans. A sense of the artis­tic was at this time al­most whol­ly want­ing among the En­glish peo­ple. One day the prince had a con­ver­sa­tion with a great man­ufac­tur­er of crock­ery, and sought to con­vert him to the idea of is­su­ing some­thing bet­ter than the eter­nal wil­low-​pat­tern in white with gold, red or blue, which formed the sta­ple of mid­dle and low­er class do­mes­tic chi­na. The man­ufac­tur­er held out that new shapes and de­signs would not be saleable; but he was in­duced to try, and he did so with such a rapid suc­cess that a rev­olu­tion in the chi­na cup­boards of Eng­land was ac­com­plished from that time. The ex­hi­bi­tion was opened by the queen on the 1st of May 1851, and was a colos­sal suc­cess; and the re­al­ized sur­plus of L. 150,000 went to es­tab­lish and en­dow the South Kens­ing­ton Mu­se­um (af­ter­wards re­named “Vic­to­ria and Al­bert”) and to pur­chase land in that neigh­bour­hood. Sim­ilar in­sti­tu­tions, On a small­er scale but with a kin­dred aim, al­ways found in him warm ad­vo­ca­cy and sub­stan­tial sup­port. It was chiefly at meet­ings in con­nex­ion with these that he found oc­ca­sion for the de­liv­ery of ad­dress­es char­ac­ter­ized by pro­found thought and com­pre­hen­sive­ness of view, a col­lec­tion of which was pub­lished in 1857. One of the most favourable spec­imens of his pow­ers as a speak­er is the in­au­gu­ral ad­dress which he de­liv­ered as pres­ident of the British As­so­ci­ation for the Ad­vance­ment of Sci­ence when it met at Ab­erdeen in 1859. The ed­uca­tion of his fam­ily and the man­age­ment of his do­mes­tic af­fairs fur­nished the prince with an­oth­er very im­por­tant sphere of ac­tion, in which he em­ployed him­self with con­sci­en­tious de­vot­ed­ness.

The es­tates of the duchy of Corn­wall, the hered­itary ap­panage of the prince of Wales, were so great­ly im­proved un­der his fa­ther’s man­age­ment that the rent-​roll rose from L. 11,000 to L. 50,000 a year. Prince Al­bert, in­deed, had a pe­cu­liar tal­ent for the man­age­ment of land­ed es­tates. His mod­el farm at Wind­sor was in ev­ery way wor­thy of the name; and the grounds at Bal­moral and Os­borne were laid out en­tire­ly in con­for­mi­ty with his de­signs.

A char­ac­ter so pure. and a life so use­ful and well-​di­rect­ed in all its aims, could scarce­ly fail to win re­spect among those who were ac­quaint­ed with the facts. As the prince be­came bet­ter known, pub­lic mis­trust be­gan to give way. In 1847, but on­ly af­ter a sig­nif­icant­ly keen con­test with Earl Powis, he was elect­ed chan­cel­lor of the uni­ver­si­ty of Cam­bridge; and he was af­ter­wards ap­point­ed mas­ter of the Trin­ity House. In June 1857 the for­mal ti­tle of prince-​con­sort was con­ferred up­on him by let­ters patent, in or­der to set­tle cer­tain dif­fi­cul­ties as to prece­dence that had been raised at for­eign courts.

But in the full ca­reer of his use­ful­ness he was cut off. Dur­ing the au­tumn of 1861 he was busy with the ar­range­ments for the pro­ject­ed in­ter­na­tion­al ex­hi­bi­tion, and it was just af­ter re­turn­ing from one of the meet­ings in con­nex­ion with it that he was seized with his last ill­ness. Be­gin­ning at the end of Novem­ber with what ap­peared to be in­fluen­za, it proved to be an at­tack of ty­phoid fever, and, con­ges­tion of the lungs su­per­ven­ing, he died on the 14th of De­cem­ber. The grief of the queen was over­whelm­ing and the sym­pa­thy of the whole na­tion marked a re­vul­sion of feel­ing about the prince him­self which was not de­void of com­punc­tion for ear­li­er want of ap­pre­ci­ation. The mag­nif­icent mau­soleum at Frog­more, in which his re­mains were fi­nal­ly de­posit­ed, was erect­ed at the ex­pense of the queen and the roy­al fam­ily; and many pub­lic mon­uments to “Al­bert the Good” were erect­ed all over the coun­try, the most no­table be­ing the Al­bert Hall (1867) and the Al­bert Memo­ri­al (1876) in Lon­don. His name was al­so com­mem­orat­ed in the queen’s in­sti­tu­tion of the Al­bert medal ( 1866) in re­ward for gal­lantry in sav­ing life, and of the or­der of Vic­to­ria and Al­bert (1862).

By the queen’s au­thor­ity, her sec­re­tary, Gen­er­al Grey, com­piled The Ear­ly Days of the Prince Con­sort, pub­lished in 1867; and The Life and Let­ters of the Prince Con­sort (ist vol., 1874; 2nd, 1880) mas sim­ilar­ly edit­ed by Sir Theodore Mar­tin. A vol­ume of the Prin­ci­pal Spec­ch­es and Ad­dress­es of Prince Al­bert, with an in­tro­duc­tion by Sir Arthur Helps, was pub­lished in 1862. See al­so the Let­ters of Queen Vic­to­ria (ioo7). (H. CH.)

AL­BERT I. (c. 1250-1308), Ger­man king, and duke of Aus­tria, el­dest son of King Rudolph I., the founder of the great­ness of the house of Hab­sburg, was in­vest­ed with the duchies of Aus­tria and Styr­ia, to­geth­er with his broth­er Rudolph, in 1282. In 1283 his fa­ther en­trust­ed him with their sole gov­ern­ment, and he ap­pears to have ruled them with con­spic­uous suc­cess. Rudolph was un­able to se­cure the suc­ces­sion to the Ger­man throne for his son, and on his death in 1291, the princes, fear­ing Al­bert’s pow­er, chose Adolph of Nas­sau as king. A ris­ing among his Swabi­an de­pen­dants com­pelled Al­bert to rec­og­nize the sovereign­ty of his ri­val, and to con­fine him­self to the gov­ern­ment of the Hab­sburg ter­ri­to­ries. He did not aban­don his hopes of the throne, and, in 1298, was cho­sen Ger­man king by some of the princes, who were dis­sat­is­fied with Adolph. The armies of the ri­val kings met at Goll­heim near Worms, where Adolph was de­feat­ed and slain, and Al­bert sub­mit­ted to a fresh elec­tion. Hav­ing se­cured the sup­port of sev­er­al in­flu­en­tial princes by ex­ten­sive promis­es, he was cho­sen at Frank­fort on the 27th of Ju­ly 1298, and crowned at Aix-​la-​Chapelle on the 24th of Au­gust fol­low­ing. Al­bert sought to play an im­por­tant part in Eu­ro­pean af­fairs. He seemed at first in­clined to press a quar­rel with France over the Bur­gun­di­an fron­tier, but the re­fusal of Pope Boni­face VI­II. to rec­og­nize his elec­tion led him to change his pol­icy, and, in 1299, a treaty was made be­tween Al­bert and Philip IV., king of France, by which Rudolph, the son of the Ger­man king, was to mar­ry Blanche, a daugh­ter of the French king. He af­ter­wards be­came es­tranged from Philip, and, in 1303, was rec­og­nized as Ger­man king and fu­ture em­per­or by Boni­face, and, in re­turn, ad­mit­ted the right of the pope alone to be­stow the im­pe­ri­al crown, and promised that none of his sons should be elect­ed Ger­man king with­out the pa­pal con­sent. Al­bert had failed in his at­tempt to seize Hol­land and Zealand, as va­cant fiefs of the Em­pire, on the death of Count John I. in 1299, but in 1306 he se­cured the crown of Bo­hemia for his son Rudolph on the death of King Wences­laus III. He al­so re­newed the claim which had been made by his pre­de­ces­sor, Adolf, on Thuringia, and in­ter­fered in a quar­rel over the suc­ces­sion to the Hun­gar­ian throne. His at­tack on Thuringia end­ed in his de­feat at Luc­ka in 1307, and, in the same year, the death of his son Rudolph weak­ened his po­si­tion in east­ern Eu­rope. His ac­tion in abol­ish­ing all tolls es­tab­lished on the Rhine since 1250, led to the for­ma­tion of a league against him by the Rhen­ish arch­bish­ops and the count pala­tine of the Rhine; but aid­ed by the towns, he soon crushed the ris­ing. He was on the way to sup­press a re­volt in Swabia when he was mur­dered on the 1st of May 1308, at Windisch on the Reuss, by his nephew John, af­ter­wards called “the Par­ri­cide,” whom he had de­prived of his in­her­itance. Al­bert mar­ried Eliz­abeth, daugh­ter of Mein­hard IV., count of Gorz and Tirol, who bore him six sons and five daugh­ters. Al­though a hard, stern man, he had a keen sense of jus­tice when his self­ish in­ter­ests were not in­volved, and few of the Ger­man kings pos­sessed so prac­ti­cal an in­tel­li­gence. He en­cour­aged the cities, and not con­tent with is­su­ing procla­ma­tions against pri­vate war, formed al­liances with the princes in or­der to en­force his de­crees. The serfs, whose wrongs sel­dom at­tract­ed no­tice in an age in­dif­fer­ent to the claims of com­mon hu­man­ity, found a friend in this se­vere monarch, and he pro­tect­ed even the de­spised and per­se­cut­ed Jews. The sto­ries of his cru­el­ty and op­pres­sion in the Swiss can­tons first ap­pear in the 16th cen­tu­ry, and are now re­gard­ed as leg­endary.

See G. Droy­sen, Al­brechts I. Be­muhun­gen um die Nach­folge im Re­ich (Leipzig, 1862); J. F. A. Mucke, Al­brecht I. von IIab­sburg (Gotha, 1865); A. L. J. Michelsen, Die Land­graf­schaft Thurin­gen unter den Koni­gen Adolf, Al­brecht, und Hein­rich VII. (Je­na, 1860).

AL­BERT II. (1397-1439), Ger­man king, king of Bo­hemia and Hun­gary, and (as Al­bert V.) duke of Aus­tria, was born on the 10th of Au­gust 1397, the son of Al­bert IV. of Hab­sburg, duke of Aus­tria. He suc­ceed­ed to the duchy of Aus­tria on his fa­ther’s death in 1404. Af­ter re­ceiv­ing a good ed­uca­tion, he un­der­took the gov­ern­ment of Aus­tria in 1411, and suc­ceed­ed, with the aid of his ad­vis­ers, in adding the duchy of the evils which had arisen dur­ing his mi­nor­ity. He as­sist­ed the Ger­man king, Sigis­mund, in his cam­paigns against the Hus­sites, and in 1422 mar­ried Eliz­abeth, daugh­ter and heiress of Sigis­mund, who des­ig­nat­ed him as his suc­ces­sor. When the Ger­man king died in 1437, Al­bert was crowned king of Hun­gary on the 1st of Jan­uary 1438, and al­though crowned king of Bo­hemia six months lat­er, he was un­able to ob­tain pos­ses­sion of the coun­try. He was en­gaged in war­fare with the Bo­hemi­ans and their Pol­ish al­lies, when on the 18th of March 1438 he was cho­sen Ger­man king at Frank­fort, an hon­our which he does not ap­pear to have sought. Af­ter­wards en­gaged in de­fend­ing Hun­gary against the at­tacks of the Turks, he died on the 27th of Oc­to­ber 1439 at Lan­gen­dorf, and was buried at Stuhlweis­senburg. Al­bert was an en­er­get­ic and war­like prince, whose short reign gave great promise of use­ful­ness lor Ger­many.

AL­BERT (1490-1545), elec­tor and arch­bish­op of Mainz, and arch­bish­op of Magde­burg, was the younger son of John Ci­cero, elec­tor of Bran­den­burg, and was born on the 28th of June 1490. Hav­ing stud­ied at the uni­ver­si­ty of Frank­fort-​on-​the-​Oder, he en­tered the ec­cle­si­as­ti­cal pro­fes­sion, and in 1513 be­came arch­bish­op of Magde­burg and ad­min­is­tra­tor of the dio­cese of Hal­ber­stadt. In 1514 he ob­tained the elec­torate of Mainz, and in 1518 was made a car­di­nal. Mean­while to pay for the pal­li­um of the see of Mainz and to dis­charge the oth­er ex­pens­es of his el­eva­tion, Al­bert had bor­rowed a large sum of mon­ey from the Fug­gers, and had ob­tained per­mis­sion from Pope Leo X. to con­duct the sale of in­dul­gences in his dio­cese to ob­tain funds to re­pay this loan. For this work he pro­cured the ser­vices of John Tet­zel, and so in­di­rect­ly ex­er­cised a po­tent in­flu­ence on the course of the Ref­or­ma­tion. When the im­pe­ri­al elec­tion of 1519 drew near, the elec­tor’s vote was ea­ger­ly so­licit­ed by the par­ti­sans of Charles (af­ter­wards the em­per­or Charles V.) and by those of Fran­cis I., king of France, and he ap­pears to have re­ceived a large amount of mon­ey for the vote which he cast even­tu­al­ly for Charles. Al­bert’s large and lib­er­al ideas, his friend­ship with Ul­rich von Hut­ten, and his po­lit­ical am­bi­tions, ap­pear to have raised hopes that he would be won over to the re­formed faith; but af­ter the Peas­ants’ War of 1525 he ranged him­self def­inite­ly among the sup­port­ers of Catholi­cism, and was among the princes who met to con­cert mea­sures for its de­fence at Dessau in Ju­ly 1525. His hos­til­ity to­wards the re­form­ers, how­ev­er, was not so ex­treme as that of his broth­er Joachim I., elec­tor of Bran­den­burg; and he ap­pears to have ex­ert­ed him­self in the in­ter­ests of peace, al­though he was a mem­ber of the league of Nurem­berg, which was formed in 1538 as a coun­ter­poise to the league of Schmal­ka­lden. The new doc­trines nev­er­the­less made con­sid­er­able progress in his do­min­ions, and he was com­pelled to grant re­li­gious lib­er­ty to the in­hab­itants of Magde­burg in re­turn for 500,000 florins. Dur­ing his lat­ter years in­deed he showed more in­tol­er­ance to­wards the Protes­tants, and favoured the teach­ing of the Je­suits in his do­min­ions. Al­bert adorned the Stiftiskirche at Halle and the cathe­dral at Mainz in sump­tu­ous fash­ion, and took as his mot­to the words Domine, dilexi decorem do­mus tu­ae. A gen­er­ous pa­tron of ait and learn­ing, he count­ed Eras­mus among his friends. He died at As­chaf­fen­burg on the 24th of Septem­ber 1545.

See I. H. Hennes, Al­brecht von Bran­den­burg, Erzbischofvon Mbinz und Magde­burg (Mai1iz, 1858); i. May, Der Kuri­urst, Kar­di­nal, und Erzbischof Al­brecht II. von Mainz unid Mogde­burg (Mu­nich, 1865–1875ai co. Schum, Kar­di­nal Al­brecht von Mainz und die Er­furter Kirchen­re­for­ma­tion (Halle, 1878); P. Redlich, Kar­di­nal Al­brecht von Bran­den­burg, und das neue Stift zu Halte (Mainz, 1900).

AL­BERT (1490-1568), Grand Mas­ter of the Teu­ton­ic Or­der, and first duke of Prus­sia, was the third son of Fred­er­ick of Ho­hen­zollern, prince of Ans­bach and Bayreuth, and Sophia, daugh­ter of Casimir IV., king of Poland. Born at Ans­bach on the 16th of May 1490, he was in­tend­ed for the church, and passed some time at the court of Her­mann, elec­tor of Cologne, who ap­point­ed him to a canon­ry in his cathe­dral. Turn­ing to a more ac­tive life, he ac­com­pa­nied the em­per­or Max­im­il­ian I. to Italy in 1508, and af­ter his re­turn spent some time in Hun­gary. In De­cem­ber, Fred­er­ick, grand mas­ter of the Teu­ton­ic Or­der, died, and Al­bert, join­ing the or­der, was cho­sen as his suc­ces­sor ear­ly in 1511 in the hope that his re­la­tion­ship to Sigis­mund I., king of Poland, would fa­cil­itate a set­tle­ment of the dis­putes over east Prus­sia, which had been held by the or­der un­der Pol­ish suzerain­ty since 1466. The new mas­ter, how­ev­er, showed no de­sire to be con­cil­ia­to­ry, and as war ap­peared in­evitable, he made stren­uous ef­forts to se­cure al­lies, and car­ried on te­dious ne­go­ti­ations with the em­per­or Max­im­il­ian I. The ill-​feel­ing, in­flu­enced by the rav­ages of mem­bers of the or­der in Poland, cul­mi­nat­ed in a strug­gle which be­gan in De­cem­ber 1519. Dur­ing the en­su­ing year Prus­sia was dev­as­tat­ed, and Al­bert con­sent­ed ear­ly in 1521 to a truce for four years. The dis­pute was re­ferred to the em­per­or Charles V. and oth­er princes, but as no set­tle­ment was reached the mas­ter con­tin­ued his ef­forts to ob­tain help in view of a re­new­al of the war. For this pur­pose he vis­it­ed Nurem­berg in 1522, where he made the ac­quain­tance of the re­former, An­dreas Os­ian­der, by whose in­flu­ence he was won over to the side of the new faith. He then jour­neyed to Wit­ten­berg, where he was ad­vised by Mar­tin Luther to cast aside the sense­less rules of his or­der, to mar­ry, and to con­vert Prus­sia in­to an hered­itary duchy for him­self. This pro­pos­al, which com­mend­ed it­self to Al­bert, had al­ready been dis­cussed by some of his rel­atives; but it was nec­es­sary to pro­ceed cau­tious­ly, and he as­sured Pope Adri­an VI. that he was anx­ious to re­form the or­der and pun­ish the knights who had adopt­ed Luther­an doc­trines. Luther for his part did not stop at the sug­ges­tion, but in or­der to fa­cil­itate the change made spe­cial ef­forts to spread his teach­ing among the Prus­sians, while Al­bert’s broth­er, George, prince of Ans­bach, laid the scheme be­fore Sigis­mund of Poland. Af­ter some de­lay the king as­sent­ed to it pro­vid­ed that Prus­sia were held as a Pol­ish fief; and af­ter this ar­range­ment had been con­firmed by a treaty made at Cra­cow, Al­bert was in­vest­ed with the duchy by Sigis­mund for him­self and his heirs on the 10th of Febru­ary 1525. The es­tates of the land then met at Konigs­berg and took the oath of al­le­giance to the new duke, who used his full pow­ers to for­ward the doc­trines of Luther. This tran­si­tion did not, how­ev­er, take place with­out protest. Sum­moned be­fore the im­pe­ri­al court of jus­tice, Al­bert re­fused to ap­pear and was placed un­der the ban; while the or­der, hav­ing de­posed the grand mas­ter, made a fee­ble ef­fort to re­cov­er Prus­sia. But as the Ger­man princes were ei­ther too busy or too in­dif­fer­ent to at­tack the duke, the ag­ita­tion against him soon died away. In im­pe­ri­al pol­itics Al­bert was fair­ly ac­tive. Join­ing the league of Tor­gau in 1526, he act­ed in­uni­son with the Protes­tants, and was among the princes who band­ed them­selves to­geth­er to over­throw Charles V. af­ter the is­sue of the In­ter­im in May 1548. For­var­ious rea­sons, how­ev­er, pover­ty and per­son­al in­cli­na­tion among oth­ers, he did not take a promi­nent part in the mil­itary op­er­ations of this pe­ri­od. The ear­ly years of Al­bert’s rule in Prus­sia were faidy pros­per­ous. Al­though he had some trou­ble with the peas­antry, the lands and trea­sures of the church en­abled him to pro­pi­ti­ate the no­bles and for a time to pro­vide for the ex­pens­es of the court. He did some­thing for the fur­ther­ance of learn­ing by es­tab­lish­ing schools in ev­ery town and by giv­ing priv­ileges to serfs who adopt­ed a scholas­tic life. In 1544, in spite of some op­po­si­tion, he found­ed a uni­ver­si­ty at Konigs­berg, where he ap­point­ed his friend Os­ian­der to a pro­fes­sor­ship in 1549. This step was the be­gin­ning of the trou­bles which cloud­ed the clos­ing years of Al­bert’s reign. Os­ian­der’s di­ver­gence from Luther’s doc­trine of jus­ti­fi­ca­tion by faith in­volved him in a vi­olent quar­rel with XIelanchthon, who had ad­her­ents in Konigs­berg, and these the­olog­ical dis­putes soon cre­at­ed an up­roar in the town. The duke stren­uous­ly sup­port­ed Os­ian­der, and the area of the quar­rel soon broad­ened. There were no longer church lands avail­able with which to con­cil­iate the no­bles, the bur­den of tax­ation was heavy, and Al­bert’s rule be­came un­pop­ular. Af­ter Os­ian­der’s death in 1552 he favoured a preach­er named John Funck, who, with an ad­ven­tur­er named Paul Scalich, ex­er­cised great in­flu­ence over him and ob­tained con­sid­er­able wealth at the pub­lic ex­pense. The state of tur­moil caused by these re­li­gious and po­lit­ical dis­putes was in­creased by the pos­si­bil­ity of Al­bert’s ear­ly death and the ne­ces­si­ty in that event for a re­gen­cy ow­ing to the youth of his on­ly son, Al­bert Fred­er­ick. The duke was con­se­quent­ly obliged to con­sent to a con­dem­na­tion of the teach­ing of Os­ian­der, and the cli­max came in 1566 when the es­tates ap­pealed to Sigis­mund II., king of Poland, who sent a com­mis­sion to Konigs­berg. Scalich saved his life by flight, but Funck was ex­ecut­ed; the ques­tion of the re­gen­cy was set­tled; and a form of Lutheranism was adopt­ed, and de­clared bind­ing on all teach­ers and preach­ers. Vir­tu­al­ly de­prived of pow­er, the duke lived for two years longer, and died at Tapi­au on the 20th of March 1568. In 1526 he had mar­ried Dorothea, daugh­ter of Fred­er­ick I., king of Den­mark, and af­ter her death in 1547, An­na Maria, daugh­ter of Er­ic I., duke of Brunswick. Al­bert was a vo­lu­mi­nous let­ter­writ­er, and cor­re­spond­ed with many of the lead­ing per­son­ages of the time. In 1891 a stat­ue was erect­ed to his mem­ory at Konigs­berg.

See J. Voigt, Briefwech­sel der beruhmtest­ed Gelehrten des Zeital­ters der Ref­or­ma­tion mit Her­zog Al­brecht von Preussen (Konigs­berg, 1841); E. Joachim, Die Poli­tik des let­zten Hochmeis­ters in Preussen, Al­brecht von Bran­den­burg (Leipzig, 1892); K. Lohmey­er, Her­zog Al­brecht von Preussen (Danzig, 1890).

AL­BERT III. ( 1443-1500), duke of Sax­ony, sur­named AN­IMO­SUS or THE COURA­GEOUS, younger son of Fred­er­ick II., the Mild, elec­tor and duke of Sax­ony, was born on the 27th of Jan­uary 1443, and af­ter es­cap­ing from the hands of Kunz von Kau­fun­gen, who had ab­duct­ed him to­geth­er with his broth­er Ernest, passed some time at the court of the em­per­or Fred­er­ick III. in Vi­en­na. In 1464 he mar­ried Ze­de­na, or Sido­nia, daugh­ter of George Pode­brad, king of Bo­hemia, but failed to ob­tain the Bo­hemi­an Crown on the death of George in 1471. Af­ter the death of the elec­tor Fred­er­ick in 1464, Al­bert and Ernest ruled their lands to­geth­er, but in 1485 a di­vi­sion was made by the treaty of Leipzig, and Al­bert re­ceived Meis­sen, to­geth­er,with some ad­join­ing dis­tricts, and found­ed the Al­ber­tine branch of the fam­ily of Wet­tin. Re­gard­ed as a ca­pa­ble sol­dier by the em­per­or, Al­bert, in 1475, took a promi­nent part in the cam­paign against Charles the Bold, duke of Bur­gundy, and in 1487 led an ex­pe­di­tion against Matthias Corv­inus, king of Hun­gary, which failed ow­ing to lack of sup­port on the part of the em­per­or. In 1488 he marched with the im­pe­ri­al forces to free the Ro­man king Max­im­il­ian from his im­pris­on­ment at Bruges, and when, in 1489, the king re­turned to Ger­many, Al­bert was left as his rep­re­sen­ta­tive to pros­ecute the war against the rebels. He was suc­cess­ful in restor­ing the au­thor­ity of Max­im­il­ian in Hol­land, Flan­ders and Bra­bant, but failed to ob­tain any re­pay­ment of the large sums of mon­ey which he had spent in these cam­paigns. His ser­vices were re­ward­ed in 1498 when Max­im­il­ian be­stowed up­on him the ti­tle of hered­itary gov­er­nor (pote­stat) of Fries­land, but he had to make good his claim by force of arms. He had to a great ex­tent suc­ceed­ed, and was pay­ing a vis­it to Sax­ony, when he was re­called by news of a fresh ris­ing. Gronin­gen was cap­tured, but soon af­ter­wards the duke died at Em­den, on the 12th of Septem­ber 1500. He was buried at Meis­sen. Al­bert, who was a man of great strength and con­sid­er­able skill in feats of arms, de­light­ed in tour­na­ments and knight­ly ex­er­cis­es. His loy­al­ty to the em­per­or Fred­er­ick, and the ex­pens­es in­curred in this con­nex­ion, aroused some ir­ri­ta­tion among his sub­jects, but his rule was a pe­ri­od of pros­per­ity in Sax­ony.

See F. A. von Lan­genn, Her­zog Al­brecht der Be­herzte, Stam­mvater des koniglichen IIaus­es Sach­sen (Leipzig, 1838); O. Sper­ling, Her­zog Al­brecht der Be­herzte von Sach­sen als Gu­ber­na­tor Fries­lands (Leipzig, 1892).

AL­BERT, FRED­ER­ICK AU­GUS­TUS, king of Sax­ony (18281902), was born on the 23rd of April 1828, be­ing the el­dest son of Prince John, who suc­ceed­ed to the throne in 1854. His ed­uca­tion was, as is usu­al with Ger­man princes, to a great ex­tent mil­itary, but he at­tend­ed lec­tures at the uni­ver­si­ty of Bonn. His first ex­pe­ri­ence of war­fare was in 1849,’when he served as a cap­tain in the cam­paign of Schleswig-​Hol­stein against the Danes. When the war of 1866 broke out, the crown-​prince was placed in com­mand of the Sax­on forces op­pos­ing the Prus­sian army of Prince Fred­er­ick Charles. No at­tempt was made to de­fend Sax­ony; the Sax­ons fell back in­to Bo­hemia and ef­fect­ed a junc­tion with the Aus­tri­ans. They took a promi­nent part in the bat­tles by which the Prus­sians forced the line of the Is­er and in the bat­tle of Gitchin. The crown-​prince, how­ev­er, suc­ceed­ed in ef­fect­ing the re­treat in good or­der, and in the de­ci­sive bat­tle of Konig­gratz (see SEV­EN WEEKS’ WAR) he held the ex­treme loft of the Aus­tri­an po­si­tion. The Sax­ons main­tained their post with great tenac­ity, but were in­volved in the dis­as­trous de­feat of their al­lies. Dur­ing these op­er­ations the crown-​prince won the rep­uta­tion of a thor­ough sol­dier; af­ter peace was made and Sax­ony had en­tered the North Ger­man con­fed­er­ation, he was placed in com­mand of the Sax­on army, which had now be­come the XII. army corps of the North Ger­man army, and in this po­si­tion car­ried out the nec­es­sary re­or­ga­ni­za­tion. He was a firm ad­her­ent of the Prus­sian al­liance. On the out­break of war in 1870 he again com­mand­ed the Sax­ons, who were in­clud­ed in the 2nd army un­der Prince Fred­er­ick Charles, his old op­po­nent. At the bat­tle of Grav­elotte they formed the ex­treme left of the Ger­man army, and with the Prus­sian Guard car­ried out the at­tack on St Pri­vat, the fi­nal and de­ci­sive ac­tion in the bat­tle. In the re­or­ga­ni­za­tion of the army which ac­com­pa­nied the march to­wards Paris the crown-​prince was giv­en a sep­arate com­mand over the 4th army (army of the Meuse) con­sist­ing of the Sax­ons, the Prus­sian Guard corps and the IV. (Prus­sian Sax­ony) corps. He was suc­ceed­ed in com­mand of the XII. corps by his broth­er Prince George, who had served un­der him in Bo­hemia. He took a lead­ing part in the op­er­ations which pre­ced­ed the bat­tle of Sedan, the 4th army be­ing the piv­ot on which the whole army wheeled round in pur­suit of Macma­hon; and the ac­tions of Buzan­cy and Beau­mont on the 29th and 30th of Au­gust were fought un­der his di­rec­tion; in the bat­tle of Sedan it­self, with the troops un­der his or­ders, he car­ried out the en­vel­op­ment of the French on the east and north. His con­duct in these en­gage­ments won for him the com­plete con­fi­dence of the army, and dur­ing the siege of Paris his troops formed the north-​east sec­tion of the in­vest­ing force. Af­ter the con­clu­sion of the armistice he was left in com­mand of the Ger­man army of oc­cu­pa­tion, a po­si­tion which he held till the fall of the Com­mune. On the con­clu­sion of peace he was made an in­spec­tor-​gen­er­al of the army and field-​mar­shal. On the death of his fa­ther on the 29th of Oc­to­ber 1873 he suc­ceed­ed to the throne. His reign was un­event­ful, and he took lit­tle pub­lic part in pol­itics, de­vot­ing him­self to mil­itary af­fairs, in which his ad­vice and ex­perielice were of the great­est val­ue, not on­ly to the Sax­on corps but to the Ger­man army in gen­er­al. In 1897 he was ap­point­ed ar­bi­tra­tor be­tween the claimants for the prin­ci­pal­ity of Lippe. King Al­bert mar­ried in 1853 Car­ola, daugh­ter of Prince Gus­tavus of Vasa, and grand­daugh­ter of the last king of Swe­den of the house of Hol­stein. He died on the 19th of June 1902.

AL­BERT, sur­named THE DE­GEN­ER­ATE (c. 1240-1314), land­grave of Thuringia, was the el­dest son of Hen­ry III., the Il­lus­tri­ous, mar­grave of Meis­sen. He mar­ried Mar­garet, daugh­ter of the em­per­or Fred­er­ick II., in 1254, and in 1265 re­ceived from his fa­ther Thuringia and the Sax­on palati­nate. His in­fat­ua­tion for Ku­ni­gunde of Eisen­berg caused his wife to leave him, and af­ter her death in 1270 he mar­ried Ku­ni­gunde, who had al­ready borne him a son, Apitz or Al­bert. He wished to make Apitz his suc­ces­sor in Thuringia, a plan which was re­sist­ed by his two el­der sons, and a war broke out which last­ed un­til 1307, when he aban­doned Thuringia, in re­turn for a year­ly pay­ment, but re­tained the ti­tle of land­grave (see THURINGIA.) Al­bert, who had mar­ried Eliz­abeth, daugh­ter of Her­mann III., count of Or­la­munde, af­ter the death of his sec­ond wife in 1286, died on the 13th of Novem­ber 1314.

See F. X. Wegele, Friedrich der Friedi­ge, Mark­graf von Meis­sen, und die Wet­tin­er sein­er Zeit (Nordlin­gen, 1820); F. W. Tittmann, Geschichte Heinirich des Er­laucht­en Mark­graven zu Meis­sen (Leipzig, 1863).

AL­BERT (FRIEDRICH RUDOLF AL­BRECHT), ARCH­DUKE (1817-1895), Aus­tri­an field-​mar­shal, was the el­dest son of the arch­duke Charles (Karl Friedrich), and was born on the 3rd of Au­gust 1817 at Vi­en­na. Af­ter be­ing ed­ucat­ed un­der the care­ful su­per­in­ten­dence of his fa­ther, he en­tered the Aus­tri­an (H.K.) army as a colonel of in­fantry in 1837, and was trans­ferred to the cav­al­ry arm in 1839, be­com­ing a ma­jor-​gen­er­al in 1840. A brief pe­ri­od of leave in this year he spent at the great n:an0-uvres in Italy, to learn the art of troop-​lead­ing from the first sol­dier in Eu­rope, Radet­zky. He then took over the com­mand of a brigade of all arms at Graz. In 1844 he mar­ried Trincess Hilde­garde of Bavaria. He had been made a lieu­tenant field-​mar­shal in the pre­vi­ous year, and was now placed in com­mand of the forces in Up­per and Low­er Aus­tria. In this po­si­tion he did much to main­tain and im­prove the ef­fi­cien­cy of the troops un­der his com­mand, at a time when near­ly all armies in Eu­rope, with the ex­cep­tion of Radet­zky’s in Italy, had sunk to the low­est lev­el. The in­flu­ence of Radet­zky over the young arch­duke was in­deed re­mark­able. At this time the Aus­tri­an gen­er­als and staff of­fi­cers had com­mit­ted them­selves blind­ly to the strate­gi­cal method of the arch­duke Charles, the tra­di­tion of whose prac­ti­cal sol­dier­ship sur­vived on­ly in Radet­zky and a few oth­ers. Al­bert chose to fol­low the lat­ter, and was thus saved from the pseu­do­sci­en­tif­ic pedantry which brought de­feat to the Aus­tri­an arms in 1359 and in 1866. His first se­ri­ous ser­vice came in March 1848, when it be­came his du­ty, as dis­trict com­man­der, to main­tain or­der in Vi­en­na by force, and at the out­break of rev­olu­tion in Vi­en­na dur­ing the month of March he was in com­mand of the troops who came in­to col­li­sion with the ri­ot­ers. Ow­ing to the col­lapse of the gov­ern­ment it was im­pos­si­ble to re­press the dis­tur­bances, and he was re­lieved from a post which brought much un­pop­ular­ity and was not suit­able to be held by a mem­ber of the im­pe­ri­al fam­ily. He went at once to the seat of war in Italy, and fought un­der Radet­zky as a vol­un­teer through­out the cam­paign of 1848, be­ing present at the ac­tion of bas­tren­go and the bat­tles of San­ta Lu­cia and Cus­toz­za. In the fol­low­ing cam­paign he ap­plied for and ob­tained the com­mand of a di­vi­sion in the II. corps (FZM. d’As­pre), though his pre­vi­ous grade had been that of a gen­er­al com­mand­ing-​in-​chief. The splen­did fight­ing of the corps at No­vara was de­ci­sive of the war, and Radet­zky named d’As­pre, Count Thurn, and the arch­duke as the gen­er­al of­fi­cers wor­thy of the great­est re­wards. The field-​mar­shal in­deed rec­om­mend­ed, and al­most in­sist­ed, that Al­bert should re­ceive the much-​prized or­der of Maria There­sa. In 1850 he be­came a gen­er­al of cav­al­ry, and in 1851 mil­itary and civ­il gov­er­nor of Hun­gary. In this im­por­tant and dif­fi­cult po­si­tion he re­mained un­til 1860, when he was re­lieved at his own re­quest. Short­ly af­ter­wards he was ap­point­ed to suc­ceed Radet­zky as com­man­der-​in-​chief in Italy, and in 1863 he was pro­mot­ed field-​mar­shal. In the fol­low­ing year the arch­duke lost his wife, soon af­ter the mar­riage of their el­der daugh­ter to Duke Philip of Wurt­tem­berg. In 1859 and 1864 he was sent on im­por­tant mil­itary and diplo­mat­ic mis­sions to Berlin. When war be­came im­mi­nent in 1866, the arch­duke took com­mand of the field army in Italy. The sto­ry of the cam­paign of 1866 in Italy will be found un­der ITAL­IAN WARS (1848-1870); the op­er­ations of the arch­duke, who dis­posed of great­ly in­fe­ri­or forces, were crowned with suc­cess in the bril­liant vic­to­ry of Cus­toz­za (June 23), and his rep­uta­tion as a gen­er­al-​in-​chief was firm­ly es­tab­lished by on­ly eight days of field op­er­ations, though it is pos­si­ble that his chief of staff, Lieut. Field-​Mar­shal von John, con­tribut­ed not a lit­tle to the suc­cess of the Aus­tri­an arms. The re­sult of Cus­toz­za was the re­treat and com­plete im­mo­bi­liza­tion of the whole Ital­ian army, so that Al­bert was able to despatch the greater part of his troops to re­in­force the Bo­hemi­an army, when, af­ter be­ing de­feat­ed by the Prus­sians, it fell back on Vi­en­na. On the 10th of Ju­ly the arch­duke was sum­moned to Vi­en­na to take supreme com­mand of the forces which were be­ing col­lect­ed to de­fend the cap­ital, but peace was made be­fore fur­ther hos­til­ities took place. From this time, un­der var­ious ti­tles, he act­ed as in­spec­tor-​gen­er­al of the army. Like his fa­ther, and with bet­ter for­tune, he was called up­on to re­or­ga­nize the mil­itary sys­tem of his coun­try on an en­tire­ly new pi­an, learned, as be­fore, by de­feat. The prin­ci­ple of uni­ver­sal short ser­vice, and the the­ory of the armed na­tion, were nec­es­sar­ily the ground­work of the re­forms, and the con­se­quent prepa­ra­tion of all the na­tion­al re­sources for their task in war, by the su­per­in­ten­dence of peace ad­min­is­tra­tion, by the skil­ful con­duct of man0-uvres, was thence­for­ward the task of his life­time. In 1870 he con­duct­ed the mil­itary ne­go­ti­atio:1s prepara­to­ry to an al­liance with France, which, how­ev­er, was not con­clud­ed. The trag­ic death of his daugh­ter, Princess Mathilde, in 1867, and the death of his broth­er, Arch­duke Karl Fer­di­nand, in 1874, nar­rowed still fur­ther his fam­ily cir­cle, and im­pelled him to even greater ac­tiv­ity in his mil­itary du­ties, and to ef­fec­tive par­tic­ipa­tion in the work of many mil­itary char­ities. IUe re­tained per­son­al con­trol of the army un­til his last ill­ness, which he con­tract­ed at the fu­ner­al of his nephew Fran­cis, ex-​king of Naples. His on­ly re­main­ing broth­er, the arch­duke Wil­helm, had died a few months be­fore, as the re­sult of an ac­ci­dent. He him­self died on the 18th of Febru­ary 1895. His on­ly son died in child­hood, and his nephew Arch­duke Fred­er­ick (born 1856) in­her­it­ed his great pos­ses­sions, in­clud­ing the Al­berti­na, a fa­mous col­lec­tion of books, manuscripts, en­grav­ings and maps, found­ed by Duke Al­bert of Saxe-​Teschen.

Amongst the mil­itary works of the Arch­duke Al­bert may be named Uber die Ve­rant­wor­llichkeil im Kriege (a work which cre­at­ed a great sen­sa­tion, and was trans­lat­ed in­to En­glish and French), Gledanken uber dem Mil­itargeist, Uber die ho­here Heitung im Kriege, and Kri­tis­che Be­tra­ch­tunger uber den Feldzug 1866 in Ital­ien. He al­so was the prin­ci­pal ed­itor of the mil­itary works of his fa­ther.

See Dunck­er, F. M. Erzher­zog Al­brecht (Vi­en­na and Prague, 189; Math­es v. Bi­labruck, “Gedenkrede auf Wei­land Sr. K. u. K. H. Erzh. Al­brecht,” Mil.-Wis­senschaftl. Vere­in, 1895; Teu­ber, F. M. Erzh. Al­brecht, ein Lebens­bild (Vi­en­na, 1895).

AL­BERT, MADAME (c. 1805-1846), French ac­tress, whose maid­en name was Theresc Ver­net, was born of a fam­ily of play­ers. She first ap­peared in chil­dren’s and in­ge­nile parts, and in com­ic opera, and it was not un­til 1827, two years af­ter her Paris de­but, that her great tal­ents were seen and ap­pre­ci­at­ed. In Caleb Valen­tine, Hen­ry V., Madame Dubar­ry, Cather­ine II., Leon­tine,, Un du­el sous le car­di­nal de Riche­lieu, and many oth­er plays, her grace, beau­ty and dis­tinc­tion of man­ner made her the idol of Paris, and her cir­cle of ad­mir­ers was widened by long tours of the provinces and abroad. Ill-​health com­pelled her to re­tire in 1846. She was twice mar­ried, about 1825 to Al­bert Ro­drigues, an ac­tor who played un­der his Chris­tian name, and in 1846 to Eu­gene Bignon (1812-1858), the ac­tor and play­wright.

AL­BERT OF AIX (fl. c. A.D. 1100), his­to­ri­an of the first cru­sade, was born dur­ing the lat­er part of the 11th cen­tu­ry, and af­ter­wards be­came canon and cus­tos of the church of Aix-​la-​Chapelle. Noth­ing else is known of his life ex­cept that he was the au­thor of a His­to­ria Hi­erosolymi­tanae ex­pe­di­tio­nis, or Chron­icon Hi­erosolymi­tanum de bel­lo sacro, a work in twelve books, writ­ten be­tween 1125 and 1150. This his­to­ry be­gins at the time of the coun­cil of Cler­mont, deals with the for­tunes of the first cru­sade and the ear­li­er his­to­ry of the Latin king­dom of Jerusalem, and ends some­what abrupt­ly in 1121. It was well known dur­ing the mid­dle ages, and was large­ly used by William, arch­bish­op of Tyre, for the first six books of his Bel­li sac­ri his­to­ria. In mod­ern times its his­tor­ical val­ue has been se­ri­ous­ly im­pugned, but the ver­dict of the best schol­ar­ship seems to be that in gen­er­al it forms a true record of the events of the first cru­sade, al­though con­tain­ing some leg­endary mat­ter. Al­bert nev­er vis­it­ed the Holy Land, but he ap­pears to have had a con­sid­er­able amount of in­ter­course with re­turned cru­saders, and to have had ac­cess to valu­able cor­re­spon­dence. The first edi­tion of the his­to­ry was pub­lished at Helm­stadt in 1584, and a good edi­tion is in the Re­cueil des his­to­riens des croisades, tome iv. (Paris, 1841-1887).

See F. Krebs, Zur Kri­tik Al­berts von Aachen (Mun­ster, 1881); B. Ku­gler, Al­bert von Aachen (Stuttgart, 1885); M. Fi­geon­neau, Le Cy­cle de la croisade et de la famine de Bouil­lon (Paris, 1877); H. von Sybel, Geschichte des er­sten Kreuz­zuges (Leipzig, 1881): F. Ver­cruysse, Es­sai cri­tique sur la chronique d’Al­bert d’Aix (Liege, 1889).

AL­BER­TA, a province of west­ern Cana­da, es­tab­lished in 1905. Area 260,000 sq. m. It is bound­ed S. by the Unit­ed States bound­ary line, 49 deg. N.; E. by 110 deg. W., vhich di­vides it from the province of Saskatchewan; N. by 60 deg. N., which sep­arates it from the North-​West Ter­ri­to­ries; and W. by the line of peaks of the Rocky Moun­tains range, vhich runs north­west­er­ly, and di­vides it from British Columbia. A fer­tile province, in the east­ern and south­ern por­tions its sur­face con­sists chiefly of plains al­most en­tire­ly tree­less. As the slopes of the Rocky Moun­tains to the west are reached 1rore trees are found, un­til in the foot-​hills of the moun­tains bcdies of for­est tim­ber oc­cur. Trees be­come more nu­mer­ous al­so north­ward in the province, un­til in the re­gion north of the North Saskatchewan riv­er forests are again met with.. From the south­ern bound­ary line for two and a half de­grees north the prairie is dry, but of good soil, which grows ex­cel­lent crops when ir­ri­gat­ed. North of this re­gion the sur­face of the province is of itost fer­tile soil, the or­di­nary rain­fall suf­fic­ing for agri­cul­ture. The ap­pear­ance of the prairie sec­tion of the province is that cf un­du­lat­ing mead­ows, with round­ed slop­ing ridges cov­ered with short­er . grass­es, which serve for the sup­port of great herds of cat­tle and hors­es. The.wood­ed por­tions of the ter­rain are dot­ted with clumps and belts of trees of mod­er­ate size, giv­ing them a park­like ap­pear­ance. In win­ter the snow­fall is very light, and even this is fre­quent­ly re­moved by warm winds from the west. With­in a hun­dred miles of the moun­tains there is con­stan­lly in view, in clear weath­er, the beau­ti­ful line of snowy peaks along the west­ern hori­zon. This con­tin­ues for hun­dreds of miles north-​west­ward. The Rocky Moun­tains, vhich give its charm to Al­ber­ta, are as­cend­ed by a grad­ual ap­proach from the east, but are ex­ceed­ing­ly abrupt on their transalpine slope in British Columbia. The peaks of these moun­tains are 1ra­jes­tic, many of them reach­ing a height of more than two niles above the sea. Among the more no­table of these are Lcb­scn peak, 13,700 ft.; Athabas­ca, 13,700; Assini­boine, 11,8s0; Fyell, 12,000; Mum­mery, 12,000; Tem­ple, 11,658; and Geikie, 11,000. Mt. Brown reach­es 9050.

Through these Rocky Moun­tains the ex­plor­ers and fur­traders, by as­cend­ing the streams run­ning down the east­ern de­cliv­ities of the moun­tains, and cross­ing by short portages to the streams of the west­ern slope, have suc­ceed­ed in dis­cov­er­ing pass­es by which the moun­tain chain can be crossed, the range rarely ex­ceed­ing 60 m. in breadth. The most not­ed of the Al­ber­ta pass­es are (1) the Crow’s Nest Pass, near the south­ern bound­ary line, through which a branch of the Cana­di­an I,acif­ic’ rail­way runs; (2) the Kick­ing Horse Pass, through which the main line of the Cana­di­an Pa­cif­ic rail­way is built; 80 m. from the east­ern end of this pass is the Rocky Moun­tains Park, with the fa­mous wa­ter­ing-​place of Banff as its cen­tre; (3) the Yel­low Head Pass, run­ning west from the north­ern branch of the Saskatchewan riv­er; this pass was dis­cov­ered by Capt. Pal­lise1 (1858), was crossed by Lord Mil­ton and Dr W. B. Chea­dle (1861), and by Sand­ford Flem­ing (1871-1872) in the Ocean to Ocean ex­pe­di­tion; (4) Peace Riv­er Pass. By this pass Alexan­der Macken­zie made his cel­ebrat­ed voy­age. There are oth­er mi­nor pass­es, and no doubt more to be dis­cov­ered.

With the ex­cep­tion of the south­ern sec­tion, the province of Al­ber­ta may be said to be well wa­tered. Ris­ing from nu­mer­ous val­leys on the Al­ber­ta de­cliv­ity of the Rocky Moun­tains be­tween the in­ter­na­tion­al bound­ary line and 52 deg. N. are streams which unite to form the Bel­ly riv­er, and far­ther north the Bow riv­er. Run­ning east­ward these two rivers unite about 112 deg. W;, and flow on un­der the name of the South Saskatchewan riv­er. North of 52 deg. N. many small streams unite to form the Red Deer riv­er, which flow­ing south-​east­ward joins the South Saskatchewan near 110 deg. W. Be­tween 52 deg. and 53 deg. N. ris­es the great riv­er, the North Saskatchewan. It re­ceives a south­ern trib­utary, the Bat­tle riv­er, which joins it about 108 deg. W. Pur­su­ing their cours­es east­ward the North and South Saskatchewan rivers unite in the Saskatchewan (Cree, rapid-​flow­ing riv­er), which finds its way to Lake Win­nipeg, and thence by way of Nel­son riv­er to Hud­son Bay. It is one of the might­iest rivers of the con­ti­nent.

Be­tween 53 deg. and 54 deg. N. be­gins the height of land run­ning north-​east­er­ly, north of which all the wa­ters of Al­ber­ta flow to­ward the Arc­tic Sea. In north­ern Al­ber­ta, on the north­ern slope, gath­er­ing its trib­utaries from rills in the Rocky Moun­tains, the riv­er Athabas­ca runs north and emp­ties in­to Lake Athabas­ca near 58 deg. N. North of 56 deg. N. flows through and from the Rocky Moun­tains the Peace riv­er. Af­ter de­scend­ing north-​east­ward to with­in a few miles of Lake Athabas­ca, it is met by a stream emerg­ing from that lake. The unit­ed riv­er car­ry­ing down the wa­ters of the Athabas­ca slope is called the Slave riv­er, which, pass­ing through Great Slave Lake, emerges as the great Macken­zie riv­er, which falls in­to the Arc­tic Sea. Al­ber­ta thus gives rise to the two great rivers Saskatchewan and Macken­zie. While a num­ber of fresh-​wa­ter, or in some cas­es brack­ish, lakes each less than 100 sq. m. in ex­tent are sit­uat­ed in Al­ber­ta, two of more con­sid­er­able size are found. These are Lake Athabas­ca, 3085 sq. m. in ex­tent, of which a part is in the province of Saskatchewan, and the oth­er Less­er Slave Lake some 600 sq. m. in area.

Cli­mate.–As Al­ber­ta ex­tends for 750 m. from north to south—as great a dis­tance as from Land’s End in Eng­land to the north of the Shet­land Isles–it is nat­ural that the cli­mate should vary con­sid­er­ably be­tween par­al­lels of 40 deg. and 60 deg. N.. and al­so be­tween 110 deg. and 120 deg. W. It is al­so fur­ther in­flu­enced by the dif­fer­ent al­ti­tudes above the sea of the sev­er­al parts of the province. Di­vid­ing the province in­to three equal parts of 250 m. each from north to south, these may be called (A) the south, (B) the cen­tre, (C) the north. The fol­low­ing da­ta may be con­sid­ered:–

CLI­MAT­IC TA­BLE Cli­mate Places Above the Sea Mean Win­ter Temp (A) Mod­er­ate and Medicine Hat, 2171 ft. 14.3 deg. F. change­able lat. 50 deg. N. Cal­gary, lat. 51 deg. 3432 ” 15.4 deg. ” Banff, lat. 51 1/2 deg. 4515 ” 15.9 deg. ” (B) Steady Ed­mon­ton, lat. 53 1/2 deg. 2210 ” 10.3 deg. ” (C) Se­vere Fort Chipewyan, lat. 600 ” 7.2 deg. ” lat. 59 deg. N.

Cli­mate (A) al­lows, in what is a great ranch­ing dis­trict, cat­tle and hors­es to run at large through the whole win­ter. Through the moun­tain pass­es come at times dry winds from the Pa­cif­ic coast, which lick up the snow in a few hours. These winds are known as Chi­nook winds. While el­evat­ing the tem­per­ature they bring more mois­ture in­to the air and pro­duce a change not en­tire­ly de­sir­able.

Cli­mate (B) is the steady win­ter cli­mate of Ed­mon­ton dis­trict. This while av­er­ag­ing a low­er tem­per­ature than (A) is not so sub­ject to change; it re­tains the snow for sleigh­ing, which is a boon to the farmer. This cli­mate is much less in­flu­enced by the Pa­cif­ic winds than (A).

Cli­mate (C), that of Fort Chipewyan, hav­ing a mean win­ter tem­per­ature of 22.6 deg. low­er than Cal­gary, is a de­cid­ed­ly sub-​arc­tic cli­mate. It is the re­gion in win­ter of con­stant ice and snow, but its low­er al­ti­tude gives it a sum­mer cli­mate with a mean tem­per­ature of on­ly 1.6 deg. less than Cal­gary, and 1.8 deg. less than Ed­mon­ton. It will thus be seen that the agri­cul­tur­al ca­pa­bil­ities of the Athabas­ca and Peace riv­er dis­tricts, not yet ful­ly known, are full of promise.

Fau­na.–The three cli­mat­ic re­gions of Al­ber­ta have nat­ural­ly a vary­ing fau­na. The south and cen­tral re­gion was the land of the bi­son, its grass­es af­ford­ing a great pas­ture ground for tens of thou­sands of “buf­faloes.” They were de­stroyed by whites and In­di­ans in 1870-1882 on the ap­proach of the Cana­di­an Pa­cif­ic rail­way. Griz­zly, black and cin­na­mon bears are, found in the moun­tains and wood­ed dis­tricts. The coy­ote or small wolf, here and there the grey wolf, the fox and the moun­tain li­on (pan­ther) oc­cur. The moose and red deer are found in the wood­ed re­gions, and the jump­ing deer and an­te­lope on the prairies. Wild sheep and goats live in the Rocky Moun­tains. The lynx, wolver­ine, por­cu­pine, skunk, hare, squir­rel and mouse are met. The go­pher is a res­ident of the dry plains. Dis­trict (C) is the fur-​trad­er’s par­adise. The buf­fa­lo is re­placed by the moun­tain buf­faloes, of which a few sur­vive. The musk-​ox comes in thou­sands ev­ery year to the great north­ern lakes, while the mink, marten, beaver, ot­ter, er­mine and musk-​rat are sought by the fur-​trad­er. Fort Chipewyan was long known in Hud­son’s Bay Com­pa­ny his­to­ry as the great de­pot of the Macken­zie riv­er dis­trict. North­ern Al­ber­ta and the re­gion far­ther north is the nest­ing-​ground of the mi­gra­to­ry birds. Here vast num­bers of ducks, geese, swans and pel­icans re­sort ev­ery year. Cranes, par­tridges and va­ri­eties of singing birds abound. The ea­gle, hawk, owl and crow are plen­ti­ful. Mosquitoes and flies are ev­ery­where, and the wasp and wild bee al­so. In the rivers and lakes pike, pick­er­el, white fish and stur­geon sup­ply food for the na­tives, and the brook trout is found in the small moun­tain streams. The tur­tle and frog al­so ap­pear.

Flo­ra.–In cen­tral and north­ern Al­ber­ta the open­ing spring brings in the prairie anemone, the avens and oth­er ear­ly flow­ers. The ad­vanc­ing sum­mer in­tro­duces many flow­ers of the sun­flow­er fam­ily, un­til in Au­gust the plains are one blaze of yel­low and pur­ple. The south­ern part of Al­ber­ta is cov­ered by a short grass, very nu­tri­tive, but dry­ing up in the mid­dle of sum­mer un­til the whole prairie is brown and unattrac­tive. The trees in the wood­ed sec­tions of the province are seen in clumps and belts on the hill sides. These are large­ly de­cid­uous. On the north side of the Saskatchewan riv­er forests pre­vail for scores and even hun­dreds of miles. They con­tain the poplar Or as­pen (Pop­ulus tremu­loides), bal­sam poplar (Pop­ulus bal­sam­ifera), and pa­per or ca­noe birch (Fe­tu­la pa­pyrifera.) The Conifer­ae are found north­ward and in the moun­tain val­leys. Some of these are: Jack pine (Pi­nus Banksiana), Rocky Moun­tain pine (Pi­nus flex­ilis), black pine (Pi­nus Mur­rayana), white spruce (Picea al­ba), black spruce (Picea ni­gra), En­gel­man’s spruce (Picea En­gel­man­ni), moun­tain bal­sam (Abies sub­alpina), Dou­glas fir (Pseu­dot­suga Dou­glasii), moun­tain larch (Lar­ix Lyal­lis.)

Pop­ula­tion.–By the cen­sus of 1906 the pop­ula­tion of Al­ber­ta was found to be 185,412. It has grown from 73,022 in 1901 (the area of Al­ber­ta be­ing then slight­ly dif­fer­ent). The ba­sis of the pop­ula­tion is Cana­di­an, and the im­mi­gra­tion has been chiefly from (1) the British Isles, (2) Unit­ed States, (3) con­ti­nent of Eu­rope (chiefly Aus­tria, Hun­gary and Rus­sia). Of the pop­ula­tion in 1901, 17,245 had im­mi­grat­ed thith­er from the three men­tioned sources. The fol­low­ing ta­ble shows the per­cent­ages of ori­gins:–

1901. Cana­di­an and na­tive born . . . 54 % The British Isles . . . . . 6.8% Unit­ed States . . . . . . 16.6% Con­ti­nent of Eu­rope . . . . 24.4%

Of the In­di­an and In­di­an half-​breed pop­ula­tion there were in 1901, 14,669 of the for­mer and 11,635 of the lat­ter. The In­di­ans of cen­tral Al­ber­ta are chiefly plain Crees, a tribe of Al­go­nquin stock. In south­ern Al­ber­ta are sev­er­al thou­sands of In­di­ans on re­serves south and west of Cal­gary, con­sist­ing of the Black­foots of Al­go­nquin stock, Sarcees, Pie­gans and a few Assini­boins.

The chief cities and towns of Al­ber­ta are Ed­mon­ton (11,167), Cal­gary (i1,967), Medicine IIat (3020), Leth­bi­idge (2948) and Strath­cona (2927).

In­dus­tries.— The chief in­dus­tries of the peo­ple are farm­ing and ranch­ing. Cat­tle, hors­es and sheep are large­ly reared in the south­ern prairie re­gion on ranch­es or small­er hold­ings. In this re­gion ir­ri­ga­tion is wide­ly used. Red win­ter wheat is now pro­duced to a con­sid­er­able de­gree. In the town of Ray­mond is a large beet sug­ar man­ufac­to­ry, and in the vicin­ity great quan­ti­ties of beets are grown by ir­ri­ga­tion. In cen­tral Al­ber­ta coarse grains—oats and bar­ley—-and some wheat are grown, in con­junc­tion with mixed farm­ing. While wash­ing out the sands of the North Saskatchewan for gold is still some­what re­sort­ed to, the on­ly re­al min­ing in Al­ber­ta is that for coal. Vast beds of coal are found ex­tend­ing for hun­dreds of miles, a short dis­tance be­low the sur­face of the plains. The coal be­longs to the Cre­ta­ceous beds, and while not so heavy as that of the Coal Mea­sures is of ex­cel­lent qual­ity. In the val­ley of the Bow riv­er, along­side the Cana­di­an Pa­cif­ic rail­way, valu­able beds of an­thracite coal ale worked, and the coal is car­ried by rail­way as far east as Win­nipeg. The usu­al coal de­posits of Al­ber­ta are of bi­tu­mi­nous or se­mi-​bi­tu­mi­nous coal. These are large­ly worked at Leth­bridge in south­ern Al­ber­ta and Ed­mon­ton in the cen­tre of the province. Many oth­er parts of the province have pits for pri­vate use. The Athabas­ca riv­er re­gion, as well as lo­cal­ities far north on the Macken­zie riv­er, has de­cid­ed in­di­ca­tions of petroleum, though it is not yet de­vel­oped. Nat­ural gas has been found at sev­er­al points. The most no­table gas dis­cov­ery is that at Medicine Hat, which has wells with un­lim­it­ed quan­ti­ties. The gas is ex­cel­lent, is used for light­ing the town, sup­plies light and fu­el for the peo­ple, and a num­ber of in­dus­tries are us­ing the gas for man­ufac­tur­ing.

Com­mu­ni­ca­tions.—For trans­porta­tion the North Saskatchewan is to some ex­tent de­pend­ed on for car­ry­ing freight by steam­boats, but rail­ways are widespread in the province. The Cana­di­an Pa­cif­ic rail­way has its main line run­ning from east to west chiefly be­tween 50 and 51 deg. N. Over this line pass­esa­nenor­mous trade from the At­lantic to the Pa­cif­ic Ocean—the rail­way with its “Em­press” steam­ers on the Pa­cif­ic and al­so on the At­lantic Ocean claim­ing to have as its ter­mi­ni Liv­er­pool and Yoko­hama. A branch line of the Cana­di­an Pa­cif­ic rail­way runs from Medicine Hat be­tween 49 deg. and 50 deg. N., pass­ing through the Crow’s Nest Pass of the Rocky Moun­tains and car­ry­ing on trade with British Columbia. An­oth­er branch from Cal­gary runs south­ward to Macleod, and to Leth­bridge there comes from the south a branch cf the Great North­ern rail­way of the Unit­ed States, con­nect­ing with the state of Mon­tana. From Cal­gary to Ed­mon­ton­north­ward runs a line un­der the con­trol of the Cana­di­an Pa­cif­ic rail­way. From this rail­way al­so run, east­ward from La­combe and We­taski­win, branch lines to com­plete the sys­tem. In 1906 tue new line of the Cana­di­an North­ern rail­way was opened, con­nect­ing Win­nipeg, 1000 m. to the east, along the NUrth Saskatchewan riv­er, with Ed­mon­ton. The Grand Trunk Pa­cif­ic rail­way, backed by the Cana­di­an gov­ern­ment, forms a new transcon­ti­nen­tal line; the prairie sec­tion from Win­nipeg to Ed­mon­ton was in 1908 un­der con­tract.

Ad­min­is­tra­tion, &c.—The lo­cal gov­ern­ment of Al­ber­ta is car­ried on by a provin­cial or­ga­ni­za­tion re­sem­bling that of the oth­er Cana­di­an provinces. The cap­ital of the province is Ed­mon­ton, and here re­side the lieu­tenant-​gov­er­nor and cab­inet. The leg­is­la­ture con­sists of one house—the Leg­isla­tive As­sem­bly—-of twen­ty-​five mem­bers. Re­spon­si­ble gov­ern­ment af­ter the British mod­el is fol­lowed, and the rev­enue is chiefly de­rived from grants from the Do­min­ion gov­ern­ment. Al­ber­ta has a sys­tem of mu­nic­ipal gov­ern­ment sim­ilar to that of the oth­er provinces.

Ed­uca­tion is giv­en by a pub­lic-​school sys­tem, which, while nom­inal­ly pro­vid­ing for sep­arate schools for Catholics and Protes­tants, makes it prac­ti­cal­ly im­pos­si­ble at most points to car­ry on such schools. A nor­mal school is sit­uat­ed at Cal­gary. There is a col­lege for sec­ondary ed­uca­tion in Cal­gary and an­oth­er in Ed­mon­ton.

The fol­low­ing are the lead­ing de­nom­ina­tions in Al­ber­ta:–

1901. Ro­man Catholics . . . . 12,957 Pres­by­te­ri­ans . . . . 10,655 Methodists . . . . . 9,623 Church of Eng­land . . . 8,888 Luther­ans . . . . . 5,810 Greek Church . . . . 4,618 Mor­mons . . . . . . 3,212 Bap­tists . . . . . 2,722

The Mor­mons of Al­ber­ta are in the most souther­ly part of the province, and are a colony from the Mor­mon set­tle­ments in Utah, U.S. On com­ing to Cana­da they were giv­en lands by the Do­min­ion of Cana­da. The or­ga­ni­za­tion adopt­ed in Utah among the Mor­mons is found al­so in Al­ber­ta, but the Cana­di­an Mor­mons pro­fess to have re­ceived a lat­er rev­ela­tion con­demn­ing polygamy.

His­to­ry.—The present province of Al­ber­ta as far north as the height of land (53 deg. N.) was from the time of the in­cor­po­ra­tion of the Hud­son’s Bay Com­pa­ny (1670) a part of Ru­pert’s Land. Af­ter the dis­cov­ery of the north-​west by the French in 1731 and suc­ceed­ing years the prairies of the west were oc­cu­pied by them, and Fort La Jon­quiere was es­tab­lished near the present city of Cal­gary (1752). The North-​West Com­pa­ny of Mon­tre­al oc­cu­pied the north­ern part of Al­ber­ta dis­trict be­fore the Hud­son’s Bay Com­pa­ny suc­ceed­ed in com­ing from Hud­son Bay to take pos­ses­sion of it. The first hold of the Athabas­ca re­gion was gained by Pe­ter Pond, who, on be­hal­fofthe North-​West Com­pa­ny of Mon­tre­al, built Fort Athabas­ca on riv­er La Biche in 1778. Rod­er­ick Macken­zie, cousin of Sir Alexan­der Macken­zie, built Fort Chipewyan on Lake Athabas­ca in 1788. By way of the North Saskatchewan riv­er Alexan­der Macken­zie crossed the height of land, and pro­ceed­ing north­ward dis­cov­ered the riv­er which bears his name, and al­so the Arc­tic Sea. Af­ter­ward go­ing west­ward from Lake Athabas­ca and through the Peace riv­er, he reached the Pa­cif­ic Ocean, be­ing the first white man to cross the North Amer­ican con­ti­nent, north of Mex­ico.

As part of the North-​West Ter­ri­to­ries the’dis­trict of Al­ber­ta was or­ga­nized in 1875. Ad­di­tion­al priv­ileges and a lo­cal­leg­is­la­ture were added from time to time. At length in 1905 the dis­trict of Al­ber­ta was en­larged and the present province formed by the Do­min­ion par­lia­ment. (G. BR.)

AL­BERT ED­WARD NYAN­ZA, a lake of Cen­tral Africa, the south­ern of the two west­ern reser­voirs of the Nile. It lies in the Al­ber­tine rift-​val­ley be­tween 0 deg. 8′ and 0 deg. 40′ S. and 29 deg. 28′ and 29 deg. 52′ E., at an el­eva­tion of 3004 ft. above the sea. It is rough­ly oval in shape and has no deep in­den­ta­tions. On its N.E. side it is con­nect­ed by a wind­ing chan­nel, 25 m. long and from a quar­ter of a mile to a mile wide, flow­ing be­tween high banks, with a small­er sheet of wa­ter, Lake Dweru, which ex­tends north of the equa­tor. Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za has a length of 44 m. and a breadth of 32 m. (max­imum mea­sure­ment) . Dweru is about 20 m. long and 10 across at its widest part. The area of the two lakes is ap­prox­imate­ly 820 sq. m., or about the size of Le­ices­ter­shire, Eng­land. A swampy plain, tra­versed by the Ruchu­ru and oth­er rivers, ex­tends south of the Nyan­za and was once cov­ered by its wa­ters. The plain con­tains sev­er­al salt-​pans, and at the S.E. cor­ner are nu­mer­ous gey­sers. Along the east­ern shore the low land ex­tends to Ka­ma­rangu, a point about mid­way be­tween the south and north ends of the lake, a con­sid­er­able stretch of ground in­ter­ven­ing be­tween the wall of the rift-​val­ley and the wa­ter, two ter­races be­ing clear­ly de­fined. The eu­phor­bia trees and oth­er veg­eta­tion on the low­er ter­race are of small size and ap­par­ent­ly of re­cent ori­gin. At some dis­tance from the lake runs a belt of for­est. North of Ka­ma­rangu the wall of the val­ley ap­proach­es the wa­ter in a se­ries of bluffs some 300 to 350 ft. high. At the N.E. end the hills again re­cede and the plain widens to io­clude Dweru. On the west side of the Nyan­za the wall of the rift-​val­ley runs close to the lake shore and at the N.W. cor­ner the moun­tains close in on the wa­ter. North of the lake a high al­lu­vial plain stretch­es to the south­ern slopes of the Ruwen­zori moun­tains. From Ruwen­zori a sub­sidiary range, known as the Kipu­ra moun­tains, runs due south to the lake shore, where it ends in a low round­ed hill. In gen­er­al, the plain ris­es above the lake in a se­ries of bold bluffs, a wide mar­gin of swamp sep­arat­ing them from the wa­ter. The Sem­li­ki, the on­ly out­let of the lake, is­sues from its N.W. end. Round the north-​east­ern shore of the lake are nu­mer­ous crater lakes, many salt, the most re­mark­able be­ing that of Katwe. This lake lies west of the Dweru chan­nel and is sep­arat­ed from Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za by a ridge of land, not more than 160 ft. in breadth. The sides of this ridge run down steeply to the wa­ter on ei­ther side. The wa­ters of the Katwe lake have a beau­ti­ful rose colour which be­comes crim­son in the shad­ows. The salt is high­ly prized and is ex­port­ed to great dis­tances.

The main feed­er of Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za, and west­ern head-​stream of the Nile, the Ruchu­ru, ris­es on the north side of the vol­ca­noes north of Lake Kivu (see MEUMBIRO.) On reach­ing the lev­el plain 15 m. from the lake its wa­ters be­come brack­ish, and the Veg­eta­tion on its banks is scanty. The reedy marsh­es near its mouth form a re­treat for a prim­itive race of fish­er­men. Lake Dweru, the shores of which are gen­er­al­ly high, is fed by the streams from the east­ern slopes of the Ruwen­zori range. One of these, the Mpan­go, is a larg­er riv­er than the Ruchu­ru. The out­let of the Nyan­za, the Sem­li­ki, and the part plaved by the lake in the Nile sys­tem are de­scribed un­der AL­BERY NYAN­ZA.

A fea­ture of Lake Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za is the thick haze which over­hangs the wa­ter dur­ing the dry sea­son, blot­ting out from view the moun­tains. In the rains, vhen the sky is clear, the mag­nif­icent panora­ma of hills en­cir­cling the lake on the west and north-​west is re­vealed. The lake wa­ter is clear of a light green colour, and dis­tinct­ly brack­ish. Fish abound, as do wa­ter­fowl, crocodiles and, in the south­ern swamps, hip­popota­mi. In the rainy sea­son the lake is sub­ject to vi­olent storms.

The en­tire area of Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za was found, by the work of the An­glo-​Ger­man Bound­ary Com­mis­sion of 1902-1904, to lie with­in the lim­its of the sphere of in­flu­ence of the Con­go Free State as de­fined in the agree­ment of the 12th of May 1894 be­tween that state and Great Britain. Dweru was dis­cov­ered in 1875 by H. M. Stan­ley, then trav­el­ling west­ward from Ugan­da, and by him was named Beat­rice Gulf in the be­lief that it was part of Al­bert Nyan­za. In 1888-1889 Stan­ley, ap­proach­ing the Nile re­gion from the west, traced the Sem­li­ki to its source in Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za, which lake he dis­cov­ered, nam­ing it af­ter Al­bert Ed­ward, prince of Wales, af­ter­wards Ed­ward VII. Stan­ley al­so dis­cov­ered the con­nect­ing chan­nel be­tween the larg­er lake and Dweru. The ac­cu­rate map­ping of the lake was main­ly the work of British of­fi­cials and trav­ellers, such as Scott El­liott, Sir F. D. Lu­gard, Ewart Gro­gan, J. E. Moore and Sir H. John­ston; while Emin Pasha and Franz Stuhlmann, deputy­gov­er­nor (1891) of Ger­man East Africa, ex­plored its south­ern shores. (See AL­BERT NYAN­za and NIRE, and the au­thor­ities there quot­ed.) (W. E. G.; F. R. C.)

AL­BER­TI, DOMENI­CO (c. 1710-1740), Ital­ian mu­si­cian, is known in mu­si­cal his­to­ry as the writ­er of dozens of sonatas in which the melody is sup­port­ed from be­gin­ning to end by an ex­treme­ly fa­mil­iar for­mu­la of arpeg­gio ac­com­pa­ni­ment, con­se­quent­ly known as the Al­ber­ti bass. He thus shows how ad­vanced was the de­cay of­poly­phon­ic sen­si­bil­ity (as a neg­ative prepa­ra­tion for the ad­vent of the sonata-​style) al­ready dur­ing the life­time of Bach. His works have no oth­er spe­cial qual­ities, though it is prob­able that Mozart’s first vi­olin sonatas, writ­ten at the age of sev­en, were mod­elled on Al­ber­ti in spite of their su­pe­ri­or clev­er­ness.

AL­RERTI, LEONE BAT­TISTA (1404-1472), Ital­ian painter, po­et, philoso­pher, mu­si­cian and ar­chi­tect, was born in Venice on the 18th of Febru­ary 1404. He was so skilled in Latin verse that a com­edy he wrote in his twen­ti­eth year, en­ti­tled Philo­dox­ius, de­ceived the younger Al­dus, who edit­ed and pub­lished it as the gen­uine work of Lep­idus. In mu­sic he was re­put­ed one of the first or­gan­ists of the age. He held the ap­point­ment of canon in the metropoli­tan church of Flo­rence, and thus had leisure to de­vote him­self to his favourite art. UIe is gen­er­al­ly re­gard­ed as one of the re­stor­ers of the an­cient style of ar­chi­tec­ture. At Rome he was em­ployed by Pope Nicholas V. in the restora­tion of the pa­pal palace and of the foun­da­tion of Ac­qua Vergine, and in the or­na­men­ta­tion of the mag­nif­icent foun­tain of Tre­vi. At Man­tua he de­signed the church of Sant’ An­drea and at Ri­mi­ni the cel­ebrat­ed church of San Francesco, which is gen­er­al­ly es­teemed his finest work. On a com­mis­sion from Ru­cel­lai he de­signed the prin­ci­pal fa­cade of the church of San­ta Maria Novel­la in Flo­rence, as well as the fam­ily palace in the Via del­la Scala, now known as the Palaz­zo Strozzi. Al­ber­ti wrote works on sculp­ture, Del­la Stat­ua, and on paint­ing, De . Pic­tura, which are high­ly es­teemed; but his most cel­ebrat­ed trea­tise is that on ar­chi­tec­ture, De Re Aed­if­icalo­ria, which has been trans­lat­ed in­to Ital­ian, French, Span­ish and En­glish. Al­ber­ti died at Rome in the April of 1472.

See Passeri­ni, Gli Al­ber­ti di Firen­ze (1869, 1870); Manci­ni, Vri­ta de Al­ber­ti (Firen­ze, 1882); V. Hoff­mann, Stu­di­en zu Leon Bat­tista Al­ber­ti’s zehn Buch­ern: De Re Aed­ica­to­ria (Franken­berg, 1883).

AL­BERTINEILI, MAR­IOT­TO (1474-1515), Ital­ian painter, was born in Flo­rence, and was a fel­low-​pupil and part­ner of Fra Bar­tolom­meo, with whom he paint­ed many works. His chief paint­ings are in Flo­rence, no­tably his mas­ter­piece, the “Vis­ita­tion of the Vir­gin” (1503) at the Uf­fizi.

AL­RERTITE, a va­ri­ety of as­phalt found in Al­bert coun­ty, New Brunswick. It is of jet-​black colour and bril­liant pitch-​like lus­tre. Its per­cent­age chem­ical com­po­si­tion is:–

C. H. O. N. S. Ash. 86.04 8.96 1.97 2.93 trace 0.10

It soft­ens slight­ly in boil­ing wa­ter, but on­ly fus­es im­per­fect­ly when fur­ther heat­ed, and it is less sol­uble than or­di­nary as­phalt in oil of tur­pen­tine.

AL­BERT LEA, a cityn­nd the coun­ty-​seatof Free­born coun­ty, Min­neso­ta, U.S.A., about 97 m. S. of St Paul. Pop. (1890) 3305; (1900) 4500; ( 1905, state cen­sus) 5657, 1206 be­ing for­eign-​born (461 Nor­we­gians, 411 Danes, 98 Swedes); (1910, L. S. cen­sus) 6192. It is served by two branch­es of the Lhica­go, Mil­wau­kee & St Paul, by the main line and one branch of the Chica­go, Rock Is­land & Pa­cif­ic, by the Illi­nois Cen­tral, by the Iowa Cen­tral, and by the Min­neapo­lis & St Louis rail­ways. It is at­trac­tive­ly sit­uat­ed be­tween Foun­tain Lake and Al­bert Lea Lake, and is a sum­mer re­sort. It has a pub­lic li­brary and the Free­born Coun­ty Court House, and is the seat of Al­bert Lea Col­lege (Pres­by­te­ri­an, for wom­en), found­ed in 1884, and of Luther Acade­my ( Nor­we­gian Evan­gel­ical Luther­an), found­ed in 1888. Al­bert Lea is a rail­way and man­ufac­tur­ing cen­tre of con­sid­er­able im­por­tance, has grain el­eva­tors and foundries and ma­chine shops, and man­ufac­tures bricks, tiles, car­riages, wag­ons, flour, corsets, re­frig­er­ators and woollen goods. The city is al­so the cen­tre of large dairy in­ter­ests, and there are many cream­eries in the coun­ty. Sumer­ous arte­sian wells fur­nish the city with an am­ple sup­ply of wa­ter of un­usu­al ex­cel­lence. Al­bert Lea was set­tled in 1855 and re­ceived a city char­ter in 1878. The city and the lake were named in hon­our of Lieu­tenant Al­bert Miller Lea (1808–1801), a West Point grad­uate (1831) who, on be­half of the Unit­ed States gov­ern­ment, first sur­veyed the re­gion and de­scribed it in a re­port pub­lished in 1836. He was a lieu­tenant-​colonel of en­gi­neers in the Con­fed­er­ate army dur­ing the Civ­il War.

AL­BERT NYAN­ZA, a lake of Cen­tral Africa, the north­ern of the two west­ern reser­voirs of the Nile, ly­ing in the west­ern (A!bertine) rift-​val­ley, near its north end. The south­ern reser­voir is Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za (q.v..) Lake Al­bert lies be­tween 1 deg. 9′ and 2 deg. 17′ N. and 30 deg. 30′ and 31 deg. 35′ E., at an el­eva­tion of about 2000 ft. above the sea. Its great­est length is about 100 m., its great­est width 22 m., its area be­ing ap­prox­imate­ly 1640 sq. m., about the size of Lan­cashire, Eng­land. South of the lake is a wide plain, tra­versed by the Se­ni­li­ki riv­er, which en­ters the Nyan­za through a swamp of tall weeds, chiefly am­bach and pa­pyrus. Both east and west the walls of the rift-​val­ley are close to the lake,the wa­terin many places wash­ing the base of the cliffs. Else­where the nar­row­fore­shore is thick­ly­wood­ed. The as­cent to the plateaus is gen­er­al­ly by three tiers of hills ris­ing one be­hind the oth­er. On the west side the moun­tains present many point­ed and con­ical sum­mits; on the east the cliffs rise abrupt­ly 1000 to 2000 ft. On ei­ther coast wild gorges and ravines, dense­ly wood­ed, break the out­line of the moun­tains. Through these gorges dash mag­nif­icent cas­cades, oth­ers leap­ing the es­carp­ments of the plateaus in wa­ter­falls of great vol­ume and depth. To­wards the north the hills re­cede from the coast and on both sides flats ex­tend for dis­tances vary­ing from 5 to 15 m. On the east­ern side, 92 m. from the south­ern end of the Nyan­za, the Vic­to­ria Nile en­ters the lake, here not more than 6 m. across, through a wilder­ness of woods, the delta of the Nile ex­tend­ing over 4 m. The mouth of the main stream is ob­struct­ed by a bar of its own for­ma­tion; the cur­rent is slug­gish; there are many side chan­nels, and the ap­pear­ance of the lake gives no hint that a great riv­er has joined its wa­ters. For 5 or 6 m. north of the junc­tion of the Vic­to­ria Nile the lake suf­fers no ma­te­ri­al diminu­tion in width. Then, how­ev­er, the east­ern and west­ern shores ap­proach each oth­er, and a cur­rent is per­cep­ti­ble flow­ing north. The lake has be­come the Bahr-​el-​Jebel, or Moun­tain riv­er, as this sec­tion of the Nile is called. Through­out its ex­tent Al­bert Nyan­za is shal­low; at its south­ern end the wa­ter for a con­sid­er­able dis­tance is not more than 3 ft. deep. The deep­est sound­ings give on­ly 50 to 55 ft., the av­er­age depth be­ing 30 to 40 ft.

The Al­ber­line Basin of the Nile.—Al­bert Nyan­za re­ceives the whole of the drainage of Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za and the Sem­li­ki riv­er, and with them and its own basin forms the “Al­ber­tine” Nile sys­tem. Its wa­ters, as stat­ed above, min­gle with those of the Vic­to­ria Nile, their unit­ed vol­ume flow­ing north to­wards the Mediter­ranean. A study of the changes go­ing on in the rift­val­ley in which the lakes lie leads, how­ev­er, to the be­lief that the Al­bert Ed­ward and Al­bert Nyan­zas are dry­ing up, a pro­cess which the na­ture of the drainage ar­eas is help­ing to bring about. That the Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za once cov­ered a much larg­er area than it does at present is cer­tain. At that time, re­cent from a ge­olog­ical stand­point, the val­ley to the north, through which now flows the Sem­li­ki riv­er, was blocked. The re­moval of the block led to the shrink­age of the lake and the for­ma­tion.of the Semh­ki, which found its way to the more north­ern lake-​Al­bert Nyan­za. Grad­ual­ly the Sem­li­ki erod­ed its bed, and con­se­quent­ly the lev­el of Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za con­tin­ued to fall. The pro­cess con­tin­ues but is checked by the ex­is­tence of the rock bar­ri­er which stretch­es across the Sem­li­ki. This stream leaves Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za at its N.W. end in 0 deg. 8′ 30q S., and af­ter a course of about 160 m. en­ters Al­bert Nyan­za in 1 deg. 9′ N. In its up­per and in its low­er course the riv­er flows ei­ther through high al­lu­vial plains, in which it has scored a deep chan­nel, or across swamp land. In the mid­dle sec­tion, which has a length of some 75 m., the riv­er runs in a deep nar­row val­ley -cov­ered with the dens­est for­est. On the west this val­ley is bound­ed by the Con­go moun­tains, which form the wall of the rift-​val­ley, on the east by the mighty range of Ruwen­zori, whose heights tow­er over 16,000 ft. above sea-​lev­el. In this length of 75 m. the riv­er falls in cataracts and rapids over 800 ft. This rocky bar­ri­er acts as a reg­ula­tor for the wa­ter re­ceived from Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za snd, by check­ing the ero­sion of the riv­er bed, tends to main­tain the lev­el of the lake. When this bar wears away Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za will, in all prob­abil­ity, dis­ap­pear as a lake and will be­come a riv­er, a con­tin­ua­tion of its present most south­ern af­fi­uen­tj the Ruchu­ru.

Al­bert Nyan­za, on the oth­er hand, is threat­ened in the dis­tant fu­ture with de­struc­tion from an­oth­er cause–the fill­ing of its bed by the al­lu­vi­um poured in­to it by the Sem­li­ki, the Vic­to­ria Nile and, in a less­er de­gree, by oth­er streams. The Sem­li­ki re­ceives di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly the whole of the drainage of Ruwen­zori, and al­so that of the east­ern face of the Con­go moun­tains as well as the drainage basin of Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za. The amount of al­lu­vial mat­ter car­ried is enor­mous; from Ruwen­zori alone the de­tri­tus is very great. Charged with all this mat­ter, the Semh­ki, as it emerges from the re­gion of for­est and cataracts (in which, of­ten close­ly con­fined by its moun­tain bar­ri­ers, the stream is deep and rapid), be­comes slug­gish, its slope flat­tens out, and its wa­ters, un­able to car­ry their bur­den, de­posit much of it up­on the land. This pro­cess, con­tin­ual­ly go­ing on, has formed a large plain at the south end of Al­bert Nyan­za, which has se­ri­ous­ly en­croached up­on the lake. At the north­ern end of the lake the sed­iment brought down by the Vic­to­ria Nile is pro­duc­ing a sim­ilar ef­fect. Al­bert Nyan­za has in­deed shrunk in its di­men­sions dur­ing the com­par­ative­ly few years it has been known to Eu­ro­peans. Thus at the S.W. end, Nyam­sasi, which was an is­land in 1889, has be­come a penin­su­la. Is­lands which in 1876 were on the east coast no longer ex­ist; they now form part of the fore­shore. On the oth­er hand, the shrink­age of the lake lev­el caused the ap­pear­ance in 1885 of an is­land where in 1879 there had been an ex­panse of shal­low wa­ter. It seems prob­able that, in a pe­ri­od ge­olog­ical­ly not very re­mote, the “Al­ber­tine” sys­tem will con­sist of one great riv­er, ex­tend­ing from the north­ern slopes of the Rivu range, where the Ruchu­ru has its rise, to the ex­ist­ing junc­tion of the Vic­to­ria Nile with Al­bert Nyan­za.

The com­bined drainage area, in­clud­ing the wa­ter sur­face of Al­bert Ed­ward Nyan­za, the Semh­ki and Al­bert Nyan­za, is some 16,600 sq. m. Through­out this area the rain­fall is heavy (40 to 60 in. or more per an­num), the vol­ume of wa­ter en­ter­ing Al­bert Nyan­za by the Sem­li­ki when in flood be­ing not less than 700 cu­bic me­tres per sec­ond. Of the wa­ter re­ceived by Al­bert Nyan­za an­nu­al­ly (omit­ting the Vic­to­ria Nile from the cal­cu­la­tion) be­tween 50 and 60% is lost by evap­ora­tion, whilst 24,265,000,000 cu­bic me­tres are an­nu­al­ly with­drawn by the Bahr-​el-​Jebel. The “Al­ber­tine” sys­tem plays a com­par­ative­ly in­signif­icant part in the an­nu­al llood rise of the White Nile, but to its wa­ters are due the main­te­nance of a con­stant sup­ply to this riv­er through­out the year.

Dis­cov­ery and Ex­plo­ration.—Al­bert Nyan­za was first reached by Sir Samuel Bak­er on the 14th of March 1864 near Va­covia, a small vil­lage of fish­er­men and salt-​mak­ers on the east coast. From a granitic cliff 1500 ft. above the wa­ter he looked out over a bound­less hori­zon on the south and south-​west, and to­wards the west de­scried at a dis­tance of 50 or 60 m. moun­tains about 7000 ft. high. Al­bert Nyan­za was con­se­quent­ly en­tered on his map as a vast lake ex­tend­ing about 380 m. But the cir­cum­nav­iga­tion of the lake by Ges­si Pasha (1876), and by Emin Pasha in 1884, showed that Bak­er had been de­ceived as to the size of the lake. By the end of the 19th cen­tu­ry the to­pog­ra­phy of the lake re­gion was known with fair ac­cu­ra­cy. The lake forms part of the (British) Ugan­da Pro­tec­torate, but the north-​west shores were leased in 1894 to the (ion­go Free State dur­ing the sovereign­ty of king Leopold II. of Bel­gium. Of this leased area a strip 15 m. wide, giv­ing the Con­go State a pas­sage way to the lake, was to re­main in its pos­ses­sion af­ter the de­ter­mi­na­tion of the lease. - See Nile; Sir W. Garstin’s Re­port up­on the Basin of the Up­per

Loile (Egypt, No. 2, 1904); Capt. H. G. Lyons’ The Phys­iog­ra­phy oj. the Riv­er Nelc and its Basin (Cairo, 1906), and the au­thor­ities quot­ed in those works. (W. E. G.; F. R. C.)

AL­BER­TUS MAG­NUS (AL­BERT OF COLOGNE.? 1206-1280), count of Boll­stadt, scholas­tic philoso­pher, was born of the no­ble fam­ily of Boll­stadt at Lauin­gen in Suabia. The date of his birth, gen­er­al­ly giv­en as 1193, is more prob­ably 1206. He was ed­ucat­ed prin­ci­pal­ly at Pad­ua, where he re­ceived in­struc­tion in Aris­to­tle’s writ­ings. In 1223 (or 1221) he be­came a mem­ber of the Do­mini­can or­der, and stud­ied the­ol­ogy un­der its rules at Bologna and else­where. Se­lect­ed to fill the po­si­tion of lec­tur­er at Cologne, where the or­der had a house, he taught for sev­er­al years there, at Re­gens­burg, Freiburg, Strass­burg and Hildesheim. In 1245 he went to Paris, re­ceived his doc­tor­ate and taught for some time, in ac­cor­dance with the reg­ula­tions, with great suc­cess. In 1254 he was made provin­cial of his or­der, and ful­filled the ar­du­ous du­ties of the of­fice with great care and ef­fi­cien­cy. Dur­ing the time he held this of­fice he pub­licly de­fend­ed the Do­mini­cans against the uni­ver­si­ty of Paris, com­ment­ed on St John, and an­swered the er­rors of the Ara­bi­an philoso­pher, Aver­roes. In 1260 the pope made him bish­op of Re­gens­burg, which of­fice he re­signed af­ter three years. The re­main­der of his life he spent part­ly in preach­ing through­out Bavaria and the ad­join­ing dis­tricts, part­ly in re­tire­ment in the var­ious hous­es of his or­der; in 1270 he preached the eighth Cru­sade in Aus­tria; al­most the last of his labours was the de­fence of the or­tho­doxy of his for­mer pupil, Thomas Aquinas. He died in 1280, aged sev­en­ty-​four. He was be­at­ified in 1622, and he is com­mem­orat­ed on the 16th of Novem­ber. Al­bert’s works (pub­lished in twen­ty-​one fo­lios by the Do­mini­can Pierre Jam­my in 1651, and re­pro­duced by the Abbe Borgnet, Paris, 1890, 36 vols.) suf­fi­cient­ly at­test his great ac­tiv­ity. He was the most wide­ly read and most learned man of his time. The whole of Aris­to­tle’s works, pre­sent­ed in the Latin trans­la­tions and notes of the Ara­bi­an com­men­ta­tors, were by him di­gest­ed, in­ter­pret­ed and sys­tem­atized in ac­cor­dance with church doc­trine. Al­bert’s ac­tiv­ity, how­ev­er, was rather philo­soph­ical than the­olog­ical (see SCHOLAS­TI­CISM.) The philo­soph­ical works, oc­cu­py­ing the first six and the last of the twen­ty-​one vol­umes, are gen­er­al­ly di­vid­ed ac­cord­ing to the Aris­totelian scheme of the sci­ences, and con­sist of in­ter­pre­ta­tions and con­den­sa­tions of Aris­to­tle’s rel­ative works, with sup­ple­men­tary dis­cus­sions de­pend­ing on the ques­tions then ag­itat­ed, and oc­ca­sion­al­ly di­ver­gences from the opin­ions of the mas­ter. His prin­ci­pal the­olog­ical works are a com­men­tary in three vol­umes on the Books of the Sen­tences of Pe­ter Lom­bard (Mag­is­ter Sen­ten­tiarum), and the Sum­ma The­olo­giae in two vol­umes. This last is in sub­stance a rep­eti­tion of the first in a more di­dac­tic form. Al­bert’s knowl­edge of phys­ical sci­ence was con­sid­er­able and for the age ac­cu­rate. His in­dus­try in ev­ery de­part­ment was great, and though we find in his sys­tem many of those gaps which are char­ac­ter­is­tic of scholas­tic phi­los­ophy, yet the pro­tract­ed study of Aris­to­tle gave him a great pow­er of sys­tem­at­ic thought and ex­po­si­tion, and the re­sults of that study, as left to us, by no means war­rant the con­temp­tu­ous ti­tle some­times giv­en him–the “Ape of Aris­to­tle.” They rather lead us to ap­pre­ci­ate the mo­tives which caused his con­tem­po­raries to be­stow on him the hon­ourable sur­names “The Great” and “Doc­tor Uni­ver­sahs.” It must, how­ev­er, be ad­mit­ted that much of his knowl­edge was ill di­gest­ed; it even ap­pears that he re­gard­ed Pla­to and Speusip­pus as Sto­ics. Al­ber­tus is fre­quent­ly men­tioned by Dante, who made his doc­trine of free-​will the ba­sis of his eth­ical sys­tem. Dante places him with his pupil Aquinas among the great lovers of wis­dom (Spir­iti Sapi­en­ti) in the Heav­en of the Sun.

See Paget Toyn­bee, “Some Obli­ga­tions of Dante to Al­ber­tus Mag­nus” in Ro­ma­nia, xxiv. 400-412, and the Dante Dic­tio­nary by the same au­thor. For Al­bert’s life see J. Sighart, Al­ber­tus Mag­nus, sein Leben und seine Wis­senschaft (Re­gens­burg, 1857; Eng. trans., Dixon, Lon­don, 1876); H. Finke, Unge­druck­te Do­minikaner­briefe des 13. Jahrh. (Pader­born, 1891). For his phi­los­ophy A. Stockl, Geschichte d. scholastis­chen Philoso­phie; J. E. Erd­mann, Grun­driss d. Ges. d. Phil. vol. i. 8. The his­to­ries of Hau­reau, Rit­ter, Prantl and Windel­band may al­so be con­sult­ed. See al­so W. Feil­er, Die Moral d. A. M. (Leipzig, 1891); M. Weiss, Ue­ber mar­iol­ogis­che Schriften des A. M. (Paris, 1898); Jos. Bach, Des A. M. Ver­halt­niss zu d. Erken­nt­nisslehre d. Griechen, Romer, Araber u. Ju­den (Vi­en­na, 1881); Her­zog-​Hauck, Realen­cyk. (1897); Va­cant, Dict. The­ol. Cathol. (s.v.); Ch. Jour­dain in Dict. d. sci­ences phi­los. (s.v.); M. Joel, Das Ver­halt­niss A. d. G. zu Moses Mai­monides (Bres­lau, 1863).

AL­BERUS, ERAS­MUS (c. 1500-1553), Ger­man hu­man­ist, re­former and po­et, was a na­tive of the vil­lage of Sprendlin­gen near Frank­fort-​on-​Main, where he was born about the year 1500. Al­though his fa­ther was a school­mas­ter, his ear­ly ed­uca­tion was ne­glect­ed. Ul­ti­mate­ly in 1518 he found his way to the uni­ver­si­ty of Wit­ten­berg, where he stud­ied the­ol­ogy. He had here the good for­tune to at­tract the at­ten­tion of Luther and Melanchthon, and sub­se­quent­ly be­came one of Luther’s most ac­tive helpers in the Ref­or­ma­tion. Not mere­ly did he fight for the Protes­tant cause as a preach­er and the­olo­gian, but he was al­most the on­ly mem­ber of Luther’s par­ty who was able to con­front the Ro­man Catholics with the weapon of lit­er­ary satire. In 1542 he pub­lished a prose satire to which Luther wrote the pref­ace, Der Bar­fuss­er Monche Eu­len­spiegel und Alko­ran, an adap­ta­tion of the Liber con­fer­mi­ta­tum of the Fran­cis­can Bar­tolom­meo Al­bizzi of Pisa (Pisanus, d. 1401 ), in which the Fran­cis­can or­der is held up to ridicule. Of high­er lit­er­ary val­ue is the di­dac­tic and satir­ical Buch von der Tu­gend und Weisheit (1550), a col­lec­tion of forty-​nine fa­bles in which Al­berus em­bod­ies his views on the re­la­tions of Church and State. His satire is in­ci­sive, but in a schol­ar­ly and hu­man­is­tic way; it does not ap­peal to pop­ular pas­sions with the fierce di­rect­ness which en­abled the mas­ter of Catholic satire, Thomas Murn­er, to in­flict such telling blows. Sev­er­al of Al­berus’s hymns, all of which show the in­flu­ence of his mas­ter Luther, have been re­tained in the Ger­man Protes­tant hym­nal. Af­ter Luther’s death, Al­berus was for a time Di­akonus in Wit­ten­berg; he be­came in­volved, how­ev­er, in the po­lit­ical con­flicts of the time, and was in Magde­burg in 1550-1551, while that town was be­sieged by Mau­rice of Sax­ony. In 1552 he was ap­point­ed Gen­er­al­su­per­in­ten­dent at Neubran­den­burg in Meck­len­burg, where he died on the 5th of May 1553.

Das Buch von der Tu­gend und Weisheit has been edit­ed by W. Braune (1892); the six­teen Geistliche Lieder by C. W. Stromberg­er (1857). Al­berus’ prose writ­ings have not been reprint­ed in re­cent times. See F. Schnorr von Car­ols­feld, Eras­mus Al­berus (1894).

AL­BERY, JAMES (1838–1889), En­glish drama­tist, was born in Lon­don on the 4th of May 1838. On leav­ing school he en­tered an ar­chi­tect’s of­fice, and start­ed to write plays. Af­ter many fail­ures he at last suc­ceed­ed in get­ting an adap­ta­tion–Dr Davy –Pro­duced at the Lyceum (1866). His most suc­cess­ful piece, Two Ros­es, a com­edy, was pro­duced at the Vaudeville in 1870, in which Sir Hen­ry Irv­ing made one of his ear­li­est Lon­don suc­cess­es as Dig­by Grant. He was the au­thor of a large num­ber of oth­er plays and adap­ta­tions, in­clud­ing Jin­gle (a ver­sion of Pick­wick), pro­duced at the Lyceum in 1878, and Pink Domi­noes, the lat­ter be­ing one of a se­ries of adap­ta­tions from the French which he made for the Cri­te­ri­on the­atre. At that house his wife, the well-​known ac­tress, Miss Mary Moore, played the lead­ing parts. He died on the 15th of Au­gust 1889.

AL­BI, a city of south-​west­ern France, cap­ital of the de­part­ment of Tarn, 48 m. N. E. of Toulouse, on a branch line of the South­ern rail­way. Pop. (1906) 14,956. Al­bi oc­cu­pies a com­mand­ing po­si­tion on the left bank of the Tarn; it is unit­ed to its sub­urb of La Madeleine on the right bank by a me­dieval and a mod­ern bridge. The old town forms a nu­cle­us of nar­row, wind­ing streets sur­round­ed by boule­vards, be­yond which lie mod­ern quar­ters with reg­ular thor­ough­fares and pub­lic gar­dens. The cathe­dral of Sainte Ce­cile, a fine fortress-​church in the Goth­ic style, be­gun in 1277, fin­ished in 1512, ris­es high above the rest of the town. The ex­te­ri­or, flanked at the west­ern end by a lofty tow­er and pierced by high, nar­row win­dows, is de­void of or­na­ment. Its gen­er­al plain­ness con­trasts with the elab­orate carv­ing of the stone canopy which shel­ters the south­ern por­tal. In the in­te­ri­or, which is with­out transepts or aisles, the rood­screen and the choir-​en­clo­sure, which date from about 1500, are mas­ter­pieces of del­icate sculp­ture; the vault­ing and the walls are cov­ered with paint­ings of the 15th and 16th cen­turies. The arch­bish­op’s palace to the north-​east of the cathe­dral is a for­ti­fied build­ing of the 14th cen­tu­ry. St Salvi, the chief of the oth­er church­es of Al­bi, be­longs to the 13th and 15th cen­turies. A stat­ue of the sailor La Per­ouse (1741-1788) stands in the square named af­ter him.

Al­bi is the seat of an arch­bish­op, a pre­fect and a court of as­sizes. It has tri­bunals of first in­stance and of com­merce, a board of trade-​ar­bi­tra­tors, a cham­ber of com­merce, a lycee and train­ing col­leges. The in­dus­tri­al es­tab­lish­ments of the town in­clude dye-​works, dis­til­leries, tan­ner­ies, glass-​works and im­por­tant flour-​mills. It is al­so a cen­tre for hat-​mak­ing, and pro­duces cloth-​fab­rics, lace, um­brel­las, casks, chairs, wood­en shoes, can­dles and pas­tries. Trade is in wine and anise.

Al­bi (Al­bi­ga) was, in the Gal­lo-​Ro­man pe­ri­od, cap­ital of the Al­bi­gens­es, and lat­er of the vis­coun­ty of Al­bi­geois, which was a fief of the counts of Toulouse. From the 12th cen­tu­ry on­wards, its bish­ops, the first of whom ap­pears to have lived about the 3rd cen­tu­ry, be­gan to en­croach on the au­thor­ity of the vis­counts; the lat­ter, af­ter the Al­bi­gen­sian war, lost their es­tates, which passed to Si­mon de Mont­fort and then to the crown of France. By a con­ven­tion con­clud­ed in 1264 the chief tem­po­ral pow­er in the city was grant­ed to the bish­ops. The arch­bish­opric dates from 1678.

AL­BIAN (Fr. Al­bion, from Al­ba = Aube in France), in ge­ol­ogy the term pro­posed in 1842 by A. d’Or­bigny for that stage of the Cre­ta­ceous Sys­tem which comes above the Ap­tian and be­low the Ceno­ma­ni­an (Pal. France. Cret. ii.). The pre­cise lim­its of this stage are placed some­what dif­fer­ent­ly by En­glish and con­ti­nen­tal ge­ol­ogists. In Eng­land it is usu­al to re­gard the Al­bian stage as equiv­alent to the Up­per Green­sand plus Gault, that is, to the “Sel­bor­ni­an” of Jukes-​Browne. But A. de Lap­par­ent would place most of the UP­per Green­sand in the Ceno­ma­ni­an. The En­glish prac­tice is to com­mence the up­per Cre­ta­ceous with the Al­bian; on the oth­er hand, this stage clos­es the low­er Cre­ta­ceous ac­cord­ing to con­ti­nen­tal us­age. It is nec­es­sary there­fore, when us­ing the term Al­bian, to bear these dif­fer­ences in mind, and to as­cer­tain the ex­act po­si­tion of the stra­ta by ref­er­ence to the zon­al fos­sils. These are, in de­scend­ing or­der, Pecten as­per and Car­diaster fos­sar­ius, Schloen bachia ros­tra­ta, Ho­plites lau­tus and H. in­ter­rup­tus, Dou­ville­iceras mam­mil­lalum. In ad­di­tion to the for­ma­tions men­tioned above, the fol­low­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Al­bian stage are wor­thy of no­tice: the gaize and phos­phat­ic beds of Ar­gonne and Bray in France; the Flam­men­mergel of North Ger­many; the lig­nites of Il­tril­las in Spain; the Up­per Sand­stones of Nu­bia, and the Fred­er­icks­burg beds of North Amer­ica.

See GAULT, GREEN­SAND, and CRE­TA­CEOUS. (J. A. H.)

AL­BI­GENS­ES, the usu­al des­ig­na­tion of the heretics—and more es­pe­cial­ly the Catharist heretics–of the south of France in the 12th and 13th cen­turies. This name ap­pears to have been giv­en to them at the end of the 12th cen­tu­ry, and was used in 1181 by the chron­icler Ge­of­froy de Vi­geois. The des­ig­na­tion is hard­ly ex­act, for the hereti­cal cen­tre was at Toulouse and in the neigh­bour­ing dis­tricts rather than at Al­bi (the an­cient Al­bi­ga.) The heresy, which had pen­etrat­ed in­to these re­gions prob­ably by trade routes, came orig­inal­ly from east­ern Eu­rope. The name of Bul­gar­ians (Bougres) was of­ten ap­plied to the Al­bi­gens­es, and they al­ways kept up in­ter­course with the Bo­gomil sec­taries of Thrace. Their du­al­ist doc­trines, as de­scribed by con­tro­ver­sial­ists, present nu­mer­ous re­sem­blances to those of the Bo­gomils, and still more to those of the Pauli­cians, with whom they are some­times con­nect­ed. It is ex­ceed­ing­ly dif­fi­cult, how­ev­er, to form any very pre­cise idea of the Al­bi­gen­sian doc­trines, as our knowl­edge of them is de­rived from their op­po­nents, and the very rare texts em­anat­ing from the Al­bi­gens­es which have come down to us (e.g. the Rit­uel cathare de Ly­on and the Nou­veau Tes­ta­ment en proven­cal) con­tain very in­ad­equate in­for­ma­tion con­cern­ing their meta­phys­ical prin­ci­ples and moral prac­tice. What is cer­tain is that, above all, they formed an an­ti-​sac­er­do­tal par­ty in per­ma­nent op­po­si­tion to the Ro­man church, and raised a con­tin­ued protest against the cor­rup­tion of the cler­gy of their time. The Al­bi­gen­sian the­olo­gians and as­cetics, the Cathari or per­fec­ti, known in the south of France as bons hommes or bons chre­tiens, were few in num­ber; the mass of be­liev­ers (cre­dentes) were per­haps not ini­ti­at­ed in­to the Catharist doc­trine; at all events, they were free from all moral pro­hi­bi­tion and all re­li­gious obli­ga­tion, on con­di­tion that they promised by an act called con­ve­nen­za to be­come “hereti­cized” by re­ceiv­ing the con­so­la­men­tum, the bap­tism of the Spir­it, be­fore their death or even in ex­trem­is.

The first Catharist heretics ap­peared in Limousin be­tween 1012 and 1020. Sev­er­al were dis­cov­ered and put to death at Toulouse in 1022; and the syn­od of Char­roux (dep. of Vi­enne) in 1028, and that of Toulouse in 1056, con­demned the grow­ing sect. The preach­ers Raoul Ar­dent in 1101 and Robert of Ar­bris­sel in 1114 were sum­moned to the dis­tricts of the Age­nais and the Toulou­sain to com­bat the hereti­cal pro­pa­gan­da. But, pro­tect­ed by William IX., duke of Aquitaine, and soon by a great part of the south­ern no­bil­ity, the heretics gained ground in the south, and in 1119 the coun­cil of Toulouse in vain or­dered the sec­ular pow­ers to as­sist the ec­cle­si­as­ti­cal au­thor­ity in quelling the heresy. The peo­ple were at­tached to the bons hommes, whose as­ceti­cism im­posed up­on the mass­es, and the an­ti-​sac­er­do­tal preach­ing of Pe­ter of Bruys and Hen­ry of Lau­sanne in Perig­ord. Langue­doc and Provence, on­ly fa­cil­itat­ed the progress of Catharism in those re­gions. In 1147 Pope Eu­ge­nius III. sent the legate Al­ber­ic of Os­tia and St Bernard to the af­fect­ed dis­trict. The few iso­lat­ed suc­cess­es of the ab­bot of Clair­vaux could not ob­scure the re­al re­sults of this mis­sion, and the meet­ing at Lombers in 1165 of a syn­od, where Catholic priests had to sub­mit to a dis­cus­sion with Catharist doc­tors, well shows the pow­er of the sect in the south of France at that pe­ri­od. More­over. two years af­ter­wards a Catharist syn­od, in which heretics from Langue­doc, Bul­gar­ia and Italy took part, was held at St Fe­lix de Cara­man, near Toulouse, and their de­lib­er­ations were undis­turbed. The mis­sions of Car­di­nal Pe­ter (of St Chryso­gonus). for­mer­ly bish­op of Meaux, to Toulouse and the Toulou­sain in 1178, and of Hen­ry, car­di­nal-​bish­op of Al­bano (for­mer­ly ab­bot ol Clair­vaux), in 1180-1181, ob­tained mere­ly mo­men­tary suc­cess­es. Hen­ry of Al­bano at­tempt­ed an armed ex­pe­di­tion against the stronghold of heretics at Lavaur and against Ray­mond Roger. vis­count of Beziers, their ac­knowl­edged pro­tec­tor. The tak­ing of Lavaur and the sub­mis­sion of Ray­mond Roger in no way ar­rest­ed the progress of the heresy. The per­sis­tent de­ci­sions of the coun­cils against the heretics at this pe­ri­od–in par­tic­ular, those of the coun­cil of Tours (1163) and of the oe­cu­meni­cal Lat­er­an coun­cil (1179)—had scarce­ly more ef­fect. But on as­cend­ing the pa­pal throne, In­no­cent III. re­solved to sup­press the Al­bi­gens­es. At first he tried pa­cif­ic con­ver­sion, and in 1198 and 1199 sent in­to the af­fect­ed re­gions two Cis­ter­cian monks, Reg­nier and Guy, and in 1203 two monks of Font­froide, Pe­ter of Castel­nau and Raoul (Ralph), with whom in 1204 he even as­so­ci­at­ed the Cis­ter­cian ab­bot, Ar­naud (Arnold). They had to con­tend not on­ly with the heretics, the no­bles who pro­tect­ed them, and the peo­ple who lis­tened to them and ven­er­at­ed them, but al­so with the bish­ops of the dis­trict, who re­ject­ed the ex­traor­di­nary au­thor­ity which the pope had con­ferred up­on his legates, the monks. In 1204 In­no­cent III. sus­pend­ed the au­thor­ity of the bish­ops of the south of France. Pe­ter of Castel­nau re­tal­iat­ed by ex­com­mu­ni­cat­ing Ray­mond VI., count of Toulouse, as an abet­tor of heresy (i207), and kin­dled in the no­bles of the south that an­imos­ity of which he was the first vic­tim (1209). As soon as he heard of the mur­der of Pe­ter of Castel­nau, the pope or­dered the Cis­ter­cians to preach the cru­sade against the Al­bi­gens­es. This im­pla­ca­ble war, which threw the whole of the no­bil­ity of the north of France against that of the south, and de­stroyed the bril­liant Proven­cal civ­iliza­tion, end­ed, po­lit­ical­ly, in the treaty of Paris (1229), by which the king of France dis­pos­sessed the house of Toulouse of the greater part of its fiefs, and that of Beziers of the whole of its fiefs. The in­de­pen­dence of the princes of the south was at an end, but, so far as the heresy was con­cerned, Al­bi­gen­sian­ism was not ex­tin­guished, in spite of the whole­sale mas­sacres of heretics dur­ing the war. Ray­mond VII. of Toulouse and the count of Foix gave asy­lum to the “faid­its” (pro­scrtbed), and the peo­ple were averse from hand­ing over the bo­nis hommes. The In­qui­si­tion, how­ev­er, op­er­at­ing un­remit­ting­ly in the south at Toulouse, Al­bi, Car­cas­sonne and oth­er towns dur­ing the whole of the 13th cen­tu­ry and a great part of the 14th, suc­ceed­ed in crush­ing the heresy. There were in­deed some out­bursts of re­bel­lion, some fo­ment­ed by the no­bles of Langue­doc (12401242), and oth­ers em­anat­ing from the peo­ple of the towns, who were em­bit­tered by con­fis­ca­tions and re­li­gious per­se­cu­tions (e.g. at Nar­bonne in 1234 and Toulouse in 1235), but the re­pres­sive mea­sures were ter­ri­ble. In 1245 the roy­al of­fi­cers as­sist­ing the In­qui­si­tion seized the hereti­cal citadel of Montse­gur, and 200 Cathari were burned in one day. More­over, the church de­creed se­vere chas­tise­ment against all lay­men sus­pect­ed of sym­pa­thy with the heretics (coun­cil of Nar­bonne, 1235; Bull Ad ex­tir­pan­da, 1252).

Hunt­ed down by the In­qui­si­tion and quick­ly aban­doned by the no­bles of the dis­trict, the Al­bi­gens­es be­came more and more scat­tered, hid­ing in the forests and moun­tains, and on­ly meet­ing sur­rep­ti­tious­ly. There were some re­crude­scences of heresy, such as that pro­duced by the preach­ing (1298-1509) of the Catharist min­is­ter, Pierre Au­thi­er; the peo­ple, too, made some at­tempts to throw off the yoke of the In­qui­si­tion and the French,i and in­sur­rec­tions broke out un­der the lead­er­ship of Bernard of Foix, Aimerv of Nar­bonne, and, es­pe­cial­ly, Bernard Deli­cieux at the be­gin­ning of the 14th cen­tu­ry. But at this point vast in­quests were set on foot by the In­qui­si­tion, which ter­ror­ized the dis­trict. Pre­cise in­di­ca­tions of these are found in the reg­is­ters of the In­quisi­tors, Bernard of Caux, Jean de St Pierre, Ge­of­froy d’Ab­lis, and oth­ers. The sect, more­over, was ex­haust­ed and could find no more adepts in a dis­trict which, by fair means or foul, had ar­rived at a state of peace and po­lit­ical and re­li­gious uni­ty. Af­ter 1330 the records of the In­qui­si­tion con­tain but few pro­ceed­ings against Catharists. (See al­so un­der CATHARS.)

AU­THOR­ITIES.—See C. Schmidt’s His­toire de la secte des Cathares ou Al­bi­geois (Paris, 1849), which is still the most im­por­tant work on the sub­ject. The fol­low­ing will be found use­ful: D. Vais­sete, His­toire de Langue­doc, vols. iii. iv. vii. vi­ii. (new edi­tion); Ch. Molin­ier, L’In­qui­si­tion dans le Mi­di de la France (Paris, 1880), and the oth­er works by the same au­thor; L. Tanon, His­toire des tri­bunaux de l’In­qui­si­tion en France (Paris, 1893). Les Al­bi­geois, leurs orig­ines (Paris, 1878), by Douais, should be read with cau­tion. Of the sources, which are very nu­mer­ous, may be men­tioned: the Liber Sen­ten­tiarum of the In­qui­si­tion of Car­cas­sonne, pub­lished by Ph. van Lim­borch at the end of his His­to­ria In­qui­si­tio­nis (Am­ster­dam, 1692): oth­er reg­is­ters of the in­qui­si­tion anal­ysed at length by Ch. Molin­ier, op cit., some pub­lished in vol. ii. of the Doc­uments pour l’his­toire de l’In­qui­si­tion (Paris, 1900), by C. Douais; nu­mer­ous texts con­cern­ing the last days of Al­bi­gen­sian­ism, col­lect­ed by M. Vi­dal, “Les derniers min­istres al­bi­geois,’ in Rev. de quest. his­tor. (1906). See al­so the Rit­uel cathare, ed. by Cu­nitz (Je­na, 1852); the Nou­veau Tes­ta­ment en proven­cal, ed. by Cle­dat (Paris, 1887); and the very cu­ri­ous De­bat d’Yzarn et de Sicart de Figueiras, ed. by P. Mey­er (1880). On the ethics of the Catharists, see Jean Guiraud, Ques­tions d’his­toire et d’arche­olo­gie chre­ti­enne (Paris, 1906); and P. Al­phan­dery, Les idees morales chez les het­ero­dox­es latins au de­but du XI­IIe siecle (Paris, 1903). (P. A.)

1 These they of­ten con­found­ed and a heretic is de­scribed aa say­ing: “Cler­gy and French, they are one and the same thing.”

AL­BI­NO, a bi­olog­ical term (Lat. al­bus, white), in the usu­al ac­cep­ta­tion, for a pig­ment­less in­di­vid­ual of a nor­mal­ly pig­ment­ed race. Among some flow­er­ing plants, how­ev­er, the char­ac­ter has be­come one of spe­cif­ic rank, .and among an­imals we have in the po­lar bear and the Green­land hare in­stances where par­tial al­binism–for in them the eyes are black and oth­er parts may be pig­ment­ed–has al­so be­come a spe­cif­ic char­ac­ter.

A true or com­plete al­bi­no is al­to­geth­er de­void of pig­ment. One re­sult of this among the Ver­te­bra­ta is that the eye­ball is pink in colour, since the cornea, iris and reti­na be­ing trans­par­ent, the red blood con­tained in the cap­il­lar­ies is un­masked by the ab­sence of pig­men­tary ma­te­ri­al. In man, and doubt­less al­so in low­er forms, the ab­sence of this pig­ment pro­duces the well marked al­binot­ic fa­cies. This is a con­di­tion in which the eye­lids are brought in­to a near­ly closed po­si­tion ac­com­pa­nied by blink­ing move­ments and a gen­er­al wrin­kling of the skin around the im­me­di­ate neigh­bour­hood of the eyes. It is the re­sult of the too great in­ten­si­ty of the light in­ci­dent up­on the reti­na, and which in nor­mal eye­balls is ad­equate­ly di­min­ished by the ab­sorp­tive pow­er of the pig­men­tary ma­te­ri­al.

In a com­plete al­bi­no not on­ly is all pig­ment ab­sent in the skin, but al­so that which is nor­mal­ly present in deep­er or­gans, such as the sym­pa­thet­ic ner­vous sys­tem and in the sub­stan­lia ni­gra of the brain. There is some rea­son to be­lieve that a pe­cu­liar con­di­tion found in the ma­jor­ity of hu­man al­bi­noes, and knovn as nys­tag­mus, is cor­re­lat­ed with the ab­sence of pig­ment in the cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem. This con­di­tion is one marked by un­steadi­ness—a sort of flick­er­ing rolling–of the eye­balls, and it be­comes more marked as they en­deav­our to ad­just their ac­com­mo­da­tion to near ob­jects. It is thought to de­pend up­on some con­nex­ion, not yet anatom­ical­ly demon­strat­ed, be­tween the third cra­nial nerve and its nu­cle­us in the floor of the iter and the sub­stan­tia ni­gra.

In ad­di­tion to com­plete al­binism, there ex­ist, how­ev­er, var­ious al­binot­ic con­di­tions in which more or less pig­ment may be present. Fa­mil­iar in­stances of this par­tial al­binism is seen in the do­mes­tic breed of Hi­malayan rab­bits. In these an­imals the eye­ball and the fur of the body are un­pig­ment­ed, but the tips of the ear pin­nae and ex­trem­ities of the fore and hind limbs, to­geth­er with the tail, are marked by more or less well de­fined colour. One re­mark­able fea­ture of these an­imals is that for a few months af­ter birth they are com­plete al­bi­noes. Oc­ca­sion­al­ly, how­ev­er, some are born with a grey colour and a few may be quite black, but ul­ti­mate­ly they at­tain their char­ac­ter­is­tic coat. There is some rea­son to be­lieve, as we shall see lat­er, that in spite of the pres­ence of a lit­tle pig­ment and of oc­ca­sion­al whol­ly pig­ment­ed young ones, Hi­malayans must be re­gard­ed as true al­bi­noes. Oth­er in­di­vid­ual rab­bits, but be­long­ing to no par­tic­ular breed, are sim­ilar­ly marked, but in ad­di­tion the eye­balls arc black. Some do­mes­ti­cat­ed mice are en­tire­ly white with the ex­cep­tion that they have black eye­balls; and in­di­vid­uals of this type are known in which there is a re­duc­tion of pig­ment in the eye­balls, and since the colour of the blood is then par­tial­ly vis­ible these ap­pear of a red­dish-​black colour. Such cas­es are in­ter­est­ing as rep­re­sent­ing the last step in the grad­ed se­ries through which the con­di­tion of com­plete pig­men­ta­tion pass­es in­to that of com­plete al­binism.

There is ev­idence, as shown by G. M. Allen, that par­tial al­binism is a con­di­tion in which pig­ment is re­duced around def­inite body cen­tres, so that un­pig­ment­ed ar­eas oc­cur be­tween the pig­ment patch­es or at their bor­ders. In the mouse, ten such cen­tres may be dis­tin­guished, ar­ranged sym­met­ri­cal­ly five on ei­ther side of the me­di­an plane—a cheek patch, neck patch, shoul­der patch, side patch and rump patch. Var­ious de­grees in the re­duc­tion of the pig­ment patch­es up to that of com­plete elim­ina­tion may be traced.

Some an­imals are whol­ly pig­ment­ed dur­ing the sum­mer and au­tumn, but through the win­ter and spring they are in the con­di­tion of ex­treme par­tial al­binism and be­come al­most com­plete al­bi­noes. Such in­stances are found in the Scotch blue hare (Le­pus timidus), in the Nor­way hare, in the North Amer­ican hare (H. amer­ica­nius), in the arc­tic fox (Ca­nis lago­pus), in the stoat and er­mine, and among birds, in the ptarmi­gan, and some oth­er species of Lago­pus. How the change from the au­tum­nal to the win­ter con­di­tion takes place ap­pears not to be def­inite­ly set­tled in all cas­es, and ac­cu­rate ob­ser­va­tions are much to be de­sired. In the case of the Nor­way hare, it has been stat­ed that a gen­er­al moult, in­clud­ing all the hairs and un­der fur, takes place and new white hairs are sub­sti­tut­ed. The pro­cess of moult­ing is said to be­gin in the mid­dle of au­tumn and is com­plet­ed be­fore the end of De­cem­ber, by which time the fur is in its win­ter con­di­tion, and is clos­er, fuller and longer than in sum­mer (Nat­ural­ists’ Li­brary, vol. vii.). On the oth­er hand, it has been stat­ed that dur­ing the whole of the trans­for­ma­tion in the fur no hairs fall from the an­imal, and it is at­tribut­ed to an ac­tu­al change in the colour of the hair (Ed­in­burgh Philo­soph­ical Jour­nal, vol. xi. p. 191). In the case of the Amer­ican hare, how­ev­er, some very care­ful ob­ser­va­tions have been made by F. H. Welch. In this an­imal the long hairs (which form the pile) be­come white at their ex­trem­ities, and in some of them this white­ness ex­tends through their whole length. At the same time, new hairs be­gin to de­vel­op and to grow rapid­ly, and soon out­strip the hairs of the au­tumn pile. From their first ap­pear­ance these new hairs are white and stiff, and they are con­fined to the sides and back of the body. It is not clear from Welch’s ac­count what is the cause of the white­ness of the tips of the hairs of the au­tumn coat, but his fig­ures sug­gest that it is due to the de­vel­op­ment of gas in the in­ter­spaces be­tween the ker­atin bridges and tra­bec­ulae of the hairs. There is noth­ing to show whether the pig­ment per­sists or is ab­sorbed. Prob­ably it per­sists. In this event, the white­ness of the tips will be due to the scat­ter­ing or ir­reg­ular re­flex­ion of the in­ci­dent rays of light from the sur­face of the nu­mer­ous gas bub­bles. In the case of the ptarmi­gan the ev­idence is clear that the ex­ist­ing au­tum­nal feath­ers do change, more or less com­plete­ly, to white. But the ev­idence is not con­clu­sive as to whether any part of the win­ter con­di­tion is ad­di­tion­al­ly pro­duced by moult­ing.

The con­di­tion of al­binism thus as­sumed as a sea­son­al vari­ation is nev­er com­plete, for the eyes at least re­tain their pig­ment­ed state. The rea­son of this is read­ily un­der­stood when it is borne in mind how dis­ad­van­ta­geous to the func­tion of sight is the un­pig­ment­ed con­di­tion of an al­bi­no’s eye­ball; a dis­ad­van­tage which would be prob­ably much ac­cen­tu­at­ed, in the cas­es now un­der con­sid­er­ation, by the bright glare from the sur­face of the snow, which forms the nat­ural en­vi­ron­ment of these an­imals at the par­tic­ular pe­ri­od of the year when the win­ter change oc­curs. In some cas­es, as in all the vary­ing hares, in ad­di­tion to the eyes re­tain­ing their nor­mal pig­men­ta­tion, ar­eas sim­ilar in ex­tent and sit­ua­tion to those on the Hi­malayan rab­bits al­so re­tain their pig­men­ta­tion; and in the ptarmi­gan there is a black band on each side of the head stretch­ing for­wards and back­wards from the eye­ball, and the out­er tail feath­ers are black.

Al­binism is re­strict­ed to no par­tic­ular class of the an­imal king­dom; for par­tial al­binism at least is known to oc­cur in Coe­len­tera, worms, Crus­tacea, Myr­iapo­da, Coleoptera,Arach­ni­da and fish­es. The in­di­vid­uals in which this di­min­ished pig­men­ta­tion is found are for the most part those liv­ing in caves, and it is prob­able that their con­di­tion is not tru­ly al­binot­ic, but on­ly tem­po­rary and due to the ab­sence of the stim­ulus of light. This may be al­so true of some of those in­stances that have oc­curred among frogs, in Pro­teus, and with an ax­olotl once pos­sessed by the present writ­er. This lat­ter an­imal was quite white, with the ex­cep­tion of the black eye­balls. At the end of four weeks af­ter it was first pur­chased the dor­sal or up­per sur­face of its ex­ter­nal gills de­vel­oped a small amount of dark pig­ment. With­in the next few weeks this in­creased in quan­ti­ty and the dor­sal sur­face of the head and of the front end of the trunk be­gan to be pig­ment­ed. The an­imal died at the end of the eighth week, but it is pos­si­ble that had it lived it would have be­come whol­ly pig­ment­ed. But, apart from these in­stances, al­binism is known, ac­cord­ing to W. E. Cas­tle, who cites it on the au­thor­ity of Hugh M. Smith, to oc­cur among a breed of al­bi­no trout, which breed true and are reared in the State fish-​hatcheries of Amer­ica. With birds and mam­mals, how­ev­er, there is no doubt that com­plete al­bi­no in­di­vid­uals do oc­cur; and among species which, like the jack­daw, cer­tain deer and rab­bits, are nor­mal­ly deeply pig­ment­ed.

Al­binism oc­curs in all races of mankind, among moun­tain­ous as well as low­land dwellers. And, with man, as with oth­er an­imals, it may be com­plete or par­tial. In­stances of the lat­ter con­di­tion are very com­mon among the ne­groes of the Unit­ed States and of South Amer­ica, and in them as­sumes a piebald char­ac­ter, ir­reg­ular white patch­es be­ing scat­tered over the gen­er­al black sur­face of the body. Oc­ca­sion­al­ly the piebald patch­es tend to be sym­met­ri­cal­ly ar­ranged, and some­times the eye­balls are pig­ment­less (pink) and some­times pig­ment­ed (black).

Ac­cord­ing to A. R. Gunn, of Ed­in­burgh Dniver­si­ty, who has re­cent­ly been in­ves­ti­gat­ing the sub­ject of al­binism in man, there is rea­son to be­lieve that a con­di­tion of piebald al­binism oc­curs al­so in Eu­ro­peans (Scots­men). He has ex­am­ined sub­jects in which the whole of the hair of the body is white, but the eye­balls are pig­ment­ed, of­ten deeply; and, con­verse­ly, he has seen cas­es in which the eyes are pink but the hair is pig­ment­ed. The hair and the eyes may be re­gard­ed as skin patch­es, in which some­times the one and some­times the oth­er is pig­ment­less. He be­lieves that, were it not for the gen­er­al­ly very pale colour of white-​skinned races, this piebald con­di­tion would be as man­ifest in them as in ne­groes, over the whole sur­face of the body.

In com­plete hu­man al­bi­noes, al­binism is cor­re­lat­ed, in ad­di­tion to nys­tag­mus, with a pe­cu­liar rough­ness of the skin, mak­ing it harsh to the touch. The skin is al­so milky-​white in ap­pear­ance.

Ac­cord­ing to C. J. Se­hg­mann, there ex­ists among the Papuans an al­binot­ic race whose skin varies in colour from a pink-​white to that of cafe au lait; the eyes are gen­er­al­ly green­ish, hazel or brown, and the hair is tow-​coloured. The skin where un­ex­posed is pinker than that of a nor­mal North Eu­ro­pean. Like com­plete al­bi­noes, this race suf­fers from pho­to­pho­bia, and is char­ac­ter­ized by the al­binot­ic fa­cies.

Be­fore we can in­quire in­to the cause and mean­ing of al­binism it will be nec­es­sary first to con­sid­er the na­ture Of pig­men­ta­tion. It has re­cent­ly been as­cer­tained that the col­oration of cer­tain sponges is due to the in­ter­ac­tion of an oxy­diz­ing fer­ment, ty­rosi­nase, up­on cer­tain colour­less chro­mogenic sub­stances. In 1901, Ot­to v. Furth and Hugo Schnei­der showed that a ty­rosi­nase could be ob­tained from the blood of cer­tain in­sects, and, act­ing up­on a chro­mogen present in the blood, con­vert­ed it in­to a pig­men­tary sub­stance of melanin-​like na­ture. Hans Prz­ibram al­so ex­tract­ed a ty­rosi­nase from the ink-​sac of Sepia, and, caus­ing it to act up­on a wa­tery so­lu­tion of ty­rosin, ob­tained a black pig­ment. From the blood of Bom­byx mori, fe. von Duc­ceshi has al­so ob­tained a ty­rosi­nase.

Sub­se­quent­ly (1903) L. Cuenot, in or­der to ex­plain cer­tain fea­tures in the hered­itary trans­mis­sion of coat colour in mice, pos­tu­lat­ed the hy­poth­esis that the grey colour of the wild mouse (which is known to be a com­pound of black, choco­late and yel­low pig­ments) may be due ei­ther to the in­ter­ac­tion of a sin­gle fer­ment and three chro­mogens, or vice ver­sa, to one chro­mogenic sub­stance and three fer­ments.

Since then (1904) Miss Flo­rence Durham has shown that if the skins of young or em­bry­on­ic mam­mals (rats, rab­bits and guinea-​pigs) be ground up and ex­tract­ed in wa­ter, and the ex­pressed juice be then in­cu­bat­ed with sol­id ty­rosin for twen­ty-​four hours, with the ad­di­tion of a very small amount of fer­rous sul­phate to act as an ac­ti­va­tor, a pig­men­tary sub­stance is thrown down. The colour of this sub­stance is that of the pig­ment in the skin or hairs of the an­imal used. Miss Durham in­ter­prets her re­sults as in­di­cat­ing that the skin of these pig­ment­ed an­imals nor­mal­ly se­cretes one or more ty­rosi­nas­es. The same re­sult was ob­tained from the skins of some un­hatched chick­ens. The skins of al­bi­noes gave no re­sults.

Not on­ly have such re­suits been ob­tained with sponges, In­sects, cephalopods, birds and mam­mals, but Em. Bourquelot and G. Bertrand have shown that cer­tain fun­gi, the tis­sues of which, when ex­posed to the air by in­jury, be­come im­me­di­ate­ly coloured, do so ow­ing to the ac­tion of ty­rosi­nase up­on one or more chro­moge­nous sub­stances present in the plant. We may con­ceive, then, that a pig­ment­ed an­imal owes its colour to the pow­er that cer­tain tis­sues of its body pos­sess to se­crete both ty­rosi­nas­es and chro­mogenic sub­stances. And the pe­ri­od at which this pro­cess is most ac­tive is at birth, or pre­ced­ing it or im­me­di­ate­ly suc­ceed­ing it. In spite of the in­quiry be­ing on­ly in its ini­tial stages, there is al­ready good ev­idence to be­lieve that Cuenot’s the­ory is cor­rect, and that an al­bi­no is an in­di­vid­ual whose skin lacks the pow­er to se­crete ei­ther the fer­ment or the chro­mogen. It forms one but not both of these sub­stances.

A mo­ment’s con­sid­er­ation, how­ev­er, will show that, while an al­bi­no may be an in­di­vid­ual in which one or more of the com­ple­men­tary bod­ies of pig­men­ta­tion are ab­sent, a pig­ment­ed an­imal is some­thing more than an in­di­vid­ual which car­ries all the fac­tors nec­es­sary for the de­vel­op­ment of colour. For it must be borne in mind that an­imals are not on­ly coloured but the colour is ar­ranged in a more or less def­inite pat­tern. The wild mouse, rat and rab­bit are self-​coloured, but the do­mes­ti­cat­ed forms in­clude var­ious piebald pat­terns, such as spot­ted forms among mice, and the fa­mil­iar black and white hood­ed and dor­sal-​striped pat­tern of some tame rats.

Colour, there­fore, must be cor­re­lat­ed with some de­ter­mi­nant (de­ter­min­ing fac­tor) for pat­tern, and it can­not, there­fore, ex­ist alone in an an­imal’s coat. And we must con­ceive that each kind of pat­tern—the self, the spot­ted, the striped, the hood­ed and all oth­ers—has its own spe­cial de­ter­mi­nant. Giv­en the pres­ence of all the nec­es­sary de­ter­mi­nants for the de­vel­op­ment of pig­ment in a mam­mal’s coat, some or all of the hairs may bear this pig­ment ac­cord­ing to the pat­tern de­ter­mi­nants, or ab­sence of pat­tern de­ter­mi­nants, which the cells of the hair papil­lae car­ry. And this brings us to the ques­tion as to whether in a piebald an­imal the pig­ment­ed hairs are in any way dif­fer­ent from the pig­ment­less or white hairs. No ad­equate in­ves­ti­ga­tion of this sub­ject has yet been made, but some ob­ser­va­tions made by the au­thor of this ar­ti­cle, on the piebald black and white rat, show that dif­fer­ences con­nect­ed with the mi­cro­scop­ic struc­ture ex­ist.

There is thus ev­idence that colour is cor­re­lat­ed with oth­er fac­tors which de­ter­mine pat­tern. And this leads to the in­quiry as to whether al­bi­noes ev­er ex­hib­it ev­idence that they car­ry the pat­tern de­ter­mi­nants in the ab­sence of those for pig­men­ta­tion. For it is to be ex­pect­ed a pri­ori that, since al­bi­noes were de­rived from pig­ment­ed pro­gen­itors and may at any time ap­pear, side by side with pig­ment­ed broth­ers, in a lit­ter from pig­ment­ed par­ents, they would be car­ry­ing the pat­tern de­ter­mi­nants of some one or oth­er of their pig­ment­ed an­ces­tors. Now we know, from the nu­mer­ous ex­per­iments in hered­ity which have re­sult­ed since the re­dis­cov­ery of Mendel’s prin­ci­ples, that an in­di­vid­ual may car­ry a char­ac­ter in one of two con­di­tions. It may be car­ried as a so­mat­ic char­ac­ter, when it will be vis­ible in the body tis­sues, or it may be car­ried as a ga­met­ic char­ac­ter, and its pres­ence can on­ly then be de­tect­ed in sub­se­quent gen­er­ations, by ad­equate­ly de­vised breed­ing tests.

With re­gard to pat­tern, the ev­idence is now clear that al­bi­noes may car­ry the de­ter­mi­nants in both these ways. So far as they are car­ried ga­met­ical­ly, i.e. by the sex-​cells, it has been shown by Cuenot and G. M. Allen for mice, by C. C. Hurst for rab­bits, and by L. Don­cast­er and G. P. Mudge for rats, that in a cross be­tween a coloured in­di­vid­ual of known ga­met­ic pu­ri­ty and an al­bi­no, the in­di­vid­uals of the proge­ny in ei­ther the first or sec­ond, or both gen­er­ations, may dif­fer, and that the dif­fer­ence in some cas­es whol­ly de­pends up­on the ai­hi­no used. It has been shown that the in­di­vid­uals in such an off­spring may bear pat­terns which nev­er oc­curred in the an­ces­try of the coloured par­ent, but did in that of the al­bi­no; and, more­over, if the same coloured par­ent be mat­ed with an­oth­er in­di­vid­ual, ei­ther al­bi­no or coloured, that their off­spring may nev­er con­tain mem­bers bear­ing such pat­terns. The par­tic­ular pat­tern will on­ly ap­pear when the coloured par­ent is mat­ed with the par­tic­ular al­bi­no. And yet the al­bi­no it­self shows no so­mat­ic pat­tern or pig­ment. So clear is the ev­idence on this point that any one ad­equate­ly ac­quaint­ed at first hand with the phe­nom­ena, by em­ploy­ing an al­bi­no of known ga­met­ic struc­ture and mat­ing it with a coloured in­di­vid­ual, al­so of known ga­met­ic con­sti­tu­tion, could pre­dict the re­sult.

With re­spect to al­bi­noes car­ry­ing pat­tern as a vis­ible so­matiu char­ac­ter, i.e. in the body cells, no def­inite ev­idence has as yet been pub­lished. But W. Haacke has de­scribed a sin­gle al­bi­no rat, in which he states that the hairs of the shoul­der and mid-​dor­sal re­gions were of a dif­fer­ent tex­ture from those of the rest of the body. And it is pos­si­ble that this al­bi­no, had it de­vel­oped colour, would have been of the piebald pat­tern. But the au­thor of this ar­ti­cle has quite re­cent­ly reared some al­bi­noes in which the fa­mil­iar shoul­der hood and dor­sah stripe of the piebald rat is per­fect­ly ob­vi­ous, in spite of the ab­sence of the slight­est pig­men­ta­tion. The hairs which oc­cu­py the re­gion which in the pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­ual is black, are longer, thin­ner and more wide­ly sep­arat­ed than those in the re­gions which are white. As a re­sult of this, the pink skin is quite vis­ible where these hairs oc­cur, but else­where it is in­vis­ible. Thus these al­binocs ex­hib­it a pat­tern of pink skin sim­ilar in form with the black pat­tern of the piebald rat. More­over, some of the al­bi­noes pos­sess these par­tic­ular “pat­tern” hairs all over the body and ob­vi­ous­ly such in­di­vid­uals are car­ry­ing the self pat­tern. There are oth­er de­tails in­to which we can­not here en­ter, but which sup­port the in­ter­pre­ta­tion put up­on these facts, i.e: that these par­tic­ular al­bi­noes are car­ry­ing in the so­ma the pat­tern de­ter­mi­nants si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly with the ab­sence of some of the fac­tors for pig­men­ta­tion.

Not on­ly do al­bi­noes thus car­ry the de­ter­mi­nants for pat­tern, but it has been known for some time that they al­so car­ry ga­met­ical­ly, but nev­er vis­ible so­mat­ical­ly, the de­ter­mi­nants for ei­ther the fer­ment or the chro­mogen for one or more colours. L. Cuenot was the first to show this for al­bi­no mice. He was able by ap­pro­pri­ate ex­per­iments to demon­strate that when an al­bi­no is de­rived (ex­tract­ed) from a coloured an­ces­try, and is then crossed with a coloured in­di­vid­ual, both the colour of the pig­ment­ed par­ent and of the pig­ment­ed an­ces­try of the al­bi­no may ap­pear among the in­di­vid­uals of the off­spring.

Im­me­di­ate­ly sub­se­quent to Cuenot, G. M. Allen in Ameri­ia demon­strat­ed the same Jact up­on the same species of ro­dents. C. C. Hurst, more re­cent­ly, has shown that al­bi­no rab­bits. whether pure bred for eight gen­er­ations at least, or ex­tract­ed from pig­ment­ed par­ents, may car­ry the de­ter­mi­nants for black or for black and grey. In this lat­ter case the de­ter­mi­nants for black are car­ried by sep­arate ga­metes from those car­ry­ing grey, and the two kinds of sex-​cells ex­ist in ap­prox­imate­ly equal num­bers. This is like­wise true of al­bi­no mice when they car­ry the de­ter­mi­nants for more than one colour.

Since Hurst’s work, L. Don­cast­er and G. P. Mudge have both shown that al­bi­no rats al­so car­ry in a la­tent con­di­tion the de­ter­mi­nants for black or grey. The ex­per­iments of the lat­ter au­thor show that, if a ga­met­ical­ly pure black rat be crossed with an al­bi­no de­rived from a piebald black and white an­ces­try, all the off­spring in suc­ces­sive lit­ters will be black; but if the same black par­ent be crossed with al­bi­noes ex­tract­ed from par­ents of which One or both are grey, then both grey and black mem­bers will ap­pear in the suc­ces­sive lit­ters.

The pro­por­tions in which the var­ious coloured in­di­vid­uals ap­pear are ap­prox­imate­ly those de­mand­ed by the Mendelian prin­ci­ple of ga­met­ic pu­ri­ty and seg­re­ga­tion. Cuenot and Hurst have al­so shown that when al­bi­noes of one colour ex­trac­tion are crossed with al­bi­noes of an­oth­er colour ex­trac­tion the seg­re­ga­tion of the colour de­ter­mi­nants in the ga­me­to­ge­ne­sis of the al­bi­noes takes place in pre­cise­ly the same way that it does in the ga­me­to­ge­ne­sis of a pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­ual; that is, in Mendelian fash­ion. Or, to ex­press it oth­er­wise, an al­bi­no ex­tract­ed from yel­low par­ents, bred with an al­bi­no ex­tract­ed from black par­ents, will give an al­bi­no off­spring whose ga­metes in equal num­bers are bear­ers of the black and yel­low de­ter­mi­nants. And when one of these al­bi­noes is bred with a pure coloured in­di­vid­ual, a mixed off­spring will ap­pear in the first gen­er­ation. Some of the in­di­vid­uals will be one or oth­er of the two colours, the de­ter­mi­nants of which were borne by the al­bi­no, and oth­ers the colour of the pig­ment­ed par­ent. But in such al­bi­no cross­es the colour char­ac­ters are la­tent be­cause al­bi­noes do not car­ry the whole of the com­ple­ments for colour pro­duc­tion. They car­ry on­ly some de­ter­mi­nant or de­ter­mi­nants which are ca­pa­ble of de­vel­op­ing colour when they in­ter­act with some oth­er de­ter­mi­nant or de­ter­mi­nants car­ried alone by pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­uals. Whether al­bi­noes car­ry the ty­rosi­nase or oth­er fer­ment, or whether they car­ry the chro­mogen or chro­mogens, is not yet set­tled. Miss Durham’s work sug­gests that they car­ry the lat­ter. But that they nev­er bear both is proved by the fact that, when al­bi­noes are crossed with each oth­er, none but al­bi­noes ev­er re­sult in the off­spring. One ap­par­ent ex­cep­tion to this rule on­ly is known, and this al­most cer­tain­ly was due to er­ror.

It is not on­ly among al­bi­no an­imals that colour fac­tors are car­ried in a la­tent con­di­tion, but al­so in white flow­ers. W.. Bate­son has shown this to be the case for the sweet-​pea (Lath­yrus odor­atus), var. Emi­ly Hen­der­son, and for cer­tain white and cream stocks (Matthi­ola.) When white Emi­ly Hen­der­son (the race hav­ing round pollen grains) is crossed with a blue-​flow­ered pea, pur­ple off­spring re­sult. Sim­ilar­ly, when white Emi­ly Hen­der­son (long pollen grains) is crossed with white Emi­ly Hen­der­son (round pollen grains), the off­spring whol­ly con­sists of the re­ver­sion­ary pur­ple type, and some­times whol­ly of a red bi­col­or form known as “Paint­ed La­dy.” These two types nev­er ap­pear in the same fam­ily. With the stocks, when a white-​flow­ered and hair­less form is crossed with a cream-​flow­ered and hair­less one, all the off­spring are pur­ple and hairy. Bate­son con­sid­ers that the pur­ple colour is due to the si­mul­ta­ne­ous ex­is­tence in the plant of two colour fac­tors which may be des­ig­nat­ed by C and R. If ei­ther one of these two is ab­sent the plant is colour­less. Cream-​coloured flow­ers are re­gard­ed as white be­cause cream is due to yel­low plas­tids and not to sap colour. Thus the cream plant may car­ry C and the white one R. When they are crossed the two fac­tors for colour pro­duc­tion are brought to­geth­er. Ob­vi­ous­ly, we may re­gard C as a ty­rosi­nase and R as a chro­mogen, or vice ver­sa; and in the case of the white sweet­pea crossed with a blue-​flow­ered one, and pro­duc­ing pur­ple off­spring, we may imag­ine that the white flow­er brought in an ad­di­tion­al ty­rosi­nase or a chro­mogen not present in the blue flow­er, which, when com­bined or mixed with the chro­mogen or ty­rosi­nase for blue, gave pur­ple. A sim­ilar ex­pla­na­tion may ap­ply to C. Cor­rens’s ex­per­iment, in which he crossed white Mirabilis jala­pa with a yel­low form, and al­ways ob­tained red-​flow­ered off­spring.

In hered­ity, com­plete al­binism among an­imals is al­ways re­ces­sive; and par­tial al­binism (piebald) is al­ways re­ces­sive to com­plete pig­men­ta­tion (self-​coloured). When an al­bi­no mouse, rat, guinea-​pig or rab­bit is crossed with ei­ther a pure self or pure pied-​coloured form, the off­spring are sim­ilar to, though not al­ways ex­act­ly like, the coloured par­ent; pro­vid­ed, of course, that the al­bi­no is pure and is not car­ry­ing some colour or pat­tern de­ter­mi­nant which is dom­inant to that of the coloured par­ent used. No al­bi­noes, in such a case, will ap­pear among the first gen­er­ation, but if the in­di­vid­uals of this (F.1) gen­er­ation are crossed in­ter se or back crossed with the al­bi­no parenr, then al­bi­no in­di­vid­uals reap­pear among the off­spring. In the for­mer case they would form one-​quar­ter of the in­di­vid­uals of this sec­ond (F.2) gen­er­ation, and in the lat­ter, one-​half.

The re­ces­sive na­ture of al­binism and its dis­tri­bu­tion in Mendelian fash­ion is al­most cer­tain­ly as true for man as for low­er forms. This has been shown by W. C. Farabee for ne­groes in Coanoma coun­ty, Mis­sis­sip­pi. The facts are as fol­lows. An al­bi­no ne­gro mar­ried a nor­mal negress. They had three chil­dren, all males. All three sons mar­ried, and two of them had on­ly nor­mal chil­dren, judged of course by so­mat­ic char­ac­ters. But the third son mar­ried twice, and by the first wife had five nor­mal and one al­bi­no chil­dren, and by the sec­ond, six nor­mal and three al­bi­no chil­dren. If we as­sume that the two ne­gress­es which the third son mar­ried were them­selves car­ry­ing al­binism re­ces­sive –an ex­ceed­ing­ly prob­able con­di­tion con­sid­er­ing that al­bi­no ne­groes are not un­com­mon—the re­sult is ac­cu­rate­ly in ac­cor­dance, as W. E. Cas­tle has shown, with Mendelian ex­pec­ta­tion. For there is ex­pect­ed in the off­spring of this third son coloured in­di­vid­uals and al­bi­noes in the pro­por­tion of 3:1. There is ac­tu­al­ly 11:4, which is the near­est pos­si­ble ap­prox­ima­tion with the num­ber 15.

The op­er­ation of Mendelian pro­cess­es in hu­man hered­ity is fur­ther shown by the close re­la­tion­ship that ex­ists be­tween the ap­pear­ance of al­bi­noes and cousin mar­riages. An al­bi­no is a ho­mozy­gote; that is, all its ga­metes are car­ry­ing the char­ac­ter of al­binism and none of them bear the al­ter­na­tive char­ac­ter –the al­lelo­morph—of pig­men­ta­tion. By pig­men­ta­tion is here meant all those fac­tors which go to its pro­duc­tion. Now such a ga­met­ic (egg or sperm) con­sti­tu­tion can on­ly re­sult when two in­di­vid­uals, all or some of whose ga­metes are pure with re­gard to the char­ac­ter al­binism, meet in fer­til­iza­tion. Hence it is read­ily seen that it is among cousin mar­riages that the greater prob­abil­ities ex­ist that two in­di­vid­uals bear­ing iden­ti­cal char­ac­ters will meet, than in the pop­ula­tion at large. This can be il­lus­trat­ed in the fol­low­ing scheme. Let A stand for a pure al­bi­no and (A)N for a nor­mal per­son, who nev­er­the­less car­ries the char­ac­ter al­binism (A) re­ces­sive. Then, in the scheme be­low, if Ab and (A)Nb are two broth­ers who both mar­ry nor­mal wives N, their chil­dren N(A) in the first case will be all nor­mal in ap­pear­ance but will be car­ry­ing al­binism re­ces­sive; and in the sec­ond case some will be pure nor­mal in­di­vid­uals N, and some will be like the chil­dren of the first broth­er, i.e. N(A). Now, if one of these lat­ter chil­dren of the sec­ond broth­er mar­ries a cousin—a child of the first broth­er,—their off­spring, if large enough, will con­sist of some pure nor­mals N, im­pure nor­mals N(A), and of al­bi­noes A.

Ab X N (A)Nb X N

| | N(A) N(A)+N | N+2N(A)+A No oth­er ra­tio­nal ex­pla­na­tion of the close re­la­tion­ship be­tween al­binism and cousin mar­riages is at present forth­com­ing. And, when the whole facts are borne in mind, there can be no rea­son­able doubt that the Mendelian prin­ci­ples of­fer an in­tel­li­gi­ble so­lu­tion of the prob­lem.

A pop­ular con­cep­tion ex­ists that al­bi­noes are less con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly strong than the pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­uals of the same species. In sup­port of this be­lief there is more or less sci­en­tif­ical­ly as­cer­tained ev­idence. Con­verse­ly, there is, how­ev­er, con­clu­sive ev­idence that in some in­stances and in re­spect of cer­tain qeial­ities the op­po­site be­lief is true.

To deal with the for­mer be­lief first, we have the re­mark­able case cit­ed by Charles Dar­win on the au­thor­ity of Pro­fes­sor I. J. Wyman. In Vir­ginia the paint-​root plant (Lach­nan­thes tinc­to­ria) oc­curs abun­dant­ly, and Pro­fes­sor Wyman no­ticed that all the pigs in this dis­trict were black. Up­on in­quiry of the farm­ers he found that all the white pigs born in a lit­ter were de­stroyed, be­cause they could not be reared to ma­tu­ri­ty. The root of this plant, when eat­en by white pigs, caused their bones to turn to a pink colour and their hoofs to fall off, but the black pigs could eat the same plant with im­puni­ty. Par­tial al­binism in this case was un­doubt­ed­ly cor­re­lat­ed with some in­her­ent con­sti­tu­tion­al de­fect, in virtue of which the in­di­vid­uals char­ac­ter­ized by it were in­ju­ri­ous­ly af­fect­ed by the juices of a plant quite in­nocu­ous to their pig­ment­ed brethren. Heusinger has shown that white sheep and pigs are in­jured by the in­ges­tion of cer­tain plants, while the pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­uals may eat them with­out harm. In De­von­shire and in parts of Kent the farm­ers en­ter­tain a marked prej­udice against white pigs, be­cause “the sun blis­ters their skin.” More re­mark­able is the case of cer­tain cat­tle, whose skin is piebald, marked by a gen­er­al ground colour over which are scat­tered patch­es of un­pig­ment­ed coat. In these an­imals, in cer­tain in­flam­ma­to­ry skin erup­tions, caused by the in­ges­tion of harm­ful plants, the al­binot­ic ar­eas are alone af­fect­ed. And with cer­tain cu­ta­neous dis­eases ac­com­pa­nied by con­sti­tu­tion­al dis­tur­bances which af­flict cat­tle, the af­fec­tion in the skin ap­pears on the patch­es bear­ing white hairs, the oth­er parts re­main­ing ap­par­ent­ly healthy. Such cas­es sug­gest that we should be more cor­rect in re­gard­ing, not al­binism as cor­re­lat­ed with con­sti­tu­tion­al de­fects, but rather pig­men­ta­tion as cor­re­lat­ed with pow­ers of im­mu­ni­ty or in­creased re­sis­tance against cer­tain in­ju­ri­ous pro­cess­es. In the West In­dies “the on­ly horned cat­tle fit for work are those which have a good deal of black in them; the white are ter­ri­bly tor­ment­ed by the in­sects and they are weak and slug­gish in pro­por­tion to the black.”

Com­ing to man, it is known that some al­bi­no ne­groes are pe­cu­liar­ly sen­si­tive to the bites of in­sects; and with Eu­ro­peans it is a gen­er­al­ly ob­served fact that the fair­er in­di­vid­uals are more se­ri­ous­ly af­fect­ed by the bites of fleas and bugs than are dark­er ones. Dr Twin­ing, in the British As­so­ci­ation Re­ports for 1845, p. 79, cites some in­stances de­scribed by Hum­boldt, who says that the cop­per-​coloured na­tives of the high plain of Bo­go­to, and at a low­er lev­el on the Mag­dale­na riv­er, were gen­er­al­ly free from goitre. Pro­fes­sor Pof­fig, al­so cit­ed by Dr Twin­ing, states that on the east side of the An­des in Chile, in some of the races which live there, he did not see a sin­gle case of goitre, and yet in the white in­hab­itants, who live ex­act­ly as the na­tives, it pre­vails in a great de­gree:

Turn­ing now to in­stances of the op­po­site kind, it is known that silk­worms which spin colour­less co­coons are more re­sis­tant to the at­tacks of a cer­tain dead­ly fun­gus than are those which spin the yel­low ones. In some parts of North Amer­ica it is found that the white peach­es are much less li­able to the at­tack of a dis­ease known as the “yel­lows” than are the yel­low-​fleshed ones. In the re­gion of the Mis­sis­sip­pi, Farabee has ob­served that the al­bi­no ne­groes are taller and broad­er than the black-​skinned in­di­vid­uals. We may as­sume that in­creased stature and breadth im­ply some sort of in­her­ent phys­ical su­pe­ri­or­ity, and if such an as­sump­tion is valid we have in man ev­idence that al­binism is cor­re­lat­ed not with con­sti­tu­tion­al de­fec­tive­ness but with greater per­fect­ness.

But the ques­tion as to whether al­bi­noes are more or less con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly vig­or­ous than pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­uals of the same species may be test­ed by ex­act mea­sure­ment. In 1893 W. D. Hal­libur­ton and T. G. Brodie, in as­cer­tain­ing the phys­io­log­ical pi­jop­er­ties of nu­cleo-​pro­tei­ds, found that when they were in­travas­cu­lar­ly in­ject­ed in­to pig­ment­ed rab­bits, co­ag­ula­tion of the blood re­sult­ed, but of the eight al­bi­noes which they used, none clot­ted. At a sub­se­quent pe­ri­od (1897) Hal­libur­ton and J. W. Pick­er­ing showed that the three syn­the­sized col­loids of Gri­maux in the same way pro­duced co­ag­ula­tion in pig­ment­ed an­imals, but failed to do so in al­bi­noes. Pick­er­ing, still lat­er, showed, in the case of four Nor­way hares, two of which were in­ject­ed while in their pig­ment­ed or sum­mer coat, and two while in their al­bi­no or win­ter coat, that co­ag­ula­tion oc­curred in the for­mer cas­es but not in the lat­ter.

Quite re­cent­ly, how­ev­er, the au­thor of this ar­ti­cle has made a more de­tailed ex­am­ina­tion of the ques­tion, op­er­at­ing up­on sev­er­al hun­dreds of rab­bits. And he found that all al­bi­noes do not fail to clot when in­travas­cu­lar­ly in­ject­ed with nu­cle­opro­tei­ds. On­ly about 9% of them thus failed ab­so­lute­ly to man­ifest any trace of co­ag­ula­tion. But about 7% showed an ex­ceed­ing­ly lim­it­ed co­ag­ula­tion, in which the clot was colour­less and floc­cu­lent, and con­fined to the heart. The rest gave a typ­ical and more or less wide-​spread co­ag­ula­tion. More­over, it was found that all the fail­ures of co­ag­ula­tion oc­curred when the nu­cleo-​pro­teid used was ob­tained from pig­ment­ed an­imals. When it was de­rived from al­bi­noes no fail­ures oc­curred. All pig­ment­ed an­imals clot­ted when the nu­cleo-​pro­teid was de­rived from ei­ther source. The Hi­malayan rab­bits re­act­ed like com­plete al­bi­noes, and 12% of them failed to clot when in­ject­ed with nu­cleo-​pro­teid ex­tract­ed from pig­ment­ed an­imals.

The in­ter­est­ing fact was thus as­cer­tained that all al­bi­noes are not alike. To stu­dents of hered­ity this is pre­cise­ly what would have been ex­pect­ed. For, as the facts above de­scribed show, al­bi­noes, though ap­par­ent­ly iden­ti­cal ex­ter­nal­ly, are yet the car­ri­ers of dif­fer­ent hered­itary char­ac­ters. Among al­bi­no rats, for in­stance, the au­thor of this ar­ti­cle has rea­son to be­lieve, up­on the­oret­ical grounds rest­ing on an ex­per­imen­tal ba­sis, that prob­ably no less than thir­teen types ex­ist. With rab­bits and mice there must be a still larg­er num­ber.

In the in­travas­cu­lar co­ag­ula­tion ex­per­iments above de­scribed, all the rab­bits were care­ful­ly weighed, and the amount of nu­cle­opro­teid in­ject­ed un­til co­ag­ula­tion oc­curred was mea­sured. This would give for al­bi­noes and pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­uals the amount per kilo­gramme of body-​weight re­quired to kill in each case, and would af­ford a mea­sure­ment of the rel­ative re­sis­tance of the two races. It was found that the re­sis­tance of al­bi­noes to­wards the co­ag­ula­tive ef­fects of in­ject­ed nu­cleo-​pro­tei­ds was to that of pig­ment­ed in­di­vid­uals as 1.5 to 1.0. In this case, the greater con­sti­tu­tion­al vigour of the al­bi­no is thus ac­cu­rate­ly demon­strat­ed. But it does not nec­es­sar­ily fol­low that with oth­er ma­te­ri­als and with oth­er con­sti­tu­tion­al qual­ities the state of things would not be re­versed.

One oth­er fea­ture re­mains to be men­tioned. Al­binism ap­pears, in the pro­cess­es of hered­ity, to be some­times in­dis­sol­ubly cor­re­lat­ed with cer­tain pe­cu­liar traits. It is well known that the long-​haired al­bi­no rab­bit, called An­go­ra, when at rest, has the habit of sway­ing its head side­ways in a pe­cu­liar fash­ion. C. C. Hurst has shown that the long-​haired and al­bi­no char­ac­ters are al­ways ac­com­pa­nied in hered­ity with the sway­ing habit. The An­go­ra char­ac­ter nev­er oc­curs with­out it.

BIB­LI­OG­RA­PHY.—G. M. Allen, “Hered­ity of Coat Colour in Mice,” Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci. vol. xl. No. 2; W. Bate­son, Mendel’s Prin­ci­ples of Hered­ity, a De­fence (Cam­bridge, 1902); W. Bate­son and E. R. Saun­ders, “Ex­per­imen­tal Stud­ies in the Phys­iol­ogy of Hered­ity,” Re­ports to the Evo­lu­tion Com­mit­tee of the Roy­al So­ci­ety, Re­port I. (Lon­don, 1901); W. Bate­son, E. R. Saun­ders, R. C. Pun­nett and C. C. Hurst, Re­ports to the Evo­lu­tion Com­mit­tee of the Roy­al So­ci­ety, Re­port II. (Lon­don, 1905); W. Bate­son, E. R. Saun­ders and R. C. Pun­nett, “Fur­ther Ex­per­iments on In­her­itance in Sweet-​Peas and Stocks,” Proc. Roy. Soc. B. vol. lxxvii.; W. E. Cas­tle, “Note on Mr Farabee’s Ob­ser­va­tions,” Sci­ence, N.S. vol. xvii. (New York); “Mendel’s Law of Hered­ity”, Sci­ence, N.S. vol. xvi­ii. (New York); W. E. Cas­tle and G. M. Allen, “Mendel’s Law and the Hered­ity of Al­binism,” Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci. vol. xxxvi­ii.; L. Cuenot, “L’hered­ite de la pig­men­ta­tion chez les souris,” Arch. d. Zo­ol. Ex­per. et Gen. Notes et Re­vue, ser. 3, tom. 10, and ser. 4, tom. 1 and 2; Charles Dar­win, Vari­ation of An­imals and Plants un­der Do­mes­ti­ca­tion, vols. i. and ii., 2nd ed. (Lon­don, 1899); L. Don­cast­er, “In­her­itance of Coat Colour in Rats,” Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. vol. xi­ii. (Camb., 1906); V. von Duc­ceschi, Ren­di­con­ti del­la R. Ac­cad. dei Lin­cei, vol. ii.; Archiv­io di Fi­si­olo­gia, vol. i.; Flo­rence M. Durham, “Ty­rosi­nas­es in the Skins of Pig­ment­ed Ver­te­brates,” Proc. Roy. Soc. vol. lxxiv.; W. C. Farabee, “Notes on Ne­gro Al­binism,” Sci­ence, N.S. vol. xvii. (New York); Furth v. Schnei­der, Beitr. z. Chem. Phys. u. Path. Bd. 1; W. Haacke, “Ue­ber We­sen, Ur­sachen und Vererbung von Al­binis­mus und Scheck­ung, &c.,’, Bi­ol. Cen­tral­bl. Bd. 15; Hal­libur­ton and Brodie, Journ. Phys. Camb. and Lond. vols. xiv., xvi., xvii., xvi­ii.; Hal­libur­ton and Pick­er­ing, Journ. Phys. vol. xvi­ii.; C. C. Hurst, “Ex­per­imen­tal Stud­ies on Hered­ity in Rab­bits,” Journ. Lin. Soc. Sool. vol. xxix.; Geo. P. Mudge, “In­travas­cu­lar Co­ag­ula­tion and Al­binism, Pre­lim­inary Note,” Proc. Phys. Soc., 1905; Packard, Mem­oirs of Na­tion­al Acade­my of Sci­ences (1888); Pick­er­ing, Journ. Phys. vols. xvi­ii. and xx.; E. B. Poul­ton, Colour of An­imals (Lond., 1890); Twin­ing, Brit. As­soc. Re­ports, 1845; H. M. Ver­non, Vari­ation in An­imals and Plants (Lon­don, 1903) F. H. Welch, “Win­ter Coat in Le­pus amer­icanus,” Proc. Zo­ol. Soc., 1869. (G. P. M.)

AL­BI­NONI, TOMAS­SO (c. 1674–c. 1745), Ital­ian mu­si­cian, was born at Venice. He was a pro­lif­ic com­pos­er of op­eras at­tract­ing con­tem­po­rary at­ten­tion for their orig­inal­ity, but is more re­mark­able as a com­pos­er of in­stru­men­tal mu­sic, which great­ly at­tract­ed the at­ten­tion of Bach, who wrote at least two fugues on Al­bi­noni’s themes and con­stant­ly used his bass­es for har­mo­ny ex­er­cis­es for his pupils. AL­BI­NO­VANUS PE­DO, Ro­man po­et, flour­ished dur­ing the Au­gus­tan age. He wrote a The­seis, re­ferred to in a let­ter from his in­ti­mate friend Ovid (Ex Pon­to, iv. 10), epi­grams which are com­mend­ed by Mar­tial (ii. 77, v. 5) and an epic po­em on the ex­ploits of Ger­man­icus. He had the rep­uta­tion of be­ing an ex­cel­lent racon­teur, and Quin­til­ian (x. i. 90) awards him qual­ified praise as a writ­er of epics. All that re­mains of his works is a beau­ti­ful frag­ment, pre­served in the Sua­so­ri­ae (i. 15) of the rhetori­cian Seneca, from a de­scrip­tion of the Voy­age of Ger­man­icus (A.D. 16) through the riv­er Ems to the North­ern Ocean, when he was over­tak­en by the storm de­scribed by Tac­itus (Ann. ii. 23). The cav­al­ry com­man­der spo­ken of by the his­to­ri­an is prob­ably iden­ti­cal with the po­et. Three ele­gies were for­mer­ly at­tribut­ed to Pe­do by Scaliger; two on the death of Mae­ce­nas (In Obi­tum Mae­ce­natis and De Ver­bis Mae­ce­natis mori­bun­di), and one ad­dressed to Livia to con­sole her for the death of her son Drusus (Con­so­la­tio ad Livi­am de Morte Drusi or Epice­dion Drusi, usu­al­ly print­ed with Ovid’s works); but it is now gen­er­al­ly agreed that they are not by Pe­do. The Con­so­la­tio has been put down as late as the 15th cen­tu­ry as the work of an Ital­ian im­ita­tor, there be­ing no MSS. and no trace of the po­em be­fore the pub­li­ca­tion of the edi­tio prin­ceps of Ovid in 1471. There is an En­glish verse trans­la­tion of the ele­gies by Plumptre (1907).

See Bahrens, Po­et­ae La­ti­ni Mi­nores (1879) and Frag­men­ta Po­et­arum Lati­no­rum (1886); Haupt, Opus­cu­la, i. (1875); Haube, Beitrag zur Ken­nt­nis des Al­bi­no­vanus Pe­do (1880).

AL­BI­NUS (orig­inal­ly WEISS), RERN­HARD SIEGFRIED (1697-1770), Ger­man anatomist, was born on the 24th of Febru­ary 1697, at Frank­fort-​on-​Oder, where his fa­ther, Bern­hard Al­bi­nus (1653-1721), was pro­fes­sor of the prac­tice of medicine. In 1702 the lat­ter was trans­ferred to the chair of medicine at Lei­den, and it was there that Bern­hard Siegfried be­gan his stud­ies, hav­ing for his teach­ers such men as H. Boer­haave and Niko­laus Bid­loo. Hav­ing fin­ished his stud­ies at Lei­den, he went to Paris, where, un­der the in­struc­tion of Se­bastien Vail­lant (1669-1722), J. B. Winslow (1669-1760) and oth­ers, he de­vot­ed him­self es­pe­cial­ly to anato­my and botany. Af­ter a year’s ab­sence he was, on the rec­om­men­da­tion of Boer­haave, re­called in 1719 to Lei­den to be a lec­tur­er on anato­my and surgery. Two years lat­er he suc­ceed­ed his fa­ther in the pro­fes­sor­ship of these sub­jects, and speed­ily be­came one of the most fa­mous teach­ers of anato­my in Eu­rope, his class-​room be­ing re­sort­ed to not on­ly by stu­dents but by many prac­tis­ing physi­cians. In 1745 Al­bi­nus was ap­point­ed pro­fes­sor of the prac­tice of medicine, be­ing suc­ceed­ed in the anatom­ical chair by his broth­er Fred­er­ick Bern­hard (1715-1778), who, as well as an­oth­er broth­er, Chris­tian Bern­hard (1700-1752), at­tained con­sid­er­able dis­tinc­tion. Bern­hard Siegfried, who was twice rec­tor of his uni­ver­si­ty, died on the 9th of Septem­ber 1770 at Lei­den.

AL­BION (in Ptole­my ‘Alouion; Lat. Al­bion, Pliny 4.16[30],102), the most an­cient name of the British Is­lands, though gen­er­al­ly re­strict­ed to Eng­land. The name is per­haps of Celtic ori­gin, but the Ro­mans took it as con­nect­ed with al­bus, white, in ref­er­ence to the chalk-​cliffs of Dover, and A. Hold­er (Alt-​Keltisch­er Sprach­schatz, 1896) un­hesi­tat­ing­ly trans­lates it Weiss­land, “white­land.” The ear­ly writ­er (6th cent. B.C.) whose periplus is trans­lat­ed by Avienus (end of 4th cent. A.D.) does not use the name Bri­tan­nia; he speaks of ne­sos ‘Ier­non kai ‘Al­bionon (“is­land of the Ierni and the Al­biones”). So Pyth­eas of Mas­sil­ia (4th cent. B.C.) speaks of ”Al­bion and ‘Ierne. From the fact that there was a tribe called the Al­biones on the north coast ot Spain in As­turia, some schol­ars have placed Al­bion in that neigh­bour­hood (see G. F. Unger, Rhein. Mus. xxxvi­ii., 1883, pp. 156-196). The name Al­bion was tak­en by me­dieval writ­ers from Pliny and Ptole­my.

AL­BION, a city of Cal­houn coun­ty, Michi­gan, U.S.A., on the Kala­ma­zoo riv­er, 21 m. W. of Jack­son. Pop. (1890) 3763; (1900) 4519, of whom 622 were for­eign-​born; (1904) 4943; (1910) 5833. Al­bion is served by the Michi­gan Cen­tral and the Jack­son di­vi­sion of the Lake Shore and Michi­gan South­ern rail­ways, and by an in­ter-​ur­ban elec­tric line. The city has a pub­lic park and a pub­lic li­brary. The W. part of the city has most of the fac­to­ries; the prin­ci­pal man­ufac­tures are flour, agri­cul­tur­al im­ple­ments, wind­mills, gaso­lene en­gines, har­ness and pro­pri­etary medicines. On a com­mand­ing site in the E. part of the city is Al­bion Col­lege (Methodist Epis­co­pal; co-​ed­uca­tion­al), em­brac­ing a Col­lege of Lib­er­al Arts, a prepara­to­ry de­part­ment, a con­ser­va­to­ry of mu­sic, a school of art, a school of or­ato­ry, a nor­mal course, and a com­mer­cial de­part­ment. The col­lege was in­cor­po­rat­ed in 1835 as Spring Ar­bor Sem­inary, and in 1839 by an amend­ed char­ter was lo­cat­ed at Al­bion, where it was first opened in 1843 un­der the name of the Wes­leyan Sem­inary of Al­bion; in 1849 it be­came the Wes­leyan Sem­inary and Fe­male Col­le­giate In­sti­tute, with pow­er to grant de­grees to wom­en on­ly; but in 1861 the present name was adopt­ed and the col­lege was per­mit­ted to grant de­grees to men and wom­en. In 1906 it had a li­brary of 16,500 vol­umes, a fac­ul­ty of 19, and an en­rol­ment of 483 (211 be­ing wom­en). The mu­nic­ipal­ity owns and op­er­ates the wa­ter-​works, the wa­ter-​sup­ply be­ing ob­tained from arte­sian wells. Al­bion was set­tled in 1831, was in­cor­po­rat­ed as a vil­lage in 1866 and was char­tered as a city in 1885.

AL­BION, a vil­lage and the coun­ty-​seat of Or­leans coun­ty, New York, U.S.A., about 30 m. W.N.W. of Rochester. Pop. (1890) 4586; (1900) 4477, (984 be­ing for­eign-​born and 43 ne­groes); (1905, state cen­sus) 5174; (1910) 5016. The vil­lage is served by the New York Cen­tral & Hud­son Riv­er rail­way, by the Buf­fa­lo, Lock­port & Rochester elec­tric rail­way, and by the Erie Canal. In Al­bion are the West­ern House of Refuge for Wom­en (a state in­sti­tu­tion es­tab­lished in 1890), a pub­lic park, the Swan Li­brary, and the coun­ty build­ings, in­clud­ing the court house, the jail and the sur­ro­gate’s of­fice; and about 2 m. to the S.E. is the beau­ti­ful Mount Al­bion Ceme­tery. Al­bion is the cen­tre of the Med­ina sand­stone in­dus­try, and lies in the midst of a good farm­ing re­gion, of which it is the prin­ci­pal ship­ping point, es­pe­cial­ly for ap­ples, cab­bages and beans. The vil­lage man­ufac­tures agri­cul­tur­al im­ple­ments, vine­gar, evap­orat­ed fruit, and canned fruit and veg­eta­bles, and has two large cold-​stor­age hous­es. Al­bion was set­tled in 1812, was in­cor­po­rat­ed in 1823 and be­came the coun­ty-​seat in 1825.

AL­BITE, a min­er­al of the felspar group, be­long­ing to the di­vi­sion of the pla­gio­clases (q.v..) It is a sodi­um and alu­mini­um sil­icate, NaAl­Si3O8, and crys­tal­lizes in the anor­th­ic sys­tem. Like all the felspars it pos­sess­es two cleav­ages, one per­fect and the oth­er less so, which are here in­clined at an an­gle of 86 deg. 24′. On the more per­fect cleav­age, which is par­al­lel to the basal plane (P), is a sys­tem of fine stri­ations, par­al­lel to the sec­ond cleav­age (M), due to twin­ning ac­cord­ing to the,“al­bite law” (figs. 1 and 2). The hard­ness is 6, and the spe­cif­ic grav­ity 2.63. The colour is usu­al­ly pure white, hence the name (from the Lat. al­bus) for the species.

Al­bite forms an es­sen­tial con­stituent of many acidic ig­neous and FIG. 1. FIG. 2. crys­talline rocks; Twinned crys­tals of Al­bite. in gran­ites, dior­ites, an­desites, &c., it oc­curs as a pri­ma­ry min­er­al, whilst in crys­talline schists, phyl­lites and crys­talline lime­stones it is of sec­ondary (meta­mor­phic) ori­gin. The beau­ti­ful­ly de­vel­oped crys­tals so abun­dant in crys­tal-​lined crevices of Alpine gran­ites and gneiss­es have been de­posit­ed, with oth­er min­er­als, from so­lu­tion; the crys­tals lin­ing veins in the slates of Tin­tagel in Corn­wall have the same ori­gin.

Sev­er­al va­ri­eties of al­bite are dis­tin­guished, of which the fol­low­ing may be here spe­cial­ly men­tioned. Per­icline (from the Gr. perik­lines, “slop­ing”) is the name giv­en to large opaque white crys­tals from the chlo­rite-​schists of the Alps; they are tab­ular par­al­lel to the di­rec­tion of per­fect cleav­age and are twinned ac­cord­ing to the “per­icline law.” Peri­sterite (from the Gr. peri­stera, a dove) is char­ac­ter­ized by a beau­ti­ful bluish sheen, some­what re­sem­bling that seen on the neck of a pi­geon; it is found main­ly in On­tario. Aven­turine and moon­stone va­ri­eties oc­cur, though these spe­cial ap­pear­ances are more usu­al­ly dis­played by the oligo­clase and or­tho­clase felspars re­spec­tive­ly. (L. J. S.)

‘AL­BO, JOSEPH, a Span­ish Jew­ish the­olo­gian of the 15th cen­tu­ry. He was au­thor of a very pop­ular book on the phi­los­ophy of Ju­daism, en­ti­tled `Iqqarim or Fun­da­men­tals. Mai­monides in the 12th cen­tu­ry had for­mu­lat­ed the prin­ci­ples of Ju­daism in thir­teen ar­ti­cles; Al­bo re­duced them to three: (i) The Ex­is­tence of God, (ii) Rev­ela­tion and (iii) Di­vine Ret­ri­bu­tion. Al­bo set the ex­am­ple of min­imiz­ing Mes­sian­ism in the for­mu­la­tion of Jew­ish be­liefs. Though he ful­ly main­tained the Mo­sa­ic au­thor­ship of the Law and the bind­ing force of tra­di­tion, he dis­crim­inat­ed be­tween the es­sen­tial and the non-​es­sen­tial in the prac­tices and be­liefs of Ju­daism. An En­glish trans­la­tion of the `Iqqarim ap­peared in the He­brew Re­view, vols. i.-iii.

AL­BOIN (d. 572 or 573), king of the Lom­bards, and con­queror of Italy, suc­ceed­ed his fa­ther Au­doin about 565. The Lom­bards were at that time dwelling in Noricum and Pan­non­ia (arch­duchy of Aus­tria, Styr­ia and Hun­gary, west of the Danube). In al­liance with the Avars, and Asi­at­ic peo­ple who had in­vad­ed cen­tral Eu­rope, Al­boin de­feat­ed the Gep­idae, a pow­er­ful na­tion on his east­ern fron­tier, slew their king Cu­nimund, whose skull he fash­ioned in­to a drink­ing-​cup, and whose daugh­ter Rosamund he car­ried off and made his wife. Three years lat­er (in 568), on the al­leged in­vi­ta­tion of Nars­es (q.v.), who was ir­ri­tat­ed by the treat­ment he had re­ceived from the em­per­or Justin II., Al­boin in­vad­ed Italy, prob­ably march­ing over the pass of the Predil. He over­ran Vene­tia and the wide dis­trict which we now call Lom­bardy, meet­ing with but fee­ble re­sis­tance till he came to the city of Ticinum (Pavia), which for three years (569-572) kept the Lom­bards at bay. While this siege was in progress Al­boin was al­so en­gaged in oth­er parts of Italy, and at its close he was prob­ably mas­ter of Lom­bardy, Pied­mont and Tus­cany, as well as of the re­gions which af­ter­wards went by the name of the duchies of Spo­le­to and Ben­even­to. In 572 or 573, how­ev­er, he was as­sas­si­nat­ed by his cham­ber­lain Pere­deo at the in­sti­ga­tion of Queen Rosamund, whom Al­boin had grievous­ly in­sult­ed by forc­ing her to drink wine out of her fa­ther’s skull. Af­ter his death and the short reign of his suc­ces­sor Cleph the Lom­bards re­mained for more than ten years in a state of an­ar­chy.

The au­thor­ities for the his­to­ry of Al­boin are Pro­copius, Paulus Di­aconus and Ag­nel­lus (in his his­to­ry of the church of Raven­na).

AL­BONI, MA­RI­ET­TA (1823-1894), Ital­ian opera-​singer, was born at Ce­se­na, Ro­magna, and was trained in mu­sic at Bologna, where she be­came a pupil of Rossi­ni. She had a mag­nif­icent con­tral­to voice, and in 1843 made her first ap­pear­ance at La Scala, Mi­lan, be­ing rec­og­nized at once as a pub­lic favourite. In Eng­land her rep­uta­tion was es­tab­lished by her ap­pear­ance at Covent Gar­den in 1847, and she had bril­liant suc­cess all over Eu­rope in the lead­ing op­er­at­ic roles; in 1853 she re­peat­ed these tri­umphs in the Unit­ed States. In­deed, with the ex­cep­tion of Mal­ibran, she had no com­peer among the con­tral­tos of the cen­tu­ry, the old Ital­ian school of singing find­ing in her a re­al­ly great rep­re­sen­ta­tive. She mar­ried first Count A. Pe­poh, who died in 1866, and sec­ond­ly (1877) a French of­fi­cer, M. Zieger; she lived in Paris af­ter her first mar­riage, and died at Ville d’Avray in 1894.

AL­BORNOZ, GIL AL­VAREZ DE, Span­ish car­di­nal, was born at Cuen­ca ear­ly in the 14th Cen­tu­ry. He was the son of Gil Al­varez de Al­bornoz and of Dona Tere­sa de Lu­na, sis­ter of Ki­meno de Lu­na, arch­bish­op of Tole­do. He was ed­ucat­ed at Saragosa, while his un­cle was bish­op of that see, and stud­ied law at Toulouse. The pow­er­ful in­flu­ence of his fam­ily opened him a pub­lic ca­reer ear­ly in life. He was made archdea­con of Ca­la­tra­va, and be­came a mem­ber of the king’s coun­cil while young. In 1337 he was cho­sen arch­bish­op of Tole­do in suc­ces­sion to his un­cle by the favour of the king, Alphon­so XI. At the bat­tle of Tar­ifa he fought against a great in­va­sion from Africa in 1340, and at the tak­ing of Al­ge­ci­ras in 1344 he led the armed levy of his arch­bish­opric. In 1343 he had been sent to Pope Clement VI. at Avi­gnon to ne­go­ti­ate a grant of a tax on the rev­enues of the Church for the Cru­sade. His mil­itary and diplo­mat­ic abil­ity be­came known to the pope, who made him a car­di­nal in 1350. Al­bornoz left Spain on the death of the king Alphon­so XI. in that year, and nev­er re­turned. It has been said, but not on con­tem­po­rary ev­idence, that he fled from fear of Pe­ter the Cru­el. In 1353 In­no­cent VI. sent him as a legate in­to Italy, with a view to the restora­tion of the pa­pal au­thor­ity in the states of the Church. He was re­called in 1357, but was sent again to Italy af­ter a brief in­ter­val, and in 1362 had paved the way for the re­turn of Ur­ban V. to Rome. As legate, Al­bornoz showed him­self to be an as­tute man­ag­er of men and ef­fec­tive fight­er. He be­gan by mak­ing use of Rien­zi, whose re­lease from prison at Avi­gnon he se­cured. Af­ter the mur­der of the tri­bune in 1354 Al­bornoz pur­sued his task of restor­ing the pope’s au­thor­ity by in­trigue and force with re­mark­able suc­cess. As a mark of grat­itude the pope ap­point­ed him legate at Bologna in 1367, but he died at Viter­bo the same year. Ac­cord­ing to his own de­sire his re­mains were car­ried to Tole­do, where Hen­ry of Castile caused them to be en­tombed with al­most roy­al hon­ours. A work by Al­bornoz on the con­sti­tu­tion of the Church of Rome, first print­ed at Je­si in 1473, is now very rare. The col­lege of St Clement at Bologna was found­ed by Al­bornox for the ben­efit of Span­ish stu­dents.

See “De Vi­ta et Re­bus Gestis Aegidii Al­bornotii,” in Sepul­ve­da’s Opera Om­nia, vol. iv. (1780); Car­de­nal Al­bornoz der zweite Be­grun­der des Kirchen­staates, by Dr H. J. Wurm (1892).

AL­BRECHTS­BERG­ER, JO­HANN GEORG (1736-1809), Aus­tri­an mu­si­cian, was born at Kloster-​Neuburg, near Vi­en­na, on the 3rd of Febru­ary 1736. He stud­ied mu­si­cal com­po­si­tion un­der the court or­gan­ist, Mann, and be­came one of the most learned and skil­ful con­tra­pun­tists of his age. Af­ter be­ing em­ployed as or­gan­ist at Raab and Maria-​Taferl, he was ap­point­ed in 1772 or­gan­ist to the court of Vi­en­na, and in 1792 Kapellmeis­ter of St Stephen’s cathe­dral. His fame as a the­orist at­tract­ed to him in the Aus­tri­an cap­ital a large num­ber of pupils, some of whom af­ter­wards be­came em­inent mu­si­cians. Among these were Beethoven, Hum­mel, Moscheles and Josef Wei­gl (1766-1846). Al­brechts­berg­er died in Vi­en­na on the 7th of March 1809. His pub­lished com­po­si­tions con­sist of pre­ludes, fugues and sonatas for the pi­ano and or­gan, string quar­tets, &c.; but the greater pro­por­tion of his works, vo­cal and in­stru­men­tal, ex­ists on­ly in manuscript. They are in the li­brary of the Vi­en­na Gesellschaft der Musik­fre­unde. Prob­ably the most valu­able ser­vice he ren­dered to mu­sic was in his the­oret­ical Works. In 1790 he pub­lished at Leipzig a trea­tise on com­po­si­tion, of which a third edi­tion ap­peared in 1821. A col­lec­tion of his writ­ings on har­mo­ny, in three vol­umes, was pub­lished un­der the care of his pupil Ig­naz von Seyfried (1776-1841) in 1826. There is an En­glish ver­sion of this pub­lished by Nov­el­lo in 1855. Beethoven knew his own needs when he put him­self un­der Al­brechts­berg­er on find­ing that Haydn was not thor­ough­ly dis­posed for the trou­ble of train­ing him; and though Al­brechts­berg­er could see noth­ing in him, and warned his oth­er pupils against “that young man who would nev­er turn out any­thing in good style,” he jus­ti­fied Beethoven’s con­fi­dence.

AL­BRET. The lord­ship (seigneurie) of Al­bret (Labrit, Le­bret), sit­uat­ed in the Lan­des, gave its name to one of the most pow­er­ful feu­dal fam­ilies of France in the mid­dle ages. Its mem­bers dis­tin­guished them­selves in the lo­cal wars of that apoch; and dur­ing the 14th cen­tu­ry they es­poused the En­glish cause for some time, af­ter­wards trans­fer­ring their sup­port to the side of France. Ar­naud Amanieu, lord of Al­bret, helped to take Gui­enne from the En­glish. His son Charles be­came con­sta­ble of France, and was killed at the bat­tle of Ag­in­court in 1415. Alain the Great, lord of Al­bret (d. 1522), wished to mar­ry Anne of Brit­tany, and to that end fought against Charles VI­II.; but his hopes be­ing de­feat­ed by the be­trothal of Anne to Max­im­il­ian of Aus­tria, he sur­ren­dered Nantes to the French in 1486. At that time the house of Al­bret had at­tained con­sid­er­able ter­ri­to­ri­al im­por­tance, due in great part to the lib­er­al grants which it had ob­tained from suc­ces­sive kings of France. John of Al­bret, son of Alain, be­came king of Navarre by his mar­riage with Cather­ine of Foix. Their son Hen­ry, king of Navarre, was cre­at­ed duke of Al­bret and peer of France in 1550. By his wife Mar­garet, sis­ter of the French king, Fran­cis I., he had a daugh­ter, Jeanne d’Al­bret, queen of Navarre, who mar­ried An­tho­ny de Bour­bon, duke of Ven­dome, and be­came the moth­er of Hen­ry IV., king of France. The duke­dom of Al­bret, unit­ed to the crown of France by the ac­ces­sion of this prince, was grant­ed to the fam­ily of La Tour d’Au­vergne in 1651, in ex­change for Sedan and Rau­court.

To a younger branch of this house be­longed Jean d’Al­bret, seigneur of Or­val, count of Dreux and of Rethel, gov­er­nor of Cham­pagne (d. 1524), who was em­ployed by Fran­cis I. in many diplo­mat­ic ne­go­ti­ations, more par­tic­ular­ly in his in­trigues to get him­self elect­ed em­per­or in 1519. (M. P.*)

AL­BRIGHT, JA­COB (1759-1808), Amer­ican cler­gy­man, was born near Pottstown, Penn­syl­va­nia, on the 1st of May 1759. He was of “Penn­syl­va­nia-​Ger­man” parent­age, his name be­ing orig­inal­ly Al­brecht, and was ed­ucat­ed in the Luther­an faith. At an ear­ly age he be­came a tile-​burn­er. In 1790 he was con­vert­ed to Method­ism, and in 1796 de­ter­mined to de­vote him­self to preach­ing that faith among the Penn­syl­va­nia Ger­mans. His ef­forts met with great suc­cess, and in 1800 he found­ed what was vir­tu­al­ly a new and in­de­pen­dent church or­ga­ni­za­tion on the Methodist sys­tem, of which he be­came the pre­sid­ing el­der, and even­tu­al­ly (1807) bish­op. This church is of­fi­cial­ly the Evan­gel­ical As­so­ci­ation, but its ad­her­ents have been var­ious­ly known as “New Methodists.” “Al­brights,” and “Al­bright Brethren.” Al­bright died on the 18th of May 1808, at Muhlbach, Penn­syl­va­nia.

AL­BUERA, or AL­BUHERA, LA, a small vil­lage of Spain, in the province of Bada­joz, 13 m. S.E. of the town of that name. Pop. (1900) 820. Al­buera is cel­ebrat­ed on ac­count of the vic­to­ry gained there on the 16th of May 1811 by the British, Por­tuguese and Spaniards, un­der Mar­shal Beres­ford, over the French army com­mand­ed by Mar­shal Soult. (See PENIN­SU­LAR WAR.)

AL­BUFERA DE VA­LEN­CIA, a la­goon, 7 m. S. of Va­len­cia in Spain, about 12 m. in length and 4 in breadth, 12 ft. be­ing its great­est depth. It com­mu­ni­cates with the sea by a nar­row out­let, which can be opened or closed at plea­sure. The lake is crown prop­er­ty, and is of great val­ue from the fish and wild-​fowl with which it abounds. Rice is grown in large quan­ti­ties by the in­hab­itants of the ad­join­ing vil­lages. In 1812 Mar­shal Suchet was cre­at­ed duke of Al­bufera by Napoleon for his con­quest of Va­len­cia, and in­vest­ed with the do­main; but the bat­tle of Vit­to­ria in 1813 de­prived him of his pos­ses­sion, though he still re­tained the ti­tle. Sub­se­quent­ly the rev­enues of Al­bufera were con­ferred up­on the duke of Welling­ton in to­ken of the grat­itude of the Span­ish na­tion. (See PENIN­SU­LAR WAR.)

AL­BU­LAE AQUAE, a group of springs, 4 m. W. of Tibur, the wa­ter of which is bluish, strong­ly im­preg­nat­ed with sul­phur and car­bon­ate of lime, and ris­es at a tem­per­ature of about 75 deg. F. Re­mains of a Ro­man ther­mal es­tab­lish­ment ex­ist near the prin­ci­pal spring, the so-​called La­go del­la Regi­na (which is con­tin­ual­ly di­min­ish­ing in size ow­ing to the de­posit left by the wa­ter), and ded­ica­to­ry in­scrip­tions in hon­our of the wa­ters have been found. The baths are still fre­quent­ed by the Ro­mans, though the mod­ern es­tab­lish­ment is about 1 m. S. on the high road.

See T. Ash­by in Pa­pers of the British School at Rome, iii. 117.

AL­BU­LA PASS, now the prin­ci­pal route from the N. to the Up­per En­ga­dine in the Swiss Can­ton of the Grisons. It was al­ready fre­quent­ed in the 13th cen­tu­ry, while a car­riage road (high­est point, 7595 ft.) was con­struct­ed across it in 1865, but for a long time it was not as much used as the eas­ier and more di­rect Juli­er Pass (7504 ft.), un­til the open­ing of the rail­way in 1903, which has vast­ly in­creased its prac­ti­cal im­por­tance. Start­ing from Coire the Rhine val­ley is fol­lowed to Re­ichenau (6 1/4 m.), and then that of the Hin­ter Rhine to Thu­sis (10 1/2 m.). The line then runs through the grand Schyn gorge (cut by the Al­bu­la tor­rent) to Tiefenkastell (7 1/2 m.), where it leaves the Juli­er road on the right (S.) and con­tin­ues to fol­low the course of the Al­bu­la past Fil­isur and Bergun (12 1/2 m.) to the mouth (5879 ft.) of the great tun­nel (3 3/4 m. in length; high­est point, 5987 ft.) which has been pierced be­low the pass. The de­scent lies through the Bev­ers glen to Bev­ers (2 1/2 m.), where the Up­per En­ga­dine is reached, about 5 m. be­low St. Moritz, which is 56 m. from Coire by this route. (W. A. B. C.)

AL­BUM (Lat. al­bus, white), in an­cient Rome, a board chalked or paint­ed white, on which de­crees, edicts and oth­er pub­lic no­tices were in­scribed in black. The An­nales Max­imi of the Pon­tif­ex Max­imus, the an­nu­al edicts of the prae­tor, the lists of Ro­man and mu­nic­ipal sen­ators (de­cu­ri­ones) and ju­rors (al­bum in­dicum) were ex­hib­it­ed in this man­ner. In me­dieval and mod­ern times al­bum de­notes a book of blank pages in which vers­es, au­to­graphs, sketch­es, pho­tographs and the like are col­lect­ed. It is al­so ap­plied to the of­fi­cial list of ma­tric­ulat­ed stu­dents in a uni­ver­si­ty, and to the roll in which a bish­op in­scribes the names of his cler­gy. In law, the word is the equiv­alent of mailles blanch­es, for rent paid in sil­ver (“white”) mon­ey.

AL­BU­MAZAR, more prop­er­ly ABU-​MAASCHAR (805-885), Arab as­tronomer, was born at Balkh, flour­ished at Bag­dad, and died at Wasid in Cen­tral Asia. His prin­ci­pal works are: De Mag­nis Con­junc­tion­ibus (Augs­burg, 1489); In­tro­duc­to­ri­um in As­trono­mi­am (Venice, 1506); and Flo­res As­tro­logi­ci (Augs­burg, 1488). He main­tained in the first that the world, cre­at­ed when the sev­en plan­ets were in con­junc­tion in the first de­gree of Aries, will come to an end at a like con­junc­tion in the last de­gree of Pisces.

See Biog. Uni­verselle (Jour­dain); La­lande, Bib­li­ogra­phie As­tronomique; Poggen­dorff, Biog. lit­er­arisches Hand­worter­buch; Houzeau, Bibl. As­tronomique.

AL­BU­MIN, or AL­BU­MEN (Lat. al­bus, white), an or­gan­ic sub­stance typ­ical of a group of bod­ies (al­bu­mins or al­bu­minates) of very com­pli­cat­ed chem­ical com­po­si­tion. They are some­times called the his­to­ge­net­ic bod­ies or pro­tei­ds, be­cause they are es­sen­tial to the build­ing up of the an­imal or­gan­ism. The veg­etable king­dom is the orig­inal source of al­bu­minous sub­stances, the al­bu­mins be­ing found in great­est quan­ti­ty in the seed. They al­so oc­cur in the flu­ids of the liv­ing or­gan­ism. The chem­istry of the al­bu­mins is one of the most com­pli­cat­ed and dif­fi­cult in the whole do­main of or­gan­ic chem­istry. It has at­tract­ed the at­ten­tion of many work­ers, and has formed the sub­ject of a huge lit­er­ature. In this field Bechamp, Cohn­heim, Al­brecht Kos­sel, and, es­pe­cial­ly, Emil Fis­ch­er and his pupils have been ex­treme­ly ac­tive. The gen­er­al trend of these re­search­es lies in the study of the de­com­po­si­tion or “break­ing down” prod­ucts of the al­bu­min molecules; once these are ac­cu­rate­ly de­ter­mined, the syn­the­sis of an al­bu­min is but a mat­ter of time. Al­ready we have pro­ceed­ed far in our knowl­edge of the de­com­po­si­tion prod­ucts, and cer­tain sim­ple pro­tei­ds have been syn­the­sized.

Gen­er­al char­ac­ters.

The al­bu­mins con­tain in all cas­es the el­ements car­bon, hy­dro­gen, ni­tro­gen, sul­phur and oxy­gen; their com­po­si­tion, how­ev­er, varies with­in cer­tain lim­its: C = 50-55%, H = 6.9-7.3%, N. = 15-19%, S = 0.3-2.4%, O = 19-24%, crys­tal­lized al­bu­min is C = 51.48%, H = 6.76%, N = 8.14%, S = 0.96%, O = 22.66%, which points to the for­mu­la C720H1134N218S5O248, cor­re­spond­ing to the molec­ular weight 16,954. A high molec­ular weight char­ac­ter­izes these sub­stances, but so far no def­inite val­ue has been de­ter­mined by ei­ther phys­ical or chem­ical means; A. P. Sa­banezhev ob­tained the val­ue 15,000 by Raoult’s method for pu­ri­fied egg al­bu­min. All al­bu­mins are lae­vo-​ro­ta­to­ry; and on in­cin­er­ation a small amount of in­or­gan­ic ash is in­vari­ably left. They are usu­al­ly in­sol­uble in wa­ter, al­co­hol and ether; and their pres­ence as so­lutes in veg­etable and an­imal flu­ids is not yet per­fect­ly un­der­stood, but it is prob­ably to be con­nect­ed with the pres­ence of salts or oth­er sub­stances. A re­mark­able change oc­curs when many al­bu­mins are boiled with wa­ter, or treat­ed with cer­tain acids, their sol­ubil­ity and gen­er­al char­ac­ters be­ing en­tire­ly al­tered, and the flu­id be­com­ing co­ag­ulat­ed. This change is seen in the trans­for­ma­tion of the “white” of an egg on boil­ing. Al­bu­mins are gen­er­al­ly de­tect­ed by tak­ing ad­van­tage of this prop­er­ty, or of cer­tain colour changes. The reagents in com­mon use are: Mil­lon’s reagent, a so­lu­tion of mer­curic ni­trate con­tain­ing ni­trous acid, this gives a vi­olet-​red col­oration; ni­tric acid, which gives a yel­low colour, turn­ing to gold when treat­ed with am­mo­nia (xan­tho­pro­te­ic re­ac­tion); fum­ing sul­phuric acid, which gives vi­olet so­lu­tions; and caus­tic potash and cop­per sul­phate, which, on warm­ing, gives a red to vi­olet col­oration (bi­uret re­ac­tion).

De­com­po­si­tion prod­ucts.

Boil­ing with di­lute min­er­al acids, or bary­ta wa­ter, de­com­pos­es al­bu­mins in­to car­bon diox­ide, am­mo­nia and fat­ty amino- and oth­er acids. These de­com­po­si­tion prod­ucts in­clude: gly­co­coll or aminoacetic acid, NH2CH2COOH, ala­nine or amino­pro­pi­onic acid, CH3.CH(NH2).COOH, a-​aminobu­tyric acid, a-​amino­va­le­ri­an­ic acid, leucin or isobutyl-​a-​aminoacetic acid, (CH3)2CH.CH2.CH(NH2).COOH, isoleucin, prob­ably b-​aminocaproic acid, serin or a-​amino- b-​hy­drox­ypro­pi­onic acid, HO.CH2.CH(NH2).COOH, as­par­tic acid or aminosuc­cinic acid, HOOC.CH2.CH(NH2).COOH, glu­taminic acid or a-​amino- n-​glu­tar­ic acid, HOOC.(CH2)2.CH(NH2).COOH, di­aminoacetic acid, a-​b-​di­amino­pro­pi­onic acid, lysin. or a-​e-​di­amino-​n-​caproic acid, NH2(CH2)4.CH(NH2).COOH, arginin or guani­dine-​a-​amino- n-​va­le­ri­an­ic acid, (NH)(NH2)C.NH.(CH2)3.CH(NH2).COOH, or­nithin or ad-​di­amino va­le­ri­an­ic acid, NH2.(CH2)3.CH(NH2).COOH, his­tidin or a-​amino- b-​im­ida­zol- _________________ | | pro­pi­onic acid HOOC.CH(NH2).CH2.C:CH.N:CH.NH, pro­line _________________________________ | | or a-​pyrro­lidin car­boxylic acid, HOOC.CH.NH.CH2.CH2.CH2, hy­drox­ypro­line, phenyl ala­nine or phenyl-​a-​amino­pro­pi­onic acid, C6H5.CH2.CH(NH2).COOH, ty­ro­sine or p-​hy­drox­yphenyl- a- amino­pro­pi­onic acid, phenyl ethy­lamine, p-​hy­drox­yphenyl ethy­lamine, tryp­to­phane or in­dol amino­pro­pi­onic acid, A. cystin (pro­tein-​cystin) or a-​amino-​b-​thio­glyc­er­ic acid “disul­phide,” (S.CH2.CH(NH2).COOH)2, B. cystin (stone-​cystin), or a-​thio-​b-​amino­glyc­er­ic acid “disul­phide,” (NH2.CH2.CH:S.COOH)2. This list is not ex­haus­tive; oth­er prod­ucts are giv­en in Gus­tav Mann, Chem­istry of the Pro­tei­ds (1906), to which ref­er­ence should be made for a com­plete ac­count of this class of com­pounds.

Clas­si­fi­ca­tion of al­bu­mins.

The com­plex­ity of com­po­si­tion mil­itates in a great mea­sure against a ra­tio­nal clas­si­fi­ca­tion of al­bu­mins by pure­ly chem­ical con­sid­er­ations. Such clas­si­fi­ca­tions have been at­tempt­ed by A. Kos­sel and by W. Kuhne and E. P. Pick; but in the present state of our knowl­edge, how­ev­er, the old­er clas­si­fi­ca­tion of E. Dreschel and F. Hoppe- Seyler, based pri­mar­ily on sol­ubil­ities and dis­tri­bu­tion, may be con­ve­nient­ly re­tained. This clas­si­fi­ca­tion is with cer­tain mod­ifi­ca­tions as fol­lows:-

I. Al­bu­mins prop­er: char­ac­ter­ized by hav­ing col­loidal so­lu­tions. (1) Al­bu­mins: serum-​al­bu­min, egg-​al­bu­min, al­bu­min. (2) Glob­ulins: serum-​glob­ulin, egg-​glob­ulin, lac­to- glob­ulin, cell-​glob­ulins. (3) Plant-​glob­ulins and plant-​vitellines. (4) Fib­rino­gen. (5) Myosin. (6) Phos­pho­rus con­tain­ing al­bu­mins (nu­cleo-​al­bu­mins), ca­seins, vitellines, nu­cleo-​al­bu­mins of the cell- pro­to­plasm, mu­coid nu­cleo-​al­bu­mins. (7) Hi­stones. (8) Pro­tamines. II. Trans­for­ma­tion prod­ucts of the al­bu­mins prop­er. (1) Acid-​al­bu­mins, al­ka­li al­bu­minates. (2) Al­bu­moses, pep­tones and pep­tides. (3) Halo­gen-​al­bu­mins, oxypro­tein, oxyprot­sul­phon­ic acid, &c. III. Pro­tei­ds. (1) Nu­cleo-​pro­tei­ds. (2) Haemoglobin and al­lied sub­stances. (3) Gly­co-​pro­tei­ds, mucins, mu­coids, he­li­co-​pro­teid. IV. Al­bu­minoids. (1) Col­la­gen. (2) Ker­atin. (3) Elastin. (4) Fi­broin. (5) Spon­gin, &c. (6) Amy­loid. (7) Al­bu­moid. (8) Colour­ing mat­ters de­rived from al­bu­min.

Al­bu­mins prop­er.–Al­bu­mins (as clas­si­fied above) are sol­uble in wa­ter, di­lute acids and al­ka­lies, and in sat­urat­ed neu­tral salt so­lu­tions; they are co­ag­ulat­ed by heat. “Serum- al­bu­min,” or “blood-​al­bu­min,” pos­si­bly C450H720N116S6O140, oc­curs in blood-​serum, lymph, chyle, milk, &c.; its co­ag­ula­tion tem­per­ature is about 67 deg. . It dif­fers from egg-​al­bu­min in its spe­cif­ic ro­ta­tion (-57 deg. to -64 deg. ), and in be­ing slow­ly co­ag­ulat­ed by al­co­hol and ether. Egg-​al­bu­min is the chief con­stituent of the white of egg; this flu­id al­so con­tains a glob­ulin and a mu­coid. It co­ag­ulates at about 56 deg. , and its spe­cif­ic ro­ta­tion is -30.70 deg. . “Lact-​al­bu­min” oc­curs in all kinds of milk. The glob­ulins are in­sol­uble in wa­ter and in di­lute acids, but sol­uble in al­ka­lies and in neu­tral salt so­lu­tions; these so­lu­tions are co­ag­ulat­ed on boil­ing. “Serum-​glob­ulin,” al­so termed glob­ulin or fib­ri­no-​plas­tic glob­ulin, para­glob­ulin and para­globin, oc­curs in blood serum; “cell-​glob­ulins” oc­cur in many or­gans–liv­er, kid­neys, pan­creas and the thy­roid gland, al­so in mus­cle-​plas­ma; “crys­talline,” a glob­ulin oc­cur­ring in two forms a and b, is found in the lens of the eye; “egg-​glob­ulin” and “lac­to- glob­ulin” oc­cur re­spec­tive­ly in the white of egg and in milk. Plant al­bu­mins or phy­to-​al­bu­mins have been chiefly in­ves­ti­gat­ed in the case of those oc­cur­ring in seeds; most are glob­ulins, in­sol­uble in pure wa­ter, but sol­uble in salt so­lu­tions; “edes­tin,” a glob­ulin of this class, is very wide­ly dis­tribut­ed. Oth­er va­ri­eties or class­es of these com­pounds are: plant ca­seins, phy­to-​vitellines, legu­mins and con­glutins. Fib­rino­gen oc­curs in the blood plas­ma, and is changed by a fer­ment in­to fib­rin, to which the clot­ting of blood is due. Fib­rino­gen is in­sol­uble in wa­ter, but sol­uble in salt so­lu­tions; it has three dif­fer­ent co­ag­ula­tion tem­per­atures, 56 deg. , 67 deg. , 75 deg. . Fib­rin, pro­duced from fib­rino­gen by a fer­ment, is a jel­ly-​like sub­stance, co­ag­ula­ble by heat, al­co­hol, &c. The mus­cle-​al­bu­mins in­clude “myosin” or paramyosino­gen, a glob­ulin, which by co­ag­ula­tion in­duces rig­or mor­tis, and the close­ly re­lat­ed “myosino­gen” or myo­gen; myo­glob­ulin and myoal­bu­min are al­so found in mus­cles. The nu­cleo-​al­bu­mins or phos­pho-​glob­ulins are in­sol­uble in wa­ter and acids, but sol­uble in al­ka­lies, and have an acid re­ac­tion. “Ca­seino­gen” (af­ter W. D. Hal­libur­ton) is the chief al­bu­min of milk; its com­po­si­tion varies with the an­imal. It is in­sol­uble in wa­ter, while its salts are read­ily sol­uble. “Eu­ca­sein” is the am­mo­ni­um salt; “nu­trose” and “plas­mon” are sodi­um salts. By the ren­net fer­ment ca­seino­gen is con­vert­ed in­to ca­sein, a sub­stance re­sem­bling ca­seino­gen in be­ing sol­uble in wa­ter, but dif­fer­ing in hav­ing an in­sol­uble cal­ci­um salt. The for­ma­tion of ca­sein in­volves the cur­dling of milk. Oth­er phos­pho­glob­ulins are vitelline, found in the yolk of hens’ eggs, and ichthulin, found in the eggs of fish. Hi­stones are a class of al­bu­mins sol­uble in wa­ter and acids, but es­sen­tial­ly ba­sic in char­ac­ter; hence they are pre­cip­itat­ed by al­ka­lies. It is re­mark­able that many hi­stones are sol­uble in an ex­cess of al­ka­li. They do not ex­ist in a free state, but in com­bi­na­tion with a “pros­thet­ic group” (af­ter A. Kos­sel) they give rise to im­por­tant cell con­stituents–haemoglobin, nu­cleo-​pro­tei­ds, &c. “Thy­mus hi­stone” oc­curs in the thy­mus gland; globin oc­curs in com­bi­na­tion as haemoglobin; oth­er hi­stones have been ex­tract­ed from the red blood cor­pus­cles of the goose and the testes of fish­es and oth­er an­imals. The pro­tamines are a well-​char­ac­ter­ized class of al­bu­mins found in the ripe sper­ma­to­zoa of fish­es.

Al­bu­moses and Pep­tones.–The pri­ma­ry prod­ucts of the dis­so­ci­ation of al­bu­mins are the al­bu­moses, char­ac­ter­ized by not be­ing co­ag­ula­ble by heat, more sol­uble than the al­bu­mins, hav­ing a far less com­plex com­po­si­tion, and ca­pa­ble of be­ing “salt­ed out” by cer­tain salts, and the pep­tones, sim­ilar to al­bu­moses but not ca­pa­ble of be­ing “salt­ed out”; more­over, pep­tones are less com­plex than al­bu­moses. By fur­ther de­com­po­si­tion pep­tones yield pep­tides, a cer­tain num­ber of which have been syn­the­sized by Emil Fis­ch­er and his col­lab­ora­tors. Al­bu­moses and pep­tones are white pow­ders, read­ily sol­uble in wa­ter, with the ex­cep­tion of the het­ero-​al­bu­moses–a sub­di­vi­sion of pri­ma­ry al­bu­moses. They give the bi­uret and xan­tho­pro­te­ic re­ac­tions, and form salts with both acids and bases. Al­bu­moses and pep­tones are ob­tained by pep­tic di­ges­tion, the lat­ter be­ing termed pep­tic- pep­tones; tryp­tic di­ges­tion al­so pro­duces pep­tones. Acids and moist heat in­duce sim­ilar changes.

Pro­tei­ds.–These sub­stances are com­bi­na­tions of one or more al­bu­mins with a rad­ical of an es­sen­tial­ly dif­fer­ent na­ture, termed by Kos­sel a “pros­thet­ic group.” It is con­ve­nient to clas­si­fy pro­tei­ds by those groups. “Nu­cleo-​pro­tei­ds,” con­stituents of the cell-​nu­cle­us, are com­bi­na­tions of al­bu­mins and nu­cle­ic acid; they al­ways con­tain iron. They are loose, white, non-​hy­gro­scop­ic pow­ders, sol­uble in wa­ter and salt so­lu­tions, and have an acid re­ac­tion; they give the colour re­ac­tions of al­bu­mins. Nu­cle­ic acid is at present of un­known con­sti­tu­tion; de­com­po­si­tion prod­ucts are: phos­pho­ric acid, uracil or 2.6-dioxy-​pyrim­idin,1 cy­tosin or 2-oxy-6-amino-​pyrim­idin, thymin (nu­cle­osin) or 2.6-dioxy-5-methyl pyrim­idin hy­pox­an­thin1 or 6-oxy­purin, xan­thin or 2.6-dioxy­purin, ade­nine or 6 amino-​purin, gua­nine or 2-amino-6-oxy­purin, pen­toses (l-​xy­lose), lae­vulin­ic acid, am­mo­nia, etc. The nu­cle­ic acids vary with the source of the pro­tei­ds, there be­ing con­sid­er­able dif­fer­ences in chem­ical com­po­si­tion. In gen­er­al they are white, loose pow­ders, slight­ly sol­uble in cold wa­ter, more sol­uble in hot wa­ter; they are pre­cip­itat­ed by min­er­al acids, but dis­solve in an ex­cess. They are dex­tro­ro­ta­to­ry, and the spe­cif­ic ro­ta­tion is nu­mer­ical­ly greater than that of al­bu­min; hence the pro­tei­ds are, in gen­er­al, dex­tro­ro­ta­to­ry.

An im­por­tant nu­cleo-​pro­teid is haemoglob­ulin or haemoglobin, the colour­ing mat­ter of the red blood cor­pus­cles of ver­te­brates; a re­lat­ed sub­stance, haemo­cyanin, in which the iron of haemoglobin is re­placed by cop­per, oc­curs in the blood of cephalopods and cray­fish. Haemoglobin is com­posed of a ba­sic al­bu­min and an acid sub­stance haematin; it com­bines read­ily with oxy­gen, car­bon diox­ide and car­bon monox­ide to form loose com­pounds (see NU­TRI­TION.) It co­ag­ulates at 64 deg. . By a di­lute acid haemoglobin is de­com­posed in­to globin, and “haematin,” a fer­ri-​pyrrol deriva­tive of the prob­able for­mu­la C34H34N4FeO5; un­der cer­tain con­di­tions the iron-​free “haemato­por­phyrin” is ob­tained. This last sub­stance may be re­duced to meso­por­phyrin, C34H38O4N4, which by fur­ther re­duc­tion gives haemo-​pyrrol, C8H13N, pos­si­bly methyl-​propyl-​pyrrol or butyl-​pyrrol. Oth­er deriva­tives are haemin, haemochro­mogen and the haema­tinic acids.

“Gly­co-​pro­tei­ds” dif­fer from nu­cleo-​pro­tei­ds in con­tain­ing a car­bo­hy­drate rad­ical, which is lib­er­at­ed on­ly by boil­ing with min­er­al acids or al­ka­lies. The mucins and mu­coids be­long to this group; they are acid and con­tain no phos­pho­rus; they give the al­bu­min colour re­ac­tions but are not co­ag­ulat­ed by heat. Mucins oc­cur in most of the slimy flu­ids of the body; they vary in com­po­si­tion with their source. Mu­coids re­sem­ble mucins in their com­po­si­tion and re­ac­tions, but dif­fer, in gen­er­al, in their phys­ical prop­er­ties. They oc­cur in ten­dons, bones and car­ti­lage. The “phos­pho-​gly­co-​pro­tei­ds” re­sem­ble the mucins and mu­coids in con­tain­ing a car­bo­hy­drate residue, but dif­fer in con­tain­ing phos­pho­rus. Ichthulin (see above) maybe placed in this group; “he­li­co-​pro­teid,” found in the serous gland of He­lix po­ma­tia, the vine­yard snail, al­so be­longs here.

Al­bu­minoids is the anatom­ical name giv­en to al­bu­minous sub­stances form­ing the con­nec­tive tis­sues. Chem­ical­ly they re­sem­ble the al­bu­mins, be­ing split up by acids or fer­ments in­to al­bu­moses, pep­tones and amino-​acids, form­ing salts, and giv­ing the same colour re­ac­tions. They are quite in­sol­uble in wa­ter and in salt so­lu­tions, and dif­fi­cult­ly sol­uble in di­lute acids and al­ka­lies. Typ­ical al­bu­minoids are gelatin, ker­atin, elastin, fi­broin, spon­gin and con­chi­olin.

“Col­la­gen” (Gr. kol­la, glue, and root gen- of gen­naein, to pro­duce, gignesthai, to be­come), the ground-​sub­stance of bones and tis­sues, is de­com­posed by boil­ing wa­ter or on warm­ing with acids in­to sub­stances named gelatin, glutin or glue. Gelatin forms a white amor­phous pow­der; the com­mer­cial prod­uct, how­ev­er, gen­er­al­ly forms glassy plates. The de­com­po­si­tion prod­ucts are gen­er­al­ly the same as with the gen­er­al al­bu­min; it gives the bi­uret re­ac­tion; forms salts with acids and al­ka­lies, but is es­sen­tial­ly acid in na­ture. Im­mersed in cold wa­ter gelatin does not dis­solve but swells up; it dis­solves read­ily in hot wa­ter, form­ing, ac­cord­ing to the quan­ti­ty present, a thick jel­ly which so­lid­ifies to a hard mass on cool­ing (the “glue” of the wood- work­er), or a thin jel­ly (used in cook­ery). Gelatin oc­curs al­so in the cornea and the scle­rot­ic coat of the eye; and in fish scales, the lat­ter con­tain­ing 80% of col­la­gen, and 20% of ichthyle­pidin, a sub­stance dif­fer­ing from gelatin in giv­ing a well-​marked Mil­lon’s re­ac­tion. Ker­atin (Gr. keras, a horn), the chief con­stituent of horny ma­te­ri­al, oc­curs in hair, nails, hoofs and feath­ers. It is quite in­sol­uble in wa­ter, di­lute acids and al­ka­lies. Re­lat­ed to this sub­stance are “neu­ro-​ker­atin,” found in the medullary sheath of nerves, and “gor­gonin,” the ma­trix of the ax­ial skele­ton of the coral Gor­gonia Cavolinii. Elastin oc­curs ei­ther as thick strands or as mem­branes; it con­sti­tutes the “elas­tic tis­sue” of the anatomist. Its in­sol­ubil­ity is much the same as ker­atin. “Fi­broin” and silk-​glue or sericin oc­cur in nat­ural silk fi­bres. Fi­broin is in­sol­uble in wa­ter, acids and alka­nes; silk-​glue re­sem­bles gelatin in its sol­ubil­ity, but it is less read­ily gela­tinized. “Spon­gin,” the ma­trix of bath-​sponge, is in­sol­uble in wa­ter and di­lute acids, but sol­uble in con­cen­trat­ed min­er­al acids. “Con­chi­olin,” the ma­trix of shells of the mol­lus­ca, is on­ly slight­ly sol­uble in acids. “Cornein” forms the frame­work of corals. “Amy­loid” oc­curs as a patho­log­ical prod­uct, and al­so in the healthy aor­ta and in old car­ti­lage. It is an al­bu­min, and not a car­bo­hy­drate as was for­mer­ly held; and gives most of the colour re­ac­tions of al­bu­mins. It forms shiny, ho­mo­ge­neous mass­es, quite in­sol­uble in cold wa­ter and in salt so­lu­tions, but sol­uble in al­ka­lies. The al­bu­moids in­clude, ac­cord­ing to Cohn­heim, sub­stances which pos­sess cer­tain prop­er­ties in com­mon, but dif­fer from the pre­ced­ing groups. In gen­er­al they re­sem­ble co­ag­ulat­ed al­bu­min, and al­so the gelatin-​yield­ing tis­sues, but they them­selves do not yield gelatin.

Colour­ing mat­ters de­rived from al­bu­mins in­clude the “melanins” (Gr. melas, black), sub­stances which dif­fer very con­sid­er­ably in com­po­si­tion, the sul­phur and iron con­tent be­ing by no means con­stant; they do not give the re­ac­tions of al­bu­mins. The black colour­ing mat­ter of hair, the skin of ne­groes, and of the ink bag of Sepia have been ex­am­ined. Melanins ob­tained from tu­mours form black, shiny mass­es; they are in­sol­uble in wa­ter, neu­tral salt so­lu­tions, di­lute acids and in the com­mon or­gan­ic sol­vents.

1 6 /N = C\ 1 The pyrim­idin ring is num­bered 2C C5 For the purin ring, see PURIN. \\N - C// 3 4

AL­BU­MIN­URIA (Phys­io­log­ical or Func­tion­al), a term in­di­cat­ing the pres­ence of al­bu­min in the urine. This may de­pend on a num­ber of mor­bid con­di­tions, of which kid­ney trou­bles, acute ill­ness­es and ve­nous con­ges­tion are some of the com­mon­er. But af­ter ex­clu­sion of all known patho­log­ical caus­es, there still re­mains a large class of cas­es among sub­jects who ap­pear to be in per­fect health. This form has been called func­tion­al or phys­io­log­ical al­bu­min­uria, in­ter­mit­tent al­bu­min­uria, &c. Its recog­ni­tion is of ex­treme im­por­tance, as it must be dis­tin­guished from the al­bu­min­uria due to Bright’s dis­ease and oth­er trou­bles. The fol­low­ing are the main forms that have been de­scribed:–(1) Di­etet­ic Al­bu­min­uria. This form af­fects some peo­ple af­ter par­tak­ing of a meal con­sist­ing large­ly of al­bu­minous foods, such as eggs. In oth­ers any ex­tra in­dul­gence in the plea­sures of the ta­ble may give rise to it. (2) Cyclic Al­bu­min­uria. This name was first used by the phys­iol­ogist Pavy, but oth­er ob­servers have called the same con­di­tion “pos­tu­ral al­bu­min­uria.” It oc­curs in peo­ple en­joy­ing per­fect health, and is char­ac­ter­ized by the pres­ence of al­bu­min in the urine at cer­tain times of the day. It has been shown to de­pend en­tire­ly on the as­sump­tion of the erect po­si­tion, and it dis­ap­pears as a re­sult of the re­cum­bent po­si­tion at night. (3) Al­bu­min­uria from ex­er­cise. This form af­fects some peo­ple af­ter any un­usu­al mus­cu­lar ex­er­tion. (4) Pro­longed men­tal strain or wor­ry may give rise to a tran­sient form of al­bu­min­uria. (5) Ado­les­cent al­bu­min­uria is met with in some sub­jects, es­pe­cial­ly boys. The ques­tion of the re­al sig­nif­icance of “phys­io­log­ical” al­bu­min­uria is one about which there is much dif­fer­ence of opin­ion. But its im­por­tance and recog­ni­tion–es­pe­cial­ly in ques­tions of life in­sur­ance–ad­mits of no ques­tion.

AL­BU­QUERQUE, ALPHON­SO D, (in Old Port. AF­FON­SO D’AL­BO­QUERQUE) (1453-1515), sur­named THE GREAT, and THE POR­TUGUESE MARS, was born in 1453 at Alexan­dria, near Lis­bon. Through his fa­ther, Gon­za­lvo, who held an im­por­tant po­si­tion at court, he was con­nect­ed by il­le­git­imate de­scent with the roy­al fam­ily of Por­tu­gal. He was ed­ucat­ed at the court of Alphon­so V., and af­ter the death of that monarch seems to have served for some time in Africa. On his re­turn he was ap­point­ed es­tribeiro-​mor (chief equer­ry) to John II. In 1503 he set out on his first ex­pe­di­tion to the East, which was to be the scene of his fu­ture tri­umphs. In com­pa­ny with his kins­man Fran­cis­co he sailed round the Cape of Good Hope to In­dia, and suc­ceed­ed in es­tab­lish­ing the king of Cochin se­cure­ly on his throne, ob­tain­ing in re­turn for this ser­vice per­mis­sion to build a Por­tuguese fort at Cochin, and thus lay­ing the foun­da­tion of his coun­try’s em­pire in the East. He re­turned home in Ju­ly 1504, and was well re­ceived by King Em­manuel, who en­trust­ed him with the com­mand of a squadron of five ves­sels in the fleet of six­teen which sailed for In­dia in 1506 un­der Tris­tan da Cun­ha. Af­ter a se­ries of suc­cess­ful at­tacks on the Arab cities on the east coast of Africa, Al­bu­querque sep­arat­ed from Da Cun­ha, and sailed with his squadron against the is­land of Or­muz, in the Per­sian Gulf, which was then one of the chief cen­tres of com­merce in the East. He ar­rived on the 25th of Septem­ber 1507, and soon ob­tained pos­ses­sion of the is­land, though he was un­able long to main­tain his po­si­tion. With his squadron in­creased by three ves­sels, he reached the Mal­abar coast at the close of the year 1508, and im­me­di­ate­ly made known the com­mis­sion he had re­ceived from the king em­pow­er­ing him to su­per­sede the gov­er­nor Fran­cis­co de Almei­da. The lat­ter, how­ev­er, re­fused to rec­og­nize Al­bu­querque’s cre­den­tials and cast him in­to prison, from which he was on­ly re­leased, af­ter three months’ con­fine­ment, on the ar­rival of the grand-​mar­shal of Por­tu­gal with a large fleet. Almei­da hav­ing re­turned home, Al­bu­querque speed­ily showed the en­er­gy and de­ter­mi­na­tion of his char­ac­ter. An un­suc­cess­ful at­tack up­on Cali­cut in Jan­uary 1510, in which the com­man­der- in-​chief re­ceived a se­vere wound, was im­me­di­ate­ly fol­lowed by the in­vest­ment and cap­ture of Goa. Al­bu­querque, find­ing him­self un­able to hold the town on his first oc­cu­pa­tion, aban­doned it in Au­gust, to re­turn with the re­in­force­ments in Novem­ber, when he ob­tained undis­put­ed pos­ses­sion. He next di­rect­ed his forces against Malac­ca, which he sub­dued af­ter a se­vere strug­gle. He re­mained in the town near­ly a year in or­der to strength­en the po­si­tion of the Por­tuguese pow­er. In 1512 he sailed for the coast of Mal­abar. On the voy­age a vi­olent storm arose, Al­bu­querque’s ves­sel, the “Flor de la Mar,” which car­ried the trea­sure he had amassed in his con­quests, was wrecked, and he him­self bare­ly es­caped with his life. In Septem­ber of the same year he ar­rived at Goa, where he quick­ly sup­pressed a se­ri­ous re­volt head­ed by Idal­can, and took such mea­sures for the se­cu­ri­ty and peace of the town that it be­came the most flour­ish­ing of the Por­tuguese set­tle­ments in In­dia. Al­bu­querque had been for some time un­der or­ders from the home gov­ern­ment to un­der­take an ex­pe­di­tion to the Red Sea, in or­der to se­cure that chan­nel of com­mu­ni­ca­tion ex­clu­sive­ly to Por­tu­gal. He ac­cord­ing­ly laid siege to Aden in 1513, but was re­pulsed; and a voy­age in­to the Red Sea, the first ev­er made by a Eu­ro­pean fleet, led to no sub­stan­tial re­sults. In or­der to de­stroy the pow­er of Egypt, he is said to have en­ter­tained the idea of di­vert­ing the course of the Nile and so ren­der­ing the whole coun­try bar­ren. His last war­like un­der­tak­ing was a sec­ond at­tack up­on Or­muz in 1515. The is­land yield­ed to him with­out re­sis­tance, and it re­mained in the pos­ses­sion of the Por­tuguese un­til 1622. Al­bu­querque’s great ca­reer had a painful and ig­no­min­ious close. He had sev­er­al en­emies at the Por­tuguese court who lost no op­por­tu­ni­ty of stir­ring up the jeal­ousy of the king against him, and his own in­ju­di­cious and ar­bi­trary con­duct on sev­er­al oc­ca­sions served their end on­ly too well. On his re­turn from Or­muz, at the en­trance of the har­bour of Goa, he met a ves­sel from Eu­rope bear­ing despatch­es an­nounc­ing that he was su­per­seded by his per­son­al en­emy Soarez. The blow was too much for him and he died at sea on the 16th of De­cem­ber 1515. Be­fore his death he wrote a let­ter to the king in dig­ni­fied and af­fect­ing terms, vin­di­cat­ing his con­duct and claim­ing for his son the hon­ours and re­wards that were just­ly due to him­self. His body was buried at Goa in the Church of our La­dy, and it is per­haps the most con­vinc­ing proof pos­si­ble of the jus­tice of his ad­min­is­tra­tion that, many years af­ter, Mus­sul­mans and Hin­dus used to go to his tomb to in­voke pro­tec­tion against the in­jus­tice of his suc­ces­sors. The king of Por­tu­gal was con­vinced too late of his fi­deli­ty, and en­deav­oured to atone for the in­grat­itude with which he had treat­ed him by heap­ing hon­ours up­on his nat­ural son Al­fon­so. The lat­ter pub­lished a se­lec­tion from his fa­ther’s pa­pers un­der the ti­tle Com­men­tar­ios do Grande Af­fon­so d’Al­bo­querque .

See the Car­tas de Al­bu­querque, pub­lished by the Lis­bon Acade­my (vol. i., 1884); al­so Morse Stephens’ Life of Al­bu­querque; an ar­ti­cle in the Bolitim of the Lis­bon Ge­ograph­ical So­ci­ety (Jan­uary to June 1902) on “O anti­go Im­pe­ri­al­is­mo por­tuguez, &c.,” has es­pe­cial ref­er­ence to Al­bu­querque.

AL­BU­QUERQUE, a city and the coun­ty-​seat of Bernalil­lo coun­ty, New Mex­ico, U.S.A., sit­uat­ed in the cen­tral part of the state, about 325 m. S. by W. of Den­ver, on the E. bank of the Rio Grande, at an al­ti­tude of 4950 ft. Pop. (1890) 3785; (1900) 6238 (956 for­eign-​born and 226 ne­groes); (1910 cen­sus) 11,020. In 1900 Al­bu­querque was the largest city in New Mex­ico. It is the con­nect­ing point of two main lines of the Atchi­son, Tope­ka & San­ta Fe rail­way sys­tem. A short dis­tance E. of the city is the uni­ver­si­ty of New Mex­ico, un­der state con­trol, found­ed in 1889 and opened in 1892; in 1908 it had a col­lege of let­ters and sci­ence, a school of en­gi­neer­ing, a school of ed­uca­tion, a prepara­to­ry school and a com­mer­cial school. Al­bu­querque is al­so the seat of the Har­wood In­dus­tri­al School (Methodist) for Mex­ican girls, of the Menaul Mis­sion School (Pres­by­te­ri­an) for Mex­ican boys, and of a gov­ern­ment In­di­an train­ing school (1881) for boys and girls. The city has a pub­lic li­brary. The ex­cel­lent cli­mate has giv­en Al­bu­querque and the sur­round­ing coun­try a rep­uta­tion as a health re­sort. The city is an im­por­tant rail­way cen­tre, has ex­ten­sive rail­way re­pair shops and stock-​yards, and ex­ports large quan­ti­ties of live-​stock, hides and wool. The largest in­dus­tri­al es­tab­lish­ment is the Amer­ican Lum­ber Com­pa­ny’s plant, in­clud­ing a saw-​mill, a sash, door and blind fac­to­ry and a box fac­to­ry. The tim­ber used, chiefly white pine, is ob­tained from the Zu­ni moun­tains. The city has al­so flour and woollen mills, brew­eries and ice fac­to­ries. The old Span­ish town of Al­bu­querque (pop. in 1900 about 1200) lies about 1 m. W. of the present city; it was found­ed in 1706, and was named in hon­our of the duke of Al­bu­querque, viceroy of New Spain from 1702 to 1710. Dur­ing the Civ­il War it was oc­cu­pied, late in Febru­ary 1862, by Con­fed­er­ate troops un­der Gen­er­al Hen­ry Hop­kins Sib­ley (1816-1886), who soon af­ter­wards ad­vanced with his main body in­to north­ern New Mex­ico. In his re­treat back in­to Texas he made a stand on the 8th of April 1862 at Al­bu­querque, where dur­ing the whole day there was a fight at long range and with few ca­su­al­ties against a de­tach­ment of Union sol­diers com­mand­ed by Colonel Ed­ward R. S. Can­by (1819-1873). The mod­ern city dates its ori­gin from the com­ple­tion of the first rail­way to Al­bu­querque in 1880.

AL­BUR­NUM (sap­wood), the out­er­most and youngest part of the wood of a tree, through which the sap ris­es. It is dis­tin­guished from the hard­er in­ner and old­er wood, the du­ra­men or heart-​wood.

AL­BURY, a town in Goul­burn coun­ty, New South Wales, Aus­tralia, 386 m. by rail W.S.W. of Syd­ney. Pop. (1901) 5821. It stands near the bor­der of Vic­to­ria, on the right bank of the Mur­ray riv­er, here crossed by two bridges, one built of wood car­ry­ing a road, the oth­er of iron bear­ing the rail­way. The Mur­ray is nav­iga­ble for small steam­ers from this town to its mouth, a dis­tance of 1800 miles. Al­bury is the cen­tre of a sheep- rear­ing and agri­cul­tur­al dis­trict; grapes, ce­re­als and to­bac­co are large­ly grown, and the wine pro­duced here is held in high re­pute through­out Aus­tralia. The tree un­der which the first ex­plor­ers en­camped here in Novem­ber 1824 is still stand­ing in an en­closed space. Al­bury be­came a mu­nic­ipal­ity in 1859.

AL­CAEUS (ALKA­IOS), Greek lyric po­et, an old­er con­tem­po­rary of Sap­pho, was a na­tive of Myti­lene in Les­bos and flour­ished about 600 B.C. His life was great­ly mixed up with the po­lit­ical dis­putes and in­ter­nal feuds of his na­tive city. He be­longed to one of the no­ble fam­ilies, and sid­ed with his class against the “tyrants” who at that time set them­selves up in Myti­lene. He was in con­se­quence obliged to leave his na­tive coun­try, and spent a con­sid­er­able time in ex­ile. He is said to have be­come rec­on­ciled to Pit­ta­cus, the ruler set up by the pop­ular par­ty, and to have re­turned to Les­bos. The date of his death is un­known. The sub­jects of his po­ems, which were com­posed in the Ae­olic di­alect, were of var­ious kinds: some were hymns to the gods; oth­ers were of a mar­tial or po­lit­ical char­ac­ter; oth­ers breathed an ar­dent love of lib­er­ty and ha­tred of tyrants; last­ly, some were love-​songs. Al­caeus was al­lot­ted the sec­ond place among the nine lyric po­ets in the Alexan­dri­an canon. The con­sid­er­able num­ber of frag­ments ex­tant, and the well-​known im­ita­tions of Ho­race, who re­gard­ed Al­caeus as his great mod­el, en­able us to form a fair idea of the char­ac­ter of his po­ems. A new frag­ment has re­cent­ly been dis­cov­ered, to­geth­er with some frag­ments of Sap­pho (Clas­si­cal Re­view, May 1902).

See Bergk, Po­et­ae Lyri­ci Grae­ci (1882); al­so The Songs of Al­caeus, by J. Eas­by-​Smith (Wash­ing­ton, 1901); Plehn, Les­bi­aco­rum Liber (1826); Flach, Geschichte der griechis­chen Lyrik (1883-1884); Far­nell, Greek Lyric Po­ets (1891).

AL­CAICS, in an­cient po­et­ry, a name giv­en to sev­er­al kinds of verse, from Al­caeus, their re­put­ed in­ven­tor. The first kind con­sists of five feet, viz. a spondee or iambic, an iambic, a long syl­la­ble and two dactyles; the sec­ond of two dactyles and two trochees. Be­sides these, which are called dactylic Al­caics, there is an­oth­er, sim­ply styled Al­ca­ic, con­sist­ing of an epitrite, two cho­ri­ambi and a bac­chius; thus–

Cur timet fla|vum Tiber­im | tan­gere, cur | olivum?

The Al­ca­ic ode is com­posed of sev­er­al stro­phes, each con­sist­ing of four vers­es, the first two of which are al­ways eleven-​syl­la­ble al­caics of the first kind; the third verse is an iambic dime­ter hy­per­catalec­tic con­sist­ing of nine syl­la­bles; and the fourth verse is a ten-​syl­la­ble al­ca­ic of the sec­ond kind. The fol­low­ing stro­phe is of this species, which Ho­race calls Al­caei mi­naces ca­me­nae–

Non pos­si­den­tem mul­ta vo­caveris Recte bea­tum; rec­tius oc­cu­pat Nomen beati, qui de­orum Muner­ibus sapi­en­ter uti. There is al­so a deca­syl­lab­ic va­ri­ety of the Al­ca­ic me­tre.

The Al­ca­ic mea­sure was one of the most splen­did in­ven­tions of Greek met­ri­cal art. In its best ex­am­ples it gives an im­pres­sion of won­der­ful vigour and spon­tane­ity. Ten­nyson has at­tempt­ed to re­pro­duce it in En­glish in his

O mighty-​mouthed in­ven­tor of har­monies, O skilled to sing of time or eter­ni­ty, God-​gift­ed or­gan-​voice of Eng­land, Mil­ton, a name to re­sound for ages. Ger­man is, how­ev­er, the on­ly mod­ern lit­er­ature in which al­caics have been writ­ten with much suc­cess. They were in­tro­duced by Klop­stock, and used by Hold­er­lin, by Voss in his trans­la­tions of Ho­race, by A. Kopisch and oth­er mod­ern Ger­man po­ets.

AL­CALA (Moor­ish al Kala, the “Fortress” or “Cas­tle”), the name of thir­teen Span­ish towns, all found­ed or named by the Moors. Al­cala de Henares (pop. (1900) 11,206) is sep­arate­ly de­scribed on ac­count of its his­tor­ical im­por­tance. Al­cala la Re­al (15,973), a pic­turesque town with a fine abbey, is sit­uat­ed in moun­tain­ous coun­try in the ex­treme south-​west of Jaen. Its dis­tinc­tive name la Re­al, “the Roy­al,” was con­ferred in mem­ory of its cap­ture by Alphon­so XI. of Leon in 1340. In 1810 the French un­der Count Se­bas­tiani here de­feat­ed the Spaniards. Al­cala de los Gazules (8877), on the riv­er Bar­bate, in the province of Cadiz, has a thriv­ing trade in cork and agri­cul­tur­al pro­duce. Al­cala de Guadaira (8198), on the riv­er Guadaira, near Seville, is pop­ular­ly called Al­cala de los Panadores, or “Al­cala of the Bak­ers,” be­cause it sup­plies Seville with large quan­ti­ties of bread. Al­cala de Chis­bert (6293) is sit­uat­ed on the coast of Castel­lon de la Plana; Al­cala del Rio (3006), on the Guadalquivir, 6 m. N. of Seville; Al­cala del Ju­car (2968), on the Ju­car, in Al­bacete; Al­cala de la Sel­va (1490), on the south­ern slopes of the Sier­ra del Gu­dar, in Teru­el; Al­cala de la Ve­ga (712), on the riv­er Cabriel, in Cuen­ca; Al­cala de Gur­rea (632), on the riv­er Se­ton, in Huesca; Al­cala del Obis­po (432), in the same province; Al­cala de Ebro (388) and Al­cala de Mon­cayo (367), both in Saragos­sa.

AL­CALA DE HENARES, a town of Spain, in the province of Madrid, 17 m. E.N.E. of Madrid, on the riv­er Henares, and the Madrid-​Saragos­sa rail­way. Pop. (1900) 11,206. Al­cala de Henares con­tains a mil­itary acade­my and var­ious pub­lic in­sti­tu­tions, but its com­mer­cial im­por­tance is slight and its main in­ter­est is his­tor­ical. The town has been iden­ti­fied with the Ro­man Com­plu­tum, which was de­stroyed about the year 1000, and was re­built by the Moors in 1083. In lat­er times it was renowned for its rich­ly en­dowed uni­ver­si­ty, found­ed by Car­di­nal Jimenes de Cis­neros in 1510, which at the height of its pros­per­ity num­bered 12,000 stu­dents, and was sec­ond on­ly to that of Sala­man­ca. Here the fa­mous edi­tion of the Bible known as the Com­pluten­sian Poly­glot was pre­pared from 1514 to 1517. The col­lege of San Ilde­fon­so, com­plet­ed in 1583, was the chief uni­ver­si­ty build­ing. Its mod­ern­ized Goth­ic church, the Cole­gia­ta, con­tains the 16th cen­tu­ry mar­ble mon­ument of Jimenes (d. 1517) and a fine rere­dos. The great­est of Span­ish writ­ers, Cer­vantes, was born at Al­cala de Henares, and bap­tized in the oth­er­wise in­signif­icant church of S. Maria on the 9th of Oc­to­ber 1547. A tablet, set up in 1840, marks the house in which he is said to have been born. Oth­er il­lus­tri­ous na­tives of the town were the em­per­or Fer­di­nand I. (1503-1564) and the Span­ish drama­tist and his­to­ri­an An­to­nio de So­lis (1610-1686). Af­ter the re­moval of the uni­ver­si­ty to Madrid in 1836 the town rapid­ly de­clined, and the gov­ern­ment turned most of the prin­ci­pal build­ings erect­ed by Car­di­nal Jimenes in the 16th cen­tu­ry in­to a de­pot for the archives of var­ious state de­part­ments. Here are kept very com­plete and cu­ri­ous doc­uments of the In­qui­si­tion, show­ing all its work­ings from the 15th to the 19th cen­tu­ry. One of the prin­ci­pal li­braries is the for­mer palace of the arch­bish­ops of Tole­do.

For a fuller de­scrip­tion of Al­cala see the Guia del vi­ajero en Al­cala de Henares, by L. A. de la Torre (Al­cala, 1882). The fol­low­ing works are main­ly of his­tor­ical in­ter­est:–M. de Ay­ala and F. Sas­tre, Al­cala de Henares (Madrid, 1890); J. C. Gar­cia, En­sayo de una Ti­pografia Com­plutense (Madrid, 1889); M. Por­tilla y Es­quiv­el, His­to­ria de la ciu­dad de Com­plu­to (Al­cala, 1725-1728); and the “An­nales Com­plutens­es” and “Chron­icon Com­plutense” in Es­pana Sagra­da, by H. Flo­rez and oth­ers (Madrid, 1754-1879).

AL­CALDE (from the Arab. al-​qua­di, the “Ca­di” or “judge,’), the ti­tle in Span­ish for of­fi­cials of some­what var­ied func­tions, in which, how­ev­er, there is al­ways a ju­di­cial el­ement. Al­calde de corte was a judge of the palace court, hav­ing ju­ris­dic­tion in and about the res­idence of the king. But the may­or of a town or vil­lage who dis­charged the func­tions of a jus­tice of the peace was al­so an al­calde. It is in this sense that the ti­tle is now ex­clu­sive­ly used. He is sub­ject to year­ly elec­tion and the post has of­ten been an un­de­sir­able one in Spain. The ti­tle of al­calde must be care­ful­ly dis­tin­guished from al­caide, which is de­rived from the Ara­bic al-​quaid, a gen­er­al, and means the gov­er­nor of a fortress.

AL­CAMENES, a Greek sculp­tor of Lem­nos and Athens. He was a younger con­tem­po­rary of Phei­dias and not­ed for the del­ica­cy and fin­ish of his works, among which a Hep­haes­tus and an Aphrodite “of the Gar­dens” were con­spic­uous. Pau­sa­nias says (v. 10. 8) that he was the au­thor of one of the ped­iments of the tem­ple of Zeus at Olympia (see GREEK ART), but this seems a chrono­log­ical and stylis­tic im­pos­si­bil­ity. At Perga­mum there was dis­cov­ered in 1903 a copy of the head of the Her­mes “Propy­laeus” of Al­camenes (Athenis­che Mit­theilun­gen, 1904, p. 180). As, how­ev­er, the de­ity is rep­re­sent­ed in an ar­chais­tic and con­ven­tion­al char­ac­ter, this copy can­not be re­lied on as giv­ing us much in­for­ma­tion as to the usu­al style of Al­camenes, who was al­most cer­tain­ly a pro­gres­sive and orig­inal artist. It is safer to judge him by the sculp­tural dec­ora­tion of the Parthenon, in which he must al­most cer­tain­ly have tak­en a share un­der the di­rec­tion of Phei­dias.

AL­CAMO, a town of Sici­ly, in the province of Tra­pani, 24 m. W.S.W. of Paler­mo di­rect (51 1/2 m. by rail). Pop. (1881) 37,497; (1901) 51,809. It was found­ed in A.D. 828 by the Saracenic chief Al-​Ka­muk, who erect­ed the cas­tle (which still stands, though con­sid­er­ably al­tered), but was chris­tian­ized by the em­per­or Fred­er­ick II. in 1233, who re­moved the site low­er down. It pos­sess­es some me­dieval build­ings of in­ter­est. The sur­round­ing dis­trict is very fer­tile and the trade in agri­cul­tur­al prod­ucts is con­sid­er­able.

AL­CAN­TARA, a small sea­port of Brazil, in the state of Maran­hao, on the W. shore of the bay of Sao Mar­cos, 16 m. from the city of Maran­hao by wa­ter. It has a fair­ly good har­bour, and ex­cel­lent cot­ton and rice are grown in the vicin­ity and shipped thence.

AL­CAN­TARA, a town of west­ern Spain, in the province of Cac­eres, sit­uat­ed on a rocky height on the left bank of the riv­er Tagus, 7 m. from the Por­tuguese fron­tier. Pop. (1900) 3248. Al­can­tara (in Arab. “the bridge”) owes its name to the mag­nif­icent Ro­man bridge which spans the Tagus on the north-​west. This was orig­inal­ly built about A.D. 105, in hon­our of the Ro­man em­per­or Tra­jan and at the cost of eleven Lusi­ta­ni­an com­mu­ni­ties. It is en­tire­ly con­struct­ed of gran­ite blocks, with­out ce­ment, and con­sists of six arch­es of var­ious sizes, with a to­tal length of 616 feet and a height of about 190 ft. in the mid­dle piers, which are sur­mount­ed by a for­ti­fied gate­way. One of the arch­es was bro­ken down in 1213 and re­built in 1553; an­oth­er was blown up by the British troops in 1809, and, though tem­porar­ily re­con­struct­ed, was again de­stroyed in 1836, to pre­vent the pas­sage of the Carlist forces. But in 1860 the whole was re­stored. A small Ro­man tem­ple, ded­icat­ed to Tra­jan and oth­er de­ified em­per­ors, stood on the left bank, ad­join­ing the bridge. It is doubt­ful, how­ev­er, if Al­can­tara marks the site of any Ro­man town, though ar­chae­ol­ogists have some­times iden­ti­fied it ei­ther with Nor­ba Cae­sarea or with In­ter­am­ni­um. It first be­came fa­mous about 1215 as the stronghold of the knight­ly Or­der of Al­can­tara. Many of the grand mas­ters of this or­der lie buried in the 13th-​cen­tu­ry Goth­ic church. The town pos­sess­es an­oth­er in­ter­est­ing church built in 1506.

See An­tiguedades y san­tos de la muy no­ble vil­la de Al­can­tara, by J. Arias de Quin­tanadue­nas (Madrid, 1661); and Re­tra­to politi­co de Al­can­tara, by L. San­tibanez (Madrid, 1779).

AL­CAV­ALA (Span­ish, from Arab. al-​qua­bal­ah, “tax,” quab­ula, “to re­ceive”; cf. Fr. gabelle), a du­ty for­mer­ly charged in Spain and its colonies on all trans­fers of prop­er­ty, whether pub­lic or pri­vate. Orig­inal­ly im­posed in 1341 by Alphon­so XI. to se­cure free­dom from the Moors, it was an ad val­orem tax of 10, in­creased af­ter­wards to 14%, on the sell­ing price of all com­modi­ties, whether raw or man­ufac­tured, charge­able as of­ten as they were sold or ex­changed. It sub­ject­ed ev­ery farmer, man­ufac­tur­er, mer­chant and shop­keep­er to the con­tin­ual vis­its and ex­am­ina­tion of the tax-​gath­er­ers, whose num­ber was nec­es­sar­ily very great. This mon­strous im­post was per­mit­ted to ru­in the in­dus­try and com­merce of the greater part of the king­dom up to the time of the in­va­sion of Napoleon. Cat­alo­nia and Aragon pur­chased from Philip V. an ex­emp­tion from the al­cav­ala, and, though still bur­dened with oth­er heavy tax­es, were in con­se­quence in a com­par­ative­ly flour­ish­ing state.

AL­CAZAR DE SAN JUAN, or AL­CAZAR, a town of Spain, in the province of Ciu­dad Re­al, in the plain of La Man­cha, at the junc­tion of the Madrid-​Man­zanares and Madrid-​Al­bacete rail­ways. Pop. (1900) 11,499. Ow­ing to its po­si­tion on two im­por­tant rail­ways, Al­cazar has a flour­ish­ing tran­sit-​trade in the wines of Es­tremadu­ra and An­dalu­sia; the so­da and al­ka­li of La Man­cha are used in the man­ufac­ture of soap; and gun­pow­der, choco­late and in­laid dag­gers are al­so made here. Al­cazar is some­times iden­ti­fied with the Ro­man Alce. cap­tured by Tiberius Sem­pro­nius Grac­chus in 180 B.C. It de­rives its ex­ist­ing name from its me­dieval Moor­ish cas­tle (al-​kasr), which was af­ter­wards gar­risoned by the knights of St John. The towns­folk con­tend that the great Cer­vantes was a na­tive of Al­cazar; and, al­though this claim must be dis­al­lowed, much of the ac­tion of his mas­ter­piece, Don Quixote, takes place in the neigh­bour­hood. El To­boso, for in­stance, a vil­lage 12 m. E.N.E. [pop. ( 1900) 1895], was the home of the La­dy Dul­cinea del To­boso; Arga­masil­la de Al­ba (3505), 22 m. S.E., is de­clared by tra­di­tion to be the birth­place of Don Quixote him­self. Lo­cal an­ti­quar­ies even iden­ti­fy the knight with Don Ro­dri­go de Pacheco, whose por­trait adorns the parish church; and the same au­thor­ities hold that part of the ro­mance was writ­ten while Cer­vantes was a pris­on­er in their town. An edi­tion of Don Quixote was pub­lished at Arga­masil­la in 1864.

AL­CES­TER, FRED­ER­ICK BEAUCHAMP PAGET SEY­MOUR, BARON (1821-1895), British ad­mi­ral, son of Colonel Sir Ho­race Beauchamp Sey­mour and cousin of Fran­cis George Hugh Sey­mour, 5th mar­quess of Hert­ford, was born on the 12th of April 1821. En­ter­ing the navy in 1834, he served in the Mediter­ranean and the Pa­cif­ic, was for three years flag-​lieu­tenant to his un­cle Sir George Sey­mour, and was pro­mot­ed to be com­man­der in 1847. He served in Bur­ma as a vol­un­teer in 1852, was made a cap­tain in 1854, took the “Me­te­or” iron­clad bat­tery out to the Black Sea and home again in 1856, was cap­tain of the “Pelorus” on the Aus­tralian sta­tion from 1857 to 1863, and com­mand­ed the naval brigade in New Zealand dur­ing the Maori War, 1860-61, for which he was made a C.B. He be­came a rear-​ad­mi­ral in 1870; in 1871-1872 he com­mand­ed the fly­ing squadron, was a lord of the ad­mi­ral­ty in 1872-1874, and com­mand­ed the Chan­nel fleet, 1874-1876. On the 31st of De­cem­ber 1876 he was made a vice-​ad­mi­ral, a K.C.B. on the 2nd of June 1877. In 1880-1883 he was com­man­der-​in-​chief of the fleet in the Mediter­ranean, and in 1880 had al­so the chief com­mand of the Eu­ro­pean squadron sent to the coast of Al­ba­nia as a demon­stra­tion to com­pel the Porte to cede Dul­cig­no to Mon­tene­gro. On the 24th of May 1881 he was made a G.C.B., and on the 6th of May 1882 was pro­mot­ed to the rank of ad­mi­ral. In Ju­ly 1882 he com­mand­ed at the bom­bard­ment of Alexan­dria and in the sub­se­quent op­er­ations on the coast of Egypt, for which ser­vice he was raised to the peer­age as Baron Al­ces­ter of Al­ces­ter in the coun­ty of War­wick, re­ceived a par­lia­men­tary grant of L. 25,000, the free­dom of the city of Lon­don and a sword of hon­our. On his re­turn from the Mediter­ranean he was for a cou­ple of years again at the ad­mi­ral­ty, and in 1886 he was placed on the re­tired list. For the next nine years he lived chiefly in Lon­don, but lat­ter­ly his health was much bro­ken, and he died on the 30th of March 1895. He was un­mar­ried and the peer­age be­came ex­tinct.

AL­CES­TER [pro­nounced Auster, a mar­ket-​town in the Strat­ford-​on-​Avon par­lia­men­tary di­vi­sion of War­wick­shire, Eng­land, 16 m. W.S.W. from War­wick by the Great West­ern rail­way, served al­so by the Birm­ing­ham-​Eve­sham branch of the Mid­land rail­way. Pop. (1901) 2303. It is pleas­ant­ly sit­uat­ed among low wood­ed hills at the junc­tion of the small stream Alne with the Ar­row, a north­ern trib­utary of the Avon. The church of St Nicholas, with the ex­cep­tion of the Dec­orat­ed tow­er, is a re­con­struc­tion of 1734; among sev­er­al mon­uments is a fine ex­am­ple of Chantrey’s work, to the 2nd mar­quess of Hert­ford (d. 1822). There are a pic­turesque town hall (1641), raised on stone columns, and a free gram­mar school. The man­ufac­ture of nee­dles is less im­por­tant than for­mer­ly, hav­ing been ab­sorbed in­to the cen­tre of the in­dus­try at Red­ditch in the neigh­bour­ing coun­ty of Worces­ter­shire. There are im­ple­ment works and cy­cle works, and brew­ing is pros­ecut­ed.

The name (Al­neces­tre, Alynces­ter) sig­ni­fies “the camp on the Alne.” A small Ro­mano-​British town or vil­lage was sit­uat­ed here, on the road which runs from Der­by and Wall, near Lich­field, to join the Fos­se Way near Cirences­ter. Its name is not known. A re­lief fig­ure in stone, some pave­ments, pot­sherds, coins and buri­als have been found, but noth­ing to in­di­cate an im­por­tant sta­tion. No writ­ten doc­ument re­lat­ing to Al­ces­ter ex­ists be­fore the reign of Hen­ry I. No men­tion oc­curs in Domes­day, but it is giv­en in a list of ser­jeanties of the reign of Hen­ry III. as hav­ing been a roy­al bor­ough in the time of Hen­ry I., and in 1177 it ren­dered four marks’ aid with the oth­er bor­oughs of the coun­ty. How­ev­er, there is no ev­idence of the grant of a roy­al char­ter, and the ti­tle of bor­ough soon lapsed. In the reign of Hen­ry III. a moi­ety of the manor was pur­chased by Sir Wal­ter Beauchamp, who grant­ed a char­ter to the in­hab­itants of ihe town es­tab­lish­ing a Tues­day mar­ket for corn, cat­tle, and all kinds of mer­chan­dise, and al­so ob­tained grants of fairs at the feasts of St Giles (af­ter­wards trans­ferred to the feast of St Faith) and St Barn­abas. In 1444 Sir John Beauchamp pur­chased the re­main­ing moi­ety of the manor, and was grant­ed an ad­di­tion­al fair at the feast of St Dun­stan. From this date the Beauchamps were lords of the whole manor un­til it passed by fe­male de­scent to the Gre­villes in the reign of Hen­ry VI­II. in 1140 a Bene­dic­tine monastery was found­ed here by Falph Botel­er of Over­sley, and re­ceived the name of the Church of Our La­dy of the Isle, ow­ing to its in­su­la­tion by a moat meet­ing the riv­er Ar­row. The monastery was sup­pressed among the small­er hous­es in 1536. Traces of the moat and the foun­da­tions are still to be seen in Pri­ory Close. The an­cient fairs sur­vived to the end of the 19th cen­tu­ry. in 1830 the nee­dle-​man­ufac­ture em­ployed near­ly a thou­sand hands.

AL­CES­TIS (ALKESTIS), in Greek leg­end the daugh­ter of Pelias and Anax­ib­ia, and wife of Ad­me­tus, king of Pher­ae in Thes­saly. She con­sent­ed to die in place of her hus­band, and was af­ter­wards res­cued by Her­acles. This beau­ti­ful sto­ry of con­ju­gal de­vo­tion forms the sub­ject of the Al­ces­tis of Eu­ripi­des, which fur­nished the ba­sis of Robert Brown­ing’s Bal­aus­tion’s Ad­ven­ture. Sopho­cles al­so wrote an Al­ces­tis, of which on­ly frag­ments re­main.

See Dis­sel, Der Mythos von Ad­me­tus und Alkestis, 1882.

ALCHE­MY. In the nar­row sense of the word, alche­my is the pre­tend­ed art of mak­ing gold and sil­ver, or trans­mut­ing the base met­als in­to the no­ble ones. The idea of such trans­mu­ta­tion prob­ably arose among the Alexan­dri­an Greeks in the ear­ly cen­turies of the Chris­tian era; thence it passed to the Arabs, by whom it was trans­mit­ted to west­ern Eu­rope, and its re­al­iza­tion was a lead­ing aim of chem­ical work­ers down to the time of Paracel­sus and even lat­er. But “alche­my” was some­thing more than a par­tic­ular­ly vain and de­lud­ed man­ifes­ta­tion of the thirst for gold, as it is some­times rep­re­sent­ed; in its wider and truer sig­nif­icance it stands for the chem­istry of the mid­dle ages. The idea of trans­mu­ta­tion, in the coun­try of its ori­gin, had a philo­soph­ical ba­sis, and was linked up with the Greek the­ories of mat­ter there cur­rent; thus, by sup­ply­ing a cen­tral philo­soph­ical prin­ci­ple, it to some ex­tent uni­fied and fo­cussed chem­ical ef­fort, which pre­vi­ous­ly, so far as it ex­ist­ed at all, had been ex­pend­ed on ac­quir­ing em­pir­ical ac­quain­tance with a mass of dis­con­nect­ed tech­ni­cal pro­cess­es. Alche­my in this sense is mere­ly an ear­ly phase of the de­vel­op­ment of sys­tem­at­ic chem­istry; in Liebig’s words, it was “nev­er at any time any­thing dif­fer­ent from chem­istry.”

Re­gard­ing the deriva­tion of the word, there are two main views which agree in hold­ing that it has an Ara­bic de­scent, the pre­fix al be­ing the Ara­bic ar­ti­cle. But ac­cord­ing to one, the sec­ond part of the word comes from the Greek chumeia, pour­ing, in­fu­sion, used in con­nex­ion with the study of the juices of plants, and thence ex­tend­ed to chem­ical ma­nip­ula­tions in gen­er­al; this deriva­tion ac­counts for the old-​fash­ioned spellings “chymist” and “chym­istry.” The oth­er view traces it to khem or khame, hi­ero­glyph kh­mi, which de­notes black earth as op­posed to bar­ren sand, and oc­curs in Plutarch as chumeia; on this deriva­tion alche­my is ex­plained as mean­ing the “Egyp­tian art.” The first oc­cur­rence of the word is said to be in a trea­tise of Julius Fir­mi­cus, an as­tro­log­ical writ­er of the 4th cen­tu­ry, but the pre­fix al there must be the ad­di­tion of a lat­er copy­ist. Among the Alexan­dri­an writ­ers alche­my was des­ig­nat­ed as e tes chru­sou te kai ar­gurou poieseos techne theia kai iera or e epis­teme iera. In En­glish, Piers Plow­man (1362) con­tains the phrase “ex­per­imen­tis of al­con­omye,” with vari­ants “alken­emye” and “alk­namye.” The pre­fix al be­gins to be dropped about the mid­dle of the 16th cen­tu­ry.

Ori­gins of Alche­my.–Nu­mer­ous leg­ends clus­ter round the ori­gin of alche­my. Ac­cord­ing to one sto­ry, it was found­ed by the Egyp­tian god Her­mes (Thoth), the re­put­ed in­ven­tor of the arts and sci­ences, to whom, un­der the ap­pel­la­tion Her­mes Tris­megis­tus, Ter­tul­lian refers as the mas­ter of those who oc­cu­py them­selves with na­ture; af­ter him lat­er al­chemists called their work the “her­met­ic art,” and the seal of Her­mes, which they placed up­on their ves­sels, is the ori­gin of the com­mon phrase “her­met­ical­ly sealed.” An­oth­er leg­end, giv­en by Zosimus of Pa­nop­olis, an al­chemisti­cal writ­er said to date from the 3rd cen­tu­ry, as­serts that the fall­en an­gels taught the arts to the wom­en they mar­ried (cf. Gen­esis vi. 2), their in­struc­tion be­ing record­ed in a book called Chema. A sim­ilar sto­ry ap­pears in the Book of Enoch, and Ter­tul­lian has much to say about the wicked an­gels who re­vealed to men the knowl­edge of gold and sil­ver, of lus­trous stones, and of the pow­er of herbs, and who in­tro­duced the arts of as­trol­ogy and mag­ic up­on the earth. Again, the Ara­bic Kitab-​al-​Fihrist, writ­ten by al-​Nadim to­wards the end of the 10th cen­tu­ry, says that the “peo­ple who prac­tise alche­my, that is, who fab­ri­cate gold and sil­ver from strange met­als, state that the first to speak of the sci­ence of the work was Her­mes the Wise, who was orig­inal­ly of Baby­lon, but who es­tab­lished him­self in Egypt af­ter the dis­per­sion of the peo­ples from Ba­bel.” An­oth­er leg­end, al­so to be found in Ara­bic sources, as­serts that alche­my was re­vealed by God to Moses and Aaron. But there is some ev­idence that, in ac­cor­dance with the strong and con­stant tra­di­tion among the al­chemists, the idea of trans­mu­ta­tion did orig­inate in Egypt with the Greeks of Alexan­dria. In the Lei­den mu­se­um there are a num­ber of pa­pyri which were found in a tomb at Thebes, writ­ten prob­ably in the 3rd cen­tu­ry A.D., though their mat­ter is old­er. Some are in Greek and de­mot­ic, and one, of pe­cu­liar in­ter­est from the chem­ical point of view, gives a num­ber of re­ceipts, in Greek, for the ma­nip­ula­tion of base met­als to form al­loys which sim­ulate gold and are in­tend­ed to be used in the man­ufac­ture of im­ita­tion jew­ellery. Pos­si­bly this is one of the books about gold and sil­ver of which Dio­cle­tian de­creed the de­struc­tion about A.D. 290–an act which Gib­bon styles the first au­then­tic event in the his­to­ry of alche­my (De­cline and Fall, chap. xi­ii.). The au­thor of these re­ceipts is not un­der any delu­sion that he is trans­mut­ing met­als; the MS. is mere­ly a work­shop man­ual in which are de­scribed pro­cess­es in dai­ly use for prepar­ing met­als for false jew­ellery, but it ar­gues con­sid­er­able knowl­edge of meth­ods of mak­ing al­loys and colour­ing met­als. It has been sug­gest­ed by M. P. E. Berth­elot that the work­ers in these pro­cess­es, which were a monopoly of the priest­ly caste and were kept strict­ly se­cret, though ful­ly aware that their prod­ucts were not tru­ly gold, were in time led by their suc­cess in de­ceiv­ing the pub­lic to de­ceive them­selves al­so, and to come to be­lieve that they ac­tu­al­ly had the pow­er of mak­ing gold from sub­stances which were not gold. Philo­soph­ical sanc­tion and ex­pla­na­tion of this be­lief was then found by bring­ing it in­to re­la­tion with the the­ory of the pri­ma ma­te­ria, which was iden­ti­cal in all bod­ies but re­ceived its ac­tu­al form by the ad­junc­tion of qual­ities ex­pressed by the Aris­totelian el­ements–earth, air, fire and wa­ter. Some sup­port for this view is gained from study of the al­chemisti­cal writ­ings of the pe­ri­od. Thus, in the trea­tise known as Phys­ica et Mys­ti­ca and false­ly as­cribed to Dem­ocri­tus (such false at­tri­bu­tions are a con­stant fea­ture of the lit­er­ature of alche­my), var­ious re­ceipts are giv­en for colour­ing and gild­ing met­als, but the con­cep­tion of trans­mu­ta­tion does not oc­cur. This trea­tise was prob­ably com­posed at a date not very dif­fer­ent from that of the Lei­den pa­pyrus. Lat­er, how­ev­er, as in the Com­men­tary on this work writ­ten by Syne­sius to Dioscorus, priest of Ser­apis at Alexan­dria, which prob­ably dates from the end of the 4th cen­tu­ry, a changed at­ti­tude be­comes ap­par­ent; the more prac­ti­cal parts of the re­ceipts are ob­scured or omit­ted, and the pro­cess­es for prepar­ing al­loys and colour­ing met­als, de­scribed in the old­er trea­tise, are by a mys­ti­cal in­ter­pre­ta­tion rep­re­sent­ed as re­sult­ing in re­al trans­mu­ta­tion.

But while there are thus some grounds for sup­pos­ing that the idea of trans­mu­ta­tion grew out of the prac­ti­cal re­ceipts of Alexan­dri­an Egypt, the alche­my which em­braced it as a lead­ing prin­ci­ple was al­so strong­ly af­fect­ed by East­ern in­flu­ences such as mag­ic and as­trol­ogy. The ear­li­est Greek al­chemisti­cal writ­ings abound with ref­er­ences to Ori­en­tal au­thor­ities and tra­di­tions. Thus the pseu­do-​Dem­ocri­tus, who was re­put­ed the au­thor of the Phys­ica et Mys­ti­ca, which it­self con­cludes each of its re­ceipts with a mag­ical for­mu­la, was be­lieved to have trav­elled in Chal­daea, and to have had as his mas­ter Os­tanes1 the Mede, a name men­tioned sev­er­al times in the Lei­den pa­pyrus, and of­ten by ear­ly Chris­tian writ­ers such as Ter­tul­lian, St Cypri­an and St Au­gus­tine. The prac­tices of the Per­sian adepts al­so are ap­pealed to in the writ­ings of the pseu­do-​Dem­ocri­tus, Zosimus and Syne­sius. The philoso­pher’s egg, as a sym­bol of cre­ation, is both Egyp­tian and Baby­lo­ni­an. In the Greek al­chemists it ap­pears as the sym­bol at once of the art and of the uni­verse, en­clos­ing with­in it­self the four el­ements; and there is some­times a play of words be­tween to on and to won. The con­cep­tion of man, the mi­cro­cosm, con­tain­ing in him­self all the parts of the uni­verse or macro­cosm, is al­so Baby­lo­ni­an, as again prob­ably is the fa­mous iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the met­als with the plan­ets. Even in the Lei­den pa­pyrus the as­tro­nom­ical sym­bols for the sun and moon are used to de­note gold and sil­ver, and in the Me­te­oro­log­ica of Olym­pi­odor­us lead is at­tribut­ed to Sat­urn, iron to Mars, cop­per to Venus, tin to Her­mes (Mer­cury) and elec­trum to Jupiter. Sim­ilar sys­tems of sym­bols, but elab­orat­ed to in­clude com­pounds, ap­pear in Greek MSS. of the 10th cen­tu­ry, pre­served in the li­brary of St Mark’s at Venice. Sub­se­quent­ly elec­trum (an al­loy of gold and sil­ver) dis­ap­peared as a spe­cif­ic met­al, and tin was as­cribed to Jupiter in­stead, the sign of mer­cury be­com­ing com­mon to the met­al and the plan­et. Thus we read in Chaucer (Cha­nouns Ye­mannes Tale):–

The bod­ies sev­ene eek, lo! hem heer anoon: Sol gold is, and Lu­na sil­ver we threpe, Mars yren, Mer­curie quik-​sil­ver we clepe, Sat­ur­nus leed and Jupiter is tin, And Venus cop­er, by my fad­er kin! Lit­er­ature of Alche­my.–A con­sid­er­able body of Greek chem­ical writ­ings is con­tained in MSS. be­long­ing to the var­ious great li­braries of Eu­rope, the old­est be­ing that at St Mark’s, just men­tioned. The con­tents of these MSS. are all of sim­ilar com­po­si­tion, and in Berth­elot’s opin­ion rep­re­sent a col­lec­tion of trea­tis­es made at Con­stantino­ple in the 8th or 9th cen­tu­ry. The trea­tis­es are near­ly all an­te­ri­or to the 7th cen­tu­ry, and most ap­pear to be­long to the 3rd and 4th cen­turies; some are the work of au­then­tic au­thors like Zosimus and Syne­sius, while of oth­ers, such as pro­fess to be writ­ten by Moses, Dem­ocri­tus, Os­tanes, &c., the au­thor­ship is clear­ly fic­ti­tious. Some of the same names and the same works can be iden­ti­fied in the lists of the Kitab-​al- Fihrist. But the Arabs did not ac­quire their knowl­edge of this lit­er­ature at first hand. The ear­li­est Hel­lenic cul­ture in the East was Syr­ian, and the Arabs made their first ac­quain­tance with Greek chem­istry, as with Greek phi­los­ophy, math­emat­ics, medicine, &c., by the in­ter­me­di­ary of Syr­iac trans­la­tions. (See ARA­BI­AN PHI­LOS­OPHY and SYR­IAC LIT­ER­ATURE.) Ex­am­ples of such trans­la­tions are pre­served in MSS. at the British Mu­se­um, part­ly writ­ten in Syr­iac, part­ly in Ara­bic with Syr­iac char­ac­ters. In Berth­elot’s opin­ion, the Syr­iac por­tions rep­re­sent a com­pi­la­tion of re­ceipts and pro­cess­es un­der­tak­en in the Syr­ian school of medicine at Bag­dad un­der the Ab­basids in the 9th or 10th cen­tu­ry, and to a large ex­tent con­sti­tut­ed by the ear­li­er trans­la­tions made by Sergius of Re­sae­na in the 6th cen­tu­ry. They con­tain, un­der the ti­tle Doc­trine of Dem­ocri­tus, a fair­ly me­thod­ical trea­tise in ten books com­pris­ing the Ar­gy­ropoeia and Chrysopoeia of the pseu­do-​Dem­ocri­tus, with many re­ceipts for colour­ing met­als, mak­ing ar­ti­fi­cial pre­cious stones, ef­fect­ing the diplo­sis or dou­bling of met­als, &c. They give il­lus­tra­tions of the ap­pa­ra­tus em­ployed, and their close re­la­tion­ship to the Greek is at­test­ed by the fre­quent oc­cur­rence of Greek words and the fact that the signs and sym­bols of the Greek al­chemists ap­pear al­most un­changed. The oth­er por­tion seems of some­what lat­er date. An­oth­er Syr­iac MS., in the li­brary of Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty, con­tains a trans­la­tion of a work by Zosimus which is so far un­known in the orig­inal Greek. Berth­elot gives re­pro­duc­tions of the British Mu­se­um MSS. in vol. ii. of La Chimie au moyen

Sev­er­al al­chemisti­cal trea­tis­es, writ­ten in Ara­bic, ex­ist in manuscript in the Na­tion­al Li­brary at Paris and in the li­brary of the uni­ver­si­ty of Lei­den, and have been re­pro­duced by Berth­elot, with trans­la­tions, in vol. iii. of La Chimie au moyen age. They fall in­to two groups: those in one are large­ly com­posed of com­pi­la­tions from Greek sources, while those in the oth­er have rather the char­ac­ter of orig­inal com­po­si­tions. Of the first group the most in­ter­est­ing and pos­si­bly the old­est is the Book of Crates; it is re­mark­able for con­tain­ing some of the signs used for the met­als by the Greek al­chemists, and for giv­ing fig­ures of four pieces of ap­pa­ra­tus which close­ly re­sem­ble those de­pict­ed in Greek MSS., the for­mer be­ing nev­er, and the lat­ter rarely, found in oth­er Ara­bic MSS. Its con­clud­ing words sug­gest that its pro­duc­tion was due to Khalid ben Yezid (died in 708), who was a pupil of the Syr­ian monk Mar­ianus, and ac­cord­ing to the Kitab-​al-​Fihrist was the first Mus­sul­man writ­er on alche­my. The sec­ond group con­sists of a num­ber of trea­tis­es pro­fess­ing to be writ­ten by Jaber, cel­ebrat­ed in Latin alche­my as Geber (q.v..) In­ter­nal ev­idence sug­gests that they are not all from the same hand or of the same date, but prob­ably they are not ear­li­er than the 9th nor lat­er than the 12th cen­tu­ry. The Ara­bic chron­iclers record the names of many oth­er writ­ers on alche­my, among the most fa­mous be­ing Rhazes and Avi­cen­na.

But the fur­ther de­vel­op­ment of alche­my took place in the West rather than in the East. With the spread of their em­pire to Spain the Arabs took with them their knowl­edge of Greek medicine and sci­ence, in­clud­ing alche­my, and thence it passed, strength­ened by the in­fu­sion of a cer­tain Jew­ish el­ement, to the na­tions of west­ern Eu­rope, through the medi­um of Latin trans­la­tions. The mak­ing of these be­gan about the 11th cen­tu­ry, one of the ear­li­est of the trans­la­tors, Con­stanti­nus Africanus, wrote about 1075, and an­oth­er, Ger­ard of Cre­mona, lived from 1114 to 1187. The Liber de com­po­si­tione al­chemi­ae, which pro­fess­es to be by Morienus–per­haps the same as the Mar­ianus who was the teach­er of Khalid–was trans­lat­ed by Rober­tus Cas­tren­sis, who states that he fin­ished the work in 1182, and speaks as if he were mak­ing a rev­ela­tion–“Quid sit al­chemia non­dum cog­novit ves­tra La­tini­tas.” The ear­li­er trans­la­tions, such as the Tur­ba Philosopho­rum and oth­er Works print­ed in col­lec­tions like the Ar­tis au­rifer­ae quam chemi­am vo­cant (1572), The­atrum chemicum (1602), and J. J. Manget’s Bib­lio­the­ca chem­ica cu­riosa (1702), are con­fused pro­duc­tions, writ­ten in an al­le­gor­ical style, but full of phras­es and even pages tak­en lit­er­al­ly from the Greek al­chemists, and cit­ing by name var­ious au­thor­ities of Greek alche­my. They were fol­lowed by trea­tis­es of a dif­fer­ent char­ac­ter, clear­er in mat­ter, more sys­tem­at­ic in ar­range­ment, and re­flect­ing the meth­ods of the scholas­tic log­ic; these are far­ther from the Greek tra­di­tion, for al­though they con­tain suf­fi­cient traces of their ul­ti­mate Greek an­ces­try, their au­thors do not know the Greeks as mas­ters and cite no Greek names. So far as they are Latin ver­sions of Ara­bi­co-​Greek trea­tis­es, they must have been much re­mod­elled in the course of trans­la­tion; but there is rea­son to sup­pose that many of them, even when pre­tend­ing to be trans­la­tions, are re­al­ly orig­inal com­po­si­tions. It is cu­ri­ous that al­though we pos­sess a cer­tain num­ber of works on alche­my writ­ten in Ara­bic, and al­so many Latin trea­tis­es that pro­fess to be trans­lat­ed from Ara­bic, yet in no case is the ex­is­tence known of both the Ara­bic and the Latin ver­sion. The Ara­bic works of Jaber, as con­tained in MSS. at Paris and Lei­den, are quite Ais­simi­iar from the Latin works at­tribut­ed to Geber, and show few if any traces of the pos­itive chem­ical knowl­edge, as of ni­tric acid (aqua dis­so­lu­ti­va or for­tis) or of the mix­ture of ni­tric and hy­drochlo­ric acids known as aqua reg­is or re­gia, that ap­pears in the lat­ter. The trea­tis­es at­tribut­ed to Geber, in fact, ap­pear to be orig­inal works com­posed not ear­li­er than the 13th cen­tu­ry and fa­thered on Jaber in or­der to en­hance their au­thor­ity. If this view be ac­cept­ed, an en­tire­ly new light is thrown on the achieve­ments of the Arabs in the his­to­ry of chem­istry. Gib­bon as­serts that the Greeks were inat­ten­tive ei­ther to the use or to the abuse of chem­istry (De­cline and Fall, chap. xi­ii.), and gives the Arabs the cred­it of the ori­gin and im­prove­ment of the sci­ence (chap. lii.).2 But the chem­ical knowl­edge at­tribut­ed to the Arabs has been so at­tribut­ed large­ly on the ba­sis of the con­tents of the Latin Geber, re­gard­ed as a trans­la­tion from the Ara­bic Jaber. If, then, those con­tents do not rep­re­sent the knowl­edge of Jaber, and if the con­tents of oth­er Latin trans­la­tions which there is rea­son to be­lieve are re­al­ly made from the Ara­bic, show lit­tle, if any, ad­vance on the knowl­edge of the Alexan­dri­an Greeks, ev­ident­ly the part played by the Arabs must be less, and that of the West­erns greater, than Gib­bon is pre­pared to ad­mit.

The de­scent of al­chemisti­cal doc­trine can thus be traced with fair con­ti­nu­ity for a thou­sand years, from the Greeks of Alexan­dria down to the time when Latin alche­my was firm­ly es­tab­lished in the West, and be­gan to be writ­ten of by his­tor­ical au­thors like Al­ber­tus Mag­nus, Roger Ba­con and Arnoldus Vil­lanovanus in the 13th cen­tu­ry. But side by side with this lit­er­ary trans­mis­sion Berth­elot in­sists that there was an­oth­er mode of trans­mis­sion, by means of the knowl­edge of prac­ti­cal re­ceipts and pro­cess­es tra­di­tion­al among jew­ellers, painters, work­ers in glass and pot­tery, and oth­er hand­icrafts­men. The chem­ical knowl­edge of Egyp­tian met­al­lur­gists and jew­ellers, he holds, was ear­ly trans­mit­ted to the ar­ti­sans of Rome, and was pre­served through­out the dark ages in the work­shops of Italy and France un­til about the 13th cen­tu­ry, when it was min­gled with the the­ories of the Greek al­chemists which reached the West by way of the Arabs. Re­ceipts giv­en in the Lei­den pa­pyrus reap­pear in the Com­po­si­tiones ad Tin­gen­da and the Map­pae Clav­ic­ula, both work­shop re­ceipt books, one known in an 8th-​cen­tu­ry MS. at Luc­ca, and the oth­er in a 10th-​cen­tu­ry MS. in the li­brary of Schlettstadt; and again in such works as the De Art­ibus Ro­mano­rum of Er­aclius and the Schedu­la Di­ver­sarum Ar­tium of Theophilus, be­long­ing to the 11th or 12th cen­tu­ry.

The­ory of Trans­mu­ta­tion.–The fun­da­men­tal the­ory of the trans­mu­ta­tion of met­als is to be found in the Greek al­chemists, al­though in de­tails it was mod­ified and elab­orat­ed by the Arabs and the Latin al­chemists. Re­gard­ing all sub­stances as be­ing com­posed of one prim­itive mat­ter–the pri­ma ma­te­ria, and as ow­ing their spe­cif­ic dif­fer­ences to the pres­ence of dif­fer­ent qual­ities im­posed up­on it, the al­chemist hoped, by tak­ing away these qual­ities, to ob­tain the pri­ma ma­te­ria it­self, and then to get from it the par­tic­ular sub­stance he de­sired by the ad­di­tion of the ap­pro­pri­ate qual­ities. The pri­ma ma­te­ria was ear­ly iden­ti­fied with mer­cury, not or­di­nary mer­cury, but the “mer­cury of the philoso­phers,” which was the essence or soul of mer­cury, freed from the four Aris­totelian el­ements–earth, air, fire and wa­ter–or rather from the qual­ities which they rep­re­sent. Thus the op­er­ator had to re­move from or­di­nary mer­cury, earth or an earthy prin­ci­ple or qual­ity, and wa­ter or a liq­uid prin­ci­ple, and to fix it by tak­ing away air or a volatile prin­ci­ple. The pri­ma ma­te­ria thus ob­tained had to be treat­ed with sul­phur (or with sul­phur and ar­senic) to con­fer up­on it the de­sired qual­ities that were miss­ing. This sul­phur again was not or­di­nary sul­phur, but some prin­ci­ple de­rived from it, which con­sti­tut­ed the philoso­pher’s stone or elixir–white for sil­ver and yel­low or red for gold. This is briefly the doc­trine that the met­als are com­posed of mer­cury and sul­phur, which per­sist­ed in one form or an­oth­er down to the 17th cen­tu­ry. Of course there were nu­mer­ous vari­ations and re­fine­ments. Thus in the Specu­lum Nat­urale of Vin­cent of Beau­vais (c. 1250) it is said that there are four spir­its–mer­cury, sul­phur, ar­senic and sal am­mo­ni­ac– and six bod­ies–gold, sil­ver, cop­per, tin, lead and iron.3 Of these bod­ies the two first are pure, the four last im­pure. Pure white mer­cury, fixed by the virtue of white non-​cor­ro­sive sul­phur, en­gen­ders in mines a mat­ter which fu­sion changes in­to sil­ver, and unit­ed to pure clear red sul­phur it forms gold, while with var­ious kinds of im­pure mer­cury and sul­phur the oth­er bod­ies are pro­duced. Vin­cent at­tributes to Rhazes the state­ment that cop­per is po­ten­tial­ly sil­ver, and any one who can elim­inate the red colour will bring it to the state of sil­ver, for it is cop­per in out­ward ap­pear­ance, but in its in­most na­ture sil­ver. This state­ment rep­re­sents a doc­trine wide­ly held in the 13th cen­tu­ry, and al­so to be found in the Greek al­chemists, that ev­ery­thing en­dowed with a par­tic­ular ap­par­ent qual­ity pos­sess­es a hid­den op­po­site qual­ity, which can be ren­dered ap­par­ent by fire. Lat­er, as in the works at­tribut­ed to Basil Valen­tine, sul­phur, mer­cury and salt are held to be the con­stituents of the met­als.

It must be not­ed that the pro­cess­es de­scribed by the al­chemists of the 13th cen­tu­ry are not put for­ward as be­ing mirac­ulous or su­per­nat­ural; they rather rep­re­sent the meth­ods em­ployed by na­ture, which it is the end of the al­chemist’s art to re­pro­duce ar­ti­fi­cial­ly in the lab­ora­to­ry. But even among the late Ara­bi­an al­chemists it was doubt­ed whether the re­sources of the art were ad­equate to the task; and in the West, Vin­cent of Beau­vais re­marks that suc­cess had not been achieved in mak­ing ar­ti­fi­cial met­als iden­ti­cal with the nat­ural ones. Thus he says that the sil­ver which has been changed in­to gold by the pro­jec­tion of the red elixir is not ren­dered re­sis­tant to the agents which af­fect sil­ver but not gold, and Al­ber­tus Mag­nus in his De Min­er­al­ibus –the De Al­chemia at­tribut­ed to him is spu­ri­ous–states that alche­my can­not change species but mere­ly im­itates them–for in­stance, colours a met­al white to make it re­sem­ble sil­ver or yel­low to give it the ap­pear­ance of gold. He has, he adds, test­ed gold made by al­chemists, and found that it will not with­stand six or sev­en ex­po­sures to fire. But scep­ti­cism of this kind was not uni­ver­sal. Roger Ba­con–or more prob­ably some one who usurped his name–de­clared that with a cer­tain amount of the philoso­pher’s stone he could trans­mute a mil­lion times as much base met­al in­to gold, and on Rai­mon Lull was fa­thered the boast, “Mare tin­gerem si mer­curius es­set.” Nu­mer­ous less dis­tin­guished adepts al­so prac­tised the art, and some­times were so suc­cess­ful in their de­cep­tions that they gained the ear of kings, whose de­sire to prof­it by the achieve­ments of sci­ence was in sev­er­al in­stances re­ward­ed by an abun­dant crop of coun­ter­feit coins.

Lat­er His­to­ry of Alche­my.–In the ear­li­er part of the 16th cen­tu­ry Paracel­sus gave a new di­rec­tion to alche­my by declar­ing that its true ob­ject was not the mak­ing of gold but the prepa­ra­tion of medicines, and this union of chem­istry with medicine was one char­ac­ter­is­tic of the ia­tro­chem­ical school of which he was the pre­cur­sor. In­creas­ing at­ten­tion was paid to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the prop­er­ties of sub­stances and of their ef­fects on the hu­man body, and chem­istry prof­it­ed by the fact that it passed in­to the hands of men who pos­sessed the high­est sci­en­tif­ic cul­ture of the time, Still, be­lief in the pos­si­bil­ity of trans­mu­ta­tion long re­mained or­tho­dox, even among the most dis­tin­guished men of sci­ence. Thus it was ac­cept­ed, at least aca­dem­ical­ly, by An­dreas Libav­ius (d. 1616); by F. de la Boe Sylvius (1614-1672), though not by his pupil Ot­to Tache­nius, and by J. R. Glauber (1603-1668); by Robert Boyle (1627-1691) and, for a time at least, by Sir Isaac New­ton and his ri­val and con­tem­po­rary, G. W. Leib­nitz (1646-1716); and by G. E. Stahl (1660-1734) and Her­mann Boer­haave (1668-1738). Though an al­chemist, Boyle, in his Scep­ti­cal Chemist (1661), cast doubts on the “ex­per­iments where­by vul­gar Spagyrists are wont to en­deav­our to evince their salt, sul­phur and mer­cury to be the true prin­ci­ples of things,” and ad­vanced to­wards the con­cep­tion of chem­ical el­ements as those con­stituents of mat­ter which can­not be fur­ther de­com­posed. With J. J. Bech­er (1635-1682) and G. E. Stahl, how­ev­er, there was a re­ver­sion to ear­li­er ideas. The for­mer sub­sti­tut­ed for the salt, sul­phur and mer­cury of Basil Valen­tine and Paracel­sus three earths–the mer­cu­ri­al, the vit­re­ous and the com­bustible–and he ex­plained com­bus­tion as de­pend­ing on the es­cape of this last com­bustible el­ement; while Stahl’s con­cep­tion of phlo­gis­ton–not fire it­self, but the prin­ci­ple of fire–by virtue of which com­bustible bod­ies burned, was a near rel­ative of the mer­cury of the philoso­phers, the soul or essence of or­di­nary mer­cury.

Per­haps J. B. van Hel­mont (1577-1644) was the last dis­tin­guished in­ves­ti­ga­tor who pro­fessed ac­tu­al­ly to have changed mer­cury in­to gold, though im­pos­tors and mys­tics of var­ious kinds con­tin­ued to claim knowl­edge of the art long af­ter his time. So late as 1782, James Price, an En­glish physi­cian, showed ex­per­iments with white and red pow­ders, by the aid of which he was sup­posed to be able to trans­form fifty and six­ty times as much mer­cury in­to sil­ver and gold. The met­als he pro­duced are said to have proved gen­uine on as­say; when, how­ev­er, in the fol­low­ing year he was chal­lenged to re­peat the ex­per­iments he was un­able to do so and com­mit­ted sui­cide. In the course of the 19th cen­tu­ry the idea that the dif­fer­ent el­ements are con­sti­tut­ed by dif­fer­ent group­ings or con­den­sa­tions of one pri­mal mat­ter–a spec­ula­tion which, if proved to be well ground­ed, would im­ply the pos­si­bil­ity of chang­ing one el­ement in­to an­oth­er–found favour with more than one re­spon­si­ble chemist; but ex­per­imen­tal re­search failed to yield any ev­idence that was gen­er­al­ly re­gard­ed as of­fer­ing any sup­port to this hy­poth­esis. About the be­gin­ning of the 20th cen­tu­ry, how­ev­er, the view was pro­mul­gat­ed that the spon­ta­neous pro­duc­tion of he­li­um from ra­di­um may be an in­stance of the trans­for­ma­tion of one el­ement in­to an­oth­er. (See RA­DIOAC­TIV­ITY; al­so EL­EMENT and MAT­TER.)

See M. P. E. Berth­elot, Les Orig­ines de l’alchimie (1885); Col­lec­tion des an­ciens alchimistes grecs (text and trans­la­tion, 3 vols., 1887-1888); In­tro­duc­tion a l’etude de la chimie des an­ciens et du moyen age (1889): La Chimie au moyen age (text and trans­la­tion of Syr­iac and Ara­bic trea­tis­es on alche­my, 3 vols., 1893). Much bib­li­ograph­ical and oth­er in­for­ma­tion about the lat­er writ­ers on alche­my is con­tained in Bib­lio­the­ca Chem­ica (2 vols., Glas­gow, 1906), a cat­alogue by John Fer­gu­son of the books in the col­lec­tion of James Young of Kel­ly (print­ed for pri­vate dis­tri­bu­tion). (H. M. R.)

1 An al­chemisti­cal work bear­ing the name of Os­tanes speaks of a di­vine wa­ter which cures all mal­adies–an ear­ly ap­pear­ance of the uni­ver­sal panacea or elixir of life.

2 “Some tra­di­tionary knowl­edge might be se­cret­ed in the tem­ples and monas­ter­ies of Egypt: much use­ful ex­pe­ri­ence might have been ac­quired in the prac­tice of arts and man­ufac­tures, but the sci­ence of chem­istry owes its ori­gin and im­prove­ment to the in­dus­try of the Sara­cens. They first in­vent­ed and named the alem­bic for the pur­pos­es of dis­til­la­tion, an­alyzed the sub­stances of the three king­doms of na­ture, tried the dis­tinc­tion and affini­ties of al­ka­lis and acids, and con­vert­ed the poi­sonous min­er­als in­to soft and salu­tary reme­dies. But the most ea­ger search of Ara­bi­an chem­istry was the trans­mu­ta­tion of met­als, and the elixir of im­mor­tal health: the rea­son and the for­tunes of thou­sands were evap­orat­ed in the cru­cibles of alche­my, and the con­sum­ma­tion of the great work was pro­mot­ed by the wor­thy aid of mys­tery, fa­ble and su­per­sti­tion.” It may be not­ed that the word “alem­bic” is de­rived from the Greek am­bix, “cup,” with the Ara­bic ar­ti­cle pre­fixed, and that the in­stru­ment is fig­ured in the MSS. of some of the Greek al­chemists.

3 Cf. Chaucer, Cha­nouns Ye­mannes Tale, where, how­ev­er, mer­cury fig­ures both as a spir­it and a body:–

“The firste spir­it quik-​sil­ver called is, The sec­ond or­pi­ment, the thrid­de ywis Sal ar­mo­ni­ak, and the fer­the brim­stoon.” AL­CIATI, AN­DREA (1492-1550), Ital­ian ju­rist, was born at Alzano, near Mi­lan, on the 12th of Jan­uary 1492. He dis­played great lit­er­ary skill in his ex­po­si­tion of the laws, and was one of the first to in­ter­pret the civ­il law by the his­to­ry, lan­guages and lit­er­ature of an­tiq­ui­ty, and to sub­sti­tute orig­inal re­search for the servile in­ter­pre­ta­tions of the glos­sators. He pub­lished many le­gal works, and some an­no­ta­tions on Tac­itus. His Em­blems, a col­lec­tion of moral say­ings in Latin verse, has been great­ly ad­mired, and trans­lat­ed in­to French, Ital­ian and Span­ish. Al­ciati’s his­to­ry of Mi­lan, un­der the ti­tle Re­rum Po­tri­ae, seu His­to­ri­ae Medi­ola­nen­sis, Lib­ri IV., was pub­lished posthu­mous­ly at Mi­lan in 1625. He died at Pavia in 1550.

AL­CIB­IADES (c. 450-404 B.C.), Athe­ni­an gen­er­al and politi­cian, was born at Athens. He was the son of Cleinias and Deino­mache, who be­longed to the fam­ily of the Al­cmaeonidae. He was a near rel­ative of Per­icles, who, af­ter the death of Cleinias at the bat­tle of Coro­neia (447), be­came his guardian. Thus ear­ly de­prived of his fa­ther’s con­trol, pos­sessed of great per­son­al beau­ty and the heir to great wealth, which was in­creased by his mar­riage, he showed him­self self-​willed, capri­cious and pas­sion­ate, and in­dulged in the wildest freaks and most in­so­lent be­haviour. Nor did the in­struc­tors of his ear­ly man­hood sup­ply the cor­rec­tive which his boy­hood lacked. From Pro­tago­ras, Prod­icus and oth­ers he learnt to laugh at the com­mon ideas of jus­tice, tem­per­ance, ho­li­ness and pa­tri­otism. The la­bo­ri­ous thought, the as­cetic life of his mas­ter Socrates, he was able to ad­mire, but not to im­itate or prac­tise. On the con­trary, his os­ten­ta­tious van­ity, his amours, his de­baucheries and his im­pi­ous rev­els be­came no­to­ri­ous. But great as were his vices, his abil­ities were even greater.

He took part in the bat­tle of Poti­daea (432), where his life was saved by Socrates, a ser­vice which he re­paid at the bat­tle of Deli­um (424). As the re­ward of his brav­ery, the wealthy Hip­pon­icus be­stowed up­on him the hand of his daugh­ter. From this time he took a promi­nent part in Athe­ni­an pol­itics dur­ing the Pelo­pon­nesian war. Orig­inal­ly friend­ly to Spar­ta, he sub­se­quent­ly be­came the lead­er of the war par­ty in op­po­si­tion to Nicias, and af­ter the peace of 421 he suc­ceed­ed by an un­scrupu­lous trick in dup­ing the Spar­tan am­bas­sadors, and per­suad­ing the Athe­ni­ans to con­clude an al­liance (420) with Ar­gos, Elis and Man­tineia (Thuc. v. 56, 76). On the fail­ure of Nicias in Thrace (418-417) he be­came the chief ad­vo­cate of the Si­cil­ian ex­pe­di­tion, see­ing an op­por­tu­ni­ty for the re­al­iza­tion of his am­bi­tious projects, which in­clud­ed the con­quest of Sici­ly, to be fol­lowed by that of Pelo­pon­nesus and pos­si­bly of Carthage (though this seems to have been an af­terthought). The ex­pe­di­tion was de­cid­ed up­on with great en­thu­si­asm, and Al­cib­iades, Nicias and Lamachus were ap­point­ed joint com­man­ders. But, on the day be­fore the ex­pe­di­tion sailed, there oc­curred the mys­te­ri­ous mu­ti­la­tion of the Her­mae, and Al­cib­iades was ac­cused not on­ly of be­ing the orig­ina­tor of the crime, but al­so of hav­ing pro­faned the Eleusini­an mys­ter­ies. His re­quest for an im­me­di­ate in­ves­ti­ga­tion be­ing re­fused, he was obliged to set sail with the charge still hang­ing over him. Al­most as soon as he reached Sici­ly he was re­called to stand his tri­al, but he es­caped on the jour­ney home and made his way to Spar­ta. Learn­ing that he had been con­demned to death in his ab­sence and his prop­er­ty con­fis­cat­ed, he open­ly joined the Spar­tans, and per­suad­ed them to send Gylip­pus to as­sist the Syra­cu­sans and to for­ti­fy De­ce­lea in At­ti­ca. He then passed over to Asia Mi­nor, pre­vailed up­on many of the Ion­ic al­lies of Athens to re­volt, and con­clud­ed an al­liance with the Per­sian satrap Tis­sa­phernes. But in a few months he had lost the con­fi­dence of the Spar­tans, and at the in­sti­ga­tion of Agis II., whose per­son­al hos­til­ity he had ex­cit­ed, an or­der was sent for his ex­ecu­tion. Re­ceiv­ing time­ly in­for­ma­tion of this or­der he crossed over to Tis­sa­phernes (412), and per­suad­ed him to adopt the neg­ative pol­icy of leav­ing Athens and Spar­ta to wear them­selves out by their mu­tu­al strug­gles. Al­cib­iades was now bent on re­turn­ing to Athens, and he used his sup­posed in­flu­ence with Tis­sa­phernes to ef­fect his pur­pose. He en­tered in­to ne­go­ti­ations with the oli­garch Peisander, but when these led to no re­sult he at­tached him­self to the fleet at Samos which re­mained loy­al to the democ­ra­cy, and was sub­se­quent­ly re­called by Thrasy­bu­lus, al­though he did not at once re­turn to Athens. Be­ing ap­point­ed com­man­der in the neigh­bour­hood of the Helle­spont, he de­feat­ed the Spar­tan fleet at Aby­dos (411) and Cyz­icus (410), and re­cov­ered Chal­cedon and Byzan­tium. On his re­turn to Athens af­ter these suc­cess­es he was wel­comed with un­ex­pect­ed en­thu­si­asm (407); all the pro­ceed­ings against him were can­celled, and he was ap­point­ed gen­er­al with full pow­ers. His ill suc­cess, how­ev­er, at An­dros, and the de­feat at Notium (407) of his lieu­tenant An­ti­ochus, led the Athe­ni­ans to dis­miss him from his com­mand. He there­upon re­tired to the Thra­cian Cher­son­esus. Af­ter the bat­tle of Aegospota­mi, and the fi­nal de­feat of Athens, he crossed the Helle­spont and took refuge with Pharn­abazus in Phry­gia, with the ob­ject of se­cur­ing the aid of Ar­tax­erx­es against Spar­ta. But the Spar­tans in­duced Pharn­abazus to put him out of the way; as he was about to set out for the Per­sian court his res­idence was set on fire, and on rush­ing out on his as­sas­sins, dag­ger in hand, he was killed by a show­er of ar­rows (404). There can be no doubt that his ad­vice to Spar­ta in con­nex­ion with Syra­cuse and the for­ti­fi­ca­tion of De­ce­lea was the re­al cause of his coun­try’s down­fall, though it is on­ly fair to him to add that had he been al­lowed to con­tin­ue in com­mand of the Si­cil­ian ex­pe­di­tion he would un­doubt­ed­ly have over­ruled the fa­tal pol­icy of Nicias and pre­vent­ed the catas­tro­phe of 413. His be­lat­ed at­tempt to re­pair his fa­tal treach­ery on­ly ex­posed the es­sen­tial self­ish­ness of his char­ac­ter. Though he must have known that his in­flu­ence over the Per­sian satraps was slen­der in the ex­treme, he used it with the most fla­grant dis­hon­esty as a bait first to Spar­ta, then to the Athe­ni­an oli­garchs, and fi­nal­ly to the democ­ra­cy. Su­per­fi­cial and op­por­tunist to the last, he owed the suc­cess­es of his me­te­oric ca­reer pure­ly to per­son­al mag­netism and an al­most in­cred­ible ca­pac­ity for de­cep­tion.

There are lives of Al­cib­iades by Plutarch and Cor­nelius Nepos, and mono­graphs by Hertzberg, A. der Staats­mann und Feld­herr (1833), and Hous­saye, His­toire d’Al­cib­iade (1873); but the best ac­counts will be found in the his­to­ries of Greece by G. Grote (al­so notes in abridged ed., 1907), Ed. Mey­er, and works quot­ed un­der GREECE, An­cient His­to­ry, sect. “Au­thor­ities”; al­so PELO­PON­NESIAN WAR.

AL­CI­DAMAS, of Elaea, in Ae­olis, Greek sophist and rhetori­cian, flour­ished in the 4th cen­tu­ry B.C. He was the pupil and suc­ces­sor of Gor­gias and taught at Athens at the same time as Isocrates, whose ri­val and op­po­nent he was. We pos­sess two decla­ma­tions un­der his name: Peri Sofis­ton, di­rect­ed against Isocrates and set­ting forth the su­pe­ri­or­ity of ex­tem­pore over writ­ten speech­es (a re­cent­ly dis­cov­ered frag­ment of an­oth­er speech against Isocrates is prob­ably of lat­er date); ‘Odusseus, in which Odysseus ac­cus­es Palamedes of treach­ery dur­ing the siege of Troy (this is gen­er­al­ly con­sid­ered spu­ri­ous). Ac­cord­ing to Al­ci­damas, the high­est aim of the or­ator was the pow­er of speak­ing ex­tem­pore on ev­ery con­ceiv­able sub­ject. Aris­to­tle (Rhet. iii. 3) crit­icizes his writ­ings as char­ac­ter­ized by pom­pos­ity of style and an ex­trav­agant use of po­et­ical ep­ithets and com­pounds and far-​fetched metaphors. Of oth­er works on­ly frag­ments and the ti­tles have sur­vived: Messe­ni­akos, ad­vo­cat­ing the free­dom of the Messe­ni­ans and con­tain­ing the sen­ti­ment that “all are by na­ture free”; a Eu­lo­gy of Death, in con­sid­er­ation of the wide ex­tent of hu­man suf­fer­ings; a Techne or in­struc­tion-​book in the art of rhetoric; and a Fusikos lo­los. Last­ly, his Mou­seion (a word of doubt­ful mean­ing) con­tained the nar­ra­tive of the con­test be­tween Homer and Hes­iod, two frag­ments of which are found in the ‘Agon `Omer­ou kai `Es­iodou, the work of a gram­mar­ian in the time of Hadri­an. A 3rd-​cen­tu­ry pa­pyrus (Flinders Petrie, Pa­pyri, ed. Ma­haffy, 1891, pl. xxv.) prob­ably con­tains the ac­tu­al re­mains of a de­scrip­tion by Al­ci­damas.

See the edi­tion by Blass, 1881; frag­ments in Muller, Or­atores At­ti­ci, ii. (1858); Vahlen, Der Rhetor Alki­damas (1864); Blass, Die at­tis­che Bered­samkeit.

AL­CI­NOUS (ALKI­NOOS), in an­cient Greek leg­end, king of the fab­ulous Phaea­cians, in the is­land of Scheria, was the son of Nausit­hous and grand­son of Po­sei­don. His re­cep­tion and en­ter­tain­ment of Odysseus, who when cast by a storm on the shore of the is­land was re­lieved by the king’s daugh­ter, Nau­si­caa, is de­scribed in the Odyssey (vi.-xi­ii.). The gar­dens and palace of Al­ci­nous and the won­der­ful ships of the Phaea­cian mariners were fa­mous in an­tiq­ui­ty. Scheria was iden­ti­fied in very ear­ly times with Cor­cyra, where Al­ci­nous was rev­er­enced as a hero; In the Arg­onau­tic leg­end, his abode was the is­land of Drepane (Apoll. Rhodius iv. 990).

AL­CI­NOUS, the Pla­ton­ic philoso­pher, lived prob­ably in the time of the Cae­sars. He was the au­thor of an ‘Epit­ome ton Platonos dog­ma­ton, an anal­ysis of Pla­to’s phi­los­ophy ac­cord­ing to lat­er writ­ers. It is rather in the man­ner of Aris­to­tle, and freely at­tributes to Pla­to any ideas of oth­er philoso­phers which ap­peared to con­tribute to the sys­tem. He pro­duced in the end a syn­the­sis of Pla­to and Aris­to­tle with an ad­mix­ture of Pythagore­an or Ori­en­tal mys­ti­cism, and is close­ly al­lied to the Alexan­dri­an school of thought. He rec­og­nized a God who is un­know­able, and a se­ries of be­ings (dai­mones) who hold in­ter­course with men. He rec­og­nized al­so Ideas and Mat­ter, and bor­rowed large­ly from Aris­to­tle and the Sto­ics.

The ‘Epit­ome has been trans­lat­ed by Pierre Bal­bi (Rome, 1469) and by Mar­silio Fi­ci­no; in­to French by J. I. Combes-​Dounous (Paris, 1800), and in­to En­glish by Thomas Stan­ley in his His­to­ry of Phi­los­ophy. Edi­tions: Hein­sius (Lei­den, 1630); Fis­ch­er (Leipzig, 1783); in Al­dine Edi­tion of Apuleius (Venice, 1521; Paris, 1532); Fell (Ox­ford, 1667). See Rit­ter, Geschichte der Philoso­phie, iv. 249.

AL­CIO­NIO, PIETRO, or PETRUS AL­CY­ONIUS (c. 1487-1527), Ital­ian clas­si­cal schol­ar, was born at Venice. Af­ter hav­ing stud­ied Greek un­der Mar­cus Musu­rus of Can­dia, he was em­ployed for some time by Al­dus Manu­tius as a cor­rec­tor of the press, and in 1522 was ap­point­ed pro­fes­sor of Greek at Flo­rence through the in­flu­ence of Giulio de’ Medi­ci. When his pa­tron be­came pope in 1523 un­der the ti­tle of Clement VII., Al­cio­nio fol­lowed him to Rome and re­mained there un­til his death. Al­cio­nio pub­lished at Venice, in 1521, a Latin trans­la­tion of sev­er­al of the works of Aris­to­tle, which was shown by the Span­ish schol­ar Sepul­ve­da to be very in­cor­rect. He wrote a di­alogue en­ti­tled Medices Lega­tus, sive de Ex­ilio (1522), in con­nex­ion with which he was charged with pla­gia­rism by his per­son­al en­emy, Paulus Manu­tius. The ac­cu­sa­tion, which Tira­boschi has shown to be ground­less, was that he had tak­en the finest pas­sages in the work from Ci­cero’s lost trea­tise De Glo­ria, and had then de­stroyed the on­ly ex­ist­ing copy of the orig­inal in or­der to es­cape de­tec­tion. His con­tem­po­raries speak very un­favourably of Al­cio­nio, and ac­cuse him of haugh­ti­ness, un­couth man­ners, van­ity and li­cen­tious­ness.

AL­CI­PHRON, Greek rhetori­cian, was prob­ably a con­tem­po­rary of Lu­cian (2nd cen­tu­ry A.D..) He was the au­thor of a col­lec­tion of fic­ti­tious let­ters, of which 124 (118 com­plete and 6 frag­ments) have been pub­lished; they are writ­ten in the purest At­tic di­alect and are con­sid­ered mod­els of style. The scene is through­out at Athens; the imag­inary writ­ers are coun­try peo­ple, fish­er­men, par­asites and cour­te­sans, who ex­press their sen­ti­ments and opin­ions on fa­mil­iar sub­jects in el­egant lan­guage. The “cour­te­san” let­ters are es­pe­cial­ly valu­able, the in­for­ma­tion con­tained in them be­ing chiefly de­rived from the writ­ers of the New Com­edy, es­pe­cial­ly Menan­der.

EDI­TIONS.–Edi­tio prin­ceps (44 let­ters), 1499; Bergler (1715); Seil­er (1856); Hercher (1873); Schep­ers (1905). En­glish trans­la­tion by Mon­ro and Be­loe (1791).

AL­CI­RA, a town of east­ern Spain, in the province of Va­len­cia; on the left bank of the riv­er Ju­car, and on the Va­len­cia- Al­icante rail­way. Pop. (1900) 20,572. Al­ci­ra is a walled town, sur­round­ed by palm, or­ange and mul­ber­ry groves, and by low-​ly­ing rice-​swamps, which ren­der its neigh­bour­hood some­what un­healthy. Silk, fruit and rice are its chief prod­ucts. It is some­times iden­ti­fied w;th the Ro­man Saetabic­ula. In the mid­dle ages it was a pros­per­ous Moor­ish trad­ing-​sta­tion.

AL­CMAEON, of Ar­gos, in Greek leg­end, was the son of Am­phia­raus and Eri­phyle. When his fa­ther set out with the ex­pe­di­tion of the Sev­en against Thebes, which he knew would be fa­tal to him, he en­joined up­on his sons to avenge his death by slay­ing Eri­phyle and un­der­tak­ing a sec­ond ex­pe­di­tion against Thebes. Af­ter the de­struc­tion of Thebes by the Epigo­ni, Al­cmaeon car­ried out his fa­ther’s in­junc­tions by killing his moth­er, as a pun­ish­ment for which he was driv­en mad and pur­sued by the Erinyes from place to place. On his ar­rival at Psophis in Ar­ca­dia, he was pu­ri­fied by its king Phegeus, whose daugh­ter Ar­si­noe (or Alph­esi­boea) he mar­ried, mak­ing her a present of the fa­tal neck­lace and the pe­plus of Har­mo­nia. But the land was cursed with bar­ren­ness, and the or­acle de­clared that Al­cmaeon would nev­er find rest un­til he reached a spot on which the sun had nev­er shone at the time he slew his moth­er. Such a spot he found at the mouth of the riv­er Ach­elous, where an is­land had re­cent­ly been formed by the al­lu­vial de­posit; here he set­tled and, for­get­ting his wife Ar­si­noe, mar­ried Cal­lir­rhoe, the daugh­ter of the riv­er-​god. His new wife longed for the neck­lace and pe­plus, and Al­cmaeon, re­turn­ing to Psophis, ob­tained pos­ses­sion of them, on the pre­tence that he de­sired to ded­icate them at Del­phi. When the truth be­came known he was pur­sued and slain by Phegeus and his sons. Af­ter his death Al­cmaeon was wor­shipped at Thebes; his tomb was at Psophis in a grove of cy­press­es. His sto­ry was the sub­ject of an old epic and of sev­er­al tragedies, but none of these has been pre­served.

Homer, Odyssey xv. 248; Apol­lodor­us iii. 7; Thucy­dides ii, 68, 102; Pau­sa­nias vi­ii. 24, x. 10; Ovid, Metam. ix. 400 et seq.

AL­CMAEONIDAE, a no­ble Athe­ni­an fam­ily, claim­ing de­scent from Al­cmaeon, the great-​grand­son of Nestor, who em­igrat­ed from Py­los to Athens at the time of the Do­ri­an in­va­sion of Pelo­pon­nesus. Dur­ing the ar­chon­ship of an Al­cmaeonid Mega­cles (? 632 B.C.), Cy­lon, who had un­suc­cess­ful­ly at­tempt­ed to make him­self “tyrant”’ was treach­er­ous­ly mur­dered with his fol­low­ers. The curse or pol­lu­tion thus in­curred was fre­quent­ly in lat­er years raked up for po­lit­ical rea­sons; the Spar­tans even de­mand­ed that Per­icles should be ex­pelled as ac­cursed at the be­gin­ning of the Pelo­pon­nesian war. All the mem­bers of the fam­ily went in­to ban­ish­ment, and hav­ing re­turned in the time of Solon (594) were again ex­pelled (538) by Pei­si­stra­tus (q.v..) Their great wealth en­abled them dur­ing their ex­ile to en­hance their rep­uta­tion and se­cure the favour of the Del­phi­an Apol­lo by re­build­ing the tem­ple af­ter its de­struc­tion by fire in 548. Their im­por­tance is shown by the fact that Cleis­thenes, tyrant of Sicy­on, gave his daugh­ter Agariste in mar­riage to the Al­cmaeonid Mega­cles in pref­er­ence to all the as­sem­bled suit­ors af­ter the undig­ni­fied be­haviour of Hip­poclei­des. Un­der the states­man Cleis­thenes (q.v.), the is­sue of this union, the Al­cmaeonids be­came supreme in Athens about 510 B.C. To them was gen­er­al­ly at­tribut­ed (though Herodotus dis­be­lieves the sto­ry–see GREECE, An­cient His­to­ry, sect. “Au­thor­ities,” II.) the treach­er­ous rais­ing of the shield as a sig­nal to the Per­sians at Marathon, but, what­ev­er the truth of this may be, there can be lit­tle doubt that they were not the on­ly one of the great Athe­ni­an fam­ilies to make trea­son­able over­tures to Per­sia. Per­icles and Al­cib­iades were both con­nect­ed with the Al­cmaeonidae. Noth­ing is heard of them af­ter the Pelo­pon­nesian war.

See Herodotus vi. 121-131.

AL­CMAN, or AL­CMAEON (the for­mer be­ing the Doric form of the name), the founder of Doric lyric po­et­ry, to whom was as­signed the first place among the nine lyric po­ets of Greece in the Alexan­dri­an canon, flour­ished in the lat­ter half of the 7th cen­tu­ry B.C. He was a Ly­di­an of Sardis, who came as a slave to Spar­ta, where he lived in the fam­ily of Agesi­das, by whom he was eman­ci­pat­ed. His mas­tery of Greek shows that he must have come very ear­ly to Spar­ta, where, af­ter the close of the Messe­ni­an wars, the peo­ple were able to be­stow their at­ten­tion up­on the arts of peace. Al­cman com­posed var­ious kinds of po­ems in var­ious me­tres; Parthe­nia (maid­ens’ songs), hymns, paeans, proso­dia (pro­ces­sion­als), and love-​songs, of which he was con­sid­ered the in­ven­tor. He was ev­ident­ly fond of good liv­ing, and traces of Asi­at­ic sen­su­ous­ness seem out of place amidst Spar­tan sim­plic­ity. The frag­ments are scanty, the most con­sid­er­able be­ing part of a Parthe­nion found in 1855 on an Egyp­tian pa­pyrus; some re­cent­ly dis­cov­ered hex­am­eters are at­tribut­ed to Al­cman or Erin­na (Oxyrhynchus pa­pyri, i. 1898).

For gen­er­al au­thor­ities see AL­CAEUS.

AL­CMENE, in an­cient Greek mythol­ogy, the daugh­ter of Elec­try­on, king of Myce­nae, and wife of Am­phit­ry­on. She was the moth­er of Her­acles by Zeus, who as­sumed the like­ness of her hus­band dur­ing his ab­sence, and of Iph­icles by Am­phit­ry­on. She was re­gard­ed as the an­ces­tress of the Her­aclei­dae, and wor­shipped at Thebes and Athens.

See Win­ter, Alkmene und Am­phit­ry­on (1876).

AL­COBA­CA, a town of Por­tu­gal, in the dis­trict of Leiria, for­mer­ly in­clud­ed in the province of Es­tremadu­ra, on the Al­coa and Ba­ca rivers, from which it de­rives its name. Pop. (1900) 2309. Al­coba­ca is chiefly in­ter­est­ing for its Cis­ter­cian con­vent, now part­ly con­vert­ed in­to schools and bar­racks. The monas­tic build­ings, which form a square 725 ft. in di­am­eter, with a huge con­ical chim­ney ris­ing above them, were found­ed in 1148 and com­plet­ed in 1222. Dur­ing the mid­dle ages it ri­valled the great­est Eu­ro­pean abbeys in size and wealth. It was sup­plied with wa­ter by an af­flu­ent of the Al­coa, which still flows through the kitchen; its ab­bot ranked with the high­est Por­tuguese no­bles, and, ac­cord­ing to tra­di­tion, 999 monks con­tin­ued the cel­ebra­tion of mass with­out in­ter­mis­sion through­out the year. The con­vent was part­ly burned by the French in 1810, sec­ular­ized in 1834 and af­ter­wards grad­ual­ly re­stored. Por­tions of the li­brary, which com­prised over 100,000 vol­umes, in­clud­ing many pre­cious MSS., were saved in 1810, and are pre­served in the pub­lic li­braries of Lis­bon and Bra­ga. The monas­tic church (1222) is a good ex­am­ple of ear­ly Goth­ic, some­what de­faced by Moor­ish and oth­er ad­di­tions. It con­tains a fine clois­ter and the tombs of Pe­ter I. (1357-1367) and his wife, In­ez de Cas­tro.

AL­COCK, JOHN (c. 1430-1500), En­glish di­vine, was born at Bev­er­ley in York­shire and ed­ucat­ed at Cam­bridge. In 1461 he was made dean of West­min­ster, and hence­for­ward his pro­mo­tion was rapid in church and state. In the fol­low­ing year he was made mas­ter of the rolls, and in 1470 was sent as am­bas­sador to the court of Castile. He was con­se­crat­ed bish­op of Rochester in 1472 and was suc­ces­sive­ly trans­lat­ed to the sees of Worces­ter (1476) and Ely (1486). He twice held the of­fice of lord chan­cel­lor, and ex­hib­it­ed great abil­ity in the ne­go­ti­ations with James III. of Scot­land. He died at Wis­bech Cas­tle on the 1st of Oc­to­ber 1500. Al­cock was one of the most em­inent pre-​Ref­or­ma­tion di­vines; he was a man of deep learn­ing and al­so of great pro­fi­cien­cy as an ar­chi­tect. Be­sides found­ing a char­ity at Bev­er­ley and a gram­mar school at Kingston-​up­on-​Hull, he re­stored many church­es and col­leges; but his great­est en­ter­prise was the erec­tion of Je­sus Col­lege, Cam­bridge, which he es­tab­lished on the site of the for­mer Con­vent of St Radi­gund.

Al­cock’s pub­lished writ­ings, most of which are ex­treme­ly rare, are: Mons Per­fec­tio­nis, or the Hill of Per­fec­tion (Lon­don, 1497); Gal­li­con­tus Jo­han­nis Al­cock epis­copi Elien­sis ad frates su­os cu­ratos in sin­odo apud Barn­well (1498), a good spec­imen of ear­ly En­glish print­ing and quaint il­lus­tra­tions; The Cas­tle of Labour, trans­lat­ed from the French (1536), and var­ious oth­er tracts and hom­ilies. See J. Bass Mullinger’s Hist. of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cam­bridge, vol. i.

AL­COCK, SIR RUTHER­FORD (1809-1897), British con­sul and diplo­ma­tist, was the son of Dr Thomas Al­cock, who prac­tised at Eal­ing, near Lon­don, and him­self fol­lowed the med­ical pro­fes­sion. In 1836 he be­came a sur­geon in the ma­rine brigade which took part in the Carlist war, and gain­ing dis­tinc­tion by his ser­vices was made deputy in­spec­tor-​gen­er­al of hos­pi­tals. He re­tired from this ser­vice in 1837, and sev­en years lat­er was ap­point­ed con­sul at Fu­chow in Chi­na, where, af­ter a short of­fi­cial stay at Amoy, he per­formed the func­tions, as he him­self ex­pressed it, “of ev­ery­thing from a lord chan­cel­lor to a sher­iff’s of­fi­cer.” Fu­chow was one of the ports opened to trade by the treaty of 1842, and Mr Al­cock, as he then was, had to main­tain an en­tire­ly new po­si­tion with the Chi­nese au­thor­ities. In so do­ing he was em­inent­ly suc­cess­ful, and earned for him­self pro­mo­tion to the con­sulate at Shang­hai. Thith­er he went in 1846 and made it an es­pe­cial part of his du­ties to su­per­in­tend the es­tab­lish­ment, and lay­ing out of the British set­tle­ment, which has de­vel­oped in­to such an im­por­tant fea­ture of British com­mer­cial life in Chi­na. In 1858 he was ap­point­ed con­sul-​gen­er­al in the new­ly opened em­pire of Japan, and in the fol­low­ing year was pro­mot­ed to be min­is­ter plenipo­ten­tiary. In those days res­idence in Japan was sur­round­ed with many dan­gers, and the peo­ple were in­tense­ly hos­tile to for­eign­ers. In 1860 Mr Al­cock’s na­tive in­ter­preter was mur­dered at the gate of the lega­tion, and in the fol­low­ing year the lega­tion was stormed by a body of Ronins, whose at­tack was re­pulsed by Mr Al­cock and his staff. Short­ly af­ter this event he re­turned to Eng­land on leave. Al­ready he had been made a C.B. (1860); in 1862 he was made a K.C.B., and in 1863 hon. D.C.L. Ox­on. In 1864 he re­turned to Japan, and af­ter a year’s fur­ther res­idence he was trans­ferred to Pekin, where he rep­re­sent­ed the British gov­ern­ment un­til 1871, when he re­tired. But though no longer in of­fi­cial life his leisure was ful­ly oc­cu­pied. He was for some years pres­ident of the Roy­al Ge­ograph­ical So­ci­ety, and he served on many com­mis­sions. He was twice mar­ried, first in May 1841 to Hen­ri­et­ta Mary, daugh­ter of Charles Ba­con, who died in 1853, and sec­ond­ly (Ju­ly 8, 1862) to the wid­ow of the Rev. John Low­der, who died on the 13th of March 1899. He was the au­thor of sev­er­al works, and was one of the first to awak­en in Eng­land an in­ter­est in Japanese art; his best-​known book is The Cap­ital of the Ty­coon, which ap­peared in 1863. He died in Lon­don on the 2nd of Novem­ber 1897. (R. K. D.)

AL­CO­FORA­DO, MAR­IAN­NA (1640-1723), Por­tuguese au­thoress, writ­er of the Let­ters of a Por­tuguese Nun, was the daugh­ter of a land­ed pro­pri­etor in Alemte­jo. Be­ja, her birth­place, was the chief gar­ri­son town of that province, it­self the prin­ci­pal the­atre of the twen­ty-​eight years’ war with Spain that fol­lowed the Por­tuguese rev­olu­tion of 1640, and her wid­owed fa­ther, oc­cu­pied with ad­min­is­tra­tive and mil­itary com­mis­sions, placed Mar­ian­na in her child­hood in the wealthy con­vent of the Con­cep­tion for se­cu­ri­ty and ed­uca­tion. She made her pro­fes­sion as a Fran­cis­can nun at six­teen or ear­li­er, with­out any re­al vo­ca­tion, and lived a rou­tine life in that some­what re­laxed house un­til her twen­ty-​fifth year, when she met Noel Bou­ton. This man, af­ter­wards mar­quis de Chamil­ly, and mar­shal of France, was one of the French of­fi­cers who came to Por­tu­gal to serve un­der the great cap­tain, Fred­er­ick, Count Schomberg, the re-​or­ga­niz­er of the Por­tuguese army. Dur­ing the years 1665-1667 Chamil­ly spent much of his time in and about Be­ja, and prob­ably be­came ac­quaint­ed with the Al­co­fora­do fam­ily through Mar­ian­na’s broth­er, who was a sol­dier. Cus­tom then per­mit­ted re­li­gious to re­ceive and en­ter­tain vis­itors, and Chamil­ly, aid­ed by his mil­itary pres­tige and some flat­tery, found small dif­fi­cul­ty in be­tray­ing the trust­ful nun. Be­fore long their in­trigue be­came known and caused a scan­dal, and to avoid the con­se­quences Chamil­ly de­sert­ed Mar­ian­na and with­drew clan­des­tine­ly to France. The let­ters to her lover which have earned her renown in lit­er­ature were writ­ten be­tween De­cem­ber 1667 and June 1668, and they de­scribed the suc­ces­sive stages of faith, doubt and de­spair through which she passed. As a piece of un­con­scious psy­cho­log­ical self-​anal­ysis, they are un­sur­passed; as a prod­uct of the Penin­su­lar heart they are un­ri­valled. These five short let­ters writ­ten by Mar­ian­na to “ex­pos­tu­late her de­ser­tion” form one of the few doc­uments of ex­treme hu­man ex­pe­ri­ence, and re­veal a pas­sion which in the course of two cen­turies has lost noth­ing of its heat. Per­haps their dom­inant note is re­al­ity, and, sad read­ing as they are from the moral stand­point, their ab­so­lute can­dour, exquisite ten­der­ness and en­tire self-​aban­don­ment have ex­cit­ed the won­der and ad­mi­ra­tion of great men and wom­en in ev­ery age, from Madame de Se­vi­gne to W. E. Glad­stone. There are signs in the fifth let­ter that Mar­ian­na had be­gun to con­quer her pas­sion, and af­ter a life of rigid penance, ac­com­pa­nied by much suf­fer­ing, she died at the age of eighty-​three. The let­ters came in­to the pos­ses­sion of the comte de Guiller­agues, di­rec­tor of the Gazette de France, who turned them in­to French, and they were pub­lished anony­mous­ly in Paris in Jan­uary 1669. A Cologne edi­tion of the same year stat­ed that Chamil­ly was their ad­dressee, which is con­firmed by St Si­mon and Duc­los, but the name of their au­thoress re­mained un­di­vulged. In 1810, how­ev­er, Bois­son­ade dis­cov­ered Mar­ian­na’s name writ­ten in a copy of the first edi­tion by a con­tem­po­rary hand, and the ve­rac­ity of this as­crip­tion has been placed be­yond doubt by the re­cent in­ves­ti­ga­tions of Lu­ciano Cordeiro, who found a tra­di­tion in Be­ja con­nect­ing the French cap­tain and the Por­tuguese nun. The let­ters cre­at­ed a sen­sa­tion on their first ap­pear­ance, run­ning through five edi­tions in a year, and, to ex­ploit their pop­ular­ity, sec­ond parts, replies and new replies were is­sued from the press in quick suc­ces­sion. Notwith­stand­ing that the Por­tuguese orig­inal of the five let­ters is lost, their gen­uine­ness is as patent as the spu­ri­ous­ness of their fol­low­ers, and though Rousseau was ready to wa­ger they were writ­ten by a man, the prin­ci­pal crit­ics of Por­tu­gal and France have de­cid­ed against him. It is now gen­er­al­ly rec­og­nized that the let­ters are a ver­ba­tim trans­la­tion from the Por­tuguese.

The for­eign bib­li­og­ra­phy of the Let­ters, con­tain­ing al­most one hun­dred num­bers, will be found in Cordeiro’s ad­mirable study, Soror Mar­ian­na, A Friera Por­tugueza, 2nd ed. (Lis­bon, 1891). Be­sides the French edi­tions, ver­sions ex­ist in Dutch, Dan­ish, Ital­ian and Ger­man; and the En­glish bib­li­og­ra­phy is giv­en by Edgar Prestage in his trans­la­tion The Let­ters of a Por­tuguese Nun (Mar­ian­na Al­co­fora­do), 3rd ed. (Lon­don, 1903). The French text of the edi­tio prin­ceps was print­ed in the first edi­tion (1893) of this book. Ed­mund Gosse in the Fort­night­ly Re­view, vol. xlix. (old se­ries) p. 506, shows the con­sid­er­able in­flu­ence ex­er­cised by the Let­ters on the sen­ti­men­tal lit­er­ature of France and Eng­land. (E. PR.)

AL­CO­HOL, in Com­merce, the name gen­er­al­ly giv­en to “spir­its of wine”; in sys­tem­at­ic or­gan­ic chem­istry it has a wider mean­ing, be­ing the gener­ic name of a class of com­pounds (hy­droxy hy­dro­car­bons) of which or­di­nary al­co­hol (specif­ical­ly ethyl al­co­hol) is a typ­ical mem­ber (see AL­CO­HOLS.)

Et­ymol­ogy.

The word “al­co­hol” is of Ara­bic ori­gin, be­ing de­rived from the par­ti­cle al and the word kohl, an im­pal­pa­ble pow­der used in the East for paint­ing the eye­brows. For many cen­turies the word was used to des­ig­nate any fine pow­der; its present-​day ap­pli­ca­tion to the prod­uct of the dis­til­la­tion of wine is of com­par­ative­ly re­cent date. Thus Paracel­sus and Libav­ius both used the term to de­note a fine pow­der, the lat­ter speak­ing of an al­co­hol de­rived from an­ti­mo­ny. At the same time Paracel­sus us­es the word for a volatile liq­uid; al­cool Or al­cool vi­ni oc­curs of­ten in his writ­ings, and once he adds “id est vi­no ar­dente.” Oth­er names have been in use among the ear­li­er chemists for this same liq­uid. Eau de vie (“elixir of life”) was in use dur­ing the 13th and 14th cen­turies; Arnoldus Vil­lanovanus ap­plied it to the prod­uct of dis­tilled wine, though not as a spe­cif­ic name.

Ethyl al­co­hol.

Or­di­nary al­co­hol, which we shall fre­quent­ly re­fer to by its spe­cif­ic name, ethyl al­co­hol, sel­dom oc­curs in the veg­etable king­dom; the un­ripe seeds of Her­acleum gi­gan­teum and H. Spho­ndyli­um con­tain it mixed with ethyl bu­tyrate. In the an­imal king­dom it oc­curs in the urine of di­abet­ic pa­tients and of per­sons ad­dict­ed to al­co­hol. Its im­por­tant source lies in its for­ma­tion by the “spir­itu­ous” or “al­co­holic fer­men­ta­tion” of sac­cha­rine juices. The mech­anism of al­co­holic fer­men­ta­tion is dis­cussed in the ar­ti­cle FER­MEN­TA­TION, and the man­ufac­ture of al­co­hol from fer­ment­ed liquors in the ar­ti­cle SPIR­ITS.

The qual­ita­tive com­po­si­tion of ethyl al­co­hol was as­cer­tained by A. L. Lavoisi­er, and the quan­ti­ta­tive by N. T. de Saus­sure in 1808. Sir Ed­ward Fran­kland showed how it could be de­rived from, and con­vert­ed in­to, ethane; and thus de­ter­mined it to be ethane in which one hy­dro­gen atom was repi­aced by a hy­drox­yl group. Its con­sti­tu­tion­al for­mu­la is there­fore CH3.CH2.OH. It may be syn­thet­ical­ly pre­pared by any of the gen­er­al meth­ods de­scribed in the ar­ti­cle AL­CO­HOLS.

Pure ethyl al­co­hol is a colour­less, mo­bile liq­uid of an agree­able odour. It boils at 78.3 deg. C. (760 mm.); at -90 deg. C. it is a thick liq­uid, and at -130 deg. it so­lid­ifies to a white mass. Its high co­ef­fi­cient of ther­mal ex­pan­sion, cou­pled with its low freez­ing point, ren­ders it a valu­able ther­mo­met­ric flu­id, es­pe­cial­ly when the tem­per­atures to be mea­sured are be­low -39 deg. C., for which the mer­cury ther­mome­ter can­not be used. It read­ily in­flames, burn­ing with a blue smoke­less flame, and pro­duc­ing wa­ter and car­bon diox­ide, with the evo­lu­tion of great heat; hence it re­ceives con­sid­er­able ap­pli­ca­tion as a fu­el. It mix­es with wa­ter in all pro­por­tions, the mix­ing be­ing at­tend­ed by a con­trac­tion in vol­ume and a rise in tem­per­ature; the max­imum con­trac­tion cor­re­sponds to a mix­ture of 3 molecules of al­co­hol and 1 of wa­ter. Com­mer­cial al­co­hol or “spir­its of wine” con­tains about 90% of pure ethyl al­co­hol, the re­main­der be­ing wa­ter. This wa­ter can­not be en­tire­ly re­moved by frac­tion­al dis­til­la­tion, and to pre­pare an­hy­drous or “ab­so­lute” al­co­hol the com­mer­cial prod­uct must be al­lowed to stand over some de­hy­drat­ing agent, such as caus­tic lime, bary­ta, an­hy­drous cop­per sul­phate, &c., and then dis­tilled. Cal­ci­um chlo­ride must not be used, since it forms a crys­talline com­pound with al­co­hol. The quan­ti­ty of al­co­hol present in an aque­ous so­lu­tion is de­ter­mined by a com­par­ison of its spe­cif­ic grav­ity with stan­dard ta­bles, or di­rect­ly by the use of an al­co­holome­ter, which is a hy­drom­eter grad­uat­ed so as to read per cents by weight (de­grees ac­cord­ing to Richter) or vol­ume per cents (de­grees ac­cord­ing to Tralles). Oth­er meth­ods con­sist in de­ter­min­ing the vapour ten­sion by means of the va­por­ime­ter of Geissler, or the boil­ing point by the ebul­lio­scope. In the Unit­ed King­dom “proof spir­it” is de­fined as hav­ing a spe­cif­ic grav­ity at 51 deg. of 12/13 (.92308) com­pared with wa­ter at the same tem­per­ature. The “quan­ti­ty at proof” is giv­en by the for­mu­la:– quan­ti­ty of sam­ple X (de­grees over or un­der proof + 100) di­vid­ed by 100.

The pres­ence of wa­ter in al­co­hol may be de­tect­ed in sev­er­al ways. Aque­ous al­co­hol be­comes tur­bid when mixed with ben­zene, car­bon disul­phide or paraf­fin oil; when added to a so­lu­tion of bar­ium ox­ide in ab­so­lute al­co­hol, a white pre­cip­itate of bar­ium hy­drox­ide is formed. A more del­icate method con­sists in adding a very lit­tle an­thraquinone and sodi­um amal­gam; ab­so­lute al­co­hol gives a green col­oration, but in the pres­ence of minute traces of wa­ter a red col­oration ap­pears. Traces of ethyl al­co­hol in so­lu­tions are de­tect­ed and es­ti­mat­ed by ox­ida­tion to ac­etalde­hyde, or by con­ver­sion in­to iod­oform by warm­ing with io­dine and potas­si­um hy­drox­ide. An al­ter­na­tive method con­sists in con­vert­ing it in­to ethyl ben­zoate by shak­ing with ben­zoyl chlo­ride and caus­tic so­da.

Al­co­hol is ex­ten­sive­ly em­ployed as a sol­vent; in fact, this con­sti­tutes one of its most im­por­tant in­dus­tri­al ap­pli­ca­tions. It dis­solves most or­gan­ic com­pounds, resins, hy­dro­car­bons, fat­ty acids and many metal­lic salts, some­times form­ing, in the lat­ter case, crys­talline com­pounds in which the ethyl al­co­hol plays a role sim­ilar to that of wa­ter of crys­tal­liza­tion. This fact was first no­ticed by T. Gra­ham, and, al­though it was at first con­tra­dict­ed, its truth was sub­se­quent­ly con­firmed. In gen­er­al, gas­es dis­solve in it more read­ily than in wa­ter; 100 vol­umes of al­co­hol dis­solve 7 vol­umes of hy­dro­gen, 25 vol­umes of oxy­gen and 16 vol­umes of ni­tro­gen.

Re­ac­tions.

Potas­si­um and sodi­um read­ily dis­solve in ethyl al­co­hol with the pro­duc­tion of al­co­ho­lates of the for­mu­la C2 H5 OK(Na). These are vo­lu­mi­nous white pow­ders. Sul­phuric acid con­verts it in­to ethyl sul­phuric acid (see ETHER, and sul­phur tri­ox­ide gives car­byl sul­phate. The phos­pho­rous haloids give the cor­re­spond­ing ethyl haloid. Ethyl chlo­ride (from the phos­pho­rus chlo­rides and al­co­hol) is an ethe­re­al liq­uid boil­ing at 12.5 deg. C., sol­uble in al­co­hol, but spar­ing­ly so in wa­ter. Ox­ida­tion of ethyl al­co­hol gives ac­etalde­hyde and acetic acid. Chlo­rine ox­idizes it to ac­etalde­hyde, and un­der cer­tain con­di­tions chlo­ral (q.v.) is formed.

In­dus­tri­al al­co­hol.

In al­most all coun­tries heavy tax­es are levied on man­ufac­tured al­co­hol main­ly as a source of rev­enue. In the Unit­ed King­dom the ex­cise du­ty is eleven shillings per proof gal­lon of al­co­hol,