Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Armour Plates" to "Arundel, Earls of"

Vavasseur, _Chronique d'Arthur de Richemont_ (Paris, 1890). See also E. Cosneau, _Le Connetable de Richemont_ (Paris, 1886); G. du Fresne de Beaucourt, _Histoire de Charles VII._ (Paris, 1881, seq.). ARTHUR, CHESTER ALAN (1830-1886), twenty-first president of the United States, was born in Fairfield, Vermont, on the 5th of October 1830. His father, William Arthur (1796-1875), when eighteen years of age, emigrated from Co. Antrim, Ireland, and, after teaching in various places in Vermont and Lower Canada, became a Baptist minister. William Arthur had married Malvina Stone, an American girl who lived at the time of the marriage in Canada, and the numerous changes of the family residence afforded a basis for allegations in 1880 that the son Chester was born not in Vermont, but in Canada, and was therefore ineligible for the presidency. Chester entered Union College as a sophomore, and graduated with honour in 1848. He then became a schoolmaster, at the same time studying law. In 1853 he entered a law office in New York city, and in the following year was admitted to the bar. His reputation as a lawyer began with his connexion with the famous "Lemmon slave case," in which, as one of the special counsel for the state, he secured a decision from the highest state courts that slaves brought into New York while in transit between two slave states were _ipso facto_ free. In another noted case, in 1855, he obtained a decision that negroes were entitled to the same accommodations as whites on the street railways of New York city. In politics he was actively associated from the outset with the Republican party. When the Civil War began he held the position of engineer-in-chief on Governor Edwin D. Morgan's staff, and afterwards became successively acting quartermaster-general, inspector-general, and quartermaster-general of the state troops, in which capacities he showed much administrative efficiency. At the close of Governor Morgan's term, on the 31st of December 1862, General Arthur resumed the practice of his profession, remaining active, however, in party politics in New York city. In November 1871 he was appointed by President U.S. Grant collector of customs for the port of New York. The custom-house had long been conspicuous for the most flagrant abuses of the "spoils system"; and though General Arthur admitted that the evils existed and that they rendered efficient administration impossible, he made no extensive reforms. In 1877 President Rutherford B. Hayes began the reform of the civil service with the New York custom-house. A non-partisan commission, appointed by Secretary John Sherman, recommended sweeping changes. The president demanded the resignation of Arthur and his two principal subordinates, George H. Sharpe, the surveyor, and Alonzo B. Cornell, the naval officer, of the Port. General Arthur refused to resign on the ground that to retire "under fire" would be to acknowledge wrong-doing, and claimed that as the abuses were inherent in a widespread system he should not be made to bear the responsibility alone. His cause was espoused by Senator Roscoe Conkling, for a time successfully; but on the 11th of July 1878, during a recess of the Senate, the collector was removed, and in January 1879, after another severe struggle, this action received the approval of the Senate. In 1880 General Arthur was a delegate at large from New York to the Republican national convention. In common with the rest of the "Stalwarts," he worked hard for the nomination of Gen. U.S. Grant for a third term. Upon the triumph of James A. Garfield, the necessity of conciliating the defeated faction led to the hasty acceptance of Arthur for the second place on the ticket. His nomination was coldly received by the public; and when, after his election and accession, he actively engaged on behalf of Conkling in the great conflict with Garfield over the New York patronage, the impression was widespread that he was unworthy of his position. Upon the death of President Garfield, on the 19th of September 1881, Arthur took the oath as his successor. Contrary to the general expectation, his appointments were as a rule unexceptionable, and he earnestly promoted the Pendleton law for the reform of the civil service. His use of the veto in 1882 in the cases of a Chinese Immigration Bill (prohibiting immigration of Chinese for twenty years) and a River and Harbour Bill (appropriating over $18,000,000, to be expended on many insignificant as well as important streams) confirmed the favourable impression which had been made. The most important events of his administration were the passage of the Tariff Act of 1883 and of the "Edmunds Law" prohibiting polygamy in the territories, and the completion of three great trans-continental railways--the Southern Pacific, the Northern Pacific, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. His administration was lacking in political situations of a dramatic character, but on all questions that arose his policy was sane and dignified. In 1884 he allowed his name to be presented for renomination in the Republican convention, but he was easily defeated by the friends of James G. Blaine. At the expiration of his term he resumed his residence in New York city, where he died on the 18th of November 1886. For an account of his administration see UNITED STATES: _History_. ARTHURIAN LEGEND. By the "Arthurian legend," or _Matiere de Brelagne_, we mean the subject-matter of that important body of medieval literature known as the Arthurian cycle (see ARTHUR). The period covered by the texts in their present form represents, roughly speaking, the century 1150-1250. The _History_ of Nennius is, of course, considerably earlier, and that of Geoffrey of Monmouth somewhat antedates 1150 (1136), but with these exceptions the dates above given will be found to cover the composition of all our extant texts. As to the origin of this _Matiere de Bretagne_, and the circumstances under which it became a favourite theme for literary treatment, two diametrically opposite theories are held. One body of scholars, headed by Professor Wendelin Forster of Bonn, while admitting that, so far as any historic basis can be traced, the events recorded must have happened on insular ground, maintain that the knowledge of these events, and their romantic development, are due entirely to the Bretons of the continent. The British who fled before the Teutonic and Scandinavian invasions of the 6th and 8th centuries, had carried with them to Armorica, and fondly cherished, the remembrance of Arthur and his deeds, which in time had become interwoven with traditions of purely Breton origin. On the other side of the Channel, i.e. in Arthur's own land, these memories had died out, or at most survived only as the faint echo of historic tradition. Through the medium of French-speaking Bretons these tales came to the cognizance of Northern French poets, notably Chretien de Troyes, who wove them into romances. According to Professor Forster there were no Arthurian romances previous to Chretien, and equally, of course, no insular romantic tradition. This theory reposes mainly on the supposed absence of pre-Chretien poems, and on the writings of Professor H. Zimmer, who derives the Arthurian names largely from Breton roots. This represents the prevailing standpoint of German scholars, and may be called the "continental" theory. In opposition to this the school of which the late Gaston Paris was the leading, and most brilliant, representative, maintains that the Arthurian tradition, romantic equally with historic, was preserved in Wales through the medium of the bards, was by them communicated to their Norman conquerors, worked up into poems by the Anglo-Normans, and by them transmitted to the continental poets. This, the "insular" theory, in spite of its inherent probability, has hitherto been at a disadvantage through lack of positive evidence, but in a recently acquired MS. of the British Museum, Add. 36614, we find the first continuator of the _Perceval_, Wauchier de Denain, quoting as authority for stories of Gawain a certain Bleheris, whom he states to have been "born and bred in Wales." The identity of this Bleheris with the Bledhericus mentioned by Giraldus Cambrensis as _Famosus ille fabulator_, living at a bygone and unspecified date, and with the Breri quoted by Thomas as authority for the _Tristan_ story, has been fully accepted by leading French scholars. Further, on the evidence of certain MSS. of the _Perceval_, notably the Paris MS. (Bibl. Nat. 1450), it is clear that Chretien was using, and using freely, the work of a predecessor, large fragments of which have been preserved by the copyists who completed his unfinished work. The evidence of recent discoveries is all in favour of the insular, or French, view. So far as the character, as distinguished from the _provenance_, of this subject-matter is concerned, it is largely of folk-lore origin, representing the working over of traditions, in some cases (as e.g. in the account of Arthur's birth and upbringing) common to all the Aryan peoples, in others specifically Celtic. Thus there are a number of parallels between the Arthurian and the Irish heroic cycles, the precise nature of which has yet to be determined. So far as Arthur himself is concerned these parallels are with the Fenian, or Ossianic, cycle, in the case of Gawain with the Ultonian. In its literary form the cycle falls into three groups:--pseudo-historic: the _Histories_ of Nennius and Geoffrey, the _Brut_ of Wace and Layamon (see ARTHUR); poetic: the works of Chretien de Troyes, Thomas, Raoul de Houdenc and others (see GAWAIN, PERCEVAL, TRISTAN, and the writers named above); prose: the largest and most important group (see GRAIL, LANCELOT, MERLIN, TRISTAN). Of these three branches the prose romances offer the most insuperable problems; none can be dated with any certainty; all are of enormous length; and all have undergone several redactions. Of not one do we as yet possess a critical and comparative text, and in the absence of such texts the publication of any definite and detailed theory as to the evolution and relative position of the separate branches of the Arthurian cycle is to be deprecated. The material is so vast in extent, and in so chaotic a condition, that the construction of any such theory is only calculated to invite refutation and discredit. The best general study of the cycle is to be found in Gaston Paris's manual _La Litterature francaise au moyen age_ (new and revised edition, 1905). See also the introduction to vol. xxx. of _Histoire litteraire de la France_. For the theories as to origin, see the Introductions to Professor Forster's editions of the poems of Chretien de Troyes, notably that to vol. iv., _Der Karrenritter_, which is a long and elaborate restating of his position. Also Professor H. Zimmer's articles in _Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 12 and 20. For the Insular view, Ferd. Lot's "Etudes sur la provenance du cycle arthurien," _Romania_, vols. xxiv.-xxviii., are very valuable. For a popular treatment of the subject, cf. Nos. i. and iv. of _Popular Studies in Romance and Folk-lore_ (Nutt). Robert Huntington Fletcher's "The Arthurian Matter in the Chronicles" (vol. x. of _Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature_), is a most useful summary. (J. L. W.) ARTICHOKE. The common artichoke, _Cynara, scolymus_, is a plant belonging to the natural order Compositae, having some resemblance to a large thistle. It has long been esteemed as a culinary vegetable; the parts chiefly employed being the immature receptacle or floret disk, with the lower part of the surrounding leaf-scales, which are known as "artichoke bottoms." In Italy the receptacles, dried, are largely used in soups; those of the cultivated plant as _Carciofo domestico_, and of the wild variety as _Carciofo spinoso_. The Jerusalem artichoke, _Helianthus tuberosus_, is a distinct plant belonging to the same order, cultivated for its tubers. It closely resembles the sunflower, and its popular name is a corruption of the Italian _Girasole Articiocco_, the sunflower artichoke. It is a native of Canada and the north-eastern United States, and was cultivated by the aborigines. The tubers are rich in the carbohydrate inulin and in sugar. The name is derived from the northern Italian _articiocco_, or _arciciocco_, modern _carciofo_; these words come, through the Spanish, from the Arabic _al-kharshuf_. False etymology has corrupted the word in many languages: it has been derived in English from "choke," and "heart," or the Latin _hortus_, a garden; and in French, the form _artichaut_ has been connected with _chaud_, hot, and _chou_, a cabbage. ARTICLE (from Lat. _articulus_, a joint), a term primarily for that which connects two parts together, and so transferred to the parts thus joined; thus the word is used of the separate clauses or heads in contracts, treaties or statutes and the like; of a literary composition on some specific subject in a periodical; or of particular commodities, as in "articles of trade and commerce." It appears also in the phrase "in the article of death" to translate _in articulo mortis_, at the moment of death. In grammar the term is used of the adjectives which state the extension of a substantive, i.e. the number of individuals to which a name applies; the indefinite article denoting one or any of a particular class, the definite denoting a particular member of a class. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, in English company law, the regulations for the internal management of a joint stock company registered under the Companies Acts. They are, in fact, the terms of the partnership agreed upon by the shareholders among themselves. They regulate such matters as the transfer and forfeiture of shares, calls upon shares, the appointment and qualification of directors, their powers and proceedings, general meetings of the shareholders, votes, dividends, the keeping and audit of accounts, and other such matters. In regard to these internal regulations the legislature has left the company free to adopt whatever terms of association it chooses. It has furnished in the schedule to the Companies Act 1862 (Table A), a model or specimen set of regulations, but their adoption, wholly or in part, is optional; only if a company does not register articles of its own these statutory regulations are to apply. When, as is commonly the case, a company decides to have articles of its own framing, such articles must be expressed in separate paragraphs, numbered arithmetically, and signed by the subscribers of the memorandum of association. They must also be printed, stamped like a deed, and attested. When so perfected, they are to be delivered, with the memorandum of association, to the registrar of joint stock companies, who is to retain and register them. The articles of association thereupon become a public document, which any person may inspect on payment of a fee of one shilling. This has important consequences, because every person dealing with the company is presumed to be acquainted with its constitution, and to have read its articles. The articles, also, upon registration, bind the company and its members to the same extent as if each member had subscribed his name and affixed his seal to them. (See also MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION; COMPANY; INCORPORATION.) In the United States, articles of association are any instrument in writing which sets forth the purposes, the terms and conditions upon which a body of persons have united for the prosecution of a joint enterprise. When this instrument is duly executed and filed, the law gives it the force and effects of a charter of incorporation. ARTICULATA, a zoological name now obsolete, applied by Cuvier to animals, such as insects and worms, in which the body displays a jointed structure. (See ARTHROPODA.) ARTICULATION (from Lat. _articulare_, to divide into joints), the act of joining together; in anatomy the junction of the bones (see JOINTS); in botany the point of attachment and separation of the deciduous parts of a plant, such as a leaf. The word is also used for division into distinct parts, as of human speech by words or syllables. ARTILLERY (the O. Fr. _artiller_, to equip with engines of war, probably comes from Late Lat. _articulum_, dim. of _ars_, art, cf. "engine" from _ingenium_, or of _artus_, joint), a term originally applied to all engines for discharging missiles, and in this sense used in English in the early 17th century. In a more restricted sense, artillery has come to mean all firearms not carried and used by hand, and also the _personnel_ and organization by which the power of such weapons is wielded. It is, however, not usual to class _machine guns_ (q.v.) as artillery. The present article deals with the development and contemporary state of the artillery arm in land warfare, in respect of its organization, personnel and special or "formal" employment. For the _materiel_--the guns, their carriages and their ammunition--see ORDNANCE and AMMUNITION. For _ballistics_, see that heading, and for the work of artillery in combination with the other arms, see TACTICS. Artillery, as distinct from ordnance, is usually classified in accordance with the functions it has to perform. The simplest division is that into _mobile_ and _immobile_ artillery, the former being concerned with the handling of all weapons so mounted as to be capable of more or less easy movement from place to place, the latter with that of weapons which are installed in fixed positions. Mobile artillery is subdivided, again chiefly in respect of its employment, into _horse_ and _field_ batteries, _heavy field_ or _position_ artillery, _field howitzers, mountain artillery_ and _siege trains_, adapted to every kind of terrain in which field troops may be employed, and work they may have to do. Immobile artillery is used in fixed positions of all kinds, and above all in permanent fortifications; it cannot, therefore, be classified as above, inasmuch as the _raison d'etre_, and consequently the armament of one fort or battery may be totally distinct from that of another. "Fortress," "Garrison" and "Foot" artillery are the usual names for this branch. The dividing line, indeed, in the case of the heavier weapons, varies with circumstances; guns of position may remain on their ground while elaborate fortifications grow up around them, or the deficiencies of a field army in artillery may be made good from the _materiel_, more frequently still from the _personnel_, of the fortress artillery. Thus it may happen that mobile artillery becomes immobile and vice versa. But under normal circumstances the principle of classification indicated is maintained in all organized military forces. HISTORICAL SKETCH