2. LUCIUS CALPURNIUS BESTIA, one of the Catilinarian conspirators,

possibly a grandson of the above. He was tribune elect in 63, and it had been arranged that, after entering upon his office, he should publicly accuse Cicero of responsibility for the impending war. This was to be the signal for the outbreak of revolution. The conspiracy, however, was put down and Bestia had to content himself with delivering a violent attack upon the consul on the expiration of his office. This Bestia is probably not the Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, aedile, and a candidate for the praetorship in 57. He was accused of bribery during his candidature, and, in spite of Cicero's defence, was condemned. In 43 he attached himself to the party of Antony, apparently in the hope of obtaining the consulship. Sallust, _Catiline_, xvii. 43; Appian, _Bell. Civ._ ii. 3; Cicero, _Ad Q. Fr._ ii. 3, 6. BESTUZHEV-RYUMIN, ALEXIUS PETROVICH, COUNT (1693-1768), grand chancellor of Russia, the second son of Count Peter Bestuzhev, the early favourite of the empress Anne, was born at Moscow on the 1st of June 1693. Educated abroad, with his elder brother Mikhail, at Copenhagen and Berlin, he especially distinguished himself in languages and the applied sciences. Peter the Great, in 1712, attached him to Prince Kurakin at the Utrecht Congress that he might learn diplomacy, and for the same reason permitted him in 1713 to enter the service of the elector of Hanover. George I. took him to London in 1714, and sent him to St Petersburg as his accredited minister with a notification of his accession. Bestuzhev then returned to England, where he remained four years. It was the necessary apprenticeship to his brilliant diplomatic career. His passion for intrigue is curiously illustrated by his letter to the tsarevich Alexius at Vienna, assuring his "future sovereign" of his devotion, and representing his sojourn in England as a deliberate seclusion of a zealous but powerless well-wisher. This extraordinary indiscretion might well have cost him his life, but the tsarevich fortunately destroyed the letter.[1] On his return to Russia he served for two years without any salary as chief gentleman of the Bedchamber at the court of Anne of Courland, and in 1721 succeeded Vasily Dolgoruki as Russian minister at Copenhagen. Copenhagen was then a whirlpool of diplomatic intrigue, for George I. was endeavouring to arm the northern powers against Peter the Great, and this it was Bestuzhev's mission to counteract. On the occasion of the peace of Nystad, which terminated the 21 years war between Russia and Sweden, Bestuzhev designed and struck a commemorative medal with a panegyrical Latin inscription, which so delighted Peter (then at Derbent) that he sent a letter of thanks written with his own hand and his portrait set in brilliants. It was at this time too that the many-sided Alexius invented his famous "drops," or _tinctura toniconervina Bestuscheffi_, the recipe of which was stolen by the French brigadier Lamotte, who made his fortune by introducing it at the French court, where it was known as _Elixir d'Or_. The sudden death of Peter the Great seriously injured Bestuzhev's prospects. For more than ten years he remained at Copenhagen, looking vainly towards Russia as a sort of promised land from which he was excluded by enemies or rivals. He rendered some important services, however, to the empress Anne, for which he was decorated and made a privy councillor. He also won the favour of Biren, and on the tragic fall of Artemy Voluinsky in 1739 was summoned home to take his place in the council. He assisted Biren to obtain the regency in the last days of the empress Anne, but when his patron fell three weeks later, his own position became extremely precarious. His chance came when the empress Elizabeth, immediately after her accession, summoned him back to court, and appointed him vice-chancellor. For the next twenty years, during a period of exceptional difficulty, he practically controlled the foreign policy of Russia. Bestuzhev rightly recognized that, at this time, France was the natural enemy of Russia. The interests of the two states in Turkey, Poland and Sweden were diametrically opposed, and Russia could never hope to be safe from the intrigues of France in these three borderlands. All the enemies of France were thus necessarily the friends of Russia, and her friends Russia's enemies. Consequently Great Britain, and still more Austria, were Russia's natural allies, while the aggressive and energetic king of Prussia was a danger to be guarded against. It was, therefore, the policy of Bestuzhev to bring about a quadruple alliance between Russia, Austria, Great Britain and Saxony, to counterpoise the Franco-Prussian league. But he was on dangerous ground. The empress herself was averse from an alliance with Great Britain and Austria, whose representatives had striven to prevent her accession; and many of her personal friends, in the pay of France and Prussia, took part in innumerable conspiracies to overthrow Bestuzhev. Nevertheless, step by step, Bestuzhev, aided by his elder brother Mikhail, carried out his policy. On the 11th of December 1742, a defensive alliance was concluded between Great Britain and Russia. Bestuzhev had previously rejected with scorn the proposals of the French government to mediate between Russia and Sweden on the basis of a territorial surrender on the part of the former; and he conducted the war so vigorously that by the end of 1742 Sweden lay at the mercy of the empress. At the peace congress of Abo (January-August 1743) he insisted that the whole of Finland should be ceded to Russia, by way of completing the testament of Peter the Great. But the French party contrived to get better terms for Sweden, by artfully appealing to the empress's fondness for the house of Holstein. The Swedes, at the desire of Elizabeth, accepted Adolphus Frederick, duke of Holstein, as their future king, and, in return, received back Finland, with the exception of a small strip of land up to the river Kymmene. Nor could Bestuzhev prevent the signing of a Russo-Prussian defensive alliance (March 1743); but he deprived it of all political significance by excluding from it the proposed guarantee of Frederick's Silesian conquests. Moreover, through Bestuzhev's efforts, the credit of the Prussian king (whom he rightly regarded as more dangerous than France) at the Russian court fell steadily, and the vice-chancellor prepared the way for an alliance with Austria by acceding to the treaty of Breslau (1st of November 1743). A bogus conspiracy, however, got up by the Holstein faction, aided by France and Prussia, who persuaded Elizabeth that the Austrian ambassador was intriguing to replace Ivan VI. on the throne, alienated the empress from Austria for a time; and Bestuzhev's ruin was regarded as certain when, in 1743, the French agent, the marquis de La Chetardie, arrived to reinforce his other enemies. But he found a friend in need in M.L. Vorontsov, the empress's confidant, who shared his political views. Still his position was most delicate, especially when the betrothal between the grand-duke Peter and Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst (afterwards Catharine II.) was carried through against his will, and Elizabeth of Holstein, the mother of the bride, arrived in the Prussian interests to spy upon him. Frederick II., conscious of the instability of his French ally, was now eager to contract an offensive alliance with Russia; and the first step to its realization was the overthrow of Bestuzhev, "upon whom," he wrote to his minister Axel von Mardefeld, "the fate of Prussia and my own house depends." But Bestuzhev succeeded, at last, in convincing the empress that Chetardie was an impudent intriguer, and on the 6th of June 1744, that diplomatist was ordered to quit Russia within twenty-four hours. Five weeks later Bestuzhev was made grand chancellor (July 15th). Before the end of the year Elizabeth of Holstein was also expelled from Russia, and Bestuzhev was supreme. The attention of European diplomacy at this time was concentrated upon the king of Prussia, whose insatiable acquisitiveness disturbed all his neighbours. Bestuzhev's offer, communicated to the British government at the end of 1745, to attack Prussia if Great Britain would guarantee subsidies to the amount of some L6,000,000, was rejected as useless now that Austria and Prussia were coming to terms. Then he turned to Austria, and on the 22nd of May 1746, an offensive and defensive alliance was concluded between the two powers manifestly directed against Prussia. In 1747, alliances were also concluded with Denmark and the Porte. At the same time Bestuzhev resisted any rapprochement with France, and severely rebuked the court of Saxony for its intrigues with that of Versailles. About this time he was hampered by the persistent opposition of the vice-chancellor Mikhail Vorontsov, formerly his friend, now his jealous rival, who was secretly supported by Frederick the Great. In 1748, however, he got rid of him by proving to the empress that Vorontsov was in the pay of Prussia. The hour of Bestuzhev's triumph coincided with the peace congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, which altered the whole situation of European politics and introduced fresh combinations, the breaking away of Prussia from France and a rapprochement between England and Prussia, with the inevitable corollary of an alliance between France and the enemies of Prussia. Bestuzhev's violent political prejudices at first prevented him from properly recognizing this change. Passion had always been too large an ingredient in his diplomacy. His Anglomania also misled him. His enemies, headed by his elder brother Mikhail and the vice-chancellor Vorontsov, powerless while his diplomacy was faultless, quickly took advantage of his mistakes. When, on the 16th of January 1756, the Anglo-Prussian, and on the 2nd of May the Franco-Austrian alliances were concluded, Vorontsov advocated the accession of Russia to the latter league, whereas Bestuzhev insisted on a subsidy treaty with Great Britain. But his influence was now on the wane. The totally unexpected Anglo-Prussian alliance had justified the arguments of his enemies that England was impossible, while his hatred of France prevented him from adopting the only alternative of an alliance with her. To prevent underground intrigues, Bestuzhev now proposed the erection of a council of ministers, to settle all important affairs, and at its first session (14th-30th of March) an alliance with Austria, France and Poland against Frederick II. was proposed, though Bestuzhev opposed any composition with France. He endeavoured to support his failing credit by a secret alliance with the grand-duchess Catherine, whom he proposed to raise to the throne instead of her Holstein husband, Peter, from whom Bestuzhev expected nothing good either for himself or for Russia. The negotiations were conducted through the Pole Stanislaus Poniatowski. The accession of Russia to the anti-Prussian coalition (1756) was made over his head, and the cowardice and incapacity of Bestuzhev's friend, the Russian commander-in-chief, Stephen Apraksin, after the battle of Gross-Jagersdorf (1757), was made the pretext for overthrowing the chancellor. His unwillingness to agree to the coalition was magnified into a determination to defeat it, though it is quite obvious that he could only gain by the humiliation of Frederick, and nothing was ever proved against him. Nevertheless he was deprived of the chancellorship and banished to his estate at Goretovo (April 1759), where he remained till the accession of Catharine II., who recalled him to court and created him a field marshal. But he took no leading part in affairs and died on the 21st of April 1768, the last of his race. See _The Sbornik of the Russian Historical Society_, vols. 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 22, 26, 66, 79, 80, 81, 85-86, 91-92, 96, 99, 100, 103 (St Petersburg, 1870, &c.); _Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen_, vols. 1-21 (Berlin, 1879-1904.); R. Nisbet Bain, _The Daughter of Peter the Great_ (London, 1899). (R. N. B.) FOOTNOTE: [1] A copy of the letter was taken by way of precaution, beforehand, by the Austrian ministers, and this copy is still in the Vienna archives. BESTUZHEV-RYUMIN, MIKHAIL PETROVICH, COUNT (1688-1760), Russian diplomatist, elder brother of the foregoing, was educated at Berlin, and was sent by Peter the Great to represent Russia at Copenhagen in 1705. In 1720 he was appointed resident at London at a time when the English court was greatly inflamed against Peter, who was regarded as a dangerous rival in the Baltic; and Bestuzhev was summarily dismissed for protesting against the lately-formed Anglo-Swedish alliance. On the conclusion of the peace of Nystad in 1721 he was sent as ambassador to the court of Stockholm. His first official act was the signing of a defensive alliance between Russia and Sweden for twelve years, in 1724. He was successively transferred to Warsaw (1726) and to Berlin (1730), but returned to Stockholm in 1732. How far Bestuzhev was concerned in the murder (June 28th, 1739) of the Swedish diplomatic agent Sinclair in Silesia on his journey home from Constantinople, it is difficult to say. It is certain that Bestuzhev sent information to his court of Sinclair's mission, which was supposed to be hostile to Russia, and even supplied the portrait of the envoy for recognition. The Swedish authorities are unanimous in describing Bestuzhev as the arch-plotter in this miserable affair; yet, while the active agents were banished to Siberia, Bestuzhev was not even censured. The Sinclair murder led ultimately to the Swedish-Russian War of 1741, when Bestuzhev was transferred first to Hamburg and subsequently to Hanover, where he endeavoured to conclude an alliance between Great Britain and Russia. On his return to Russia in 1743, he was made grand marshal, and married Anna, the widow of Paul Yaguzhinsky, Peter the Great's famous pupil. A few months later his wife was implicated in a bogus conspiracy got up by the French ambassador, the marquis de La Chetardie, to ruin the Bestuzhevs (see BESTUZHEV-RYUMIN, ALEXIUS), and after a public whipping, had her tongue cut out and was banished to Siberia. Thither Bestuzhev had not the manhood to follow her, but went abroad, and subsequently resumed his diplomatic career. His last and most brilliant mission was to Versailles, shortly after the conclusion of the coalition against Frederick the Great, where he cut a great figure. He died at Paris on the 26th of February 1760. See Robert Nisbet Bain, _The Daughter of Peter the Great_ (London, 1899); Mikhail Sergyievich, _History of Russia_ (Rus.), vols. xv.-xxii. (2nd ed., St Petersburg, 1897). (R. N. B.) BET and BETTING (probably from O. Fr. _abeter_, to instigate, Eng. "abet," i.e. with money). To "bet" is to stake money or something valuable on some future contingency. Betting in some form or other has been in vogue from the earliest days, commencing in the East with royal and noble gamblers, and gradually extending itself westwards and throughout all classes. In all countries where the English tongue is spoken betting is now largely indulged in; and in the United Kingdom it spread to such an extent amongst all grades of society, during the 19th century, that the interference of the legislature was necessary (see GAMING AND WAGERING). Bets can, of course, be made on any subject, and are a common method of backing one's opinion or skill, whether at games of cards or in any other connexion; but the commonest form of betting is associated with the turf. In the early days of horse-racing persons who wished to bet often failed to gratify their inclination because of the difficulty of finding any one ready to wager. To obviate this difficulty the professional bookmaker arose. It was perceived that if a man laid money against a number of horses, conducting his business on discreet principles, he would in all probability receive enough to pay the bettor who was successful and to leave a surplus for himself; for the "bookmaker," as the professional betting man came to be called, had enormous advantages in his favour. He was presumably shrewd and wary, whereas many of those with whom he dealt were precisely the opposite, and benefit arose to him from the mistakes and miscalculations of owners and trainers of horses, and from the innumerable accidents which occur to prevent anticipated success; moreover, if he carried out the theory of his calling he would so arrange his book, by what is called "betting to figures," that the money he received would be more than he could possibly be called upon to pay. In practice, of course, this often does not happen, because "backers" will sometimes support two or three horses in a race only, and the success of one may result in loss to the bookmaker; but in the long run it has been almost invariably found that the bookmaker grows rich and that the backer of horses loses money. It is the bookmaker who regulates the odds, and this he does, sometimes by anticipating, sometimes by noting, the desire of backers to support certain animals. Such things as stable secrets can scarcely be said to exist at the present time; the bookmaker is usually as well able as any one else to estimate the chances of the various horses engaged in races. Notwithstanding that the reports of a trial gallop are of comparatively little value to any except the few persons who know what weights the animals carried when tried, the bookmaker is extraordinarily keen, and frequently successful, in his search for information; and on this the odds depend. Betting in connexion with horse-racing is of two kinds: "post," when wagering does not begin until the numbers of the runners are hoisted on the board; and "ante-post," when wagering opens weeks or months before the event; though of this latter there is far less than was formerly the case, doubtless for the reason that before the introduction of so many new and valuable stakes attention was generally concentrated on a comparatively small number of races. Bets on the Derby, the Oaks and the St Leger were formerly common nearly a year before the running of the races, and a few handicaps, such as the Chester Cup, used to occupy attention months beforehand; the weights, of course, being published at a much longer interval prior to the contest than is at present the rule. As regards ante-post betting, bookmakers have their own ideas as to the relative prospects of the horses entered. A person who wishes to back a horse asks the price, and accepts or declines, as the case may be. If the bet is laid it will probably be quoted in the newspapers, and other persons who propose to wager on the race are so likely to follow suit that it is shrewdly suspected that in not a few cases bets are quoted which never have been laid, in order to induce the backers to speculate. According to the public demand for a horse the price shortens. If there is little or no demand the odds increase, the market being almost entirely regulated by the money; so that if a great many people bet on a certain animal the odds become shorter and shorter, till in many cases instead of laying odds against a horse, the bookmaker comes to take odds, that is, to agree to pay a smaller sum than he would receive from the backer if the animal lost. Post betting is conducted on very much the same principles. When the numbers are hoisted bookmakers proclaim their readiness to lay or take certain odds, which vary according to the demand for the different animals. Backers are influenced by many considerations: by gossip, by the opinions of writers on racing, and in many cases, unfortunately, by the advice of "tipsters," who by advertisements and circulars profess their ability to indicate winners, a pretence which is obviously absurd, as if these men possessed the knowledge they claim, they would assuredly keep it to themselves and utilize it for their own private purposes. The specious promises of such men do infinite mischief, as they so often appeal with success to the folly and gullibility of the ignorant, and in recent years the extent to which betting has grown has resulted in attempts to check it by organized means. A society for the purpose was formed in England called the Anti-Gambling League. A bookmaker named Dunn was summoned in 1897 for betting in Tattersall's enclosure, which it was contended contravened the Betting House Act of 1853. This act had been aimed against what were known as "list houses," establishments then kept by bookmakers for betting purposes, and associated with many disgraceful scandals. In the preamble to his bill Lord Cockburn began by remarking that "Whereas a new form of betting has of late sprung up," and the Anti-Gambling League sought to argue that this included a form of betting which had not sprung up of late but had on the contrary been carried on without interference for many generations. The divisional court of the queen's bench (_Hawke v. Dunn_, 13 T.L.R. 281) held that such betting was an infringement of the act, and that the enclosure was a "place" within the meaning of the act, and had been used by the respondent for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto, and that he was liable to be Convicted. The case was remitted to the justices, who convicted the defendant. A somewhat similar case was decided on the same day (_M'Inany v. Hildreth_, 1897, 13 T.L.R. 285), in which it was held that a professional bookmaker who went to a place known as the "pit heap" at Jarrow, to which the public had access at all times, and made bets with persons assembled there, was properly convicted, and that the "pit heap" itself and the place where he stood were "places" within the meaning of the act. It was afterwards held by the court of appeal (_Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co., Ltd._, 1897, 2 Q.B. 242), in an action brought to restrain a racecourse company from opening or keeping an enclosure on a racecourse by allowing it to be used by bookmakers, that the words "other place" must be construed as meaning a defined place, that the user of such a place implied some exclusive right in the user against others, and that the racecourse owners had not been guilty of permitting the enclosure to be used in the manner prohibited by the act of 1853. The decision in _Hawke v. Dunn_ was disapproved of; and the House of Lords afterwards affirmed the decision of the court of appeal. The Street Betting Act 1906 enacted that any person frequenting or loitering in streets or public places for the purpose of bookmaking, or betting, or wagering, should be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, in the case of a second offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a third or subsequent offence, or in any case where he is proved to have committed the offence of having a betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years, to a fine, on conviction on indictment, not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months. On summary conviction the fine is a sum not exceeding thirty pounds or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months. A wide definition is given to the words "street" and "public place," and racecourses are expressly exempted from the operation of the act. On all French racecourses (since 1866), as on others nearly everywhere else on the continent, and likewise in the British colonies, a system of betting known as the _Pari-Mutuel_ or Totalizator, is carried on. Rows of offices are established behind or near the stands, on each of which lists are exhibited containing the numbers of the horses that are to run in the coming race. At some of these the minimum wager is five francs, at others ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred, five hundred and in some cases a thousand. The person who proposes to bet goes to the clerk at one of these offices, mentions the number, as indicated on the card, of the horse he wishes to back, and states whether he desires to bet on it to win or for a place only. He receives a voucher for his money. After the race the whole amount collected at the various offices is put together and divided after a percentage has been deducted for the administration and for the poor. As soon as this has been done, the money is divided and the prices to be paid to winners are exhibited on boards. These prices are calculated on a unit of ten francs. Thus, for instance, if the winner is notified as bringing in twenty-five francs, the meaning is that the backer receives his original stake of ten and fifteen in addition, the money being paid immediately by another clerk attached to the office at which the bet was made. The great French municipalities derive considerable revenue in relief of rates from the _Paris Mutuels_. In Japan this system was made illegal in 1908. BETAINE (OXYNEURINE, LYCINE), C5H13NO3, a substance discovered in the sugar beet (_Beta vulgaris_) in 1869 by C. Scheibler (_Ber._, 1869, 2, p. 292). It is also found in cotton seed, in the vetch and in wheat sprouts (E. Schulz and S. Frankfurt, _Ber._, 1893, 26, p. 2151). It may be synthetically prepared by oxidizing choline with chromic acid (O. Liebreich, _Ber._, 1869, 2, 13), (CH3)3N(OH).CH2.CH2OH --> C5H13NO3 + H2O; by heating trimethylamine with monochloracetic acid (Liebreich), (CH3)3N + CH2Cl.COOH = (CH3)3N(Cl).CH2.COOH (betaine hydrochloride); and by heating amino-acetic acid (glycocoll) with methyl iodide in the presence of an alkali (P. Griess, _Ber._, 1875, 8, p. 1406). It crystallizes from alcohol in large deliquescent crystals; and is readily soluble in water, but insoluble in ether. It is a weak base. As is shown by the various syntheses of the base, it is the methyl hydroxide of dimethyl glycocoll. This free base readily loses water on heating and gives an internal anhydride of constitution /CH2\ (CH3)3N CO, \ O / which is the type of the so-called "betaines." These organic betaines are internal anhydrides of carboxylic acids, which contain an ammonium hydroxide group in the [alpha]-position. A. Hantzsch (_Ber._, 1886, 19, p. 31) prepared the betaines of nicotinic, picolinic and collidine carboxylic acids from the potassium salts of the acids, by treatment with methyl iodide, followed by moist silver oxide. The reaction may be shown as follows:-- /\ /\ /\ / \ CO2K / \ CO2CH3 / \ __CO | | | | | | | | | --> | | --> | | | | | | | | | | \\ / \\ / \\ / | \\/ \\/ \\/ | N H3C-N-I H3C-N----O The methyl betaine of nicotinic acid is identical with the alkaloid _trigonelline_, which was discovered in 1885 by E. Jahns in the seeds of _Trigonella faenum-graecum_ (_Ber._, 1885, 18, p. 2518). It has also been obtained from nicotine by A. Pictet by oxidizing the methyl hydroxide of nicotine with potassium permanganate (_Ber._, 1897, 30, p. 2117). Substances closely related to betaine are choline, neurine and muscarine. Choline (bilineurine, sincaline), (Gr. [Greek: cholae], bile), C5H15NO2 or HO.CH2.CH2.N(CH3)3.OH, first isolated by A. Strecker in 1862 (_Ann._ 123, p. 353; 148, p. 76), is found in the bile, in brain substance, and in yolk of egg in the form of lecithin, a complex ester of glycerin with phosphoric acid and the fatty acids. It is also found in combination with sinapic acid in sinapin, the glucoside obtained from white mustard, and can be obtained from this glucoside by hydrolysis with baryta water, C16H23NO5 + 2H2O = C5H15NO2 + C11H12O5. Sinapin. Choline. Sinapic acid. It can be synthetically prepared by the action of trimethylamine on an aqueous solution of ethylene oxide (A. Wurtz, _Ann. Suppl._, 1868, 6, p. 201). It forms deliquescent crystals of strongly alkaline reaction, and absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. It is not poisonous. By continued boiling of its aqueous solution, it is resolved into glycol and trimethylamine. Neurine, trimethyl vinyl ammonium hydroxide (Gr. [Greek: neuron], nerve), CH2 : CH.N(CH3)3.OH, is a product of the putrefaction of albumen. It may be prepared by the action of moist silver oxide on ethylene dibromide and trimethylamine, CH2Br.CH2Br --> CH2Br.CH2N(CH3)3Br --> CH2 : CH.N(CH3)3.OH. It is a crystalline solid, very soluble in water, and is strongly basic and very poisonous. Muscarine, C5H15NO3, is an exceedingly poisonous substance found in many fungi. It may be obtained synthetically by oxidizing choline with dilute nitric acid (O. Schmiedeberg, _Jahresb._, 1876, p. 804). The exact constitution has not yet been definitely determined. BETEL NUT. The name betel is applied to two different plants, which in the East are very closely associated in the purposes to which they are applied. The betel nut is the fruit of the Areca or betel palm, _Areca Catechu_, and the betel leaf is the produce of the betel vine or pan, _Chavica Betel_, a plant allied to that which yields black pepper. The Areca palm is a native of the Malay Peninsula and Islands and is extensively cultivated over a wide area in the East, including southern India, Ceylon, Siam, the Malay Archipelago and the Philippine Islands. It is a graceful tree with a straight, slender, unbranched stem reaching 40 or 50 ft. in height and about 1-1/2 ft. in circumference, and bearing a crown of 6-9 very large spreading pinnate fronds. The fruit is about the size of a small hen's egg, and within its fibrous rind is the seed or so-called nut, the albumen of which is very hard and has a prettily mettled grey and brown appearance. The chief purpose for which betel nuts are cultivated and collected is for use as a masticatory,--their use in this form being so widespread among Oriental nations that it is estimated that one-tenth of the whole human family indulge in betel chewing. For this use the fruits are annually gathered between the months of August and November, before they are quite ripe, and deprived of their husks. They are prepared by boiling in water, cutting up into slices, and drying in the sun, by which treatment the slices assume a dark brown or black colour. When chewed a small piece is wrapped up in a leaf of the betel vine or pan, with a pellet of shell lime or chunam; and in some cases a little cardamom, turmeric or other aromatic is added. The mastication causes a copious flow of saliva of a brick-red colour, which dyes the mouth, lips and gums. The habit blackens the teeth, but it is asserted by those addicted to it that it strengthens the gums, sweetens the breath and stimulates the digestive organs. Among the Orientals betel is offered on ceremonial visits in the same manner as wine is produced on similar occasions by Europeans. Betel nuts are further used as a source of catechu, which is procured by boiling the nuts in water. The water of the first boiling becomes red and thick, and when this is inspissated after the removal of the nuts it forms a catechu of high astringency and dark colour called in Bombay "Kossa." The nuts are again boiled, and the inspissated juice of the second decoction yields a weaker catechu of a brown or reddish colour. Betel nuts have been used by turners for ornamental purposes, and for coat buttons on account of the beauty of their structure. At one time they were supposed to be useful as a vermifuge. The nuts of other species of _Areca_ are used by the poorer classes in the East as substitutes for the genuine betel nut. The alkaloid arecaidine, C7H11NO2, occurs in areca or betel nuts, together with three other alkaloids: arecoline, C8H13NO2, guvacine, C6H9NO2, and arecaine, C7H11NO2. Arecaidine forms white crystals easily soluble in water, and difficultly soluble in alcohol. Chemically it is methyl-tetrahydro-nicotinic acid. Dehydration results in the formation of a "betaine," which is a tetrahydro-trigonelline (see BETAINE). Arecoline is an oil, and the physiological action of the betel nut is alone due to this substance. Chemically it is the methyl ester of arecaidine. Guvacine, named from "guvaca," an Indian designation of the betel palm, forms white crystals. It is a secondary base, but its constitution is uncertain. Arecaine is n-methyl-guvacine. BETHANY (mod. _el-'Azariyeh_), a village nearly 2 m. E.S.E. from Jerusalem, on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, 2208 ft. above the sea. It is interesting as the residence of Lazarus and his sisters, and a favourite retreat of Jesus (see especially John xi., which describes the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus at this place). From the 4th century down to the time of the Mahommedan invasion several ecclesiastical buildings were erected on the spot, but of these no distinct traces remain. El-'Azariyeh is a poor village of about thirty families, with few marks of antiquity; there is no reason to believe that the houses of Mary and Martha and of Simon the Leper, or the sepulchre of Lazarus, still shown by the monks, have any claim to the names they bear. Another Bethany (with the alternative reading Bethabara) is mentioned in John i. 28, as "beyond Jordan"; it has not been identified. BETHEL (Heb. "House of God"), originally called _Luz_, an ancient city of Palestine, on the N.W. border of the tribe of Benjamin, 11 m. N. of Jerusalem and nearly 2900 ft. above sea-level. From very early times it was a holy place, a circumstance probably due primarily to a very extraordinary group of boulders and rock-outcrops north of the town. Abraham recognized its sanctity (Gen. xii. 8); Jacob, in ignorance, slept in the sacred enclosure and was granted a vision ("Jacob's ladder," Gen. xxviii). For a while the ark seems to have been deposited here (Judg. xx. 27), and it was a place for consulting the oracle (Judg. xx. 18). At the secession of the northern kingdom under Jeroboam, Bethel became a royal residence and a national shrine (1 Kings xii. 29-31, Amos vii. 13), for which its position at the junction of main roads from N. to S. and E. to W. well fitted it. It was taken from Jeroboam by Abijah, king of Judah (2 Chr. xiii. 19). It seems to have continued to flourish down into the Christian era; remains of its ecclesiastical buildings still exist. The present village, which bears the name of Beitin, occupies about three or four acres, and has a population of 2000. BETHENCOURT, JEAN DE (c. 1360-1422), French explorer, belonged to a noble family of Normandy, and held important offices at the court of Charles VI., king of France. His spirit was fired by hearing of the deeds of explorers and adventurers, and having formed a plan to conquer the Canary Islands he raised some money by pledging his Norman estates, and sailed from La Rochelle on the 1st of May 1402 with two ships, commanded by himself and Gadifer de la Salle. He was delayed by a mutiny off the coast of Spain, but reached the island of Lanzarote in July. Unable to carry out his project of conquest, he left his men at the Canaries and went to seek help at the court of Castile. He obtained men and provisions from Henry III. king of Castile, through the good offices of his uncle, Robert de Braquemont, who had considerable influence with Henry; he also received the title of king, and did homage to Henry for his future conquests. Returning to the Canaries in 1404 he found that Gadifer de la Salle had conquered Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, and explored other islands. La Salle, unwilling to accept a position of inferiority, left the Canaries and appealed unsuccessfully for redress at the court of Castile. Bethencourt was unable to complete his work of conquest and exploration. In 1405 he visited Normandy, and returned with fresh colonists who occupied Hierro. In December 1406 he left the islands to the government of his nephew, Maciot de Bethencourt, reserving for himself the royal title and a share in any profits obtained. He returned to Normandy, where he appears to have spent the remainder of his days. He died in 1422, and was buried in the church of Grainville-la-Teinturiere. Bethencourt wrote a very untrustworthy account of his "conquest of the Canary Islands," _Le Canarien, livre de la conquete et conversion ses Canaries_. This has been published with