5. Lankester, "Observations and Reflections on the Appendages and

Nervous System of Apus Cancriformis," _Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci._ vol. xxi. (1881); 6. Hofer, "Ein Krebs mit einer Extremitat statt eines Stielauges," _Verhandl. d. deutschen zool. Gesellsch._ (1894); 7. Watase, "On the Morphology of the Compound Eyes of Arthropods," _Studies from the Biol. Lab. of the Johns Hopkins University_, vol. iv. pp. 287-334; 8. Benham describes backward shifting of the oral aperture in certain Chaetopods, _Proc. Zoolog. Soc. London_ (1900), No. lxiv. p. 976. N.B.--References to the early literature concerning the group Arthropoda will be found in Carus, _Geschichte der Zoologie_. The more important literature up to 1892 is given in the admirable treatise on Embryology by Professors Korschelt and Heider. Detailed references will be found under the articles on the separate groups of Arthropoda. (E. R. L.) FOOTNOTES: [1] The group Arthropoda itself, thus constituted, was precisely identical in its area with the Insecta of Linnaeus, the Entoma of Aristotle. But the word "Insect" had become limited since the days of Linnaeus to the Hexapod Pterygote forms, to the exclusion of his Aptera. Lamarck's penetrating genius is chiefly responsible for the shrinkage of the word Insecta, since it was he who, forty years after Linnaeus's death, set up and named the two great classes Crustacea and Arachnida (included by Linnaeus under Insecta as the order "Aptera"), assigning to them equal rank with the remaining Insecta of Linnaeus, for which he proposed the very appropriate class-name "Hexapoda." Lamarck, however, appears not to have insisted on this name Hexapoda, and so the class of Pterygote Hexapods came to retain the group-name Insecta, which is, historically or etymologically, no more appropriate to them than it is to the classes Crustacea and Arachnida. The tendency to retain the original name of an old and comprehensive group for one of the fragments into which such group becomes divided by the advance of knowledge--instead of keeping the name for its logical use as a comprehensive term, including the new divisions, each duly provided with a new name--is most curiously illustrated in the history of the word physiology. Cicero says, "Physiologia naturae ratio," and such was the meaning of the name _Physiologus_, given to a cyclopaedia of what was known and imagined about earth, sea, sky, birds, beasts and fishes, which for a thousand years was the authoritative source of information on these matters, and was translated into every European tongue. With the revival of learning, however, first one and then another special study became recognized--anatomy, botany, zoology, mineralogy, until at last the great comprehensive term physiology was bereft of all its once-included subject-matter, excepting the study of vital processes pursued by the more learned members of the medical profession. Professional tradition and an astute perception on their part of the omniscience suggested by the terms, have left the medical men in English-speaking lands in undisturbed but illogical possession of the words physiology, physic and physician. [2] H. Milne-Edwards, who was followed by Huxley, long ago formulated the conclusion that the eye-stalks of Crustacea are modified appendages, basing his argument on a specimen of Palinurus (figured in Bateson's book (1), in which the eye-stalk of one side is replaced by an antenniform palp. Hofer (6) in 1894 described a similar case in Astacus. [3] Embryological evidence of this is still wanting. In the other classes of Arthropoda we have more or less complete embryological evidence on the subject. It appears from observation of the embryo that whilst the first prosthomere of Centipedes has its appendages reduced and represented only by eye-patches (as in Arachnida, Crustacea and Hexapoda). the second has a rudimentary antenna, which disappears, whilst the third carries the permanent antennae, which accordingly correspond to the second antennae of Crustacea, and are absent in Hexapoda. ARTHUR (Fr. _Artus_), the central hero of the cycle of romance known as the _Matiere de Bretagne_ (see ARTHURIAN LEGEND). Whether there was an historic Arthur has been much debated; undoubtedly for many centuries after the appearance of Geoffrey of Monmouth's _Historia Britonum_ (circ. 1136), the statements therein recorded of a mighty monarch, who ruled over Britain in the 5th-6th centuries, and carried his conquests far afield, even to the gates of Rome, obtained general, though not universal, credence. Even in the 12th century there were some who detected, and derided, the fictitious character of Geoffrey's "History." As was naturally to be expected, the pendulum swung to the other extreme, and in a more critical age the existence of Arthur was roundly denied. The truth probably lies midway between the two. The words of Wace, the Norman poet who translated the _Historia_ into verse, are here admirably to the point. Speaking of the tales told of Arthur, he says:-- "Ne tot mencunge, ne tot veir, Ne tot fable, ne tot saveir, Tant ont li conteor conte, Et li fableor tant fable Por lor contes embeleter Que tout ont fait fable sembler."[1] The opinion now generally accepted by scholars is that the evidence of Nennius, whose _Historia Britonum_ preceded that of Geoffrey by some 400 years, is in the main to be relied on. He tells us that Arthur was _Dux bellorum_, and led the armies of the British kings against the Saxon invaders, whom he defeated in twelve great battles. _Tunc Arthur pugnabat cum regibus Britonum, sed ipse dux erat bettorum._ The traditional site of these battles covers a very wide area, and it is supposed that Arthur held a post analogous to that of the general who, under the Roman occupation, was known as _Comes Britanniae_, and held a roving commission to defend the island wherever attacked, in contradistinction to the _Dux Britanniarum_, who had charge of the forces in the north, and the _Comes Littoris Saxonici_, whose task it was to defend the south-east line. The Welsh texts never call Arthur _gwledig_ (prince), but _amheradawr_ (Latin _imperator_) or emperor, a title which would be bestowed on the highest official in the island. The truth thus appears to be that, while there was never a _King_ Arthur, there was a noted chieftain and general of that name. If we say that he carried on a successful war against the Saxons, was probably betrayed by his wife and a near kinsman, and fell in battle, we have stated all which can be claimed as an historical nucleus for his legend. It is now generally admitted that the representation of Arthur as world conqueror, _Welt-Kaiser_, is due to the influence of the Charlemagne cycle. In the 12th century the _Matiere de France_ was waning, the _Matiere de Bretagne_ waxing in popularity, and public opinion demanded that the central figure of the younger cycle (for whatever the date of the subject matter, as a literary cycle the Arthurian is the younger) should not be inferior in dignity and importance to that of the earlier. When we add to this the fact that the writers of the 12th century represented the personages and events of the 6th in the garb, and under the conditions, of their own time, we can understand the reason of the manifold difficulties which beset the study of the cycle. But into the figure of Arthur as we know him, other elements have entered; he is not merely an historic personality, but at the same time a survival of pre-historic myth, a hero of romance, and a fairy king; and all these threads are woven together in one fascinating but bewildering web. It is only possible here to summarize the leading features which may be claimed as characteristic of each phase. _Mythic._--Certain elements of the story point to Arthur as a culture hero; as such his name has been identified with the _Mercurius Artaius_ of the Gauls. In this role he slays monsters, the boar Twrch Trwyth, the giant of Mont St Michel and the Demon Cat of Losanne (Andre de Coutances tells us that Arthur was really vanquished and carried off by the Cat, but that one durst not tell that tale before Britons!). He never, it should be noted, rides on purely chivalric ventures, such as aiding distressed damsels, seeking the Grail, &c. His expeditions are all more or less warlike. The story of his youth belongs, as Alfred Nutt (_Folk-lore_, vol. iv.) has shown, to the group of tales classified as the _Aryan Expulsion and Return_ formula, found in all Aryan lands. Numerous parallels exist between the Arthurian and early Irish heroic cycles, notably the Fenian or Ossianic. This Fenian cycle is very closely connected with the Tuatha de Danaan, the Celtic deities of vegetation and increase; recent research has shown that two notable features of the Arthurian story, the Round Table and the Grail, can be most reasonably accounted for as survivals of this Nature worship, and were probably parts of the legend from the first. _Romantic._--The character of Arthur as a romantic hero is, in reality, very different from that which, mainly through the popularity of Tennyson's _Idylls_, English people are wont to suppose. In the earlier poems he is practically a lay figure, his court the point of departure and return for the knights whose adventures are related in detail, but he himself a passive spectator. In the prose romances he is a monarch, the splendour of whose court, whose riches and generosity, are the admiration of all; but morally he is no whit different from the knights who surround him; he takes advantage of his _bonnes fortunes_ as do others. He has two sons, neither of them born in wedlock; one, Modred, is alike his son and his nephew. In certain romances, the _Perlesvaus_ and _Diu Crone_, he is a veritable _roi faineant_, overcome by sloth and luxury. Certain traits of his story appear to show the influence of Northern romance. Such is the story of his begetting, where Uther takes upon him the form of Gorlois to deceive Yguerne, even as Siegfried changed shapes with Gunther to the undoing of Brunnhilde. The sword in the perron (stone pillar or block), the withdrawal of which proves his right to the kingdom, is the sword of the Branstock. Morgain carries him off, mortally wounded, to Avalon, even as the Valkyr bears the Northern hero to Valhal. Morgain herself has many traits in common with the Valkyrie; she is one of nine sisters, she can fly through the air as a bird (Swan maiden); she possesses a marvellous ointment (as does Hilde, the typical Valkyr). The idea of a slumbering hero who shall awake at the hour of his country's greatest need is world-wide, but the most famous instances are Northern, e.g. Olger Danske and Barbarossa, and depend ultimately on an identification with the gods of the Northern Pantheon, notably Thor. W. Larminie cited an instance of a rhyme current in the Orkneys as a charm against nightmare, which confuses Arthur with Siegfried and his winning of the Valkyr. _Fairy._--We find that at Arthur's birth (according to Layamon, who here differs from Wace), three ladies appeared and prophesied his future greatness. This incident is also found in the first continuation to the _Perceval_, where the prediction is due to a lady met with beside a forest spring, clearly here a water fairy. In the late romance of _La Bataille de Loquifer_ Avalon has become a purely fairy kingdom, where Arthur rules in conjunction with Morgain. In _Huon de Bordeaux_ he is Oberon's heir and successor, while in the romance of _Brun de la Montagne_, preserved in a unique MS. of the Bibliotheque Nationale, we have the curious statement that all fairy-haunted places, wherever found, belong to Arthur:-- "Et touz ces lieux faes Sont Artus de Bretagne." This brief summary of the leading features of the Arthurian tradition will indicate with what confused and complex material we are here dealing. (See also ARTHURIAN LEGEND, GRAIL, MERLIN, ROUND TABLE; and CELT: _Celtic literature_.) _Texts_. Historic:--Nennius, _Historia Britonum_; H. Zimmer, _Nennius Vindicatus_ (Berlin, 1893), an examination into the credibility of Nennius; Geoffrey of Monmouth, _Historia Britonum_ (translations of both histories are in Bohn's Library); Wace, the _Brut_ (ed. by Leroux de Lincey); Layamon (ed. by Sir Fred. Madden). Romantic:--_Merlin_--alike in the Ordinary, or Vulgate (ed. Sommer), the _Suite_ or "Huth" _Merlin_, the 13th century _Merlin_ (ed. by G. Paris and J. Ulrich), and the unpublished and unique version of _Bibl. nat. fonds francais_, 337 (cf. Freymond's analysis in _Zeitschrift fur franz. Sprache_, xxii.)--devotes considerable space to the elaboration of the material supplied by the chronicles, the beginning of Arthur's reign, his marriage and wars with the Saxons. The imitation of the Charlemagne romances is here evident; the Saxons bear names of Saracen origin, and camels and elephants appear on the scene. The _Morte Arthur_, or _Mort au roi Artus_, a metrical romance, of which a unique English version exists in the Thornton collection (ed. for Early English Text Society), gives an expanded account of the passing of Arthur; in the French prose form it is now always found incorporated with the _Lancelot_, of which it forms the concluding section. The remains of the Welsh tradition are to be found in the _Mabinogion_ (cf. Nutt's edition, where the stories are correctly classified), and in the Triads. Professor Rhys' _Studies in the Arthurian Legend_ are largely based on Welsh material, and may be consulted for details, though the conclusions drawn are not in harmony with recent research. These are the only texts in which Arthur is the central figure; in the great bulk of the romances his is but a subordinate role. (J. L. W.) FOOTNOTE: [1] Nor all a lie, nor all true, nor all fable, nor all known, so much have the story-tellers told, and the fablers fabled, in order to embellish their tales, that they have made all seem fable. ARTHUR I. (1187-1203), duke of Brittany, was the posthumous son of Geoffrey, the fourth son of Henry II. of England, and Constance, heiress of Conan IV., duke of Brittany. The Bretons hoped that their young prince would uphold their independence, which was threatened by the English. Henry II. tried to seize Brittany, and in 1187 forced Constance to marry one of his favourites, Randulph de Blundevill, earl of Chester (d. 1232). Henry, however, died soon afterwards (1189). The new king of England, Richard Coeur de Lion, claimed the guardianship of the young Arthur, but in 1190 Richard left for the Crusade. Constance profited by his absence by governing the duchy, and in 1194 she had Arthur proclaimed duke of Brittany by an assembly of barons and bishops. Richard invaded Brittany in 1196, but was defeated in 1197 and became reconciled to Constance. On his death in 1189, the nobles of Anjou, Maine and Touraine refused to recognize John of England, and did homage to Arthur, who declared himself the vassal of Philip Augustus. In 1202 war was resumed between the king of England and the king of France. The king of France recognized Arthur's right to Brittany, Anjou, Maine and Poitou. While Philip Augustus was invading Normandy, Arthur tried to seize Poitou. But, surprised at Mirebeau, he fell into the hands of John, who sent him prisoner to Falaise. In the following year he was transferred to Rouen, and disappeared suddenly. It is thought that John killed him with his own hand. After this murder John was condemned by the court of peers of France, and stripped of the fiefs which he possessed in France. See Ralph of Coggeshall, "Chronicon Anglicanum," in the _Monumenta Britanniae historica_; Dom Lobineau, _Histoire de Bretagne_ (1702); Dom Morice, _Histoire de Bretagne_ (1742-1756); A. de la Borderie, _Histoire de Bretagne_, vol. iii. (1899); Bemont, "De la condamnation de Jean-sans-Terre par la Cour des Pairs de France," in the _Revue historique_ (1886), vol. xxxii. ARTHUR III. (1393-1458), earl of Richmond, constable of France, and afterwards duke of Brittany, was the third son of John IV., duke of Brittany, and Joan of Navarre, afterwards the wife of Henry IV. of England. His brother, John V., gave him his earldom of Richmond in England. While still very young, he took part in the civil wars which desolated France during the reign of Charles VI. From 1410 to 1414 he served on the side of the Armagnacs, and afterwards entered the service of Louis the dauphin, whose intimate friend he became. He profited by his position at court to obtain the lieutenancy of the Bastille, the governorship of the duchy of Nemours, and the confiscated territories of Jean Larcheveque, seigneur of Parthenay. His efforts to reduce the latter were, however, interrupted by the necessity of marching against the English. At Agincourt he was wounded and captured, and remained a prisoner in England from 1415 to 1420. Released on parole, he gained the favour of King Henry V. by persuading his brother, the duke of Brittany, to conclude the treaty of Troyes, by which France was handed over to the English king. He was rewarded with the countship of Ivry. In 1423 Arthur married Margaret of Burgundy, widow of the dauphin Louis, and became thus the brother-in-law of Philip the Good of Burgundy, and of the regent, the duke of Bedford. Offended, however, by Bedford's refusal to give him a high command, he severed his connexion with the English, and in March 1425 accepted the constable's sword from King Charles VII. He now threw himself with ardour into the French cause, and persuaded his brother, John V. of Brittany, to conclude with Charles VII. the treaty of Saumur (October 7, 1425). But though he saw clearly enough the measures necessary for success, he lacked the means to carry them out. In the field he met with a whole series of reverses; and at court, where his rough and overbearing manners made him disliked, his influence was overshadowed by that of a series of incompetent favourites. The peace concluded between the duke of Brittany and the English in September 1427 led to his expulsion from the court, where Georges de la Tremoille, whom he himself had recommended to the king, remained supreme for six years, during which Richmond tried in vain to overthrow him. In the meantime, in June 1429, he joined Joan of Arc at Orleans, and fought in several battles under her banner, till the influence of La Tremoille forced his withdrawal from the army. On the 5th of March 1432 Charles VII. concluded with him and with Brittany the treaty of Rennes; but it was not until June of the following year that La Tremoille was overthrown. Arthur now resumed the war against the English, and at the same time took vigorous measures against the plundering bands of soldiers and peasants known as _routiers_ or _ecorcheurs_. On the 20th of September 1435, mainly as a result of his diplomacy, was signed the treaty of Arras between Charles VII. and the duke of Burgundy, to which France owed her salvation. On the 13th of April 1436, Arthur took Paris from the English; but he was ill seconded by the king, and hampered by the necessity for leading frequent expeditions against the _ecorcheurs_; it was not till May 1444 that the armistice of Tours gave him leisure to carry out the reorganization of the army which he had long projected. He now created the _compagnies d'ordonnance_, and endeavoured to organize the militia of the _francs archers_. This reform had its effect in the struggles that followed. In alliance with his nephew, the duke of Brittany, he reconquered, during September and October 1449, nearly all the Cotentin; on the 15th of April 1450 he gained over the English the battle of Formigny; and during the year he recovered for France the whole of Normandy, which for the next six or seven years it was his task to defend from English attacks. On the death of his nephew Peter II., on the 22nd of September 1457, he became duke of Brittany, and though retaining his office of constable of France, he refused, like his predecessors, to do homage to the French king for his duchy. He reigned little more than a year, dying on the 26th of December 1458, and was succeeded by his nephew Francis II., son of his brother Richard, count of Etampes. Arthur was three times married: (1) to Margaret of Burgundy, duchess of Guienne (d. 1442); (2) to Jeanne d'Albret, daughter of Charles II. of Albret (d. 1444); (3) to Catherine of Luxemburg, daughter of Peter of Luxemburg, count of St Pol, who survived him. He left no legitimate children. AUTHORITIES.--The main source for the life of Duke Arthur III. is the chronicle of Guillaume Gruel (c. 1410-1474-1482). Gruel entered the service of the earl of Richmond about 1425, shared in all his campaigns, and lived with him on intimate terms. The chronicle covers the whole period of the duke's life, but the earlier part, up to 1425, is much less full and important than the later, which is based on Gruel's personal knowledge and observation. In spite of a perhaps exaggerated admiration for his hero, Gruel displays in his work so much good faith, insight and originality that he is accepted as a thoroughly trustworthy authority. It was first published at Paris in