in its general sense, denotes the offensive apparatus of war, particularly of the missile kind. Among the French the term was anciently appropriated to **Archery**. In its modern acceptation it signifies fire-arms, mounted on their carriages and ready for action, with their balls, their bombs, their grenades, &c.

If we take the term in a more extensive meaning, it includes the powder, the matches, instruments for fire-works, the utensils of ordnance, the machines which facilitate their motion and transport them, the vehicles over which they traverse rivers, every thing necessary to them, and all that enters into the form of a train of artillery.

The same word, still farther extended in its meaning, likewise comprehends the men destined for the service of the artillery; the people who provide the artillery with materials and implements when engaged, the cannoniers, the bombardiers, the officers of every rank, and engineers of every kind.

By artillery is likewise understood the science which the officers of artillery ought to possess. This science teaches to know the nature of all the materials and ingredients which enter into the composition and the structure of every thing relative to the artillery, such as nitre, sulphur, charcoal; the properties of air and fire; the composition and preparation of gunpowder; the materials for fire-works; the construction, proportions, &c. of the different warlike machines; the arrangement, movement, and whole management, of cannon, &c. in the field or in sieges, in such manner, that each of them, according to the length of its tube and the diameter of its bore, may be situated in the best place and at the properest distance for execution, and that the whole train taken together may reciprocally assist and support each other with the greatest advantage.

Artillery has undergone many changes from its origin to the present time. The artillery of the ancients were the catapulta, the balista, the different kinds of slings, &c. In latter ages, the Franks used the hatchet as a missile weapon, throwing it in the same manner as the Americans do theirs called the tomahawk. The Gascons and Genoese were excellent cross-bow men. The Swiss owed their victories to their strength and skill in the use of the pike, halberd, and espadon or two-handed sword; and the victories of Cressy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, will occasion the valour and skill of the English archers to be transmitted down to latest posterity. See **Archery**.

The chevalier Folard was extremely attached to the ancient machines first mentioned, and seemed even to prefer them to our fire-arms; an opinion which must appear not a little extraordinary from such a person. Father Daniel might well be mistaken in the comparison which he made between the effects of ancient and modern artillery, and in his conclusion that the latter was of little use: the situation of this good father removed him from the scenes of war and the opportunities of military experience. But it is astonishing, that one so learned in the military art as the commentator of Polybius, who had ocular demonstration of the success of modern artillery, should have declared so violently against it. Whatever be the case with these authors and their maxims, it may be asserted that cannon is one of the most singular discoveries which have been made amongst men; and by little and little it has changed the whole art of war, and of consequence influenced the whole system of policy in Europe. The era of artillery is dated from the battle of Cressy in 1346, because it is only from that day that cannon were mentioned in battle. Edward III. of England successfully employed some pieces of artillery placed in the front of his army. The invention of artillery was then known in France as well as in England; but probably Philip VI. marched with so much hurry and precipitation to attack his enemy, that he left his cannon as useless encumbrances behind him. The ignorance of that age in mechanical arts considerably retarded the progress of artillery; and that of which they were then possessed was so unwieldy and imperfect, that they could not possibly discern its importance and efficacy in practice.

After the invention of gunpowder, the Spaniards were the first who armed part of their foot with muskets and harquebusses, and mixed them with the pikes. In this they were soon imitated by most other nations; though the English had not entirely laid aside their favourite weapon the long bow, and generally taken to The first muskets were very heavy, and could not be fired without a rest; they had matchlocks, and barrels of a wide bore, that carried a large ball and charge of powder, and did execution at a great distance. The musketeers on a march carried only their rests and ammunition; and had boys to bear their muskets after them, for which they were allowed great additional pay. They were very slow in loading, not only by reason of the unwieldiness of the pieces, and because they carried the powder and balls separate, but from the time it took to prepare and adjust the match; so that their fire was not near so brisk as ours is now. Afterwards a lighter kind of matchlock musket came into use; and they carried their ammunition in bandoliers, which were broad belts that came over the shoulder, to which were hung several little cases of wood covered with leather, each containing a charge of powder; the balls they carried loose in a pouch, and they had also a priming horn hanging by their side. Matchlocks were, about the beginning of this century, universally disused in Europe, and the troops were armed with firelocks; to which, much about the same time, the bayonet being added, pikes also were laid aside; which latter change, whether it was for the better or not, is a point that still admits of dispute among the best military writers, who are divided in their opinions about it, though most of them disapprove of it.

The old English writers call those large muskets calivers; the harquebus was a lighter piece that could be fired without a rest. The matchlock was fired by a match, fixed by a kind of tongs in the serpentine or cock, which by pulling the trigger was brought down with great quickness upon the priming in the pan, over which there was a sliding cover, which was drawn back by hand, just at the time of firing. There was a great deal of nicety and care required to fit the match properly to the cock, so as to come down exactly true on the priming, to blow the ashes from the coal, and to guard the pan from the sparks that fell from it: a great deal of time was also lost in taking it out of the cock, and returning it between the fingers of the left hand, every time that the piece was fired; and wet weather often rendered the matches useless. However, most writers allow that they were very sure, and less apt to miss fire than the firelock.

The firelock is so called, from producing fire of itself, by the action of the flint and steel. The most ancient invention of this sort is the wheel lock, which we find mentioned in Luigi Collado's Treatise of Artillery, printed at Venice, 1586, as then lately invented in Germany. This sort of lock was used till within these hundred years, especially for pistols and carbines. It was composed of a solid steel wheel, with an axis, to which was fastened a chain, which, by being wound round it, drew up a very strong spring: on pulling the trigger, the spring acting, whirled the wheel about with great velocity, and the friction of the edge of it (which was a little notched) against the stone produced the fire; the cock was made so as to bring the stone upon the edge of the wheel, part of which was in the pan, and touched the priming; they used any common hard pebble for that purpose, which served as well as flint.

These locks were inconvenient, took time to wind up (or span, as they termed it), and sometimes would not go off; an instance of which may be seen in Ludlow's Memoirs.

When the firelock, such as we now use, was invented, we cannot ascertain; it is called by writers of about the middle of the last century, a snaphane or snaphance, which being the Dutch word for a firelock, seems to indicate that it is a Dutch invention, and that we took it from them. But Ward, in his Animadversions of War, printed in 1639, p. 302, after describing the exercise of the firelock, pistol, and carbine (by which he means the wheel-lock), says, that as most of our pieces go with English locks, which differ from firelocks, he shall add the method of handling them; and then gives the exercise of the snaphane carbine; by which it appears, that there was little or no difference between that and the pieces now in use. The more modern writers call it a fusée from the French word fusil; whence the name of fusiliers is still continued to several of our regiments, which were the first that were armed with them on the disuse of matchlocks.

They used the musket and rest in England so late as the beginning of the civil wars, as may be seen in Col. Bariffe's Young Artillery Man, printed at London, 1643.

Figuera, in his embassy in 1518, relates, that the Persians would neither make use of infantry nor of artillery, because by them the impetuosity of attack and the facility of retreat were equally encumbered and retarded: in these expedients alone their address and their glory consisted. This method of advancing and recalling is widely different from the present conduct of war, as the artillery in armies is now prodigiously multiplied, and must be transported to every place where any body of troops whatever is destined to operate.

The length and diameter of cannon has been much diminished, which must likewise proportionably diminish their weight. It is by long practice and experience that they have discovered how much might be deduced from their magnitude in both these respects with propriety, without hurting the grand effects which, on some occasions, it is necessary they should produce, by rendering them more easy to be wielded, which was the advantage pursued by lessening their size. See further the articles Cannon, Gunnery, and Projectiles.

Improvements, however, are still making, and will probably long continue to be made, in these ignivorous machines that mock the thunder, which, though they seem to be invented for the destruction of the human race and the subversion of empires, have yet by their effects rendered war less savage and less sanguinary; political alliances have been more successfully conciliated among all nations, conquests are become less frequent and less rapid, and successes in war have been more easily reduced to calculation.

The change introduced in the military art by the wealth of modern artillery, Dr Smith observes, has enhanced Nations, greatly both the expense of exercising and disciplining any particular number of soldiers in time of peace, and p. 70, that of employing them in time of war. Both their arms and their ammunition are become more expensive. A musket is a more expensive machine than a javelin. Artillery, or a bow and arrows; a cannon or a mortar, than a balista or a catapulta. The powder which is spent in a modern review is lost irrecoverably, and occasions a very considerable expense. The javelins and arrows which were thrown or shot in an ancient one, could easily be lifted up again, and were besides of very little value. The cannon and the mortar are not only much dearer, but much heavier machines than the balista or catapulta, and require a greater expense, not only to prepare them for the field, but to carry them to it. As the superiority of the modern artillery too over that of the ancients is very great, it has become much more difficult, and consequently much more expensive, to fortify a town so as to resist even for a few weeks the attack of that superior artillery.

In modern war the great expense of fire arms gives an evident advantage to the nation which can best afford that expense; and consequently, to an opulent and civilized, over a poor and barbarous nation. In ancient times, the opulent and civilized found it difficult to defend themselves against the poor and barbarous nations. In modern times the poor and barbarous find it difficult to defend themselves against the opulent and civilized. The invention of fire arms, an invention which at first sight appears to be so pernicious, is certainly favourable both to the permanency and to the extension of civilization.

It has to many appeared matter of surprise, that the battles of the ancients should be described with an order, perspicuity, and circumstantial minuteness, which are not to be found in the military writers of modern times. Scholars have endeavoured to explain this difference by observing the immense disproportion, in point of dignity and abilities, between the military historians of modern Europe and those of Greece and Rome. But the difficulty will be better solved, Dr Gillies thinks, by reflecting on the changes introduced into the art of war by the change of artillery; which, in military operations, form the pivot on which the whole turns. 1. From the nature of fire arms, modern battles are involved in smoke and confusion. 2. From the same cause, modern armies occupy a much greater extent of ground, and begin to act at much greater distances: which renders it more difficult to observe and ascertain their manoeuvres. 3. The immense train of artillery, ammunition, &c., required in the practice of modern war, gives a certain immobility to our armies, which renders it impossible to perform, without great danger, those rapid evolutions in sight of an enemy, which so often decided the battles of the ancients. With us, almost every thing depends on the judicious choice of ground, a matter requiring great military genius, but not admitting the embellishments of historical description.

In the battles of the Greeks and Romans, the extraordinary disproportion between the numbers slain on the side of the victors and the vanquished has been observed as another remarkable circumstance. But this necessarily resulted from the nature of their arms. Their principal weapons being not missiles, but manual, armies could not begin to act till they had approached so near to each other, that the conquered found themselves cut off from all possibility of retreat. In modern times, such consequences seldom take place. The use of fire arms (which often render the action itself more bloody), furnishes the defeated party with various means of retreating with considerable safety. The sphere of military action is so widely extended in modern times, that before the victors can run over the space which separates them from the vanquished, the latter may fall back, and proceed with little loss beyond their reach; and should any village, hedge, ravine, &c., be found in their way, may often check the ardour of their pursuers. Upon these considerations, the invention of gunpowder and modern artillery may be said to have saved the effusion of human blood. Equestrian engagements (since the principles on which cavalry act remain nearly the same in every age) are still distinguished by similar circumstances to those which appear so extraordinary in the battles of antiquity.

**Artillery Park**, the place in the rear of both lines of an army, for encamping the artillery, which is drawn up in lines, of which one is formed by the guns; the ammunition waggons make two or three lines, 60 paces behind the guns, and 30 distant from one another; the pontoons and tumbrils make the last line. The whole is surrounded with a rope which forms the park; the gunners and matrosses encamp on the flanks; and the bombardiers, pontoon men, and artificers, in the rear.

**Artillery Train**, a certain number of pieces of ordnance, mounted on carriages, with all their furniture fit for marching.

**Artillery Company**, a band of infantry, consisting of 600 men, making part of the militia or city guard of London.

**Artist**, in a general sense, a person skilled in some art. Mr Harris defines an artist to be, "A person possessing an habitual power of becoming the cause of some effect, according to a system of various and well-approved precepts." See ART.

We are told *of a privilege granted at Vicenza to a few artists, like that of clergy in England; in virtue thereof, Diocese criminals adjudged to death save their lives if they of Medals, can prove themselves the most excellent and consummate workmen in any useful art. This benefit is allowed them in favorem artis, for the first offence, except in some particular crimes, of which coining is one; for here the greater the artist, the more dangerous the person.

**Artist (Artista)**, in an academical sense, denotes a philosopher or proficient in the faculty of arts.

In the early ages of universities, the seven liberal arts completed the whole course of study, or philosophy, as it is called: whence the masters of this faculty were denominated artists. What they understood by the liberal arts used to be summed up in the following Latin verse.

*Lingua, Tropus, Ratio, Numerus, Tonus, Angulus, Astra.*

**Artist** is more peculiarly used, by Paracelsus and other adepts, for a chemist or alchemist. We find frequent mention, in authors of this class, of Elias Artista, or Elias the artist, who is to come some time before the dissolution of the world, and restore and make perfect all arts and sciences, but especially the gold-making art; and usher in a truly golden age, or millennium. The lower and meaner things in this sublime art, Paracelsus observes, God has permitted to be already discovered; but for the greater and more important portant matters, as the transmutation of other metals into gold, they are reserved to the coming of Elias the artist.