JULLIEN, zhulyfin, Adolphe, French mu sical and dramatic critic: b. Paris, 1845. He graduated in law taking, at the same time, very extensive studies in music which he continued after graduation. He began writing for mu sical journals, and in addition to musical criti cisms and chronicles he contributed short stories to the Francais, the Moniteur Universal and other periodicals. Among his published works are 'La Musique et les philosophes au XVIII eme siecle> (1873) ; (Histoire du theatre de Mde. de Pompadour' (1874) ; 'La comedic a la tour de Louis XVI' (1875); 'Goethe et la Musique (1880); secret au XVIII eme JULY, the seventh month of the calendar, July, the seventh month of the calendar, which in the Roman year bore the name of Quintilis, as the fifth in the computation of Romulus, even after Numa had prefixed Janu ary and February. Mark Anton effected a J change in its name in honor of Julius Cesar, who was born on the 12th of the month, and thenceforth by a decree of the senate it was called Julius. It originally contained 36 days. It is said that Romulus reduced them to 31 and Numa to 30. Julius Caesar fixed the number at 31, which is still retained. The Dog-days are supposed to commence on the 3d of this month.
JULY, Column of, a bronze column erected July, Column of, a bronze column erected on the Place de la Bastille, Paris, 28 July 1840, to the °French citizens who fought for the defense of the public liberties on the memorable days of the 27th, 28th and 29th of July, 1830.' On four bands encircling the column are the names of 615 victims of the revolution.
JULY, Revolution of, the uprising in 1830 July, Revolution of, the uprising in 1830 which overthrew the Bourbon dynasty and re stored the house of Orleans to the throne of France. This was the natural outcome of the reactionary tendency which had been the gov erning principle of the sovereigns in France since 1814. Revolutionary France was not dead and the democratic spirit was far from being smothered. But the rulers of the country seemed to believe that their own safety and that of the stable government of the country depended upon the establishment of as much arbitrary rule and autocracy as could be achieved. The Church and the extreme royal ists were in the saddle; and they proposed to make the best of their opportunities to strengthen their position for all time. Louis XVIII (1814-24), with whom the restoration began, had some little ability and the advantage of having a more or less fixed policy whose one great objective was to restore the power of his family and to consistently offer opposi tion • to the growth of the influence of the bourgeoisie. To secure his ends and bind the nobility to himself he had been forced to make a partial restoration of the property, titles and positions of influence of the (exiles* in the face of strenuous opposition on the part of a strong and influential section of the population. The backing which the Church had given the royal family made the interests of the sov ereign, the nobility and the clergy one in com mon. In order that these common interests and objective might be strengthened by the education of the masses in the right direction, from the view point of the Crown, all public and private instruction was placed in the hands of. the Church, which proceeded to carry out an aggressive program which ran counter, at every turn, to the ideas of the strong revolu tionary and democratic part of the population, the natural and legitimate heirs to the senti ments and aims of the Revolution of 1789. This ever-growing revolutionary body could only be kept from expressing itself, in a man ner dangerous in the extreme to the ruling house, by the enforcement of severe laws against the liberty and freedom of the press. The Jesuits, who had been readmitted to the country following the restoration, became very active, not only as educators, but as propaga tors of royalist teachings, all of which were radical and extreme. Louis XVIII managed to maintain his position as head of the nation in the midst of many threatening dangers. But his successor, Charles X, who had been edu cated under clerical influence to the most ex treme of royalistic views, was a man of little ability, weak will and poor judgment, warped by his training. He was, therefore, incapable of judging of the magnitude of the dangers by which he was surrounded. At the most critical
moment in his career, when only the coolest and most liberal judgment could have saved the situation for him, he made his confident and representative Count Jules Polignac (9 Aug. 1829), the most bigoted royalist and churchman among the French nobility, a man who could only see one side of the question and that only through his colored glasses. He succeeded in antagonizing the opposition as even the unwise and undemocratic acts of the sovereigns had not done. The assemblies which met the following year (March 1830), both upper and lower houses, demanded the dis missal of the new and actively royalist min isters, who largely represented clerical influence and interests. Charles' answer, dictated by the court party, was the immediate prorogation and final dissolution of the Chambers. The nat ural result was that the new election in creased the strength of the Anti-royalist party. This the king realized and he determined to anticipate the trouble he saw coming by the suspension of the liberty of the press and declaring the elections null and void (26 July 1830). To make sure that the next Chambers should not prove dangerous or ob structive, the edict of dissolution of the new Chambers prescribed changes in the franchise which practically restored arbitrary govern ment. The newspapers defied the government to carry out the edict of the suspension of the liberty of the press, and the trouble 7t once began in Paris. Barricades were thrown up everywhere in the eastern section of the city and the city hall and Notre Dame Cathedral were seized by the revolutionists. After three days' fighting under Lafayette and Laffitte, the revolutionists held possession of all of Paris. Suddenly, the king realizing the strength of the revolution and his own danger, with drew his various edicts. But it was already too late and he was forced to abdicate in favor of his own grandson, the Duke of Bordeaux. Fearing the temper of the revolutionists, he fled across the border. But the Duke of Bordeaux was not destined to become sovereign of France, if for no other reason, because he was the choice of the late king. On the night of 30 July Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, ar rived in Paris, at the call of Talleyrand, one time minister of Napoleon I, and other prom inent men of his party who had been intriguing for some time in his favor. He was at once made lieutenant general of the realm. But the choice of Louis Philippe as sovereign was op posed by Lafayette, commander of the National Guard, and his faction, who favored a republic. However, the necessity of not antagonizing the powerful Royalist party, and the diplomatic conduct of Louis Philippe, finally won over the Republicans to a continuation of the monarchy on a restricted and constitutional basis, and the Chambers bestowed the crown upon Louis Philippe (7 Aug. 1830). Although the principal part in the revolution had been played by the workingmen of Paris, still it was represented for the country as a whole by the middle classes who were still royalist in sentiment. A knowl edge of the general feeling of the country in duced Lafayette and the municipal committee who were, like the Paris workmen, strongly republican, to accept the compromise offered by Laffitte, Thiers and the Orleanists. But in this compromise the laboring class was singularly forgotten, an act which was pregnant with future trouble. According to the agreement with Louis Philippe a new constitution was adopted. This recognized a property qualifica tion which gave the middle classes a very strong voting power and, consequently, in fluence in the affairs of the nation. But it shut out the laboring classes, who found that they still had their battle to fight for political free dom. The Belgian and Polish revolutionary movements were more or less directly the re sult of the success of the July Revolution in France. Consult Fyffe, 'History of Modern Europe' (Vol. II, London 1886); Hazen, 'Europe Since 1819 (New York 1911) ; La visse and Rambaud, 'Histoire (Vol. X, Paris 1898) ; Seignobos, 'Political History of Europe since 1814' (New York 1899) ; Rob inson and Beard, 'Development of Modern Europe' (Boston 1908).