Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 23.djvu/168

Rh (1540) is the latest writer who, in his description of the origin of the Confederation, does not mention Tell and his act. The two stories are now firmly bound together; the version contained in the White Book is the accepted one, though small additions in names and dates are often made.

The task of filling up gaps, smoothing away inconsistencies, rounding off the tale, was accomplished by Giles (q.v.), whose recension was adopted, with a few alterations, by Von Müller in his History of the Confederation (1780). In the final recension of Tschudi’s Chronicle (1734-36), which, however, differs in many particulars from the original draft still preserved at Zurich, we are told how Albert of Austria, with the view of depriving the Forest lands of their ancient freedom, sent bailiffs (among them Gessler) to Uri and Schwyz, who committed many tyrannical acts, so that finally on 8th November 1307, at the Rütli, Werner von Stauffacher of Schwyz, Walter Fürst of Uri, Arnold von Melchthal in Unterwalden, each with ten companions, among whom was William Tell, resolved on a rising to expel the oppressors, which was fixed for New Year's day 1308. A few days later (November 18) the Tell incident takes place (described according to the White Book version), and on the appointed date the general rising. Tschudi thus finally settled the date, which had before varied from 1260 to 1334. He utterly distorts the real historical relations of the Three Lands, though he brings in many real historical names, their owners being made to perform historically impossible acts, and introduces many small additions and corrections into the story as he had received it. In particular, while in his first draft he speaks of the bailiff as Gryssler — the usual name up to his time, except in the White Book and in Stumpff's Chronicle of 1548 — in his final recension he calls him Gessler, knowing that this was a real name. Later writers added a few more particulars, — that Tell lived at Bürglen and fought at Morgarten (1598), that he was the son-in-law of Fürst and had two sons (early 18th century), &c. Johannes von Müller gave a vivid description of the oath at the Rütli by the three (Tell not being counted in), and threw Tschudi’s version into a literary form, adding one or two names and adopting that of Hermann for Gessler, calling him of "Bruneck." Schiller’s play gave the tale a world-wide renown.

The story was, on the ground of want of evidence, regarded as suspicious by Guilliman in a private letter of 1607, and doubts were expressed by the brothers Iselin (1727 and 1754) and by Voltaire (1754); but it was not till 1760 that the legend was definitely attacked, on the ground of its similarity to the story of Tokko (see below), in an anonymous pamphlet by Freudenberger, a Bernese pastor. This caused great stir; it was publicly burnt by order of the Government of Uri, and many more or less forged proofs and documents were produced in favour of Tell. The researches of J. E. Kopp first cleared up the real early history of the league, and overthrew the legends of the White Book and Tschudi. Since then many writers have worked in the same direction. Vischer (1867) has carefully traced out the successive steps in the growth of the legend, and Rochholz (1877) has worked out the real history of Gessler as shown in authentic documents. The general result has been to show that a mythological marksman and an impossible bailiff bearing the name of a real family have been joined with confused and distorted reminiscences of the events of 1245-47, in which the names of many real persons have been inserted and many unauthenticated acts attributed to them.

The story of the skilful marksman who succeeds in striking some small object placed on the head of a man or child is very widely spread: we find it in Denmark (Tokko), Norway (two versions), Iceland, Holstein, on the Rhine, and in England (William of Cloudesley). How it came to be localized in Uri we do not know; possibly, through the story of the Scandinavian colonization of Schwyz, the tale was fitted to some real local hero.

The alleged proofs of the existence of a real William Tell in Uri in the 14th century break down hopelessly. (1) The entries in the parish registers are forged. (2) As to the Tell chapels — (a) that in the "hollow way" near Küssnacht was not known to Melchior Russ and is first mentioned by Tschudi (1570). (b) That on Tell’s Platte is also first mentioned in Tschudi. The document which alleges that the chapel was built by order of a "landsgemeinde" held in 1388, at which 114 men were present who had been personally acquainted with Tell, was never heard of till 1759. The procession in boats to the place where the chapel stands may be very old, but is not connected with Tell till about 1582. (c) The chapel at Bürglen is known to have been founded in 1582. Other documents and statements in support of the Tell story have even less claim to credit. It has been pointed out above that with two exceptions the bailiff is always called Gryssler or Grissler, and it was Tschudi who popularized the name of Gessler, though Grissler occurs as late at 1765. Now Gessler is the name of a real family, the history of which from 1250 to 1513 has been worked out by Rochholz, who shows in detail that no member ever played the part attributed to the bailiff in the legend, or could have done so, and that the Gesslers could not have owned or dwelt at the castle of Küssnacht; nor could they have been called Von Bruneck.

In the Urnerspiel the name of the bailiff’s servant who guarded the hat on the pole is given as Heintz Vögely, and we know that Friedrich Vögeli was the name of one of the chief military officers of Peter von Hagenbach, who from 1469 to 1474 administered for Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, the lands (Alsace, &c.) pledged to him by Sigismund of Hapsburg. Now Hagenbach is known to have committed many cruelties like those attributed to the bailiffs in the legend, and it has been plausibly conjectured that his case has really given rise to these stories, especially when we find that the Confederates had a hand in his capture and execution, that in a document of 1358 Hagenbachs and Gesslers appear side by side as witnesses, and that the Hagenbachs had frequent transactions with the Hapsburgs and their vassals.

Among the vast number of books and pamphlets on the Tell story, the two most to be recommended are W. Vischer, Die Sage von der Befreiung der Waldstütte, Leipsic, 1807, and E. L. Rochholz, Tell und Gessler, with a volume of documents 1250-1513, Heilbronn, 1877. Convenient summaries of the controversy will be found in any modern book on Swiss history, and more particularly in G. von Wyss, ''Ueber d. Gesch. d. drei Länder — Uri, Schwyz, u. Unterwalden — in den Jahren 1212-1315, Zurich, 1858; Alf Huber, Die Waldstätte bis zur festen Begründung ihrer Eidgenossenschaft, mit einim Anhange über die geschichtliche Stellung des Wilh. Tell, Innsbruck, 1861; Albert Rilliet, Les Origines de la Confèdèration Suisse, Histoire et Légende'', Geneva, 1869.

  (1734-1804), was the son of the Leipsic clergyman, Romanus Teller, who edited the earlier volumes of the Englisches Bibelwerk (in 19 vols., 1749-70), an adaptation for German readers of the exegetical works of Willet, Ainsworth, Patrick, Poole, Henry, and others. Teller was born at Leipsic on 9th January 1734, and studied philosophy and theology in the university there. Amongst the men whose influence mainly determined his theological position and line of work was J. A. Ernesti. His writings present rationalism in its course of development from Biblical supernaturalism to the borders of deistical naturalism. His first learned production was a Latin translation of Kennicott’s Dissertation on the State of the Printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament (1756), which was followed the next year by an essay in which he expounded his own critical principles. In 1761 he was appointed pastor and professor of theology in the university of Helmstädt. Here he pursued his exegetical, theological, and historical researches, the results of which appeared in his Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens (1764). This work threw the entire theological world into commotion, as much by the novelty of its method as by the heterodoxy of its matter, and more by its omissions than by its positive teaching, though everywhere the author seeks to put theological doctrines in a decidedly modern form. In consequence of the storm of indignation the book provoked, Teller eagerly accepted an invitation from the Prussian cultus minister to the post of prebendary of Köln on the Spree, with a seat in the Berlin consistory (1767). Here he found himself in the company of the rationalistic theologians of Prussia — Sack, Spalding, and