Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Anjar" to "Apollo" (part 3)

Authorities.—See, for the progress of the idea in Jewish and New Testament times, the modern commentaries on Revelation and the 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians; Bousset, Antichrist (1895), and the article “Antichrist” in the Encyclop. Biblica; R.H. Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, Introduction, li.-lxxiii. For the history of the legend of Nero, see J. Geffcken, Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wisscnschaft (1899), p. 446 &c.; Th. Zahn, Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben (1886), p. 337 &c.; Bousset, Kritisch-exegetisches Kommentar zur Offenbarung Johannis, cap. 17, and the article “Sibyllen” in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopadie für Theologie und Kirche (3rd ed.), xviii. 265 &c.; Nordmeyer, Der Tod Neros in der Legende, a Festschrift of the Gymnasium of Moos. For the later history of the legend, see Bousset, Antichrist, where will be found a more detailed discussion of nearly all the sources named; Bousset, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Eschatologie,” in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, xx. 2, and especially xx. 3, on the later Byzantine prophecies; Vassiliev, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, i. (Moscow, 1893), which gives the texts of a series of Byzantine prophecies; E. Sackur, Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen (1898), containing (i) Pseudo-Methodius, Latin text, (2) Epistola Adsonis, (3) the Tiburtine Sibylla; V. Istrin, The Apocalypse of Methodius of Patara and the Apocryphal Visions of Daniel in Byzantine and Slavo-Russian Literature, Russian (Moscow, 1897); J. Kampers, Die deutsche Kaiseridee in Prophetie und Sage (Munich, 1896), and “Alexander der Grosse und die Idee des Weltimperiums,” in H. Grauert’s Studien und Darstellungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte, vol. i. 2-3 (Freiburg, 1901); E. Wadstein, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe, Antichrist, Weltsabbat, Weltende und Welgericht (Leipzig, 1896), which contains excellent material for the history of the idea in the West during the middle ages; W. Meyer, “Ludus de Antichristo,” in Sitzberichl der Münchener Akad. (Phil. hist. Klasse 1882, H. i.); Kropatschek, Das Schriftprincip der lutherischen Kirche, i. 247 &c. (Leipzig, 1904); H. Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther u. i. d. Konfessionellen Polemik (Leipzig, 1906).

(W. Bo.)

See further, Bousset, Religion des Judentums, ed. ii. pp. 289 &c., 381 &c., 585 &c.

See Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos (1893).

It is, of course, uncertain whether this phenomenon already occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 15, since here Belial might still be Satan; cf. however, Ascensio Jesaiae iv. 2 &c.; Sibyll. iii. 63 &c., ii. 167 &c.

It is not necessary to decide whether the epistle is by St Paul or by a pupil of Paul, although the former seems to the present writer to be by far the more probable, in spite of the brilliant attack on the genuineness of the epistle by Wrede in Texte und Übersetzungen, N.F. ix. 2.

Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 8; the Targum also, in its comment on the passage of Isaiah, applies “the wicked” to Antichrist.

See Bousset, Kommentar zur Offenbarung Johannis, on these passages.

Ibid. ch. xvii.: and Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, lvii. sq.

Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, i. 573

See Bousset, in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklop. für Theologie und Kirsche (ed. 3), xviii. 273 &c.

Latin text by Sackur, cf. op. cit. 1 &c.; Greek text by V. Istrin.

See Bousset, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, xx. p. 289 &c.

Published in Merx, Archiv zur Erforschung des Alten Testament.

See especially the Ludus de Antichristo, ed. W. Meyer.

ANTICLIMAX (i.e. the opposite to “climax”), in rhetoric, an abrupt declension (either deliberate or unintended) on the part of a speaker or writer from the dignity of idea which he appeared to be aiming at; as in the following well-known distich:—

“The great Dalhousie, he, the god of war,

Lieutenant-colonel to the earl of Mar.”

An anticlimax can be intentionally employed only for a jocular or satiric purpose. It frequently partakes of the nature of antithesis, as—

“Die and endow a college or a cat.”

It is often difficult to distinguish between “anticlimax” and “bathos”; but the former is more decidedly a relative term. A whole speech may never rise above the level of bathos; but a climax of greater or less elevation is the necessary antecedent of an anticlimax.

ANTICOSTI, an island of the province of Quebec, Canada, situated in the Gulf of St Lawrence, between 49° and 50° N., and between 61° 40′ and 64° 30′ W., with a length of 135 m. and a breadth of 30 m. Population 250, consisting chiefly of the keepers of the numerous lighthouses erected by the Canadian government. The coast is dangerous, and the only two harbours, Ellis Bay and Fox Bay, are very indifferent. Anticosti was sighted by Jacques Cartier in 1534, and named Assomption. In 1763 it was ceded by France to Britain, and in 1774 became part of Canada. Wild animals, especially bears, are numerous, but prior to 1896 the fish and game had been almost exterminated by indiscriminate slaughter. In that year Anticosti and the shore fisheries were leased to M. Menier, the French chocolate manufacturer, who converted the island into a game preserve, and attempted to develop its resources of lumber, peat and minerals.

See Logan, Geological Survey of Canada, Report of Progress from its Commencement to 1863 (Montreal, 1863-1865); E. Billings, Geological Survey of Canada: Catalogue of the Silurian Fossils of Anticosti (Montreal, 1866); J. Schmitt, Anticosti (Paris, 1904).

ANTICYCLONE (i.e. opposite to a cyclone), an atmospheric system in which there is a descending movement of the air and a relative increase in barometric pressure over the part of the earth’s surface affected by it. At the surface the air tends to flow outwards in all directions from the central area of high pressure, and is deflected on account of the earth’s rotation (see FErrel’s Law) so as to give a spiral movement in the direction of the hands of a watch face upwards in the northern hemisphere, against that direction in the southern hemisphere. Since the air in an anticyclone is descending, it becomes warmed and dried, and therefore transmits radiation freely whether from the sun to the earth or from the earth into space. Hence in winter anticyclonic weather is characterized by clear air with periods of frost, causing fogs in towns and low-lying damp areas, and in summer by still cloudless days with gentle variable airs and fine weather.

ANTICYRA, the ancient name of three cities of Greece, (1) (Mod. Aspraspitia), in Phocis, on the bay of Anticyra, in the Corinthian gulf; some remains are still visible. It was a town of considerable importance in ancient times; was destroyed by Philip of Macedon; recovered its prosperity; and was captured by T. Quinctius Flamininus in 198 B.C. The city was famous for its black hellebore, a herb which was regarded as a cure for insanity. This circumstance gave rise to a number of proverbial expressions, like Άντικύρας σε δεῖ or “naviget Anticyram,” and to frequent allusions in the Greek and Latin writers. Hellebore was likewise considered beneficial in cases of gout and epilepsy. (2) In Thessaly, on the right bank of the river Spercheus, near its mouth. (3) In Locris, on the north side of the entrance to the Corinthian gulf, near Naupactus.

ANTIETAM, the name of a Maryland creek, near which, on the 16th-17th of September 1862, was fought the battle of Antietam or Sharpsburg (see American Civil War), between the Federals under McClellan and the Confederates commanded by Lee. General McClellan had captured the passes of South Mountain farther east on the 14th, and his Army of the Potomac marched to meet Lee’s forces which, hitherto divided, had, by the 16th, successfully concentrated between the Antietam and the Potomac. The Confederate Army of Northern Virginia occupied a position which, in relation to the surrounding country, may be compared to the string of a bow in the act of being drawn, Lee’s left wing forming the upper half of the string, his right the lower, and the Potomac in his rear the bow itself. The town of Sharpsburg represents the fingers of the archer drawing the bow. The right wing of the position was covered by the Antietam as it approaches the Potomac, the upper course of that stream formed no part of the battlefield. Generals Longstreet and Jackson commanded the right and left wings. The division of A.P. Hill was at Harper’s Ferry, but had received orders to rejoin Lee. McClellan’s troops appeared late on the 16th, and Hooker was immediately sent across the upper Antietam. He had a sharp fight with Jackson’s men, but night soon put an end to the contest. Early on the 19th the corps of Sumner and Mansfield followed Hooker across the upper stream whilst McClellan’s left wing (Burnside’s corps) drew up opposite Lee’s extreme right. The Federal leader intended to hold back his centre whilst these two forces were rolling up Lee’s wings. The battle began with a furious assault on the extreme right by Hooker’s corps. After a very severe struggle he was repulsed with the loss of a quarter of his men, Jackson’s divisions suffering even more severely and losing nearly all their generals and colonels. It was only the arrival of Hood and D.H. Hill which enabled Stonewall Jackson’s corps to hold its ground, and had the other Federal corps been at hand to support Hooker the result might have been very different. Mansfield next attacked farther to the left and with better fortune. Mansfield was killed, but his successor led the corps well, and after heavy fighting Hood and D.H. Hill were driven back. Again want of support checked the Federals and the fight became stationary, both sides losing many men. Sumner now came into action, and overhaste involved him in a catastrophe, his troops being attacked in front and flank and driven back in great confusion with nearly half their number killed and wounded; and their retreat involved the gallant remnants of Mansfield’s corps. Soon afterwards the Federal divisions of French and Richardson attacked D.H. Hill, whose men were now exhausted by continuous fighting. Here occurred the fighting in the “Bloody Lane,” north of Sharpsburg which French and Richardson eventually carried. Opposed as they were by D.H. Hill, whose men had fought the battle of South Mountain and had already been three times engaged à fond on this day, proper support must have enabled the Federals to crush Lee’s centre, but Franklin and Porter in reserve were not allowed by McClellan to move forward and the opportunity passed. Burnside, on the southern wing, had received his orders late, and acted on them still later. The battle was over on the right before he fired a shot, and Lee had been able to use nearly all his right wing troops to support Jackson. At last Burnside moved forward, and, after a brilliant defence by the handful of men left to oppose him, forced the Antietam and began to roll up Lee’s right, only to be attacked in rear himself by A.P. Hill’s troops newly arrived from Harper’s Ferry. The repulse of Burnside ended the battle. Pressure was brought to bear on McClellan to renew the fight, but he refused and Lee retired across the Potomac unmolested. The Army of the Potomac had lost 11,832 men out of 46,000 engaged; the cavalry and two corps in reserve had only lost 578. Lee’s 31,200 men lost over 8000 of their number.

See the bibliography appended to American Civil War, and also General Palfrey’s Antietam and Fredericksburg.

ANTI-FEDERALISTS, the name given in the political history of the United States to those who, after the formation of the federal Constitution of 1787, opposed its ratification by the people of the several states. The “party” (though it was never regularly organized as such) was composed of states rights, particularistic, individualistic and radical democratic elements; that is, of those persons who thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, or the special interests, individual or commercial, of localities, or the liberties of individuals, or who fancied they saw in the government proposed a new centralized, disguised “monarchic” power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain. In every state the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two—North Carolina and Rhode Island—it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adhesion. The individualistic was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt. Instead of accepting the Constitution upon the condition of amendments,—in which way they might very likely have secured large concessions,—the Anti-Federalists stood for unconditional rejection, and public opinion, which went against them, proved that for all its shortcomings the Constitution was regarded as preferable to the Articles of Confederation. After the inauguration of the new government, the composition of the Anti-Federalist party changed. The Federalist (q.v.) party gradually showed broad-construction, nationalistic tendencies; the Anti-Federalist party became a strict-construction party and advocated popular rights against the asserted aristocratic, centralizing tendencies of its opponent, and gradually was transformed into the Democratic-Republican party, mustered and led by Thomas Jefferson, who, however, had approved the ratification of the Constitution and was not, therefore, an Anti-Federalist in the original sense of that term.

See O.G. Libby, Geographical Distribution of the Vote... on the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788 (University of Wisconsin, Bulletin, 1894); S.B. Harding, Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in ... Massachusetts (Harvard University Studies, New York, 1896); and authorities on political and constitutional history in the article United States.

ANTIGO, a city and the county-seat of Langlade county, Wisconsin, U.S.A., about 160 m. N.W. of Milwaukee. Pop. (1890) 4424; (1900) 5145, of whom 965 were foreign-born; (1905) 6663; (1910) 7196. It is served by the Chicago & North Western railway. Antigo is the centre of a good farming and lumbering district, and its manufactures consist principally of lumber, chairs, furniture, sashes, doors and blinds, hubs and spokes, and other wood products. The city has a Carnegie library. Antigo was first settled in 1880, and was chartered as a city in 1885. Its name is said to be part of an Indian word, neequee-antigo-sebi, meaning “evergreen.”

ANTIGONE, (1) in Greek legend, daughter of Oedipus and Iocaste (Jocasta), or, according to the older story, of Euryganeia. When her father, on discovering that Iocaste, the mother of his children, was also his own mother, put his eyes out and resigned the throne of Thebes, she accompanied him into exile at Colonus. After his death she returned to Thebes, where Haemon, the son of Creon, king of Thebes, became enamoured of her. When her brothers Eteocles and Polyneices had slain each other in single combat, she buried Polyneices, although Creon had forbidden it. As a punishment she was sentenced to be buried alive in a vault, where she hanged herself, and Haemon killed himself in despair. Her character and these incidents of her life presented an attractive subject to the Greek tragic poets, especially Sophocles in the Antigone and Oedipus at Colonus, and Euripides, whose Antigone, though now lost, is partly known from extracts incidentally preserved in later writers, and from passages in his Phoenissae. In the order of the events, at least, Sophocles departed from the original legend, according to which the burial of Polyneices took place while Oedipus was yet in Thebes, not after he had died at Colonus. Again, in regard to Antigone’s tragic end Sophocles differs from Euripides, according to whom the calamity was averted by the intercession of Dionysus and was followed by the marriage of Antigone and Haemon. In Hyginus’s version of the legend, founded apparently on a tragedy by some follower of Euripides, Antigone, on being handed over by Creon to her lover Haemon to be slain, was secretly carried off by him, and concealed in a shepherd’s hut, where she bore him a son Maeon. When the boy grew up, he went to some funeral games at Thebes, and was recognized by the mark of a dragon on his body. This led to the discovery that Antigone was still alive. Heracles pleaded in vain with Creon for Haemon, who slew both Antigone and himself, to escape his father’s vengeance. On a painted vase the scene of the intercession of Heracles is represented (Heydermann, Über eine nacheuripideische Antigone, 1868). Antigone placing the body of Polyneices on the funeral pile occurs on a sarcophagus in the villa Pamfili in Rome, and is mentioned in the description of an ancient painting by Philostratus (Imag. ii. 29), who states that the flames consuming the two brothers burnt apart, indicating their unalterable hatred, even in death.

(2) A second Antigone was the daughter of Eurytion, king of Phthia, and wife of Peleus. Her husband, having accidentally killed Eurytion in the Calydonian boar hunt, fled and obtained expiation from Acastus, whose wife made advances to Peleus. Finding that her affection was not returned, she falsely accused Peleus of infidelity to his wife, who thereupon hanged herself (Apollodorus, iii. 13).

ANTIGONUS CYCLOPS (or Monopthalmos; so called from his having lost an eye) (382-301 B.C.), Macedonian king, son of Philip, was one of the generals of Alexander the Great. He was made governor of Greater Phrygia in 333, and in the division of the provinces after Alexander’s death (323) Pamphylia and Lycia were added to his command. He incurred the enmity of Perdiccas, the regent, by refusing to assist Eumenes (q.v.) to obtain possession of the provinces allotted to him. In danger of his life he escaped with his son Demetrius into Greece, where he obtained the favour of Antipater, regent of Macedonia (321); and when, soon after, on the death of Perdiccas, a new division took place, he was entrusted with the command of the war against Eumenes, who had joined Perdiccas against the coalition of Antipater, Antigonus, and the other generals. Eumenes was completely defeated, and obliged to retire to Nora in Cappadocia, and a new army that was marching to his relief was routed by Antigonus. Polyperchon succeeding Antipater (d. 319) in the regency, to the exclusion of Cassander, his son, Antigonus resolved to set himself up as lord of all Asia, and in conjunction with Cassander and Ptolemy of Egypt, refused to recognize Polyperchon. He entered into negotiations with Eumenes; but Eumenes remained faithful to the royal house. Effecting his escape from Nora, he raised an army, and formed a coalition with the satraps of the eastern provinces. He was at last delivered up to Antigonus through treachery in Persia and put to death (316). Antigonus again claimed authority over the whole of Asia, seized the treasures at Susa, and entered Babylonia, of which Seleucus was governor. Seleucus fled to Ptolemy, and entered into a league with him (315), together with Lysimachus and Cassander. After the war had been carried on with varying success from 315 to 311, peace was concluded, by which the government of Asia Minor and Syria was provisionally secured to Antigonus. This agreement was soon violated on the pretext that garrisons had been placed in some of the free Greek cities by Antigonus, and Ptolemy and Cassander renewed hostilities against him. Demetrius Poliorcetes, the son of Antigonus, wrested part of Greece from Cassander. At first Ptolemy had made a successful descent upon Asia Minor and on several of the islands of the Archipelago; but he was at length totally defeated by Demetrius in a naval engagement off Salamis, in Cyprus (306). On this victory Antigonus assumed the title of king, and bestowed the same upon his son, a declaration that he claimed to be the heir of Alexander. Antigonus now prepared a large army, and a formidable fleet, the command of which he gave to Demetrius, and hastened to attack Ptolemy in his own dominions. His invasion of Egypt, however, proved a failure; he was unable to penetrate the defences of Ptolemy, and was obliged to retire. Demetrius now attempted the reduction of Rhodes, which had refused to assist Antigonus against Egypt; but, meeting with obstinate resistance, he was obliged to make a treaty upon the best terms that he could (304). In 302, although Demetrius was again winning success after success in Greece, Antigonus was obliged to recall him to meet the confederacy that had been formed between Cassander, Seleucus and Lysimachus. A decisive battle was fought at Ipsus, in which Antigonus fell, in the eighty-first year of his age.

Diodorus Siculus xviii., xx. 46-86; Plutarch, Demetrius, Eumenes; Nepos, Eumenes; Justin xv. 1-4. See Macedonian Empire; and Köhler, “Das Reich des Antigonos,” in the Sitzungsberichte d. Berl. Akad., 1898, p. 835 f.

ANTIGONUS GONATAS (c. 319-239 B.C.), Macedonian king, was the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, and grandson of Antigonus Cyclops. On the death of his father (283), he assumed the title of king of Macedonia, but did not obtain possession of the throne till 276, after it had been successively in the hands of Pyrrhus, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy Ceraunus. Antigonus repelled the invasion of the Gauls, and continued in undisputed possession of Macedonia till 274, when Pyrrhus returned from Italy, and (in 273) made himself master of nearly all the country. On the advance of Pyrrhus into Peloponnesus, he recovered his dominions. He was again (between 263 and 255) driven out of his kingdom by Alexander, the son of Pyrrhus, and again recovered it. The latter part of his reign was comparatively peaceful, and he gained the affection of his subjects by his honesty and his cultivation of the arts. He gathered round him distinguished literary men—philosophers, poets, and historians. He died in the eightieth year of his age, and the forty-fourth of his reign. His surname was usually derived by later Greek writers from the name of his supposed birthplace, Gonni (Gonnus) in Thessaly; some take it to be a Macedonian word signifying an iron plate for protecting the knee; neither conjecture is a happy one, and in our ignorance of the Macedonian language it must remain unexplained.

Plutarch, Demetrius, Pyrrhus, Aratus; Justin xxiv. 1; xxv. 1-3; Polybius ii. 43-45, ix. 29, 34. See Thirlwall, History of Greece, vol viii. (1847); Holm, Griech. Gesch. vol. iv. (1894); Niese, Gesch. d. griech. u. maked. Staaten, vols. i. and ii. (1893, 1899); Beloch, Griech. Gesch. vol. iii. (1904); also Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Antigonos von Karystos (1881).

ANTIGONUS OF CARYSTUS (in Euboea), Greek writer on various subjects, flourished in the 3rd century B.C. After some time spent at Athens and in travelling, he was summoned to the court of Attalus I. (241-197) of Pergamum. His chief work was the Lives of Philosophers drawn from personal knowledge, of which considerable fragments are preserved in Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius. We still possess his Collection of Wonderful Tales, chiefly extracted from the θαυμάσια Άκούσματα attributed to Aristotle and the θαυμάσια of Callimachus. It is doubtful whether he is identical with the sculptor who, according to Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxxiv. 19), wrote books on his art.

Text in Keller, Rerum Naturalium Scriptores Graeci Minores, i. (1877); see Kopke, De Antigono Carystio (1862); Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, “A. von Karystos,” in Philologische Untersuchungen, iv. (.1881).

ANTIGUA, an island in the British West Indies, forming, with Barbuda and Redonda, one of the five presidencies in the colony of the Leeward Islands. It lies 50 m. E. of St Kitts, in 17° 6′ N. and 61° 45′ W., and is 54 m. in circumference, with an area of 108 sq. m. The surface is comparatively flat, and there is no central range of mountains as in most other West Indian islands, but among the hills in the south-west an elevation of 1328 ft. is attained. Owing to the absence of rivers, the paucity of springs, and the almost complete deforestation, Antigua is subject to frequent droughts, and although the average rainfall is 45.6 in., the variations from year to year are great. The dryness of the air proves very beneficial to persons suffering from pulmonary complaints. The high rocky coast is much indented by bays and arms of the sea, several of which form excellent harbours, that of St John being safe and commodious, but inferior to English Harbour, which, although little frequented, is capable of receiving vessels of the largest size. The soil, especially in the interior, is very fertile. Sugar and pineapples are the chief products for export, but sweet potatoes, yams, maize and guinea corn are grown for local consumption. Antigua is the residence of the governor of the Leeward Islands, and the meeting place of the general legislative council, but there is also a local legislative council of 16 members, half official and half unofficial. Until 1898, when the Crown Colony system was adopted, the legislative council was partly elected, partly nominated. Elementary education is compulsory. Agricultural training is given under government control, and the Cambridge local examinations and those of the University of London are held annually. Antigua is the see of a bishop of the Church of England, the members of which predominate here, but Moravians and Wesleyans are numerous. There is a small volunteer defence force. The island has direct steam communication with Great Britain, the United States and Canada, and is also served by the submarine cable. The three chief towns are St John, Falmouth and Parham. St John (pop. about 10,000), the capital, situated on the north-west, is an exceedingly picturesque town, built on an eminence overlooking one of the most beautiful harbours in the West Indies. Although both Falmouth and Parham have good harbours, most of the produce of the island finds its way to St John for shipment. The trade is chiefly with the United States, and the main exports are sugar, molasses, logwood, tamarinds, turtles, and pineapples. The cultivation of cotton has been introduced with success, and this also is exported. The dependent islands of Barbuda and Redonda have an area of 62 sq. m. Pop. of Antigua (1901), 34,178; of the presidency, 35,073.

Antigua was discovered in 1493 by Columbus, who is said to have named it after a church in Seville, called Santa Maria la Antigua. It remained, however, uninhabited until 1632, when a body of English settlers took possession of it, and in 1663 another settlement of the same nation was effected under the direction of Lord Willoughby, to whom the entire island was granted by Charles II. It was ravaged by the French in 1666, but was soon after reconquered by the British and formally restored to them by the treaty of Breda. Since then it has been a British possession.

ANTILEGOMENA (ἀντιλεγόμενα, contradicted or disputed), an epithet used by the early Christian writers to denote those books of the New Testament which, although sometimes publicly read in the churches, were not for a considerable time admitted to be genuine, or received into the canon of Scripture. They were thus contrasted with the Homologoumena, or universally acknowledged writings. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25) applies the term Antilegomena to the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Teaching of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In later usage it describes those of the New Testament books which have obtained a doubtful place in the Canon. These are the Epistles of James and Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

ANTILIA or Antillia, sometimes called the Island of the Seven Cities (Portuguese Isla das Sete Cidades), a legendary island in the Atlantic ocean. The origin of the name is quite uncertain. The oldest suggested etymology (1455) fancifully connects it with the name of the Platonic Atlantis, while later writers have endeavoured to derive it from the Latin anterior (i.e. the island that is reached “before” Cipango), or from the Jezirat al Tennyn, “Dragon’s Isle,” of the Arabian geographers. Antilia is marked in an anonymous map which is dated 1424 and preserved in the grand-ducal library at Weimar. It reappears in the maps of the Genoese B. Beccario or Beccaria (1435), and of the Venetian Andrea Bianco (1436), and again in 1455 and 1476. In most of these it is accompanied by the smaller and equally legendary islands of Royllo, St Atanagio, and Tanmar, the whole group being classified as insulae de novo repertae, “newly discovered islands.” The Florentine Paul Toscanelli, in his letters to Columbus and the Portuguese court (1474), takes Antilia as the principal landmark for measuring the distance between Lisbon and the island of Cipango or Zipangu (Japan). One of the chief early descriptions of Antilia is that inscribed on the globe which the geographer Martin Behaim made at Nuremberg in 1492 (see Map: History). Behaim relates that in 734—a date which is probably a misprint for 714—and after the Moors had conquered Spain and Portugal, the island of Antilia or “Septe Cidade” was colonized by Christian refugees under the archbishop of Oporto and six bishops. The inscription adds that a Spanish vessel sighted the island in 1414. According to an old Portuguese tradition each of the seven leaders founded and ruled a city, and the whole island became a Utopian commonwealth, free from the disorders of less favoured states. Later Portuguese tradition localized Antilia in the island of St Michael’s, the largest of the Azores. It is impossible to estimate how far this legend commemorates some actual but imperfectly recorded discovery, and how far it is a reminiscence of the ancient idea of an elysium in the western seas which is embodied in the legends of the Isles of the Blest or Fortunate Islands.

ANTILLES, a term of somewhat doubtful origin, now generally used, especially by foreign writers, as synonymous with the expression “West India Islands.” Like “Brazil,” it dates from a period anterior to the discovery of the New World, “Antilia,” as stated above, being one of those mysterious lands, which figured on the medieval charts sometimes as an archipelago, sometimes as continuous land of greater or lesser extent, constantly fluctuating in mid-ocean between the Canaries and East India. But it came at last to be identified with the land discovered by Columbus. Later, when this was found to consist of a vast archipelago enclosing the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, Antilia assumed its present plural form, Antilles, which was collectively applied to the whole of this archipelago.

A distinction is made between the Greater Antilles, including Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, and Porto Riro; and the Lesser Antilles, covering the remainder of the islands.

ANTILOCHUS, in Greek legend, son of Nestor, king of Pylos. One of the suitors of Helen, he accompanied his father to the Trojan War. He was distinguished for his beauty, swiftness of foot, and skill as a charioteer; though the youngest among the Greek princes, he commanded the Pylians in the war, and performed many deeds of valour. He was a favourite of the gods, and an intimate friend of Achilles, to whom he was commissioned to announce the death of Patroclus. When his father was attacked by Memnon, he saved his life at the sacrifice of his own (Pindar, Pyth. vi. 28), thus fulfilling an oracle which had bidden him “beware of an Ethiopian.” His death was avenged by Achilles. According to other accounts, he was slain by Hector (Hyginus, Fab. 113), or by Paris in the temple of the Thymbraean Apollo together with Achilles (Dares Phrygius 34). His ashes, with those of Achilles and Patroclus, were deposited in a mound on the promontory of Sigeum, where the inhabitants of Ilium offered sacrifice to the dead heroes (Odyssey, xxiv. 72; Strabo xiii. p. 596). In the Odyssey (xi. 468) the three friends are represented as united in the underworld and walking together in the fields of asphodel; according to Pausanias (iii. 19) they dwell together in the island of Leuke.

ANTIMACASSAR, a separate covering for the back of a chair, or the head or cushions of a sofa, to prevent soiling of the permanent fabric. The name is attributable to the unguent for the hair commonly used in the early 19th century,—Byron calls it “thine incomparable oil, Macassar.” The original antimacassar was almost invariably made of white crochet-work, very stiff, hard, and uncomfortable, but in the third quarter of the 19th century it became simpler and less inartistic, and was made of soft coloured stuffs, usually worked with a simple pattern in tinted wools or silk.

ANTIMACHUS, of Colophon or Claros, Greek poet and grammarian, flourished about 400 B.C. Scarcely anything is known of his life. His poetical efforts were not generally appreciated, although he received encouragement from his younger contemporary Plato (Plutarch, Lysander, 18). His chief works were: a long-winded epic Thebais, an account of the expedition of the Seven against Thebes and the war of the Epigoni; and an elegiac poem Lyde, so called from the poet’s mistress, for whose death he endeavoured to find consolation by ransacking mythology for stories of unhappy love affairs (Plutarch, Consol. ad Apoll. 9; Athenaeus xiii. 597). Antimachus was the founder of “learned” epic poetry, and the forerunner of the Alexandrian school, whose critics allotted him the next place to Homer. He also prepared a critical recension of the Homeric poems.

Fragments, ed. Stoll (1845); Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci (1882); Kinkel, Fragmenta epicorum Graecorum (1877).

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, an American political organization which had its rise after the mysterious disappearance, in 1826, of William Morgan (c. 1776-c. 1826), a Freemason of Batavia, New York, who had become dissatisfied with his Order and had planned to publish its secrets. When his purpose became known to the Masons, Morgan was subjected to frequent annoyances, and finally in September 1826 he was seized and surreptitiously conveyed to Fort Niagara, whence he disappeared. Though his ultimate fate was never known, it was generally believed at the time that he had been foully dealt with. The event created great excitement, and led many to believe that Masonry and good citizenship were incompatible. Opposition to Masonry was taken up by the churches as a sort of religious crusade, and it also became a local political issue in western New York, where early in 1827 the citizens in many mass meetings resolved to support no Mason for public office. In New York at this time the National Republicans, or “Adams men,” were a very feeble organization, and shrewd political leaders at once determined to utilize the strong anti-Masonic feeling in creating a new and vigorous party to oppose the rising Jacksonian Democracy. In this effort they were aided by the fact that Jackson was a high Mason and frequently spoke in praise of the Order. In the elections of 1828 the new party proved unexpectedly strong, and after this year it practically superseded the National Republican party in New York. In 1829 the hand of its leaders was shown, when, in addition to its antagonism to the Masons, it became a champion of internal improvements and of the protective tariff. From New York the movement spread into other middle states and into New England, and became especially strong in Pennsylvania and Vermont. A national organization was planned as early as 1827, when the New York leaders attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade Henry Clay, though a Mason, to renounce the Order and head the movement. In September 1831 the party at a national convention in Baltimore nominated as its candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency William Wirt of Maryland and Amos Ellmaker (1787-1851) of Pennsylvania; and in the election of the following year it secured the seven electoral votes of the state of Vermont. This was the high tide of its prosperity; in New York in 1833 the organization was moribund, and its members gradually united with other opponents of Jacksonian Democracy in forming the Whig party. In other states, however, the party survived somewhat longer, but by 1836 most of its members had united with the Whigs. Its last act in national politics was to nominate William Henry Harrison for president and John Tyler for vice-president at a convention in Philadelphia in November 1838.

The growth of the anti-Masonic movement was due to the political and social conditions of the time rather than to the Morgan episode, which was merely the torch that ignited the train. Under the name of “Anti-Masons” able leaders united those who were discontented with existing political conditions, and the fact that William Wirt, their choice for the presidency in 1832, was not only a Mason but even defended the Order in a speech before the convention that nominated him, indicates that simple opposition to Masonry soon became a minor factor in holding together the various elements of which the party was composed.

See Charles McCarthy, The Antimasonic Party: A Study of Political Anti-Masonry in the United States, 1827-1840, in the Report of the American Historical Association for 1902 (Washington, 1903); the Autobiography of Thurlow Weed (2 vols., Boston, 1884); A.G. Mackey and W.R. Singleton, The History of Freemasonry, vol. vi. (New York, 1898); and J.D. Hammond, History of Political Parties in the State of New York (2 vols., Albany, 1842).

ANTIMONY (symbol Sb, atomic weight 120.2), one of the metallic chemical elements, included in the same natural family of the elements as nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, and bismuth. Antimony, in the form of its sulphide, has been known from very early times, more especially in Eastern countries, reference to it being made in the Old Testament. The Arabic name for the naturally occurring stibnite is “kohl”; Dioscorides mentions it under the term στίμμι, Pliny as stibium; and Geber as antimonium. By the German writers it is called Speissglanz. Basil Valentine alludes to it in his Triumphal Car of Antimony (circa 1600), and at a later date describes the preparation of the metal.

Native mineral antimony is occasionally found, and as such was first recognized in 1748. It usually occurs as lamellar or glanular masses, with a tin-white colour and metallic lustre, in limestone or in mineral veins often in association with ores of silver. Distinct crystals are rarely met with; these are rhombohedral and isomorphous with arsenic and bismuth; they have a perfect cleavage parallel to the basal plane, c (111), and are sometimes twinned on a rhombohedral plane, e (110). Hardness 3-3½ specific gravity 6.63-6.72. Sala in Sweden, Allemont in Dauphine, and Sarawak in Borneo may be mentioned as some of the localities for this mineral.

Antimony, however, occurs chiefly as the sulphide, stibnite; to a much smaller extent it occurs in combination with other metallic sulphides in the minerals wolfsbergite, boulangerite, bournonite, pyrargyrite, &c. For the preparation of metallic antimony the crude stibnite is first liquated, to free it from earthy and siliceous matter, and is then roasted in order to convert it into oxide. After oxidation, the product is reduced by heating with carbon, care being taken to prevent any loss through volatilization, by covering the mass with a layer of some protective substance such as potash, soda or glauber salt, which also aids the refining. For rich ores the method of roasting the sulphide with metallic iron is sometimes employed; carbon and salt or sodium sulphate being used to slag the iron. Electrolytic methods, in which a solution of antimony sulphide in sodium sulphide is used as the electrolyte, have been proposed (see German Patent 67973, and also Borcher’s Electro-Metallurgie), but do not yet appear to have been used on the large scale.

Antimony combines readily with many other metals to form alloys, some of which find extensive application in the arts. Type-metal is an alloy of lead with antimony and tin, to which occasionally a small quantity of copper or zinc is added. The presence of the antimony in this alloy gives to it hardness, and the property of expanding on solidification, thus allowing a sharp cast of the letter to be taken. An alloy of tin and antimony forms the basis of Britannia-metal, small quantities of copper, lead, zinc or bismuth being added. It is a white metal of bluish tint and is malleable and ductile. For the linings of brasses, various white metals are used, these being alloys of copper, antimony and tin, and occasionally lead.

Antimony is a silvery white, crystalline, brittle metal, and has a high lustre. Its specific gravity varies from 6.7 to 6.86; it melts at 432° C. (Dalton), and boils between 1090-1600° C. (T. Carnelley), or above 1300° (V. Meyer). Its specific heat is 0.0523 (H. Kopp). The vapour density of antimony at 1572° C. is 10.74, and at 1640° C. 9.78 (V. Meyer, Berichte, 1889, 22, p. 725), so that the antimony molecule is less complex than the molecules of the elements phosphorus and arsenic. An amorphous modification of antimony can be prepared by heating the metal in a stream of nitrogen, when it condenses in the cool part of the apparatus as a grey powder of specific gravity 6.22, melting at 614° C. and containing 98-99% of antimony (F. Herard, Comptes Rendus, 1888, cvii. 420).

Another form of the metal, known as explosive antimony, was discovered by G. Gore (Phil. Trans., 1858, p. 185; 1859, p. 797; 1862, p. 623), on electrolysing a solution of antimony trichloride in hydrochloric acid, using a positive pole of antimony and a negative pole of copper or platinum wire. It has a specific gravity of 5.78 and always contains some unaltered antimony trichloride (from 6 to 20%, G. Gore). It is very unstable, a scratch causing it instantaneously to pass into the stable form with explosive violence and the development of much heat. Similar phenomena are exhibited in the electrolysis of solutions of antimony tribromide and tri-iodide, the product obtained from the tribromide having a specific gravity of 5.4, and containing 18-20% of antimony tribromide, whilst that from the tri-iodide has a specific gravity of 5.2-5.8 and contains about 22% of hydriodic acid and antimony tri-iodide.

The atomic weight of antimony has been determined by the analysis of the chloride, bromide and iodide. J.P. Cooke (Proc. Amer. Acad., 1878, xiii. i) and J. Bongartz (Berichte, 1883, 16, p. 1942) obtained the value 120, whilst F. Pfeiffer (Ann. Chim. et Phys. ccix. 173) obtained the value 121 from the electrolysis of the chloride.

Pure antimony is quite permanent in air at ordinary temperatures, but when heated in air or oxygen it burns, forming the trioxide. It decomposes steam at a red heat, and burns (especially when finely powdered) in chlorine. Dilute hydrochloric acid is without action on it, but on warming with the concentrated acid, antimony trichloride is formed; it dissolves in warm concentrated sulphuric acid, the sulphate Sb2(SO4)3 being formed. Nitric acid oxidizes antimony either to the trioxide Sb4O6 or the pentoxide Sb2O5, the product obtained depending on the temperature and concentration of the acid. It combines directly with sulphur and phosphorus, and is readily oxidized when heated with metallic oxides (such as litharge, mercuric oxide, manganese dioxide, &c.). Antimony and its salts may be readily detected by the orange precipitate of antimony sulphide which is produced when sulphuretted hydrogen is passed through their acid solutions, and also by the Marsh test (see Arsenic); in this latter case the black stain produced is not soluble in bleaching powder solution. Antimony compounds when heated on charcoal with sodium carbonate in the reducing flame give brittle beads of metallic antimony, and a white incrustation of the oxide. The antimonious compounds are decomposed on addition of water, with formation of basic salts.

Antimony may be estimated quantitatively by conversion into the sulphide; the precipitate obtained is dried at 100° C. and heated in a current of carbon dioxide, or it may be converted into the tetroxide by nitric acid.

Antimony, like phosphorus and arsenic, combines directly with hydrogen. The compound formed, antimoniuretted hydrogen or stibine, SbH3, may also be prepared by the action of hydrochloric acid on an alloy of antimony and zinc, or by the action of nascent hydrogen on antimony compounds. As prepared by these methods it contains a relatively large amount of hydrogen, from which it can be freed by passing through a tube immersed in liquid air, when it condenses to a white solid. It is a poisonous colourless gas, with a characteristic offensive smell. In its general behaviour it resembles arsine, burning with a violet flame and being decomposed by heat into its constituent elements. When passed into silver nitrate solution it gives a black precipitate of silver antimonide, SbAg3. It is decomposed by the halogen elements and also by sulphuretted hydrogen. All three hydrogen atoms are replaceable by organic radicals and the resulting compounds combine with compounds of the type RCl, RBr and RI to form stibonium compounds.

There are three known oxides of antimony, the trioxide Sb4O6 which is capable of combining with both acids and bases to form salts, the tetroxide Sb2O4 and the pentoxide Sb2O5. Antimony trioxide occurs as the minerals valentinite and senarmontite, and can be artificially prepared by burning antimony in air; by heating the metal in steam to a bright red heat; by oxidizing melted antimony with litharge; by decomposing antimony trichloride with an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate, or by the action of dilute nitric acid on the metal. It is a white powder, almost insoluble in water, and when volatilized, condenses in two crystalline forms, either octahedral or prismatic. It is insoluble in sulphuric and nitric acids, but is readily soluble in hydrochloric and tartaric acids and in solutions of the caustic alkalies. On strongly heating in air it is converted into the tetroxide. The corresponding hydroxide, orthoantimonious acid, Sb(OH)3, can be obtained in a somewhat impure form by precipitating tartar emetic with dilute sulphuric acid; or better by decomposing antimonyl tartaric acid with sulphuric acid and drying the precipitated white powder at 100° C. Antimony tetroxide is formed by strongly heating either the trioxide or pentoxide. It is a nonvolatile white powder, and has a specific gravity of 6.6952; it is insoluble in water and almost so in acids—concentrated hydrochloric acid dissolving a small quantity. It is decomposed by a hot solution of potassium bitartrate. Antimony pentoxide is obtained by repeatedly evaporating antimony with nitric acid and heating the resulting antimonic acid to a temperature not above 275° C.; by heating antimony with red mercuric oxide until the mass becomes yellow (J. Berzelius); or by evaporating antimony trichloride to dryness with nitric acid. It is a pale yellow powder (of specific gravity 6.5), which on being heated strongly gives up oxygen and forms the tetroxide. It is insoluble in water, but dissolves slowly in hydrochloric acid. It possesses a feeble acid character, giving metantimoniates when heated with alkaline carbonates.

Orthoantimonic acid, H3SbO4, is obtained by the decomposition of its potassium salt with nitric acid (A. Geuther); or by the addition of water to the pentachloride, the precipitate formed being dried over sulphuric acid (P. Conrad, Chem. News, 1879, xl. 198). It is a white powder almost insoluble in water and nitric acid, and when heated, is first converted into metantimonic acid, HSbO3, and then into the pentoxide Sb2O5. Pyroantimonic acid, H4Sb2O7 (the metantimonic acid of E. Frémy), is obtained by decomposing antimony pentachloride with hot water, and drying the precipitate so obtained at 100° C. It is a white powder which is more soluble in water and acids than orthoantimonic acid. It forms two series of salts, of the types M2H2Sb2O7 and M4Sb2O7. Metantimonic acid, HSbO3, can be obtained by heating orthoantimonic acid to 175° C., or by long fusion of antimony with antimony sulphide and nitre. The fused mass is extracted with water, nitric acid is added to the solution, and the precipitate obtained washed with water (J. Berzelius). It is a white powder almost insoluble in water. On standing with water for some time it is slowly converted into the ortho-acid.

Compounds of antimony with all the halogen elements are known, one atom of the metal combining with three or five atoms of the halogen, except in the case of bromine, where only the tribromide is known. The majority of these halide compounds are decomposed by water, with the formation of basic salts. Antimony trichloride (“Butter of Antimony”), SbCl3, is obtained by burning the metal in chlorine; by distilling antimony with excess of mercuric chloride; and by fractional distillation of antimony tetroxide or trisulphide in hydrochloric acid solution. It is a colourless deliquescent solid of specific gravity 3.06; it melts at 73.2° C. (H. Kopp) to a colourless oil; and boils at 223° (H. Capitaine). It is soluble in alcohol and in carbon bisulphide, and also in a small quantity of water; but with an excess of water it gives a precipitate of various oxychlorides, known as powder of algaroth (q.v.). These precipitated oxychlorides on continued boiling with water lose all their chlorine and ultimately give a residue of antimony trioxide. It combines with chlorides of the alkali metals to form double salts, and also with barium, calcium, strontium, and magnesium chlorides. Antimony pentachloride, SbCl5 is prepared by heating the trichloride in a current of chlorine. It is a nearly colourless fuming liquid of unpleasant smell, which can be solidified to a mass of crystals melting at -6°C. It dissociates into the trichloride and chlorine when heated. It combines with water, forming the hydrates SbCl5·H2O and SbCl5·4H2O; it also combines with phosphorus oxychloride, hydrocyanic acid, and cyanogen chloride. In chloroform solution it combines with anhydrous oxalic acid to form a compound, Sb2Cl8(C2O4), which is to be considered as tetra-chlorstibonium oxalate (R. Anschütz and Evans, Annalen, 1887, ccxxxix. 235). Antimonyl chloride, SbOCl, is produced by the decomposition of one part of the trichloride with four parts of water. Prepared in this way it contains a small quantity of the unaltered chloride, which can be removed by ether or carbon bisulphide. It is a white powder insoluble in water, alcohol and ether. On heating, it is converted into the oxychloride Sb4O5Cl2 (Sb2O3·SbOCl). Antimony oxychloride, SbOCl3, is formed by addition of the calculated quantity of water to ice-cooled antimony pentachloride, SbCl5 + H2O = SbOCl3 + 2HCl. It forms a yellowish crystalline precipitate which in moist air goes to a thick liquid. Compounds of composition, SbOCl3·2SbCl5 and SbO2Cl·2SbOCl3, have also been described (W.C. Williams, Chem. News. 1871, xxiv. 234).

Antimony tribromide, SbBr3, and tri-iodide, SbI3, may be prepared by the action of antimony on solutions of bromine or iodine in carbon bisulphide. The tribromide is a colourless crystalline mass of specific gravity 4.148 (23°), melting at 90° to 94° C. and boiling at 275.4° C. (H. Kopp). The tri-iodide forms red-coloured crystals of specific gravity 4.848 (26°), melting at 165° to 167° C. and boiling at 401° C. By the action of water they give oxybromides and oxyiodides SbOBr, Sb4O5Br2, SbOI. Antimony penta-iodide, SbI5, is formed by heating antimony with excess of iodine, in a sealed tube, to a temperature not above 130°C. It forms a dark brown crystalline mass, melting at 78° to 79° C., and is easily dissociated on heating. Antimony trifluoride, SbF3, is obtained by dissolving the trioxide in aqueous hydrofluoric acid or by distilling antimony with mercuric fluoride. By rapid evaporation of its solution it may be obtained in small prisms. The pentafluoride SbF5 results when metantimonic acid is dissolved in hydrofluoric acid, and the solution is evaporated. It forms an amorphous gummy mass, which is decomposed by heat. Oxyfluorides of composition SbOF and SbOF3 are known.

Two sulphides of antimony are definitely known, the trisulphide Sb2S3 and the pentasulphide Sb2S5; a third, the tetrasulphide Sb2S4, has also been described, but its existence is doubtful. Antimony trisulphide, Sb2S3, occurs as the mineral antimonite or stibnite, from which the commercial product is obtained by a process of liquation. The amorphous variety may be obtained from the crystalline form by dissolving it in caustic potash or soda or in solutions of alkaline sulphides, and precipitating the hot solution by dilute sulphuric acid. The precipitate is then washed with water and dried at 100° C., by which treatment it is obtained in the anhydrous form. On precipitating antimony trichloride or tartar emetic in acid solution with sulphuretted hydrogen, an orange-red precipitate of the hydrated sulphide is obtained, which turns black on being heated to 200° C The trisulphide heated in a current of hydrogen is reduced to the metallic state; it burns in air forming the tetroxide, and is soluble in concentrated hydrochloric acid, in solutions of the caustic alkalis, and in alkaline sulphides. By the union of antimony trisulphide with basic sulphides, livers of antimony are obtained. These substances are usually prepared by fusing their components together, and are dark powders which are less soluble in water the more antimony they contain. These thioantimonites are used in the vulcanizing of rubber and in the preparation of matches. Antimony pentasulphide, Sb2S5, is prepared by precipitating a solution of the pentachloride with sulphuretted hydrogen, by decomposing “Schlippe’s salt” (q.v.) with an acid, or by passing sulphuretted hydrogen into water containing antimonic acid. It forms a fine dark orange powder, insoluble in water, but readily soluble in aqueous solutions of the caustic alkalis and alkaline carbonates. On heating in absence of air, it decomposes into the trisulphide and sulphur.

An antimony phosphide and arsenide are known, as is also a thiophosphate, SbPS4, which is prepared by heating together antimony trichloride and phosphorus pentasulphide.

Many organic compounds containing antimony are known. By distilling an alloy of antimony and sodium with mythyl iodide, mixed with sand, trimethyl stibine, Sb(CH3)3, is obtained; this combines with excess of methyl iodide to form tetramethyl stibonium iodide, Sb(CH3)4I. From this iodide the trimethyl stibine may be obtained by distillation with an alloy of potassium and antimony in a current of carbon dioxide. It is a colourless liquid, slightly soluble in water, and is spontaneously inflammable. The stibonium iodide on treatment with moist silver oxide gives the corresponding tetramethyl stibonium hydroxide, Sb(CH3)4OH, which forms deliquescent crystals, of alkaline reaction, and absorbs carbon dioxide readily. On distilling trimethyl stibine with zinc methyl, antimony tetra-methyl and penta-methyl are formed. Corresponding antimony compounds containing the ethyl group are known, as is also a tri-phenyl stibine, Sb(C6H5)3, which is prepared from antimony trichloride, sodium and monochlorbenzene. See Chung Yu Wang, Antimony (1909).

Antimony in Medicine.—So far back as Basil Valentine and Paracelsus, antimonial preparations were in great vogue as medicinal agents, and came to be so much abused that a prohibition was placed upon their employment by the Paris parlement in 1566. Metallic antimony was utilized to make goblets in which wine was allowed to stand so as to acquire emetic properties, and “everlasting” pills of the metal, supposed to act by contact merely, were administered and recovered for future use after they had fulfilled their purpose. Antimony compounds act as irritants both externally and internally. Tartar emetic (antimony tartrate) when swallowed, acts directly on the wall of the stomach, producing vomiting, and after absorption continues this effect by its action on the medulla. It is a powerful cardiac depressant, diminishing both the force and frequency of the heart’s beat. It depresses respiration, and in large doses lowers temperature. It depresses the nervous system, especially the spinal cord. It is excreted by all the secretions and excretions of the body. Thus as it passes out by the bronchial mucous membrane it increases the amount of secretion and so acts as an expectorant. On the skin its action is that of a diaphoretic, and being also excreted by the bile it acts slightly as a cholagogue. Summed up, its action is that of an irritant, and a cardiac and nervous depressant. But on account of this depressant action it is to be avoided for women and children and rarely used for men.

Toxicology.—Antimony is one of the “protoplasmic” poisons, directly lethal to all living matter. In acute poisoning by it the symptoms are almost identical with those of arsenical poisoning, which is much commoner (See Arsenic). The post-mortem appearances are also very similar, but the gastro-intestinal irritation is much less marked and inflammation of the lungs is more commonly seen. If the patient is not already vomiting freely the treatment is to use the stomach-pump, or give sulphate of zinc (gr. 10-30) by the mouth or apomorphine (gr. 1⁄20-1⁄10) subcutaneously. Frequent doses of a teaspoonful of tannin dissolved in water should be administered, together with strong tea and coffee and mucilaginous fluids. Stimulants may be given subcutaneously, and the patient should be placed in bed between warm blankets with hot-water bottles. Chronic poisoning by antimony is very rare, but resembles in essentials chronic poisoning by arsenic. In its medico-legal aspects antimonial poisoning is of little and lessening importance.

ANTINOMIANS (Gr. ἀντί, against, νόμος, law), a term apparently coined by Luther to stigmatize Johannes Agricola (q.v.) and his following, indicating an interpretation of the antithesis between law and gospel, recurrent from the earliest times. Christians being released, in important particulars, from conformity to the Old Testament polity as a whole, a real difficulty attended the settlement of the limits and the immediate authority of the remainder, known vaguely as the moral law. Indications are not wanting that St Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith was, in his own day, mistaken or perverted in the interests of immoral licence. Gnostic sects approached the question in two ways. Marcionites, named by Clement of Alexandria Antitactae (revolters against the Demiurge) held the Old Testament economy to be throughout tainted by its source; but they are not accused of licentiousness. Manichaeans, again, holding their spiritual being to be unaffected by the action of matter, regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. Kindred to this latter view was the position of sundry sects of English fanatics during the Commonwealth, who denied that an elect person sinned, even when committing acts in themselves gross and evil. Different from either of these was the Antinomianism charged by Luther against Agricola. Its starting-point was a dispute with Melanchthon in 1527 as to the relation between repentance and faith. Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance. Agricola gave the initial place to faith, maintaining that repentance is the work, not of law, but of the gospel-given knowledge of the love of God. The resulting Antinomian controversy (the only one within the Lutheran body in Luther’s lifetime) is not remarkable for the precision or the moderation of the combatants on either side. Agricola was apparently satisfied in conference with Luther and Melanchthon at Torgau, December 1527. His eighteen Positiones of 1537 revived the controversy and made it acute. Random as are some of his statements, he was consistent in two objects: (1) in the interest of solifidian doctrine, to place the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of good works on a sure ground; (2) in the interest of the New Testament, to find all needful guidance for Christian duty in its principles, if not in its precepts. From the latter part of the 17th century charges of Antinomianism have frequently been directed against Calvinists, on the ground of their disparagement of “deadly doing” and of “legal preaching.” The virulent controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism (1771-1775).

See G. Kawerau, in A. Hauck’s Realencyklopadie (1896); Riess, in I. Goschler’s Dict. Encyclop. de la théol. cath. (1858); J.H. Blunt Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. (1872); J.C.L. Gieseler, Ch. Hist. (New York ed. 1868, vol. iv.).

ANTINOMY (Gr. ἀντί, against, νόμος, law), literally, the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. The term acquired a special significance in the philosophy of Kant, who used it to describe the contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria proper to the universe of sensible perception (phenomena). These antinomies are four—two mathematical, two dynamical—connected with (1) the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time, (2) the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist), (3) the problem of freedom in relation to universal causality, (4) the existence of a universal being—about each of which pure reason contradicts the empirical, as thesis and antithesis. Kant claimed to solve these contradictions by saying, that in no case is the contradiction real, however really it has been intended by the opposing partisans, or must appear to the mind without critical enlightenment. It is wrong, therefore, to impute to Kant, as is often done, the view that human reason is, on ultimate subjects, at war with itself, in the sense of being impelled by equally strong arguments towards alternatives contradictory of each other. The difficulty arises from a confusion between the spheres of phenomena and noumena. In fact no rational cosmology is possible.

See John Watson, Selections from Kant (trans. Glasgow, 1897), pp. 155 foll.; W. Windelband, History of Philosophy (Eng. trans. 1893); H. Sidgwick, Philos. of Kant, lectures x. and xi. (Lond., 1905); F. Paulsen, I. Kant (Eng. trans. 1902), pp. 216 foll.

ANTINOÜS, a beautiful youth of Claudiopolis in Bithynia, was the favourite of the emperor Hadrian, whom he accompanied on his journeys. He committed suicide by drowning himself in the Nile (A.D. 130), either in a fit of melancholy or in order to prolong his patron’s life by his voluntary sacrifice. After his death, Hadrian caused the most extravagant respect to be paid to his memory. Not only were cities called after him, medals struck with his effigy, and statues erected to him in all parts of the empire, but he was raised to the rank of the gods, temples were built for his worship in Bithynia, Mantineia in Arcadia, and Athens, festivals celebrated in his honour and oracles delivered in his name. The city of Antinoöpolis was founded on the ruins of Besa where he died (Dio Cassius lix. 11; Spartianus, Hadrian). A number of statues, busts, gems and coins represented Antinoüs as the ideal type of youthful beauty, often with the attributes of some special god. We still possess a colossal bust in the Vatican, a bust in the Louvre, a bas-relief from the Villa Albani, a statue in the Capitoline museum, another in Berlin, another in the Lateran, and many more.

See Levezow, Über den Antinous (1808); Dietrich, Antinoos (1884); Laban, Der Gemütsausdruck des Antinoos (1891); Antinoüs, A Romance of Ancient Rome, from the German of A. Hausrath, by M. Saftord (New York, 1882); Ebers, Der Kaiser (1881).

ANTIOCH. There were sixteen cities known to have been founded under this name by Hellenistic monarchs; and at least twelve others were renamed Antioch. But by far the most famous and important in the list was Άντιόχεια ἡ ἐπὶ Δάφνῃ (mod. Antakia), situated on the left bank of the Orontes, about 20 m. from the sea and its port, Seleucia of Pieria (Suedia). Founded as a Greek city in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, as soon as he had assured his grip upon western Asia by the victory of Ipsus (301), it was destined to rival Alexandria in Egypt as the chief city of the nearer East, and to be the cradle of gentile Christianity. The geographical character of the district north and north-east of the elbow of Orontes makes it the natural centre of Syria, so long as that country is held by a western power; and only Asiatic, and especially Arab, dynasties have neglected it for the oasis of Damascus. The two easiest routes from the Mediterranean, lying through the Orontes gorge and the Beilan Pass, converge in the plain of the Antioch Lake (Balük Geut or El Bahr) and are met there by (1) the road from the Amanic Gates (Baghche Pass) and western Commagene, which descends the valley of the Kara Su, (2) the roads from eastern Commagene and the Euphratean crossings at Samosata (Samsat) and Apamea Zeugma (Birejik), which descend the valleys of the Afrin and the Kuwaik, and (3) the road from the Euphratean ford at Thapsacus, which skirts the fringe of the Syrian steppe. Travellers by all these roads must proceed south by the single route of the Orontes valley. Alexander is said to have camped on the site of Antioch, and dedicated an altar to Zeus Bottiaeus, which lay in the north-west of the future city. But the first western sovereign practically to recognize the importance of the district was Antigonus, who began to build a city, Antigonia, on the Kara Su a few miles north of the situation of Antioch; but, on his defeat, he left it to serve as a quarry for his rival Seleucus. The latter is said to have appealed to augury to determine the exact site of his projected foundation; but less fantastic considerations went far to settle it. To build south of the river, and on and under the last east spur of Casius, was to have security against invasion from the north, and command of the abundant waters of the mountain. One torrent, the Onopniktes (“donkey-drowner”), flowed through the new city, and many other streams came down a few miles west into the beautiful suburb of Daphne. The site appears not to have been found wholly uninhabited. A settlement, Meroe, boasting a shrine of Anait, called by the Greeks the “Persian Artemis,” had long been located there, and was ultimately included in the eastern suburbs of the new city; and there seems to have been a village on the spur (Mt. Silpius), of which we hear in late authors under the name Io, or Iopolis. This name was always adduced as evidence by Antiochenes (e.g. Libanius) anxious to affiliate themselves to the Attic Ionians—an anxiety which is illustrated by the Athenian types used on the city’s coins. At any rate, Io may have been a small early colony of trading Greeks (Javan). John Malalas mentions also a village, Bottia, in the plain by the river.

The original city of Seleucus was laid out in imitation of the “gridiron” plan of Alexandria by the architect, Xenarius. Libanius describes the first building and arrangement of this city (i. p. 300. 17). The citadel was on Mt. Silpius and the city lay mainly on the low ground to the north, fringing the river. Two great colonnaded streets intersected in the centre. Shortly afterwards a second quarter was laid out, probably on the east and by Antiochus I., which, from an expression of Strabo, appears to have been the native, as contrasted with the Greek, town. It was enclosed by a wall of its own. In the Orontes, north of the city, lay a large island, and on this Seleucus II. Callinicus began a third walled “city,” which was finished by Antiochus III. A fourth and last quarter was added by Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.); and thenceforth Antioch was known as Tetrapolis. From west to east the whole was about 4 m. in diameter and little less from north to south, this area including many large gardens. Of its population in the Greek period we know nothing. In the 4th century A.D. it was about 200,000 according to Chrysostom, who probably did not reckon slaves. About 4 m. west and beyond the suburb, Heraclea, lay the paradise of Daphne, a park of woods and waters, in the midst of which rose a great temple to the Pythian Apollo, founded by Seleucus I. and enriched with a cult-statue of the god, as Musagetes, by Bryaxis. A companion sanctuary of Hecate was constructed underground by Diocletian. The beauty and the lax morals of Daphne were celebrated all over the western world; and indeed Antioch as a whole shared in both these titles to fame. Its amenities awoke both the enthusiasm and the scorn of many writers of antiquity.

Antioch became the capital and court-city of the western Seleucid empire under Antiochus I., its counterpart in the east being Seleucia-on-Tigris; but its paramount importance dates from the battle of Ancyra (240 B.C.), which shifted the Seleucid centre of gravity from Asia Minor, and led indirectly to the rise of Pergamum. Thenceforward the Seleucids resided at Antioch and treated it as their capital par excellence. We know little of it in the Greek period, apart from Syria (q.v.), all our information coming from authors of the late Roman time. Among its great Greek buildings we hear only of the theatre, of which substructures still remain on the flank of Silpius, and of the royal palace, probably situated on the island. It enjoyed a great reputation for letters and the arts (Cicero pro Archia, 3); but the only names of distinction in these pursuits during the Seleucid period, that have come down to us, are Apollophanes, the Stoic, and one Phoebus, a writer on dreams. The mass of the population seems to have been only superficially Hellenic, and to have spoken Aramaic in non-official life. The nicknames which they gave to their later kings were Aramaic; and, except Apollo and Daphne, the great divinities of north Syria seem to have remained essentially native, such as the “Persian Artemis” of Meroe and Atargatis of Hierapolis Bambyce. We may infer, from its epithet, “Golden,” that the external appearance of Antioch was magnificent; but the city needed constant restoration owing to the seismic disturbances to which the district has always been peculiarly liable. The first great earthquake is said by the native chronicler John Malalas, who tells us most that we know of the city, to have occurred in 148 B.C., and to have done immense damage. The inhabitants were turbulent, fickle and notoriously dissolute. In the many dissensions of the Seleucid house they took violent part, and frequently rose in rebellion, for example against Alexander Balas in 147 B.C., and Demetrius II. in 129. The latter, enlisting a body of Jews, punished his capital with fire and sword. In the last struggles of the Seleucid house, Antioch turned definitely against its feeble rulers, invited Tigranes of Armenia to occupy the city in 83, tried to unseat Antiochus XIII. in 65, and petitioned Rome against his restoration in the following year. Its wish prevailed, and it passed with Syria to the Roman Republic in 64 B.C., but remained a civitas libera.

The Romans both felt and expressed boundless contempt for the hybrid Antiochenes; but their emperors favoured the city from the first, seeing in it a more suitable capital for the eastern part of the empire than Alexandria could ever be, thanks to the isolated position of Egypt. To a certain extent they tried to make it an eastern Rome. Caesar visited it in 47 B.C., and confirmed its freedom. A great temple to Jupiter Capitolinus rose on Silpius, probably at the instance of Octavian, whose cause the city had espoused. A forum of Roman type was laid out. Tiberius built two long colonnades on the south towards Silpius. Agrippa and Tiberius enlarged the theatre, and Trajan finished their work. Antoninus Pius paved the great east to west artery with granite. A circus, other colonnades and great numbers of baths were built, and new aqueducts to supply them bore the names of Caesars, the finest being the work of Hadrian. The Roman client, King Herod, erected a long stoa on the east, and Agrippa encouraged the growth of a new suburb south of this. Under the empire we chiefly hear of the earthquakes which shook Antioch. One, in A.D. 37, caused the emperor Caligula to send two senators to report on the condition of the city. Another followed in the next reign; and in 115, during Trajan’s sojourn in the place with his army of Parthia, the whole site was convulsed, the landscape altered, and the emperor himself forced to take shelter in the circus for several days. He and his successor restored the city; but in 526, after minor shocks, the calamity returned in a terrible form, and thousands of lives were lost, largely those of Christians gathered to a great church assembly. We hear also of especially terrific earthquakes on the 29th of November 528 and the 31st of October 588.

At Antioch Germanicus died in A.D. 19, and his body was burnt in the forum. Titus set up the Cherubim, captured from the Jewish temple, over one of the gates. Commodus had Olympic games celebrated at Antioch, and in A.D. 266 the town was suddenly raided by the Persians, who slew many in the theatre. In 387 there was a great sedition caused by a new tax levied by order of Theodosius, and the city was punished by the loss of its metropolitan status. Zeno, who renamed it Theopolis, restored many of its public buildings just before the great earthquake of 526, whose destructive work was completed by the Persian Chosroes twelve years later. Justinian made an effort to revive it, and Procopius describes his repairing of the walls; but its glory was past.

The chief interest of Antioch under the empire lies in its relation to Christianity. Evangelized perhaps by Peter, according to the tradition upon which the Antiochene patriarchate still rests its claim for primacy (cf. Acts xi.), and certainly by Barnabas and Saul, its converts were the first to be called “Christians.” They multiplied exceedingly, and by the time of Theodosius were reckoned by Chrysostom at about 100,000 souls. Between 252 and 300 A.D. ten assemblies of the church were held at Antioch and it became the residence of the patriarch of Asia. When Julian visited the place in 362 the impudent population railed at him for his favour to Jewish and pagan rites, and to revenge itself for the closing of its great church of Constantine, burned down the temple of Apollo in Daphne. The emperor’s rough and severe habits and his rigid administration prompted Antiochene lampoons, to which he replied in the curious satiric apologia, still extant, which he called Misopogon. His successor, Valens, who endowed Antioch with a new forum having a statue of Valentinian on a central column, reopened the great church, which stood till the sack of Chosroes in 538. Antioch gave its name to a certain school of Christian thought, distinguished by literal interpretation of the Scriptures and insistence on the human limitations of Jesus. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were the leaders of this school. The principal local saint was Simeon Stylites, who performed his penance on a hill some 40 m. east. His body was brought to the city and buried in a building erected under the emperor Leo. In A.D. 635, during the reign of Heraclius, Antioch passed into Saracen hands, and decayed apace for more than 300 years; but in 969 it was recovered for Byzantium by Michael Burza and Peter the Eunuch. In 1084 the Seljuk Turks captured it but held it only fourteen years, yielding place to the crusaders, who besieged it for nine months, enduring frightful sufferings. Being at last betrayed, it was given to Bohemund, prince of Tarentum, and it remained the capital of a Latin principality for nearly two centuries. It fell at last to the Egyptian, Bibars, in 1268, after a great destruction and slaughter, from which it never revived. Little remains now of the ancient city, except colossal ruins of aqueducts and part of the Roman walls, which are used as quarries for modern Antakia; but no scientific examination of the site has been made. A statue in the Vatican and a silver statuette in the British Museum perpetuate the type of its great effigy of the civic Fortune of Antioch—a majestic seated figure, with Orontes as a youth issuing from under her feet.

Antakia, the modern town, is still of considerable importance. Pop. about 25,000, including Ansarieh, Jews, and a large body of Christians of several denominations about 8000 strong. Though superseded by Aleppo (q.v.) as capital of N. Syria, it is still the centre of a large district, growing in wealth and productiveness with the draining of its central lake, undertaken by a French company. The principal cultures are tobacco, maize and cotton, and the mulberry for silk production. Liquorice also is collected and exported. In 1822 (as in 1872) Antakia suffered by earthquake, and when Ibrahim Pasha made it his headquarters in 1835, it had only some 5000 inhabitants. Its hopes, based on a Euphrates valley railway, which was to have started from its port of Suedia (Seleucia), were doomed to disappointment, and it has suffered repeatedly from visitations of cholera; but it has nevertheless grown rapidly and will resume much of its old importance when a railway is made down the lower Orontes valley. It is a centre of American mission enterprise, and has a British vice-consul.

See C.O. Miiller, Antiquitates Antiochenae (1839); A. Freund, Beiträge zur antiochenischen ... Stadtchronik (1882); R. Forster, in Jahrbuch of Berlin Arch. Institute, xii. (1897). Also authorities for Syria.

(D. G. H.)

Synods of Antioch. Beginning with three synods convened between 264 and 269 in the matter of Paul of Samosata, more than thirty councils were held in Antioch in ancient times. Most of these dealt with phases of the Arian and of the Christological controversies. The most celebrated took place in the summer of 341 at the dedication of the golden Basilica, and is therefore called in encaeniis (ἐν ἐγκαινίοις), in dedicatione. Nearly a hundred bishops were present, all from the Orient, but the bishop of Rome was not represented. The emperor Constantius attended in person. The council approved three creeds (Hahn, §§ 153-155). Whether or no the so-called “fourth formula” (Hahn, § 156) is to be ascribed to a continuation of this synod or to a subsequent but distinct assembly of the same year, its aim is like that of the first three; while repudiating certain Arian formulas it avoids the Athanasian shibboleth “homoousios.” The somewhat colourless compromise doubtless proceeded from the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and proved not inacceptable to the more nearly orthodox members of the synod. The twenty-five canons adopted regulate the so-called metropolitan constitution of the church. Ecclesiastical power is vested chiefly in the metropolitan (later called archbishop), and the semi-annual provincial synod (cf. Nicaea, canon 5), which he summons and over which he presides. Consequently the powers of country bishops (chorepiscopi) are curtailed, and direct recourse to the emperor is forbidden. The sentence of one judicatory is to be respected by other judicatories of equal rank; re-trial may take place only before that authority to whom appeal regularly lies (see canons 3, 4, 6). Without due invitation, a bishop may not ordain, or in any other way interfere with affairs lying outside his proper territory; nor may he appoint his own successor. Penalties are set on the refusal to celebrate Easter in accordance with the Nicene decree, as well as on leaving a church before the service of the Eucharist is completed. The numerous objections made by eminent scholars in past centuries to the ascription of these twenty-five canons to the synod in encaeniis have been elaborately stated and probably refuted by Hefele. The canons formed part of the Codex canonum used at Chalcedon in 451 and passed over into the later collections of East and West.

The canons are printed in Greek by Mansi ii. 1307 ff., Bruns i. 80 ff., Lauchert 43 ff., and translated by Hefele, Councils, ii. 67 ff. and by H.R. Percival in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, xiv. 108 ff. The four dogmatic formulas are given by G. Ludwig Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 3rd edition (Breslau, 1897), 183 ff.; for translations compare the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, iv. 461 ff., ii. 39 ff., ix. 12, ii. 44, and Hefele, ii. 76 ff. For full titles see Councils.

(W. W. R.*)

ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA, an ancient city, the remains of which, including ruins of temples, a theatre and a fine aqueduct, were found by Arundell in 1833 close to the modern Yalovach. It was situated on the lower southern slopes of the Sultan Dagh, in the Konia vilayet of Asia Minor, on the right bank of a stream, the ancient Anthius, which flows into the Hoiran Geul. It was probably founded on the site of a Phrygian sanctuary, by Seleucus Nicator, before 280 B.C. and was made a free city by the Romans in 189 B.C. It was a thoroughly Hellenized, Greek-speaking city, in the midst of a Phrygian people, with a mixed population that included many Jews. Before 6 B.C. Augustus made it a colony, with the title Caesarea, and it became the centre of civil and military administration in south Galatia, the romanization of which was progressing rapidly in the time of Claudius, A.D. 41-54, when Paul visited it (Acts xiii. 14, xiv. 21, xvi. 6, xviii. 23). In 1097 the crusaders found rest and shelter within its walls. The ruins are interesting, and show that Antioch was a strongly fortified city of Hellenic and Roman type.

ANTIOCHUS, the name of thirteen kings of the Seleucid dynasty in Nearer Asia. The most famous are Antiochus III. the Great (223-187 B.C.) who sheltered Hannibal and waged war with Rome, and his son Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (176-164 B.C.) who tried to suppress Judaism by persecution (see Seleucid Dynasty).

The name was subsequently borne by the kings of Commagene (69 B.C.-A.D. 72), whose house was affiliated to the Seleucid.

Antiochus I. of Commagene, who without sufficient reason has been identified with the Seleucid Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus, made peace on advantageous terms with Pompey in 64 B.C. Subsequently he fought on Pompey’s side in the Civil War, and later still repelled an attack on Samosata by Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony.) He died before 31 B.C. and was succeeded by one Mithradates I. This Mithradates was succeeded by an Antiochus II., who was executed by Augustus in 29 B.C. After another Mithradates we know of an Antiochus III., on whose death in A.D. 17 Commagene became a Roman province. In 38 his son Antiochus IV. Epiphanes was made king by Caligula, who deposed him almost immediately. Restored by Claudius in 41, he reigned until 72 as an ally of Rome against Parthia. In that year he was deposed on suspicion of treason and retired to Rome. Several of his coins are extant.

On all the above see “Antiochos” in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, i. part ii. (1894).

ANTIOCHUS OF ASCALON (1st century B.C.), Greek philosopher. His philosophy consisted in an attempt to reconcile the doctrines of his teachers Philo of Larissa and Mnesarchus the Stoic. Against the scepticism of the former, he held that the intellect has in itself a sufficient test of truth; against Mnesarchus, that happiness, though its main factor is virtue, depends also on outward circumstances. This electicism is known as the Fifth Academy (see Academy, Greek). His writings are lost, and we are indebted for information to Cicero (Acad. Pr. ii. 43), who studied under him at Athens, and Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrh. hyp. i. 235). Antiochus lectured also in Rome and Alexandria.

See R. Hoyer, De Antiocho Ascalonita (Bonn, 1883).

ANTIOCHUS OF SYRACUSE, Greek historian, flourished about 420 B.C. Nothing is known of his life, but his works, of which only fragments remain, enjoyed a high reputation. He wrote a History of Sicily from the earliest times to 424, which was used by Thucydides, and the Colonizing of Italy, frequently referred to by Strabo and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, i.; Wölfflin, Antiochos von Syrakus, 1872.

ANTIOPE. (1) In Greek legend, the mother of Amphion and Zethus, and, according to Homer (Od. xi. 260), a daughter of the Boeotian river-god Asopus. In later poems she is called the daughter of Nycteus or Lycurgus. Her beauty attracted Zeus, who, assuming the form of a satyr, took her by force (Apollodorus iii. 5). After this she was carried off by Epopeus, king of Sicyon, who would not give her up till compelled by her uncle Lycus. On the way home she gave birth, in the neighbourhood of Eleutherae on Mount Cithaeron, to the twins Amphion and Zethus, of whom Amphion was the son of the god, and Zethus the son of Epopeus. Both were left to be brought up by herdsmen. At Thebes Antiope now suffered from the persecution of Dirce, the wife of Lycus, but at last escaped towards Eleutherae, and there found shelter, unknowingly, in the house where her two sons were living as herdsmen. Here she was discovered by Dirce, who ordered the two young men to tie her to the horns of a wild bull. They were about to obey, when the old herdsman, who had brought them up, revealed his secret, and they carried out the punishment on Dirce instead (Hyginus, Fab. 8). For this, it is said, Dionysus, to whose worship Dirce had been devoted, visited Antiope with madness, which caused her to wander restlessly all over Greece till she was cured, and married by Phocus of Tithorca, on Mount Parnassus, where both were buried in one grave (Pausanias ix. 17, x. 32).

(2) A second Antiope, daughter of Ares, and sister of Hippolyte, queen of the Amazons, was the wife of Theseus. There are various accounts of the manner in which Theseus became possessed of her, and of her subsequent fortunes. Either she gave herself up to him out of love, when with Heracles he captured Themiscyra, the seat of the Amazons, or she fell to his lot as a captive (Diodorus iv. 16). Or again, Theseus himself invaded the dominion of the Amazons and carried her off, the consequence of which was a counter-invasion of Attica by the Amazons. After four months of war peace was made, and Antiope left with Theseus as a peace-offering. According to another account, she had joined the Amazons against him because he had been untrue to her in desiring to marry Phaedra. She is said to have been killed by another Amazon, Molpadia, a rival in her affection for Theseus. Elsewhere it was believed that he had himself killed her, and fulfilled an oracle to that effect (Hyginus, Fab. 241). By Theseus she had a son, the well-known Hippolytus (Plutarch, Theseus).

ANTIOQUIA, an interior department of the republic of Colombia, lying S. of Bolivar, W. of the Magdalena river, and E. of Cauca. Area, 22,870 sq. m.; pop. (est. 1899) 464,887. The greater part of its territory lies between the Magdalena and Cauca rivers and includes the northern end of the Central Cordillera. The country is covered with valuable forests, and its mineral wealth renders it one of the most important mining regions of the republic. The capital, Medellin (est. pop. 53,000 in 1902), is a thriving mining centre, 4822 ft. above sea-level, and 125 m. from Puerto Berrió on the Magdalena. Other important towns are Manizales (18,000) in the extreme south, the commercial centre of a rich gold and grazing region; Antioquia, the old capital, on the Cauca; and Puerto Berrió on the Magdalena, from which a railway has been started to the capital.

ANTIPAROS (anc. Oliaros), an island of the kingdom of Greece, in the modern eparchy of Naxos, separated by a strait (about 1½ m. wide at the narrowest point) from the west coast of Pares. It is 7 m. long by 3 broad, and contains about 700 inhabitants, most of whom live in Kastro, a village on the north coast, and are employed in agriculture and fishing. Formerly piracy was common. The only remarkable feature in the island is a stalactite cavern on the south coast, which is reached by a narrow passage broken by two steep and dangerous descents which are accomplished by the aid of rope-ladders. The grotto itself, which is about 150 ft. by 100, and 50 ft. high (not all can be seen from any part, and probably some portions are still unexplored), shows many remarkable examples of stalactite formations and incrustations of dazzling brilliance. It is not mentioned by ancient writers; the first western traveller to visit it was the marquis de Nointel (ambassador of Louis XIV. to the Porte) who descended it with a numerous suite and held high mass there on Christmas day 1673. There is, however, in the entrance of the cavern an inscription recording the names of visitors in ancient times.

See J.P. de Tournefort, Relation d’un voyage au Levant (1717); English edition, 1718, vol. i. p. 146, and guide-books to Greece.

ANTIPATER (398?-319 B.C.), Macedonian general, and regent of Macedonia during Alexander’s Eastern expedition (334-323). He had previously (346) been sent as ambassador by Philip to Athens and negotiated peace after the battle of Chaeroneia (338). About 332 he set out against the rebellious tribes of Thrace; but before this insurrection was quelled, the Spartan king Agis had risen against Macedonia. Having settled affairs in Thrace as well as he could, Antipater hastened to the south, and in a battle near Megalopolis (331) gained a complete victory over the insurgents (Diodorus xvii. 62). His regency was greatly troubled by the ambition of Olympias, mother of Alexander, and he was nominally superseded by Craterus. But, on the death of Alexander in 323, he was, by the first partition of the empire, left in command of Macedonia, and in the Lamian War, at the battle of Crannon (322), crushed the Greeks who had attempted to re-assert their independence. Later in the same year he and Craterus were engaged in a war against the Aetolians, when the news arrived from Asia which induced Antipater to conclude peace with them; for Antigonus reported that Perdiccas contemplated making himself sole master of the empire. Antipater and Craterus accordingly prepared for war against Perdiccas, and allied themselves with Ptolemy, the governor of Egypt. Antipater crossed over into Asia in 321; and while still in Syria, he received information that Perdiccas had been murdered by his own soldiers. Craterus fell in battle against Eumenes (Diodorus xviii. 25-39). Antipater, now sole regent, made several new regulations, and having quelled a mutiny of his troops and commissioned Antigonus to continue the war against Eumenes and the other partisans of Perdiccas, returned to Macedonia, where he arrived in 320 (Justin xiii. 6). Soon after he was seized by an illness which terminated his active career, 319. Passing over his son Cassander, he appointed the aged Polyperchon regent, a measure which gave rise to much confusion and ill-feeling (Diodorus xvii., xviii).

ANTIPHANES, the most important writer of the Middle Attic comedy with the exception of Alexis, lived from about 408 to 334 B.C. He was apparently a foreigner who settled in Athens, where he began to write about 387. He was extremely prolific: more than 200 of the 365 (or 260) comedies attributed to him are known to us from the titles and considerable fragments preserved in Athenaeus. They chiefly deal with matters connected with the table, but contain many striking sentiments.

Fragments in Koch, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, ii. (1884); see also Clinton, Philological Museum, i. (1832); Meineke, Historia Critica Comicorum Graecorum (1839).

ANTIPHILUS, a Greek painter, of the age of Alexander. He worked for Philip of Macedon and Ptolemy I. of Egypt. Thus he was a contemporary of Apelles, whose rival he is said to have been, but he seems to have worked in quite another style. Quintilian speaks of his facility: the descriptions of his works which have come down to us show that he excelled in light and shade, in genre representations, and in caricature.

See Brunn, Geschichte der griechischen Kunstler, ii. p. 249.

ANTIPHON, of Rhamnus in Attica, the earliest of the “ten” Attic orators, was born in 480 B.C. He took an active part in political affairs at Athens, and, as a zealous supporter of the oligarchical party, was largely responsible for the establishment of the Four Hundred in 411 (see Theramenes); on the restoration of the democracy he was accused of treason and condemned to death. Thucydides (viii. 68) expresses a very high opinion of him. Antiphon may be regarded as the founder of political oratory, but he never addressed the people himself except on the occasion of his trial. Fragments of his speech then delivered in defence of his policy (called Περὶ μεταστάσεως) have been edited by J. Nicole (1907) from an Egyptian papyrus. His chief business was that of a professional speech-writer (λογογράφος), for those who felt incompetent to conduct their own cases— as all disputants were obliged to do—without expert assistance. Fifteen of Antiphon’s speeches are extant: twelve are mere school exercises on fictitious cases, divided into tetralogies, each consisting of two speeches for prosecution and defence—accusation, defence, reply, counter-reply; three refer to actual legal processes. All deal with cases of homicide (φονικαὶ δίκαι). Antiphon is also said to have composed a Τέχνη or art of Rhetoric.

Edition, with commentary, by Maetzner (1838); text by Blass (1881); Jebb, Attic Orators; Plutarch, Vitae X. Oratorum; Philostratus, Vit. Sophistarum, i. 15; van Cleef, Index Antiphonteus, Ithaca, N.Y. (1895); see also Rhetoric.

ANTIPHONY (Gr. ἀντί, and φωνή, a voice), a species of psalmody in which the choir or congregation, being divided into two parts, sing alternately. The peculiar structure of the Hebrew psalms renders it probable that the antiphonal method originated in the service of the ancient Jewish Church. According to the historian Socrates, its introduction into Christian worship was due to Ignatius (died 115 A.D.), who in a vision had seen the angels singing in alternate choirs. In the Latin Church it was not practised until more than two centuries later, when it was introduced by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who compiled an antiphonary, or collection of words suitable for antiphonal singing. The antiphonary still in use in the Roman Catholic Church was compiled by Gregory the Great (590 A.D.).

ANTIPODES (Gr. ἀντί, opposed to, and πόδες, feet), a term applied strictly to any two peoples or places on opposite sides of the earth, so situated that a line drawn from the one to the other passes through the centre of the globe and forms a true diameter. Any two places having this relation—as London and, approximately, Antipodes Island, near New Zealand— must be distant from each other by 180° of longitude, and the one must be as many degrees to the north of the equator as the other is to the south, in other words, the latitudes are numerically equal, but one is north and the other south. Noon at the one place is midnight at the other, the longest day corresponds to the shortest, and mid-winter is contemporaneous with midsummer. In the calculation of days and nights, midnight on the one side may be regarded as corresponding to the noon either of the previous or of the following day. If a voyager sail eastward, and thus anticipate the sun, his dating will be twelve hours in advance, while the reckoning of another who has been sailing westward will be as much in arrear. There will thus be a difference of twenty-four hours between the two when they meet. To avoid the confusion of dates which would thus arise, it is necessary to determine a meridian at which dates should be brought into agreement, i.e. a line the crossing of which would involve the changing of the name of the day either forwards, when proceeding westwards, or backwards, when proceeding eastwards. Mariners have generally adopted the meridian 180° from Greenwich, situated in the Pacific Ocean, as a convenient line for co-ordinating dates. The so-called “International Date Line,” which is, however, practically only due to American initiative, is designed to remove certain objections to the meridian of 180° W., the most important of which is that groups of islands lying about this meridian differ in date by a day although only a few miles apart. Several forms have been suggested; these generally agree in retaining the meridian of 180° in the mid Pacific, with a bend in the north in order to make the Aleutian Islands and Alaska of the same time as America, and also in the south so as to bring certain of the South Sea islands into line with Australia and New Zealand.

ANTIPYRINE (phenyldimethyl pyrazolone) (C11H12N2O), is prepared by the condensation of phenylhydrazine with aceto-acetic ester, the resulting phenyl methyl pyrazolone being heated with methyl iodide and methyl alcohol to 100-110° C.:

On the large scale phenylhydrazine is dissolved in dilute sulphuric acid, the solution warmed to about 40° C. and the aceto-acetic ester added. When the reaction is complete the acid is neutralized with soda, and the phenyl methyl pyrazolone extracted with ether and distilled in vacuo. The portion distilling at about 200° C. is then methylated by means of methyl alcohol and methyl iodide at 100-110° C., the excess of methyl alcohol removed and the product obtained decolorized by sulphuric acid. The residue is treated with a warm concentrated solution of soda, and the oil which separates is removed by shaking with benzene. The benzene layer on evaporation deposits the anti-pyrine as a colourless crystalline solid which melts at 113° C. and is soluble in water. It is basic in character, and gives a red coloration on the addition of ferric chloride. In medicine anti-pyrine (“phenazonum”) has been used as an analgesic and antipyretic. The dose is 5-20 grs., but on account of its depressant action on the heart, and the toxic effects to which it occasionally gives rise, it is now but little used. It is more safely replaced by phenacetine.

ANTIQUARY, a person who devotes himself to the study of ancient learning and “antiques,” i.e. ancient objects of art or science. The London Society of Antiquaries was formed in the 18th century to promote the study of antiquities. As early as 1572 a society had been founded by Bishop Matthew Parker, Sir Robert Cotton, William Camden and others for the preservation of national antiquities. This body existed till 1604, when it fell under suspicion of being political in its aims, and was abolished by James I. Papers read at their meetings are preserved in the Cottonian library and were printed by Thomas Hearne in 1720 under the title A Collection of Curious Discourses, a second edition appearing in 1771. In 1707 a number of English antiquaries began to hold regular meetings for the discussion of their hobby and in 1717 the Society of Antiquaries was formally reconstituted, finally receiving a charter from George II. in 1751. In 1780 George III. granted the society apartments in Somerset House, Strand. The society is governed by a council of twenty and a president who is ex officio a trustee of the British Museum. The present headquarters of the society are at Burlington House, Piccadilly.

The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland was founded in 1780, and has the management of a large national antiquarian museum in Edinburgh. In Ireland a society was founded in 1849 called the Kilkenny Archaeological Society, holding its meetings at Kilkenny. In 1869 its name was changed to the Royal Historical and Archaeological Association of Ireland, and in 1890 to the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, its office being transferred to Dublin. In France La Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France was formed in 1814 by the reconstruction of the Acadêmie Celtique, which had existed since 1805. The American Antiquarian Society was founded in 1812, with its headquarters at Worcester, Mass. It has a library of upwards of 100,000 volumes and its transactions have been published bi-annually since 1849. In Germany the Gesamtverein der Deutschen Geschichtsund Altertumsvereine was founded in 1852. La Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord at Copenhagen is among the best known of European antiquarian societies.

ANTIQUE (Lat. antiquus, old), a term conventionally restricted to the remains of ancient art, such as sculptures, gems, medals, seals, &c. In a limited sense it applies only to Greek and Roman art, and includes neither the artistic remains of other ancient nations nor any product of classical art of a later date than the fall of the western empire.

ANTI-SEMITISM. In the political struggles of the concluding quarter of the 19th century an important part was played by a religious, political and social agitation against the Jews, known as “Anti-Semitism.” The origins of this remarkable movement already threaten to become obscured by legend. The Jews contend that anti-Semitism is a mere atavistic revival of the Jew-hatred of the middle ages. The extreme section of the anti-Semites, who have given the movement its quasi-scientific name, declare that it is a racial struggle—an incident of the eternal conflict between Europe and Asia—and that the anti-Semites are engaged in an effort to prevent what is called the Aryan race from being subjugated by a Semitic immigration, and to save Aryan ideals from being modified by an alien and demoralizing oriental Anschauung. There is no essential foundation for either of these contentions. Religious prejudices reaching back to the dawn of history have been reawakened by the anti-Semitic agitation, but they did not originate it, and they have not entirely controlled it. The alleged racial divergence is, too, only a linguistic hypothesis on the physical evidence of which anthropologists are not agreed (Topinard, Anthropologie, p. 444; Taylor, Origins of Aryans, cap. i.), and, even if it were proved, it has existed in Europe for so many centuries, and so many ethnic modifications have occurred on both sides, that it cannot be accepted as a practical issue. It is true that the ethnographical histories of the Jews and the nations of Europe have proceeded on widely diverging lines, but these lines have more than once crossed each other and become interlaced. Thus Aryan elements are at the beginning of both; European morals have been ineradicably semitized by Christianity, and the Jews have been Europeans for over a thousand years, during which their character has been modified and in some respects transformed by the ecclesiastical and civil polities of the nations among whom they have made their permanent home. Anti-Semitism is then exclusively a question of European politics, and its origin is to be found, not in the long struggle between Europe and Asia, or between the Church and the Synagogue, which filled so much of ancient and medieval history, but in the social conditions resulting from the emancipation of the Jews in the middle of the 19th century.

If the emancipated Jews were Europeans in virtue of the antiquity of their western settlements, and of the character impressed upon them by the circumstances of their European history, they none the less presented the appearance of a strange people to their Gentile fellow-countrymen. They had been secluded in their ghettos for centuries, and had consequently acquired a physical and moral physiognomy differentiating them in a measure from their former oppressors. This peculiar physiognomy was, on its moral side, not essentially Jewish or even Semitic. It was an advanced development of the main attributes of civilized life, to which Christendom in its transition from feudalism had as yet only imperfectly adapted itself. The ghetto, which had been designed as a sort of quarantine to safeguard Christendom against the Jewish heresy, had in fact proved a storage chamber for a portion of the political and social forces which were destined to sweep away the last traces of feudalism from central Europe. In the ghetto, the pastoral Semite, who had been made a wanderer by the destruction of his nationality, was steadily trained, through centuries, to become an urban European, with all the parasitic activities of urban economics, and all the democratic tendencies of occidental industrialism. Excluded from the army, the land, the trade corporations and the artisan gilds, this quondam oriental peasant was gradually transformed into a commercial middleman and a practised dealer in money. Oppressed by the Church, and persecuted by the State, his theocratic and monarchical traditions lost their hold on his daily life, and he became saturated with a passionate devotion to the ideals of democratic politics. Finally, this former bucolic victim of Phoenician exploitation had his wits preternaturally sharpened, partly by the stress of his struggle for life, and partly by his being compelled in his urban seclusion to seek for recreation in literary exercises, chiefly the subtle dialectics of the Talmudists (Loeb, Juif de l’histoire; Jellinek, Der Jüdische Stamm). Thus, the Jew who emerged from the ghetto was no longer a Palestinian Semite, but an essentially modern European, who differed from his Christian fellow-countrymen only in the circumstances that his religion was of the older Semitic form, and that his physical type had become sharply defined through a slightly more rigid exclusiveness in the matter of marriages than that practised by Protestants and Roman Catholics (Andree, Volkskunde der Juden, p. 58).

Unfortunately, these distinctive elements, though not very serious in themselves, became strongly accentuated by concentration. Had it been possible to distribute the emancipated Jews uniformly throughout Christian society, as was the case with other emancipated religious denominations, there would have been no revival of the Jewish question. The Jews, however, through no fault of their own, belonged to only one class in European society—the industrial bourgeoisie. Into that class all their strength was thrown, and owing to their ghetto preparation, they rapidly took a leading place in it, politically and socially. When the mid-century revolutions made the bourgeoisie the ruling power in Europe, the semblance of a Hebrew domination presented itself. It was the exaggeration of this apparent domination, not by the bourgeoisie itself, but by its enemies among the vanquished reactionaries on the one hand, and by the extreme Radicals on the other, which created modern anti-Semitism as a political force.

The movement took its rise in Germany and Austria. Here the concentration of the Jews in one class of the population was aggravated by their excessive numbers. While in France the proportion to the total population was, in the early’seventies, 0.14%, and in Italy, 0.12%, it was 1.22% in Germany, and 3.85% in Austria-Hungary; Berlin had 4.36% of Jews, and Vienna 6.62% (Andree, Volkskunde, pp. 287, 291, 294, 295). The activity of the Jews consequently manifested itself in a far more intense form in these countries than elsewhere. This was apparent even before the emancipations of 1848. Towards the middle of the 18th century, a limited number of wealthy Jews had been tolerated as Schutz-Juden outside the ghettos, and their sons, educated as Germans under the influence of Moses Mendelssohn and his school (see Jews), supplied a majority of the leading spirits of the revolutionary agitation. To this period belong the formidable names of Ludwig Börne (1786-1837), Heinrich Heine (1799-1854), Edward Ganz (1798-1839), Gabriel Riesser (1806-1863), Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Moses Hess (1812-1875), Ignatz Kuranda (1811-1884), and Johann Jacobi (1805-1877). When the revolution was completed, and the Jews entered in a body the national life of Germany and Austria, they sustained this high average in all the intellectual branches of middle-class activity. Here again, owing to the accidents of their history, a further concentration became apparent. Their activity was almost exclusively intellectual. The bulk of them flocked to the financial and the distributive (as distinct from the productive) fields of industry to which they had been confined in the ghettos. The sharpened faculties of the younger generation at the same time carried everything before them in the schools, with the result that they soon crowded the professions, especially medicine, law and journalism (Nossig, Statistik des Jüd. Stammes, pp. 33-37; Jacobs, Jew. Statistics, pp. 41-69). Thus the “Semitic domination,” as it was afterwards called, became every day more strongly accentuated. If it was a long time in exciting resentment and jealousy, the reason was that it was in no sense alien to the new conditions of the national life. The competition was a fair one. The Jews might be more successful than their Christian fellow-citizens, but it was in virtue of qualities which complied with the national standards of conduct. They were as law-abiding and patriotic as they were intelligent. Crime among them was far below the average (Nossig, p. 31). Their complete assimilation of the national spirit was brilliantly illustrated by the achievements in German literature, art and science of such men as Heinrich Heine and Berthold Auerbach (1812-1882), Felix Mendelssohn (-Bartholdy) (1809-1847), and Jacob Meyerbeer (1794-1864), Karl Gustav Jacobi the mathematician (1804-1851), Gabriel Gustav Valentin the physiologist (1810-1883), and Moritz Lazarus (1824-1903) and Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899) the national psychologists. In politics, too, Edward Lasker (1829-1884) and Ludwig Bamberger (1823-1899) had shown how Jews could put their country before party, when, at the turning-point of German imperial history in 1866, they led the secession from the Fortschritts-Partei and founded the National Liberal party, which enabled Prince Bismarck to accomplish German unity. Even their financiers were not behind their Christian fellow-citizens in patriotism. Prince Bismarck himself confessed that the money for carrying on the 1866 campaign was obtained from the Jewish banker Bleichroeder, in face of the refusal of the money-market to support the war. Hence the voice of the old Jew-hatred—for in a weak way it was still occasionally heard in obscurantist corners—was shamed into silence, and it was only in the European twilight—in Russia and Rumania—and in lands where medievalism still lingered, such as northern Africa and Persia, that oppression and persecution continued to dog the steps of the Jews.

The signal for the change came in 1873, and was given unconsciously by one of the most distinguished Jews of his time, Edward Lasker, the gifted lieutenant of Bennigsen in the leadership of the National Liberal party. The unification of Germany in 1870, and the rapid payment of the enormous French war indemnity, had given an unprecedented impulse to industrial and financial activity throughout the empire. Money became cheap and speculation universal. A company mania set in which was favoured by the government, who granted railway and other concessions with a prodigal hand. The inevitable result of this state of things was first indicated by Jewish politicians and economists. On the 14th of January 1873, Edward Lasker called the attention of the Prussian diet to the dangers of the situation, while his colleague, Ludwig Bamberger, in an able article in the Preussischen Jahrbücher, condemned the policy which had permitted the milliards to glut the country instead of being paid on a plan which would have facilitated their gradual digestion by the economic machinery of the nation. Deeply impressed by the gravity of the impending crisis, Lasker instituted a searching inquiry, with the result that he discovered a series of grave company scandals in which financial promoters and aristocratic directors were chiefly involved. Undeterred by the fact that the leading spirit in these abuses, Bethel Henry Strousberg (1823-1884), was a Jew, Lasker presented the results of his inquiry to the diet on the 7th of February 1873, in a speech of great power and full of sensational disclosures. The dramatic results of this speech need not be dwelt upon here (for details see Blum, Das deutsche Reich zur Zelt Bismarcks, pp. 153-181). It must suffice to say that in the following May the great Vienna “Krach” occurred, and the colossal bubble of speculation burst, bringing with it all the ruin foretold by Lasker and Bamberger. From the position occupied by the Jews in the commercial class, and especially in the financial section of that class, it was inevitable that a considerable number of them should figure in the scandals which followed. At this moment an obscure Hamburg journalist, Wilhelm Marr, who as far back as 1862 had printed a still-born tract against the Jews (Judenspiegel), published a sensational pamphlet entitled Der Sieg des Judenthums uber das Germanthum (“The Victory of Judaism over Germanism”). The book fell upon fruitful soil. It applied to the nascent controversy a theory of nationality which, under the great sponsorship of Hegel, had seized on the minds of the German youth, and to which the stirring events of 1870 had already given a deep practical significance. The state, according to the Hegelians, should be rational, and the nation should be a unit comprising individuals speaking the same language and of the same racial origin. Heterogeneous elements might be absorbed, but if they could not be reduced to the national type they should be eliminated. This was the pseudo-scientific note of the new anti-Semitism, the theory which differentiated it from the old religious Jew-hatred and sought to give it a rational place in modern thought. Marr’s pamphlet, which reviewed the facts of the Jewish social concentration without noticing their essentially transitional character, proved the pioneer of this teaching. It was, however, in the passions of party politics that the new crusade found its chief sources of vitality. The enemies of the bourgeoisie at once saw that the movement was calculated to discredit and weaken the school of Manchester Liberalism, then in the ascendant. Agrarian capitalism, which had been dethroned by industrial capitalism in 1848, and had burnt its fingers in 1873, seized the opportunity of paying off old scores. The clericals, smarting under the Kutlturkampj, which was supported by the whole body of Jewish liberalism, joined eagerly in the new cry. In 1876 another sensational pamphlet was published, Otto Glogau’s Die Börsen und Grundergeschwindel in Berlin (“The Bourses and the Company Swindles in Berlin”), dealing in detail with the Jewish participation in the scandals first revealed by Lasker. The agitation gradually swelled, its growth being helped by the sensitiveness and cacoëthes scribendi of the Jews themselves, who contributed two pamphlets and a much larger proportion of newspaper articles for every one supplied by their opponents (Jacobs. Bibliog. Jew. Question, p. xi.). Up to 1879, however, it was more of a literary than a political agitation, and was generally regarded only as an ephemeral craze or a passing spasm of popular passion.

Towards the end of 1879 it spread with sudden fury over the whole of Germany. This outburst, at a moment when no new financial scandals or other illustrations of Semitic demoralization and domination were before the public, has never been fully explained. It is impossible to doubt, however, that the secret springs of the new agitation were more or less directly supplied by Prince Bismarck himself. Since 1877 the relations between the chancellor and the National Liberals had gradually become strained. The deficit in the budget had compelled the government to think of new taxes, and in order to carry them through the Reichstag the support of the National Liberals had been solicited. Until then the National Liberals had faithfully supported the chancellor in nursing the consolidation of the new empire, but the great dream of its leaders, especially of Lasker and Bamberger, who had learnt their politics in England, was to obtain a constitutional and economic régime similar to that of the British Isles. The organization of German unity was now completed, and they regarded the new overtures of Prince Bismarck as an opportunity for pressing their constitutional demands. These were refused, the Reichstag was dissolved and Prince Bismarck boldly came forward with a new fiscal policy, a combination of protection and state socialism. Lasker and Bamberger thereupon led a powerful secession of National Liberals into opposition, and the chancellor was compelled to seek a new majority among the ultra-Conservatives and the Roman Catholic Centre. This was the beginning of the famous “journey to Canossa.” Bismarck did not hide his mortification. He began to recognize in anti-Semitism a means of “dishing” the Judaized liberals, and to his creatures who assisted him in his press campaigns he dropped significant hints in this sense (Busch, Bismarck, ii. 453-454, iii. 16). He even spoke of a new Kulturkampf against the Jews (ibid. ii. p. 484). How these hints were acted upon has not been revealed, but it is sufficiently instructive to notice that the final breach with the National Liberals took place in July 1879, and that it was immediately followed by a violent revival of the anti-Semitic agitation. Marr’s pamphlet was reprinted, and within a few months ran through nine further editions. The historian Treitschke gave the sanction of his great name to the movement. The Conservative and Ultramontane press rang with the sins of the Jews. In October an anti-Semitic league was founded in Berlin and Dresden (for statutes of the league see Nineteenth Century, February 1881, p. 344).

The leadership of the agitation was now definitely assumed by a man who combined with social influence, oratorical power and inexhaustible energy, a definite scheme of social regeneration and an organization for carrying it out. This man was Adolf Stöcker (b. 1835), one of the court preachers. He had embraced the doctrines of Christian socialism which the Roman Catholics, under the guidance of Archbishop Ketteler, had adopted from the teachings of the Jew Lassalle (Nitti, Catholic Socialism, pp. 94-96, 122, 127), and he had formed a society called “The Christian Social Working-man’s Union.” He was also a conspicuous member of the Prussian diet, where he sat and voted with the Conservatives. He found himself in strong sympathy with Prince Bismarck’s new economic policy, which, although also of Lassallian origin (Kohut, Ferdinand Lassalle, pp. 144 et seq.), was claimed by its author as being essentially Christian (Busch, p. 483). Under his auspices the years 1880-1881 became a period of bitter and scandalous conflict with the Jews. The Conservatives supported him, partly to satisfy their old grudges against the Liberal bourgeoisie and partly because Christian Socialism, with its anti-Semitic appeal to ignorant prejudice, was likely to weaken the hold of the Social Democrats on the lower classes. The Lutheran clergy followed suit, in order to prevent the Roman Catholics from obtaining a monopoly of Christian Socialism, while the Ultramontanes readily adopted anti-Semitism, partly to maintain their monopoly, and partly to avenge themselves on the Jewish and Liberal supporters of the Kulturkampf. In this way a formidable body of public opinion was recruited for the anti-Semites. Violent debates took place in the Prussian diet. A petition to exclude the Jews from the national schools and universities and to disable them from holding public appointments was presented to Prince Bismarck. Jews were boycotted and insulted. Duels between Jews and anti-Semites, many of them fatal, became of daily occurrence. Even unruly demonstrations and street riots were reported. Pamphlets attacking every phase and aspect of Jewish life streamed by the hundred from the printing-press. On their side the Jews did not want for friends, and it was owing to the strong attitude adopted by the Liberals that the agitation failed to secure legislative fruition. The crown prince (afterwards Emperor Frederick) and crown princess boldly set themselves at the head of the party of protest. The crown prince publicly declared that the agitation was “a shame and a disgrace to Germany.” A manifesto denouncing the movement as a blot on German culture, a danger to German unity and a flagrant injustice to the Jews themselves, was signed by a long list of illustrious men, including Herr von Forckenbeck, Professors Mommsen, Gneist, Droysen, Virchow, and Dr Werner Siemens (Times, November 18, 1880). During the Reichstag elections of 1881 the agitation played an active part, but without much effect, although Stöcker was elected. This was due to the fact that the great Conservative parties, so far as their political organizations were concerned, still remained chary of publicly identifying themselves with a movement which, in its essence, was of socialistic tendency. Hence the electoral returns of that year supplied no sure guide to the strength of anti-Semitic opinion among the German people.

The first severe blow suffered by the German anti-Semites was in 1881, when, to the indignation of the whole civilized world, the barbarous riots against the Jews in Russia and the revival of the medieval Blood Accusation in Hungary (see infra) illustrated the liability of unreasoning mobs to carry into violent practice the incendiary doctrines of the new Jew-haters. From this blow anti-Semitism might have recovered had it not been for the divisions and scandals in its own ranks, and the artificial forms it subsequently assumed through factitious alliances with political parties bent less on persecuting the Jews than on profiting by the anti-Jewish agitation. The divisions showed themselves at the first attempt to form a political party on an anti-Semitic basis. Imperceptibly the agitators had grouped themselves into two classes, economic and ethnological anti-Semites. The impracticable racial views of Marr and Treitschke had not found favour with Stöcker and the Christian Socialists. They were disposed to leave the Jews in peace so long as they behaved themselves properly, and although they carried on their agitation against Jewish malpractices in a comprehensive form which seemed superficially to identify them with the root-and-branch anti-Semites, they were in reality not inclined to accept the racial theory with its scheme of revived Jewish disabilities (Huret, La Question Sociale—interview with Stöcker). This feeling was strengthened by a tendency on the part of an extreme wing of the racial anti-Semites to extend their campaign against Judaism to its offspring, Christianity. In 1879 Professor Sepp, arguing that Jesus was of no human race, had proposed that Christianity should reject the Hebrew Scriptures and seek a fresh historical basis in the cuneiform inscriptions. Later Dr Eugen Dübring, in several brochures, notably Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters (1881, 5th ed. Berlin, 1901), had attacked Christianity as a manifestation of the Semitic spirit which was not compatible with the theological and ethical conceptions of the Scandinavian peoples. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had also adopted the same view, without noticing that it was a reductio ad absurdum of the whole agitation, in his Menschliches, Allzumenschliches (1878), Jenseits von Gut und Böse (1886), Genealogie der Moral (1887). With these tendencies the Christian Socialists could have no sympathy, and the consequence was that when in March 1881 a political organization of anti-Semitism was attempted, two rival bodies were created, the “Deutsche Volksverein,” under the Conservative auspices of Herr Liebermann von Sonnenberg (b. 1848) and Herr Förster, and the “Sociale Reichsverein,” led by the racial and Radical anti-Semites, Ernst Henrici (b. 1854) and Otto Böckel (b. 1859). In 1886, at an anti-Semitic congress held at Cassel a reunion was effected under the name of the “Deutsche antisemitische Verein,” but this only lasted three years. In June 1889 the anti-Semitic Christian Socialists under Stöcker again seceded.

Meanwhile racial anti-Semitism with its wholesale radical proposals had been making considerable progress among the ignorant lower classes. It adapted itself better to popular passions and inherited prejudice than the more academic conceptions of the Christian Socialists. The latter, too, were largely Conservatives, and their points of contact with the proletariat were at best artificial. Among the Hessian peasantry the inflammatory appeals of Böckel secured many adherents. This paved the way for a new anti-Semitic leader, Herrmann Ahlwardt (b. 1846), who, towards the end of the ’eighties, eclipsed all the other anti-Semites by the sensationalism and violence with which he prosecuted the campaign. Ahlwardt was a person of evil notoriety. He was loaded with debt. In the Manché decoration scandals it was proved that he had acted first as a corrupt intermediary and afterwards as the betrayer of his confederates. His anti-Semitism was adopted originally as a means of chantage, and it was only when it failed to yield profit in this form that he came out boldly as an agitator. The wildness, unscrupulousness, and full-bloodedness of his propaganda enchanted the mob, and he bid fair to become a powerful democratic leader. His pamphlets, full of scandalous revelations of alleged malpractices of eminent Jews, were read with avidity. No fewer than ten of them were written and published during 1892. Over and over again he was prosecuted for libel and convicted, but this seemed only to strengthen his influence with his followers. The Roman Catholic clergy and newspapers helped to inflame the popular passions. The result was that anti-Jewish riots broke out. At Neustettin the Jewish synagogue was burnt, and at Xanten the Blood Accusation was revived, and a Jewish butcher was tried on the ancient charge of murdering a Christian child for ritual purposes. The man was, of course, acquitted, but the symptoms it revealed of reviving medievalism strongly stirred the liberal and cultured mind of Germany. All protest, however, seemed powerless, and the barbarian movement appeared destined to carry everything before it.

German politics at this moment were in a very intricate state. Prince Bismarck had retired, and Count Caprivi, with a programme of general conciliation based on Liberal principles, was in power. Alarmed by the non-renewal of the anti-Socialist law, and by the conclusion of commercial treaties which made great concessions to German industry, the landed gentry and the Conservative party became alienated from the new chancellor. In January 1892 the split was completed by the withdrawal by the government of the Primary Education bill, which had been designed to place primary instruction on a religious basis. The Conservatives saw their opportunity of posing as the party of Christianity against the Liberals and Socialists, who had wrecked the bill, and they began to look towards Ahlwardt as a possible ally. He had the advantages over Stöcker that he was not a Socialist, and that he was prepared to lead his apparently large following to assist the agrarian movement and weaken the Social Democrats. The intrigue gradually came to light. Towards the end of the year Herr Liebknecht, the Social Democratic leader, denounced the Conservatives to the Reichstag as being concerned “in using the anti-Semitic movement as a bastard edition of Socialism for the use of stupid people.” (1st December). Two days later the charge was confirmed. At a meeting of the party held on the 3rd of December the following plank was added to the Conservative programme: “We combat the oppressive and disintegrating Jewish influence on our national life; we demand for our Christian people a Christian magistracy and Christian teachers for Christian pupils; we repudiate the excesses of anti-Semitism.” In pursuance of the resolution Ahlwardt was returned to the Reichstag at a by-election by the Conservative district of Arnswalde-Friedeberg. The coalition was, however, not yet completed. The intransigeant Conservatives, led by Baron von Hammerstein, the editor of the Kreuz-Zeitung, justly felt that the concluding sentence of the resolution of the 3rd of December repudiating “the excesses of anti-Semitism” was calculated to hinder a full and loyal co-operation between the two parties. Accordingly on the 9th of December another meeting of the party was summoned. Twelve hundred members met at the Tivoli Hall in Berlin, and with only seven dissentients solemnly expunged the offending sentence from the resolution. The history of political parties may be searched in vain for a parallel to this discreditable transaction.

The capture of the Conservative party proved the high-water mark of German anti-Semitism. From that moment the tide began to recede. All that was best in German national life was scandalized by the cynical tactics of the Conservatives. The emperor, strong Christian though he was, was shocked at the idea of serving Christianity by a compact with unscrupulous demagogues and ignorant fanatics. Prince Bismarck growled out a stinging sarcasm from his retreat at Friedrichsruh. Even Stöcker raised his voice in protest against the “Ahlwardtismus” and “Böckelianismus,” and called upon his Conservative colleagues to distinguish between “respectable and disreputable anti-Semitism.” As for the Liberals and Socialists, they filled the air with bitter laughter, and declared from the housetops that the stupid party had at last been overwhelmed by its own stupidity. The Conservatives began to suspect that they had made a false step, and they were confirmed in this belief by the conduct of their new ally in the Reichstag. His debut in parliament was the signal for a succession of disgraceful scenes. His whole campaign of calumny was transferred to the floor of the house, and for some weeks the Reichstag discussed little else than his so-called revelations. The Conservatives listened to his wild charges in uncomfortable silence, and refused to support him. Stöcker opposed him in a violent speech. The Radicals and Socialists, taking an accurate measure of the shallow vanity of the man, adopted the policy of giving him “enough rope.” Shortly after his election he was condemned to five months’ imprisonment for libel, and he would have been arrested but for the interposition of the Socialist party, including five Jews, who claimed for him the immunities of a member of parliament. When he moved for a commission to inquire into his revelations, it was again the Socialist party which supported him, with the result that all his charges, without exception, were found to be absolutely baseless. Ahlwardt was covered with ridicule, and when in May the Reichstag was dissolved, he was marched off to prison to undergo the sentence for libel from which his parliamentary privilege had up to that moment protected him.

His hold on the anti-Semitic populace was, however, not diminished. On the contrary, the action of the Conservatives at the Tivoli congress could not be at once eradicated from the minds of the Conservative voters, and when the electoral campaign began it was found impossible to explain to them that the party leaders had changed their minds. The result was that Ahlwardt, although in prison, was elected by two constituencies. At Arnswalde-Friedeberg he was returned in the teeth of the opposition of the official Conservatives, and at Neustettin he defeated no less a person than his anti-Semitic opponent Stöcker. Fifteen other anti-Semites, all of the Ahlwardtian school, were elected. This, however, represented little in the way of political influence; for henceforth the party had to stand alone as one of the many minor factions in the Reichstag, avoided by all the great parties, and too weak to exercise any influence on the main course of affairs.

During the subsequent seven years it became more and more discredited. The financial scandals connected with Förster’s attempt to found a Christian Socialist colony in Paraguay, the conviction of Baron von Hammerstein, the anti-Semitic Conservative leader, for forgery and swindling (1895-1896), and several minor scandals of the same unsavoury character, covered the party with the very obloquy which it had attempted to attach to the Jews. At the same time the Christian Socialists who had remained with the Conservative party also suffered. After the elections of 1893, Stöcker was dismissed from his post of court preacher, and publicly reprimanded for speaking familiarly of the empress. Two years later the Christian Socialist, Pastor Neumann, observing the tendency of the Conservatives to coalesce with the moderate Liberals in antagonism to Social Democracy, declared against the Conservative party. The following year the emperor publicly condemned Christian Socialism and the “political pastors,” and Stöcker was expelled from the Conservative party for refusing to modify the socialistic propanganda of his organ, Das Volk. His fall was completed by a quarrel with the Evangelical Social Union. He left the Union and appealed to the Lutheran clergy to found a new church social organization, but met with no response. Another blow to anti-Semitism came from the Roman Catholics. They had become alarmed by the unbridled violence of the Ahlwardtians, and when in 1894 Förster declared in an address to the German anti-Semitic Union that anarchical outrages like the murder of President Carnot were as much due to the “Anarchismus von oben” as the “Anarchismus von unten,” the Ultramontane Germania publicly washed its hands of the Jew-baiters (1st of July 1894). Thus gradually German anti-Semitism became stripped of every adventitious alliance; and at the general election of 1898 it only managed to return twelve members to the Reichstag, and in 1903 its party strength fell to nine. A remarkable revival in its fortunes, however, took place between 1905 and 1907. Identifying itself with the extreme Chauvinists and Anglophobes it profited by the anti-national errors of the Clericals and Socialists, and won no fewer than twelve by-elections. At the general election of 1907 its jingoism and aggressive Protestantism were rewarded with twenty-five seats. It is clear, however, from the figures of the second ballots that these successes owed far more to the tendencies of the party in the field of general politics than to its anti-Semitism. Indeed the specifically anti-Semitic movement has shown little activity since 1893.

The causes of the decline of German anti-Semitism are not difficult to determine. While it remained a theory of nationality and a fad of the metaphysicians, it made considerable noise in the world, but without exercising much practical influence. When it attempted to play an active part in politics it became submerged by the ignorant and superstitious voters, who could not understand its scientific justification, but who were quite ready to declaim and riot against the Jew bogey. It thus became a sort of Jacquerie which, being exploited by unscrupulous demagogues, soon alienated all its respectable elements. Its moments of real importance have been due not to inherent strength but to the uses made of it by other political parties for their own purposes. These coalitions are no longer of perilous significance so far as the Jews are concerned, chiefly because, in face of the menace of democratic socialism and its unholy alliance with the Roman Catholic Centrum, all supporters of the present organization of society have found it necessary to sink their differences. The new social struggle has eclipsed the racial theory of nationality. The Social Democrat became the enemy, and the new reaction counted on the support of the rich Jews and the strongly individualist Jewish middle class to assist it in preserving the existing social structure. Hence in Prince Billow’s “Bloc” (1908) anti-Semites figured side by side with Judeophil Radicals.

More serious have been the effects of German anti-Semitic teachings on the political and social life of the countries adjacent to the empire—Russia, Austria and France. In Russia these effects were first seriously felt owing to the fury of autocratic reaction to which the tragic death of the tsar Alexander II. gave rise. This, however, like the Strousberg Krach in Germany, was only the proximate cause of the outbreak. There were other elements which had created a milieu peculiarly favourable to the transplantation of the German craze. In the first place the medieval anti-Semitism was still an integral part of the polity of the empire. The Jews were cooped up in one huge ghetto in the western provinces, “marked out to all their fellow-countrymen as aliens, and a pariah caste set apart for special and degrading treatment” (Persecution of the Jews in Russia, 1891, p.5). In the next place, owing to the emancipation of the serfs which had half ruined the landowners, while creating a free but moneyless peasantry, the Jews, who could be neither nobles nor peasants, had found a vocation as money-lenders and as middlemen between the grain producers, and the grain consumers and exporters. There is no evidence that this function was performed, as a rule, in an exorbitant or oppressive way. On the contrary, the fall in the value of cereals on all the provincial markets, after the riots of 1881, shows that the Jewish competition had previously assured full prices to the farmers (Schwabacher, Denkschrift, 1882, p. 27). Nevertheless, the Jewish activity or “exploitation,” as it was called, was resented, and the ill-feeling it caused among landowners and farmers was shared by non-Jewish middlemen and merchants who had thereby been compelled to be satisfied with small profits. Still there was but little thought of seeking a remedy in an organized anti-Jewish movement. On the contrary, the abnormal situation aggravated by the disappointments and depression caused by the Turkish war, had stimulated a widespread demand for constitutional changes which would enable the people to adopt a state-machinery more exactly suited to their needs. Among the peasantry this demand was promoted and fomented by the Nihilists, and among the landowners it was largely adopted as a means of checking what threatened to become a new Jacquerie (Walcker, Gegertwärtige Lage Russlands, 1873; Innere Krisis Russlands, 1876). The tsar, Alexander II., strongly sympathized with this movement, and on the advice of Count Loris-Melikov and the council of ministers a rudimentary scheme of parliamentary government had been drafted and actually signed when the emperor was assassinated. Meanwhile a nationalist and reactionary agitation, originating like its German analogue in the Hegelianism of a section of the lettered public, had manifested itself in Moscow. After some early vicissitudes, it had been organized, under the auspices of Alexis Kireiev, Chomyakov, Aksakov and Kochelev, into the Slavophil party, with a Romanticist programme of reforms based on the old traditions of the pre-Petrine epoch. This party gave a great impetus to Slav nationalism. Its final possibilities were sanguinarily illustrated by Muraviev’s campaign in Poland in 1863, and in the war against Turkey in 1877, which was exclusively its handiwork (Statement by General Kireiev: Schütz, Das heutige Russland, p. 104). After the assassination of Alexander II. the Slavophil teaching, as expounded by Ignatiev and Pobêdonostsev, became paramount in the government, and the new tsar was persuaded to cancel the constitutional project of his father. The more liberal views of a section of the Slavophils under Aksakov, who had been in favour of representative institutions on traditional lines, were displaced by the reactionary system of Pobêdonostsev, who took his stand on absolutism, orthodoxy and the racial unity of the Russian people. This was the situation on the eve of Easter 1881. The hardening nationalism above, the increasing discontent below, the economic activity of the Hebrew heretics and aliens, and the echoes of anti-Semitism from over the western border were combining for an explosion.

A scuffle in a tavern at Elisabethgrad in Kherson sufficed to ignite this combustible material. The scuffle grew into a riot, the tavern was sacked, and the drunken mob, hounded on by agitators who declared that the Jews were using Christian blood for the manufacture of their Easter bread, attacked and looted the Jewish quarter. The outbreak spread rapidly. On the 7th of May there was a similar riot at Smiela, near Cherkasy, and the following day there was a violent outbreak at Kiev, which left 2000 Jews homeless. Within a few weeks the whole of western Russia, from the Black Sea to the Baltic, was smoking with the ruins of Jewish homes. Scores of Jewish women were dishonoured, hundreds of men, women and children were slaughtered, and tens of thousands were reduced to beggary and left without a shelter. Murderous riots or incendiary outrages took place in no fewer than 167 towns and villages, including Warsaw, Odessa and Kiev. Europe had witnessed no such scenes of mob savagery since the Black Death massacres in the 14th century. As the facts gradually filtered through to the western capitals they caused a thrill of horror everywhere. An indignation meeting held at the Mansion House in London, under the presidency of the lord mayor, was the signal for a long series of popular demonstrations condemning the persecutions, held in most of the chief cities of England and the continent.

Except as stimulated by the Judeophobe revival in Germany the Russian outbreak in its earlier forms does not belong specifically to modern anti-Semitism. It was essentially a medieval uprising animated by the religious fanaticism, gross superstition and predatory instincts of a people still in the medieval stage of their development. This is proved by the fact that, although the Russian peasant was supposed to be a victim of unbearable Jewish “exploitation,” he was not moved to riot until he had been brutalized by drink and excited by the old fable of the Blood Accusation. The modern anti-Semitic element came from above and followed closely on the heels of the riots. It has been freely charged against the Russian government that it promoted the riots in 1881 in order to distract popular attention from the Nihilist propaganda and from the political disappointments involved in the cancellation of the previous tsar’s constitutional project (Lazare, L’Antisémitisme, p. 211). This seems to be true of General Ignatiev, then minister of the interior, and the secret police (Séménoff, The Russian Government and the Massacres, pp. 17, 32, 241). It is certain that the local authorities, both civil and military, favoured the outbreak, and took no steps to suppress it, and that the feudal bureaucracy who had just escaped a great danger were not sorry to see the discontented populace venting their passions on the Jews. In the higher circles of the government, however, other views prevailed. The tsar himself was at first persuaded that the riots were the work of Nihilists, and he publicly promised his protection to the Jews. On the other hand, his ministers, ardent Slavophils, thought they recognized in the outbreak an endorsement of the nationalist teaching of which they were the apostles, and, while reprobating the acts of violence, came to the conclusion that the most reasonable solution was to aggravate the legal disabilities of the persecuted aliens and heretics. To this view the tsar was won over, partly by the clamorous indignation of western Europe, which had wounded his national amour propre to the quick, and partly by the strongly partisan report of a commission appointed to inquire, not into the administrative complaisance which had allowed riot to run loose over the western and southern provinces, but into the “exploitation” alleged against the Jews, the reasons why “the former laws limiting the rights of the Jews” had been mitigated, and how these laws could be altered so as “to stop the pernicious conduct of the Jews” (Rescript of the 3rd of September 1881). The result of this report was the drafting of a “Temporary Order concerning the Jews” by the minister of the interior, which received the assent of the tsar on the 3rd of May 1882. This order, which was so little temporary that it has not yet been repealed, had the effect of creating a number of fresh ghettos within the pale of Jewish settlement. The Jews were cooped up within the towns, and their rural interests were arbitrarily confiscated. The doubtful incidence of the order gave rise to a number of judgments of the senate, by which all its persecuting possibilities were brought out, with the result that the activities of the Jews were completely paralysed, and they became a prey to unparalleled cruelty. As the gruesome effect of this legislation became known, a fresh outburst of horror and indignation swelled up from western Europe. It proved powerless. Count Ignatiev was dismissed owing to the protests of high-placed Russians, who were disgusted by the new Kulturkampf, but his work remained, and, under the influence of Pobêdonostsev, the procurator of the Holy Synod, the policy of the “May Laws,” as they were significantly called, was applied to every aspect of Jewish life with pitiless rigour. The temper of the tsar may be judged by the fact that when an appeal for mercy from an illustrious personage in England was conveyed to him at Fredensborg through the gracious medium of the tsaritsa, he angrily exclaimed within the hearing of an Englishman in the ante-room who was the bearer of the message, “Never let me hear you mention the name of that people again!”

The Russian May Laws are the most conspicuous legislative monument achieved by modern anti-Semitism. It is true that they re-enacted regulations which resemble the oppressive statutes introduced into Poland through the influence of the Jesuits in the 16th century (Sternberg, Gesch. d. Juden in Polen, pp. 141 et seq.), but their Orthodox authors were as little conscious of this irony of history as they were of the Teutonic origins of the whole Slavophil movement. These laws are an experimental application of the political principles extracted by Marr and his German disciples from the metaphysics of Hegel, and as such they afford a valuable means of testing the practical operation of modern anti-Semitism. Their result was a widespread commercial depression which was felt all over the empire. Even before the May Laws were definitely promulgated the passport registers showed that the anti-Semitic movement had driven 67,900 Jews across the frontier, and it was estimated that they had taken with them 13,000,000 roubles, representing a minimum loss of 60,000,000 roubles to the annual turnover of the country’s trade. Towards the end of 1882 it was calculated that the agitation had cost Russia as much as the whole Turkish war of 1877. Trade was everywhere paralysed. The enormous increase of bankruptcies, the transfer of investments to foreign funds, the consequent fall in the value of the rouble and the prices of Russian stocks, the suspension of farming operations owing to advances on growing crops being no longer available, the rise in the prices of the necessaries of life, and lastly, the appearance of famine, filled half the empire with gloom. Banks closed their doors, and the great provincial fairs proved failures. When it was proposed to expel the Jews from Moscow there was a loud outcry all over the sacred city, and even the Orthodox merchants, realizing that the measure would ruin their flourishing trade with the south and west, petitioned against it. The Moscow Exhibition proved a failure. Nevertheless the government persisted with its harsh policy, and Jewish refugees streamed by tens of thousands across the western frontier to seek an asylum in other lands. In 1891 the alarm caused by this emigration led to further protests from abroad. The citizens of London again assembled at Guildhall, and addressed a petition to the tsar on behalf of his Hebrew subjects. It was handed back to the lord mayor by the Russian ambassador, with a curt intimation that the emperor declined to receive it. At the same time orders were defiantly given that the May Laws should be strictly enforced. Meanwhile the Russian minister of finance was at his wits’ ends for money. Negotiations for a large loan had been entered upon with the house of Rothschild, and a preliminary contract had been signed, when, at the instance of the London firm, M. Wyshnigradski, the finance minister, was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were stopped the great banking-house would be compelled to withdraw from the operation. Deeply mortified by this attempt to deal with him de puissance à puissance, the tsar peremptorily broke off the negotiations, and ordered that overtures should be made to a non-Jewish French syndicate. In this way anti-Semitism, which had already so profoundly influenced the domestic politics of Europe, set its mark on the international relations of the powers, for it was the urgent need of the Russian treasury quite as much as the termination of Prince Bismarck’s secret treaty of mutual neutrality which brought about the Franco-Russian alliance (Daudet, Hist. Dipl. de l’Alliance Franco-Russe, pp. 259 et. seq.).

For nearly three years more the persecutions continued. Elated by the success of his crusade against the Jews, Pobêdonostsev extended his persecuting policy to other non-Orthodox denominations. The legislation against the Protestant Stundists became almost as unbearable as that imposed on the Jews. In the report of the Holy Synod, presented to the tsar towards the end of 1893, the procurator called for repressive measures against Roman Catholics, Moslems and Buddhists, and denounced the rationalist tendency of the whole system of secular education in the empire (Neue Freie Presse, 31st January 1894). A year later, however, the tsar died, and his successor, without repealing any of the persecuting laws, let it gradually be understood that their rigorous application might be mitigated. The country was tired and exhausted by the persecution, and the tolerant hints which came from high quarters were acted upon with significant alacrity.

A new era of conflict dawned with the great constitutional struggle towards the end of the century. The conditions, however, were very different from those which prevailed in the ’eighties. The May Laws had avenged themselves with singular fitness. By confining the Jews to the towns at the very moment that Count Witte’s policy of protection was creating an enormous industrial proletariat they placed at the disposal of the disaffected masses an ally powerful in numbers and intelligence, and especially in its bitter sense of wrong, its reckless despair and its cosmopolitan outlook and connexions. As early as 1885 the Jewish workmen assisted by Jewish university students led the way in the formation of trades unions. They also became the colporteurs of western European socialism, and they played an important part in the organization of the Russian Social Democratic Federation which their “Arbeiter Bund” joined in 1898 with no fewer than 30,000 members. The Jewish element in the new democratic movement excited the resentment of the government, and under the minister of the interior, M. Sipiaguine, the persecuting laws were once more rigorously enforced. The “Bund” replied in 1901 by proclaiming itself frankly political and revolutionary, and at once took a leading place in the revolutionary movement. The reactionaries were not slow to profit by this circumstance. With the support of M. Plehve, the new minister of the interior, and the whole of the bureaucratic class they denounced the revolution as a Jewish conspiracy, engineered for exclusively Jewish purposes and designed to establish a Jewish domination over the Russian people. The government and even the intimates of the tsar became persuaded that only by the terrorization of the Jews could the revolutionary movement be effectually dealt with. For this purpose a so-called League of True Russians was formed. Under high patronage, and with the assistance of the secret police and a large number of the local authorities, it set itself to stir up the populace, chiefly the fanatics and the hooligans, against the Jews. Incendiary proclamations were prepared and printed in the ministry of the interior itself, and were circulated by the provincial governors and the police (Prince Urussov’s speech in the Duma, June 8 (21), 1906). The result was another series of massacres which began at Kishinev in 1903 and culminated in wholesale butchery at Odessa and Bielostok in October 1905. An attempt was made to picture and excuse these outbreaks as a national upheaval against the Jew-made revolution but it failed. They only embittered the revolutionists and “intellectuals” throughout the country, and won for them a great deal of outspoken sympathy abroad. The artificiality of the anti-Jewish outbreak was illustrated by the first Duma elections. Thirteen Jews were elected and every constituency which had been the scene of a pogrom returned a liberal member. Unfortunately the Jews benefited little by the new parliamentary constitution. The privileges of voting for members of the Duma and of sitting in the new assembly were granted them, but all their civil and religious disabilities were maintained. Both the first and the second Duma proposed to emancipate them, but they were dissolved before any action could be taken. By the modification of the electoral law under which the third Duma was elected the voting power of the Jews was diminished and further restrictions were imposed upon them through official intimidation during the elections. The result was that only two Jews were elected, while the reactionary tendency of the new electorate virtually removed the question of their emancipation from the field of practical politics.

The only other country in Europe in which a legalized anti-Semitism exists is Rumania. The conditions are very similar to those which obtain in Russia, with the important difference that Rumania is a constitutional country, and that the Jewish persecutions are the work of the elected deputies of the nation. Like the Bourgeois Gentilhomme who wrote prose all his life without knowing it, the Rumanians practised the nationalist doctrines of the Hegelian anti-Semites unconsciously long before they were formulated in Germany. In the old days of Turkish domination the lot of the Rumanian Jews was not conspicuously unhappy. It was only when the nation began to be emancipated, and the struggle in the East assumed the form of a crusade against Islam that the Jews were persecuted. Rumanian politicians preached a nationalism limited exclusively to indigenous Christians, and they were strongly supported by all who felt the commercial competition of the Jews. Thus, although the Jews had been settled in the land for many centuries, they were by law declared aliens. This was done in defiance of the treaty of Paris of 1856 and the convention of 1858 which declared all Rumans to be equal before the law. Under the influence of this distinction the Jews became persecuted, and sanguinary riots were of frequent occurrence. The realization of a Jewish question led to legislation imposing disabilities on the Jews. In 1878 the congress of Berlin agreed to recognize the independence of Rumania on condition that all religious disabilities were removed. Rumania agreed to this condition, but ultimately persuaded the powers to allow her to carry out the emancipation of the Jews gradually. Persecutions, however, continued, and in 1902 they led to a great exodus of Jews. The United States addressed a strong remonstrance to the Rumanian government, but the condition of the Jews was in no way improved. Their emancipation was in 1908 as far off as ever, and their disabilities heavier than those of their brethren in Russia. For this state of things the example of the anti-Semites in Germany, Russia, Austria and France was largely to blame, since it had justified the intolerance of the Rumans. Owing, also, to the fact that of late years Rumania had become a sort of annexe of the Triple Alliance, it was found impossible to induce the signatories of the treaty of Berlin to take action to compel the state to fulfil its obligations under that treaty.

In Austria-Hungary the anti-Semitic impulses came almost simultaneously from the North and East. Already in the ’seventies the doctrinaire anti-Semitism of Berlin had found an echo in Budapest. Two members of the diet, Victor Istoczy and Geza Onody, together with a publicist named Georg Marczianyi, busied themselves in making known the doctrine of Marr in Hungary. Marczianyi, who translated the German Judeophobe pamphlets into Magyar, and the Magyar works of Onody into German, was the chief medium between the northern and southern schools. In 1880 Istoczy tried to establish a “Nichtjuden Bund” in Hungary, with statutes literally translated from those of the German anti-Semitic league. The movement, however, made no progress, owing to the stalwart Liberalism of the predominant political parties, and of the national principles inherited from the revolution of 1848. The large part played by the Jews in that struggle, and the fruitful patriotism with which they had worked for the political and economic progress of the country, had created, too, a strong claim on the gratitude of the best elements in the nation. Nevertheless, among the ultramontane clergy, the higher aristocracy, the ill-paid minor officials, and the ignorant peasantry, the seeds of a tacit anti-Semitism were latent. It was probably the aversion of the nobility from anything in the nature of a demagogic agitation which for a time prevented these seeds from germinating. The news of the uprising in Russia and the appearance of Jewish refugees on the frontier, had the effect of giving a certain prominence to the agitation of Istoczy and Onody and of exciting the rural communities, but it did not succeed in impressing the public with the pseudo-scientific doctrines of the new anti-Semitism. It was not until the agitators resorted to the Blood Accusation—that never-failing decoy of obscurantism and superstition—that Hungary took a definite place in the anti-Semitic movement. The outbreak was short and fortunately bloodless, but while it lasted its scandals shocked the whole of Europe.

Dr August Rohling, professor of Hebrew at the university of Prague, a Roman Catholic theologian of high position but dubious learning, had for some years assisted the Hungarian anti-Semites with réchauffés of Eisenmenger’s Enidecktes Judenthum (Frankfurt a/M. 1700). In 1881 he made a solemn deposition before the Supreme Court accusing the Jews of being bound by their law to work the moral and physical ruin of non-Jews. He followed this up with an offer to depose on oath that the murder of Christians for ritual purposes was a doctrine secretly taught among Jews. Professor Delitzsch and other eminent Hebraists, both Christian and Jewish, exposed and denounced the ignorance and malevolence of Rohling, but were unable to stem the mischief he was causing. In April 1882 a Christian girl named Esther Sobymossi was missed from the Hungarian village of Tisza Eszlar, where a small community of Jews were settled. The rumour got abroad that she had been kidnapped and murdered by the Jews, but it remained the burden of idle gossip, and gave rise to neither judicial complaint nor public disorders. At this moment the question of the Bosnian Pacification credits was before the diet. The unpopularity of the task assumed by Austria-Hungary, under the treaty of Berlin, which was calculated to strengthen the disaffected Croat element in the empire, had reduced the government majority to very small proportions, and all the reactionary factions in the country were accordingly in arms. The government was violently and unscrupulously attacked on all sides. On the 23rd of May there was a debate in the diet when M. Onody, in an incendiary harangue, told the story of the missing girl at Tisza Eszlar, and accused ministers of criminal indulgence to races alien to the national spirit. In the then excited state of the public mind on the Croat question, the manoeuvre was adroitly conceived. The government fell into the trap, and treated the story with lofty disdain. Thereupon the anti-Semites set to work on the case, and M. Joseph Bary, the magistrate at Nyiregyhaza, and a noted anti-Semite, was induced to go to Tisza Eszlar and institute an inquiry. All the anti-liberal elements in the country now became banded together in this effort to discredit the liberal government, and for the first time the Hungarian anti-Semites found themselves at the head of a powerful party. Fifteen Jews were arrested and thrown into prison. No pains were spared in preparing the case for trial. Perjury and even forgery were freely resorted to. The son of one of the accused, a boy of fourteen, was taken into custody by the police, and by threats and cajoleries prevailed upon to give evidence for the prosecution. He was elaborately coached for the terrible rôle he was to play. The trial opened at Nyiregyhaza on the 19th of June, and lasted till the 3rd of August. It was one of the most dramatic causes celèbres of the century. Under the brilliant cross-examination of the advocates for the defence the whole of the shocking conspiracy was gradually exposed. The public prosecutor thereupon withdrew from the case, and the four judges—the chief of whom held strong anti-Semitic opinions—unanimously acquitted all the prisoners. The case proved the death-blow of Hungarian anti-Semitism. Although another phase of the Jewish question, which will be referred to presently, had still to occupy the public mind, the shame brought on the nation by the Tisza Eszlar conspiracy effectually prevented the anti-Semites from raising their voices with any effect again.

Meanwhile a more formidable and complicated outburst was preparing in Austria itself. Here the lines of the German agitation were closely followed, but with far more dramatic results. It was exclusively political—that is to say, it appealed to anti-Jewish prejudices for party purposes while it sought to rehabilitate them on a pseudo-scientific basis, racial and economic. At first it was confined to sporadic pamphleteers. By their side there gradually grew up a school of Christian Socialists, recruited from the ultra-Clericals, for the study and application of the doctrines preached at Mainz by Archbishop Ketteler. This constituted a complete Austrian analogue to the Evangelical-Socialist movement started in Germany by Herr Stöcker. For some years the two movements remained distinct, but signs of approximation were early visible. Thus one of the first complaints of the anti-Semites was that the Jews were becoming masters of the soil. This found an echo in the agrarian principles of the Christian Socialists, as expounded by Rudolph Meyer, in which individualism in landed property was admitted on the condition that the landowners were “the families of the nation” and not “cosmopolitan financiers.” A further indication of anti-Semitism is found in a speech delivered in 1878 by Prince Alois von Liechtenstein (b. 1846), the most prominent disciple of Rudolph Meyer, who denounced the national debt as a tribute paid by the state to cosmopolitan rentiers (Nitti, Catholic Socialism, pp. 200, 201, 211, 216). The growing disorder in parliament, due to the bitter struggle between the German and Czech parties, served to bring anti-Semitism into the field of practical politics. Since 1867 the German Liberals had been in power. They had made enemies of the Clericals by tampering with the concordat, and they had split up their own party by the federalist policy adopted by Count Taaffe. The Radical secessionists in their turn found it difficult to agree, and an ultra-national German wing formed itself into a separate party under the leadership of Ritter von Schonerer (b. 1842), a Radical nationalist of the most violent type. In 1882 two anti-Semitic leagues had been founded in Vienna, and to these the Radical nationalists now appealed for support. The growing importance of the party led the premier, Count Taaffe, to angle for the support of the Clericals by accepting a portion of the Christian Socialist programme. The hostility this excited in the liberal press, largely written by Jews, served to bring the feudal Christian Socialists and Radical anti-Semites together. In 1891 these strangely assorted factions became consolidated, and during the elections of that year Prince Liechtenstein came forward as an anti-Semitic candidate and the acknowledged leader of the party. The elections resulted in the return of fifteen anti-Semites to the Reichsrath, chiefly from Vienna.

Although Prince Liechtenstein and the bulk of the Christian Socialists had joined the anti-Semites with the support of the Clerical organ, the Vaterland, the Clerical party as a whole still held aloof from the Jew-baiters. The events of 1892-1895 put an end to their hesitation. The Hungarian government, in compliance with long-standing pledges to the liberal party, introduced into the diet a series of ecclesiastical reform bills providing for civil marriage, freedom of worship, and the legal recognition of Judasim on an equality with other denominations. These proposals, which synchronized with Ahlwardt’s turbulent agitation in Germany, gave a great impulse to anti-Semitism and served to drive into its ranks a large number of Clericals. The agitation was taken in hand by the Roman Catholic clergy, and the pulpits resounded with denunciations of the Jews. One clergyman, Father Deckert, was prosecuted for preaching the Blood Accusation and convicted (1894). Cardinal Schlauch, bishop of Grosswardein, declared in the Hungarian House of Magnates that the Liberals were in league with “cosmopolitans” for the ruin of the country. In October 1894 the magnates adopted two of the ecclesiastical bills with amendments, but threw out the Jewish bill by a majority of six. The crown sided with the magnates, and the ministry resigned, although it had a majority in the Lower House. An effort was made to form a Clerical cabinet, but it failed. Baron Banffy was then entrusted with the construction of a fresh Liberal ministry. The announcement that he would persist with the ecclesiastical bills lashed the Clericals and anti-Semites into a fury, and the agitation broke out afresh. The pope addressed a letter to Count Zichy encouraging the magnates to resist, and once more two of the bills were amended, and the third rejected. The papal nuncio, Mgr. Agliardi, now thought proper to pay a visit to Budapest, where he allowed himself to be interviewed on the crisis. This interference in the domestic concerns of Hungary was deeply resented by the Liberals, and Baron Banffy requested Count Kalnoky, the imperial minister of foreign affairs, to protest against it at the Vatican. Count Kalnoky refused and tendered his resignation to the emperor. Clerical sympathies were predominant in Vienna, and the emperor was induced for a moment to decline the count’s resignation. It soon became clear, however, that the Hungarians were resolved to see the crisis out, and that in the end Vienna would be compelled to give way. The emperor accordingly retraced his steps, Count Kalnoky’s resignation was accepted, the papal nuncio was recalled, a batch of new magnates were created, and the Hungarian ecclesiastical bills passed.

Simultaneously with this crisis another startling phase of the anti-Semitic drama was being enacted in Vienna itself. Encouraged by the support of the Clericals the anti-Semites resolved to make an effort to carry the Vienna municipal elections. So far the alliance of the Clericals with the anti-Semites had been unofficial, but on the eve of the elections (January 1895) the pope, influenced partly by the Hungarian crisis and partly by an idea of Cardinal Rampolla that the best antidote to democratic socialism would be a clerically controlled fusion of the Christian Socialists and anti-Semites, sent his blessing to Prince Liechtenstein and his followers. This action alarmed the government and a considerable body of the higher episcopate, who felt assured that any permanent encouragement given to the anti-Semites would in the end strengthen the parties of sedition and disorder. Cardinal Schönborn was despatched in haste to Rome to expostulate with the pontiff, and his representations were strongly supported by the French and Belgian bishops. The mischief was however, done, and although the pope sent a verbal message to Prince Liechtenstein excluding the anti-Semites from his blessing, the elections resulted in a great triumph for the Jew-haters. The municipal council was immediately dissolved by the government, and new elections were ordered, but these only strengthened the position of the anti-Semites, who carried 92 seats out of a total of 138. A cabinet crisis followed, and the premiership was entrusted to the Statthalter of Galicia, Count Badeni, who assumed office with a pledge of war to the knife against anti-Semitism. In October the new municipal council elected as burgomaster of Vienna Dr Karl Lueger (b. 1844), a vehement anti-Semite, who had displaced Prince Liechtenstein as leader of the party. The emperor declined to sanction the election, but the council repeated it in face of the imperial displeasure. Once more a dissolution was ordered, and for three months the city was governed by administrative commissioners. In February 1896 elections were again held, and the anti-Semites were returned with an increased majority. The emperor then capitulated, and after a temporary arrangement, by which for one year Dr Lueger acted as vice-burgomaster and handed over the burgomastership to an inoffensive nominee, permitted the municipal council to have its way. The growing anarchy in parliament at this moment served still further to strengthen the anti-Semites, and their conquest of Vienna was speedily followed by a not less striking conquest of the Landtag of Lower Austria (November 1896).

Since then a reaction of sanity has slowly but surely asserted itself. In 1908 the anti-Semites had governed Vienna twelve years, and, although they had accomplished much mischief, the millennium of which they were supposed to be the heralds had not dawned. On the contrary, the commercial interests of the city had suffered and the rates had been enormously increased (Neue Freie Presse, 29th March 1901), while the predatory hopes which secured them office had only been realized on a small and select scale. The spectacle of a Clerico-anti-Semitic tammany in Vienna had strengthened the resistance of the better elements in the country. Time had also shown that Christian Socialism is only a disguise for high Toryism, and that the German Radicals who were originally induced to join the anti-Semites had been victimized by the Clericals. The fruits of this disillusion began to show themselves in the general elections of 1900-1901, when the anti-Semites lost six seats in the Reichsrath. The elections were followed (26th January 1901) by a papal encyclical on Christian democracy, in which Christian Socialism was declared to be a term unacceptable to the Church, and the faithful were adjured to abstain from agitation of a demagogic and revolutionary character, and “to respect the rights of others.” Nevertheless, in 1907 the Christian Socialists trebled their representation in the Reichsrath. This, however, was due more to their alliance with the German national parties than to any large increase of anti-Semitism in the electorate.

The last country in Europe to make use of the teachings of German anti-Semitism in its party politics was France. The fact that the movement should have struck root in a republican country, where the ideals of democratic freedom have been so passionately cultivated, has been regarded as one of the paradoxes of our latter-day history. As a matter of fact, it is more surprising that it was not adopted earlier. All the social and political conditions which produced anti-Semitism in Germany were present in France, but in an aggravated form due primarily to the very republican régime which at first sight seemed to be a guarantee against it. In the monarchical states the dominance of the bourgeoisie was tempered in a measure by the power of the crown and the political activity of the aristocracy, which carried with them a very real restraining influence in the matter of political honour and morality. In France these restraining influences were driven out of public life by the republic. The nobility both of the ancien régime and the empire stood aloof, and politics were abandoned for the most part to professional adventurers, while the bourgeoisie assumed the form of an omnipotent plutocracy. This naturally attracted to France all the financial adventurers in Europe, and in the train of the immigration came not a few German Jews, alienated from their own country by the agitation of Marr and Stöcker. Thus the bourgeoisie was not only more powerful in France than in other countries, but the obnoxiousness of its Jewish element was accentuated by a tinge of the national enemy. The anti-clericalism of the bourgeois republic and its unexampled series of financial scandals, culminating in the Panama “Krach,” thus sufficed to give anti-Semitism a strong hold on the public mind.

Nevertheless, it was not until 1882 that the anti-Jewish movement was seriously heard of in France. Paul Bontoux (b. 1820), who had formerly been in the employ of the Rothschilds, but had been obliged to leave the firm in consequence of his disastrous speculations, had joined the Legitimist party, and had started the Union Générale with funds obtained from his new allies. Bontoux promised to break up the alleged financial monopoly of the Jews and Protestants and to found a new plutocracy in its stead, which should be mainly Roman Catholic and aristocratic. The bait was eagerly swallowed. For five years the Union Générale, with the blessing of the pope, pursued an apparently prosperous career. Immense schemes were undertaken, and the 123-fr. shares rose gradually to 3200 francs. The whole structure, however, rested on a basis of audacious speculation, and in January 1882 the Union Générale failed, with liabilities amounting to 312,000,000 francs. The cry was at once raised that the collapse was due to the manoeuvres of the Jews, and a strong anti-Semitic feeling manifested itself in clerical and aristocratic circles. In 1886 violent expression was given to this feeling in a book since become famous, La France juive, by Edouard Drumont (b. 1844). The author illustrated the theories of German anti-Semitism with a chronique scandaleuse full of piquant personalities, in which the corruption of French national life under Jewish influences was painted in alarming colours. The book was read with avidity by the public, who welcomed its explanations of the obviously growing debauchery. The Wilson scandals and the suspension of the Panama Company in the following year, while not bearing out Drumont’s anti-Semitism, fully justified his view of the prevailing corruption. Out of this condition of things rose the Boulangist movement, which rallied all the disaffected elements in the country, including Drumont’s following of anti-Semites. It was not, however, until the flight of General Boulanger and the ruin of his party that anti-Semitism came forward as a political movement.

The chief author of the rout of Boulangism was a Jewish politician and journalist, Joseph Reinach (b. 1856), formerly private secretary to Gambetta, and one of the ablest men in France. He was a Frenchman by birth and education, but his father and uncles were Germans, who had founded an important banking establishment in Paris. Hence he was held to personify the alien Jewish domination in France, and the ex-Boulangists turned against him and his co-religionists with fury. The Boulangist agitation had for a second time involved the Legitimists in heavy pecuniary losses, and under the leadership of the marquis de Morès they now threw all their influence on the side of Drumont. An anti-Semitic league was established, and with Royalist assistance branches were organized all over the country. The Franco-Russian alliance in 1891, when the persecutions of the Jews by Pobêdonostsev were attracting the attention of Europe, served to invest Drumont’s agitation with a fashionable and patriotic character. It was a sign of the spiritual approximation of the two peoples. In 1892 Drumont founded a daily anti-Semitic newspaper, La Libre Parole. With the organization of this journal a regular campaign for the discovery of scandals was instituted. At the same time a body of aristocratic swashbucklers, with the marquis de Morès and the comte de Lamase at their head, set themselves to terrorize the Jews and provoke them to duels. At a meeting held at Neuilly in 1891, Jules Guérin, one of the marquis de Morès’s lieutenants, had demanded rhetorically un cadavre de Juif. He had not long to wait. Anti-Semitism was most powerful in the army, which was the only branch of the public service in which the reactionary classes were fully represented. The republican law compelling the seminarists to serve their term in the army had strengthened its Clerical and Royalist elements, and the result was a movement against the Jewish officers, of whom 500 held commissions. A series of articles in the Libre Parole attacking these officers led to a number of ferocious duels, and these culminated in 1892 in the death of an amiable and popular Jewish officer, Captain Armand Mayer, of the Engineers, who fell, pierced through the lungs by the marquis de Morès. This tragedy, rendered all the more painful by the discovery that Captain Mayer had chivalrously fought to shield a friend, aroused a great deal of popular indignation against the anti-Semites, and for a moment it was believed that the agitation had been killed with its victim.

Towards the end of 1892, the discovery of the widespread corruption practised by the Panama Company gave a fresh impulse to anti-Semitism. The revelations were in a large measure due to the industry of the Libre Parole; and they were all the more welcome to the readers of that journal since it was discovered that three Jews were implicated in the scandals, one of whom, baron de Reinach, was uncle and father-in-law to the hated destroyer of Boulangism. The escape of the other two, Dr Cornelius Herz and M. Arton, and the difficulties experienced in obtaining their extradition, deepened the popular conviction that the authorities were implicated in the scandals, and kept the public eye for a long time absorbed by the otherwise restricted Jewish aspects of the scandals. In 1894 the military side of the agitation was revived by the arrest of a prominent Jewish staff officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, on a charge of treason. From the beginning the hand of the anti-Semite was flagrant in the new sensation. The first hint of the arrest appeared in the Libre Parole; and before the facts had been officially communicated to the public that journal was busy with a campaign against the war minister, based on the apprehension that, in conspiracy with the Juiverie and his republican colleagues, he might exert himself to shield the traitor. Anti-Semitic feeling was now thoroughly aroused. Panama had prepared the people to believe anything; and when it was announced that a court-martial, sitting in secret, had convicted Dreyfus, there was a howl of execration against the Jews from one end of the country to the other, although the alleged crime of the convict and the evidence by which it was supported were quite unknown. Dreyfus was degraded and transported for life amid unparalleled scenes of public excitement.

The Dreyfus Case registers the climax not only of French, but of European anti-Semitism. It was the most ambitious and most unscrupulous attempt yet made to prove the nationalist hypothesis of the anti-Semites, and in its failure it afforded the most striking illustration of the dangers of the whole movement by bringing France to the verge of revolution. For a few months after the Dreyfus court-martial there was a comparative lull; but the highly strung condition of popular passion was illustrated by a violent debate on “The Jewish Peril” in the Chamber of Deputies (25th April 1895), and by two outrages with explosives at the Rothschild bank in Paris. Meanwhile the family of Dreyfus, absolutely convinced of his innocence, were casting about for the means of clearing his character and securing his liberation. They were wealthy, and their activity unsettled the public mind and aroused the apprehensions of the conspirators. Had the latter known how to preserve silence, the mystery would perhaps have been yet unsolved; but in their anxiety to allay all suspicions they made one false step, which proved the beginning of their ruin. Through their friends in the press they secured the publication of a facsimile of a document known as the Bordereau—a list of documents supposed to be in Dreyfus’s handwriting and addressed apparently to the military attaché of a foreign power, which was alleged to constitute the chief evidence against the convict. It was hoped by this publication to put an end to the doubts of the so-called Dreyfusards. The result, however, was only to give them a clue on which they worked with remarkable ingenuity. To prove that the Bordereau was not in Dreyfus’s handwriting was not difficult. Indeed, its authorship was recognized almost on the day of publication; but the Dreyfusards held their hands in order to make assurance doubly sure by further evidence. Meanwhile one of the officers of the general staff, Colonel Picquart, had convinced himself by an examination of the dossier of the trial that a gross miscarriage of justice had taken place. On mentioning his doubts to his superiors, who were animated partly by anti-Semitic feeling and partly by reluctance to confess to a mistake, he was ordered to the Tunisian hinterland on a dangerous expedition. Before leaving Paris, however, he took the precaution to confide his discovery to his legal adviser. Harassed by their anxieties, the conspirators made further communications to the newspapers; and the government, questioned and badgered in parliament, added to the revelations. The new disclosures, so far from stopping the Dreyfusards, proved to them, among other things, that the conviction had been partially based on documents which had not been communicated to the counsel for the defence, and hence that the judges had been tampered with by the ministry of war behind the prisoner’s back. So far, too, as these documents related to correspondence with foreign military attachés, it was soon ascertained that they were forgeries. In this way a terrible indictment was gradually drawn up against the ministry of war. The first step was taken towards the end of 1897 by a brother of Captain Dreyfus, who, in a letter to the minister of war, denounced Major Esterhazy as the real author of the Bordereau. The authorities, supported by parliament, declined to reopen the Dreyfus Case, but they ordered a court-martial on Esterhazy, which was held with closed doors and resulted in his acquittal. It now became clear that nothing short of an appeal to public opinion and a full exposure of all the iniquities that had been perpetrated would secure justice at the hands of the military chiefs. On behalf of Dreyfus, Émile Zola, the eminent novelist, formulated the case against the general staff of the army in an open letter to the president of the republic, which by its dramatic accusations startled the whole world. The letter was denounced as wild and fantastic even by those who were in favour of revision. Zola was prosecuted for libel and convicted, and had to fly the country; but the agitation he had started was taken in hand by others, notably M. Clémenceau, M. Reinach and M. Yves Guyot. In August 1898 their efforts found their first reward. A re-examination of the documents in the case by M. Cavaignac, then minister of war, showed that one was undoubtedly forged. Colonel Henry, of the intelligence department of the war office, then confessed that he had fabricated the document, and, on being sent to Mont Valérien under arrest, cut his throat.

In spite of this damaging discovery the war office still persisted in believing Dreyfus guilty, and opposed a fresh inquiry. It was supported by three successive ministers of war, and apparently an overwhelming body of public opinion. By this time the question of the guilt or innocence of Dreyfus had become an altogether subsidiary issue. As in Germany and Austria, the anti-Semitic crusade had passed into the hands of the political parties. On the one hand the Radicals and Socialists, recognizing the anti-republican aims of the agitators and alarmed by the clerical predominance in the army, had thrown in their lot with the Dreyfusards; on the other the reactionaries, anxious to secure the support of the army, took the opposite view, denounced their opponents as sans patrie, and declared that they were conspiring to weaken and degrade the army in the face of the national enemy. The controversy was, consequently, no longer for or against Dreyfus, but for or against the army, and behind it was a life-or-death struggle between the republic and its enemies. The situation became alarming. Rumours of military plots filled the air. Powerful leagues for working up public feeling were formed and organized; attempts to discredit the republic and intimidate the government were made. The president was insulted; there were tumults in the streets, and an attempt was made by M. Déroulède to induce the military to march on the Elysée and upset the republic. In this critical situation France, to her eternal honour, found men with sufficient courage to do the right. The Socialists, by rallying to the Radicals against the reactionaries, secured a majority for the defence of the republic in parliament. Brisson’s cabinet transmitted to the court of cassation an application for the revision of the case against Dreyfus; and that tribunal, after an elaborate inquiry, which fully justified Zola’s famous letter, quashed and annulled the proceedings of the court-martial, and remitted the accused to another court-martial, to be held at Rennes. Throughout these proceedings the military party fought tooth and nail to impede the course of justice; and although the innocence of Dreyfus had been completely established, it concentrated all its efforts to secure a fresh condemnation of the prisoner at Rennes. Popular passion was at fever heat, and it manifested itself in an attack on M. Labori, one of the counsel for the defence, who was shot and wounded on the eve of his cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution. To the amazement and indignation of the whole world outside France, the Rennes court-martial again found the prisoner guilty; but all reliance on the conscientiousness of the verdict was removed by a rider, which found “extenuating circumstances,” and by a reduction of the punishment to ten years’ imprisonment, to which was added a recommendation to mercy. The verdict was evidently an attempt at a compromise, and the government resolved to advise the president of the republic to pardon Dreyfus. This lame conclusion did not satisfy the accused; but his innocence had been so clearly proved, and on political grounds there were such urgent reasons for desiring a termination of the affair, that it was accepted without protest by the majority of moderate men.

The rehabilitation of Dreyfus, however, did not pass without another effort on the part of the reactionaries to turn the popular passions excited by the case to their own advantage. After the failure of Déroulède’s attempt to overturn the republic, the various Royalist and Boulangist leagues, with the assistance of the anti-Semites, organized another plot. This was discovered by the government, and the leaders were arrested. Jules Guérin, secretary of the anti-Semitic league, shut himself up in the league offices in the rue Chabrol, Paris, which had been fortified and garrisoned by a number of his friends, armed with rifles. For more than a month these anti-Semites held the authorities at bay, and some 5000 troops were employed in the siege. The conspirators were all tried by the senate, sitting as a high court, and Guérin was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The evidence showed that the anti-Semitic organization had taken an active part in the anti-republican plot (see the report of the Commission d’Instruction in the Petit Temps, 1st November 1899).

The government now resolved to strike at the root of the mischief by limiting the power of the religious orders, and with this view a drastic Association bill was introduced into the chambers. This anti-clerical move provoked the wildest passions of the reactionaries, but it found an overwhelming support in the elections of 1902 and the bill became law. The war thus definitely reopened soon led to a revival of the Dreyfus controversy. The nationalists flooded the country with incendiary defamations of “the government of national treason,” and Dreyfus on his part loudly demanded a fresh trial. It was clear that conciliation and compromise were useless. Early in 1905 M. Jaurès urged upon the chamber that the demand of the Jewish officer should be granted if only to tranquillize the country. The necessary faits nouveaux were speedily found by the minister of war, General André, and having been examined by a special commission of revision were ordered to be transmitted to the court of cassation for final adjudication. On the 12th of July 1906, the court, all chambers united, gave its judgment. After a lengthy review of the case it declared unanimously that the whole accusation against Dreyfus had been disproved, and it quashed the judgment of the Rennes court-martial sans renvoi. The explanation of the whole case is that Esterhazy and Henry were the real culprits; that they had made a trade of supplying the German government with military documents; and that once the Bordereau was discovered they availed themselves of the anti-Jewish agitation to throw suspicion on Dreyfus.

Thus ended this famous case, to the relief of the whole country and with the approval of the great majority of French citizens. Except a knot of anti-Semitic monomaniacs all parties bowed loyally to the judgment of the court of cassation. The government gave the fullest effect to the judgment. Dreyfus and Picquart were restored to the active list of the army with the ranks respectively of major and general of brigade. Dreyfus was also created a knight of the Legion of Honour, and received the decoration in public in the artillery pavilion of the military school. Zola, to whose efforts the triumph of truth was chiefly due, had not been spared to witness the final scene, but the chambers decided to give his remains a last resting-place in the Pantheon. When three months later M. Clémenceau formed his first cabinet he appointed General Picquart minister of war. Nothing indeed was left undone to repair the terrible series of wrongs which had grown out of the Dreyfus case. Nevertheless its destructive work could not be wholly healed. For over ten years it had been a nightmare to France, and it now modified the whole course of French history. In the ruin of the French Church, which owed its disestablishment very largely to the Dreyfus conspiracy, may be read the most eloquent warning against the demoralizing madness of anti-Semitism.

In sympathy with the agitation in France there has been a similar movement in Algeria, where the European population have long resented the admission of the native Jews to the rights of French citizenship. The agitation has been marked by much violence, and most of the anti-Semitic deputies in the French parliament, including M. Drumont, have found constituencies in Algeria. As the local anti-Semites are largely Spaniards and Levantine riff-raff, the agitation has not the peculiar nationalist bias which characterizes continental anti-Semitism. Before the energy of the authorities it has lately shown signs of subsiding.

While the main activity of anti-Semitism has manifested itself in Germany, Russia, Rumania, Austria-Hungary and France, its vibratory influences have been felt in other countries when conditions favourable to its extension have presented themselves. In England more than one attempt to acclimatize the doctrines of Marr and Treitschke has been made. The circumstance that at the time of the rise of German anti-Semitism a premier of Hebrew race, Lord Beaconsfield, was in power first suggested the Jewish bogey to English political extremists. The Eastern crisis of 1876-1878, which was regarded by the Liberal party as primarily a struggle between Christianity, as represented by Russia, and a degrading Semitism, as represented by Turkey, accentuated the anti-Jewish feeling, owing to the anti-Russian attitude adopted by the government. Violent expression to the ancient prejudices against the Jews was given by Sir J.G. Tollemache Sinclair (A Defence of Russia, 1877). Mr T.P. O’Connor, in a life of Lord Beaconsfield (1878), pictured him as the instrument of the Jewish people, “moulding the whole policy of Christendom to Jewish aims.” Professor Goldwin Smith, in several articles in the Nineteenth Century (1878, 1881 and 1882), sought to synthetize the growing anti-Jewish feeling by adopting the nationalist theories of the German anti-Semites. This movement did not fail to find an equivocal response in the speeches of some of the leading Liberal statesmen; but on the country generally it produced no effect. It was revived when the persecutions in Russia threatened England with a great influx of Polish Jews, whose mode of life was calculated to lower the standard of living in the industries in which they were employed, and it has left its trace in the anti-alien legislation of 1905. In 1883 Stöcker visited London, but received a very unflattering reception. Abortive attempts to acclimatize anti-Semitism have also been made in Switzerland, Belgium, Greece and the United States.

Anti-Semitism made a great deal of history during the thirty years up to 1908, but has left no permanent mark of a constructive kind on the social and political evolution of Europe. It is the fruit of a great ethnographic and political error, and it has spent itself in political intrigues of transparent dishonesty. Its racial doctrine is at best a crude hypothesis: its nationalist theory has only served to throw into striking relief the essentially economic bases of modern society, while its political activity has revealed the vulgarity and ignorance which constitute its main sources of strength. So far from injuring the Jews, it has really given Jewish racial separatism a new lease of life. Its extravagant accusations, as in the Tisza Eszlar and Dreyfus cases, have resulted in the vindication of the Jewish character. Its agitation generally, coinciding with the revival of interest in Jewish history, has helped to transfer Jewish solidarity from a religious to a racial basis. The bond of a common race, vitalized by a new pride in Hebrew history and spurred on to resistance by the insults of the anti-Semites, has given a new spirit and a new source of strength to Judaism at a moment when the approximation of ethical systems and the revolt against dogma were sapping its essentially religious foundations. In the whole history of Judaism, perhaps, there have been no more numerous or remarkable instances of reversions to the faith than in the period in question. The reply of the Jews to anti-Semitism has taken two interesting practical forms. In the first place there is the so-called Zionist movement, which is a kind of Jewish nationalism and is vitiated by the same errors that distinguish its anti-Semitic analogue (see Zionism). In the second place, there is a movement represented by the Maccabaeans’ Society in London, which seeks to unite the Jewish people in an effort to raise the Jewish character and to promote a higher consciousness of the dignity of the race. It lays no stress on orthodoxy, but welcomes all who strive to render Jewish conduct an adequate reply to the theories of the anti-Semites. Both these movements are elements of fresh vitality to Judaism, and they are probably destined to produce important fruit in future years. A splendid spirit of generosity has also been displayed by the Jewish community in assisting and relieving the victims of the Jew-haters. Besides countless funds raised by public subscription, Baron de Hirsch founded a colossal scheme for transplanting persecuted Jews to new countries under new conditions of life, and endowed it with no less a sum than £9,000,000 (see Hirsch, Maurice de).

Though anti-Semitism has been unmasked and discredited, it is to be feared that its history is not yet at an end. While there remain in Russia and Rumania over six millions of Jews who are being systematically degraded, and who periodically overflow the western frontier, there must continue to be a Jewish question in Europe; and while there are weak governments, and ignorant and superstitious elements in the enfranchized classes of the countries affected, that question will seek to play a part in politics.

Literature.—No impartial history of modern anti-Semitism has yet been written. The most comprehensive works on the subject, Israel among the Nations, by A. Leroy-Beaulieu (1895), and L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes, by Bernard Lazare (1894), are collections of studies rather than histories. M. Lazare’s work will be found most useful by the student on account of its detached standpoint and its valuable bibliographical notes. A good list of works relating to Jewish ethnography will be found at the end of M. Isidor Loeb’s valuable article, “Juifs,” in the Dictionnaire universel de géographie (1884). To these should be added, Adolf Jellinek, Der Jüdische Stamm (1869); Chwolson, Die semitischen Volker (1872); Nossig, Materialien zur Statistik (1887); Jacobs, Jewish Statistics (1891); and Andree, Zur Volkskunde der Juden (1881). A bibliography of the Jewish question from 1875 to 1884 has been published by Mr Joseph Jacobs (1885). Useful additions and rectifications will be found in the Jewish World, 11th September 1885. During the period since 1885 the anti-Semitic movement has produced an immense pamphlet literature. Some of these productions have already been referred to; others will be found in current bibliographies under the names of the personages mentioned, such as Stöcker, Ahlwardt, &c. On the Russian persecutions, besides the works quoted by Jacobs, see the pamphlet issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee in 1890, and the annual reports of the Russo-Jewish Mansion House Fund; Les Juifs de Russie (Paris, 1891); Report of the Commissioners of Immigration upon the Causes which incite Immigration to the United States (Washington, 1892); The New Exodus, by Harold Frederic (1892); Les Juifs russes, by Leo Errera (Brussels, 1893). The most valuable collection of facts relating to the persecutions of 1881-1882 are to be found in the Feuilles Jaunes (52 nos.), compiled and circulated for the information of the European press by the Alliance Israélite of Paris. Complete collections are very scarce. For the struggle during the past decade the Russische Correspondenz of Berlin should be consulted, together with its French and English editions. See also the publications of the Bund (Geneva; Imprimerie Israélite); Séménoff, The Russian Government and the Massacres, and Quarterly Review, October 1906. On the Rumanian question, see Bluntschli, Roumania and the Legal Status of the Jews (London, 1879); Wir Juden (Zürich, 1883); Schloss, The Persecution of the Jews in Roumania (London, 1885); Schloss, Notes of Information (1886); Sincerus, Juifs en Roumanie (London, 1901); Plotke, Die rumanischen Juden unter dem Fürsten u. Konig Karl (1901); Dehn, Diplomatic u. Hochfinanz in der rumanischen Judenfrage (1901); Conybeare, “Roumania as a Persecuting Power,” Nat. Rev., February 1901. On Hungary and the Tisza Eszlar Case, see (besides the references in Jacobs) Nathan, Der Prozess van Tisza Eszlar (Berlin, 1892). On this case and the Blood Accusation generally, see Wright, “The Jews and the Malicious Charge of Human Sacrifice,” Nineteenth Century, 1883. The origins of the Austrian agitation are dealt with by Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895). This work, though inclining to anti-Semitism, should be consulted for the Christian Socialist elements in the whole continental agitation. The most valuable source of information on the Austrian movement is the Österreichische Wochenschrift, edited by Dr Bloch. See also pamphlets and speeches by the anti-Semitic leaders, Liechtenstein, Lueger, Schoenerer, &c. The case of the French anti-Semites is stated by E. Drumont in his France juive. and other works; the other side by Isidor Loeb, Bernard Lazare, Leonce Reynaud, &c. Of the Dreyfus Case there is an enormous literature: see especially the reports of the Zola and Picquart trials, the revision case before the Court of Cassation, the proceedings of the Rennes court-martial, and the final judgment of the Court of Cassation printed in full in the Figaro, July 15, 1906; also Reinach, Histoire de l’affaire Dreyfus (Paris, 1908, 6 vols.), and the valuable series of volumes by Captain Paul Marin, MM. Clémenceau, Lazare, Yves Guyot, Paschal Grousset, Urbain Gohier, de Haime, de Pressensé, and the remarkable letters of Dreyfus (Lettres d’un innocent). An English history of the case was published by F.C. Conybeare (1898), whose articles and those of Sir Godfrey Lushington and L.J. Maxse in the National Review, 1897-1900, will be found invaluable by the student. On the Algerian question, see M. Wahl in the Revue des études juives; L. Forest, Naturalisation des Israélites algériens; and E. Audinet in the Revue générale de droit international publique, 1897, No. 4. On the history of the anti-Semitic movement generally, see the annual reports of the Alliance Israélite of Paris and the Anglo-Jewish Association of London, also the annual summaries published at the end of the Jewish year by the Jewish Chronicle of London. The connexion of the movement with general party politics must be followed in the newspapers. The present writer has worked with a collection of newspaper cuttings numbering several thousands and ranging over thirty years.

(L. W.)

ANTISEPTICS (Gr. ἀντὶ, against, and σηπτικὸς, putrefactive), the name given to substances which are used for the prevention of bacterial development in animal or vegetable matter. Some are true germicides, capable of destroying the bacteria, whilst others merely prevent or inhibit their growth. The antiseptic method of treating wounds (see Surgery) was introduced by Lord Lister, and was an outcome of Pasteur’s germ theory of putrefaction. For the growth of bacteria there must be a certain food supply, moisture, in most cases oxygen, and a certain minimum temperature (see Bacteriology). These conditions have been specially studied and applied in connexion with the preserving of food (see Food Preservation) and in the ancient practice of embalming the dead, which is the earliest illustration of the systematic use of antiseptics (see Embalming). In early inquiries a great point was made of the prevention of putrefaction, and work was done in the way of finding how much of an agent must be added to a given solution, in order that the bacteria accidentally present might not develop. But for various reasons this was an inexact method, and to-day an antiseptic is judged by its effects on pure cultures of definite pathogenic microbes, and on their vegetative and spore forms. Their standardization has been effected in many instances, and a water solution of carbolic acid of a certain fixed strength is now taken as the standard with which other antiseptics are compared. The more important of those in use to-day are carbolic acid, the perchloride and biniodide of mercury, iodoform, formalin, salicylic acid, &c. Carbolic acid is germicidal in strong solution, inhibitory in weaker ones. The so-called “pure” acid is applied to infected living tissues, especially to tuberculous sinuses or wounds, after scraping them, in order to destroy any part of the tuberculous material still remaining. A solution of 1 in 20 is used to sterilize instruments before an operation, and towels or lint to be used for the patient. Care must always be taken to avoid absorption (see Carbolic Acid). The perchloride of mercury is another very powerful antiseptic used in solutions of strength 1 in 2000, 1 in 1000 and 1 in 500. This or the biniodide of mercury is the last antiseptic applied to the surgeon’s and assistants’ hands before an operation begins. They are not, however, to be used in the disinfection of instruments, nor where any large abraded surface would favour absorption. Boracic acid receives no mention here; though it is popularly known as an antiseptic, it is in reality only a soothing fluid, and bacteria will flourish comfortably in contact with it. Of the dry antiseptics iodoform is constantly used in septic or tuberculous wounds, and it appears to have an inhibitory action on Bacillus tuberculosis. Its power depends on the fact that it is slowly decomposed by the tissues, and free iodine given off. Among the more recently introduced antiseptics, chinosol, a yellow substance freely soluble in water, and lysol, another coal-tar derivative, are much used. But every antiseptic, however good, is more or less toxic and irritating to a wounded surface. Hence it is that the “antiseptic” method has been replaced in the surgery of to-day by the “aseptic” method (see Surgery), which relies on keeping free from the invasion of bacteria rather than destroying them when present.

ANTISTHENES (c. 444-365 B.C.), the founder of the Cynic school of philosophy, was born at Athens of a Thracian mother, a fact which may account for the extreme boldness of his attack on conventional thought. In his youth he studied rhetoric under Gorgias, perhaps also under Hippias and Prodicus. Gomperz suggests that he was originally in good circumstances, but was reduced to poverty. However this may be, he came under the influence of Socrates, and became a devoted pupil. So eager was he to hear the words of Socrates that he used to walk daily from Peiraeus to Athens, and persuaded his friends to accompany him. Filled with enthusiasm for the Socratic idea of virtue, he founded a school of his own in the Cynosarges, the hall of the bastards (νόθοι). Thither he attracted the poorer classes by the simplicity of his life and teaching. He wore a cloak and carried a staff and a wallet, and this costume became the uniform of his followers. Diogenes Laertius says that his works filled ten volumes, but of these fragments only remain. His favourite style seems to have been the dialogue, wherein we see the effect of his early rhetorical training. Aristotle speaks of him as uneducated and simple-minded, and Plato describes him as struggling in vain with the difficulties of dialectic. His work represents one great aspect of Socratic philosophy, and should be compared with the Cyrenaic and Megarian doctrines.

Bibliography.—Charles Chappuis, Antisthène (Paris, 1854); A. Müller, De Antisthenis cynici vita et scriptis (Dresden, 1860); T. Gomperz, Greek Thinkers (Eng. trans., 1905), vol. ii. pp. 142 ff., 150 ff. For his philosophy see Cynics, and for his pupils, Diogenes and Crates, see articles under these headings.

ANTISTROPHE, the portion of an ode which is sung by the chorus in its returning movement from west to east, in response to the strophe, which was sung from east to west. It is of the nature of a reply, and balances the effect of the strophe. Thus, in Gray’s ode called “The Progress of Poesy,” the strophe, which dwelt in triumphant accents on the beauty, power and ecstasy of verse, is answered by the antistrophe, in a depressed and melancholy key—

“Man’s feeble race what ills await,

Labour, and Penury, the racks of Pain,
Disease and Sorrow’s weeping Train,
And Death, sad refuge from the storms of Fate,” &c.

When the sections of the chorus have ended their responses, they unite and close in the epode, thus exemplifying the triple form in which the ancient sacred hymns of Greece were composed, from the days of Stesichorus onwards. As Milton says, “strophe, antistrophe and epode were a kind of stanza framed only for the music then used with the chorus that sang.”

ANTITHESIS (the Greek for “setting opposite”), in rhetoric, the bringing out of a contrast in the meaning by an obvious contrast in the expression, as in the following:—“When there is need of silence, you speak, and when there is need of speech, you are dumb; when present, you wish to be absent, and when absent, you desire to be present; in peace you are for war, and in war you long for peace; in council you descant on bravery, and in the battle you tremble.” Antithesis is sometimes double or alternate, as in the appeal of Augustus:—“Listen, young men, to an old man to whom old men were glad to listen when he was young.” The force of the antithesis is increased if the words on which the beat of the contrast falls are alliterative, or otherwise similar in sound, as—“The fairest but the falsest of her sex.” There is nothing that gives to expression greater point and vivacity than a judicious employment of this figure; but, on the other hand, there is nothing more tedious and trivial than a pseudo-antithetical style. Among English writers who have made the most abundant use of antithesis are Pope, Young, Johnson, and Gibbon; and especially Lyly in his Euphues. It is, however, a much more common feature in French than in English; while in German, with some striking exceptions, it is conspicuous by its absence.

ANTITYPE (Gr. ἀντίτυπος), the correlative of “type,” to which it corresponds as the stamp to the die, or vice versa. In the sense of copy or likeness the word occurs in the Greek New Testament (Heb. ix. 24; 1 Peter iii. 21), English “figure.” By theological writers antitype is employed to denote the reality of which a type is the prophetic symbol. Thus, Christ is the antitype of many of the types of the Jewish ritual. By the fathers of the Greek church (e.g. Gregory Nazianzen) antitype is employed as a designation of the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

ANTIUM (mod. Anzio), an ancient Volscian city on the coast of Latium, about 33 m. S. of Rome. The legends as to its foundation, and the accounts of its early relations with Rome, are untrustworthy; but Livy’s account of wars between Antium and Rome, early in the 4th century B.C., may perhaps be accepted. Antium is named with Ardea, Laurentum and Circeii, as under Roman protection, in the treaty with Carthage in 348 B.C. In 341 it lost its independence after a rising with the rest of Latium against Rome, and the beaks (rostra) of the six captured Antiatine ships decorated and gave their name to the orators’ tribunal in the Roman Forum. At the end of the Republican period it became a resort of wealthy Romans, and the Julian and Claudian emperors frequently visited it; both Caligula and Nero were born there. The latter founded a colony of veterans and built a new harbour, the projecting moles of which are still extant. In the middle ages it was deserted in favour of Nettuno: at the end of the 17th century Innocent XII. and Clement XI. restored the harbour, not on the old site but to the east of it, with the opening to the east, a mistake which leads to its being frequently silted up; it has a depth of about 15 ft. Remains of Roman villas are conspicuous all along the shore, both to the east and to the north-west of the town. That of Nero cannot be certainly identified, but is generally placed at the so-called Arco Muto, where remains of a theatre (discovered in 1712 and covered up again) also exist. Many works of art have been found. Of the famous temple of Fortune (Horace, Od. i. 35) no remains are known. The sea is encroaching slightly at Anzio, but some miles farther north-west the old Roman coast-line now lies slightly inland (see Tiber). The Volscian city stood on higher ground and somewhat away from the shore, though it extended down to it. It was defended by a deep ditch, which can still be traced, and by walls, a portion of which, on the eastern side, constructed of rectangular blocks of tufa, was brought to light in 1897. The modern place is a summer resort and has several villas, among them the Villa Borghese.

See A. Nibby, Dintorni di Roma, i. 181; Notizie degli scavi, passim.

(T. As.)

ANTIVARI (Montenegrin Bar, so called by the Venetians from its position opposite Bari in Italy), a seaport of Montenegro which until 1878 belonged to Turkey. Pop. (1900) about 2500. The old town is built inland, on a strip of country running between the Adriatic Sea and the Sutorman range of mountains, overshadowed by the peak of Rumiya (5148 ft.). At a few hundred yards’ distance it is invisible, hidden among dense olive groves. Within, there is a ruinous walled village, and the shell of an old Venetian fortress, surrounded by mosques and bazaars; for Antivari is rather Turkish than Montenegrin. The fine bay of Antivari, with Prstan, its port, is distant about one hour’s drive through barren and forbidding country, shut in by mountains. At the northern horn of the bay stands Spizza, an Austrian military station. Antivari contains the residence of its Roman Catholic archbishop, and, in the centre of the shore, Topolitsa, the square undecorated palace of the crown prince. Antivari is the name applied both to Prstan and the old town. The Austrian Lloyd steamers call at times, and the “Puglia” S.S. Company runs a regular service of steamers to and from Bari. As an outlet for Montenegrin commerce, however, Antivari cannot compete with the Austrian Cattaro, the harbour being somewhat difficult of access in stormy weather. Fishing and olive-oil refining are the main industries.

ANT-LION, the name given to neuropterous insects of the family Myrmeleonidae, with relatively short and apically clubbed antennae and four large densely reticulated wings in which the apical veins enclose regular oblong spaces. The perfect insects are for the most part nocturnal and are believed to be carnivorous. The best-known species, Myrmeleon formicarius, which may be found adult in the late summer, occurs in many countries on the European continent, though like the rest of this group it is not indigenous in England. Strictly speaking, however, the term ant-lion applies to the larval form, which has been known scientifically for over two hundred years, on account of its peculiar and forbidding appearance and its skilful and unique manner of entrapping prey by means of a pitfall. The abdomen is oval, sandy-grey in hue and beset with warts and bristles; the prothorax forms a mobile neck for the large square head, which carries a pair of long and powerful toothed mandibles. It is in dry and sandy soil that the ant-lion lays its trap. Having marked out the chosen site by a circular groove, it starts to crawl backwards, using its abdomen as a plough to shovel up the soil. By the aid of one front leg it places consecutive heaps of loosened particles upon its head, then with a smart jerk throws each little pile clear of the scene of operations. Proceeding thus it gradually works its way from the circumference towards the centre. When the latter is reached and the pit completed, the larva settles down at the bottom, buried in the soil with only the jaws projecting above the surface. Since the sides of the pit consist of loose sand they afford an insecure foothold to any small insect that inadvertently ventures over the edge. Slipping to the bottom the prey is immediately seized by the lurking ant-lion; or if it attempt to scramble again up the treacherous walls of the pit, is speedily checked in its efforts and brought down by showers of loose sand which are jerked at it from below by the larva. By means of similar head-jerks the skins of insects sucked dry of their contents are thrown out of the pit, which is then kept clear of refuse. A full-grown larva digs a pit about 2 in. deep and 3 in. wide at the edge. The pupa stage of the ant-lion is quiescent. The larva makes a globular case of sand stuck together with fine silk spun, it is said, from a slender spinneret at the posterior end of the body. In this it remains until the completion of the transformation into the sexually mature insect, which then emerges from the case, leaving the pupal integument behind. In certain species of Myrmeleonidae, such as Dendroleon pantheormis, the larva, although resembling that of Myrmeleon structurally, makes no pitfall, but seizes passing prey from any nook or crevice in which it shelters.

The exact meaning of the name ant-lion (Fr. fourmilion) is uncertain. It has been thought that it refers to the fact that ants form a large percentage of the prey of the insect, the suffix “lion” merely suggesting destroyer or eater. Perhaps, however, the name may only signify a large terrestrial biting apterous insect, surpassing the ant in size and predatory habits.

(R. I. P.)

ANTOFAGASTA, a town and port of northern Chile and capital of the Chilean province of the same name, situated about 768 m. N. of Valparaiso in 23° 38′ 39″ S. lat. and 70° 24′ 39″ W. long. Pop. (est. 1902) 16,084. Antofagasta is the seaport for a railway running to Oruro, Bolivia, and is the only available outlet for the trade of the south-western departments of that republic. The smelting works for the neighbouring silver mines are located here, and a thriving trade with the inland mining towns is carried on. The town was founded in 1870 as a shipping port for the recently discovered silver mines of that vicinity, and belonged to Bolivia until 1879, when it was occupied by a Chilean military force.

The province of Antofagasta has an area of 46,611 sq. m. lying within the desert of Atacama and between the provinces of Tarapacá and Atacama. It is rich in saline and other mineral deposits, the important Caracoles silver mines being about 90 m. north-east of the port of Antofagasta. Like the other provinces of this region, Antofagasta produces for export copper, silver, silver ores, lead, nitrate of soda, borax and salt. Iron and manganese ores are also found. Besides Antofagasta the principal towns are Taltal, Mejillones, Cobija (the old capital) and Tocopilla. Up to 1879 the province belonged to Bolivia, and was known as the department of Atacama, or the Litoral. It fell into the possession of Chile in the war of 1879-82, and was definitely ceded to that republic in 1885.

ANTOINE, ANDRÉ (1858- ), French actor-manager, was born at Limoges, and in his early years was in business. But he was an enthusiastic amateur actor, and in 1887 he founded in Paris the Théâtre Libre, in order to realize his ideas as to the proper development of dramatic art. For an account of his work, which had enormous influence on the French stage, see Drama: France. In 1894 he gave up the direction of this theatre, and became connected with the Gymnase, and later (1896) with the Odéon.

ANTONELLI, GIACOMO (1806-1876), Italian cardinal, was born at Sonnino on the 2nd of April 1806. He was educated for the priesthood, but, after taking minor orders, gave up the idea of becoming a priest, and chose an administrative career. Created secular prelate, he was sent as apostolic delegate to Viterbo, where he early manifested his reactionary tendencies in an attempt to stamp out Liberalism. Recalled to Rome in 1841, he entered the office of the papal secretary of state, but four years later was appointed pontifical treasurer-general. Created cardinal (11th June 1847), he was chosen by Pius IX. to preside over the council of state entrusted with the drafting of the constitution. On the 10th of March 1848 Antonelli became premier of the first constitutional ministry of Pius IX., a capacity in which he displayed consummate duplicity. Upon the fall of his cabinet Antonelli created for himself the governorship of the sacred palaces in order to retain constant access to and influence over the pope. After the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi (15th November 1848) he arranged the flight of Pius IX. to Gaeta, where he was appointed secretary of state. Notwithstanding promises to the powers, he restored absolute government upon returning to Rome (12th April 1850) and violated the conditions of the surrender by wholesale imprisonment of Liberals. In 1855 he narrowly escaped assassination. As ally of the Bourbons of Naples, from whom he had received an annual subsidy, he attempted, after 1860, to facilitate their restoration by fomenting brigandage on the Neapolitan frontier. To the overtures of Ricasoli in 1861, Pius IX., at Antonelli’s suggestion, replied with the famous “Non possumus,” but subsequently (1867) accepted, too late, Ricasoli’s proposal concerning ecclesiastical property. After the September Convention (1864) Antonelli organized the Legion of Antibes to replace French troops in Rome, and in 1867 secured French aid against Garibaldi’s invasion of papal territory. Upon the reoccupation of Rome by the French after Mentana, Antonelli again ruled supreme, but upon the entry of the Italians in 1870 was obliged to restrict his activity to the management of foreign relations. He wrote, with papal approval, the letter requesting the Italians to occupy the Leonine city, and obtained from the Italians payment of the Peter’s pence (5,000,000 lire) remaining in the papal exchequer, as well as 50,000 scudi—the first and only instalment of the Italian allowance (subsequently fixed by the Law of Guarantees, March 21, 1871) ever accepted by the Holy See. At Antonelli’s death the Vatican finances were found to be in disorder, with a deficit of 45,000,000 lire. His personal fortune, accumulated during office, was considerable, and was bequeathed almost entirely to members of his family. To the Church he left little and to the pope only a trifling souvenir. From 1850 until his death he interfered little in affairs of dogma and church discipline, although he addressed to the powers circulars enclosing the Syllabus (1864) and the acts of the Vatican Council (1870). His activity was devoted almost exclusively to the struggle between the papacy and the Italian Risorgimento, the history of which is comprehensible only when the influence exercised by his unscrupulous, grasping and sinister personality is fully taken into account. He died on the 6th of November 1876.

ANTONELLO DA MESSINA (c. 1430-1479), Italian painter, was probably born at Messina about the beginning of the 15th century, and laboured at his art for some time in his native country. Happening to see at Naples a painting in oil by Jan Van Eyck, belonging to Alphonso of Aragon, he was struck by the peculiarity and value of the new method, and set out for the Netherlands to acquire a knowledge of the process from Van Eyck’s disciples. He spent some time there in the prosecution of his art; returned with his secret to Messina about 1465; probably visited Milan; removed to Venice in 1472, where he painted for the Council of Ten; and died there in the middle of February 1479 (see Venturi’s article in Thieme-Becker, Kunstlerlexikon, 1907). His style is remarkable for its union—not always successful—of Italian simplicity with Flemish love of detail. His subjects are frequently single figures, upon the complete representation of which he bestows his utmost skill. There are extant—besides a number more or less dubious—twenty authentic productions, consisting of renderings of “Ecce Homo,” Madonnas, saints, and half-length portraits, many of them painted on wood. The finest of all is said to be the nameless picture of a man in the Berlin museum. The National Gallery, London, has three works by him, including the “St Jerome in his Study.” Antonello exercised an important influence on Italian painting, not only by the introduction of the Flemish invention, but also by the transmission of Flemish tendencies.

ANTONINI ITINERARIUM, a valuable register, still extant, of the stations and distances along the various roads of the Roman empire, seemingly based on official documents, which were probably those of the survey organized by Julius Caesar, and carried out under Augustus. Nothing is known with certainty as to the date or author. It is considered probable that the date of the original edition was the beginning of the 3rd century, while that which we possess is to be assigned to the time of Diocletian. If the author or promoter of the work is one of the emperors, it is most likely to be Antoninus Caracalla.

Editions by Wesseling, 1735, Parthey and Pindar, 1848. The portion relating to Britain was published under the title Iter Britanniarum, with commentary by T. Reynolds, 1799.

ANTONINUS, SAINT [Antonio Pierozzi, also called de Forciglioni] (1389-1459), archbishop of Florence, was born at that city on the 1st of March 1389. He entered the Dominican order in his 16th year, and was soon entrusted, in spite of his youth, with the government of various houses of his order at Cortona, Rome, Naples and Florence, which he laboured zealously to reform. He was consecrated archbishop of Florence in 1446, and won the esteem and love of his people, especially by his energy and resource in combating the effects of the plague and earthquake in 1448 and 1453. He died on the 2nd of May 1459, and was canonized by Pope Adrian VI. in 1523. His feast is annually celebrated on the 13th of May. Antoninus had a great reputation for theological learning, and sat as papal theologian at the council of Florence (1439). Of his various works, the list of which is given in Quétif-Echard, De Scriptoribus Ord. Praedicat., i. 818, the best-known are his Summa theologica (Venice, 1477; Verona, 1740) and the Summa confessionalis (Mondovi, 1472), invaluable to confessors.

See Bolland, Acta Sanctorum, i., and U. Chevalier, Rep. des. s. hist. (1905), pp. 285-286.

ANTONINUS LIBERALIS, Greek grammarian, probably flourished about A.D. 150. He wrote a collection of forty-one tales of mythical metamorphoses (Μεταμορφώσεων Συναγωγὴ), chiefly valuable as a source of mythological knowledge.

Westermann, Mythographi Graeci (1843); Oder, De Antonino Liberali (1886).

ANTONINUS PIUS [Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus], (A.D. 86-161), Roman emperor A.D. 138-161, the son of Aurelius Fulvus, a Roman consul whose family had originally belonged to Nemausus (Nîmes), was born near Lanuvium on the 19th of September 86. After the death of his father, he was brought up under the care of Arrius Antoninus, his maternal grandfather, a man of integrity and culture, and on terms of friendship with the younger Pliny. Having filled with more than usual success the offices of quaestor and praetor, he obtained the consulship in 120; he was next chosen one of the four consulars for Italy, and greatly increased his reputation by his conduct as proconsul of Asia. He acquired much influence with the emperor Hadrian, who adopted him as his son and successor on the 25th of February 138, after the death of his first adopted son Aelius Verus, on condition that he himself adopted Marcus Annius Verus, his wife’s brother’s son, and Lucius, son of Aelius Verus, afterwards the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aelius Verus (colleague of Marcus Aurelius). A few months afterwards, on Hadrian’s death, he was enthusiastically welcomed to the throne by the Roman people, who, for once, were not disappointed in their anticipation of a happy reign. For Antoninus came to his new office with simple tastes, kindly disposition, extensive experience, a well-trained intelligence and the sincerest desire for the welfare of his subjects. Instead of plundering to support his prodigality, he emptied his private treasury to assist distressed provinces and cities, and everywhere exercised rigid economy (hence the nickname κυμινοπρίστης, “cummin-splitter”). Instead of exaggerating into treason whatever was susceptible of unfavourable interpretation, he turned the very conspiracies that were formed against him into opportunities of signalizing his clemency. Instead of stirring up persecution against the Christians, he extended to them the strong hand of his protection throughout the empire. Rather than give occasion to that oppression which he regarded as inseparable from an emperor’s progress through his dominions, he was content to spend all the years of his reign in Rome, or its neighbourhood. Under his patronage the science of jurisprudence was cultivated by men of high ability, and a number of humane and equitable enactments were passed in his name. Of the public transactions of this period we have but scant information, but, to judge by what we possess, those twenty-two years were not remarkably eventful. One of his first acts was to persuade the senate to grant divine honours to Hadrian, which they had at first refused; this gained him the title of Pius (dutiful in affection). He built temples, theatres, and mausoleums, promoted the arts and sciences, and bestowed honours and salaries upon the teachers of rhetoric and philosophy. His reign was comparatively peaceful. Insurrections amongst the Moors, Jews, and Brigantes in Britain were easily put down. The one military result which is of interest to us now is the building in Britain of the wall of Antoninus from the Forth to the Clyde. In his domestic relations Antoninus was not so fortunate. His wife, Faustina, has almost become a byword for her lack of womanly virtue; but she seems to have kept her hold on his affections to the last. On her death he honoured her memory by the foundation of a charity for orphan girls, who bore the name of Alimentariae Faustinianae. He had by her two sons and two daughters; but they all died before his elevation to the throne, except Annia Faustina, who became the wife of Marcus Aurelius. Antoninus died of fever at Lorium in Etruria, about 12 m. from Rome, on the 7th of March 161, giving the keynote to his life in the last word that he uttered when the tribune of the night-watch came to ask the password—aequanimitas.

The only account of his life handed down to us is that of Julius Capitolinus, one of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae. See Bossart-Mueller, Zur Geschichte des Kaisers A. (1868); Lacour-Gayet, A. le Pieux et son Temps (1888); Bryant, The Reign of Antonine (Cambridge Historical Essays, 1895); P.B. Watson, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (London, 1884), chap. ii.

ANTONIO, known as “The Prior of Crato” (1531-1595), claimant of the throne of Portugal, was the natural son of Louis (Luis), duke of Beja, by Yolande (Violante) Gomez, a Jewess, who is said to have died a nun. His father was a younger son of Emanuel, king of Portugal (1495-1521). Antonio was educated at Coimbra, and was placed in the order of St John. He was endowed with the wealthy priory of Crato. Little is known of his life till 1578. In that year he accompanied King Sebastian (1557-1578) in his invasion of Morocco, and was taken prisoner by the Moors at the battle of Alcazar-Kebir, in which the king was slain. Antonio is said to have secured his release on easy terms by a fiction. He was asked the meaning of the cross of St John which he wore on his doublet, and replied that it was the sign of a small benefice which he held from the pope, and would lose if he were not back by the 1st of January. His captor, believing him to be a poor man, allowed him to escape for a small ransom. On his return to Portugal he found that his uncle, the cardinal Henry, only surviving son of King John III. (1521-1557), had been recognized as king. The cardinal was old, and was the last legitimate male representative of the royal line (see Portugal: History). The succession was claimed by Philip II. of Spain. Antonio, relying on the popular hostility to a Spanish ruler, presented himself as a candidate. He had endeavoured to prove that his father and mother had been married after his birth. There was, however, no evidence of the marriage. Antonio’s claim, which was inferior not only to that of Philip II., but to that of the duchess of Braganza, was not supported by the nobles or gentry. His partisans were drawn exclusively from the inferior clergy, the peasants and workmen. The prior endeavoured to resist the army which Philip II. marched into Portugal to enforce his pretensions, but was easily routed by the duke of Alva, the Spanish commander, at Alcantara, on the 25th of August 1580. At the close of the year, or in the first days of 1581, he fled to France carrying with him the crown jewels, which included many valuable diamonds. He was well received by Catherine de’ Medici, who had a claim of her own on the crown of Portugal, and looked upon him as a convenient instrument to be used against Philip II. By promising to cede the Portuguese colony of Brazil to her, and by the sale of part of his jewels, Antonio secured means to fit out a fleet manned by Portuguese exiles and French and English adventurers. As the Spaniards had not yet occupied the Azores he sailed to them, but was utterly defeated at sea by the marquis of Santa Cruz off Saint Michael’s on the 27th of July 1582. He now returned to France, and lived for a time at Ruel near Paris. Peril from the assassins employed by Philip II. to remove him drove Antonio from one refuge to another, and he finally came to England. Elizabeth favoured him for much the same reasons as Catherine de’ Medici. In 1589, the year after the Armada, he accompanied an English expedition under the command of Drake and Norris to the coast of Spain and Portugal. The force consisted partly of the queen’s ships, and in part of privateers who went in search of booty. Antonio, with all the credulity of an exile, believed that his presence would provoke a general rising against Philip II., but none took place, and the expedition was a costly failure. In 1590 the pretender left England and returned to France, where he fell into poverty. His remaining diamonds were disposed of by degrees. The last and finest was acquired by M. de Sancy, from whom it was purchased by Sully and included in the jewels of the crown. During his last days he lived as a private gentleman on a small pension given him by Henry IV., and he died in Paris on the 26th of August 1595. He left two illegitimate sons, and his descendants can be traced till 1687. In addition to papers published to defend his claims Antonio was the author of the Panegyrus Alphonsi Lusitanorum Regis (Coimbra, 1550), and of a cento of the Psalms, Psalmi Confessionales (Paris 1592), which was translated into English under the title of The Royal Penitent by Francis Chamberleyn (London, 1659), and into German as Heilige Betrachtungen (Marburg, 1677).

Authorities.—Antonio is frequently mentioned in the French, English, and Spanish state papers of the time. A life of him, attributed to Gomes Vasconcellos de Figueredo, was published in a French translation by Mme de Sainctonge at Amsterdam (1696). A modern account of him, Un prétendant portugais au XVI. siècle, by E. Fournier (Paris, 1852), is based on authentic sources. See also Dom Antonio Prior de Crato—notas de bibliographia, by J. de Aranjo (Lisbon, 1897).

(D. H.)

ANTONIO, NICOLAS (1617-1684), Spanish bibliographer, was born at Seville on the 31st of July 1617. After taking his degree at Salamanca (1636-1639), he returned to his native city, wrote his treatise De Exilio (which was not printed till 1659), and began his monumental register of Spanish writers. The fame of his learning reached Philip IV., who conferred the order of Santiago on him in 1645, and sent him as general agent to Rome in 1654. Returning to Spain in 1679, Antonio died at Madrid in the spring of 1684. His Bibliotheca Hispana nova, dealing with the works of Spanish authors who flourished after 1500, appeared at Rome in 1672; the Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, a literary history of Spain from the time of Augustus to the end of the 15th century, was revised by Manuel Martí, and published by Antonio’s friend, Cardinal José Saenz de Aguirre at Rome in 1696. A fine edition of both parts, with additional matter found in Antonio’s manuscripts, and with supplementary notes by Francisco Perez Bayer, was issued at Madrid in 1787-1788. This great work, incomparably superior to any previous bibliography, is still unsuperseded and indispensable.

Of Antonio’s miscellaneous writings the most important is the posthumous Censura de historias fabulosas (Valencia, 1742), in which erudition is combined with critical insight. His Bibliotheca Hispana rabinica has not been printed; the manuscript is in the national library at Madrid.

ANTONIO DE LEBRIJA [Antonius Nebrissensis], (1444-1522), Spanish scholar, was born at Lebrija in the province of Andalusia. After studying at Salamanca he resided for ten years in Italy, and completed his education at Bologna University. On his return to Spain (1473), he devoted himself to the advancement of classical learning amongst his countrymen. After holding the professorship of poetry and grammar at Salamanca, he was transferred to the university of Alcalá de Henares, where he lectured until his death in 1522, at the age of seventy-eight. His services to the cause of classical literature in Spain have been compared with those rendered by Valla, Erasmus and Budaeus to Italy, Holland and France. He produced a large number of works on a variety of subjects, including a Latin and Spanish dictionary, commentaries on Sedulius and Persius, and a Compendium of Rhetoric, based on Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian. His most ambitious work was his chronicle entitled Rerum in Hispania Gestarum Decades (published in 1545 by his son as an original work by his father), which twenty years later was found to be merely a Latin translation of the Spanish chronicle of Pulgar, which was published at Saragossa in 1567. De Lebrija also took part in the production of the Complutense polyglot Bible published under the patronage of Cardinal Jimenes.

Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana Nova, i. 132 (1888); Prescott, History of Ferdinand and Isabella, i. 410 (note); MacCrie, The Reformation in Spain in the Sixteenth Century (1829).

ANTONIUS, the name of a large number of prominent citizens of ancient Rome, of the gens Antonia. Antonius the triumvir claimed that his family was descended from Anton, son of Heracles. Of the Antonii the following are important.

1. Marcus Antonius (143-87 B.C.), one of the most distinguished Roman orators of his time, was quaestor in 113, and praetor in 102 with proconsular powers, the province of Cilicia being assigned to him. Here he was so successful against the pirates that a naval triumph was awarded him. He was consul in 99, censor 97, and held a command in the Marsic War in 90. An adherent of Sulla, he was put to death by Marius and Cinna when they obtained possession of Rome (87). Antonius’s reputation for eloquence rests on the authority of Cicero, none of his orations being extant. He is one of the chief speakers in Cicero’s De Oratore.

Velleius Paterculus ii. 22; Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 72; Dio Cassius xlv. 47; Plutarch, Marius, 44; Cicero, Orator, 5, Brutus, 37; Quintilian, Instit. iii. 1, 19; O. Enderlein, De M. Antonio oratore (Leipzig, 1882).

2. Marcus Antonius, nicknamed Creticus in derision, elder son of Marcus Antonius, the “orator,” and father of the triumvir. He was praetor in 74 B.C., and received an extraordinary command (similar to that bestowed upon Pompey by the Gabinian law) to clear the sea of pirates, and thereby assist the operations against Mithradates VI. He failed in the task, and made himself unpopular by plundering the provinces (Sallust, Hist. iii., fragments ed. B. Maurenbrecher, p. 108; Velleius Paterculus ii. 31; Cicero, In Verrem, iii. 91). He attacked the Cretans, who had made an alliance with the pirates, but was totally defeated, most of his ships being sunk. Diodorus Siculus (xl. 1) states that he only saved himself by a disgraceful treaty. He died soon afterwards (72-71) in Crete. All authorities are agreed as to his avarice and incompetence.

3. Gaius Antonius, nicknamed Hybrida from his half-savage disposition (Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 213), second son of Marcus Antonius, the “orator,” and uncle of the triumvir. He was one of Sulla’s lieutenants in the Mithradatic War, and, after Sulla’s return, remained in Greece to plunder with a force of cavalry. In 76 he was tried for his malpractices, but escaped punishment; six years later he was removed from the senate by the censors, but soon afterwards reinstated. In spite of his bad reputation, he was elected tribune in 71, praetor in 66, and consul with Cicero in 63. He secretly supported Catiline, but Cicero won him over by promising him the rich province of Macedonia. On the outbreak of the Catilinarian conspiracy, Antonius was obliged to lead an army into Etruria, but handed over the command on the day of battle to Marcus Petreius on the ground of ill-health. He then went to Macedonia, where he made himself so detested by his oppression and extortions that he left the province, and was accused in Rome (59) both of having taken part in the conspiracy and of extortion in his province. It was said that Cicero had agreed with Antonius to share his plunder. Cicero’s defence of Antonius two years before in view of a proposal for his recall, and also on the occasion of his trial, increased the suspicion. In spite of Cicero’s eloquence, Antonius was condemned, and went into exile at Cephallenia. He seems to have been recalled by Caesar, since he was present at a meeting of the senate in 44, and was censor in 42.

Cicero, In Cat. iii. 6, pro Flacco, 38; Plutarch, Cicero, 12; Dio Cassius xxxvii. 39, 40; xxxviii. 10. On his trial see article in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie.

4. Marcus Antonius, commonly called Mark Antony, the Triumvir, grandson of Antonius the “orator” and son of Antonius Creticus, related on his mother’s side to Julius Caesar, was born about 83 B.C. Under the influence of his stepfather, Cornelius Lentulus Sura, he spent a profligate youth. For a time he co-operated with P. Clodius Pulcher, probably out of hostility to Cicero, who had caused Lentulus Sura to be put to death as a Catilinarian; the connexion was severed by a disagreement arising from his relations with Clodius’s wife, Fulvia. In 58 he fled to Greece to escape his creditors. After a short time spent in attendance on the philosophers at Athens, he was summoned by Aulus Gabinius, governor of Syria, to take part in the campaigns against Aristobulus in Palestine, and in support of Ptolemy Auletes in Egypt. In 54 he was with Caesar in Gaul. Raised by Caesar’s influence to the offices of quaestor, augur, and tribune of the plebs, he supported the cause of his patron with great energy, and was expelled from the senate-house when the Civil War broke out. Deputy-governor of Italy during Caesar’s absence in Spain (49), second in command in the decisive battle of Pharsalus (48), and again deputy-governor of Italy while Caesar was in Africa (47), Antony was second only to the dictator, and seized the opportunity of indulging in the most extravagant excesses, depicted by Cicero in the Philippics. In 46 he seems to have taken offence because Caesar insisted on payment for the property of Pompey which Antony professedly had purchased, but had in fact simply appropriated. The estrangement was not of long continuance; for we find Antony meeting the dictator at Narbo the following year, and rejecting the suggestion of Trebonius that he should join in the conspiracy that was already on foot. In 44 he was consul with Caesar, and seconded his ambition by the famous offer of the crown at the festival of Lupercalia (February 15). After the murder of Caesar on the 15th of March, Antony conceived the idea of making himself sole ruler. At first he seemed disposed to treat the conspirators leniently, but at the same time he so roused the people against them by the publication of Caesar’s will and by his eloquent funeral oration, that they were obliged to leave the city. He surrounded himself with a bodyguard of Caesar’s veterans, and forced the senate to transfer to him the province of Cisalpine Gaul, which was then administered by Decimus Junius Brutus, one of the conspirators. Brutus refused to surrender the province, and Antony set out to attack him in October 44, But at this time Octavian, whom Caesar had adopted as his son, arrived from Illyria, and claimed the inheritance of his “father.” Octavian obtained the support of the senate and of Cicero; and the veteran troops of the dictator flocked to his standard. Antony was denounced as a public enemy, and Octavian was entrusted with the command of the war against him. Antony was defeated at Mutina (43) where he was besieging Brutus. The consuls Aulus Hirtius and C. Vibius Pansa, however, fell in the battle, and the senate became suspicious of Octavian, who, irritated at the refusal of a triumph and the appointment of Brutus to the command over his head, entered Rome at the head of his troops, and forced the senate to bestow the consulship upon him (August 19th). Meanwhile, Antony escaped to Cisalpine Gaul, effected a junction with Lepidus and marched towards Rome with a large force of infantry and cavalry. Octavian betrayed his party, and came to terms with Antony and Lepidus. The three leaders met at Bononia and adopted the title of Triumviri reipublicae constituendae as joint rulers. Gaul was to belong to Antony, Spain to Lepidus, and Africa, Sardinia and Sicily to Octavian. The arrangement was to last for five years. A reign of terror followed; proscriptions, confiscations, and executions became general; some of the noblest citizens were put to death, and Cicero fell a victim to Antony’s revenge. In the following year (42) Antony and Octavian proceeded against the conspirators Cassius and Brutus, and by the two battles of Philippi annihilated the senatorial and republican parties. Antony proceeded to Greece, and thence to Asia Minor, to procure money for his veterans and complete the subjugation of the eastern provinces. On his passage through Cilicia in 41 he fell a victim to the charms of Cleopatra, in whose company he spent the winter at Alexandria. At length he was aroused by the Parthian invasion of Syria and the report of an outbreak between Fulvia his wife and Lucius his brother on the one hand and Octavian on the other. On arriving in Italy he found that Octavian was already victorious; on the death of Fulvia, a reconciliation was effected between the triumvirs, and cemented by the marriage of Antony with Octavia, the sister of his colleague. A new division of the Roman world was made at Brundusium, Lepidus receiving Africa, Octavian the west, and Antony the east. Returning to his province Antony made several attempts to subdue the Parthians, without any decided success. In 39 he visited Athens, where he behaved in a most extravagant manner, assuming the attributes of the god Dionysus. In 37 he crossed over to Italy, and renewed the triumvirate for five years at a meeting with Octavian. Returning to Syria, he resumed relations with Cleopatra. His treatment of Octavia, her brother’s desire to get rid of him, and the manner in which he disposed of kingdoms and provinces in favour of Cleopatra alienated his supporters. In 32 the senate deprived him of his powers and declared war against Cleopatra. After two years spent in preparations, Antony was defeated at the battle of Actium (2nd September 31). Once more he sought refuge in the society of Cleopatra, who had escaped with sixty ships to Egypt. He was pursued by his enemies and his troops abandoned him. Thereupon he committed suicide in the mistaken belief that Cleopatra had already done so (30 B.C.). Antony had been married in succession to Fadia, Antonia, Fulvia and Octavia, and left behind him a number of children.

See Rome, History, II. “The Republic” (ad fin.); Caesar, De Bella Gallico, De Bella Civili; Plutarch, Lives of Antony, Brutus, Cicero, Caesar; Cicero, Letters (ed. Tyrrell and Purser) and Philippics; Appian, Bell. Civ. i.-v.; Dio Cassius xli.-liii. In addition to the standard histories, see V. Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1891-1904); W. Drumann, Geschichte Roms (2nd ed. P. Groebe, 1899), i. pp. 46-384; article by Groebe in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie; and a short but vivid sketch by de Quincey in his Essay on the Caesars.

5. Lucius Antonius, youngest son of Marcus Antonius Creticus, and brother of the triumvir. In 44, as tribune of the people, he brought forward a law authorizing Caesar to nominate the chief magistrates during his absence from Rome. After the murder of Caesar, he supported his brother Marcus. He proposed an agrarian law in favour of the people and Caesar’s veterans, and took part in the operations at Mutina (43). In 41 he was consul, and had a dispute with Octavian, which led to the so-called Perusian War, in which he was supported by Fulvia (Mark Antony’s wife), who was anxious to recall her husband from Cleopatra’s court. Later, observing the bitter feelings that had been evoked by the distribution of land among the veterans of Caesar, Antonius and Fulvia changed their attitude, and stood forward as the defenders of those who had suffered from its operation. Antonius marched on Rome, drove out Lepidus, and promised the people that the triumvirate should be abolished. On the approach of Octavian, he retired to Perusia in Etruria, where he was besieged by three armies, and compelled to surrender (winter of 41). His life was spared, and he was sent by Octavian to Spain as governor. Nothing is known of the circumstances or date of his death. Cicero, in his Philippics, actuated in great measure by personal animosity, gives a highly unfavourable view of his character.

Appian, Bellum Civile, v. 14 ff.; Dio Cassius xlviii. 5-14.

6. Gaius Antonius, second son of Marcus Antonius Creticus, and brother of the triumvir. In 49 he was legate of Caesar and, with P. Cornelius Dolabella, was entrusted with the defence of Illyricum against the Pompeians. Dolabella’s fleet was destroyed; Antonius was shut up in the island of Curicta and forced to surrender. In 44 he was city praetor, his brothers Marcus and Lucius being consul and tribune respectively in the same year. Gaius was appointed to the province of Macedonia, but on his way thither fell into the hands of M. Junius Brutus on the coast of Illyria. Brutus at first treated him generously, but ultimately put him to death (42).

Plutarch, Brutus, 28; Dio Cassius xlvii. 21-24. On the whole family, see the articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie, i. pt. 2 (1894).

ANTONOMASIA, in rhetoric, the Greek term for a substitution of any epithet or phrase for a proper name; as “Pelides,” or “the son of Peleus,” for Achilles; “the Stagirite” for Aristotle; “the author of Paradise Lost” for Milton; “the little corporal” for Napoleon I.; “Macedonia’s madman” for Alexander the Great, &c. &c. The opposite substitution of a proper name for some generic term is also sometimes called antonomasia; as “a Cicero” for an orator.

ANTRAIGUES, EMMANUEL HENRI LOUIS ALEXANDRE DE LAUNAY, Comte D’ (c. 1755-1812), French publicist and political adventurer, was a nephew of François Emmanuel de Saint-Priest (1735-1821), one of the last ministers of Louis XVI. He was a cavalry captain, but, having little taste for the army, left it and travelled extensively, especially in the East. On his return to Paris, he sought the society of philosophers and artists, visited Voltaire at Ferney for three months, but was more attracted by J.J. Rousseau, with whom he became somewhat intimate. He published a Mémoire sur les états-généraux, supported the Revolution enthusiastically when it broke out, was elected deputy, and took the oath to the constitution; but he suddenly changed his mind completely, became a defender of the monarchy and emigrated in 1790. He was the secret agent of the comte de Provence (Louis XVIII.) at different courts of Europe, and at the same time received money from the courts he visited. He published a number of pamphlets, Des monstres ravagent partout, Point d’accommodement, &c. At Venice, where he was attaché to the Russian legation, he was arrested in 1797, but escaped to Russia. Sent as Russian attaché to Dresden, he published a violent pamphlet against Napoleon I., and was expelled by the Saxon government. He then went to London, and it was universally believed that he betrayed the secret articles of the treaty of Tilsit to the British cabinet, but his recent biographer, Pingaud, contests this. In 1812 he and his wife Madame Saint-Huberty, an operatic singer, were assassinated by an Italian servant whom they had dismissed. It has never been known whether the murder was committed from private or political motives.

See H. Vaschalde, Notice bibliographique sur Louis Alexandre de Launay, comte d’Antraigues, sa vie et ses oeuvres; Léonce Pingaud, Un Agent secret sous la révolution et l’empire, le comte d’Antraigues (Paris, 1893); Édouard de Goncourt, La Saint-Huberty et l’opéra au XVIIIe siècle.

ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL, 1st Earl of (d. 1636), called “Arranach,” having been brought up in the Scottish island of Arran by the Hamiltons, was the 4th son of Sorley Boy MacDonnell (q.v.), and of Mary, daughter of Conn O’Neill, 1st earl of Tyrone. He fought at first against the English government, participating in his brother James’s victory over Sir John Chichester at Carrickfergus in November 1597, and joining in O’Neill’s rebellion in 1600. But on the 16th of December he signed articles with Sir Arthur Chichester and was granted protection; in 1601 he became head of his house by his elder brother’s death, his pardon being confirmed to him; and in 1602 he submitted to Lord Mountjoy and was knighted. On the accession of James I. in 1603 he obtained a grant of the Route and the Glynns (Glens) districts, together with the island of Rathlin, and remained faithful to the government in spite of the unpopularity he thereby incurred among his kinsmen, who conspired to depose him. In 1607 he successfully defended himself against the charge of disloyalty on the occasion of the flight of the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, and rendered services to the government by settling and civilizing his districts, being well received the following year by James in London. In 1618 he was created Viscount Dunluce, and subsequently he was appointed a privy councillor and lord-lieutenant of the county of Antrim. On the 12th of December 1620 he was created earl of Antrim. In 1621 he was charged with harbouring Roman Catholic priests, confessed his offence and was pardoned. He offered his assistance in 1625 during the prospect of a Spanish invasion, but was still regarded as a person that needed watching. His arbitrary conduct in Ireland in 1627 was suggested as a fit subject for examination by the Star Chamber, but his fidelity to the government was strictly maintained to the last. In 1631 he was busy repairing Protestant churches, and in 1634 he attended the Irish parliament. He made an important agreement in 1635 for the purchase from James Campbell, Lord Cantire, of the lordship of Cantire, or Kintyre, of which the MacDonnells had been dispossessed in 1600 by Argyll; but his possession was successfully opposed by Lord Lorne. He died on the 10th of December 1636. Antrim married Alice, daughter of Hugh O’Neill, earl of Tyrone, by whom, besides six daughters, he had Randal, 2nd earl and 1st marquess of Antrim (q.v.), and Alexander, 3rd earl. Three other sons, Maurice, Francis and James, were probably illegitimate. The earldom has continued in the family down to the present day, the 11th earl (b. 1851) succeeding in 1869.

See also An Historical Account of the MacDonnells of Antrim, by G. Hill (1873).

ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL, 1st Marquess of (1609-1683), son of the 1st earl of Antrim, was born in 1609 and educated as a Roman Catholic. He travelled abroad, and on his return in 1634 went to court, next year marrying Katherine Manners, widow of the 1st duke of Buckingham, and living on her fortune for some years in great splendour. In 1639, on the outbreak of the Scottish war, he initiated a scheme of raising a force in Ireland to attack Argyll in Scotland and recover Kintyre (or Cantire), a district formerly possessed by his family; but the plan, discouraged and ridiculed by Strafford, miscarried. Soon afterwards he returned to Ireland, and sought in 1641 to create a diversion, together with Ormonde, for Charles I. against the parliament. He joined in his schemes Lord Slane and Sir Phelim O’Neill, later leaders of the rebellion, but on the outbreak of the rebellion in the autumn he dissociated himself from his allies and retired to his castle at Dunluce. His suspicious conduct, however, and his Roman Catholicism, caused him to be regarded as an enemy by the English party. In May 1642 he was captured at Dunluce Castle by the parliamentary general Robert Munro, and imprisoned at Carrickfergus. Escaping thence he joined the queen at York; and subsequently, having proceeded to Ireland to negotiate a cessation of hostilities, he was again captured with his papers in May 1643 and confined at Carrickfergus, thence once more escaping and making his way to Kilkenny, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic confederation. He returned to Oxford in December with a scheme for raising 10,000 Irish for service in England and 2000 to join Montrose in Scotland, which through the influence of the duchess of Buckingham secured the consent of the king. On the 26th of January 1644 Antrim was created a marquess. He returned to Kilkenny in February, took the oath of association, and was made a member of the council and lieutenant-general of the forces of the Catholic confederacy. The confederacy, however, giving him no support in his projects, he threw up his commission, and with Ormonde’s help despatched about 1600 men in June to Montrose’s assistance in Scotland, subsequently returning to Oxford and being sent by the king in 1645 with letters for the queen at St Germains. He proceeded thence to Flanders and fitted out two frigates with military stores, which he brought to the prince of Wales at Falmouth. He visited Cork and afterwards in July 1646 joined his troops in Scotland, with the hope of expelling Argyll from Kintyre; but he was obliged to retire by order of the king, and returning to Ireland threw himself into the intrigues between the various factions. In 1647 he was appointed with two others by the confederacy to negotiate a treaty with the prince of Wales in France, and though he anticipated his companions by starting a week before them, he failed to secure the coveted lord-lieutenancy, which was confirmed to Ormonde. He now ceased to support the Roman Catholics or the king’s cause; opposed the treaty between Ormonde and the confederates; supported the project of union between O’Neill and the parliament; and in 1649 entered into communications with Cromwell, for whom he performed various services, though there appears no authority to support Carte’s story that Antrim was the author of a forged agreement for the betrayal of the king’s army by Lord Inchiquin. Subsequently he joined Ireton, and was present at the siege of Carlow. He returned to England in December 1650, and in lieu of his confiscated estate received a pension of £500 and later of £800, together with lands in Mayo. At the Restoration Antrim was excluded from the Act of Oblivion on account of his religion, and on presenting himself at court was imprisoned in the Tower, subsequently being called before the lords justices in Ireland. In 1663 he succeeded, in spite of Ormonde’s opposition, in securing a decree of innocence from the commissioners of claims. This raised an outcry from the adventurers who had been put in possession of his lands, and who procured a fresh trial; but Antrim appealed to the king, and through the influence of the queen mother obtained a pardon, his estates being restored to him by the Irish, Act of Explanation in 1665. Antrim died on the 3rd of February 1683. He is described by Clarendon as of handsome appearance but “of excessive pride and vanity and of a marvellous weak and narrow understanding.” He married secondly Rose, daughter of Sir Henry O’Neill, but had no children, being succeeded in the earldom by his brother Alexander, 3rd earl of Antrim.

See Hibernia Anglicana, by R. Cox (1689-1690) esp. app. xlix. vol. ii. 206; History of the Irish Confederation, by J.T. Gilbert (1882-1891); Aphorismical Discovery (Irish Archaeological Society, 1879-1880); Thomason Tracts (Brit. Mus.), E 59 (18), 149 (12), 138 (7), 153 (19), 61 (23); Murder will out, or the King’s Letter justifying the Marquess of Antrim (1689); Hist. MSS. Comm. Series—MSS. of Marq. of Ormonde.

(P. C. Y.)

Strafford’s Letters, ii. 300.

Life of Ormonde, iii. 509; see also Cal. of State Papers, Ireland, 1660-1662, pp. 294, 217; Cal. of Clarendon St. Pap., ii. 69, and Gardiner’s Commonwealth, i. 153.

Hallam, Const. Hist., iii. 396 (ed. 1855).

ANTRIM, a county in the north-east corner of Ireland, in the province of Ulster. It is bounded N. and E. by the narrow seas separating Ireland from Scotland, the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea, S. by Belfast Lough and the Lagan river dividing it from the county Down, W. by Lough Neagh, dividing it from the counties Armagh and Tyrone, and by county Londonderry, the boundary with which is the river Bann.

The area is 751,965 acres or about 1175 sq. m. A large portion of the county is hilly, especially in the east, where the highest elevations are attained, though these are nowhere great. The range runs north and south, and, following this direction the highest points are Knocklayd (1695 ft.), Slieveanorra (1676), Trostan (1817), Slemish (1457), and Divis (1567). The inland slope is gradual, but on the northern shore the range terminates in abrupt and almost perpendicular declivities, and here, consequently, some of the finest coast scenery in the island is found, widely differing, with its unbroken lines of cliffs, from the indented coast-line of the west. The most remarkable cliffs are those formed of perpendicular basaltic columns, extending for many miles, and most strikingly displayed in Fair Head and the celebrated Giant’s Causeway. From the eastern coast the hills rise instantly but less abruptly, and the indentations are wider and deeper. On both coasts there are several frequented watering-places, of which may be mentioned on the north Portrush (with well-known golf links), Port Ballintrae and Ballycastle; on the east Cushendun, Cushendall and Milltown on Red Bay, Carn Lough and Glenarm, Larne, and Whitehead on Belfast Lough. All are somewhat exposed to the easterly winds prevalent in spring. The only island of size is Rathlin, off Ballycastle, 6½ m. in length by 1½ in breadth, 7 m. from the coast, and of similar basaltic and limestone formation to that of the mainland. It is partially arable, and supports a small population. The so-called Island Magee is a peninsula separating Larne Lough from the Irish Channel.

The valleys of the Bann and Lagan, with the intervening shores of Lough Neagh, form the fertile lowlands. These two rivers, both rising in county Down, are the only ones of importance. The latter flows to Belfast Lough, the former drains Lough Neagh, which is fed by a number of smaller streams, among them the Crumlin, whose waters have petrifying powers. The fisheries of the Bann and of Lough Neagh (especially for salmon) are of value both commercially and to sportsmen, the small town of Toome, at the outflow of the river, being the centre. Immediately below this point lies Lough Beg, the “Small Lake,” about 15 ft. lower than Lough Neagh, which it excels in the pleasant scenery of its banks. The smaller streams are of great use in working machinery.

Geology.—On entering the county at the south, a scarped barrier of hills is seen beyond the Lagan valley, marking the edge of the basaltic plateaus, and running almost continuously round the coast to Red Bay. Below it, Triassic beds are exposed from Lisburn to Island Magee, giving sections of red sands and marls. Above these, marine Rhaetic beds appear at intervals, notably near Larne, where they are succeeded by Lower Lias shales and limestones. At Portrush, the Lower Lias is seen on the shore, crowded with ammonites, but silicified and metamorphosed by invading dolerite. The next deposits, as the scarps are approached, are greensands of “Selbornian” age, succeeded by Cenomanian, and locally by Turonian, sands. The Senonian series is represented by the White Limestone, a hardened chalk with flints, which is often glauconitic and conglomeratic at the base. Denudation in earliest Eocene times has produced flint gravels above the chalk, and an ancient stream deposit of chalk pebbles occurs at Ballycastle. The volcanic fissures that allowed of the upwelling of basalt are represented by numerous dykes, many cutting the earlier lava-flows as well as all the beds below them. The accumulations of lava gave rise to the plateaus which form almost the whole interior of the county. In a quiet interval, the Lower Eocene plant-beds of Glenarm and Ballypalady were formed in lakes, where iron-ores also accumulated. Rhyolites were erupted locally near Tardree, Ballymena and Glenarm. The later basalts are especially marked by columnar jointing, which determines the famous structures of the Giant’s Causeway and the coast near Bengore Head. Volcanic necks may be recognized at Carrick-a-rede, in the intrusive mass of dolerite at Slemish, at Carnmoney near Belfast, and a few other points. Fair Head is formed of intrusive dolerite, presenting a superb columnar seaward face. Faulting, probably in Pliocene times, lowered the basaltic plateaus to form the basin of Lough Neagh, leaving the eastern scarp at heights ranging up to 1800 ft. The glens of Antrim are deep notches cut by seaward-running streams through the basalt scarp, their floors being formed of Triassic or older rocks. Unlike most Irish counties, Antrim owes its principal features to rocks of Mesozoic and Cainozoic age. At Cushendun, however, a coarse conglomerate is believed to be Devonian, while Lower Carboniferous Sandstones, with several coal-seams, form a small productive basin at Ballycastle. The dolerite of Fair Head sends off sheets along the bedding-planes of these carboniferous strata. “Dalradian” schists and gneisses, with some dark limestones, come out in the north-east of the county, forming a moorland-region between Cushendun and Ballycastle. The dome of Knocklayd, capped by an outlier of chalk and basalt, consists mostly of this far more ancient series. Glacial gravels are well seen near Antrim town, and as drumlins between Ballymena and Ballycastle. The drift-phenomena connected with the flow of ice from Scotland are of special interest. Recently elevated marine clays, of post-glacial date, fringe the south-eastern coast, while gravels with marine shells, side by side with flint implements chipped by early man, have been lifted some 20 ft. above sea-level near Larne.

Rock-salt some 80 ft. thick is mined in the Trias near Carrickfergus. The Keuper clays yield material for bricks. Bauxite, probably derived from the decay of lavas, is found between Glenarm and Broughshane, associated with brown and red pisolitic iron-ores; both these materials are worked commercially. Bauxite occurs also near Ballintoy. The Ballycastle coal is raised and sold locally.

Industries.—The climate is very temperate. The soil varies greatly according to the district, being in some cases a rich loam, in others a chalky marl, and elsewhere showing a coating of peat. The proportion of barren land to the total area is roughly as 1 to 9; and of tillage to pasture as 2 to 3. Tillage is therefore, relatively to other counties, well advanced, and oats and potatoes are largely, though decreasingly, cultivated. Flax is a less important crop than formerly. The numbers of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry are generally increasing. Dutch, Ayrshire and other breeds are used to improve the breed of cattle by crossing. Little natural wood remains in the county, but plantations flourish on the great estates, and orchards have proved successful.

The linen manufacture is the most important industry. Cotton-spinning by jennies was first introduced by Robert Joy and Thomas M‘Cabe of Belfast in 1777; and an estimate made twenty-three years later showed upwards of 27,000 hands employed in this industry within 10 m. of Belfast, which remains the centre for it. Women are employed in the working of patterns on muslin. There are several paper-mills at Bushmills in the north; whisky-distilling is carried on; and there are valuable sea-fisheries divided between the district of Ballycastle and Carrickfergus, while the former is the headquarters of a salmon-fishery district. The workings at the Ballycastle collieries are probably the oldest in Ireland. In 1770 the miners accidentally discovered a complete gallery, which has been driven many hundred yards into the bed of coal, branching into thirty-six chambers dressed quite square, and in a workman-like manner. No tradition of the mine having been formerly worked remained in the neighbourhood. The coal of some of the beds is bituminous, and of others anthracite.

Communications.—Except that the Great Northern railway line from Belfast to the south and west runs for a short distance close to the southern boundary of the county, with a branch from Lisburn to the town of Antrim, the principal lines of communication are those of the Northern Counties system, under the control of the Midland railway of England. The chief routes are:—Belfast, Antrim, Ballymena (and thence to Coleraine and Londonderry); a line diverging from this at White Abbey to Carrickfergus and Larne, the port for Stranraer in Scotland; branches from Ballymena to Larne and to Parkmore; and from Coleraine to Portrush. The Ballycastle railway runs from Ballymoney to Ballycastle on the north coast; and the Giant’s Causeway and Portrush is an electric railway (the first to be worked in the United Kingdom). The Lagan Canal connects Lough Neagh with Belfast Lough.

Population and Administration.—The population in 1891 was 208,010, and in 1901, 196,090. The county is among those least seriously affected by emigration. Of the total about 50% are Presbyterians, about 20% each Protestant Episcopalians and Roman Catholics; Antrim being one of the most decidedly Protestant counties in Ireland. Of the Presbyterians the greater part are in connexion with the General Synod of Ulster, and the other are Remonstrants, who separated from the Synod in 1829, or United Presbyterians. The principal towns are Antrim (pop. 1826), Ballymena (10,886), Ballymoney (2952), Carrickfergus (4208), Larne (6670), Lisburn (11,461) and Portrush (1941). Belfast though constituting a separate county ranks as the metropolis of the district. Ballyclare, Bushmills, Crumlin, Portglenone and Randalstown are among the lesser towns. Belfast and Larne are the chief ports. The county comprises 14 baronies and 79 civil parishes and parts of parishes. The constabulary force has its headquarters at Ballymena. The assize town is Belfast, and quarter sessions are held at Ballymena, Ballymoney, Belfast, Larne and Lisburn. The county is divided between the Protestant dioceses of Derry and Down, and the Roman Catholic dioceses of Down and Connor, and Dromore. It is divided into north, mid, east and south parliamentary divisions, each returning one member.

History and Antiquities.—At what date the county of Antrim was formed is not known, but it appears that a certain district bore this name before the reign of Edward II. (early 14th century), and when the shiring of Ulster was undertaken by Sir John Perrot in the 16th century, Antrim and Down were already recognized divisions, in contradistinction to the remainder of the province. The earliest known inhabitants were of Celtic origin, and the names of the townlands or subdivisions, supposed to have been made in the 13th century, are pure Celtic. Antrim was exposed to the inroads of the Danes, and also of the northern Scots, who ultimately effected permanent settlements. The antiquities of the county consist of cairns, mounts or forts, remains of ecclesiastical and military structures, and round towers. The principal cairns are: one on Colin mountain, near Lisburn; one on Slieve True, near Carrickfergus; and two on Colinward. The cromlechs most worthy of notice are: one near Cairngrainey, to the north-east of the old road from Belfast to Templepatrick; the large cromlech at Mount Druid, near Ballintoy; and one at the northern extremity of Island Magee. The mounts, forts and intrenchments are very numerous. There are three round towers: one at Antrim, one at Armoy, and one on Ram Island in Lough Neagh, only that at Antrim being perfect. There are some remains of the ecclesiastic establishments at Bonamargy, where the earls of Antrim are buried, Kells, Glenarm, Glynn, Muckamore and White Abbey. The noble castle of Carrickfergus is the only one in perfect preservation. There are, however, remains of other ancient castles, as Olderfleet, Cam’s, Shane’s, Glenarm, Garron Tower, Redbay, &c., but the most interesting of all is the castle of Dunluce, remarkable for its great extent and romantic situation. Mount Slemish, about 8 m. east of Ballymena, is notable as being the scene of St Patrick’s early life. Island Magee had, besides antiquarian remains, a notoriety as a home of witchcraft, and was the scene of an act of reprisal for the much-disputed massacre of Protestants about 1641, by the soldiery of Carrickfergus.

ANTRIM, a market-town in the west of the county Antrim, Ireland, in the south parliamentary division, on the banks of the Six-Mile Water, half a mile from Lough Neagh, in a beautiful and fertile valley. Pop. (1901) 1826. It is 21¾ m. north-west of Belfast by the Northern Counties (Midland) railway, and is also the terminus of a branch of the Great Northern railway from Lisburn. There is nothing in the town specially worthy of notice, but the environs, including Shane’s Castle and Antrim Castle, possess features of considerable interest. About a mile from the town is one of the most perfect of the round towers of Ireland, 93 ft. high and 50 in circumference at the base. It stands in the grounds of Steeple, a neighbouring seat, where is also the “Witches’ Stone,” a prehistoric monument. A battle was fought near Antrim between the English and Irish in the reign of Edward III.; and in 1642 a naval engagement took place on Lough Neagh, for Viscount Massereene and Ferrard (who founded Antrim Castle in 1662) had a right to maintain a fighting fleet on the lough. On the 7th of June 1798 there was a smart action in the town between the king’s troops and a large body of rebels, in which the latter were defeated, and Lord O’Neill mortally wounded. Before the Union Antrim returned two members to parliament by virtue of letters patent granted in 1666 by Charles II. There are manufactures of paper, linen, and woollen cloth. The government is in the hands of town commissioners.

ANTRUSTION, the name of the members of the bodyguard or military household of the Merovingian kings. The word, of which the formation has been variously explained, is derived from the O.H.Germ. trost, comfort, aid, fidelity, trust, through the latinized form trustis. Our information about the antrustions is derived from one of the formulae of Marculfus (i. 18, ed. Zeumer, p. 55) and from various provisions of the Salic law (see du Cange, Glossarium, s. “trustis”). Any one desiring to enter the body of Antrustions had to present himself armed at the royal palace, and there, with his hands in those of the king, take a special oath or trustis and fidelitas, in addition to the oath of fidelity sworn by every subject at the king’s accession. This done, he was considered to be in truste dominica and bound to the discharge of all the services this involved. In return for these, the antrustion enjoyed certain valuable advantages, as being specially entitled to the royal assistance and protection; his wergeld is three times that of an ordinary Frank; the slayer of a Frank paid compensation of 200 solidi, that of an antrustion had to find 600. The antrustion was always of Frankish descent, and only in certain exceptional cases were Gallo-Romans admitted into the king’s bodyguard. These Gallo-Romans then took the name of convivae regis, and the wergeld of 300 solidi was three times that of a homo romanus. The antrustions, belonging as they did to one body, had strictly defined duties towards one another; thus one antrustion was forbidden to bear witness against another under penalty of 15 solidi compensation.

The antrustions seem to have played an important part at the time of Clovis. It was they, apparently, who formed the army which conquered the land, an army composed chiefly of Franks, and of a few Gallo-Romans who had taken the side of Clovis. After the conquest, the role of the antrustions became less important. For each of their expeditions, the kings raised an army of citizens in which the Gallo-Romans mingled more and more with the Franks; they only kept one small permanent body which acted as their bodyguard (trustis dominica), some members of which were from time to time told off for other tasks, such as that of forming garrisons in the frontier towns. The institution seems to have disappeared during the anarchy with which the 8th century opened. It has wrongly been held to be the origin of vassalage. Only the king had antrustions; every lord could have vassals. The antrustions were a military institution; vassalage was a social institution, the origins of which are very complex.

All historians of Merovingian institutions and law have treated of the antrustions, and each one has his different system. The principal authorities are:—Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, 3rd ed. vol. ii. pp. 335 et seq.; Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, vol. ii. p. 97 et seq.; Fustel de Coulanges, La Monarchie franque, p. 80 et seq.; Maxirne Deloche, La Trustis et Vantrustion royal sous les deux premieres races (Paris, 1873), collecting and discussing the principal texts; Guilhermoz, Les Origines de la noblesse (Paris, 1902), suggesting a system which is new in part.

(C. Pf.)

ANTWERP, the most northern of the nine provinces of Belgium. It is conterminous with the Dutch frontier on the north. Malines, Lierre and Turnhout are among the towns of the province. Its importance, however, is derived from the fact that it contains the commercial metropolis of Belgium. It is divided into three administrative districts (arrondissements), viz. Antwerp, Malines and Turnhout. These are subdivided into 25 cantons and 152 communes. The area is 707,932 acres or 1106 sq. m. Pop. (1904) 888,980, showing an average of 804 inhabitants to the square mile.

ANTWERP (Fr. Anvers), capital of the above province, an important city on the right bank of the Scheldt, Belgium’s chief centre of commerce and a strong fortified position.

Modern Antwerp is a finely laid out city with a succession of broad avenues which mark the position of the first enceinte. There are long streets and terraces of fine houses belonging to the merchants and manufacturers of the city which amply testify to its prosperity, and recall the 16th century distich that Antwerp was noted for its moneyed men (“Antwerpia nummis”). Despite the ravages of war and internal disturbances it still preserves some memorials of its early grandeur, notably its fine cathedral. This church was begun in the 14th century, but not finished till 1518. Its tower of over 400 ft. is a conspicuous object to be seen from afar over the surrounding flat country. A second tower which formed part of the original plan has never been erected. The proportions of the interior are noble, and in the church are hung three of the masterpieces of Rubens, viz. “The Descent from the Cross,” “The Elevation of the Cross,” and “The Assumption.” Another fine church in Antwerp is that of St James, far more ornate than the cathedral, and containing the tomb of Rubens, who devoted himself to its embellishment. The Bourse or exchange, which claims to be the first distinguished by the former name in Europe, is a fine new building finished in 1872, on the site of the old Bourse erected in 1531 and destroyed by fire in 1858. Fire has destroyed several other old buildings in the city, notably in 1891 the house of the Hansa League on the northern quays. A curious museum is the Maison Plantin, the house of the great printer C. Plantin (q.v.) and his successor Moretus, which stands exactly as it did in the time of the latter. The new picture gallery close to the southern quays is a fine building divided into ancient and modern sections. The collection of old masters is very fine, containing many splendid examples of Rubens, Van Dyck, Titian and the chief Dutch masters. Antwerp, famous in the middle ages and at the present time for its commercial enterprise, enjoyed in the 17th century a celebrity not less distinct or glorious in art for its school of painting, which included Rubens, Van Dyck, Jordaens, the two Teniers and many others.

Commerce.—Since 1863, when Antwerp was opened to the trade of the outer world by the purchase of the Dutch right to levy toll, its position has completely changed, and no place in Europe has made greater progress in this period than the ancient city on the Scheldt. The following figures for the years 1904 and 1905 show that its trade is still rapidly increasing:—

Year. Exports. Imports

Tonnage. Value. Tonnage. Value.

1904 6,578,558 £71,349,678 8,427,894 £79,539,100

1905 7,153,655 £80,032,355 9,061,781 £91,194,517

The growth of its commerce in recent times may be measured by a comparison of the following figures. In 1888, 4272 ships entered the port and 4302 sailed from it. In 1905, 6095 entered the port and 6065 sailed from it—an increase of nearly 50%. In 1888 the total tonnage was 7,800,000; in 1905 it had risen to 19,662,000. These figures explain how and why Antwerp has outgrown its dock accommodation. The eight principal basins or docks already existing in 1908 were (1) the Little or Bonaparte dock; (2) the Great dock, also constructed in Napoleon’s time; (3) the Kattendijk, built in 1860 and enlarged in 1881; (4) the Wood dock; (5) the Campine dock, used especially for minerals; (6) the Asia dock, which is in direct communication with the Meuse by a canal as well as with the Scheldt; (7) the Lefebvre dock; and (8) the America dock, which was only opened in 1905. Two new docks, called “intercalary” because they would fit into whatever scheme might be adopted for the rectification of the course of the Scheldt, were still to be constructed, leading out of the Lefebvre dock and covering 70 acres. With the completion of the new maritime lock, ships drawing 30 ft. of water would be able to enter these new docks and also the Lefebvre and America docks. In connexion with the projected grande coupure (that is, a cutting through the neck of the loop in the river Scheldt immediately below Antwerp), the importance of these four docks would be greatly increased because they would then flank the new main channel of the river. When the Belgian Chambers voted in February 1906 the sums necessary for the improvement of the harbour of Antwerp no definite scheme was sanctioned, the question being referred to a special mixed commission. The improvements at Antwerp are not confined to the construction of new docks. The quays flanking the Scheldt are 3½ m. in length. They are constructed of granite, and no expense has been spared in equipping them with hydraulic cranes, warehouses, &c.

Fortifications.—Besides being the chief commercial port of Belgium, Antwerp is the greatest fortress of that country. Nothing, however, remains of the former enceinte or even of the famous old citadel defended by General Chassé in 1832, except the Steen, which has been restored and contains a museum of arms and antiquities. After the establishment of Belgian independence Antwerp was defended only by the citadel and an enceinte of about 2½ m. round the city. No change occurred till 1859, when the system of Belgian defence was radically altered by the dismantlement of seventeen of the twenty-two fortresses constructed under Wellington’s supervision in 1815-1818. At Antwerp the old citadel and enceinte were removed. A new enceinte 8 m. in length was constructed, and the villages of Berchem and Borgerhout, now parishes of Antwerp, were absorbed within the city. This enceinte still exists, and is a fine work of art. It is protected by a broad wet ditch (plans in article Fortification), and in the caponiers are the magazines and store chambers of the fortress. The enceinte is pierced by nineteen openings or gateways, but of these seven are not used by the public. As soon as the enceinte was finished eight detached forts from 2 to 2½ m. distant from the enceinte were constructed. They begin on the north near Wyneghem and the zone of inundation, and terminate on the south at Hoboken. In 1870 Fort Merxem and the redoubts of Berendrecht and Oorderen were built for the defence of the area to be inundated north of Antwerp. In 1878, in consequence of the increased range of artillery and the more destructive power of explosives, it was recognized that the fortifications of Antwerp were becoming useless and out of date. It was therefore decided to change it from a fortress to a fortified position by constructing an outer line of forts and batteries at a distance varying from 6 to 9 m. from the enceinte. This second line was to consist of fifteen forts, large and small. Up to 1898 only five had been constructed, but in that and the two following years five more were finished, leaving another five to complete the line. A mixed commission selected the points at which they were to be placed. With the completion of this work, which in 1908 was being rapidly pushed on, Antwerp might be regarded as one of the best fortified positions in Europe, and so long as its communications by sea are preserved intact it will be practically impregnable.

Two subsidiary or minor problems remained over. (1) The much-discussed removal of the existing enceinte in order to give Antwerp further growing space. If it were removed there arose the further question, should a new enceinte be made at the first line of outer forts, or should an enceinte be dispensed with? An enceinte following the line of those forts would be 30 m. in length. Then if the city grew up to this extended enceinte the outer forts would be too near. To screen the city from bombardment they would have to be carried 3 m. further out, and the whole Belgian army would scarcely furnish an adequate garrison for this extended position. A new enceinte, or more correctly a rampart of a less permanent character, connecting the eight forts of the inner line and extending from Wyneghem to a little south of Hoboken, was decided upon in 1908. (2) The second problem was the position on the left bank of the Scheldt. All the defences enumerated are on the right bank. On the left bank the two old forts Isabelle and Marie alone defend the Scheldt. It is assumed (probably rightly) that no enemy could get round to this side in sufficient strength to deliver any attack that the existing forts could not easily repel. The more interesting question connected with the left bank is whether it does not provide, as Napoleon thought, the most natural outlet for the expansion of Antwerp. Proposals to connect the two banks by a tunnel under the Scheldt have been made from time to time in a fitful manner, but nothing whatever had been done by 1908 to realize what appears to be a natural and easy project.

Population.—The following statistics show the growth of population in and since the 19th century. In 1800 the population was computed not to exceed 40,000. At the census of 1846 the total was 88,487; of 1851, 95,501; of 1880, 169,100; of 1900, 272,830; and of 1904, 291,949. To these figures ought to be added the populations (1904) of Borgerhout (43,391) and Berchem (26,383), as they are part of the city, which would give Antwerp a total population of 361,723.

History.—The suggested origin of the name Antwerp from Hand-werpen (hand-throwing), because a mythical robber chief indulged in the practice of cutting off his prisoners’ hands and throwing them into the Scheldt, appeared to Motley rather far-fetched, but it is less reasonable to trace it, as he inclines to do, from an t werf (on the wharf), seeing that the form Andhunerbo existed in the 6th century on the separation of Austrasia and Neustria. Moreover, hand-cutting was not an uncommon practice in Europe. It was perpetuated from a savage past in the custom of cutting off the right hand of a man who died without heir, and sending it as proof of main-morte to the feudal lord. Moreover, the two hands and a castle, which form the arms of Antwerp, will not be dismissed as providing no proof by any one acquainted with the scrupulous care that heralds displayed in the golden age of chivalry before assigning or recognizing the armorial bearings of any claimant.

In the 4th century Antwerp is mentioned as one of the places in the second Germany, and in the 11th century Godfrey of Bouillon was for some years best known as marquis of Antwerp. Antwerp was the headquarters of Edward III. during his early negotiations with van Artevelde, and his son Lionel, earl of Cambridge, was born there in 1338.