Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Dyer, Sir Edward" to "Echidna" (part 3)

EARTHWORM, the common name of a chaetopod worm found nearly all over the world. Linnaeus recognized only one species of earthworm and named it Lumbricus terrestris. There are now one thousand well-characterized species known from different parts of the world, and the number increases almost daily. The earthworms of England belong entirely to the three genera Lumbricus, Allolobophora and Allurus, which are further subdivided by some systematists; and these genera form the prevalent earthworm fauna of the Palaearctic region and are also very numerous in the Nearctic region. Elsewhere they do not appear to be indigenous, but are replaced by the numerous other genera of the families enumerated in the article Chaetopoda (q.v.). It is a remarkable fact that these genera, comprizing a separate family Lumbricidae, when introduced into tropical and other countries, thrive abundantly and oust the indigenous forms. In gatherings of earthworms from various extra-European countries it is always found that if the collections have been made in cultivated ground and near the coast the worms are of European species; farther inland the native forms are met with. Inasmuch as in every case the Lumbricidae from non-European countries are identical with European species, since it has been shown that these animals are very readily introduced accidentally with plants, &c., and in view of the fact that they are impatient of sea water, it seems clear that the presence of these Lumbricidae in other continents is due to accidental transportation. Most earthworms live in the soil, which they devour as they burrow through it. A few, like their allies the river worms (Limicolae), habitually frequent streams, lakes, &c. One genus, at any rate, viz. Pontodrilus, seeks an unusual environment, and is found in heaps of sea-weed cast up by the sea. The range of this genus is therefore naturally wider than that of other genera which are confined to land masses and cannot cross the sea by their own efforts. It might be inferred, therefore, and the inference is proved by facts, that truly oceanic islands have no indigenous fauna of earthworms, but are inhabited by forms which are identical with those of neighbouring continents, and doubtless, therefore, accidentally introduced.

Like the leeches the earthworms produce cocoons which are a product of the glandular epithelium of the clitellum. In these cocoons are deposited the eggs together with a certain amount of albumen upon which the developing embryos feed. So far as is known, the production of cocoons is universal among earthworms and the remaining Oligochaeta of aquatic habit. The young leave the cocoon as fully formed earthworms in which, however, the genitalia are not fully developed. There is no free living larval stage. Out of a single cocoon emerge a varying number of young worms, the numbers being apparently characteristic of the species. The work of earthworms in aiding in the production of the subsoil and in levelling the surface was first studied by C. Darwin, and has since been investigated by others. This work is partly carried out beneath the surface and partly on the surface, upon which the worms wander at night and eject the swallowed and triturated earth; frequently castings of some height are formed of coiled ropes of agglutinated particles of mould. The indigenous species of Great Britain, about twenty in number, do not grow to a greater length than some 10 in.; but in several tropical countries there are species which grow to a length of from 3 to 6 ft. Thus we have in Natal the gigantic Microchaeta rappi, in Ceylon Megascolex coeruleus, in Australia Megascolides australis, and an equally large form in South America.

(F. E. B.)

EARWIG, an insect belonging to the Forficulidae, a family usually referred to the Orthoptera, but sometimes regarded as typifying a special order, to which the names Dermaptera, Dermatoptera and Euplexoptera have been given, in allusion to certain peculiarities in the structure of the wings in the species that possess them. The front wings are short and horny and when at rest meet without overlapping in the middle line, like the wing-cases of brachelytrous (cocktail) beetles. The hind wings, on the contrary, are for the most part membranous and, when extended, of large size; each consists of two portions, the distal of which, in virtue of the arrangement and jointing of its nervures, is capable of being both doubled up and folded fanwise beneath the proximal, which is partly horny when the wing is tucked away under the front wing-case of the same side. Apart from these characteristics, the most distinctive feature of earwigs is the presence at the end of the abdomen of a pair of pincers which are in reality modified appendages, known as cercopods, and represent the similar limbs of Japyx and the caudal feelers of Campodea and some other insects.

The Forficulidae are almost cosmopolitan; but the various species and genera differ from each other both in structure and size to a comparatively slight extent. The length and armature of the pincers and the presence or absence of wings are perhaps the most important features used by systematists in distinguishing the various kinds. Of particular zoological interest in this connexion is a Ceylonese genus Dyscritina, in which the cercopods are long, many-jointed and filiform during the early stages of growth, and only assume at the last moult the forcipate structure characteristic of the family. The best known earwig is the common European species, Forficula auricularia. This insect is gregarious and nocturnal. It hides by day under stones or the loosened bark of trees or in any crevice or hole sheltered from the light. At night it crawls about in search of food, which consists to a small extent of dead animal or vegetable matter, but principally, as gardeners are aware, of the petals and other parts of flowers of growing shoots and soft ripe fruit. During the winter earwigs lie dormant; but in the early months of the year females with their eggs may be found in the soil, frequently in deserted earthworm burrows. Maternal instincts are well developed, both the eggs, which number about fifty, and the young being carefully brooded and watched over by the parent. Except for the absence of wings, the young are miniature models of the adult. As growth proceeds the integument is periodically cast; and at the final moult the perfect winged insect appears. Males and females are like each other in size, but may be distinguished by the difference in the number of visible abdominal segments, the male having nine and the female seven. In the male, moreover, the pincers are caliper-like and toothed at the base, whereas in the female they are untoothed and only lightly curved at the tip. These differences suggest that the pincers aid in the pairing of the sexes. However that may be, they are known to be used in the folding of the wings; and their importance as weapons of defence is attested by the precision and effect with which they are wielded against assailants like ants.

(R. I. P.)

EASEMENT (Fr. aise; O. Fr. aisement; Anglo-Lat. aisiamentum, a privilege or convenience), in English law, a species of “servitude” or limited right of use over land belonging to another. It is distinguished from profits à prendre—another species of servitude which involves a right to participate in the profits of the soil of another—since an easement confers merely a convenience (aisiamentum) to be exercised over the land of another (without any participation in the profits of it), i.e. a right to use the soil or produce of the soil in a way tending to the more convenient enjoyment of another piece of land. Thus a right of way is an easement, a right of common is a profit. An easement is distinguishable also from a licence, which, unless it is coupled with a grant, is personal to both grantor and grantee and is neither binding on the licensor, nor, in general, assignable by the licensee; while both the benefit and the burden of an easement are annexed to land (Gale on Easements, 8th ed. p. 2). With easements are sometimes classed certain closely allied “natural rights,” such as a landowner’s right to lateral support for his soil in its natural state, and a riparian owner’s right to the natural flow of a stream.

The essential features of an easement, in the strict sense of the term, are therefore these: (i.) It is an incorporeal right; a right to the use and enjoyment of land—not to the land itself; (ii.) it is imposed upon corporeal property; (iii.) it is a right without profit; (iv.) it requires for its constitution two distinct tenements—the “dominant tenement” which enjoys the right, and the “servient tenement” which submits to it. This last characteristic excludes from the category of easements the so-called “easements in gross,” such as a right of way conferred by grant independently of the possession of any tenement by the grantee. The true easement is an “appendant” or “appurtenant” right, not a “right in gross.”

Further classifications of easements must be noted. They are divided into (a) affirmative or positive, those which authorize the commission of an act by the dominant owner, e.g. rights of way, a right to draw water from a spring, rights of aqueduct, and negative, when the easement restricts the rights of the servient owner over his own property, e.g. prevents him from building on land so as to obstruct ancient lights (cf. also the right to the support of neighbouring soil); (b) continuous, of which the enjoyment may be continual without the interference of man, e.g. access to light, and discontinuous, where there must be a fresh act on each occasion of the exercise of the right, e.g. a right of way, or right to draw water; (c) apparent, where there are visible external signs of the exercise of the right, e.g. a right to dam up a watercourse, and non-apparent, where such signs are absent, e.g. a right to lateral support from land, a prohibition to build above a certain height.

Acquisition of Easements.—Easements may be acquired (a) by express grant, either by statute, or by deed inter vivos, or by will; (b) by an implied grant; (c) by express or implied reservation, e.g. by the owner of land in selling the fee (as to implied reservation, see Gale on Easements, 8th ed. pp. 137 et seq.); (d) by prescription, either at common law or under the Prescription Act 1832. An express grant, or express reservation, of an easement cannot be effected except by deed. An easement arises by implied grant where a man makes one part of his tenement dependent on another, or makes the parts mutually interdependent, and grants any such part with the dependence attaching to it to another person (Innes, Law of Easements, 7th ed. p. 10). For example, a man builds two houses, each of which by the plan of construction receives support from the other; this mutual right of support is a quasi-easement, of which on severance of the tenements the grantee of one will have the benefit; where the enjoyment of the severed tenement could not be had at all without such a right, it is said to be an “easement of necessity.”

Easements are acquired by prescription at common law by proof of “immemorial user” by the dominant owner and those through whom he claims. At one time it was thought that such proof must date back to the first year (1189) of Richard I. (see preamble to Prescription Act 1832). The ground, however, on which prescription was admitted as a means of acquiring easements was the fiction of a “lost grant.” Long enjoyment of the right pointed to its having had a legal origin in a grant from the servient owner, and so any period of reasonably long use came to be accepted. A “lost grant” may be presumed to have been made (the question is one of fact) if 20 years’ uninterrupted enjoyment is shown. To avoid the difficulties of proof of prescriptive right at common law, the Prescription Act 1832 established shorter periods of user. In the case of easements, other than light, the periods of prescription are 20 years for a claim that may be defeated, and 40 years for an indefeasible claim (s. 2). The right of access of light is dealt with under s. 3 (see Ancient Lights). The enjoyment to become prescriptive must be open, i.e. of such a character that the owner of the tenement said to be servient has a reasonable opportunity of becoming aware of the adverse claim (Union Lighterage Co. v. London Graving Dock Co., 1902, 2 Ch. 557); and it must be enjoyed as of right (Gardner v. Hodgson’s Kingston Brewery Co., 1903, A.C. 229) as against the owner of the tenement affected (Kilgour v. Gaddes, 1904, 1 K.B. 457). The periods of prescription are to be reckoned backwards from the time when some suit or matter involving the claim of the dominant owner has arisen (s. 4). Nothing is to be deemed an interruption unless the act of interruption has been submitted to, or acquiesced in, for a year (s. 4).

Easements may be extinguished (i.) by express release—here an instrument under seal is necessary; (ii.) by “merger,” i.e. where both tenements become the property of the same owner; (iii.) by abandonment through non-user. In the case of discontinuous easements, the shortest period of non-user may suffice if there is direct evidence of an intention to abandon.

A word may be added here as to the right to air. It is an actionable nuisance to cause pollution of the air entering a dwelling-house. The owner of a dwelling-house may by prescription acquire a right to the passage of air through it by a defined channel; and the enjoyment without interruption of ventilation by means of air flowing in a definite channel, with the knowledge of the owner and occupier of the adjoining premises, creates a presumption of the grant of such an easement (see Gale on Easements, 8th ed. p. 338).

In Scots Law the term “easement” is unknown. Both the name “servitude” and the main species of servitudes existing in Roman law (q.v.) have been adopted. The classification of servitudes into positive and negative, &c., and the modes of their creation and extinction, are similar to those of English law. The statutory period of prescription is 40 years (Scots Acts 1617, c. 12), or 20 years in the case of enjoyment under any ex facie valid irredeemable title duly recorded in the appropriate register of sasines (Conveyancing [Scotland] Act 1874). There are certain servitudes special to Scots law, e.g. “thirlage,” by which lands are “thirled” or bound to a particular mill, and the possessors obliged to grind their grain there, for payment of certain multures (quantities of grain or meal, payable to the mill-owner) and sequels (small quantities given to the mill servants) as the customary price of grinding. Statutory provision has been made for the commutation of these duties (Thirlage Act 1799), and they have now almost disappeared.

The French Code Civil (Arts. 637 et seq.) and the other European codes (e.g. Belgium, arts. 637 et seq.; Holland, arts. 721 et seq.; Italy, arts. 531 et seq.; Spain, arts. 530 et seq.; Germany, arts. 1018 et seq.) closely follow Roman law. French law is in force in Mauritius, and has been followed in Quebec (Civil Code, arts. 499 et seq.) and St Lucia (Civil Code, arts. 449 et seq.). In India the law is regulated, on English lines, by the Easements Act 1882 (Act v. of 1882). The term “easements,” however, in India includes profits à prendre. In the South African colonies the law of easements is based on the Roman Dutch law (see Maasdorp, Institutes of Cape Law, 1904; Bk. ii. p. 166 et seq.). In most of the other colonies the law of easements is similar to English law. In some, however, it has been provided by statute that rights to the access and use of light or water cannot be acquired by prescription: e.g. Victoria (Water Act 1890, No. 1156, s. 3), Ontario (Real Property Limitation Act, Revised Stats. Ontario, 1897; c. 133, s. 36, light).

In the United States the law of easements is founded upon, and substantially identical with, English law. The English doctrine, however, as to acquisition of right of light and air by prescription is not accepted in most of the States.

Authorities.—English Law: Gale, Law of Easements (8th ed., London, 1908); Goddard, Law of Easements (6th ed., London, 1904); Innes, Digest of the Law of Easements (7th ed., London, 1903). Indian Law: Peacock, Easements in British India (Calcutta, 1904); Hudson and Inman, Law of Light and Air (2nd ed., London, 1905). Scots Law: Erskine, Principles of the Law of Scotland (20th ed., Edinburgh, 1903). American Law: Jones, Law of Easements (New York, 1898); Bouvier, Law Dict. (Boston and London, 1897); Ruling Cases, London and Boston, 1894-1901, tit. Easement (American Notes).

(A. W. R.)

EAST, ALFRED (1849- ), English painter and etcher, was born at Kettering on the 15th of December 1849. One of the most prominent among modern English landscape painters, he received his art education first at the Glasgow School of Art and then in Paris at the École des Beaux-Arts, and under Robert-Fleury and Bouguereau. His landscapes are remarkable for the lyrical use of colour and for the pleasing rhythm of line which is the result of careful selection and building up of the elements that constitute the scene. Based on keen observation of the colour of nature and on careful studies of the details, they are arranged with a rare and by no means obvious sense of balance and compositional beauty which summarily discards all disturbing accidents of nature. He also achieved distinction as an etcher, and published an instructive and useful volume on landscape painting (London, 1906). He began to exhibit at the Royal Academy in 1882, and was elected an associate. In 1906 he became president of the Royal Society of British Artists. Many of his works are to be found in the English provincial galleries; Manchester owns “The Silent Somme” and “Autumn”; Liverpool, “Gibraltar from Algeciras”; Leeds, “The Golden Valley”; Birmingham, “Hayle from Lelant”; Preston, “An Idyll of Spring”; and Hull, “Evening on the Cotswolds.” His “Passing Storm” is at the Luxembourg; “The Nene Valley” at the Venice gallery; and “A Haunt of Ancient Peace” at the National gallery in Budapest. In 1903 he received the order of the Crown of Italy in connexion with his services to the Venice international exhibition; and he was made an honorary member of the Japanese Meiji Bijutsu Kai.

EAST ANGLIA, one of the kingdoms into which Anglo-Saxon Britain was divided. Bede gives no information about its origin except that its earliest settlers were Angles. The kingdom of East Anglia comprised the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. With regard to the western boundary we have no accurate information, but it was probably formed by the fens of Cambridgeshire.

This kingdom first appears in Bede’s narrative early in the 7th century, when its power was at its height. Towards the end of the reign of Æthelberht, who died about 616, Rædwald of East Anglia, who had apparently spent some time at the court of Kent, began to win for himself the chief position among the Anglo-Saxon kings of his day. His position was assured, at least temporarily, in 617, when he decided to espouse the cause of the Northumbrian prince Edwin, then a fugitive at his court, and defeated Æthelfrith of Northumbria on the banks of the Idle, a tributary of the Trent, in Mercian territory. Rædwald had been converted to Christianity in Kent, but after his return home he relapsed, according to Bede, owing to the influence of his wife, and there were to be seen in the same building a Christian and a pagan altar. Bede states that Rædwald was the son of Tytili, the son of Wuffa, from whom the East Anglian royal family derived their name Wuffingas. According to the Historia Brittonum Guffa (Wuffa) was the son of (Guecha) Wehha, who first ruled the East Angles in Britain. This would put the organization of the kingdom in the first or second quarter of the 6th century. Eorpwald, the son of Rædwald, was converted to Christianity by Edwin, but was soon afterwards slain by Ricberht (627 or 628), whereupon the kingdom again became pagan for three years, when Sigeberht, the brother of Eorpwald, became king and founded a see for Felix at Dunwich. Sigeberht also founded a school in East Anglia, and on the arrival of an Irish missionary named Furšeus he built him a monastery at Cnobheresburg, perhaps to be identified with Burgh Castle. Before 644, however, Sigeberht resigned the crown in favour of his brother Ecgric and retired to a monastery. Shortly afterwards both brothers were slain by Penda of Mercia in his invasion of East Anglia, and Anna became king. This king was an enthusiastic Christian, and converted Cœnwalh, king of Wessex, who had fled to his court. Two of his daughters, Sæthryth and Æthelberg, took the veil; while another, Sexburg, was married to Earconberht, king of Kent; and a fourth, Æthelthryth, after two marriages, with Tondberht of the South Gyrwe and Ecgfrith of Northumbria, became abbess of Ely. In 654 Anna was slain by Penda of Mercia, and was succeeded by his brother Æthelhere, who was killed in 655 at the Winwaed, fighting for the Mercian king against Oswio of Northumbria. In 673 Archbishop Theodore divided the East Anglian diocese into two, Elmham being the seat of the northern, Dunwich that of the southern bishop. A long blank follows in the history of this kingdom, until in 792 we find Offa of Mercia slaying Æthelberht, king of East Anglia, who is said to have been his son-in-law. East Anglia was subject to the supremacy of the Mercian kings until 825, when its people slew Beornwulf of Mercia, and with their king acknowledged Ecgberht (Egbert) of Wessex as their lord. In 870 Edmund, king of East Anglia, was killed by the Danes under I′varr and Ubbi, the sons of Ragnar Loðbrok.

The following is a list of the kings of East Anglia of whom there is record:—Wehha; Wuffa; Rædwald, son of Tytili and grandson of Wuffa (reigning 617); Eorpwald, son of Rædwald (d. 627 or 628); Sigeberht, brother of Eorpwald; Ecgric, brother of Sigeberht (both slain before 644); Anna, son of Ene and grandson of Tytili (d. 654); Æthelhere, brother of Anna (d. 655); Æthelwald, a third brother; Aldwulf (succ. 663, d. 713), son of Æthelric and grandson of Ene; Elfwald, son of Aldwulf (d. 749); Hun Beonna and Alberht; Æthelberht (792); Edmund (870).

After the death of Ragnar Loðbrok’s sons East Anglia was occupied by the Danish king Guthrum, who made a treaty with Alfred settling their respective boundaries, probably about 880. Guthrum died in 890. A later king named Eohric took up the cause of Æthelwald, the son of Æthelred I., and was slain in the fight with the Kentish army at the Holm in 905. A war broke out with King Edward the Elder in 913; in 921 a king whose name is unknown was killed at the fall of Tempsford, and in the same year the Danes of East Anglia submitted to Edward the Elder. From this time, probably, East Anglia was governed by English earls, the most famous of whom were Æthelstan, surnamed Half-King (932-956) and his sons, Æthelwold (956-962), and Æthelwine, surnamed Dei amicus (962-992).

See Bede, Hist. Eccl. (ed. C. Plummer, Oxford. 1896), ii. 5, 15, iii. 7, 8, 18-20, 22, iv. 3, 5, 23; Saxon Chronicle (ed. Earle and Plummer, Oxford, 1899), s. a. 823, 838, 866, 870, 880, 885, 890, 894, 905, 921; Historia Brittonum (San-Marte, 1844), s. 59; H. Sweet, Oldest English Texts, p. 171 (London, 1885).

(F. G. M. B.)

EASTBOURNE, a municipal borough (1883) in the Eastbourne parliamentary division of Sussex, England, 61 m. S.S.E. of London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. (1891) 34,969; (1901) 43,344; (local census, 1909) 49,286. It is situated 3 m. N.E. of Beachy Head, the loftiest headland on the English Channel coast. It once consisted of three parts—the village of East Bourne, a mile inland; South Bourne, lying back from the shore; and Seahouses, facing the beach. The church of St Mary, the ancient parish church of East Bourne, is a fine transitional Norman building; and there are numerous modern churches and chapels. The principal buildings and institutions are the town hall and municipal buildings, the Princess Alice Memorial and other hospitals, a free library and, among many high-class schools, Eastbourne College for boys, founded in 1867. There is a fine pier with pavilion, and a marine parade nearly 3 m. in extent, arranged in terraced promenades. Devonshire Park of 13 acres is pleasantly laid out, and contains a pavilion and a theatre. The duke of Devonshire is the principal landowner. Golf links are laid out on the neighbouring downs. A Roman villa was formerly seen close to the shore, but it is not now visible. The corporation consists of a mayor, 8 aldermen and 24 councillors. In 1910 the corporation promoted a bill in parliament to add the Hampden Park district in the parish of Willingdon to the borough and to make Eastbourne, with this extension, a county borough.

EAST CHICAGO, a city of Lake county, Indiana, U.S.A., on Lake Michigan, about 19 m. S.E. of the business centre of Chicago. Pop. (1890) 1255; (1900) 3411 (1331 foreign-born); (1910) 19,098. It is served by several railways, including the Pennsylvania, the Wabash, the Chicago Terminal Transfer (whose shops are here), the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the Chicago, Indiana & Southern, and the Indiana Harbor railways. East Chicago covers an area whose greatest dimensions are 4 by 3½ m. That part of the city along the lake, known as Indiana Harbor, dates from 1901 and has grown very rapidly because of its position at the southernmost part of the Calumet District, and because of the meeting here of railway and lake commerce. A good harbour has been constructed, a new ship canal connecting the harbour with the Calumet river. East Chicago is industrially virtually a part of “Greater” Chicago; among its manufactures are iron and steel, cement, lumber, boilers, hay presses, chains, chemicals and foundry products. East Chicago was chartered as a city in 1893.

EASTER, the annual festival observed throughout Christendom in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The name Easter (Ger. Ostern), like the names of the days of the week, is a survival from the old Teutonic mythology. According to Bede (De Temp. Rat. c. xv.) it is derived from Eostre, or Ostâra, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom the month answering to our April, and called Eostur-monath, was dedicated. This month, Bede says, was the same as the mensis paschalis, “when the old festival was observed with the gladness of a new solemnity.”

The name of the festival in other languages (as Fr. pâques; Ital. pasqua; Span. pascua; Dan. paaske; Dutch paasch; Welsh pasg) is derived from the Lat. pascha and the Gr. πάσχα. These in turn come from the Chaldee or Aramaean form פסהא pascha’, of the Hebrew name of the Passover festival פסח pesach, from פסח “he passed over,” in memory of the great deliverance, when the destroying angel “passed over the houses, of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians” (Exod. xii. 27).

An erroneous derivation of the word pascha from the Greek πάσχειν, “to suffer,” thus connected with the sufferings or passion of the Lord, is given by some of the Fathers of the Church, as Irenaeus, Tertullian and others, who were ignorant of Hebrew. St Augustine (In Joann. Tract. 55) notices this false etymology, shows how similarity of sound had led to it, and gives the correct derivation.

There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians. “The whole of time is a festival unto Christians because of the excellency of the good things which have been given” is the comment of St Chrysostom on 1 Cor. v. 7, which has been erroneously supposed to refer to an apostolic observance of Easter. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl. v. 22) states, with perfect truth, that neither the Lord nor his apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. He says: “The apostles had no thought of appointing festival days, but of promoting a life of blamelessness and piety”; and he attributes the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of an old usage, “just as many other customs have been established.”

This is doubtless the true statement of the case. The first Christians continued to observe the Jewish festivals, though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed. Thus the Passover, with a new conception added to it of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb and the first fruits from the dead, continued to be observed, and became the Christian Easter.

Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period the practice of the Christian church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. The point at issue was when the Paschal fast was to be reckoned as ending. With the Jewish Christians, whose leading thought was the death of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, the fast ended at the same time as that of the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening, and the Easter festival immediately followed, without regard to the day of the week. The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, unfettered by Jewish traditions, identified the first day of the week with the Resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month. With the one the observance of the day of the month, with the other the observance of the day of the week, was the guiding principle.

Generally speaking, the Western churches kept Easter on the first day of the week, while the Eastern churches followed the Jewish rule, and kept Easter on the fourteenth day. St Polycarp, the disciple of St John the Evangelist and bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome in 159 to confer with Anicetus, the bishop of that see, on the subject; and urged the tradition, which he had received from the apostle, of observing the fourteenth day. Anicetus, however, declined to admit the Jewish custom in the churches under his jurisdiction, but readily communicated with Polycarp and those who followed it. About forty years later (197) the question was discussed in a very different spirit between Victor, bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, metropolitan of proconsular Asia. That province was the only portion of Christendom which still adhered to the Jewish usage, and Victor demanded that all should adopt the usage prevailing at Rome. This Polycrates firmly refused to agree to, and urged many weighty reasons to the contrary, whereupon Victor proceeded to excommunicate Polycrates and the Christians who continued the Eastern usage. He was, however, restrained from actually proceeding to enforce the decree of excommunication, owing to the remonstrance of Irenaeus and the bishops of Gaul. Peace was thus maintained, and the Asiatic churches retained their usage unmolested (Euseb. H.E. v. 23-25). We find the Jewish usage from time to time reasserting itself after this, but it never prevailed to any large extent.

A final settlement of the dispute was one among the other reasons which led Constantine to summon the council of Nicaea in 325. At that time the Syrians and Antiochenes were the solitary champions of the observance of the fourteenth day. The decision of the council was unanimous that Easter was to be kept on Sunday, and on the same Sunday throughout the world, and “that none should hereafter follow the blindness of the Jews” (Socrates, H.E. i. 9). The correct date of the Easter festival was to be calculated at Alexandria, the home of astronomical science, and the bishop of that see was to announce it yearly to the churches under his jurisdiction, and also to the occupant of the Roman see, by whom it was to be communicated to the Western churches. The few who afterwards separated themselves from the unity of the church, and continued to keep the fourteenth day, were named Quartodecimani, and the dispute itself is known as the Quarto-deciman controversy. Although measures had thus been taken to secure uniformity of observance, and to put an end to a controversy which had endangered Christian unity, a new difficulty had to be encountered owing to the absence of any authoritative rule by which the paschal moon was to be ascertained. The subject is a very difficult and complex one (see also Calendar). Briefly, it may be explained here that Easter day is the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. This, of course, varies in different longitudes, while a further difficulty occurred in the attempt to fix the correct time of Easter by means of cycles of years, when the changes of the sun and moon more or less exactly repeat themselves. At first an eight years’ cycle was adopted, but it was found to be faulty, then the Jewish cycle of 84 years was used, and remained in force at Rome till the year 457, when a more accurate calculation of a cycle of 532 years, invented by Victorius of Acquitaine, took its place. Ultimately a cycle of 19 years was accepted, and it is the use of this cycle which makes the Golden Number and Sunday Letter, explained in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer, necessary. Owing to this lack of decision as to the accurate finding of Easter, St Augustine tells us (Epist. 23) that in the year 387 the churches of Gaul kept Easter on the 21st of March, those of Italy on the 18th of April, and those of Egypt on the 25th of April; and it appears from a letter of Leo the Great (Epist. 64, ad Marcian.) that in 455 there was a difference of eight days between the Roman and the Alexandrine Easter. Gregory of Tours relates that in 577 “there was a doubt about Easter. In Gaul we with many other cities kept Easter on the fourteenth calends of May, others, as the Spaniards, on the twelfth calends of April.”

The ancient British and Celtic churches followed the cycle of 84 years which they had originally received from Rome, and their stubborn refusal to abandon it caused much bitter controversy in the 8th century between their representatives and St Augustine of Canterbury and the Latin missionaries. These latter unfairly attempted to fix the stigma of the Quartodeciman observance on the British and Celtic churches, and they are even now sometimes ignorantly spoken of as having followed the Asiatic practice as to Easter. This, however, is quite erroneous. The British and Celtic churches always kept Easter according to the Nicene decree on a Sunday. The difference between them and the Roman Church, at this period, was that they still followed the 84 years’ cycle in computing Easter, which had been abandoned at Rome for the more accurate cycle of 532 years. This difference of calculation led to Easter being observed on different Sundays, in certain years, in England, by the adherents of the two churches. Thus Bede records that in a certain year (which must have been 645, 647, 648 or 651) Queen Eanfleda, who had received her instruction from a Kentish priest of the Roman obedience, was fasting and keeping Palm Sunday, while her husband, Oswy, king of Northumbria, following the rule of the British church, was celebrating the Easter festival. This diversity of usage was ended, so far as the kingdom of Northumbria was concerned, by the council of Streaneshalch, or Whitby, in 654. To Archbishop Theodore is usually ascribed the credit of ending the difference in the rest of England in 669.

The Gregorian correction of the calendar in 1582 has once more led to different days being observed. So far as Western Christendom is concerned the corrected calendar is now universally accepted, and Easter is kept on the same day, but it was not until 1752 that the Gregorian reformation of the calendar was adopted in Great Britain and Ireland. Jealousy of everything emanating from Rome still keeps the Eastern churches from correcting the calendar according to the Gregorian reformation, and thus their Easter usually falls before, or after, that of the Western churches, and only very rarely, as was the case in 1865, do the two coincide.

Easter, as commemorating the central fact of the Christian religion, has always been regarded as the chief festival of the Christian year, and according to a regulation of Constantine it was to be the first day of the year. This reckoning of the year as beginning at Easter lingered in France till 1565, when, by an ordinance of Charles IX., the 1st of January finally took its place.

Four different periods may be mentioned as connected with the observance of Easter, viz. (1) the preparatory fast of the forty days of Lent; (2) the fifteen days, beginning with the Sunday before and ending with the Sunday after Easter, during which the ceremonies of Holy Week and the services of the Octave of Easter were observed; this period, called by the French the Quinzaine de Pâques, was specially observed in that country; (3) the Octave of Easter, during which the newly-baptized wore their white garments, which they laid aside on the Sunday after Easter, known as Dominica in albis depositis from this custom; another name for this Sunday was Pascha clausum, or the close of Easter, and from a clipping of the word “close” the English name of “Low” Sunday is believed to be derived; (4) Eastertide proper, or the paschal season beginning at Easter and lasting till Whit Sunday, during the whole of which time the festival character of the Easter season was maintained in the services of the church.

Many ecclesiastical ceremonies, growing up from early times, clustered round the celebration of the Easter festival. One of the most notable of these was the use of the paschal candle. This was a candle of very large dimensions, set in a candlestick big enough to hold it, which was usually placed on the north side, just below the first ascent to the high altar. It was kept alight during each service till Whitsuntide. The Paschal, as it was called at Durham cathedral, was one of the chief sights of that church before the Reformation. It was an elaborate construction of polished brass, and, contrary to the usual custom, seems to have been placed in the centre of the altar-step, long branches stretching out towards the four cardinal points, bearing smaller candles. The central stem of the candlestick was about 38 ft. high, and bore the paschal candle proper, and together they reached a combined height of about 70 ft., the candle being lighted from an opening above. Other paschal candles seem to have been of scarcely less size. At Lincoln, c. 1300, the candle was to weigh three stones of wax; at Salisbury in 1517 it was to be 36 ft. long; and at Westminster in 1558 it weighed no less than 3 cwt. of wax. After Whitsuntide what remained was made into smaller candles for the funerals of the poor. In the ancient churches at Rome the paschal candlesticks were fixtures, but elsewhere they were usually movable, and were brought into the church and set up on the Thursday before Easter. At Winchester the paschal candlestick was of silver, and was the gift of Canute. Others of more or less importance are recorded as having been at Canterbury, Bury St Edmunds, Hereford and York. The burning of the paschal candle still forms part of the Easter ceremonial of the Roman Catholic Church (see Lights, Ceremonial).

The liturgical colour for Easter was everywhere white, as the sign of joy, light and purity, and the churches and altars were adorned with the best ornaments that each possessed. Flowers and shrubs no doubt in early times were also used for this purpose, but what evidence there is goes against the medieval use of such decorations, which are so popular at the present day.

It is not the purpose of this article to enter on the wide subject of the popular observances, such as the giving and sending of Pasch or Easter eggs as presents. For such the reader may consult Brand’s Popular Antiquities, Hone’s Every-Day Book, and Chambers’s Book of Days.

Authorities.—Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church; Bede, Ecclesiastical History of England; Procter and Frere, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1901); Surtees Society, Rites of Durham, ed. J.T. Fowler (1903); De Morgan, Companion to the Almanac (1845); De Moleon, Voyages liturgiques (Paris, 1718).

(T. M. F.)

EASTER ISLAND (Rapanui, i.e. Great Rapa), an island in the eastern part of the South Pacific ocean, belonging to Chile (since 1888), in 27° 8′ S. and 109° 28′ W., 1400 m. E. of Pitcairn, and 2000 m. from the South American coast. It is roughly triangular in shape, with its hypotenuse 12 m. long running north-east and south-west, and its three angles marked by three volcanic peaks, of which the north-eastern reaches 1768 ft. of altitude. The area of the island is 45 sq. m. The coast has no good natural harbour, and landing is difficult. There is no lack of fertile soil, and the climate is moist enough to make up for the absence of running water. Formerly the island appears to have been wooded, but it now presents only a few bushes (Edwardsia, Broussonetia, &c.), ferns, grasses, sedges, &c. The natives grow bananas in the shelter of artificial pits, also sugar-canes and sweet potatoes, and keep a few goats and a large stock of domestic fowls, and a Tahitian commercial house breeds cattle and sheep on the island.

It is doubtful whether Rapanui was discovered by Davis in 1686, though it is sometimes marked Davis Island on maps. Admiral Roggeveen reached it on Easter day 1722; in 1774 Captain Cook discovered it anew and called it Teapi or Waihu. It was subsequently visited by La Pérouse (1776), Kotzebue (1816), &c. At the time of Roggeveen’s discovery the island probably contained from 2000 to 3000 inhabitants of Polynesian race, who, according to their own tradition, came from Rapa Iti (Little Rapa) or Oparo, one of the Tubuai or Austral group. In 1863 a large proportion of the inhabitants were kidnapped by the Peruvians and transported to work at the guano diggings on the Chincha Islands. The next year a Jesuit mission from Tahiti reached the island and succeeded in the task of civilization. The natives, who number scarcely one hundred, are all Christians.

Easter Island is famous for its wonderful archaeological remains. Here are found immense platforms built of large cut stones fitted together without cement. They are generally built upon headlands, and on the slope towards the sea. The walls on the seaside are, in some of the platforms, nearly 30 ft. high and from 200 to 300 ft. long, by about 30 ft. wide. Some of the squared stones are as much as 6 ft. long. On the land side of the platforms there is a broad terrace with large stone pedestals upon which once stood colossal stone images carved somewhat into the shape of the human trunk. On some of the platforms there are upwards of a dozen images, now thrown from their pedestals and lying in all directions. Their usual height is from 14 to 16 ft., but the largest are 37 ft., while some are only about 4 ft. They are formed from a grey trachytic lava found at the east end of the island. The top of the heads of the images is cut flat to receive round crowns made of a reddish vesicular tuff found at a crater about 8 m. distant from the quarry where the images were cut. A number of these crowns still lie at the crater apparently ready for removal, some of the largest being over 10 ft. in diameter. In the atlas illustrating the voyage of La Pérouse a plan of the island is given, with the position of several of the platforms. Two of the images are also represented in a plate. One statue, 8 ft. in height and weighing 4 tons, was brought to England, and is now in the British Museum. In one part of the island are the remains of stone houses nearly 100 ft. long by about 20 ft. wide. These are built in courses of large flat stones fitted together without cement, the walls being about 5 ft. thick and over 5 ft. high. They are lined on the inside with upright slabs, on which are painted geometrical figures and representations of animals. The roofs are formed by placing slabs so that each course overlaps the lower one until the opening becomes about 5 ft. wide, when it is covered with flat slabs reaching from one side to the other. The lava rocks near the houses are carved into the resemblance of various animals and human faces, forming, probably, a kind of picture writing. Wooden tablets covered with various signs and figures have also been found. The only ancient implement discovered on the island is a kind of stone chisel, but it seems impossible that such large and numerous works could have been executed with such a tool. The present inhabitants of Easter Island know nothing of the construction of these remarkable works; and the entire subject of their existence in this small and remote island is a mystery.

EASTERN BENGAL AND ASSAM, a province of British India, which was constituted out of Assam and the eastern portion of Bengal on the 16th of October 1905. Area 111,569 sq. m.; pop. (1901) 30,961,459. It is situated between 20° 45′ and 28° 17′ N., and between 87° 48′ and 97° 5′ E. The province, as thus reconstituted, consists of the Bengal districts of Dacca, Mymensingh, Faridpur, Backergunje, Tippera, Noakhali, Chittagong, Chittagong Hill Tracts, Rajshahi, Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri, Rangpur, Bogra, Pabna, Malda, and the native states of Kuch Behar and Hill Tippera; and the whole of the former area of Assam consisting of the districts of Goalpara, Kamrup, Darrang, Nowgong, Sibsagar, Lakhimpur, Sylhet, Cachar, Garo Hills, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Naga Hills and Lushai Hills. It is bounded on the N. by Bhutan, on the W. by Burma, on the S. by Burma and the Bay of Bengal, and on the E. by Bengal. The line of demarcation between Bengal and the new province begins at the frontier of Bhutan, east of Darjeeling, runs south-west to Sahibganj on the Ganges and thence follows the course of the Ganges down to the deltaic branch, called the Haringhata, which leaves the main stream above Goalanda, and the course of the latter, which runs south into the Bay of Bengal. The capital of the province is Dacca, and its chief port is Chittagong.

The Bengal districts which were transferred to Eastern Bengal and Assam comprised northern and eastern Bengal, the most prosperous and least overcrowded portion of Bengal. The land there is less densely populated, wages are higher and food cheaper, and the rainfall more copious and more regular, while the staple crops of jute, tobacco and rice command a higher price relative to the rent of the land than in Behar or other parts of Bengal. The population are largely Mahommedans and of a more virile stock than the Bengali proper. Northern Bengal corresponds almost exactly with the Rajshahi division and lies within the boundaries of the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. It contains much high land of a stiff red clay, with an undulating surface covered for the most part with scrub jungle. The inhabitants are Indo-Chinese, not Indo-Aryans as in Bengal proper, and are Mahommedan by religion instead of Hindu. Eastern Bengal consists of the Dacca and Chittagong divisions which are mainly Bengali in race and Hindu in religion. For the Assamese districts see Assam. The province as a whole contains 18,036,688 Mahommedans and 12,036,538 Hindus. In language 27,272,895 of the inhabitants speak Bengali, 1,349,784 speak Assamese, and the remainder Hindi and various hill dialects, Manipuri, Bodo, Khasi and Garo. The administration is in the hands of a lieutenant-governor, assisted by a legislative council of fifteen members. Under him are five commissioners, and financial matters are regulated by a board of revenue consisting of two members.

The constitution of the new province arose out of the fact that Bengal had grown too unwieldy for the administration of a single lieutenant-governor. In 1868 Sir Stafford Northcote drew attention to the greatly augmented demands that the outlying portions of Bengal made on the time and labour of the government. At that time the population of the province was between 40 and 50 millions, and the question was left in abeyance until 1903, when the population had risen to 78½ millions. In the meantime the importance of rendering Assam a self-contained and independent administration with a service of its own, and of providing for its future commercial expansion, had arisen. These two considerations led Lord Curzon to propose that Bengal should be lopped of territory both on its eastern and western borders, and that all the districts east of the Brahmaputra should be constituted into a separate province. This proposal was bitterly opposed by the Hindus of Bengal on the ground that it would destroy the unity of the Bengali race; and their agitation was associated with the Swadeshi (own country) movement for the boycott of British goods.

After the constitution of the province in October 1905, the agitation in Eastern Bengal increased. Public meetings of protest were held, vernacular broadsheets containing scandalous attacks on the British authorities were circulated, schoolboys and others were organized and drilled as so-called “national volunteers,” and employed as pickets to prevent the sale of British goods. Such was the state of things when Sir J. Bampfylde Fuller entered on his office as first lieutenant-governor of Eastern Bengal in January 1906. His reception was ominous. Representative bodies that were dominated by Hindus refused to vote the usual addresses of welcome, and non-official Hindus abstained from paying the customary calls. There were, however, no further overt signs of objection to the lieutenant-governor personally, and after a month or two—in spite of, or perhaps because of, his efforts to restrain sedition and to keep discipline in the schools—there was a decided change in the attitude of Hindu opinion. At Dacca, in July, for instance, the reception at Government House was attended by large numbers of Bengali gentlemen, who assured the lieutenant-governor that “the trouble was nearly ended.” The agitation was, in fact, largely artificial, the work of Calcutta lawyers, journalists and schoolmasters; the mass of the people, naturally law-abiding, was unmoved by it so long as the government showed a firm hand; while the Mussulmans, who formed a large proportion of the whole, saw in the maintenance of the partition and of the prestige of the British government the guarantees of their own security.

All seemed to be going well when an unfortunate difference of opinion occurred between the lieutenant-governor and the central government, resulting in the resignation of Sir Bampfylde Fuller (August 1906) and in ulterior consequences destined to be of far-reaching import. The facts are briefly as follows. Acting on a report of Dr P. Chatterji, inspector of schools, dated January 2, 1906, the lieutenant-governor, on the 10th of February, addressed a letter to the registrar of Calcutta University recommending that the privilege of affiliation to the university should be withdrawn from the Banwarilal and Victoria high schools at Sirajganj in Pabna, as a punishment for the seditious conduct of both pupils and teachers. Apart from numerous cases of illegal interference with trade and of disorder in the streets reported against the students, two specific outrages of a serious character were instanced as having occurred on the 15th of November: the raiding of a cart laden with English cloth belonging to Marwari traders, and a cowardly assault by some 40 or 50 lads on the English manager of the Bank of Bengal. These outrages “were not the result of thoughtlessness or sudden excitement, but were the outcome of a regularly organized scheme, set on foot and guided by the masters of these schools, for employing the students in enforcing a boycott.” All attempts to discover and punish the offenders had been frustrated by the refusal of the school authorities to take action, and in the opinion of the lieutenant-governor the only course open was to apply the remedy suggested in the circular letter addressed to magistrates and collectors (October 10, 1905) by Mr R.W. Carlyle, the officiating chief secretary to the government of Bengal, directing them, in the event of students taking any part in political agitation, boycotting and the like, to inform the heads of schools or colleges concerned that, unless they prevented such action being taken by the boys attending their institutions, their grant-in-aid and the privilege of competing for scholarships and of receiving scholarship-holders would be withdrawn, and that the university would be asked to disaffiliate their institutions.

The reply, dated July 5th, from the secretary in the home department of the government of India, was—to use Sir Bampfylde’s own later expression—to throw him over. It was likely that a difference of opinion in the syndicate of the university would arise as to the degree of culpability that attached to the proprietors of the schools; in the event of the syndicate taking any “punitive action,” the matter was certain to be raised in the senate, and would lead to an acrimonious public discussion, in which the partition of Bengal and the administration of the new province would be violently attacked; and in the actual state of public opinion in Bengal it seemed to the government of India highly inexpedient that such a debate should take place. “Collective punishment,” too, “would be liable to be misconstrued in England,” and the government preferred to rely on the gradual effect of the new university regulations, which aimed “at discouraging the participation of students in political movements by enforcing the responsibility of masters and the managing committees of schools for maintaining discipline.”

On receipt of this communication Sir Bampfylde Fuller at once tendered his resignation to the viceroy (July 15). He pointed out that to withdraw from the position taken up would be “concession, not in the interests of education, but to those people in Calcutta who have been striving to render my government impossible, in order to discredit the partition”; that previous concessions had had merely provocative effects, and that were he to give way in this matter his authority would be so weakened that he would be unable to maintain order in the country. On the 3rd of August, after some days of deliberation, the viceroy telegraphed saying that he was “unable to reconsider the orders sent,” and accepting Sir Bampfylde’s resignation. By the Anglo-Indian press the news was received with something like consternation, the Times of India describing the resignation as one of the gravest blunders ever committed in the history of British rule in India, and as a direct incentive to the forces of disquiet, disturbance and unrest. Equally emphatic was the verdict of the Mussulman community forming two-thirds of the population of Eastern Bengal. On the 7th of August, the day of Sir Bampfylde Fuller’s departure from Dacca, a mass-meeting of 30,000 Mahommedans was held, which placed on record their disapproval of a system of government “which maintains no continuity of policy,” and expressed its feeling that the lowering of British prestige must “alienate the sympathy of a numerically important and loyal section of His Majesty’s subjects”; and many meetings of Mussulmans subsequently passed resolutions to the same general effect. The Akhbar-i-Islam, the organ of Bombay Mussulman opinion, deplored the “unwise step” taken by the government, and ascribed it to Lord Minto’s fear of the Babu press, a display of weakness of which the Babus would not be slow to take advantage.

This latter prophecy was not slow in fulfilling itself. So early as the 8th of August Calcutta was the scene of several large demonstrations at which the Swadeshi vow was renewed, and at which resolutions were passed declining to accept the partition as a settled fact, and resolving on the continuance of the agitation. The tone of the Babu press was openly exultant: “We have read the familiar story of the Russian traveller and the wolves,” said a leading Indian newspaper in Calcutta. “The British government follows a similar policy. First the little babies were offered up in the shape of the Bande Mataram circular and the Carlyle circular. Now a bigger boy has gone in the person of our own Joseph. Courage, therefore, O wolves! Press on and the horse will soon be yours to devour! Afterwards the traveller himself will alone be left.” The task before the new lieutenant-governor of Eastern Bengal, the Hon. L. Hare, was obviously no easy one. The encouragement given to sedition by the weakness of the government in this case was shown by later events in Bengal and elsewhere (see India: History, ad fin.).

For the early history of the various portions of the province see Bengal and Assam.

See Sir James Bourdillon, The Partition of Bengal (Society of Arts, 1905); official blue-books on The Reconstitution of the Provinces of Bengal and Assam (Cd. 2658 and 2746), and Resignation of Sir J. Bampfylde Fuller, lieutenant-governor, &c. (Cd. 3242). A long letter from Sir J.B. Fuller, headed J’accuse, attacking the general policy of the Indian government in regard to the seditious propaganda, appeared in The Times of June 6, 1908.

Quoted by Mr F.S.P. Lely in The Times of November 22, 1906.

EASTERN QUESTION, THE, the expression used in diplomacy from about the time of the congress of Verona (1822) to comprehend the international problems involved in the decay of the Turkish empire and its supposed impending dissolution. The essential questions that are involved are so old that historians commonly speak of the “Eastern Question” in reference to events that happened long before the actual phrase was coined. But, wherever used, it is always the Turkish Question, the generic term in which subsidiary issues, e.g. the Greek, Armenian or Macedonian questions, are embraced. That a phrase of so wide and loose a nature should have been stereotyped in so narrow a sense is simply the outcome of the conditions under which it was invented. To the European diplomatists of the first half of the 19th century the Ottoman empire was still the only East with which they were collectively brought into contact. The rivalry of Great Britain and Russia in Persia had not yet raised the question of the Middle East; still less any ambitions of Germany in the Euphrates valley. The immense and incalculable problems involved in the rise of Japan, the awakening of China, and their relations to the European powers and to America—known as the Far Eastern Question—are comparatively but affairs of yesterday.

The Eastern Question, though its roots are set far back in history—in the ancient contest between the political and intellectual ideals of Greece and Asia, and in the perennial rivalry of the powers for the control of the great trade routes to the East—dates in its modern sense from the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji in 1774, which marked the definitive establishment of Russia as a Black Sea power and formed the basis of her special claims to interfere in the affairs of the Ottoman empire. The compact between Napoleon and the emperor Alexander I. at Tilsit (1807) marked a new phase, which culminated in 1812 in the treaty of Bucharest, in which Russia definitely appeared as the protector of the Christian nationalities subject to the Ottoman sultan.

The attitude of the various powers in the Eastern Question was now defined. Russia, apart from her desire to protect the Orthodox nationalities subject to the Ottoman power, aimed at owning or controlling the straits by which alone she could find an outlet to the Mediterranean and the ocean beyond. Austria, once the champion of Europe against the Turk, saw in the Russian advance on the Danube a greater peril than any to be feared from the moribund Ottoman power, and made the maintenance of the integrity of Turkey a prime object of her policy. She was thus brought into line with Great Britain, whose traditional friendship with Turkey was strengthened by the rise of a new power whose rapid advance threatened the stability of British rule in India. But though Austria, Great Britain and presently France, were all equally interested in maintaining the Ottoman empire, the failure of the congress of Vienna in 1815 to take action in the matter of a guarantee of Turkey, and the exclusion of the Sultan from the Holy Alliance, seemed to endorse the claim of Russia to regard the Eastern Question as “her domestic concern” in which “Europe” had no right to interfere. The revolt of the Greeks (1821) put this claim to the test; by the treaty of Adrianople (1829) Russia stipulated for their autonomy as part of the price of peace, but the powers assembled in conference at London refused to recognize this settlement, and the establishment of Greece as an independent kingdom (1832) was really aimed at the pretensions and the influence of Russia. These reached their high-water mark in the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July 8th, 1832). It was no longer a question of the partition of Turkey or of a Russian conquest of Constantinople, but of the deliberate degradation by Russia of the Ottoman empire into a weak state wholly dependent upon herself. The ten years’ crisis (1831-1841) evoked by the revolt of Mehemet Ali, pasha of Egypt, thus resolved itself into a diplomatic struggle between Russia and the other powers to maintain or to recover influence at Constantinople. The Russian experiment of maintaining the integrity of Turkey while practically treating her as a vassal state, ended with the compromise of 1841; and the emperor Nicholas I. reverted to the older idea of expelling the Turks from Europe. The Eastern Question, however, slumbered until, in 1851, the matter of the Holy Places was raised by Napoleon III., involving the whole question of the influence in Ottoman affairs of France under the capitulations of 1740 and of Russia under the treaty of 1774. The Crimean War followed and in 1856 the treaty of Paris, by which the powers hoped to stem the tide of Russian advance and establish the integrity of a reformed Ottoman state. Turkey was now for the first time solemnly admitted to the European concert. The next critical phase was opened in 1871, when Russia took advantage of the collapse of France to denounce the Black Sea clauses of the treaty of 1856. The renewal of an aggressive policy thus announced to the world soon produced a new crisis in the Eastern Question, which had meanwhile become complicated by the growth of Pan-Slav ideals in eastern Europe. In 1875 a rising in Herzegovina gave evidence of a state of feeling in the Balkan peninsula which called for the intervention of Europe, if a disastrous war were to be prevented. But this intervention, embodied in the “Andrassy Note” (December 1875) and the Berlin memorandum (May 1876), met with the stubborn opposition of Turkey, where the “young Turks” were beginning to oppose a Pan-Islamic to the Pan-Slav ideal. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 followed, concluded by the treaty of San Stefano, the terms of which were modified in Turkey’s favour by the congress of Berlin (1878), which marks the beginning of the later phase of the Eastern Question. Between Russia and Turkey it interposed, in effect, a barrier of independent (Rumania, Servia) and quasi-independent (Bulgaria) states, erected with the counsel and consent of collective Europe. It thus, while ostensibly weakening, actually tended to strengthen the Ottoman power of resistance.

The period following the treaty of Berlin is coincident with the reign of Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid II. The international position of the Ottoman empire was strengthened by the able, if Machiavellian, statecraft of the sultan; while the danger of disruption from within was lessened by the more effective central control made possible by railways, telegraphs, and the other mechanical improvements borrowed from western civilization. With the spread of the Pan-Islamic movement, moreover, the undefined authority of the sultan as caliph of Islam received a fresh importance even in countries beyond the borders of the Ottoman empire, while in countries formerly, or nominally still, subject to it, it caused, and promised to cause, incalculable trouble.

The Eastern Question thus developed, in the latter years of the 19th century, from that of the problems raised by the impending break-up of a moribund empire, into the even more complex question of how to deal with an empire which showed vigorous evidence of life, but of a type of life which, though on all sides in close touch with modern European civilization, was incapable of being brought into harmony with it. The belief in the imminent collapse of the Ottoman dominion was weakened almost to extinction; so was the belief, which inspired the treaty of 1856, in the capacity of Turkey to reform and develop itself on European lines. But the Ottoman empire remained, the mistress of vast undeveloped wealth. The remaining phase of the Eastern Question, if we except the concerted efforts to impose good government on Macedonia in the interests of European peace, or the side issues in Egypt and Arabia, was the rivalry of the progressive nations for the right to exploit this wealth. In this rivalry Germany, whose interest in Turkey even so late as the congress of Berlin had been wholly subordinate, took a leading part, unhampered by the traditional policies or the humanitarian considerations by which the interests of the older powers were prejudiced. The motives of German intervention in the Eastern Question were ostensibly commercial; but the Bagdad railway concession, postulating for its ultimate success the control of the trade route by way of the Euphrates valley, involved political issues of the highest moment and opened up a new and perilous phase of the question of the Middle East.

This was the position when in 1908 an entirely new situation was created by the Turkish revolution. As the result of the patient and masterly organization of the “young Turks,” combined with the universal discontent with the rule of the sultan and the palace camarilla, the impossible seemed to be achieved, and the heterogeneous elements composing the Ottoman empire to be united in the desire to establish a unified state on the constitutional model of the West. The result on the international situation was profound. Great Britain hastened to re-knit the bonds of her ancient friendship with Turkey; the powers, without exception, professed their sympathy with the new régime. The establishment of a united Turkey on a constitutional and nationalist basis was, however, not slow in producing a fresh complication in the Eastern Question. Sooner or later the issue was sure to be raised of the status of those countries, still nominally part of the Ottoman empire, but in effect independent, like Bulgaria, or subject to another state, like Bosnia and Herzegovina. The cutting of the Gordian knot by Austria’s annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and by the proclamation of the independence of Bulgaria, and of Prince Ferdinand’s assumption of the old title of tsar (king), threatened to raise the Eastern Question once more in its acutest form. The international concert defined in the treaty of Berlin had been rudely shaken, if not destroyed; the denunciation by Austria, without consulting her co-signatories, of the clauses of the treaty affecting herself seemed to invalidate all the rest; and in the absence of the restraining force of a united concert of the great powers, free play seemed likely once more to be given to the rival ambitions of the Balkan nationalities, the situation being complicated by the necessity for the dominant party in the renovated Turkish state to maintain its prestige. During the anxious months that followed the Austrian coup, the efforts of diplomacy were directed to calming the excitement of Servians, Montenegrins and the Young Turks, and to considering a European conference in which the fait accompli should be regularized in accordance with the accepted canons of international law. The long delay in announcing the assembly of the conference proved the extreme difficulty of arriving at any satisfactory basis of settlement; and though the efforts of the powers succeeded in salving the wounded pride of the Turks, and restraining the impetuosity of the Serbs and Montenegrins, warlike preparations on the part of Austria continued during the winter of 1908-1909, being justified by the agitation in Servia, Montenegro and the annexed provinces. It was not till April 1909 (see Europe: ad fin.) that the crisis was ended, through the effectual backing given by Germany to Austria; and Russia, followed by England and France, gave way and assented to what had been done.

See Turkey: History, where cross-references to the articles on the various phases of the Eastern Question will be found, together with a bibliography. See also E. Driault, La Question d’orient depuis son origine (Paris, 1898), a comprehensive sketch of the whole subject, including the Middle and Far East.

(W. A. P.)

EAST GRINSTEAD, a market town in the East Grinstead parliamentary division of Sussex, England, 30 m. S. by E. from London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 6094. St Swithin’s church contains, among numerous ancient memorials, one of the iron memorial slabs (1507) peculiar to certain churches of Sussex, and recalling the period when iron was extensively worked in the district. There may be noticed Sackville College (an almshouse founded in 1608), and St Margaret’s home and orphanage, founded by the Rev. John Mason Neale (1818-1866), warden of Sackville College. Brewing and brick and tile making are carried on. In the vicinity (near Forest Row station) is the golf course of the Royal Ashdown Forest Golf Club.

The hundred of East Grinstead (Grenestede, Estgrensted) was in the possession of the count of Mortain in 1086, but no mention of a vill or manor of East Grinstead is made in the Domesday Survey. In the reign of Henry III. the hundred was part of the honour of Aquila, then in the king’s hands. The honour was granted by him to Peter of Savoy, through whom it passed to his niece Queen Eleanor. In the next reign the king’s mother held the borough of East Grinstead as parcel of the honour of Aquila. East Grinstead was included in a grant by Edward III. to John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and it remained part of the duchy of Lancaster until James I. granted the borough to Sir George Rivers, through whom it was obtained by the Sackvilles, earls of Dorset. East Grinstead was a borough by prescription. In the 16th century it was governed by an alderman, bailiff and constable. It returned two members to parliament from 1307 until 1832, but was disenfranchised by the Reform Act. In 1285 the king ordered that his market at Grenestede should be held on Saturday instead of Sunday, and in 1516 the inhabitants of the town were granted a market each week on Saturday and a fair every year on the eve of St Andrew and two days following. Charles I. granted the earl of Dorset a market on Thursday instead of the Saturday market, and fairs on the 16th of April and the 26th of September every year. Thursday is still the market-day, and cattle-fairs are now held on the 21st of April and the 11th of December.

EAST HAM, a municipal borough in the southern parliamentary division of Essex, England, contiguous to West Ham, and thus forming geographically part of the eastward extension of London. Pop. (1901) 96,018. Its modern growth has been very rapid, the population being in the main of the artisan class. There are some chemical and other factories. The ancient parish church of St Mary Magdalen retains Norman work in the chancel, which terminates in an eastern apse. There is a monument for Edmund Neville who claimed the earldom of Westmorland in the 17th century, and William Stukeley, the antiquary, was buried in the churchyard. East Ham was incorporated in 1904, and among its municipal undertakings is a technical college (1905). The corporation consists of a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. Area, 3320½ acres.

EASTHAMPTON, a township of Hampshire county, Mass., U.S.A., in the Connecticut Valley. Pop. (1900) 5603, of whom 1731 were foreign-born; (1905) 6808; (1910) 8524. It is served by the Boston & Maine, and the New York, New Haven & Hartford railways, and by interurban electric railways. The township is generally level, and is surrounded by high hills. In Easthampton are a free public library and Williston Seminary; the latter, one of the oldest and largest preparatory schools in New England, was founded in 1841 by the gifts of Samuel Williston (1795-1874) and Emily Graves Williston (1797-1885). Mr and Mrs Williston built up the industry of covering buttons with cloth, at first doing the work by hand, then (1827) experimenting with machinery, and in 1848 building a factory for making and covering buttons. As the soil was fertile and well watered, the township had been agricultural up to this time. It is now chiefly devoted to manufacturing. Among its products are cotton goods, especially mercerised goods, for the manufacture of which it has one of the largest plants in the country; rubber, thread, elastic fabrics, suspenders and buttons. Parts of Northampton and Southampton were incorporated as the “district” of Easthampton in 1785; it became a township in 1809, and in 1841 and 1850 annexed parts of Southampton.

EAST HAMPTON, a township of Suffolk county, New York, in the extreme S.E. part of Long Island, occupying the peninsula of Montauk, and bounded on the S. and E. by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the N. by Block Island Sound, Gardiner’s Bay and Peconic Bay. Pop. (1900) 3746; (1905) 4303; (1910) 4722. The township, 25 m. long and 8 m. at its greatest width from north to south, has an irregular north coast-line and a very regular south coast-line. The surface is rougher to the west where there are several large lakes, notably Great Pond, 2 m. long. The scenery is picturesque and the township is much frequented by artists. Montauk Lighthouse, on Turtle Hill, was first built in 1795. At Montauk, after the Spanish-American War, was Camp Wikoff, a large U.S. military camp. The township is served by the southern division of the Long Island railway, the terminus of which is Montauk. Other villages of the township, all summer resorts, are: Promised Land, Amagansett, East Hampton and Sag Harbor; the last named, only partly in the township, was incorporated in 1803 and had a population of 1969 in 1900, and 3084 in 1910. Silverware and watch cases are manufactured here. From Sag Harbor, which is a port of entry, a daily steamer runs to New York city. The village received many gifts in 1906-1908 from Mrs Russell Sage. Most of the present township was bought from the Indians (Montauks, Corchaugs and Shinnecocks) in 1648 for about £30, through the governors of Connecticut and New Haven, by nine Massachusetts freemen, mostly inhabitants of Lynn, Massachusetts. With twenty other families they settled here in 1649, calling the place Maidstone, from the old home of some of the settlers in Kent; but as early as 1650 the name East Hampton was used in reference to the earlier settlement of South Hampton. Until 1664, when all Long Island passed to the duke of York, the government was by town meeting, autonomous and independent except for occasional appeals to Connecticut. In 1683 Gardiner’s Island, settled by Lion Gardiner in 1639 and so one of the first English settlements in what is now New York state, was made a part of Long Island and of East Hampton township. The English settlements in East Hampton were repeatedly threatened by pirates and privateers, and there are many stories of treasure buried by Captain Kidd on Gardiner’s Island and on Montauk Point. The Clinton Academy, opened in East Hampton village in 1785, was long a famous school. Of the church built here in 1653 (first Congregational and after 1747 Presbyterian in government), Lyman Beecher was pastor in 1799-1810; and in East Hampton were born his elder children. Whale fishing was begun in East Hampton in 1675, when four Indians were engaged by whites in off-shore whaling; but Sag Harbor, which was first settled in 1730 and was held by the British after the battle of Long Island as a strategic naval and shipping point, became the centre of the whaling business. The first successful whaling voyage was made from Sag Harbor in 1785, and although the Embargo ruined the fishing for a time, it revived during 1830-1850. Cod and menhaden fishing, the latter for the manufacture of fish-oil and guano, were important for a time, but in the second half of the 19th century Sag Harbor lost its commercial importance.

EAST INDIA COMPANY, an incorporated company for exploiting the trade with India and the Far East. In the 17th and 18th centuries East India companies were established by England, Holland, France, Denmark, Scotland, Spain, Austria and Sweden. By far the most important of these was the English East India Company, which became the dominant power in India, and only handed over its functions to the British Government in 1858 (see also Dutch East India Company, Ostend Company).

The English East India Company was founded at the end of the 16th century in order to compete with the Dutch merchants, who had obtained a practical monopoly of the trade with the Spice Islands, and had raised the price of pepper from 3s. to 8s. per ℔. Queen Elizabeth incorporated it by royal charter, dated December 31, 1600, under the title of “The Governor and Company of Merchants of London, trading into the East Indies.” This charter conferred the sole right of trading with the East Indies, i.e. with all countries lying beyond the Cape of Good Hope or the Straits of Magellan, upon the company for a term of 15 years. Unauthorized interlopers were liable to forfeiture of ships and cargo. There were 125 shareholders in the original East India Company, with a capital of £72,000: the first governor was Sir Thomas Smythe. The early voyages of the company, from 1601 to 1612, are distinguished as the “separate voyages,” because the subscribers individually bore the cost of each voyage and reaped the whole profits, which seldom fell below 100%. After 1612 the voyages were conducted on the joint stock system for the benefit of the company as a whole. These early voyages, whose own narratives may be read in Purchas, pushed as far as Japan, and established friendly relations at the court of the Great Mogul. In 1610-1611 Captain Hippon planted the first English factories on the mainland of India, at Masulipatam and at Pettapoli in the Bay of Bengal. The profitable nature of the company’s trade had induced James I. to grant subsidiary licences to private traders; but in 1609 he renewed the company’s charter “for ever,” though with a proviso that it might be revoked on three years’ notice if the trade should not prove profitable to the realm.

Meanwhile friction was arising between the English and Dutch East India Companies. The Dutch traders considered that they had prior rights in the Far East, and their ascendancy in the Indian Archipelago was indeed firmly established on the basis of territorial dominion and authority. In 1613 they made advances to the English company with a suggestion for co-operation, but the offer was declined, and the next few years were fertile in disputes between the armed traders of both nations. In 1619 was ratified a “treaty of defence” to prevent disputes between the English and Dutch companies. When it was proclaimed in the East, hostilities solemnly ceased for the space of an hour, while the Dutch and English fleets, dressed out in all their flags and with yards manned, saluted each other; but the treaty ended in the smoke of that stately salutation, and perpetual and fruitless contentions between the Dutch and English companies went on just as before. In 1623 these disputes culminated in the “massacre of Amboyna,” where the Dutch governor tortured and executed the English residents on a charge of conspiring to seize the fort. Great and lasting indignation was aroused in England, but it was not until the time of Cromwell that some pecuniary reparation was exacted for the heirs of the victims. The immediate result was that the English company tacitly admitted the Dutch claims to a monopoly of the trade in the Far East, and confined their operations to the mainland of India and the adjoining countries.

The necessity of good ships for the East Indian trade had led the company in 1609 to construct their dockyard at Deptford, from which, as Monson observes, dates “the increase of great ships in England.” Down to the middle of the 19th century, the famous “East Indiamen” held unquestioned pre-eminence among the merchant vessels of the world. Throughout the 17th century they had to be prepared at any moment to fight not merely Malay pirates, but the armed trading vessels of their Dutch, French and Portuguese rivals. Many such battles are recorded in the history of the East India Company, and usually with successful results.

It was not until it had been in existence for more than a century that the English East India Company obtained a practical monopoly of the Indian trade. In 1635, a year after the Great Mogul had granted it the liberty of trading throughout Bengal, Charles I. issued a licence to Courten’s rival association, known as “the Assada Merchants,” on the ground that the company had neglected English interests. The piratical methods of their rivals disgraced the company with the Mogul officials, and a modus vivendi was only reached in 1649. In 1657 Cromwell renewed the charter of 1609, providing that the Indian trade should be in the hands of a single joint stock company. The new company thus formed bought up the factories, forts and privileges of the old one. It was further consolidated by the fostering care of Charles II., who granted it five important charters. From a simple trading company, it grew under his reign into a great chartered company—to use the modern term—with the right to acquire territory, coin money, command fortresses and troops, form alliances, make war and peace, and exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction. It is accordingly in 1689, when the three presidencies of Bengal, Madras and Bombay had lately been established, that the ruling career of the East India Company begins, with the passing by its directors of the following resolution for the guidance of the local governments in India:—“The increase of our revenue is the subject of our care, as much as our trade; ’tis that must maintain our force when twenty accidents may interrupt our trade; ’tis that must make us a nation in India; without that we are but a great number of interlopers, united by His Majesty’s royal charter, fit only to trade where nobody of power thinks it their interest to prevent us; and upon this account it is that the wise Dutch, in all their general advices that we have seen, write ten paragraphs concerning their government, their civil and military policy, warfare, and the increase of their revenue, for one paragraph they write concerning trade.” From this moment the history of the transactions of the East India Company becomes the history of British India (see India: History). Here we shall only trace the later changes in the constitution and powers of the ruling body itself.

The great prosperity of the company under the Restoration, and the immense profits of the Indian trade, attracted a number of private traders, both outside merchants and dismissed or retired servants of the company, who came to be known as “interlopers.” In 1683 the case of Thomas Sandys, an interloper, raised the whole question of the royal prerogative to create a monopoly of the Indian trade. The case was tried by Judge Jeffreys, who upheld the royal prerogative; but in spite of his decision the custom of interloping continued and laid the foundation of many great fortunes. By 1691 the interlopers had formed themselves into a new society, meeting at Dowgate, and rivalling the old company; the case was carried before the House of Commons, which declared in 1694 that “all the subjects of England have equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by act of parliament.” This decision led up to the act of 1698, which created a new East India Company in consideration of a loan of two millions to the state. The old company subscribed £315,000 and became the dominant factor in the new body; while at the same time it retained its charter for three years, its factories, forts and assured position in India. The rivalry between the two companies continued both in England and in India, until they were finally amalgamated by a tripartite indenture between the companies and Queen Anne (1702), which was ratified under the Godolphin Award (1708). Under this award the company was to lend the nation £3,200,000, and its exclusive privileges were to cease at three years’ notice after this amount had been repaid. But by this time the need for permanence in the Indian establishment began to be felt, while parliament would not relinquish its privilege of “milking” the company from time to time. In 1712 an act was passed continuing the privileges of the company even after their fund should be redeemed; in 1730 the charter was prolonged until 1766, and in 1742 the term was extended until 1783 in return for the loan of a million. This million was required for the war with France, which extended to India and involved the English and French companies there in long-drawn hostilities, in which the names of Dupleix and Clive became prominent.

So long as the company’s chief business was that of trade, it was left to manage its own affairs. The original charter of Elizabeth had placed its control in the hands of a governor and a committee of twenty-four, and this arrangement subsisted in essence down to the time of George III. The chairman and court of directors in London exercised unchecked control over their servants in India. But after Clive’s brilliant victory at Plassey (1757) had made the company a ruling power in India, it was felt to be necessary that the British government should have some control over the territories thus acquired. Lord North’s Regulating Act (1773) raised the governor of Bengal—Warren Hastings—to the rank of governor-general, and provided that his nomination, though made by a court of directors, should in future be subject to the approval of the crown; in conjunction with a council of four, he was entrusted with the power of peace and war; a supreme court of judicature was established, to which the judges were appointed by the crown; and legislative power was conferred on the governor-general and his council. Next followed Pitt’s India Bill (1784), which created the board of control, as a department of the English government, to exercise political, military and financial superintendence over the British possessions in India. This bill first authorized the historic phrase “governor-general in council.” From this date the direction of Indian policy passed definitely from the company to the governor-general in India and the ministry in London. In 1813 Lord Liverpool passed a bill which further gave the board of control authority over the company’s commercial transactions, and abolished its monopoly of Indian trade, whilst leaving it the monopoly of the valuable trade with China, chiefly in tea. Finally, under Earl Grey’s act of 1833, the company was deprived of this monopoly also. Its property was then secured on the Indian possessions, and its annual dividends of ten guineas per £100 stock were made a charge upon the Indian revenue. Henceforward the East India Company ceased to be a trading concern and exercised only administrative functions. Such a position could not, in the nature of things, be permanent, and the great cataclysm of the Indian Mutiny was followed by the entire transference of Indian administration from the company to the crown, on the 2nd of August 1858.

See Purchas his Pilgrimes (ed. 1905), vols. 2, 3, 4, 5, for the charter of Elizabeth and the early voyages; Sir W.W. Hunter, History of British India (1899); Beckles Willson, Ledger and Sword (1903); Sir George Birdwood, Report on the Old Records of the India Office (1879); The East India Company’s First Letter Book (1895), Letters Received by the East India Company from its Servants in the East, ed. Foster, (1896 ff.). See also the interesting memorial volume Relics of the Honourable East India Company (ed. Griggs, 1909), letterpress by Sir G. Birdwood and W. Foster.

EAST INDIES, a name formerly applied vaguely, in its widest sense, to the whole area of India, Further India and the Malay Archipelago, in distinction from the West Indies, which, at the time of their discovery, were taken to be the extreme parts of the Indian region. The term “East Indies” is still sometimes applied to the Malay Archipelago (q.v.) alone, and the phrase “Dutch East Indies” is commonly used to denote the Dutch possessions which constitute the greater part of that archipelago. The Dutch themselves use the term Nederlandsch-Indië.

EASTLAKE, SIR CHARLES LOCK (1793-1865), English painter, was born on the 17th of November 1793 at Plymouth, where his father, a man of uncommon gifts but of indolent temperament, was solicitor to the admiralty and judge advocate of the admiralty court. Charles was educated (like Sir Joshua Reynolds) at the Plympton grammar-school, and in London at the Charterhouse. Towards 1809, partly through the influence of his fellow-Devonian Haydon, of whom he became a pupil, he determined to be a painter; he also studied in the Royal Academy school. In 1813 he exhibited in the British Institution his first picture, a work of considerable size, “Christ restoring life to the Daughter of Jairus.” In 1814 he was commissioned to copy some of the paintings collected by Napoleon in the Louvre; he returned to England in 1815, and practised portrait-painting at Plymouth. Here he saw Napoleon a captive on the “Bellerophon”; from a boat he made some sketches of the emperor, and he afterwards painted, from these sketches and from memory, a life-sized full-length portrait of him (with some of his officers) which was pronounced a good likeness; it belongs to the marquess of Lansdowne. In 1817 Eastlake went to Italy; in 1819 to Greece; in 1820 back to Italy, where he remained altogether fourteen years, chiefly in Rome and in Ferrara.

In 1827 he exhibited at the Royal Academy his picture of the Spartan Isidas, who (as narrated by Plutarch in the life of Agesilaus), rushing naked out of his bath, performed prodigies of valour against the Theban host. This was the first work that attracted much notice to the name of Eastlake, who in consequence obtained his election as A.R.A.; in 1830, when he returned to England, he was chosen R.A. In 1850 he succeeded Shee as president of the Royal Academy, and was knighted. Prior to this, in 1841, he had been appointed secretary to the royal commission for decorating the Houses of Parliament, and he retained this post until the commission was dissolved in 1862. In 1843 he was made keeper of the National Gallery, a post which he resigned in 1847 in consequence of an unfortunate purchase that roused much animadversion, a portrait erroneously ascribed to Holbein; in 1855, director of the same institution, with more extended powers. During his directorship he purchased for the gallery 155 pictures, mostly of the Italian schools. He became also a D.C.L. of Oxford, F.R.S., a chevalier of the Legion of Honour, and member of various foreign academies.

In 1849 he married Miss Elizabeth Rigby, who had already then become known as a writer (Letters from the Baltic, 1841; Livonian Tales, 1846; The Jewess, 1848) and as a contributor to the Quarterly Review. Lady Eastlake (1809-1893) had for some years been interested in art subjects, and after her marriage she naturally devoted more attention to them, translating Waagen’s Treasures of Art in Great Britain (1854-1857), and completing Mrs Jameson’s History of our Lord in Works of Art. In 1865 Sir Charles Eastlake fell ill at Milan; and he died at Pisa on the 24th of December in the same year. Lady Eastlake, who survived him for many years, continued to play an active part as a writer on art (Five Great Painters, 1883, &c.), and had a large circle of friends among the most interesting men and women of the day. In 1880 she published a volume of Letters from France (describing events in Paris during 1789), written by her father, Edward Rigby (1747-1821), a distinguished Norwich doctor who was known also for his practical interest in agriculture, and who is said to have made known the flying shuttle to Norwich manufacturers.

As a painter, Sir Charles Eastlake was gentle, harmonious, diligent and correct; lacking fire of invention or of execution; eclectic, without being exactly imitative; influenced rather by a love of ideal grace and beauty than by any marked bent of individual power or vigorous originality. Among his principal works (which were not numerous, 51 being the total exhibited in the Academy) are: 1828, “Pilgrims arriving in sight of Rome” (repeated in 1835 and 1836, and perhaps on the whole his chef-d’œuvre); 1829, “Byron’s Dream” (in the Tate Gallery); 1834, the “Escape of Francesco di Carrara” (a duplicate in the Tate Gallery); 1841, “Christ Lamenting over Jerusalem” (ditto); 1843, “Hagar and Ishmael”; 1845, “Comus”; 1849, “Helena”; 1851, “Ippolita Torelli”; 1853, “Violante”; 1855, “Beatrice.” These female heads, of a refined semi-ideal quality, with something of Venetian glow of tint, are the most satisfactory specimens of Eastlake’s work to an artist’s eye. He was an accomplished and judicious scholar in matters of art, and published, in 1840, a translation of Goethe’s Theory of Colours; in 1847 (his chief literary work) Materials for a History of Oil-Painting, especially valuable as regards the Flemish school; in 1848, Contributions to the Literature of the Fine Arts (a second series was edited by Lady Eastlake in 1870, and accompanied by a Memoir from her pen); in 1851 and 1855, translated editions of Kugler’s History of the Italian School of Painting, and Handbook of Painting (new edition, by Lady Eastlake, 1874).

See W. Cosmo Monkhouse, Pictures by Sir Charles Eastlake, with biographical and critical Sketch (1875).

(W. M. R.)

EAST LIVERPOOL, a city of Columbiana county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Ohio river, about 106 m. S.E. of Cleveland. Pop. (1890) 10,956; (1900) 16,485, of whom 2112 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 20,357. It is served by the Pennsylvania railway, by river steamboats, and by interurban electric lines. Next to Trenton, New Jersey, East Liverpool is the most important place in the United States for the manufacture of earthenware and pottery, 4859 out of its 5228 wage-earners, or 92.9%, being employed in this industry in 1905, when $5,373,852 (83.5% of the value of all its factory products) was the value of the earthenware and pottery. No other city in the United States is so exclusively devoted to the manufacture of pottery; in 1908 there were 32 potteries in the city and its immediate vicinity. The manufacture of white ware, begun in 1872, is the most important branch of the industry—almost half of the “cream-coloured,” white granite ware and semivitreous porcelain produced in the United States in 1905 (in value, $4,344,468 out of $9,195,703) being manufactured in East Liverpool. Though there are large clay deposits in the vicinity, very little of it can be used for crockery, and most of the clay used in the city’s potteries is obtained from other states; some of it is imported from Europe. After 1872 a large number of skilled English pottery-workers settled in the city. The city’s product of pottery, terra-cotta and fireclay increased from $2,137,063 to $4,105,200 from 1890 to 1900, and in the latter year almost equalled that of Trenton, N.J., the two cities together producing more than half (50.9%) of the total pottery product of the United States; in 1905 East Liverpool and Trenton together produced 42.1% of the total value of the country’s pottery product. The municipality owns and operates its water-works. East Liverpool was settled in 1798, and was incorporated in 1834.

EAST LONDON, a town of the Cape province, South Africa, at the mouth of the Buffalo river, in 33° 1′ S. 27° 55′ E., 543 m. E.N.E. of Cape Town by sea and 666 m. S. of Johannesburg by rail. Pop. (1904) 25,220, of whom 14,674 were whites. The town is picturesquely situated on both sides of the river, which is spanned by a combined road and railway bridge. The railway terminus and business quarter are on the east side on the top of the cliffs, which rise 150 ft. above the river. In Oxford Street, the chief thoroughfare, is the town hall, a handsome building erected in 1898. Higher up a number of churches and a school are grouped round Vincent Square, a large open space. In consequence of the excellent sea bathing, and the beauty of the river banks above the town, East London is the chief seaside holiday resort of the Cape province. The town is the entrepot of a rich agricultural district, including the Transkei, Basutoland and the south of Orange Free State, and the port of the Cape nearest Johannesburg. It ranks third among the ports of the province. The roadstead is exposed and insecure, but the inner harbour, constructed at a cost of over £2,000,000, is protected from all winds. A shifting sand bar lies at the mouth of the river, but the building of training walls and dredging have increased the minimum depth of water to 22 ft. From the east bank of the Buffalo a pier and from the west bank a breakwater project into the Indian Ocean, the entrance being 450 ft. wide, reduced between the training walls to 250 ft. There is extensive wharf accommodation on both sides of the river, and steamers of over 8000 tons can moor alongside. There is a patent slip capable of taking vessels of 1000 tons dead weight. An aerial steel ropeway from the river bank to the town greatly facilitates the delivery of cargo. The imports are chiefly textiles, hardware and provisions, the exports mainly wool and mohair. The rateable value of the town in 1908 was £4,108,000, and the municipal rate 15⁄8d.

East London owes its foundation to the necessities of the Kaffir war of 1846-1847. The British, requiring a port nearer the scene of war than those then existing, selected a site at the mouth of the Buffalo river, and in 1847 the first cargo of military stores was landed. A fort, named Glamorgan, was built, and the place permanently occupied. Around this military post grew up the town, known at first as Port Rex. Numbers of its inhabitants are descendants of German immigrants who settled in the district in 1857. The prosperity of the town dates from the era of railway and port development in the last decade of the 19th century. In 1875 the value of the exports was £131,803 and that of the imports £552,033. In 1904 the value of the exports was £1,165,938 and that of the imports £4,688,415. In 1907 the exports, notwithstanding a period of severe trade depression, were valued at £1,475,355, but the imports had fallen to £3,354,633.

EASTON, a city and the county-seat of Northampton county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., at the confluence of the Lehigh river and Bushkill Creek with the Delaware, about 60 m. N. of Philadelphia. Pop. (1890) 14,481; (1900) 25,238, of whom 2135 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 28,523. Easton is served by the Central of New Jersey, the Lehigh Valley, the Lehigh & Hudson River and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western railways, and is connected by canals with the anthracite coal region to the north-west and with Bristol, Pa. A bridge across the Delaware river connects it with Phillipsburg, New Jersey, which is served by the Pennsylvania railway. The city is built on rolling ground, commanding pleasant views of hill and river scenery. Many fine residences overlook city and country from the hillsides, and a Carnegie library is prominent among the public buildings. Lafayette College, a Presbyterian institution opened in 1832, is finely situated on a bluff north of the Bushkill and Delaware. The college provides the following courses of instruction: graduate, classical, Latin scientific, general scientific, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mining engineering and chemical; in 1908 it had 38 instructors and 442 students, 256 of whom were enrolled in the scientific and engineering courses. Overlooking the Bushkill is the Easton Cemetery, in which is the grave of George Taylor (1716-1781), a signer of the Declaration of Independence, with a monument of Italian marble to his memory. Among the city’s manufactures are silk, hosiery and knit goods, flour, malt liquors, brick, tile, drills, lumber and planing mill products and organs; in 1905 the value of all the factory products was $5,654,594, of which $2,290,598, or 40.5%, was the value of the silk manufactures. Easton is the commercial centre of an important mining region, which produces, in particular, iron ore, soapstone, cement, slate and building stone. The municipality owns and operates an electric-lighting plant. Easton was a garden spot of the Indians, and here, because they would not negotiate elsewhere, several important treaties were made between 1756 and 1762 during the French and Indian War. The place was laid out in 1752, and was made the county-seat of the newly erected county. It was incorporated as a borough in 1789, received a new borough charter in 1823, and in 1887 was chartered as a city. South Easton was annexed in 1898.

EAST ORANGE, a city of Essex county, New Jersey, U.S.A., in the north-eastern part of the state, adjoining the city of Newark, and about 12 m. W. of New York city. Pop. (1890) 13,282; (1900) 21,506, of whom 3950 were foreign-born and 1420 were negroes; (1910 census) 34,371. It is served by the Morris & Essex division of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western railway and by the Orange branch of the Erie (the former having four stations—Ampere, Grove Street, East Orange and Brick Church), and is connected with Newark, Orange and West Orange by electric line. The city covers an area of about 4 sq. m., and has broad, well-paved streets, bordered with fine shade trees (under the jurisdiction of a “Shade Tree Commission”). It is primarily a residential suburb of New York and Newark, and has many beautiful homes; with Orange, West Orange and South Orange it forms virtually one community, popularly known as “the Oranges.” The public school system is excellent, and the city has a Carnegie library (1903), with more than 22,000 volumes in 1907. Among the principal buildings are several attractive churches, the city hall, and the club-house of the Woman’s Club of Orange. The principal manufactures of East Orange are electrical machinery, apparatus, and supplies (the factory of the Crocker-Wheeler Co. being here—in a part of the city known as “Ampere”) and pharmaceutical materials. The total value of the city’s factory products in 1905 was $2,326,552. East Orange has a fine water-works system, which it owns and operates; the water supply is obtained from artesian wells at White Oaks Ridge, in the township of Milburn (about 10 m. from the city hall); thence the water is pumped to a steel reinforced reservoir (capacity 5,000,000 gallons) on the mountain back of South Orange. In 1863 the township of East Orange was separated from the township of Orange, which, in turn, had been separated from the township of Newark in 1806. An act of the New Jersey legislature in 1895 created the office of township president, with power of appointment and veto. Four years later East Orange was chartered as a city.

See H. Whittemore, The Founders and Builders of the Oranges (Newark, 1896).

EASTPORT, a city and port of entry of Washington county, Maine, U.S.A., co-extensive with Moose Island in Passamaquoddy Bay, about 190 m. E.N.E. of Portland. Pop. (1890) 4908; (1900) 5311 (1554 foreign-born); (1910) 4961. It is served by the Washington County railway, and by steamboat lines to Boston, Portland and Calais. It is the most eastern city of the United States, and is separated from the mainland by a narrow channel, which is spanned by a bridge. The harbour is well protected from the winds, and the tide, which rises and falls here about 25 ft., prevents it from being obstructed with ice. The city is built on ground sloping gently to the water’s edge, and commands delightful views of the bay, in which there are several islands. Its principal industry is the canning of sardines; there are also clam canneries. Shoes, mustard, decorated tin, and shooks are manufactured, and fish and lobsters are shipped from here in the season. The city is the port of entry for the customs district of Passamaquoddy; in 1908 its imports were valued at $994,961, and its exports at $1,155,791. Eastport was first settled about 1782 by fishermen; it became a port of entry in 1790, was incorporated as a town in 1798, and was chartered as a city in 1893. It was a notorious place for smuggling under the Embargo Acts of 1807 and 1808. On the 11th of July 1814, during the war of 1812, it was taken by the British. As the British government claimed the islands of Passamaquoddy Bay under the treaty of 1783, the British forces retained possession of Eastport after the close of the war and held it under martial law until July 1818, when it was surrendered in accordance with the decision rendered in November 1817 by commissioners appointed under Article IV. of the treaty of Ghent (1814), this decision awarding Moose Island, Dudley Island and Frederick Island to the United States and the other islands, including the Island of Grand Manan in the Bay of Fundy, to Great Britain.

EAST PROVIDENCE, a township of Providence county, Rhode Island, U.S.A., on the E. side of Providence river, opposite Providence. Pop. (1890) 8422; (1900) 12,138, of whom 2067 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 15,808. Area, 12½ sq. m. It is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway. It has a rolling surface and contains several villages, one of which, known as Rumford, has important manufactories of chemicals and electrical supplies. South of this village, along the river bank, are several attractive summer resorts, Hunt’s Mills, Silver Spring, Riverside, Vanity Fair, Kettle Point and Bullock’s Point being prominent among them. In 1905 the factory products of the township were valued at $5,035,288. The oyster trade is important. It was within the present limits of this township that Roger Williams established himself in the spring of 1636, until he learned that the place was within the jurisdiction of the Plymouth Colony. About 1644 it was settled by a company from Weymouth as a part of a town of Rehoboth. In 1812 Rehoboth was divided, and the west part was made the township of Seekonk. Finally, in 1861, it was decided that the west part of Seekonk belonged to Rhode Island, and in the following year that part was incorporated as the township of East Providence.

EAST PRUSSIA (Ost-Preussen), the easternmost province of the kingdom of Prussia, bounded on the N. by the Baltic, on the E. and S.W. by Russia and Russian Poland, and on the W. by the Prussian province of West Prussia. It has an area of 14,284 sq. m., and had, in 1905, a population of 2,025,741. It shares in the general characteristics of the great north German plain, but, though low, its surface is by no means absolutely flat, as the southern half is traversed by a low ridge or plateau, which attains a height of 1025 ft. at a point near the western boundary of the province. This plateau, here named the Prussian Seenplatte, is thickly sprinkled with small lakes, among which is the Spirding See, 46 sq. m. in extent and the largest inland lake in the Prussian monarchy. The coast is lined with low dunes or sandhills, in front of which lie the large littoral lakes or lagoons named the Frisches Haff and the Kurisches Haff. The first of these receives the waters of the Nogat and the Pregel, and the other those of the Memel or Niemen. East Prussia is the coldest part of Germany, its mean annual temperature being about 44° F., while the mean January temperature of Tilsit is only 25°. The rainfall is 24 in. per annum. About half the province is under tillage; 18% is occupied by forests, and about 23% by meadows and pastures. The most fertile soil is found in the valleys of the Pregel and the Memel, but the southern slopes of the Baltic plateau and the district to the north of the Memel consist in great part of sterile moor, sand and bog. The chief crops are rye, oats and potatoes, while flax is cultivated in the district of Ermeland, between the Passarge and the upper Alle. East Prussia is the headquarters of the horse-breeding of the country, and contains the principal government stud of Trakehnen; numerous cattle are also fattened on the rich pastures of the river-valleys. The extensive woods in the south part of the province harbour a few wolves and lynxes, and the elk is still preserved in the forest of Ibenhorst, near the Kurisches Haff. The fisheries in the lakes and haffs are of some importance; but the only mineral product of note is amber, which is found in the peninsula of Samland in greater abundance than in any other part of the world. Manufactures are almost confined to the principal towns, though linen-weaving is practised as a domestic industry. Commerce is facilitated by canals connecting the Memel and Pregel and also the principal lakes, but is somewhat hampered by the heavy dues exacted at the Russian frontier. A brisk foreign trade is carried on through the seaports of Königsberg, the capital of the province, and Memel, the exports consisting mainly of timber and grain.

The population of the province was in 1900 1,996,626, and included 1,698,465 Protestants, 269,196 Roman Catholics and 13,877 Jews. The Roman Catholics are mainly confined to the district of Ermeland, in which the ordinary proportions of the confessions are completely reversed. The bulk of the inhabitants are of German blood, but there are above 400,000 Protestant Poles (Masurians or Masovians) in the south part of the province, and 175,000 Lithuanians in the north. As in other provinces where the Polish element is strong, East Prussia is somewhat below the general average of the kingdom in education. There is a university at Königsberg.

See Lohmeyer, Geschichte von Ost- und West-Preussen (Gotha, 1884); Brünneck, Zur Geschichte des Kirchen-Patronats in Ost- und West-Preussen (Berlin, 1902), and Ost-Preussen, Land und Volk (Stuttgart, 1901-1902).

EASTWICK, EDWARD BACKHOUSE (1814-1883), British Orientalist, was born in 1814, a member of an Anglo-Indian family. Educated at Charterhouse and at Oxford, he joined the Bombay infantry in 1836, but, owing to his talent for languages, was soon given a political post. In 1843 he translated the Persian Kessahi Sanján, or History of the Arrival of the Parsees in India; and he wrote a Life of Zoroaster, a Sindhi vocabulary, and various papers in the transactions of the Bombay Asiatic Society. Compelled by ill-health to return to Europe, he went to Frankfort, where he learned German and translated Schiller’s Revolt of the Netherlands and Bopp’s Comparative Grammar. In 1845 he was appointed professor of Hindustani at Haileybury College. Two years later he published a Hindustani grammar, and, in subsequent years, a new edition of the Gulistán, with a translation in prose and verse, also an edition with vocabulary of the Hindi translation by Lallú Lál of Chatur Chuj Misr’s Prem Sagár, and translations of the Bagh-o-Bahar, and of the Anvár-i Suhaili of Bídpáí. In 1851 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. In 1857-1858 he edited The Autobiography of Lútfullah. He also edited for the Bible Society the Book of Genesis in the Dakhani language. From 1860 to 1863 he was in Persia as secretary to the British Legation, publishing on his return The Journal of a Diplomate. In 1866 he became private secretary to the secretary of state for India, Lord Cranborne (afterwards marquess of Salisbury), and in 1867 went, as in 1864, on a government mission to Venezuela. On his return he wrote, at the request of Charles Dickens, for All the Year Round, “Sketches of Life in a South American Republic.” From 1868 to 1874 he was M.P. for Penryn and Falmouth. In 1875 he received the degree of M.A. with the franchise from the university of Oxford, “as a slight recognition of distinguished services.” At various times he wrote several of Murray’s Indian hand-books. His last work was the Kaisarnamah-i-Hind (“the lay of the empress”), in two volumes (1878-1882). He died at Ventnor, Isle of Wight, on the 16th of July 1883.

EATON, DORMAN BRIDGMAN (1823-1899), American lawyer, was born at Hardwick, Vermont, on the 27th of June 1823. He graduated at the university of Vermont in 1848 and at the Harvard Law School in 1850, and in the latter year was admitted to the bar in New York city. There he became associated in practice with William Kent, the son of the great chancellor, an edition of whose Commentaries he assisted in editing. Eaton early became interested in municipal and civil service reform. He was conspicuous in the fight against Tweed and his followers, by one of whom he was assaulted; he required a long period of rest, and went to Europe, where he studied the workings of the civil service in various countries. From 1873 to 1875 he was a member of the first United States Civil Service Commission. In 1877, at the request of President Hayes, he made a careful study of the British civil service, and three years later published Civil Service in Great Britain. He drafted the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, and later became a member of the new commission established by it. He resigned in 1885, but was almost immediately reappointed by President Cleveland, and served until 1886, editing the 3rd and 4th Reports of the commission. He was an organizer (1878) of the first society for the furtherance of civil service reform in New York, of the National Civil Service Reform Association, and of the National Conference of the Unitarian Church (1865). He died in New York city on the 23rd of December 1899, leaving $100,000 each to Harvard and Columbia universities for the establishments of professorships in government. He was a legal writer and editor, and a frequent contributor to the leading reviews. In addition to the works mentioned he published Should Judges be Elected? (1873), The Independent Movement in New York (1880), Term and Tenure of Office (1882), The Spoils System and Civil Service Reform (1882), Problems of Police Legislation (1895) and The Government of Municipalities (1899).

See the privately printed memorial volume, Dorman B. Eaton, 1823-1899 (New York, 1900).

EATON, MARGARET O’NEILL (1796-1879), better known as Peggy O’Neill, was the daughter of the keeper of a popular Washington tavern, and was noted for her beauty, wit and vivacity. About 1823, she married a purser in the United States navy, John B. Timberlake, who committed suicide while on service in the Mediterranean in 1828. In the following year she married John Henry Eaton (1790-1856), a Tennessee politician, at the time a member of the United States Senate. Senator Eaton was a close personal friend of President Jackson, who in 1829 appointed him secretary of war. This sudden elevation of Mrs Eaton into the cabinet social circle was resented by the wives of several of Jackson’s secretaries, and charges were made against her of improper conduct with Eaton previous to her marriage to him. The refusal of the wives of the cabinet members to recognize the wife of his friend angered President Jackson, and he tried in vain to coerce them. Eventually, and partly for this reason, he almost completely reorganized his cabinet. The effect of the incident on the political fortunes of the vice-president, John C. Calhoun, whose wife was one of the recalcitrants, was perhaps most important. Partly on this account, Jackson’s favour was transferred from Calhoun to Martin Van Buren, the secretary of state, who had taken Jackson’s side in the quarrel and had shown marked attention to Mrs Eaton, and whose subsequent elevation to the vice-presidency and presidency through Jackson’s favour is no doubt partly attributable to this incident. In 1836 Mrs Eaton accompanied her husband to Spain, where he was United States minister in 1836-1840. After the death of her husband she married a young Italian dancing-master, Antonio Buchignani, but soon obtained a divorce from him. She died in Washington on the 8th of November 1879.

See James Parton’s Life of Andrew Jackson (New York, 1860).

EATON, THEOPHILUS (c. 1590-1658), English colonial governor in America, was born at Stony Stratford, Buckinghamshire, about 1590. He was educated in Coventry, became a successful merchant, travelled widely throughout Europe, and for several years was the financial agent of Charles I. in Denmark. He subsequently settled in London, where he joined the Puritan congregation of the Rev. John Davenport, whom he had known since boyhood. The pressure upon the Puritans increasing, Eaton, who had been one of the original patentees of the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1629, determined to use his influence and fortune to establish an independent colony of which his pastor should be the head. In 1637 he emigrated with Davenport to Massachusetts, and in the following year (March 1638) he and Davenport founded New Haven. In October 1639 a form of government was adopted, based on the Mosaic Law, and Eaton was elected governor, a post which he continued to hold by annual re-election, first over New Haven alone, and after 1643 over the New Haven Colony or Jurisdiction, until his death at New Haven on the 7th of January 1658. His administration was embarrassed by constantly recurring disputes with the neighbouring Dutch settlements, especially after Stamford (Conn.) and Southold (Long Island) had entered the New Haven Jurisdiction, but his prudence and diplomacy prevented an actual outbreak of hostilities. He was prominent in the affairs of the New England Confederation, of which he was one of the founders (1643). In 1655 he and Davenport drew up the code of laws, popularly known as the “Connecticut Blue Laws,” which were published in London in 1656 under the title New Haven’s Settling in New England and some Lawes for Government published for the Use of that Colony.

A sketch of his life appears in Cotton Mather’s Magnalia (London, 1702); see also J.B. Moore’s “Memoir of Theophilus Eaton” in the Collections of the New York Historical Society, second series, vol. ii. (New York, 1849).

EATON, WILLIAM (1764-1811), American soldier, was born in Woodstock, Connecticut, on the 23rd of February 1764. As a boy he served for a short time in the Continental army. He was a school teacher for several years, graduated at Dartmouth College in 1790, was clerk of the lower house of the Vermont legislature in 1791-1792, and in 1792 re-entered the army as a captain, later serving against the Indians in Ohio and Georgia. In 1797 he was appointed consul to Tunis, where he arrived in February 1799. In March 1799, with the consuls to Tripoli and Algiers, he negotiated alterations in the treaty of 1797 with Tunis. He rendered great service to Danish merchantmen by buying on credit several Danish prizes in Tunis and turning them over to their original owners for the redemption of his notes. In 1803 he quarrelled with the Bey, was ordered from the country, and returned to the United States to urge American intervention for the restoration of Ahmet Karamanli to the throne of Tripoli, arguing that this would impress the Barbary States with the power of the United States. In 1804 he returned to the Mediterranean as United States naval agent to the Barbary States with Barron’s fleet. On the 23rd of February 1805 he agreed with Ahmet that the United States should undertake to re-establish him in Tripoli, that the expenses of the expedition should be repaid to the United States by Ahmet, and that Eaton should be general and commander-in-chief of the land forces in Ahmet’s campaign; as the secretary of the navy had given the entire matter into the hands of Commodore Barron, and as Barron and Tobias Lear (1762-1816), the United States consul-general at Algiers and a diplomatic agent to conduct negotiations, had been instructed to consider the advisability of making arrangements with the existing government in Tripoli, Eaton far exceeded his authority. On the 8th of March he started for Derna across the Libyan desert from the Arab’s Tower, 40 m. W. of Alexandria, with a force of about 500 men, including a few Americans, about 40 Greeks and some Arab cavalry. In the march of nearly 600 m. the camel-drivers and the Arab chiefs repeatedly mutinied, and Ahmet Pasha once put himself at the head of the Arabs and ordered them to attack Eaton. Ahmet more than once wished to give up the expedition. There were practically no provisions for the latter part of the march. On the 27th of April with the assistance of three bombarding cruisers Eaton captured Derna—an exploit commemorated by Whittier’s poem Derne. On the 13th of May and on the 10th of June he successfully withstood the attacks of Tripolitan forces sent to dislodge him. On the 12th of June he abandoned the town upon orders from Commodore Rodgers, for Lear had made peace (4th June) with Yussuf, the de facto Pasha of Tripoli. Eaton returned to the United States, and received a grant of 10,000 acres in Maine from the Massachusetts legislature. According to a deposition which he made in January 1807 he was approached by Aaron Burr (q.v.), who attempted to enlist him in his “conspiracy,” and wished him to win over the marine corps and to sound Preble and Decatur. As he received from the government, soon after making this deposition, about $10,000 to liquidate claims for his expense in Tripoli, which he had long pressed in vain, his good faith has been doubted. At Burr’s trial at Richmond in 1807 Eaton was one of the witnesses, but his testimony was unimportant. In May 1807 he was elected a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and served for one term. He died on the 1st of June 1811 in Brimfield, Massachusetts.

See the anonymously published Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton (Brookfield, Massachusetts, 1813) by Charles Prentiss; C.C. Felton, “Life of William Eaton” in Sparks’s Library of American Biography, vol. ix. (Boston, 1838); and Gardner W. Allen’s Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston, 1905).

EATON, WYATT (1849-1896), American portrait and figure painter, was born at Philipsburg, Canada, on the 6th of May 1849. He was a pupil of the schools of the National Academy of Design, New York, and in 1872 went to Paris, where he studied in the École des Beaux-Arts under J.L. Gérôme. He made the acquaintance of J.F. Millet at Barbizon, and was also influenced by his friend Jules Bastien-Lepage. After his return to the United States in 1876 he became a teacher in Cooper Institute and opened a studio in New York city. He was one of the organizers (and the first secretary) of the Society of American Artists. Among his portraits are those of William Cullen Bryant and Timothy Cole, the wood engraver (“The Man with the Violin”). Eaton died at Newport, Rhode Island, on the 7th of June 1896.

EAU CLAIRE, a city and the county-seat of Eau Claire county, Wisconsin, U.S.A., on the Chippewa river, at the mouth of the Eau Claire, about 87 m. E. of St Paul. Pop. (1890) 17,415; (1900) 17,517, of whom 4996 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 18,310. It is served by the Chicago & North-Western, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, and the Wisconsin Central railways, and is connected by an electric line with Chippewa Falls (12 m. distant). The city has a Carnegie library with 17,200 volumes in 1908, a Federal building, county court house, normal school and insane asylum. It has abundant water-power, and is an important lumber manufacturing centre; among its other manufactures are flour, wooden-ware, agricultural machinery, saw-mill machinery, logging locomotives, wood pulp, paper, linen, mattresses, shoes and trunks. The total value of factory products in 1905 was $3,601,558. The city is the principal wholesale and jobbing market for the prosperous Chippewa Valley. Eau Claire was first settled about 1847, and was chartered as a city in 1872; its growth dates from the development of the north-western lumber trade in the decade 1870-1880. In 1881 a serious strike necessitated the calling out of state militia for its suppression and the protection of property.

EAU DE COLOGNE (Ger. Kölnisches Wasser, “Cologne water”), a perfume, so named from the city of Cologne, where its manufacture was first established by an Italian, Johann (or Giovanni) Maria Farina (1685-1766), who settled at Cologne in 1709. The perfume gained a high reputation by 1766, and Farina associated himself with his nephew, to whose grandson the secret was ultimately imparted; the original perfume is still manufactured by members of this family under the name of the founder. The manufacture is, however, carried on at Cologne, and also in Italy, by other firms bearing the name Farina, and the scent has become part of the regular output of perfumers. The discovery has also been ascribed to a Paul de Feminis, who is supposed to have brought his recipe from Milan to Cologne, of which he became a citizen in 1690, and sold the perfume under the name Eau admirable, leaving the secret at his death to his nephew Johann Maria Farina. Certain of the Farinas claim to use his process. It was originally prepared by making an alcoholic infusion of certain flowers, pot-herbs, drugs and spices, distilling and then adding definite quantities of several vegetable essences. The purity and thorough blending of the ingredients are of the greatest importance. The original perfume is simulated and even excelled by artificial preparations. The oils of lemon, bergamot and orange are employed, together with the oils of neroli and rosemary in the better class. The common practice consists in dissolving the oils, in certain definite proportions based on experience, in pure alcohol and distilling, the distillate being diluted by rose-water.

EAUX-BONNES, a watering-place of south-western France, in the department of Basses-Pyrénées, 3½ m. S.E. of the small town of Laruns, the latter being 24 m. S. of Pau by rail. Pop. (1906) 610. Eaux-Bonnes is situated at a height of 2460 ft. at the entrance of a fine gorge, overlooking the confluence of two torrents, the Valentin and the Sourde. The village is well known for its sulphurous and saline mineral waters (first mentioned in the middle of the 14th century), which are beneficial in affections of the throat and lungs. They vary between 50° and 90° F. in temperature, and are used for drinking and bathing. There are two thermal establishments, a casino and fine promenades.

The watering-place of Les Eaux-Chaudes is 5 m. by road south-west of Eaux-Bonnes, in a wild gorge on the Gave d’Ossau. The springs are sulphurous, varying in temperature from 52° to 97° F., and are used in cases of rheumatism, certain maladies of women, &c. The thermal establishment is a handsome marble building.

There is fine mountain scenery in the neighbourhood of both places, the Pic de Ger near Eaux-Bonnes, commanding an extensive view. The valley of Ossau, one of the most beautiful in the Pyrenees, before the Revolution formed a community which, though dependent on Béarn, had its own legal organization, manners and costumes, the last of which are still to be seen on holidays.

EAVES (not a plural form as is sometimes supposed, but singular; O. Eng. efes, in Mid. High Ger. obse, Gothic ubizwa, a porch; connected with “over”), in architecture, the projecting edge of a sloping roof, which overhangs the face of the wall so as to throw off the water.

EAVESDRIP, or Eavesdrop, that width of ground around a house or building which receives the rain water dropping from the eaves. By an ancient Saxon law, a landowner was forbidden to erect any building at less than 2 ft. from the boundary of his land, and was thus prevented from injuring his neighbour’s house or property by the dripping of water from his eaves. The law of Eavesdrip has had its equivalent in the Roman stillicidium, which prohibited building up to the very edge of an estate.

From the Saxon custom arose the term “eavesdropper,” i.e. any one who stands within “the eavesdrop” of a house, hence one who pries into others’ business or listens to secrets. At common law an eavesdropper was regarded as a common nuisance, and was presentable at the court leet, and indictable at the sheriff’s tourn and punishable by fine and finding sureties for good behaviour. Though the offence of eavesdropping still exists at common law, there is no modern instance of a prosecution or indictment.

EBBW VALE, an urban district in the western parliamentary division of Monmouthshire, England, 21 m. N.W. of Newport on the Great Western, London & North-Western and Rhymney railways. Pop. (1891) 17,312; (1901) 20,994. It lies near the head of the valley of the river Ebbw, at an elevation of nearly 1000 ft., in a wild and mountainous mining district, which contains large collieries and important iron and steel works.

EBEL, HERMANN WILHELM (1820-1875), German philologist, was born at Berlin on the 10th of May 1820. He displayed in his early years a remarkable capacity for the study of languages, and at the same time a passionate fondness for music and poetry. At the age of sixteen he became a student at the university of Berlin, applying himself especially to philology, and attending the lectures of Böckh. Music continued to be the favourite occupation of his leisure hours, and he pursued the study of it under the direction of Marx. In the spring of 1838 he passed to the university of Halle, and there began to apply himself to comparative philology under Pott. Returning in the following year to his native city, he continued this study as a disciple of Bopp. He took his degree in 1842, and, after spending his year of probation at the French Gymnasium of Berlin, he resumed with great earnestness his language studies. About 1847 he began to study Old Persian. In 1852 he accepted a professorship at the Beheim-Schwarzbach Institution at Filehne, which post he held for six years. It was during this period that his studies in the Old Slavic and Celtic languages began. In 1858 he removed to Schneidemühl, and there he discharged the duties of first professor for ten years. He was afterwards called to the chair of comparative philology at the university of Berlin. He died at Misdroy on the 19th of August 1875. The most important work of Dr Ebel in the field of Celtic philology is his revised edition of the Grammatica Celtica of Professor Zeuss, completed in 1871. This had been preceded by his treatises—De verbi Britannici futuro ac conjunctivo (1866), and De Zeussii curis positis in Grammatica Celtica (1869). He made many learned contributions to Kühn’s Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, and to A. Schleicher’s Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung; and a selection of these contributions was translated into English by Sullivan, and published under the title of Celtic Studies (1863). Ebel contributed the Old Irish section to Schleicher’s Indogermanische Chrestomathie (1869). Among his other works must be named Die Lehnwörter der deutschen Sprache (1856).

EBEL, JOHANN GOTTFRIED (1764-1830), the author of the first real guide-book to Switzerland, was born at Züllichau (Prussia). He became a medical man, visited Switzerland for the first time in 1790, and became so enamoured of it that he spent three years exploring the country and collecting all kinds of information relating to it. The result was the publication (Zürich, 1793) of his Anleitung auf die nützlichste und genussvollste Art in der Schweitz zu reisen (2 vols.), in which he gave a complete account of the country, the General Information sections being followed by an alphabetically arranged list of places, with descriptions. It at once superseded all other works of the kind, and was the best Swiss guide-book till the appearance of “Murray” (1838). It was particularly strong on the geological and historical sides. The second (1804-1805) and third (1809-1810) editions filled four volumes, but the following (the 8th appeared in 1843) were in a single volume. The work was translated into French in 1795 (many later editions) and into English (by 1818). Ebel also published a work (2 vols., Leipzig, 1798-1802) entitled Schilderungen der Gebirgsvölker der Schweiz, which deals mainly with the pastoral cantons of Glarus and Appenzell. In 1801 he was naturalized a Swiss citizen, and settled down in Zürich. In 1808 he issued his chief geological work, Über den Bau der Erde im Alpengebirge (Zürich, 2 vols.). He took an active share in promoting all that could make his adopted country better known, e.g. Heinrich Keller’s map (1813), the building of a hotel on the Rigi (1816), and the preparation of a panorama from that point (1823). From 1810 onwards he lived at Zürich, with the family of his friend, Conrad Escher von der Linth (1767-1823), the celebrated engineer.

(W. A. B. C.)

EBER, PAUL (1511-1569), German theologian, was born at Kitzingen in Franconia, and was educated at Nuremberg and Wittenberg, where he became the close friend of Philip Melanchthon. In 1541 he was appointed professor of Latin grammar at Wittenberg, and in 1557 professor of the Old Testament. His range of learning was wide, and he published a handbook of Jewish history, a historical calendar intended to supersede the Roman Saints’ Calendar, and a revision of the Latin Old Testament. In the theological conflict of the time he played a large part, doing what he could to mediate between the extremists. From 1559 to the close of his life he was superintendent-general of the electorate of Saxony. He attained some fame as a hymn-writer, his best-known composition being “Wenn wir in höchsten Nöthen sein.” He died at Wittenberg on the 10th of December 1569.

EBERBACH, a town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Baden, romantically situated on the Neckar, at the foot of the Katzenbuckel, 19 m. E. of Heidelberg by the railway to Würzburg. Pop. (1900) 5857. It contains an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic church, a commercial and a technical school, and, in addition to manufacturing cigars, leather and cutlery, carries on by water an active trade in timber and wine. Eberbach was founded in 1227 by the German king Henry VII., who acquired the castle (the ruins of which overhang the town) from the bishop of Worms. It became an imperial town and passed later to the Palatinate.

See Wirth, Geschichte der Stadt Eberbach (Stuttgart, 1864).

EBERBACH, a famous Cistercian monastery of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, situated near Hattenheim in the Rheingau, 10 m. N.W. from Wiesbaden. Founded in 1116 by Archbishop Adalbert of Mainz, as a house of Augustinian canons regular, it was bestowed by him in 1131 upon the Benedictines, but was shortly afterwards repurchased and conferred upon the Cistercian order. The Romanesque church (consecrated in 1186) contains numerous interesting monuments and tombs, notable among them being those of the archbishop of Mainz, Gerlach (d. 1371) and Adolph II. of Nassau (d. 1475). It was despoiled during the Thirty Years’ War, was secularized in 1803, and now serves as a house of correction. Its cellars contain some of the finest vintages of the Rhine wines of the locality.

See Bär, Diplomatische Geschichte der Abtei Eberbach (Wiesb., 1851-1858 and 1886, 3 vols.), and Schäfer, Die Abtei Eberbach im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1901).

EBERHARD, surnamed Im Bart (Barbatus), count and afterwards duke of Württemberg (1445-1496), was the second son of Louis I., count of Württemberg-Urach (d. 1450), and succeeded his elder brother Louis II. in 1457. His uncle Ulrich V., count of Württemberg-Stuttgart (d. 1480), acted as his guardian, but in 1459, assisted by Frederick I., elector palatine, he threw off this restraint, and undertook the government of the district of Urach as Count Eberhard V. He neglected his duties as a ruler and lived a reckless life until 1468, when he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He visited Italy, became acquainted with some famous scholars, and in 1474 married Barbara di Gonzaga, daughter of Lodovico III., marquis of Mantua, a lady distinguished for her intellectual qualities. In 1482 he brought about the treaty of Münsingen with his cousin Eberhard VI., count of Württemberg-Stuttgart. By this treaty the districts of Urach and Stuttgart into which Württemberg had been divided in 1437 were again united, and for the future the county was declared indivisible, and the right of primogeniture established. The treaty led to some disturbances, but in 1492 the sanction of the nobles was secured for its provisions. In return for this Eberhard agreed to some limitations on the power of the count, and so in a sense founded the constitution of Württemberg. At the diet of Worms in 1495 the emperor Maximilian I. guaranteed the treaty, confirmed the possessions and prerogatives of the house of Württemberg, and raised Eberhard to the rank of duke. Eberhard, although a lover of peace, was one of the founders of the Swabian League in 1488, and assisted to release Maximilian, then king of the Romans, from his imprisonment at Bruges in the same year. He gave charters to the towns of Stuttgart and Tübingen, and introduced order into the convents of his land, some of which he secularized. He took a keen interest in the new learning, founded the university of Tübingen in 1476, befriended John Reuchlin, whom he made his private secretary, welcomed scholars to his court, and is said to have learned Latin in later life. In 1482 he again visited Italy and received the Golden Rose from Pope Sixtus IV. He won the esteem of the emperors Frederick III. and Maximilian I. on account of his wisdom and fidelity, and his people held him in high regard. His later years were mainly spent at Stuttgart, but he died at Tübingen on the 25th of February 1496, and in 1537 his ashes were placed in the choir of the Stiftskirche there. Eberhard left no children, and the succession passed to his cousin Eberhard, who became Duke Eberhard II.

See Rösslin, Leben Eberhards im Barte (Tübingen, 1793); Bossert, Eberhard im Bart (Stuttgart, 1884).

EBERHARD, CHRISTIAN AUGUST GOTTLOB (1769-1845), German miscellaneous writer, was born at Belzig, near Wittenberg, on the 12th of January 1769. He studied theology at Leipzig; but, a story he contributed to a periodical having proved successful, he devoted himself to literature. With the exception of Hannchen und die Küchlein (1822), a narrative poem in ten parts, and an epic on the Creation, Der erste Mensch und die Erde (1828), Eberhard’s work was ephemeral in character and is now forgotten. He died at Dresden on the 13th of May 1845.

His collected works (Gesammelte Schriften) appeared in 20 volumes in 1830-1831.

EBERHARD, JOHANN AUGUSTUS (1739-1809), German theologian and philosopher, was born at Halberstadt in Lower Saxony, where his father was singing-master at the church of St Martin’s, and teacher of the school of the same name. He studied theology at the university of Halle, and became tutor to the eldest son of the baron von der Horst, to whose family he attached himself for a number of years. In 1763 he was appointed con-rector of the school of St Martin’s, and second preacher in the hospital church of the Holy Ghost; but he soon afterwards resigned these offices and followed his patron to Berlin. There he met Nicolai and Moses Mendelssohn, with whom he formed a close friendship. In 1768 he became preacher or chaplain to the workhouse at Berlin and the neighbouring fishing village of Stralow. Here he wrote his Neue Apologie des Socrates (1772), a work occasioned by an attack on the fifteenth chapter of Marmontel’s Belisarius made by Peter Hofstede, a clergyman of Rotterdam, who maintained the patristic view that the virtues of the noblest pagans were only splendida peccata. Eberhard stated the arguments for the broader view with dignity, acuteness and learning, but the liberality of the reasoning gave great offence to the strictly orthodox divines, and is believed to have obstructed his preferment in the church.

In 1774 he was appointed to the living of Charlottenburg. A second volume of his Apologie appeared in 1778. In this he not only endeavoured to obviate some objections which were taken to the former part, but continued his inquiries into the doctrines of the Christian religion, religious toleration and the proper rules for interpreting the Scriptures. In 1778 he accepted the professorship of philosophy at Halle. As an academical teacher, however, he was unsuccessful. His powers as an original thinker were not equal to his learning and his literary gifts, as was shown in his opposition to the philosophy of Kant. In 1786 he was admitted a member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences; in 1805 the king of Prussia conferred upon him the honorary title of a privy-councillor. In 1808 he obtained the degree of doctor in divinity, which was given him as a reward for his theological writings. He died on the 6th of January 1809. He was master of the learned languages, spoke and wrote French with facility and correctness, and understood English, Italian and Dutch. He possessed a just and discriminating taste for the fine arts, and was a great lover of music.

Works:—Neue Apologie des Socrates, &c. (2 vols., 1772-1778); Allgemeine Theorie des Denkens und Empfindens, &c. (Berlin, 1776), an essay which gained the prize assigned by the Royal Society of Berlin for that year; Von dem Begriff der Philosophie und ihren Theilen (Berlin, 1778)—a short essay, in which he announced the plan of his lectures on being appointed to the professorship at Halle; Lobschrift auf Herrn Johann Thunmann Prof. der Weltweisheit und Beredsamkeit auf der Universität zu Halle (Halle, 1779); Amyntor, eine Geschichte in Briefen (Berlin, 1782)—written with the view of counteracting the influence of those sceptical and Epicurean principles in religion and morals then so prevalent in France, and rapidly spreading amongst the higher ranks in Germany; Über die Zeichen der Aufklärung einer Nation, &c. (Halle, 1783); Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften, &c. (Halle, 1783, 3rd ed. 1790); Vermischte Schriften (Halle, 1784); Neue vermischte Schriften (ib. 1786); Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, &c. (Halle, 1788), 2nd ed. with a continuation and chronological tables (1796); Versuch einer allgemeinen-deutschen Synonymik (Halle and Leipzig, 1795-1802, 6 vols., 4th ed. 1852-1853), long reckoned the best work on the synonyms of the German language (an abridgment of it was published by the author in one large volume, Halle, 1802); Handbuch der Aesthetik (Halle, 1803-1805, 2nd ed. 1807-1820). He also edited the Philosophisches Magazin (1788-1792) and the Philosophisches Archiv (1792-1795).

See F. Nicolai, Gedächtnisschrift auf J.A. Eberhard (Berlin and Stettin, 1810); also K.H. Jördens, Lexicon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten.

EBERLIN, JOHANN ERNST (1702-1762), German musician and composer, was born in Bavaria, and became afterwards organist in the cathedral at Salzburg, where he died. Most of his compositions were for the church (oratorios, &c.), but he also wrote some important fugues, sonatas and preludes; and his pieces were at one time highly valued by Mozart.

EBERS, GEORG MORITZ (1837-1898), German Egyptologist and novelist, was born in Berlin on the 1st of March 1837. At Göttingen he studied jurisprudence, and at Berlin oriental languages and archaeology. Having made a special study of Egyptology, he became in 1865 docent in Egyptian language and antiquities at Jena, and in 1870 he was appointed professor in these subjects at Leipzig. He had made two scientific journeys to Egypt, and his first work of importance, Ägypten und die Bücher Moses, appeared in 1867-1868. In 1874 he edited the celebrated medical papyrus (“Papyrus Ebers”) which he had discovered in Thebes (translation by H. Joachim, 1890). Ebers early conceived the idea of popularizing Egyptian lore by means of historical romances. Eine ägyptische Königstochter was published in 1864, and obtained great success. His subsequent works of the same kind—Uarda (1877), Homo sum (1878), Die Schwestern (1880), Der Kaiser (1881), of which the scene is laid in Egypt at the time of Hadrian, Serapis (1885), Die Nilbraut (1887), and Kleopatra (1894), were also well received, and did much to make the public familiar with the discoveries of Egyptologists. Ebers also turned his attention to other fields of historical fiction—especially the 16th century (Die Frau Bürgermeisterin, 1882; Die Gred, 1887)—without, however, attaining the success of his Egyptian novels. Apart from their antiquarian and historical interest, Ebers’s books have not a very high literary value. His other writings include a descriptive work on Egypt (Ägypten in Wort und Bild, 2nd ed., 1880), a guide to Egypt (1886) and a life (1885) of his old teacher, the Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius. The state of his health led him in 1889 to retire from his chair at Leipzig on a pension. He died at Tutzing in Bavaria, on the 7th of August 1898.

Ebers’s Gesammelte Werke appeared in 25 vols. at Stuttgart (1893-1895). Many of his books have been translated into English. For his life see his Die Geschichte meines Lebens (Stuttgart, 1893); also R. Gosche, G. Ebers, der Forscher und Dichter (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1887).

EBERSWALDE, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, 28 m. N.E. of Berlin by rail; on the Finow canal. Pop. (1905) 23,876. The town has a Roman Catholic and two Evangelical churches, a school of forestry, a gymnasium, a higher-grade girls’ school and two schools of domestic economy. It possesses a mineral spring, which attracts numerous summer visitors, and has various industries, which include iron-founding and the making of horse-shoe nails, roofing material and bricks. A considerable trade is carried on in grain, wood and coals. In the immediate neighbourhood are one of the chief brass-foundries in Germany and an extensive government paper-mill, in which the paper for the notes of the imperial bank is manufactured.

Eberswalde received its municipal charter in 1257. It was taken and sacked during the Thirty Years’ War. In 1747 Frederick the Great brought a colony of Thuringian cutlers to the town, but this branch of industry has entirely died out. About 4 m. to the north lies the old Cistercian monastery of Chorin, the fine Gothic church of which contains the tombs of several margraves of Brandenburg.

EBERT, FRIEDRICH ADOLF (1791-1834), German bibliographer, was born at Taucha, near Leipzig, on the 9th of July 1791, the son of a Lutheran pastor. At the age of fifteen he was appointed to a subordinate post in the municipal library of Leipzig. He studied theology for a short time at Leipzig, and afterwards philology at Wittenberg, where he graduated doctor in philosophy in 1812. While still a student he had already published, in 1811, a work on public libraries, and in 1812 another work entitled Hierarchiae in religionem ac literas commoda. In 1813 he was attached to the Leipzig University library, and in 1814 was appointed secretary to the Royal library of Dresden. The same year he published F. Taubmanns Leben und Verdienste, and in 1819 Torquato Tasso, a translation from Pierre Louis Ginguené with annotations. The rich resources open to him in the Dresden library enabled him to undertake the work on which his reputation chiefly rests, the Allgemeines bibliographisches Lexikon, the first volume of which appeared in 1821 and the second in 1830. This was the first work of the kind produced in Germany, and the most scientific published anywhere. From 1823 to 1825 Ebert was librarian to the duke of Brunswick at Wolfenbüttel, but returning to Dresden was made, in 1827, chief librarian of the Dresden Royal library. Among his other works are—Die Bildung des Bibliothekars (1820), Geschichte und Beschreibung der königlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek in Dresden (1822), Zur Handschriftenkunde (1825-1827), and Culturperioden des obersächsischen Mittelalters (1825). Ebert was a contributor to various journals and took part in the editing of Ersch and Gruber’s great encyclopaedia. He died at Dresden on the 13th of November 1834, in consequence of a fall from the ladder in his library.

See the article in Ersch und Grubers Encyclopädie, and that in the Allg. deutsche Biog. by his successor in the post of chief librarian in Dresden, Schnorr von Carolsfeld.

EBINGEN, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Württemberg, on the Schmiecha, a left-hand tributary of the Danube, 22 m. S. of Tübingen and 37 m. W. of Ulm by rail. It manufactures velvet and cotton-velvet (“Manchester”) goods, stockings, stays, hats, needles, tools, &c. There are also tanneries. Pop. 9000.

EBIONITES (Heb. אביונם, “poor men”), a name given to the ultra-Jewish party in the early Christian church. It is first met with in Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. i. 26. 2), who sheds no light on the origin of the Ebionites, but says that while they admit the world to have been made by the true God (in contrast to the Demiurge of the Gnostics), they held Cerinthian views on the person of Christ, used only the Gospel of Matthew (probably the Gospel according to the Hebrews—so Eusebius), and rejected Paul as an apostate from the Mosaic Law, to the customs and ordinances of which, including circumcision, they steadily adhered. A similar account is given by Hippolytus (Haer. vii. 35), who invents a founder named Ebion. Origen (Contra Celsum, v. 61; In Matt. tom. xvi. 12) divides the Ebionites into two classes according to their acceptance or rejection of the virgin birth of Jesus, but says that all alike reject the Pauline epistles. This is confirmed by Eusebius, who adds that even those who admitted the virgin birth did not accept the pre-existence of Jesus as Logos and Sophia. They kept both the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lord’s day, and held extreme millenarian ideas in which Jerusalem figured as the centre of the coming Messianic kingdom. Epiphanius with his customary confusion makes two separate sects, Ebionites and Nazarenes. Both names, however, refer to the same people (the Jewish Christians of Syria), the latter going back to the designation of apostolic times (Acts xxiv. 5), and the former being the term usually applied to them in the ecclesiastical literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

The origin of the Nazarenes or Ebionites as a distinct sect is very obscure, but may be dated with much likelihood from the edict of Hadrian which in 135 finally scattered the old church of Jerusalem. While Christians of the type of Aristo of Pella and Hegesippus, on the snapping of the old ties, were gradually assimilated to the great church outside, the more conservative section became more and more isolated and exclusive. “It may have been then that they called themselves the Poor Men, probably as claiming to be the true representatives of those who had been blessed in the Sermon on the Mount, but possibly adding to the name other associations.” Out of touch with the main stream of the church they developed a new kind of pharisaism. Doctrinally they stood not so much for a theology as for a refusal of theology, and, rejecting the practical liberalism of Paul, became the natural heirs of those early Judaizers who had caused the apostle so much annoyance and trouble.

Though there is insufficient justification for dividing the Ebionites into two separate and distinct communities, labelled respectively Ebionites and Nazarenes, we have good evidence, not only that there were grades of Christological thought among them, but that a considerable section, at the end of the 2nd century and the beginning of the 3rd, exchanged their simple Judaistic creed for a strange blend of Essenism and Christianity. These are known as the Helxaites or Elchasaites, for they accepted as a revelation the “book of Elchasai,” and one Alcibiades of Apamea undertook a mission to Rome about 220 to propagate its teaching. It was claimed that Christ, as an angel 96 miles high, accompanied by the Holy Spirit, as a female angel of the same stature, had given the revelation to Elchasai in the 3rd year of Trajan (A.D. 100), but the book was probably quite new in Alcibiades’ time. It taught that Christ was an angel born of human parents, and had appeared both before (e.g. in Adam and Moses) and after this birth in Judea. His coming did not annul the Law, for he was merely a prophet and teacher; Paul was wrong and circumcision still necessary. Baptism must be repeated as a means of purification from sin, and proof against disease; the sinner immerses himself “in the name of the mighty and most high God,” invoking the “seven witnesses” (sky, water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt and earth), and pledging himself to amendment. Abstinence from flesh was also enjoined, and a good deal of astrological fancy was interwoven with the doctrinal and practical teaching. It is highly probable, too, that from these Essene Ebionites there issued the fantastical and widely read “Clementine” literature (Homilies and Recognitions) of the 3rd century. Ebionite views lingered especially in the country east of the Jordan until they were absorbed by Islam in the 7th century.

In addition to the literature cited see R.C. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, part iii. § ii.; W. Moeller, Hist. of the Christian Church, i. 99; art. in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie, s.v. “Ebioniten”; also Clementine Literature.

So A. Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, i. 301, and F.J.A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 199. Th. Zahn and J.B. Lightfoot (“St. Paul and the Three,” in Commentary on Galatians) maintain the distinction.

EBNER-ESCHENBACH, MARIE, Freifrau von (1830- ), Austrian novelist, was born at Zdislavič in Moravia, on the 13th of September 1830, the daughter of a Count Dubsky. She lost her mother in early infancy, but received a careful intellectual training from two stepmothers. In 1848 she married the Austrian captain, and subsequent field-marshal, Moritz von Ebner-Eschenbach, and resided first at Vienna, then at Klosterbruck, where her husband had a military charge, and after 1860 again at Vienna. The marriage was childless, and the talented wife sought consolation in literary work. In her endeavours she received assistance and encouragement from Franz Grillparzer and Freiherr von Münch-Bellinghausen. Her first essay was with the drama Maria Stuart in Schottland, which Philipp Eduard Devrient produced at the Karlsruhe theatre in 1860. After some other unsuccessful attempts in the field of drama, she found her true sphere in narrative. Commencing with Die Prinzessin von Banalien (1872), she graphically depicts in Božena (Stuttgart, 1876, 4th ed. 1899) and Das Gemeindekind (Berlin, 1887, 4th ed. 1900) the surroundings of her Moravian home, and in Lotti, die Uhrmacherin (Berlin, 1883, 4th ed. 1900), Zwei Comtessen (Berlin, 1885, 5th ed. 1898), Unsühnbar (1890, 5th ed. 1900) and Glaubenslos? (1893) the life of the Austrian aristocracy in town and country. She also published Neue Erzählungen (Berlin, 1881, 3rd ed. 1894), Aphorismen (Berlin, 1880, 4th ed. 1895) and Parabeln, Märchen und Gedichte (2nd ed., Berlin, 1892). Frau von Ebner-Eschenbach’s elegance of style, her incisive wit and masterly depiction of character give her a foremost place among the German women-writers of her time. On the occasion of her seventieth birthday the university of Vienna conferred upon her the degree of doctor of philosophy, honoris causa.

An edition of Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach’s Gesammelte Schriften began to appear in 1893 (Berlin). See A. Bettelheim, Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach: biographische Blätter (Berlin, 1900), and M. Necker, Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach, nach ihren Werken geschildert (Berlin, 1900).

EBOLI (anc. Eburum), a town of Campania, Italy, in the province of Salerno, from which it is 16 m. E. by rail, situated 470 ft. above sea-level, on the S. edge of the hills overlooking the valley of the Sele. Pop. (1901) 9642 (town), 12,423 (commune). The sacristy of St Francesco contains two 14th-century pictures, one by Roberto da Oderisio of Naples. The ancient Eburum was a Lucanian city, mentioned only by Pliny and in inscriptions, not far distant from the Campanian border. It lay above the Via Popillia, which followed the line taken by the modern railway. Some scanty remains of its ancient polygonal walls may still be seen.

(T. As.)

EBONY (Gr. ἔβενος), the wood of various species of trees of the genus Diospyros (natural order Ebenaceae), widely distributed in the tropical parts of the world. The best kinds are very heavy, are of a deep black, and consist of heart-wood only. On account of its colour, durability, hardness and susceptibility of polish, ebony is much used for cabinet work and inlaying, and for the manufacture of pianoforte-keys, knife-handles and turned articles. The best Indian and Ceylon ebony is furnished by D. Ebenum, a native of southern India and Ceylon, which grows in great abundance throughout the flat country west of Trincomalee. The tree is distinguished from others by the inferior width of its trunk, and its jet-black, charred-looking bark, beneath which the wood is perfectly white until the heart is reached. The wood is stated to excel that obtained from D. reticulata of the Mauritius and all other varieties of ebony in the fineness and intensity of its dark colour. Although the centre of the tree alone is employed, reduced logs 1 to 3 ft. in diameter can readily be procured. Much of the East Indian ebony is yielded by the species D. Melanoxylon (Coromandel ebony), a large tree attaining a height of 60 to 80 ft., and 8 to 10 ft. in circumference, with irregular rigid branches, and oblong or oblong-lanceolate leaves. The bark of the tree is astringent, and mixed with pepper is used in dysentery by the natives of India. The wood of D. tomentosa, a native of north Bengal, is black, hard and of great weight. D. montana, another Indian species, produces a yellowish-grey soft but durable wood. D. quaesita is the tree from which is obtained the wood known in Ceylon by the name Calamander, derived by Pridham from the Sinhalee kalumindrie, black-flowing. Its closeness of grain, great hardness and fine hazel-brown colour, mottled and striped with black, render it a valuable material for veneering and furniture making. D. Dendo, a native of Angola, is a valuable timber tree, 25 to 35 ft. high, with a trunk 1 to 2 ft. in diameter. The heart-wood is very black and hard and is known as black ebony, also as billet-wood, and Gabun, Lagos, Calabar or Niger ebony. What is termed Jamaica or West Indian ebony, and also the green ebony of commerce, are produced by Brya Ebenus, a leguminous tree or shrub, having a trunk rarely more than 4 in. in diameter, flexible spiny branches, and orange-yellow, sweet-scented flowers. The heart-wood is rich dark brown in colour, heavier than water, exceedingly hard and capable of receiving a high polish.

From the book of Ezekiel (xxvii. 15) we learn that ebony was among the articles of merchandise brought to Tyre; and Herodotus states (iii. 97) that the Ethiopians every three years sent a tribute of 200 logs of it to Persia. Ebony was known to Virgil as a product of India (Georg. ii. 116), and was displayed by Pompey the Great in his Mithradatic triumph at Rome. By the ancients it was esteemed of equal value for durability with the cypress and cedar (see Pliny, Nat. Hist. xii. 9, xvi. 79). According to Solinus (Polyhistor, cap. lv. p. 353, Paris, 1621), it was employed by the kings of India for sceptres and images, also, on account of its supposed antagonism to poison, for drinking-cups. The hardness and black colour of the wood appear to have given rise to the tradition related by Pausanias, and alluded to by Southey in Thalaba, i. 22, that the ebony tree produced neither leaves nor fruit, and was never seen exposed to the sun.

EBRARD, JOHANNES HEINRICH AUGUST (1818-1888), German theologian, was born at Erlangen on the 18th of January 1818. He was educated in his native town and at Berlin, and after teaching in a private family became Privatdocent at Erlangen (1841) and then professor of theology at Zürich (1844). In 1847 he was appointed professor of theology at Erlangen, a chair which he resigned in 1861; in 1875 he became pastor of the French reformed church in the same city. As a critic Ebrard occupied a very moderate standpoint; as a writer his chief works were Christliche Dogmatik (2 vols., 1851), Vorlesungen über praktische Theologie (1864), Apologetik (1874-1875, Eng. trans. 1886). He also edited and completed H. Olshausen’s commentary, himself writing the volumes on the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Johannine Epistles, and Revelation. In the department of belles-lettres he wrote a good deal under such pseudonyms as Christian Deutsch, Gottfried Flammberg and Sigmund Sturm. He died at Erlangen on the 23rd of July 1888.

EBRO (anc. Iberus or Hiberus), the only one of the five great rivers of the Iberian Peninsula (Tagus, Douro, Ebro, Guadalquivir, Guadiana) which flows into the Mediterranean. The Ebro rises at Fuentibre, a hamlet among the Cantabrian Mountains, in the province of Santander; at Reinosa, 4 m. east, it is joined on the right by the Hijar, and thus gains considerably in volume. It flows generally east by south through a tortuous valley as far as Miranda de Ebro, passing through the celebrated Roman bridge known as La Horadada (“the perforated”), near Oña in Burgos. From Miranda it winds south-eastward through the wide basin enclosed on the right by the highlands of Old Castile and western Aragon, and on the left by the Pyrenees. The chief cities on its banks are Logroño, Calahorra, Tudela, Saragossa and Caspe. Near Mora in Catalonia it forces a way through the coastal mountains, and, passing Tortosa, falls into the Mediterranean about 80 m. south-west of Barcelona, after forming by its delta a conspicuous projection on the otherwise regular coast line. In its length, approximately 465 m., the Ebro is inferior to the Tagus, Guadiana and Douro; it drains an area of nearly 32,000 sq. m. Its principal tributaries are—from the right hand the Jalon with its affluent the Jiloca, the Huerva, Aguas, Martin, Guadalope and Matarraña; from the left the Ega, Aragon, Arba, Gallego, and the Segre with its intricate system of confluent rivers. The Ebro and its tributaries have been utilized for irrigation since the Moorish conquest; the main stream becomes navigable by small boats about Tudela; but its value as a means of communication is almost neutralized by the obstacles in its channel, and seafaring vessels cannot proceed farther up than Tortosa. The great Imperial Canal, begun under the emperor Charles V. (1500-1558), proceeds along the right bank of the river from a point about 3 m. below Tudela, to El Burgo de Ebro, 5 m. below Saragossa; the irrigation canal of Tauste skirts the opposite bank for a shorter distance; and the San Carlos or New Canal affords direct communication between Amposta at the head of the delta and the harbour of Los Alfaques. From Miranda to Mora the Bilbao-Tarragona railway follows the course of the Ebro along the right bank.

EBROÏN (d. 681), Frankish “mayor of the palace,” was a Neustrian, and wished to impose the authority of Neustria over Burgundy and Austrasia. In 656, at the moment of his accession to power, Sigebert III., the king of Austrasia, had just died, and the Austrasian mayor of the palace, Grimoald, was attempting to usurp the authority. The great nobles, however, appealed to the king of Neustria, Clovis II., and unity was re-established. But in spite of a very firm policy Ebroïn was unable to maintain this unity, and while Clotaire III., son of Clovis II., reigned in Neustria and Burgundy, he was obliged in 660 to give the Austrasians a special king, Childeric II., brother of Clotaire III., and a special mayor of the palace, Wulfoald. He endeavoured to maintain at any rate the union of Neustria and Burgundy, but the great Burgundian nobles wished to remain independent, and rose under St Leger (Leodegar), bishop of Autun, defeated Ebroïn, and interned him in the monastery of Luxeuil (670). A proclamation was then issued to the effect that each kingdom should keep its own laws and customs, that there should be no further interchange of functionaries between the kingdoms, and that no one should again set up a tyranny like that of Ebroïn. Soon, however, Leger was defeated by Wulfoald and the Austrasians, and was himself confined at Luxeuil in 673. In the same year, taking advantage of the general anarchy, Ebroïn and Leger left the cloister and soon found themselves once more face to face. Each looked for support to a different Merovingian king, Ebroïn even proclaiming a false Merovingian as sovereign. In this struggle Leger was vanquished; he was besieged in Autun, was forced to surrender and had his eyes put out, and, on the 12th of October 678, he was put to death after undergoing prolonged tortures. The church honours him as a saint. After his death Ebroïn became sole and absolute ruler of the Franks, imposing his authority over Burgundy and subduing the Austrasians, whom he defeated in 678 at Bois-du-Fay, near Laon. His triumph, however, was short-lived; he was assassinated in 681, the victim of a combined attack of his numerous enemies. He was a man of great energy, but all his actions seem to have been dictated by no higher motives than ambition and lust of power.

See Liber historiae Francorum, edited by B. Krusch, in Mon. Germ. hist. script. rer. Merov. vol. ii.; Vita sancti Leodegarii, by Ursinus, a monk of St Maixent (Migne, Patr. Latina, vol. xcvi.); “Vita metrica” in Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, vol. iii. (Mon. Germ. hist.); J.B. Pitra, Histoire de Saint Léger (Paris, 1846); and J. Friedrich, “Zur Gesch. des Hausmeiers Ebroïn,” in the Proceedings of the Academy of Munich (1887, pp. 42-61).

(C. Pf.)

EBURĀCUM, or Eborācum (probably a later variant), the Roman name of York (q.v.) in England. Established about A.D. 75-80 as fortress of the Ninth legion and garrisoned (after the annihilation of that legion about A.D. 118) by the Sixth legion, it developed outside its walls a town of civil life, which later obtained Roman municipal rank and in the 4th century was the seat of a Christian bishop. The fortress and town were separated by the Ouse. On the left bank, where the minster stands, was the fortress, of which the walls can still be partly traced, and one corner (the so-called Multangular Tower) survives. The municipality occupied the right bank near the present railway station. The place was important for its garrison and as an administrative centre, and the town itself was prosperous, though probably never very large. The name is preserved in the abbreviated form Ebor in the official name of the archbishop of York, but the philological connexion between Eboracum and the modern name York is doubtful and has probably been complicated by Danish influence.

(F. J. H.)

EÇA DE QUEIROZ, JOSÉ MARIA (1843-1900), Portuguese writer, was born at the northern fishing town of Povoa de Varzim, his father being a retired judge. He went through the university of Coimbra, and on taking his degree in law was appointed Administrador de Concelho at Leiria, but soon tired of the narrow mental atmosphere of the old cathedral town and left it. He accompanied the Conde de Rezende to Egypt, where he assisted at the opening of the Suez Canal, and to Palestine, and on his return settled down to journalism in Lisbon and began to evolve a style, at once magical and unique, which was to renovate his country’s prose. Though he spent much of his days with the philosopher sonneteer Anthero de Quental, and the critic Jayme Batalha Reis, afterwards consul-general in London, he did not restrict his intimacy to men of letters, but frequented all kinds of society, acquiring a complete acquaintance with contemporary Portuguese life and manners. Entering the consular service in 1872, he went to Havana, and, after a tour in the United States, was transferred two years later to Newcastle-on-Tyne and in 1876 to Bristol. In 1888 he became Portuguese consul-general in Paris, and there died in 1900.

Queiroz made his literary début in 1870 by a sensational story, The Mystery of the Cintra Road, written in collaboration with the art critic Ramalho Ortigão, but the first publication which brought him fame was The Farpas, a series of satirical and humorous sketches of various phases of social life, which, to quote the poet Guerra Junqueiro, contain “the epilepsy of talent.” These essays, the joint production of the same partners, criticized and ridiculed the faults and foibles of every class in turn, mainly by a comparison with the French, for the education of Queiroz had made him a Frenchman in ideas and sympathies. His Brazilian friend, Eduardo Prado, bears witness that at this period French literature, especially Hugo’s verse, and even French politics, interested Queiroz profoundly, while he altogether ignored the belles-lettres of his own country and its public affairs. This phase lasted for some years, and even when he travelled in the East he was inclined to see it with the eyes of Flaubert, though the publication of The Relic and that delightful prose poem Sweet Miracle afterwards showed that he had been directly impressed and deeply penetrated by its scenery, poetry and mysticism. The Franco-German War of 1870, however, by lowering the prestige of France, proved the herald of a national Portuguese revival, and had a great influence on Queiroz, as also had his friend Oliveira Martins (q.v.), the biographer of the patriot kings of the Aviz dynasty. He founded the Portuguese Realist-Naturalist school, of which he remained for the rest of his life the chief exponent, by a powerful romance, The Crime of Father Amaro, written in 1871 at Leiria but only issued in 1875. Its appearance then led to a baseless charge that he had plagiarized La Faute de l’Abbé Mouret, and ill-informed critics began to name Queiroz the Portuguese Zola, though he clearly occupied an altogether different plane in the domain of art. During his stay in England he produced two masterpieces, Cousin Basil and The Maias, but they show no traces of English influence, nor again are they French in tone, for, living near to France, his disillusionment progressed and was completed when he went to Paris and had to live under the régime of the Third Republic. Settling at Neuilly, the novelist became chronicler, critic, and letter-writer as well, and in all these capacities Queiroz displayed a spontaneity, power and artistic finish unequalled in the literature of his country since the death of Garrett. A bold draughtsman, he excelled in freshness of imagination and careful choice and collocation of words, while his warmth of colouring and brilliance of language speak of the south. Many of his pages descriptive of natural scenery, such for instance as the episode of the return to Tormes in The City and the Mountains, have taken rank as classic examples of Portuguese prose, while as a creator of characters he stood unsurpassed by any writer of his generation in the same field. He particularly loved to draw and judge the middle class, and he mocks at and chastises its hypocrisy and narrowness, its veneer of religion and culture, its triumphant lying, its self-satisfied propriety, its cruel egotism. But though he manifested a predilection for middle-class types, his portrait gallery comprises men and women of all social conditions. The Maias, his longest book, treats of fidalgos, while perhaps his most remarkable character study is of a servant, Juliana, in Cousin Basil. At least two of his books, this latter and The Crime of Father Amaro, are chroniques scandaleuses in their plots and episodes; these volumes, however, mark not only the high-water line of the Realist-Naturalist school in Portugal, but are in themselves, leaving aside all accidentals, creative achievements of a high order.

Though Queiroz was a keen satirist of the ills of society, his pages show hardly a trace of pessimism. The City and the Mountains, and in part The Relic also, reveal the apostle of Realism as an idealist and dreamer, a true representative of that Celtic tradition which survives in the race and has permeated the whole literature of Portugal. The Mandarin, a fantastic variation on the old theme of a man self-sold to Satan, and The Illustrious House of Ramires, are the only other writings of his that require mention, except The Correspondence of Fradique Mendes. In conjunction with Anthero de Quental and Jayme Batalha Reis, Queiroz invented under that name a smart man of the world who had something of himself and something of Eduardo Prado, and made him correspond on all sorts of subjects with imaginary friends and relatives to the delight of the public, many of whom saw in him a mysterious new writer whose identity they were eager to discover. These sparkling and humorous letters are an especial favourite with admirers of Queiroz, because they reveal so much of his very attractive personality, and perhaps the cleverest of the number, that on Pacheco, has received an English dress. In addition to his longer and more important works, Queiroz wrote a number of short stories, some of which have been printed in a volume under the title of Contos. The gems of this remarkable collection are perhaps The Peculiarities of a Fair-haired Girl, A Lyric Poet, José Matthias, The Corpse, and Sweet Miracle.

Most of his books have gone through many editions, and they are even more appreciated in the Brazils than in Portugal. It should be mentioned that the fourth edition of Father Amaro is entirely different in form and action from the first, the whole story having been rewritten. One of Queiroz’s romances and two of his short stories have been published in English. An unsatisfactory version of Cousin Basil, under the title Dragon’s Teeth, appeared at Boston, U.S.A., in 1889, while Sweet Miracle has had three editions in England and one in America, and there is also a translation of O Defunto (The Corpse) under the name of Our Lady of the Pillar.

An admirable critical study of the work of Queiroz will be found in A Geração Nova—Os Novellistas, by J. Pereira de Sampaio (Bruno), (Oporto, 1886). The Revista moderna of the 20th of November 1897 was entirely devoted to him. Senhor Batalha Reis gives interesting reminiscences of the novelist’s early days in his preface to some prose fragments edited by him and named Prosas Barbaras (Oporto, 1903).

(E. Pr.)

ÉCARTÉ (Fr. for “separated,” “discarded”), a game at cards, of modern origin, probably first played in the Paris salons in the first quarter of the 19th century. It is a development of a very old card game called la triomphe or French-ruff. Écarté is generally played by two persons, but a pool of three may be formed, the player who is out taking the place of the loser, and the winner of two consecutive games winning the pool. At French écarté (but not at English) bystanders who are betting may advise the players, but only by pointing to the cards they desire them to play, and the loser of the game goes out, one of the rentrants taking his place, unless the loser is playing la chouette, i.e. playing single-handed against two, and taking all bets.

The small cards (from the two to the six, both inclusive) are removed from an ordinary pack. The players cut for deal, the highest having the choice. The king is the highest card, the ace ranking after the knave. The dealer gives five cards to his adversary, and five to himself, by two at a time to each and by three at a time to each, or vice versa. The eleventh card is turned up for trumps. If it is a king, the dealer scores one, at any time before the next deal. The non-dealer then looks at his cards. If satisfied with them he plays, and there is no discarding; if not satisfied he “proposes.” The dealer may either accept or refuse. If he accepts, each player discards face downwards as many cards as he thinks fit, and fresh ones are given from the undealt cards or “stock,” first to complete the non-dealer’s hand to five, then to complete the dealer’s. To ask for “a book” is to ask for five cards. Similarly a second proposal may be made, and so on, until one player is satisfied with his hand. If the dealer refuses, the hand is played without discarding. If the non-dealer announces that he holds the king of trumps, he scores one; and similarly, if the dealer holds the king and announces it, he scores one. The announcement must be made before playing one’s first card, or if that card be the king, on playing it. The non-dealer, being satisfied with his hand, leads a card. The dealer plays a card to it, the two cards thus played forming a trick. The winner of the trick leads to the next, and so on. The second to play to a trick must follow suit if able, and must win the trick if he can.

The scores are for the king and for the majority of tricks. The player who wins three tricks scores one for the “point”; if he wins all five tricks, he scores two for the “vole.” If the non-dealer plays without proposing, or the dealer refuses the first proposal, and fails to win three tricks, the adversary scores two, but no more even if he wins the vole. The game is five up. The points are conveniently marked with a three-card and a two-card, as at euchre. The three is put face upwards with the two face downwards on the top of it. When one or two or three points are scored the top card is moved so as to expose them. At four, one pip of the two-card is put under the other card. Games may be recorded similarly.

Hints to Players.—The following hints may be of service to beginners:—

Shuffle thoroughly after every deal.

Do not announce the king until in the act of playing your first card.

The hands which should be played without proposing, called jeux de règle (standard hands), ought to be thoroughly known. They are as follows:—

1. All hands with three or more trumps, whatever the other cards.

2. Hands with two trumps which contain also—

(a) Any three cards of one plain suit;

(b) Two cards of one plain suit, one being as high as a queen;

(c) Two small cards of one suit, the fifth card being a king of another suit;

(d) Three high cards of different suits.

3. Hands with one trump, which contain also—

(a) King, queen, knave of one suit, and a small card of another;

(b) Four cards of one suit headed by king;

(c) Three cards of one suit headed by queen, and queen of another suit.

4. Hands with no trump, which contain three queens or cards of equal value in different suits, e.g., four court cards.

5. Hands from which only two cards can be discarded without throwing a king or a trump.

Holding cards which make the point certain, propose. If you hold a jeu de règle, and one of the trumps is the king, propose, as your adversary cannot then take in the king.

When discarding, throw out all cards except trumps and kings.

If your adversary proposes you should accept, unless you are guarded in three suits (a queen being a sufficient guard), or in two suits with a trump, or in one suit with two trumps. Hence the rule not to discard two cards, unless holding the king of trumps, applies to the dealer.

The hands with which to refuse are the same as those with which to play without proposing, except as follows:—

1. Two trumps and three cards of one plain suit should not be played unless the plain suit is headed by a court card.

2. One trump and a tierce major is too weak, unless the fifth card is a court card. With similar hands weaker in the tierce major suit, accept unless the fifth card is a queen.

3. One trump and four cards of a plain suit is too weak to play.

4. One trump and two queens is too weak, unless both queens are singly guarded.

5. One trump, queen of one suit, and knave guarded of another should not be played unless the queen is also guarded, or the card of the fourth suit is a court card.

6. One trump, a king and a queen, both unguarded, should not be played, unless the fourth suit contains a card as high as an ace.

7. Four court cards without a trump are too weak to play, unless they are of three different suits.

Refuse with three queens, if two are singly guarded; otherwise, accept.

Lead from your guarded suit, and lead the highest.

If the strong suit led is not trumped, persevere with it, unless with king of trumps, or queen (king not having been announced), or knave ace, when lead a trump before continuing your suit.

You should not lead trumps at starting, unless you hold king or queen, knave, or knave ace, with court cards out of trumps.

The score has to be considered. If the dealer is at four, and the king is not in your hand nor turned up, play any cards without proposing which give an even chance of three tricks, e.g. a queen, a guarded knave, and a guarded ten. The same rule applies to the dealer’s refusal.

At the adverse score of four, and king not being in hand or turned up, any hand with one trump should be played, unless the plain cards are very small and of different suits.

If the non-dealer plays without proposing when he is four to three, and the dealer holds the king he ought not to mark it. The same rule applies to the non-dealer after a refusal, if the dealer is four to three.

At the score of non-dealer three, dealer four, the dealer should refuse on moderate cards, as the player proposing at this score must have a very bad hand.

At four a forward game should not be played in trumps, as there is no advantage in winning the vole.

Laws of Écarté.—The following laws are abridged from the revised code adopted by the Turf Club:—A cut must consist of at least two cards. Card exposed in cutting, fresh cut. Order of distribution of cards, whether by three and two, or vice versa, once selected, dealer must not change it during game. Player announcing king when he has not got it, and playing a card without declaring error, adversary may correct score and have hand played over again. If offender wins point or vole that hand, he scores one less than he wins. Proposal, acceptance, or refusal made cannot be retracted. Cards discarded must not be looked at. Cards exposed in giving cards to non-dealer, he has option of taking them or of having next cards; dealer exposing his own cards, no penalty. Dealer turning up top card after giving cards, cannot refuse second discard. Dealer accepting when too few cards in stock to supply both, non-dealer may take cards, and dealer must play his hand. Card led in turn cannot be taken up again. Card played to a lead can only be taken up prior to another lead, to save revoke or to correct error of not winning trick. Card led out of turn may be taken up prior to its being played to. Player naming one suit and leading another, adversary has option of requiring suit named to be led. If offender has none, no penalty. Player abandoning hand, adversary is deemed to win remaining tricks, and scores accordingly. If a player revokes or does not win trick when he can do so, the adversary may correct score and have hand replayed.

See Académie des jeux (various editions after the first quarter of the 19th century); Hoyle’s Games (various editions about the same dates); Ch. Van-Tenac et Louis Delanoue, Traité du jeu de l’écarté (Paris, 1845; translated in Bohn’s Handbook of Games, London, 1850); “Cavendish,” The Laws of Écarté, adopted by the Turf Club, with a Treatise on the Game (London, 1878); Pocket Guide to Écarté (“Cavendish,” 1897); Foster’s Encyclopaedia of Indoor Games (1903).

ECBATANA (Agbatana in Aeschylus, Haňgmatāna in Old Persian, written Agamtanu by Nabonidos, and Agamatanu at Behistun, mod. Hamadān), the capital of Astyages (Istuvegu), which was taken by Cyrus in the sixth year of Nabonidos (549 B.C.). The Greeks supposed it to be the capital of Media, confusing the Manda, of whom Astyages was king, with the Madā or Medes of Media Atropatene, and ascribed its foundation to Deioces (the Daiukku of the cuneiform inscriptions), who is said to have surrounded his palace in it with seven concentric walls of different colours. Under the Persian kings, Ecbatana, situated at the foot of Mount Elvend, became a summer residence; and was afterwards the capital of the Parthian kings. Sir H. Rawlinson attempted to prove that there was a second and older Ecbatana in Media Atropatene, on the site of the modern Takht-i-Suleiman, midway between Hamadan and Tabriz (J.R.G.S. x. 1841), but the cuneiform texts imply that there was only one city of the name, and Takht-i-Suleiman is the Gazaca of classical geography. The Ecbatana at which Cambyses is said by Herodotus (iii. 64) to have died is probably a blunder for Hamath.

See Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Persia (Eng. trans., 1892); M. Dieulafoy, L’Art antique de la Perse, pt. i. (1884); J. de Morgan, Mission scientifique en Perse, ii. (1894). See Hamadan and Persia: Ancient History, § v. 2.

(A. H. S.)

ECCARD, JOHANN (1553-1611), German composer of church music, was born at Mühlhausen on the Unstrut, Prussia, in 1553. At the age of eighteen he went to Munich, where he became the pupil of Orlando Lasso. In his company Eccard is said to have visited Paris, but in 1574 we find him again at Mühlhausen, where he resided for four years, and edited, together with Johann von Burgk, his first master, a collection of sacred songs, called Crepundia sacra Helmboldi (1577). Soon afterwards he obtained an appointment as musician in the house of Jacob Fugger, the Augsburg banker. In 1583 he became assistant conductor, and in 1599 conductor, at Königsberg, to Georg Friedrich, margrave of Brandenburg-Anspach, the administrator of Prussia. In 1608 he was called by the elector Joachim Friedrich to Berlin as chief conductor, but this post he held only for three years, owing to his premature death at Königsberg in 1611. Eccard’s works consist exclusively of vocal compositions, such as songs, sacred cantatas and chorales for four or five, and sometimes for seven, eight, or even nine voices. Their polyphonic structure is a marvel of art, and still excites the admiration of musicians. At the same time his works are instinct with a spirit of true religious feeling. His setting of the beautiful words “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott” is still regarded by the Germans as their representative national hymn. Eccard and his school are inseparably connected with the history of the Reformation.

Of Eccard’s songs a great many collections are extant; see K.G.A. von Winterfeld, Der Evangelische Kirchengesang (1843); Döring (Choralkunde, p. 47).

ECCELINO [or Ezzelino] DA ROMANO (1194-1259), Ghibelline leader, and supporter of the emperor Frederick II., was born on the 25th of April 1194. He belonged to a family descended from a German knight named Eccelin, who followed the emperor Conrad II. to Italy about 1036, and received the fief of Romano near Padua. Eccelin’s grandson was Eccelino III., surnamed the Monk, who divided his lands between his two sons in 1223, and died in 1235. The elder of these two sons was Eccelino, who in early life began to take part in family and other feuds, and in 1226, at the head of a band of Ghibellines, seized Verona and became podestà of the city. He soon lost Verona, but regained it in 1230; and about this time came into relations with Frederick II., who in 1232 issued a charter confirming him in his possessions. In 1236 when besieged in Verona he was saved by the advance of the emperor, who in November of the same year took Vicenza and entrusted its government to Eccelino. In 1237 he obtained authority over Padua and Treviso; and on the 27th of November in that year he shared in the victory gained by the emperor over the Lombards at Cortenuova. In 1238 he married Frederick’s natural daughter, Selvaggia; in 1239 was appointed imperial vicar of the march of Treviso; but in the same year was excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX. He was constantly engaged in increasing his possessions; was present at the siege of Parma in 1247, and after Frederick’s death in 1250 he supported his son, the German king Conrad IV. His cruelties had, however, aroused general disgust, and in 1254 he was again excommunicated. In 1256 Pope Alexander IV. proclaimed a crusade against him, and a powerful league was soon formed under the leadership of Philip, archbishop of Ravenna. Padua was taken from Eccelino, but on the 1st of September 1258 he defeated his enemies at Torricella. He then made an attempt on Milan, and the rival forces met at Cassano on the 27th of September 1259, when Eccelino was wounded and taken prisoner. Enraged at his capture, he tore the bandages from his wounds, refused to take nourishment, and died at Soncino on the 7th of October 1259. In the following year his brother Albert was put to death, and the Romano family became extinct. Eccelino, who is sometimes called the tyrant, acquired a terrible reputation on account of his cruelties, a reputation that won for him the immortality of inclusion in Dante’s Inferno; but his unswerving loyalty to Frederick II. forms a marked contrast to the attitude of many of his contemporaries.

Eccelino is the subject of a novel by Cesare Cantu and of a drama by J. Eichendorff.

See J.M. Gittermann, Ezzelino da Romano (Freiburg, 1890); S. Mitis, Storia d’ Ezzelino IV. da Romano (Maddaloni, 1896); and F. Stieve, Ezzelino von Romano (Leipzig, 1909).

ECCENTRIC (from Gr. ἐκ, out of, and κέντρον, centre), literally “out from the centre,” and thus used to connote generally any deviation from the normal. In astronomy the word denotes a circle round which a body revolves, but whose centre is displaced from the visible centre of motion. In the ancient astronomy the ellipses in which it is now known that the planets revolve around the sun could not be distinguished from circles, but the unequal angular motion due to ellipticity was observed. The theory of the eccentric was that the centre of the epicycle of each planet moved uniformly in a circle, the centre of which was displaced from that of the earth by an amount double the eccentricity of the actual ellipse, as the case is now understood. When measured around this imaginary centre, which is so situated on the major axis of the ellipse that the focus, or place of the real sun, is midway between it and the centre of the ellipse, the motion is approximately uniform. In engineering, an eccentric is a mechanical device for converting rotary into reciprocating motion (see Steam-engine). For eccentric angle see Ellipse.

ECCHELLENSIS (or Echellensis), ABRAHAM (d. 1664), a learned Maronite, whose surname is derived from Eckel in Syria, where he was born towards the close of the 16th century. He was educated at the Maronite college in Rome, and, after taking his doctor’s degree in theology and philosophy, returned for a time to his native land. He then became professor of Arabic and Syriac in the college of the Propaganda at Rome. Called to Paris in 1640 to assist Le Jay in the preparation of his polyglot Bible, he contributed to that work the Arabic and Latin versions of the book of Ruth and the Arabic version of the third book of Maccabees. In 1646 he was appointed professor of Syriac and Arabic at the Collège de France. Being invited by the Congregation of the Propaganda to take part in the preparation of an Arabic version of the Bible, Ecchellensis went again in 1652 or 1653 to Rome. He published several Latin translations of Arabic works, of which the most important was the Chronicon Orientale of Ibnar-Rāhib (Paris, 1653), a history of the patriarchs of Alexandria. He was engaged in an interesting controversy with John Selden as to the historical grounds of episcopacy, in the course of which he published his Eutychius vindicatus, sive Responsio ad Seldeni Origines (Rome, 1661). Conjointly with Giovanni Borelli he wrote a Latin translation of the 5th, 6th and 7th books of the Conics of Apollonius of Perga (1661). He died at Rome in 1664.

ECCLES, a municipal borough in the Eccles parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, 4 m. W. of Manchester, of which it forms practically a suburb. Pop. (1901) 34,369. It is served by the London & North-Western railway and by the Birkenhead railway (North-Western and Great Western joint). The Manchester Ship Canal passes through. The church of St Mary is believed to date from the 12th century, but has been enlarged and wholly restored in modern times. There are several handsome modern churches and chapels, a town hall, and numerous cotton mills, while silk-throwing and the manufacture of fustians and ginghams are also among the industries, and there are also large engine works. A peculiar form of cake is made here, taking name from the town, and has a wide reputation. Eccles was incorporated in 1892, and the corporation consists of a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. The borough maintains the tramway service, &c., but water and gas are supplied from Manchester and Salford respectively. Area, 2057 acres.

Before the Reformation the monks of Whalley Abbey had a grange here at what is still called Monks’ Hall; and in 1864 many thousands of silver pennies of Henry III. and John of England and William I. of Scotland were discovered near the spot. Robert Ainsworth, the author of the Latin and English dictionary so long familiar to English students, was born at Eccles in 1660; and it was at the vicarage that William Huskisson expired on the 15th of September 1830 from injuries received at the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester railway. From early times “wakes” were held at Eccles, and bull-baiting, bear-baiting and cock-fighting were carried on. Under Elizabeth these festivals, which had become notoriously disorderly, were abolished, but were revived under James I., and maintained until late in the 19th century on public ground. The cockpit remained on the site of the present town hall. A celebration on private property still recalls these wakes.

ECCLESFIELD, a township in the Hallamshire parliamentary division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, 5 m. N. of Sheffield, on the Great Central and Midland railways. The church of St Mary is Perpendicular, with a central tower, and contains excellent woodwork. It formerly bore, and must have deserved, the familiar title of the “Minster of the Moors.” Ecclesfield was the seat of a Benedictine priory, which passed to the Carthusians in the 14th century. Cutlery and tools are largely manufactured, and there are coal-mines, paper mills and iron and fire-clay works. After the inclusion within the county borough of Sheffield of part of the civil parish of Ecclesfield in 1901, the population was 18,324.

ECCLESHALL, a market town in the north-western parliamentary division of Staffordshire, England; 7 m. N.W. from Stafford, and 4 W. of Norton Bridge station on the London & North-Western main line. Pop. (1901) 3799. The church of the Holy Trinity, one of the most noteworthy in Staffordshire, is principally Early English, and has fine stained glass. Several bishops of Lichfield are buried here, as Eccleshall Castle was the episcopal residence from the 13th century until 1867. Of this the ancient remains include a picturesque tower and bridge. To the west on the borders of Shropshire is Blore Heath, the scene of a defeat of the Lancastrians by the Yorkists in 1459.

ECCLESIA (Gr. ἐκκλησία, from ἐκ, out, and καλεῖν, to call), in ancient Athens, the general assembly of all the freemen of the state. In the primitive unorganized state the king was theoretically absolute, though his great nobles meeting in the Council (see Boulē) were no doubt able to influence him considerably. There is, however, no doubt that in the earliest times the free people, i.e. the fighting force of the state, were called together to ratify the decisions of the king, and that they were gradually able to enforce their wishes against those of the nobles. In Athens, as in Rome, where the Plebs succeeded in their demand for the codification of the laws (the Twelve Tables), it was no doubt owing to the growing power of the people meeting in the Agora that Draco was entrusted with the task of publishing a code of law and so putting an end to the arbitrary judicature of the aristocratic party. But there is no evidence that the Ecclesia had more than a de facto existence before Solon’s reforms.

The precise powers which Solon gave the people are not known. It is clear that the executive power in the state (see Archon) was still vested in the Eupatrid class. It is obvious, therefore, that a moderate reformer would endeavour to give to the people some control over the magistracy. Now in speaking of the Thetes (the lowest of the four Solonian classes; see Solon), Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens says that Solon gave them merely “a share in the Ecclesia and the Law Courts,” and in the Politics we find that he gave them the right of electing the magistrates and receiving their accounts at the end of the official year. Thus it seems that the “mixed” character of Solon’s constitution consisted in the fact that though the officials of the state were still necessarily Eupatrid, the Ecclesia elected those of the Eupatrids whom they could trust, and further had the right of criticizing their official actions. Secondly, all our accounts agree that Solon admitted the Thetes to the Ecclesia, thus recognizing them as citizens. Under Cleisthenes the Ecclesia remained the sovereign power, but the Council seems to have become to some extent a separate administrative body. The relation of Boulē and Ecclesia in the Cleisthenic democracy was of the greatest importance. The Ecclesia alone, a heterogeneous body of untrained citizens, could not have passed, nor even have drawn up intelligible measures; all the preliminary drafting was done by the small committee of the Boulē which was in session at any particular time. In the 5th century the functions of the Ecclesia and the popular courts of justice were vastly increased by the exigencies of empire. At the beginning of the 4th century B.C. the system of payment was introduced (see below). In 308 B.C. Demetrius of Phalerum curtailed the power of the Ecclesia by the institution of the Nomophylaces (Guardians of the Law), who prevented the Ecclesia from voting on an illegal or injurious motion. Under Roman rule the powers of the Ecclesia and the popular courts were much diminished, and after 48 B.C. (the franchise being frequently sold to any casual alien) the Demos (people) was of no importance. They still assembled to pass psephisms in the theatre and to elect strategi, and, under Hadrian, had some small judicial duties, but as a governing body the Ecclesia died when Athens became a civitas libera under Roman protection.

Constitution and Functions.—Throughout the period of Athenian greatness the Ecclesia was the sovereign power, not only in practice but also in theory. The assembly met in early times near the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemus (i.e. south of the Acropolis), but, in the 5th and 4th centuries, the regular place of meeting was the Pnyx. From the 5th century it met sometimes in the theatre, which in the 3rd century was the regular place. From Demosthenes we learn that in his time special meetings were held at Peiraeus, and, in the last centuries B.C., meetings were held at Athens and Peiraeus alternately. Certain meetings, however, for voting ostracism (q.v.) and on questions affecting individual status took place in the Agora. Meetings were (1) ordinary, (2) extraordinary, and (3) convened by special messengers (κύριαι, σύγκλητοι and κατάκλητοι), these last being called when it was desirable that the country people should attend. At ordinary meetings the attendance was practically confined to Athenian residents. According to Aristotle there were four regular meetings in each prytany (see Boulē); probably only the first of these was called κυρία. It is certain, however, that the four meetings did not fall on regular days, owing to the occurrence of feast days on which no meeting could take place. In the κυρία ἐκκλησία of each month took place the Epicheirotonia (monthly inquiry) of the state officials, and if it proved unsatisfactory a trial before the Heliaea was arranged; the council reported on the general security and the corn-supply, and read out lists of vacant inheritances and unmarried heiresses. In the sixth prytany of each year at the κυρία ἐκκλησία the question whether ostracism should take place that year was put to the vote. For all meetings it was usual that the Prytaneis should give five days’ notice in the form of a programma (agenda). On occasions of sudden importance the herald of the council summoned the people with a trumpet, and sometimes special messengers were despatched to “bring in” the country people (κατακαλεῖν).

After the archonship of Solon all Athenians over the age of eighteen were eligible to attend the assembly, save those who for some reason had suffered atimia (loss of civil rights). To prevent the presence of any disqualified persons, six lexiarchs with thirty assistants were present with the deme-rolls in their hands. These officers superintended the payment in the 4th century and probably the toxotae (police) also, whose duty it was before the introduction of pay to drive the people out of the Agora into the Ecclesia with a rope steeped in red dye which they stretched out and used as a draw net (see Aristoph. Acharn. 22 and Eccles. 378). The introduction of pay, which belongs to the early years of the 4th century and by the Constitution (c. 41 ad fin.) is attributed to Agyrrhius, a statesman of the restored democracy, was a device to secure a larger attendance. The rate rose from one to two obols and then to three obols (Aristoph. Eccles. 300 sqq.), while at the time of Aristotle it was one and a half drachmas for the κυρία ἐκκλησία and one drachma for other meetings. Probably those who were late did not receive payment.

Procedure.—The proceedings opened with formalities: the purification by the peristiarchs, who carried round slain sucking pigs; the curse against all who should deceive the people; the appointment (in the 4th century) of the proedri and their epistates (see Boulē); the report as to the weather-omens. The assembly was always dismissed if there were thunder, rain or an eclipse. These formalities over, the Prytaneis communicated the probouleuma of the council, without which the Ecclesia could not debate. This recommendation either submitted definite proposals or merely brought the agenda before the assembly. Its importance lay largely in the fact that it explained the business in hand, which otherwise must often have been beyond the grasp of a miscellaneous assembly. After the reading, a preliminary vote was taken as to whether the council’s report should be accepted en bloc. If it was decided to discuss, the herald called upon people to speak. Any person, without distinction of age or position, might obtain leave to speak, but it seems probable that the man who had moved the recommendation previously in the council would advocate it in the assembly. The council was, therefore, a check on the assembly, but its powers were to some extent illusory, because any member of the assembly (1) might propose an amendment, (2) might draw up a new resolution founded on the principal motion, (3) might move the rejection of the motion and the substitution of another, (4) might bring in a motion asking the council for a recommendation on a particular matter, (5) might petition the council for leave to speak on a given matter to the assembly. Voting usually was by show of hands, but in special cases (ostracism, &c.) by ballot (i.e. by casting pebbles into one of two urns). The decision of the assembly was called a psephism and had absolute validity. These decisions were deposited in the Metroön where state documents were preserved; peculiarly important decrees were inscribed also on a column (stēlē) erected on the Acropolis. It has been shown that the power of the council was far from sufficient. The real check on the vagaries of amateur legislators was the Graphē Paranomōn. Any man was at liberty to give notice that he would proceed against the mover of a given resolution either before or after the voting in the Ecclesia. A trial in a Heliastic court was then arranged, and the plaintiff had to prove that the resolution in question contravened an existing law. If this contention were upheld by the court, when the case was brought to it by the Thesmothetae, the resolution was annulled, and the defendant had to appear in a new trial for the assessment of the penalty, which was usually a fine, rarely death. Three convictions under this law, however, involved a certain loss of rights; the loser could no longer move a resolution in the Ecclesia. After the lapse of a year the mover of a resolution could not be attacked. In the 4th century the Graphē Paranomōn took the place of Ostracism (q.v.). In the 5th century it was merely an arrangement whereby the people sitting as sworn juries ratified or annulled their own first decision in the Ecclesia.

Revision of Laws.—In the 4th century, the assembly annually, on the eleventh day of Hecatombaeon (the first day of the official year), took a general vote on the laws, to decide whether revision was necessary. If the decision was in favour of alteration, it was open to any private citizen to put up notice of amendments. The Nomothetae, a panel selected by the Prytaneis from the Heliaea, heard arguments for and against the changes proposed and voted accordingly. Against all new laws so passed, there lay the Graphē; Paranomōn. Thus the Nomothetae, not the Ecclesia, finally passed the law.

Judicial Functions.—The Ecclesia heard cases of Probolē and Eisangelia (see Greek Law). The Probolē was an action against sycophants and persons who had not kept their promises to the people, or had disturbed a public festival. The verdict went by show of hands, but no legal consequences ensued; if the plaintiff demanded punishment he had to go to the Heliaea which were not at all bound by the previous vote in the Ecclesia. Cases of Eisangelia in which the penalty exceeded the legal competence of the council came before the Ecclesia in the form of a probouleuma. To prevent vexatious accusations, it was (at some date unknown) decided that the accuser who failed to obtain one-fifth of the votes should be fined 1000 drachmas (£40). (For the procedure in case of Ostracism see that article.)

Summary.—Thus it will be seen that the Ecclesia, with no formal organization, had absolute power save for the Graphē Paranomōn (which, therefore, constituted the dicasteries in one sense the sovereign power in the state). It dealt with all matters home and foreign. Every member could initiate legislation, and, as has been shown, the power of the council was merely formal. As against this it must be pointed out that it was by no means a representative assembly in practice. The phrase used to describe a very special assembly (κατάκλητος ἐκκλησία) shows that ordinarily the country members did not attend (κατακαλεῖν always involving the idea of motion from a distance towards Athens), and Thucydides says that 5000 was the maximum attendance, though it must be remembered that he is speaking of the time when the number of citizens had been much reduced owing to the plague and the Sicilian expedition. From this we understand the necessity of payment in the 4th century, although in that period the Ecclesia was supreme (Constitution of Athens, xli. 2). The functions of the Ecclesia thus differed in two fundamental respects from those which are in modern times associated with a popular assembly. (1) It did not exercise, at least in the period as to which we are best instructed, the power of law-making (νομοθεσία) in the strict sense. It must be remembered, however, in qualification of this statement that it possessed the power of passing psephismata which would in many cases be regarded as law in the modern sense. (2) The Ecclesia was principally concerned with the supervision of administration. Much of what we regard as executive functions were discharged by the Ecclesia.

With this article compare those on Solon; Boule; Areopagus; Greek Law, and, for other ancient popular assemblies, Apella; Comitia. See also A.H.J. Greenidge, Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (1896); Gilbert, Greek Constitutional Antiquities (trans. Brooks and Nicklin, 1895); Schömann, De comitiis Atheniensium; L. Schmidt, “De Atheniensis reipublicae indole democratica” in Ind. Lect. (Marburg, 1865); J.W. Headlam, Election by Lot at Athens (Cambridge, 1891). See also the histories of Greece by Meyer, Busolt, Grote, Evelyn Abbott, and J.E. Sandys’ edition of the Constitution of Athens (1892); for a comparative study, E.A. Freeman, Comparative Politics.

(J. M. M.)

ECCLESIASTES (Heb. קהלת, Kohelet, “Koheleth”; Sept. ἐκκλησιαστής; Jerome concionator), one of the Wisdom Books of the Old Testament (see Wisdom Literature). The book, as it stands, is a collection of the discourses, observations and aphorisms of a sage called Koheleth, a term the precise meaning of which is not certain. The Greek ecclesiastes means one who takes part in the deliberations of an assembly (ecclesia), a debater or speaker in an assembly (Plato, Gorgias, 452 E), and this is the general sense of the Hebrew word. Its form (singular feminine) has been supposed to be the adoption or imitation of the Arabic employment of a fem. sing. as the designation of a high official person, as is the case in the title caliph (whence the rendering in the margin of the Revised Version, “Great orator”); but the adoption of an Arabic idiom is not probable. This usage is not Hebrew; it is not found either in the Old Testament or in the later (Mishnaic) Hebrew. The form may have been suggested by that of the Hebrew word for “wisdom.” Koheleth, however, is employed in the book not as a title of wisdom (for “wisdom” is never the speaker), but as the independent name of the sage. It is intended to represent him as a member of an assembly (Kahal)—not the Jewish congregation, but a body of students or inquirers, such as is referred to in xii. 9-11, a sort of collegium, of which he was the head; and as instructor of this body he gives his criticism of life. The author begins, indeed, with identifying his sage with King Solomon (i. 12-ii. 11, 12b); but he soon abandons this literary device, and speaks in his own name. The rendering “preacher” has a misleading connotation.

In the book as we have it there is no orderly exposition of a theory; it rather has the appearance of a collection of remarks jotted down by a pupil (somewhat after the manner of Xenophon’s Memorabilia), or of extracts from a sage’s notebook. It is, however, characterized throughout (except in some scribal additions) by a definite thought, and pervaded by a definite tone of feeling. The keynote is given in the classic phrase with which the discussion opens and with which it closes: “Vanity of vanities (i.e. absolute vanity), all is vanity!” Life, says the author, has nothing of permanent value to offer. His attitude is one not of bitterness but of calm hopelessness, with an occasional tinge of disgust or contempt. He fancies that he has tried or observed everything in human experience, and his deliberate conclusion is that nothing is worth doing. He believes in an all-powerful but indifferent God, and is himself an observer of society, standing aloof from its passions and ambitions, and interested only in pointing out their emptiness.

This general view is set forth in a number of particular observations.

1. His fundamental proposition is that there is a fixed, unchangeable order in the world, a reign of inflexible law (i. 4-11, iii. 1-11, 14, 15, vii. 13, viii. 5-9): natural phenomena, such as sunrise and sunset, recur regularly; for everything in human experience a time has been set; birth and death, building up and destroying, laughing and weeping, silence and speech, love and hate, war and peace, are to be regarded not as utterances of a living, self-directing world, but as incidents in the work of a vast machine that rolls on for ever; there is an endless repetition—nothing is new, nothing is lost; if one thinks he has found something new, inquiry shows that it was in existence long ago; God, the author of all, seeks out the past in order to make it once more present; it is impossible to add to or take from the content of the world, impossible to change the nature of things, to effect any radical betterment of life; the result is unspeakable weariness—a depressing series of sights and sounds. No goal or purpose is discoverable in this eternal round; if the sun rises and goes on his journey through the sky, it is merely to come back to the place where he rose; rivers flow for ever into the sea without filling it. To what end was the world created? It is impossible to say. Such is Koheleth’s view of life, and it is obvious that such a conception of an aimless cosmos is thoroughly non-Jewish, if we may judge Jewish thought by the great body of the extant literature.

2. Further, says Koheleth, man is impelled to study the world, but under the condition that he shall never comprehend it (iii. 11, vii. 23, 24, viii. 16, 17). As to the meaning of the Hebrew term olam in iii. 11, there are various opinions, but “world” appears to be the rendering favoured by the connexion: “God has made everything beautiful in its time, and has put the olam into men’s minds, yet so that they cannot understand His work”: the olam, the sum of phenomena, is God’s work. The word is not found in this sense elsewhere in the Old Testament, but it so occurs in the Mishna (Pirke Aboth, iv. 7), and the vocabulary of Ecclesiastes is admittedly similar to that of the Mishna. Only here in the Old Testament does it stand as a simple isolated noun; elsewhere it is the definition of a noun (in “everlasting covenant,” &c.), or it is preceded by a preposition, in the phrases “for ever,” “of old,” or it stands alone (sing. or plur.) in the same adverbial sense, “for ever.” The word means first a remote point in past or future, then a future point without limit of time, then a period of history, and finally the world considered as a mass of human experiences (cf. αἰών). The renderings “eternity” and “future” in the present passage are unsatisfactory; the former has an inappropriate metaphysical connotation, and yields no distinct sense; the latter does not suit the connexion, though there is reference to the future elsewhere (ix. 1). God, the text here declares, has made the world an object of man’s thought, yet so that man can never find out the work that God has done (iii. 11). The reference seems to be not so much to the variety and complexity of phenomena as to the impossibility of construing them rationally or in such a way that man may foresee and provide for his future. Man is in the clutches of fate (ix. 11, 12): there is no observable relation between exertion and result in life: the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong; success does not attend wisdom, knowledge and skill; men are like fish taken in a net or birds caught in a snare.

3. Human life, Koheleth declares, is unsatisfying. He inquired, he says, into everything that is done by men under the sun (i. 12-16): God has inflicted on men a restless desire for movement and work, yet life is but a catalogue of fruitless struggles. He gives a number of illustrations. In his character of king he tried all the bodily pleasures of life (ii. 1-11): he had houses, vineyards, gardens, parks, ponds, forests, servants, flocks and herds, treasures of gold and silver, singers, wives; all these he set himself to enjoy in a rational way—indeed, he found a certain pleasure in carrying out his designs, but, when all was done, he surveyed it only to see that it was weary and unprofitable. Dropping the rôle of Solomon and speaking as an observer of life, the author declares (iv. 4) that the struggle for success is the result of rivalry among men, which has no worthy outcome. The securing of riches is a fallacious achievement, for often wealth perishes by some accident (v. 13 f.), or its possessor is unable to enjoy it (vi. 1-3a), or he has no one to whom to leave it, and he cannot keep it—naked man comes into the world, naked he goes out. He does not consider the possibility of deriving enjoyment from wealth by helping the poor or encouraging learning (this latter, indeed, he looks on as vanity), and in general he recognizes no obligation on the part of a man to his fellows. A noteworthy survival of an old belief is found in vi. 3: though a man have the great good fortune to live long and to have many children, yet, if he have not proper burial the blank darkness of an untimely birth is better than he: this latter is merely the negation of existence; the former, it appears to be held, is positive misfortune, the loss of a desirable place in Sheol, though elsewhere (ix. 5) existence in Sheol is represented as the negation of real life. It is not necessary to suppose that the writer has here any particular case in mind.

If wealth be thus a vain thing, yet a sage might be supposed to find satisfaction in wisdom, that is, practical good sense and sagacity; but this also the author puts aside as bringing no lasting advantage, since a wise man must finally give up the fruit of his wisdom to someone else, who may be a fool, and in any case the final result for both fools and wise men is the same—both are forgotten (ii. 12-23). A particular instance is mentioned (ix. 13-15) of a beleaguered city saved by a wise man; but the man happened to be poor, and no one remembered him. The whole constitution of society, in fact, seems to the sage a lamentable thing: the poor are oppressed, the earth is full of their cries, and there is no helper (iv. 1); strange social upheavals may be seen: the poor set in high places, the rich cast down, slaves on horseback, princes on foot (x. 5-7). He permits himself a sweeping generalization (vii. 25-28): human beings as a rule are bad: one may occasionally find a good man, never a good woman—woman is a snare and a curse. He (or an editor) adds (vii. 29) that this condition of things is due to social development: man was created upright (Gen. i. 27; Enoch lxix. 11), but in the course of history has introduced corrupting complications into life.

4. The natural outcome of these experiences of the author is that he cannot recognize a moral government of the world. He finds, like Job, that there are good men who die prematurely notwithstanding their goodness, and bad men who live long notwithstanding their badness (vii. 15), though long life, it is assumed, is one of the great blessings of man’s lot; and in general there is no moral discrimination in the fortunes of men (viii. 14, ix. 2).

5. There is no sacredness or dignity in man or in human life: man has no pre-eminence over beasts, seeing that he and they have the same final fate, die and pass into the dust, and no one knows what becomes of the spirit, whether in man’s case it goes up to heaven, and in the case of beasts goes down into Sheol—death is practically the end-all; and so poor a thing is life that the dead are to be considered more fortunate than the living, and more to be envied than either class is he who never came into existence (iv. 2, 3). It is a special grievance that the wicked when they die are buried with pomp and ceremony, while men who have acted well are forgotten in the city (viii. 10).

6. That the author does not believe in a happy or active future life appears in the passage (iv. 2, 3) quoted above. The old Hebrew view of the future excluded from Sheol the common activities of life and also the worship of the national god (Isa. xxxviii. 18); he goes even beyond this in his conception of the blankness of existence in the underworld. The living, he says, at least know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing—the memory of them, their love, hate and envy, perishes, they have no reward, no part in earthly life (ix. 5, 6); there is absolutely no knowledge and no work in Sheol (ix. 10). His conclusion is that men should do now with all their might what they have to do; the future of man’s vital part, the spirit, is wholly uncertain.

7. His conception of God is in accord with these views. God for him is the creator and ruler of the world, but hardly more; he is the master of a vast machine that grinds out human destinies without sympathy with man and without visible regard for what man deems justice—a being to be acknowledged as lord, not one to be loved. There can thus be no social contact between man and God, no communion of soul, no enthusiasm of service. Moral conduct is to be regulated not by divine law (of this nothing is said) but by human experience. The author’s theism is cold, spiritless, without influence on life.

If now the question be asked what purpose or aim a man can have, seeing that there is nothing of permanent value in human work, an answer is given which recurs, like a refrain, from the beginning to the end of the book, and appears to be from the hand of the original author: after every description of the vanity of things comes the injunction to enjoy such pleasures as may fall to one’s lot (ii. 24, 25, iii. 12, 13, 22, v. 18, 19, viii. 15, ix. 7-10, xi. 7-xii. 7). Elsewhere (ii.), it is true, it is said that there is no lasting satisfaction in pleasure; but the sage may mean to point out that, though there is no permanent outcome to life, it is the part of common-sense to enjoy what one has. The opportunity and the power to enjoy are represented as being the gift of God; but this statement is not out of accord with the author’s general position, which is distinctly theistic. All the passages just cited, except the last (xi. 7-xii. 7), are simple and plain, but the bearing of the last is obscured by interpolations. Obviously the purpose of the paragraph is to point out the wisdom of enjoying life in the time of youth while the physical powers are fresh and strong, and the impotency of old age has not yet crept in. Omitting xi. 8c, 9b, 10b, xii. 1a, the passage will read: “Life is pleasant in the bright sunshine—however long a man may live, he must be cheerful always, only remembering that dark days will come. Let the young man enjoy all the pleasures of youth, putting away everything painful, before the time comes when his bodily powers decay and he can enjoy nothing.” To relieve the apparent Epicureanism of this passage, an editor has inserted reminders of the vanity of youthful pleasures, and admonitions to remember God and His judgment. The author, however, does not recommend dissipation, and does not mean to introduce a religious motive—he offers simply a counsel of prudence. The exhortation to remember the Creator in the days of youth, though it is to be retained in the margin as a pious editorial addition, here interrupts the line of thought. In xii. 1a some critics propose to substitute for “remember thy Creator” the expression of xi. 9, “let thy heart cheer thee”; but the repetition is improbable. Others would read: “remember thy cistern” (Bickell), or “thy well” (Haupt), that is, thy wife. The wife is so called in Prov. v. 15-19 in an elaborate poetical figure (the wife as a source of bodily pleasure), in which the reference is clear from the context; but there is no authority, in the Old Testament or in other literature of this period, for taking the term as a simple prose designation of a wife. Nor would this reference to the wife be appropriate in the connexion, since the writer’s purpose is simply to urge men to enjoy life while they can. The paragraph (and the original book) concludes with a sustained and impressive figure, in which the failing body of the old man is compared to a house falling into decay: first, the bodily organs (xii. 3, 4a): the keepers of the house (the arms and hands) tremble, the strong men (the legs and perhaps the backbone) are bent, the grinding women (the teeth) cease to work, those that look out of the windows (the eyes) are darkened, the street-doors are shut, the sound of the mill being low (apparently a summary statement of the preceding details: communication with the outer world through the senses is cut off, the performance of bodily functions being feeble); the rest of v. 4 may refer to the old man’s inability to make or hear music: in the house there is no sound of birds or of singers, there are none of the artistic delights of a well-to-do household; further (v. 5a) the inmates of the house fear dangers from all powerful things and persons (the old man is afraid of everything), the almond tree blossoms (perhaps the hair turns white). The two next clauses are obscure. Then comes the end: man goes to his everlasting home; the dust (the body) returns to the earth whence it came (Gen. ii. 7), and the breath of life, breathed by God into the body, returns to him who gave it. This last clause does not affirm the immortality of the soul; it is simply an explanation of what becomes of the vital principle (the “breath of life” of Gen. ii. 7); its positive assertion is not in accord with the doubt expressed in iii. 21 (“who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward?”), and it seems to be from another hand than that of the author of the original book.

There are other sayings in the book that appear to be at variance with its fundamental thought. Wisdom is praised in a number of passages (iv. 13, vii. 5, 11, 12, 19, viii. 1, ix. 16, 17, x. 2, 3), though it is elsewhere denounced as worthless. It may be said that the author, while denying that wisdom (practical sagacity and level-headedness) can give permanent satisfaction, yet admits its practical value in the conduct of life. This may be so; but it would be strange if a writer who could say, “in much wisdom is much grief,” should deliberately laud wisdom. The question is not of great importance and may be left undecided. It may be added that there are in the book a number of aphorisms about fools (v. 3, vii. 5, 6, x. 1-3, 12-15) quite in the style of the book of Proverbs, some of them contrasting the wise man and the fool; these appear to be the insertions of an editor. Further, it may be concluded with reasonable certainty that the passages that affirm a moral government of the world are additions by pious editors who wished to bring the book into harmony with the orthodox thought of the time. Such assertions as those of ii. 26 (God gives joy to him who pleases him, and makes the sinner toil to lay up for the latter), viii. 12 (it shall be well with those that fear God, but not with the wicked), xii. 13 f. (man’s duty is simply to obey the commands of God, for God will bring everything into judgment) are irreconcilable with the oft-repeated statement that there is no difference in the earthly lots of the righteous and the wicked, and no ethical life after death.

Many practical admonitions and homely aphorisms are scattered through the book: iv. 5, quiet is a blessing; iv. 9-12, two are better than one; iv. 17 (Eng. v. 1), be reverent in visiting the house of God (the temple and the connected buildings)—to listen (to the service of song or the reading of Scripture) is better than to offer a foolish (thoughtless) sacrifice; v. 1 (2), be sparing of words in addressing God; v. 1-5 (2-6), pay your vows—do not say to the priest’s messenger that you made a mistake; vii. 2-4, sorrow is better than mirth; vii. 16-18, be not over-righteous (over-attentive to details of ritual and convention) or over-wicked (flagrantly neglectful of established beliefs and customs); here “righteous” and “wicked” appear to be technical terms designating two parties in the Jewish world of the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C., the observers and the non-observers of the Jewish ritual law; these parties represent in a general way the Pharisees and the Sadducees; viii. 2-4, x. 20, it is well to obey kings and to be cautious in speaking about them, for there are talebearers everywhere; vii. 20, no man is free from sin; vii. 21, do not listen to all that you may overhear, lest you hear yourself ill spoken of; ix. 4, a living dog is better than a dead lion; xi. 1-6, show prudence and decision in business; do not set all your goods on one venture; act promptly and hope for the best. At the close of the book (xii. 9-12) there are two observations that appear to be editorial recommendations and cautions. First, Koheleth is endorsed as an industrious, discriminating and instructive writer. Possibly this is in reply to objections that had been made to what he had written. There follows an obscure passage (v. 11) which seems to be meant as a commendation of the teaching of the sages in general: their words are said to be like goads (inciting to action) and like nails driven in a building (giving firmness to character); they issue from masters of assemblies, heads of academies (but not of the Sanhedrin). The succeeding clause “they are given from one shepherd” may refer to a collection or revision by one authoritative person, but its relevancy is not obvious. The “shepherd” cannot be God (Gen. xlix. 24; Ps. xxiii. 1); the poetical use of the word would not be appropriate here. The clause is possibly a gloss, a comment on the preceding expression. A caution against certain books is added (v. 12), probably works then considered harmful (perhaps philosophic treatises), of which, however, nothing further is known.

Composition of the Book.—If the analysis given above is correct, the book is not a unit; it contains passages mutually contradictory and not harmonizable. Various attempts have been made to establish its unity. The hypothesis of “two voices” is now generally abandoned; there is no indication of a debate, of affirmations and responses. A more plausible theory is that the author is an honest thinker, a keen observer and critic of life, who sees that the world is full of miseries and unsolved problems, regards as futile the attempts of his time to demonstrate an ethically active future life, and, recognizing a divine author of all, holds that the only wise course for men is to abandon the attempt to get full satisfaction out of the struggle for pleasure, riches and wisdom, and to content themselves with making the best of what they have. This conception of him is largely true, as is pointed out above, but it does not harmonize the contradictions of the book, the discrepancies between the piety of some passages and the emotional indifference toward God shown in others. Other of the Biblical Wisdom books (Job, Proverbs) are compilations—why not this? It is not necessary to multiply authors, as is done, for example, by Siegfried, who supposes four principal writers (a pessimistic philosopher, an Epicurean glossator, a sage who upholds the value of wisdom, and an orthodox editor) besides a number of annotators; it is sufficient to assume that several conservative scribes have made short additions to the original work. Nor is it worth while to attempt a logical or symmetrical arrangement of the material. It has been surmised (by Bickell) that the sheets of the original codex became disarranged and were rearranged incorrectly; by other critics portions of the book are transferred hither and thither; in all cases the critic is guided in these changes by what he conceives to have been the original form of the book. But it is more probable that we have it in the form in which it grew up—a series of observations by the original author with interspersed editorial remarks; and it is better to preserve the existing form as giving a record of the process of growth.

Date.—As to the date of the book, though there are still differences of opinion among scholars, there is a gradual approach to a consensus. The Solomonic authorship has long since been given up: the historical setting of the work and its atmosphere—the silent assumption of monotheism and monogamy, the non-national tone, the attitude towards kings and people, the picture of a complicated social life, the strain of philosophic reflection—are wholly at variance with what is known of the 10th century B.C. and with the Hebrew literature down to the 5th or 4th century B.C. The introduction of Solomon, the ideal of wisdom, is a literary device of the later time, and probably deceived nobody. The decisive considerations for the determination of the date are the language, the historical background and the thought. The language belongs to the post-classical period of Hebrew. The numerous Aramaisms point to a time certainly not earlier than the 4th century B.C., and probably (though the history of the penetration of Aramaic into Hebrew speech is not definitely known) not earlier than the 3rd century. More than this, there are many resemblances between the dialect of Koheleth and that of Mishna. Not only are new words employed, and old words in new significations, but the grammatical structure has a modern stamp—some phrases have the appearance of having been translated out of Aramaic into Hebrew. By about the beginning of our era the Jews had given up Hebrew and wrote in Aramaic; the process of expulsion had been going on, doubtless, for some time; but comparison with the later extant literature (Chronicles, the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus or Ben-Sira, Esther) makes it improbable that such Hebrew as that of Koheleth would have been written earlier than the 2nd century B.C. (for details see Driver’s Introduction). The general historical situation, also, presupposed or referred to, is that of the period from the year 200 B.C. to the beginning of our era; in particular, the familiar references to kings as a part of the social system, and to social dislocations (servants and princes changing places, x. 7), suggest the troublous time of the later Greek and the Maccabean rulers, of which the history of Josephus gives a good picture.

The conception of the world and of human life as controlled by natural law, a naturalistic cosmos, is alien not only to the prophetic and liturgical Hebrew literature but also to Hebrew thought in general. Whether borrowed or not, it must be late; and its resemblance to Greek ideas suggests Greek influence. The supposition of such influence is favoured by some critics (Tyler, Plumptre, Palm, Siegfried, Cheyne in his Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, and others), rejected by some (Zeller, Renan, Kleinert and others). This disagreement comes largely from the attempts made to find definitely expressed Greek philosophical dogmas in the book; such formulas it has not, but the general air of Greek reflection seems unmistakable. The scepticism of Koheleth differs from that of Job in quality and scope: it is deliberate and calm, not wrung out by personal suffering; and it relates to the whole course and constitution of nature, not merely to the injustices of fortune. Such a conception has a Greek tinge, and would be found in Jewish circles, probably, not before the 2nd century B.C.

A precise indication of date has been sought in certain supposed references or allusions to historical facts. The mention of persons who do not sacrifice or take oaths (ix. 2) is held by some to point to the Essenes; if this be so, it is not chronologically precise, since we have not the means of determining the beginning of the movement of thought that issued in Essenism. So also the coincidences of thought with Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) are not decisive: cf. iii. 14 with B.S. xviii. 6; v. 2-6 (3-7) with B.S. xxxiv. 1-7; vii. 19 with B.S. xxxvii. 14; x. 8 with B.S. xxvii. 26a; xi. 10 with B.S. xxx. 21; xii. 10, 11 with B.S. xxxix. 2 ff., xii. 13 with B.S. xliii. 27; if there be borrowing in these passages, it is not clear on which side it lies; and it is not certain that there is borrowing—the thoughts may have been taken independently by the two authors from the same source. In any case, since Ben-Sira belongs to about 180 B.C., the date of Koheleth, so far as these coincidences indicate it, would not be far from 200 B.C. The contrast made in x. 16 f. between a king who is a boy and one who is of noble birth may allude to historical persons. The antithesis is not exact; we expect either “boy and mature man” or “low-born and high-born.” The “child” might be Antiochus V. (164 B.C.), or Ptolemy V., Epiphanes (204 B.C.), but the reference is too general to be decisive. The text of the obscure passage iv. 13-16 is in bad condition, and it is only by considerable changes that a clear meaning can be got from it. The two personages—the “old and foolish king” and the “poor and wise youth”—have been supposed (by Winckler) to be Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) and Demetrius (162-150 B.C.), or (by Haupt) Antiochus and the impostor Alexander Balas (150-146 B.C.), or (by others) Demetrius and Alexander; in favour of Alexander as the “youth” it may be said that he was of obscure origin, was at first popular, and was later abandoned by his friends. Such identifications, however, do not fix the date of the book precisely; the author may have referred to events that happened before his time. The reign of Herod, a period of despotism and terror, and of strife between Jewish religious parties, is preferred by some scholars (Grätz, Cheyne and others) as best answering to the social situation depicted in the book, while still others (as Renan) decide for the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.). The data are not numerous and distinct enough to settle the question beyond determining general limits: for reasons given above the book can hardly have been composed before about 200 B.C., and if, as is probable, a Septuagint translation of it was made (though the present Septuagint text shows the influence of Aquila), it is to be put earlier than 50 B.C. Probably also, its different parts are of different dates.

Of the author nothing is known beyond the obvious fact that he was a man of wide observation and philosophic thought, of the Sadducean type in religion, but non-Jewish in his attitude toward life. He was, doubtless, a man of high standing, but neither a king nor a high-priest, certainly not the apostate priest Alcimus (1 Macc. vii. ix.); nor was he necessarily a physician—there are no details in ch. xii. or elsewhere that any man of good intelligence might not know. The book is written in prose, some of which is rhythmical, with bits of verse here and there: thus i. 2-11 is balanced prose, 12-14 plain prose, 15 a couplet, i. 16-ii. 25 simple prose, vii. contains a number of poetical aphorisms, and so on. Some of the verses are apparently from the author, some from editors.

The fortunes of the book are not known in detail, but it is clear that its merciless criticism of life and its literary charm made it popular, while its scepticism excited the apprehensions of pious conservatives. Possibly the Wisdom of Solomon (c. 50 B.C.) was written partly as a reply to it. The claim of sacredness made for it was warmly contested by some Jewish scholars. In spite of the relief afforded by orthodox additions, it was urged that its Epicurean sentiments contradicted the Torah and favoured heresy. Finally, by some process of reasoning not fully recorded, the difficulties were set aside and the book was received into the sacred canon; Jerome (on Eccl. xii. 13, 14) declares that the decisive fact was the orthodox statement at the end of the book: the one important thing is to fear God and keep His commandments. The probability is that the book had received the stamp of popular approbation before the end of the 1st century of our era, and the leading men did not dare to reject it. It is not certain that it is quoted in the New Testament, but it appears to be included in Josephus’ list of sacred books.

Literature.—For the older works see Zöckler (in Lange’s Comm.); for Jewish commentaries see Zedner, Cat. of Heb. books in Libry. of Brit. Mus. (1867), and for the history of the interpretations, C.D. Ginsburg, Coheleth (1861). Introductions of A. Kuenen, S.R. Driver, Cornhill, König. Articles in Herzog-Hauck, Realencykl. (by P. Kleinert); Hastings, Dict. Bible (by A.S. Peake); T.K. Cheyne, Encycl. Bibl. (by A.B. Davidson); Jew. Encycl. (by D.S. Margoliouth). Commentaries: F. Hitzig (1847); C.D. Ginsburg (1861); H. Grätz (1871); Tyler (1874); Delitzsch (1875); E.H. Plumptre (1881); C.H.H. Wright (1883); Nowack, revision of Hitzig (1883); Volck (in Strack u. Zöckler’s Kurzgef. Komm., 1889); Wildeboer (in Marti’s Kurzer Hand-Comm., 1898); C. Siegfried (in W. Nowack’s Handkomm., 1898); Oort (in De Oude Test., 1899). Other works: C. Taylor, Dirge of Koh. (1874); Wünsche, Midrash on Koh. (in his Biblioth. rabbin., 1880); E. Renan, L’Ecclésiaste (1882); Bickell, Der Prediger (1884) and Kohel.-Untersuchungen (1886; Engl. by E.J. Dillon, Sceptics of Old Test., 1895); Schiffer, Das Buch Koh. nach d. Auffass. d. Weisen d. Talmuds, &c. (1884); A. Palm, Qoh. u. d. nach-aristotel. Philosophie (1885) and Die Qoh.-Lit. (1886); E. Pfleiderer, Die Phil. d. Heraklit, &c. (1886); Cheyne, Job and Solomon (1887) and Jew. Relig. Life, &c. (1898); W. Euringer, Der Masorahtext d. Koh. (1890); W.T. Davison, Wisdom-Lit. of Old Test. (1894); H. Winckler, in his Altorient. Forschungen (1898); J.F. Genung, Words of Koh. (Boston, Mass., 1904); P. Haupt, Ecclesiastes (Baltimore, 1905). The rabbinical discussions of the book are mentioned in Shabbath, 30b; Megilla, 7a; Eduyoth, v. 3; Mishna Yadaim, iii. 5, iv. 6; Midrash Koheleth (on xi. 9), Aboth d’ Rab. Nathan, i.

(C. H. T.*)

The Hebrew has the definite article, “the whole,” τὸ πᾶν.

In fact, he suggests, a curse, as in Gen. iii. 17-19, though with a wider sweep than that passage has in mind.

The text has “folly,” but the parallelism and v. 7 point to social, not intellectual, conditions, and a slight change (מסכן for הסכל) gives the sense “poor.”

The Septuagint has less well: “They (the wicked) are praised in the city.”

The clause is obscure; literally “he (or, one) rises at (?) the voice of the bird,” usually understood to refer to the old man’s inability to sleep in the morning; but this is not a universal trait of old age, and besides, a reference to affairs in the house is to be expected; the Hebrew construction also is of doubtful correctness. A change of the Hebrew text seems necessary; possibly we should read ישפל קול, “low is the voice,” instead of יקום לקול “he rises up at the voice.”

The second is perhaps to be read: “the caper-berry blooms” (white hair); usually “the caper-berry loses its appetizing power”; Eng. Auth. Vers. “desire shall fail.” For the meaning of the word abyona (“caper-berry,” not “desire” or “poverty”), see art. by G.F. Moore in Journ. of Bibl. Lit. x. 1 (Boston, Mass., 1891).

This is the Talmudic understanding of the Hebrew expression (Jerus. Sanhed. 10, 28a, cf. Sanhed. 12a; see Ecclus. xxxix. 2). There is no good authority for the renderings “collectors of maxims,” “collections of maxims.”

It is not certain that the codex form was in use in Palestine or in Egypt as early as the 2nd or the 1st century B.C.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS, in England, a body corporate, whose full title is “Ecclesiastical and Church Estates Commissioners for England,” invested with very important powers, under the operation of which extensive changes have been made in the distribution of the revenues of the Established Church. Their appointment was one of the results of the vigorous movements for the reform of public institutions which followed the Reform Act of 1832. In 1835 two commissions were appointed “to consider the state of the several dioceses of England and Wales, with reference to the amount of their revenues and the more equal distribution of episcopal duties, and the prevention of the necessity of attaching by commendam to bishoprics certain benefices with cure of souls; and to consider also the state of the several cathedral and collegiate churches in England and Wales, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as might render them conducive to the efficiency of the established church, and to provide for the best mode of providing for the cure of souls, with special reference to the residence of the clergy on their respective benefices.” And it was enacted by an act of 1835 that during the existence of the commission the profits of dignities and benefices without cure of souls becoming vacant should be paid over to the treasurer of Queen Anne’s Bounty. In consequence of the recommendation of these commissioners, a permanent commission was appointed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1836 for the purpose of preparing and laying before the king in council such schemes as should appear to them to be best adapted for carrying into effect the alterations suggested in the report of the original commission and recited in the act. The new commission was constituted a corporation with power to purchase and hold lands for the purposes of the act, notwithstanding the statutes of mortmain. The first members of the commission were the two archbishops and three bishops, the lord chancellor and the principal officers of state, and three laymen named in the act.

The constitution of the commission was amended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1840 and subsequent acts, and now consists of the two archbishops, all the bishops, the deans of Canterbury, St Paul’s and Westminster, the lord chancellor, the lord president of the council, the first lord of the treasury, the chancellor of the exchequer, the home secretary, the lord chief justice, the master of the rolls, two judges of the admiralty division, and certain laymen appointed by the crown and by the archbishop of Canterbury. The lay commissioners are required to be “members of the Church of England, and to subscribe a declaration to that effect.” The crown also appoints two laymen as church estates commissioners, and the archbishop of Canterbury one. These three are the joint treasurers of the commission, and constitute, along with two members appointed by the commission, the church estates committee, charged with all business relating to the sale, purchase, exchange, letting or management of any lands, tithes or hereditaments. The commission has power to make inquiries and examine witnesses on oath. Five commissioners are a quorum for the transaction of business, provided two of them are church estates commissioners; two ecclesiastical commissioners at least must be present at any proceeding under the common seal, and if only two are present they can demand its postponement to a subsequent meeting. The schemes of the commission having, after due notice to persons affected thereby, been laid before the king in council, may be ratified by orders, specifying the times when they shall take effect, and such orders when published in the London Gazette have the same force and effect as acts of parliament.

The recommendations of the commission recited in the act of 1836 are too numerous to be given here. They include an extensive rearrangement of the dioceses, equalization of episcopal income, providing residences, &c. By the act of 1840 the fourth report of the original commissioners, dealing chiefly with cathedral and collegiate churches, was carried into effect, a large number of canonries being suspended, and sinecure benefices and dignities suppressed.

The emoluments of these suppressed or suspended offices, and the surplus income of the episcopal sees, constitute the fund at the disposal of the commissioners. By an act of 1860, on the avoidance of any bishopric or archbishopric, all the land and emoluments of the see, except the patronage and lands attached to houses of residence, become, by order in council, vested in the commissioners, who may, however, reassign to the see so much of the land as may be sufficient to secure the net annual income named for it by statute or order. All the profits and emoluments of the suspended canonries, &c., pass over to the commissioners, as well as the separate estates of those deaneries and canonries which are not suspended. Out of this fund the expenses of the commission are to be paid, and the residue is to be devoted to increasing the efficiency of the church by the augmentation of the smaller bishoprics and of poor livings, the endowment of new churches, and employment of additional ministers.

The substitution of one central corporation for the many local and independent corporations of the church, so far at least as the management of property is concerned, was a constitutional change of great importance, and the effect of it undoubtedly was to correct the anomalous distribution of ecclesiastical revenues by equalizing incomes and abolishing sinecures. At the same time it was regarded as having made a serious breach in the legal theory of ecclesiastical property. “The important principle,” says Cripps, “on which the inviolability of the church establishment depends, that the church generally possesses no property as a corporation, or which is applicable to general purposes, but that such particular ecclesiastical corporation, whether aggregate or sole, has its property separate, distinct and inalienable, according to the intention of the original endowment, was given up without an effort to defend it” (Law Relating to the Church and Clergy, p. 46).

ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION. This phrase in its primary sense imports not jurisdiction over ecclesiastics, but jurisdiction exercised by ecclesiastics over other ecclesiastics and over the laity. “Jurisdiction” is a word borrowed from the jurists which has acquired a wide extension in theology, wherein, for example, it is frequently used in contradistinction to “order,” to express the right to administer sacraments as something superadded to the power to celebrate them. So it is used to express the territorial or other limits of ecclesiastical, executive or legislative authority. Here it is used, in the limited sense defined by an American Court, as “the authority by which judicial officers take cognizance of and decide causes.”

Such authority in the minds of lay Roman lawyers who first used this word “jurisdiction” was essentially temporal in its origin and in its sphere. The Christian Church transferred the notion to the spiritual domain as part of the general idea of a Kingdom of God correlative, on the spiritual side of man upon earth, to the powers, also ordained of God, who had dominion over his temporal estate (see Canon Law). As the Church in the earliest ages had executive and legislative power in its own spiritual sphere, so also it had “judicial officers,” “taking cognizance of and deciding causes.” Only before its union with the State, its power in this direction, as in others, was merely over the spirits of men. Coercive temporal authority over their bodies or estates could only be given by concession from the temporal prince. Moreover, even spiritual authority over members of the Church, i.e. baptized persons, could not be exclusively claimed as of right by the Church tribunals, if the subject matter of the cause were purely temporal. On the other hand, it is clear that all the faithful were subject to these courts (when acting within their own sphere), and that, in the earliest times, no distinction was made in this respect between clergy and laity.

The fundamental principle of ecclesiastical jurisdiction with its “sanction” of excommunication will be found in Christ’s words in Matt. xviii. 15-18. A very early example of criminal spiritual jurisdiction exercised by St Paul is found in the case of the incestuous Corinthian (1 Cor. v.). We find later the same apostle exercising like jurisdiction in the cause of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. i. 20). After the time of the Apostles, we find this criminal jurisdiction exercised by the bishops individually over their respective “subjects”—doubtless with the advice of their presbyters according to the precept of St Ignatius (c. 110). As neighbouring dioceses coalesced into “provinces” and provinces into larger districts (corresponding to the civil “dioceses” of the later Roman Empire), the provincial synods of bishops and the synods of the larger districts acquired a criminal jurisdiction, still purely spiritual, of their own. At first this was “original” and mainly (although not exclusively) over bishops (of the province or larger district). The beginnings of an appellate jurisdiction in the cases of clerics and laymen may be traced before the conversion of the Empire. The bishop over whom the synod of neighbouring bishops had exercised jurisdiction had no formal right of appeal; but sometimes bishops in other parts of the Church would refuse to acknowledge the local synodical sentence and would communicate with a bishop whom they deemed unjustly deposed. The theory, as expressed in legal phrase by St Cyprian in the 3rd century, was that the apostolic power of delegated sovereignty from the Lord, alike legislative and judicial, was held in joint-tenancy by the whole body of Catholic bishops. In both capacities, however, a certain undefined pre-eminence was conceded to the occupants of “Apostolic” sees, i.e. sees traditionally founded by Apostles, or of sees with a special secular position.

Even before the edict of Milan, at least as early as the latter half of the 3rd century, the spiritual sentences of deposition from office had sometimes indirect temporal consequences recognized by the secular courts. The classical example is the case of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch. It would seem that, in the intervals of persecution, some rights of property were recognized in the Christian Church and its officers; although the Church was an illegal society. After some previous abortive trials, Paul of Samosata was deposed and excommunicated, in 269, by a great synod of the Antiochene district. Paul, notwithstanding his deposition, kept possession of the episcopal residence. The local church sought recovery of it before the tribunals of the Empire. The judicial authorities requested a rescript from the emperor Aurelian for the decision of the cause. Aurelian referred the matter to the bishop of Rome and the bishops of Italy, who gave their award in favour of the Antiochene Church.

Side by side with this which we may call criminal jurisdiction—none the less real or coercive because its sanctions were purely spiritual—there grew up a quasi-jurisdiction in causes entirely temporal, based upon the free consent of the parties to accept the arbitration of the bishop. This system had also its roots in the New Testament (see Matt, xviii. 15-17 and 1 Cor. vi. 1-8). In the matter of criminal jurisdiction we paused for a moment at the edict of Milan; but we may at once trace this second or civil branch of episcopal judicature or quasi-judicature down as far as the reign of Charlemagne, when it underwent a fundamental change, and became, if either litigant once chose, no longer a matter of consent but of right.

Constantine decreed that judgment in causes might be passed by bishops when litigants preferred their adjudication to that of the secular courts (see his epistle to the Numidian bishops and Cod. Theodos. Tit. de Episcopis). The episcopal judgment was to be equivalent to that of the emperor and irreversible, and the civil authorities were to see to its execution. Saints Ambrose and Augustine both spent days in deciding temporal causes. Honorius, in the West, at the end of the 4th century, made a constitution providing that if any desired to litigate before the bishops they should not be forbidden, but that in civil matters the prelates should render judgment in the manner of arbitrators by consent (Cod. 1, Tit. iv.). Where the faithful had had recourse to the bishop, no appeal was to be allowed, and the judges were to command execution of the episcopal decree. A quarter of a century later, however, Valentinian III. in the West expressly provided that bishops were not to be permitted to be judges (that is, of course, in temporal causes), save by the consent of the parties. This legislation was, substantially, adopted by Justinian.

On the revival of the Western Empire, however, Charlemagne, in the beginning of the 9th century, under the mistaken belief that he was following the authority of Constantine I. and Theodosius I., took a great step forward, by which the bishop ceased to be a mere legally indicated arbitrator by consent in secular causes, and became a real judge. By a capitulary he provided that either litigant, without the consent of the other party, and not only at the beginning of a suit but at any time during its continuance, might take the cause from lay cognizance and transfer it to the bishop’s tribunal. He re-enacted the prohibition of appeal.

It should be remembered that, from the latter part of the 3rd century, the leading bishops had generally been trained in secular learning. St Cyprian, St Ambrose and St Augustine, St Paulinus of Nola and St John Chrysostom had practised law as teachers or advocates. St Ambrose and St Paulinus had even held high administrative and judicial offices.

To return to the evolution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction from the time of Constantine. With the “Nicene period” came a great development on the criminal side. A system begins to be formed, and the secular arm supports the decrees of the Church. The first trace of system is in the limited right of appeal given by the first oecumenical council of Nicaea and its provision that episcopal sentences or those of provincial synods on appeal were to be recognized throughout the world. The fifth canon provides that those, whether clerics or laymen, who are cut off from communion in any particular province are not to be admitted thereto elsewhere. Still examination must be had whether persons have been expelled from the congregation by any episcopal small-mindedness (μικροψυχία), or contentious spirit, or such-like harshness (ἀηδία). That this may be conveniently inquired into, synods are to be held, three in every year, in each province, and questions of this kind examined. There is to be no “stay of execution”; the episcopal sentence is to prevail until the provincial synod otherwise decide. It will be noticed that as yet no provision is made for appeals by bishops from provincial synods sitting in first instance.

The edicts of Milan had only admitted the Christian Church among the number of lawful religions; but the tendency (except in the time of Julian) was towards making it the only lawful religion. Hence the practice, immediately after Nicaea I., of superadding banishment by the emperor to synodical condemnation. The dogmatic decrees of Nicaea I. were at once enforced in this temporal manner. On the other hand, the Arian reaction at court worked its objects (see Pusey, Councils of the Church) by using the criminal spiritual jurisdiction of synods against the Catholics—often packing the synods for the purpose. The acts of councils of this age are full of the trials of bishops not only for heresy but for immorality and common law crimes. The accusations are frequently unfounded; but the trials are already conducted in a certain regular forensic form. The secular authorities follow the precedent of Nicaea I. and intervene to supplement the spiritual sentence by administrative penalties. Sometimes an imperial officer of high rank (as, e.g. a “count”) is present at the synod, as an assessor to maintain order and advise upon points of procedure. Leading examples may be found in the various prosecutions of St Athanasius, in whose case also there is the germ of an appeal, tanquam ab abusu. It has been contended that, according to later and more formulated jurisprudence, such an appeal would have lain, since the trial at Tyre was not concerned with purely spiritual matters (see the case in Hefele, Councils, in loc.).

The trial of St Athanasius led to extensions of the right of appeal. This was favoured by the development of the greater sees into positions of great administrative dignity, shortly to be called “patriarchal.” A synod was held at Rome, attended by bishops from various regions, which reversed the original judgment of the synod of Tyre which had condemned Athanasius. A much larger synod at Antioch, gathered only from the East, on the other hand, confirmed that judgment. This last synod did something to systematize the criminal procedure of the Church, and its legislation has been always received.

This legislation marks another step forward. Deposition of a bishop by a synod, or of a priest or deacon by his bishop, is to take effect even pending an appeal, and a cleric continuing his functions after sentence in first instance is to lose all right of appeal. The appeal given by Nicaea I. to clerics and laymen from episcopal excommunications is extended. The synod may restore them if convinced of the justice of their cause (and not merely in cases of ἀηδία). A bishop may appeal to a great assembly of bishops. Any bishop, priest or deacon “importuning” the emperor, instead of exerting his right of appeal to synods, is to lose all right of appeal and never to be restored or pardoned. If a provincial synod be divided as to the guilt of a bishop, the metropolitan is to convene bishops from the neighbouring provinces to decide the cause jointly with the bishops of the original province.

A few years later, in 347, the council of Sardica, a council of practically the whole West save Africa, reversed Tyre and acquitted St Athanasius after a full judicial inquiry. This council endeavoured to set up a system of appeals in the case of bishops, in which the see of Rome was made to play a great part. “Out of honour to the memory of St Peter,” a condemned bishop may ask the intervention of Rome. If this be done, the synod of first instance is to send letters to Julius, bishop of Rome. If that prelate think the cause should be heard again, he is to appoint judges; if otherwise, the original judgment is to be confirmed. Pending appeal, the appellant’s see is not to be filled up. The judges appointed by the bishop of Rome to hear the appeal are to be from the neighbouring provinces. The appellant may, however, request that bishop to send priests from his side to sit with the synod of appeal. If such priests are sent, they are to preside in the court of appeal. These canons were always repudiated in the East, and when, sixty years afterwards, they were, for the first time, heard of in Africa, they were repudiated there also.

A rescript of Gratian in 378 empowered the bishop of Rome to judge bishops with the assistance of six or seven other bishops or, in the case of a metropolitan, of fifteen comprovincial bishops. A bishop refusing to come to Rome was to be brought there by the civil power. The rescript, however, was not incorporated in the Codes and perhaps was only a temporary measure.

The tendency to give pre-eminence to Rome appears again in an imperial letter to St Flavian, who, in the judgment of the East, was bishop of Antioch, but who was rejected by the West and Egypt, summoning him to Rome to be there judged by the bishops of the imperial city—a summons which St Flavian did not obey (Tillemont, Mém. Ecc.). In Africa in the beginning of the 5th century Apiarius, a priest who had been deposed by the bishop of Sicca for immorality, and whose deposition had been affirmed by the “provincial synod,” instead of further appealing to a general synod of Africa, carried his appeal to Pope Zosimus. The pope received the appeal, absolved him and restored him to the rank of priest, and sent a bishop and two priests as legates to Africa with instructions to them to hear the cause of Apiarius anew and for execution of their sentence to crave the prefect’s aid; moreover, they were to summon the bishop of Sicca to Rome and to excommunicate him, unless he should amend those things which the legates deemed wrong. The upshot of a long conflict was that the papal claim to entertain appeals from Africa by priests and deacons was rejected by the African bishops, who in their final synodical epistle also repudiate in terms any right of appeal by African bishops to “parts beyond the seas” (see Hefele, Councils, bk. viii.).

The story of the administrative development of the Church in the 5th century is mainly the story of the final emergence and constitution of the great “patriarchates,” as authorities superior to metropolitans and provincial synods. In consequence of the occupants of the thrones of Constantinople and Alexandria falling successively into opposite heresies, the question arose how “patriarchs” were to be judged. In both cases, as it seems, an attempt was made by the bishop of Rome to depose the erring patriarch by his authority as primate of Christendom, acting in concert with a Western synod. In both cases, apparently, an oecumenical synod ignored the Roman deposition and judged the alleged offences of the respective patriarchs in first and last instance. The third and fourth oecumenical synods (Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451) were primarily tribunals for the trials of Nestorius and Dioscorus; it was secondarily that they became organs of the universal episcopate for the definition of the faith, or legislative assemblies for the enactment of canons. Nothing is more remarkable than their minute care as to observance of rules of procedure. In both cases, imperial assessors were appointed. At Ephesus the Count Candidian was commissioned to maintain order, but took little part in the proceedings. At Chalcedon, on the other hand, the imperial commissioners decided points of order, kept the synod to the question, took the votes and adjourned the court. But the synod alone judged and pronounced sentence. No oecumenical synod has tried a patriarch of Old Rome while yet in the flesh. The fifth oecumenical council came nearest to so doing, in the case of Vigilius. That pope, although in Constantinople, refused to attend the sittings of the council. He was cited three times, in the canonical manner, and upon not appearing was threatened in the third session with anathema (Hefele, Councils, sect. 268 ad fin.). He was not, however, charged with direct heresy, as were Nestorius and Dioscorus, and the synod seems to have hesitated to deal stringently with the primate of Christendom. In the seventh session it accepted the suggestion of Justinian, merely to order the name of Vigilius to be removed from the liturgical prayers, at the same time expressing its desire to maintain unity with the see of Old Rome (Hefele, sect. 273). After the council, Justinian banished the pope to Egypt, and afterwards to an island, until he accepted the council, which he ultimately did (ib. 276). The sixth oecumenical synod decreed that the dead pope Honorius should be “cast out from the holy Catholic Church of God” and anathematized, a sentence approved by the reigning pope Leo II. and affirmed by the seventh oecumenical synod in 787.

The constitution of the patriarchal system resulted in the recognition of a certain right of appeal to Rome from the larger part of the West. Britain remained outside that jurisdiction, the Celtic churches of the British islands, after those islands were abandoned by the Empire, pursuing a course of their own. In the East, Constantinople, from its principality, acquired special administrative pre-eminence, naturally followed, as in the case of “old Rome,” by judicial pre-eminence. An example of this is found in the ninth canon of Chalcedon, which also illustrates the enforcement upon a clerical plaintiff in dispute with a brother cleric of that recourse to the arbitration of their ecclesiastical superior already mentioned. The canon provides that any clerk having a complaint against another clerk must not pass by his own bishop and turn to secular tribunals, but first lay bare his cause before him, so that by the sentence of the bishop himself the dispute may be settled by arbitrators acceptable to both parties. Any one acting against these provisions shall be subject to canonical penalties. If any clerk have a complaint against his own bishop, he shall have his cause adjudicated upon by the synod of the province. But if a bishop or clerk have a difference with the metropolitan of his province let him bring it before the exarch of the “diocese” (i.e. the larger district answering to the civil “diocese”), or before the royal see of Constantinople, who shall do justice upon it. An “exarch” means properly a superior metropolitan having several provinces under him. In the next century Justinian (Nov. 123, c. 22) put the other patriarchates on the same footing as Constantinople. In c. 21 he gives either plaintiff or defendant an appeal within ten days to the secular judge of the locality from the bishop’s judgment. If there be no appeal, that judge is to give execution to the episcopal award. The growth of a special “original” jurisdiction at Constantinople, which perhaps developed earlier than the corresponding institution at Rome, may be traced to the fact that bishops from all parts were constantly in Constantinople. The bishop of Constantinople, even before he became properly “patriarch,” would often assemble a synod from these visiting bishops, which acquired the technical name of σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα, the synod of sojourners. This synod frequently decided questions belonging to other patriarchates.

The criminal jurisdiction thus exercised was generally speaking unlimited. It must be remembered that the forum externum of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in the sense in which we now use the phrase, of a judge deciding causes, was not then clearly marked off from the forum internum, or what afterwards came to be called the “tribunal of penance” (see Van Espen, Jus ecc. univ. pars iii. tit. iv. c. 1). Ecclesiastical proceedings by way of prosecution are called “criminal,” but they are primarily pro salute animae; whereas temporal criminal proceedings are primarily for the protection of the state and its citizens. Hence a Christian might be first punished in the civil courts and then put to public penance by the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or vice versa: an apparently double system of punishment which the medieval Church, when the forum externum had become quite separated from the forum internum, sometimes repudiated (see Maitland, English Canon Law, 138, 139, 144).

Theodosius began the system of giving secular authority to Church tribunals. Thus, in 376, L. 23 Cod. Theodos. de. Episcopis, &c., subjected clerics for small offences pertaining to the observances of religion to bishops and synods. In 399, L. 1 Cod. de Religione provides that, when it is a matter of religion, it beseems the bishop to judge. A rescript of Constantius, in 355, inserted in Cod. Theod. lxii. de Epis. Ecc. et Cler., excluded bishops from accusations before secular judges and commanded such accusations to be speedily brought before the tribunal of other bishops. This law was probably only intended to be of a temporary character. Then comes the law of Gratian already noticed. Then, in 399, a law of Honorius (Cod. Theod. L. 1 de Religione): “As often as it concerns religion, it is meet that the bishops should judge, but other causes which belong to ordinary jurisdiction or to public law are to be heard in the ordinary courts (legibus oportet audiri).” L. 3 de Epis. Jud., at the end of the Theodosian Code, seems spurious (see the comment of Gothofredus in loco). But a constitution of Honorius in 412 (Cod. Theod. L. xli. de Epis. Ecc. et Cler.) provides that clerks are not to be accused except before the bishop. Bishops, priests, deacons, and every other “minister of the Christian law” of inferior degree, are taken from secular jurisdiction in criminal cases. The words are quite general; but it has been contended that they apply only to crimes of an ecclesiastical character (see Gothofredus in loc.; Van Espen, pars iii. tit. iii. c. 1, 10). In 425 a constitution of Theodosius II. provides that a recent decree of the usurper John should be disregarded and that clerks whom he had brought before secular judges should be reserved for the episcopal jurisdictions, “since it is not lawful to subject the ministers of the divine office to the arbitrament of temporal powers.” Justinian has a clearer perception of the demarcation between the spheres of spiritual and temporal law. The 83rd Novell provides that if the offence be ecclesiastical, needing ecclesiastical correction, the bishop shall take cognizance of it. The 123rd Novell (c. 21) provides that if a clerk be accused of a secular crime he shall be accused before his bishop, who may depose him from his office and order, and then the competent judge may take him and deal with him according to the laws. If the prosecutor have first brought him before the civil judge, the evidence is to be sent to the bishop, and the latter, if he thinks the crime has been committed, may deprive him of his office and order, and the judge shall apply to him the proper legal punishment. But if the bishop think the evidence insufficient, the affair shall be referred to the emperor, by way of appeal both from bishop and judge. If the cause be ecclesiastical, the civil judges are to take no part in the inquiry. The law includes with clerics, monks, deaconesses, nuns, ascetics; and the word “clerics” covered persons in minor orders, down to doorkeepers. It will be noticed that Justinian supposes that the prosecutor may begin the proceedings before the civil judge. A constitution of Alexius Comnenus I. seems to send him to the special forum of the accused.

Certain enactments of later Saxon times in England have been sometimes spoken of as though they united together the temporal and spiritual jurisdictions into one mixed tribunal deriving its authority from the State. In the latter part of the 10th century, laws of Edgar provided that the bishop should be at the county court and also the alderman, and that there each of them should put in use both God’s laws and the world’s law (Johnson’s English Canons, i. 411). This probably was, as Johnson suggests, that the bishop might enforce secular laws by ecclesiastical censure and the alderman ecclesiastical laws with secular punishment. But the two jurisdictions were kept separate; for by another law of Edgar (Leges Edg. c. v.) it was provided that “in the most august assembly the bishop and alderman should be present, and the one should interpret to the people the law of God, the other the laws of men.” Edgar, in a speech to St Dunstan and the bishops in synod (in 969), said, “I hold in my hands the sword of Constantine, you that of Peter. Let us join right hands and unite sword to sword” (Hardouin, Conc. tom. vi. p. 1, col. 675). The juxtaposition of the judicatures may, however, have led to some confusion between them.

As to appeals the mixed council of Cliff at Hoo (747) said they should go to the synod of the province. The only appeal to Rome in Saxon times was that of St Wilfrid, bishop of York, who appealed from the division of his see and his deposition for refusing to consent to it, and was heard in a Roman synod under the presidency of Pope Agatho. The synod found him unlawfully deposed and ordered his restoration. Upon his return to England, the Roman judgment was refused recognition and he was for a time imprisoned. Ten years later he was recalled to York, but refusing to consent to the division of his see was again deposed and again appealed to Rome. The appeal was heard at great length, in a synod of 703 under John VI., deputies from the archbishop of Canterbury being present. St Wilfrid was justified and was sent back to his see, with papal letters to the kings of Northumbria and Mercia. The Roman decree was again disregarded. At the council of “Nid” he was reconciled to the other bishops of the province, but not restored. In the end he was brought back to York, but not to the undivided see. The details of the case will be found in Wilkins, Concilia, in Mansi, Concilia, under the various councils named, and in Haddan & Stubbs, Councils and Eccl. Documents, vol. iii.

The penalties which the spiritual court could inflict, in the period between the edict of Milan and c. 854, were properly excommunication whether generally or as exclusion from the sacraments for a term of months or years or till the day of death and (in the case of clerics) suspension or deposition. Gradually, however, doubtless by way of commutation of excommunication and of penance, temporal penalties were added, as scourging, banishment, seclusion in a monastery, fines. It is difficult to say how far some of these temporal penalties were penitential only or how far they could be inflicted in invitos. But the secular arm, from the time of Nicaea I., was in the habit of aiding spiritual decrees, as by banishing deposed bishops, and gradually by other ways, even with laymen. Scourging (although it had been a well-known punishment of the synagogue) was at first forbidden. Can. 28 (26) of the Apostolic Canons imposes deposition on any bishop, priest or deacon striking the delinquent faithful. In Africa, however, a contrary practice early sprang up (see St Augustine, Epist. clix. ad Marcellum al. cxxxiii.). The small council of Vannes in Brittany in 465 made it an alternative punishment for clerks convicted of drunkenness (Can. 13). Canon 13 of the first council of Orleans, which has been cited in this matter, seems to have no application. St Gregory the Great seems to assume that scourging and seclusion in a monastery are in the discretion of episcopal tribunals (see Epistles, lib. ii. ep. 11, 40, 42, 44, 45; lib. vii. ep. 11, 67; lib. xii. ep. 31, c. 4). The 16th council of Toledo (in 693) has been cited as if it visited certain very great sinners with scourging as an ecclesiastical punishment. In fact, it only approves the punishment as ordered by the Visigothic laws. An alleged decree of a council of Autun in 670 is part of a code of discipline for monasteries (see authorities cited by Hefele, Councils, sect. 290, towards the end). Banishment does not seem to have been inflicted by the spiritual court in invitum. Seclusion in a monastery seems first to have been used by the civil power in aid of the spiritual. The fifth canon of the council of Macon, in 584, forbids clergy to dress like laymen and imposes a penalty of thirty days’ imprisonment on bread and water; but this may be merely penitential. There is little evidence of the imposition of fines as ecclesiastical penalties; but there are references to the practice in the epistles of St Gregory the Great, notably in his instructions to St Augustine. Gregory III. copies from St Gregory I. Probably these also were by way of penance. Isolated examples in the early middle ages of metropolitans dealing with their suffragan bishops by imprisonment in chains were extra-canonical abuses, connected with the perversion of Church law which treated the metropolitan (who originally was merely convener of the provincial synod and its representative during the intervals of sessions) as the feudal “lord” of his comprovincials.

With the later 9th century we enter upon a new epoch, and by the time of Gregory VII., in the 11th century, the tribunals have fallen into the hands of a regular class of canonists who are in fact professional church-lawyers in orders. The changes due to the adoption of the False Decretals by Nicholas I. and the application of their principles by Hildebrand (afterwards Gregory VII.) are discussed in the article Canon Law. The later medieval system, thus inaugurated, may be considered (1) in its hierarchy, (2) in the subject matter of its jurisdiction, (3) in its penalties.

1. (a) It is a system of courts. Much that had been done by bishops, sine strepitu forensi et figura judicii, is now done in the course of regular judicial procedure. Again, the court takes the place of the synod. The diocesan synod ceases to have judicial work. The court of the metropolitan takes the place of the provincial synod, except possibly for the trial of bishops, and even this becomes doubtful.

(b) At first the bishop was the only judge in the diocesan court and he always remains a judge. But just as the king appoints judges to hear placita coram rege ipso, and the feudal lord appoints his seneschal or steward, so the bishop appoints his official.

(c) The archdeacon acquires a concurrent ordinary jurisdiction with the bishop (see Archdeacon). For some time it was considered that he was a mere office-holder dependent on the will of the bishop with a jurisdiction merely “vicarial”; but by the 13th century it was settled that he held a “benefice” and that his jurisdiction over causes was ordinary and independent of the bishop (Van Espen, pars i. tit. xii. c. 1; Fournier, Les Officialités au moyen âge, p. 134). It was partly in order to counterpoise the power of archdeacons that bishops created officials (Fournier, p. 8). Archdeacons in course of time created officials who presided in court in their stead. The extent of jurisdiction of archdeacons depended much upon local customs. In England the custom was generally in their favour. Ordinarily, the appeal from an archdeacon or his official lay to the court of the bishop; but by custom the appeal might be to the court of the metropolitan: The Constitutions of Clarendon, in 1164, made the appeal from the court of the archdeacon lie to the court of the bishop.

(d) The official of the bishop might be his official principal, who was his alter ego, or a special officer for a particular locality (officialis foraneus). The latter was treated as a mere delegate, from whom an appeal could be made to the bishop. The former had one consistory with the bishop, so that appeals from him had to be made to the court of the metropolitan. How far the official principal had jurisdiction in criminal matters by virtue of his office, how far it was usual to add this jurisdiction by special commission, and what were the respective limits of his office and that of the vicar-general, are questions of some nicety. The emphasis in Italy was on the vicar-general (Sext. de officio Vicarii). In the Low Countries, France and England the jurisdiction of the official principal was wider (Van Espen, pars i. tit. xii. cc. 4, 5; Fournier, p. 21). But he could not try criminal matters unless specially committed to him (Lyndwood, Provinciale, lib. ii. tit. 1). Later in England it became usual to appoint one man to the two offices and to call him chancellor, a word perhaps borrowed from cathedral chapters, and not in use for a diocesan officer till the time of Henry VIII. or later (see Chancellor). In Ireland the title, till the church was disestablished, was vicar-general.

The importance of distinguishing the normal functions of an official principal and a vicar-general lies in this: that it was gradually established that as a king should not hear causes but commit them to his judges, so a bishop should not hear causes but appoint an official to hear them (see Ridley, View of the Civil and Eccl. Law; Ayliffe, Parergon juris ecclesiastici, p. 161; Godolphin, Abridgement of the Laws Ecclesiastical, p. 8). The “parlements” of France were constantly insisting on the independence and irremovability of the official (Fournier, p. 219). But jurisdiction which was not necessarily incident to the office of the official principal, that is to say voluntary jurisdiction, such as the granting of licences and institution to benefices, and criminal jurisdiction over clerks (and probably over laymen), the bishop could reserve to himself. Reservations of this nature are made in many English patents of chancellors and were held good in R. v. Tristram, 1902, 1 K.B. 816.

(e) The ecclesiastical and temporal courts are kept distinct. The charter of William the Conqueror abrogated the laws of Edgar. No bishop or archdeacon “shall any longer hold pleas in the Hundred concerning episcopal law nor draw a cause which concerns the rule of such to the judgment of men of the world” (Stubbs, Select Charters, part iii.). In France, where the bishop was a temporal baron, his feudal and his spiritual courts were kept by distinct officers (Fournier, p. 2).

(f) From the bishop, or his official, appeal lay to the metropolitan, who again could hear causes by his official. The Constitutions of Clarendon recognize this appeal (c. viii.).

(g) An appeal lay from the court of the metropolitan to that of the primate. There were many disputes as to the existence of these primates (see Maitland, Canon Law in the Church of England, p. 121). In England the dispute between Canterbury and York was settled by making them both primates, giving Canterbury the further honour of being primate of all England. In France the primatial sees and the course of appeals to them were well established (Fournier, p. 219).

(h) Several attempts were made by metropolitans and their officials to take causes arising in the dioceses of their comprovincials in the first instance and not by way of appeal. The officials of primates in their turn made similar attempts. After long struggles this was hindered, in France by the bull Romana (Fournier, p. 218), in England by the Bill of Citations, 23 Henry VIII. c. 9, and Canon 94 of the Canons of 1603. The preamble of the “Bill of Citations” is eloquent as to the mischief which it is framed to prevent. There are, however, a few cases in which the metropolitan is still allowed to cite in the first instance. One of them was in cases of “perplexity.” “Perplexity” arose where the suffragans “could not owing to the geographical limitations of their competence do full justice” (Maitland, pp. 118-119). Such was the case of probate where notable goods of the deceased lay in more than one diocese. Hence the origin of the “prerogative court” of Canterbury (cf. Van Espen, pars i. tit. xix.; and for Spain, Covarruvias, Pract. Quaest. c. 9).

(i) Gradually there grew up a mass of peculiar and exempt jurisdictions (Ayliffe, pp. 417, 418; Phillimore, Eccl. Law, pp. 214, 927; de Maillane, Dict. du droit canonique, s.v. “Exemptions”). Exempt jurisdictions began with the monasteries and were matter of vehement discussion in the later middle ages. There were no true exemptions before the 11th century (Van Espen, pars iii. tit. xii.). Peculiar or special jurisdiction, equal to that of the bishop, was given to deans and chapters over the cathedral precincts and in places where they had corporate property (see Parham v. Templer, 3 Phil. Ecc. R. 22). Sometimes it was given to deans alone or to prebendaries in the parishes whence they derived their prebends. Where the archdeacon had a jurisdiction co-ordinate with the bishop, it was called a peculiar. The metropolitans had peculiars within the dioceses of their comprovincials wherever they had residences or manors, and some whose origin is uncertain, e.g. that of the fifteen parishes in the deanery of the Arches. The official administering justice for the metropolitan was usually called a dean. From a peculiar jurisdiction ranking as episcopal the appeal lay to the court of the metropolitan. As to metropolitan peculiars, the metropolitan might give an appeal from the dean to his regular official principal. Thus, in Canterbury there was an appeal from the dean of Arches to the official principal of the Arches court. When peculiars were abolished (vide infra) the dean of Arches disappeared, and his title, in the 19th century, was erroneously given to the official principal. On peculiars in Spain cf. Covarruvias, Works, tit. i. p. 410. The French parlements, after the middle ages, discouraged them. In exempt convents the head of the monastery or priory exercised jurisdiction subject to an appeal to the pope.