Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Electrostatics" to "Engis" (part 2)

The theophany is clearly no rebuke to an impatient prophet, nor a lesson that the kingdom of heaven was to be built up by the slow and gentle operation of spiritual forces. It expresses the spirituality of Yahweh in a way that indicates a marked advance in the conception of his nature. See Skinner, Century Bible, “Kings,” ad loc.

The geographical indications imply that in one account the journey to Damascus and the anointing of Hazael and Jehu must have intervened, and were omitted because another account ascribed these acts to Elisha (2 Kings viii. ix.). In the latter we possess a more historical account of the anointing of Jehu, and Robertson Smith observes: “When the history in 1 Kings represents Elijah as personally commissioned to inaugurate [the revolution] by anointing Jehu and Hazael as well as Elisha, we see that the author’s design is to gather up the whole contest between Yahweh and Baal in an ideal picture of Elijah and his work” (Ency. Brit. (9) art. Kings, vol. xiv. p. 85).

Understood in Eccles. xlviii. 12 (Heb.) to mean that Elisha was twice as great as Elijah.

ELIJAH WILNA, or Elijah ben Solomon, best known as the Gaon Elijah of Wilna (1720-1797), a noted Talmudist who hovered between the new and the old schools of thought. Orthodox in practice and feeling, his critical treatment of the rabbinic literature prepared the way for the scientific investigations of the 19th century. As a teacher he was one of the first to discriminate between the various strata in rabbinic records; to him was due the revival of interest in the older Midrash (q.v.) and in the Palestinian Talmud (q.v.), interest in which had been weak for some centuries before his time. He was an ascetic, and was a keen opponent of the emotional mysticism which was known as the new Hassidism.

See S. Schechter’s Studies in Judaism (London, 1896). His voluminous writings are classified in the Jewish Encyclopedia, v. 134.

(I. A.)

ELIOT, CHARLES WILLIAM (1834- ), American educationalist, the son of Samuel Atkins Eliot (1798-1862), mayor of Boston, representative in Congress, and in 1842-1853 treasurer of Harvard, was born in Boston on the 20th of March 1834. He graduated in 1853 at Harvard College, where he was successively tutor (1854-1858) and assistant professor of chemistry (1858-1863). He studied chemistry and foreign educational methods in Europe in 1863-1865, was professor of analytical chemistry in the newly established Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1865-1869), although absent fourteen months in Europe in 1867-1868; and in 1869 was elected president of Harvard University, a choice remarkable at once for his youth and his being a layman and scientist. With Johns Hopkins University, Harvard, in his presidency, led in the work of efficient graduate schools. Its elective system, which has spread far, although not originated by President Eliot, was thoroughly established by him, and is only one of many radical changes which he championed with great success. The raising of entrance requirements, which led to a corresponding raising of the standards of secondary schools, and the introduction of an element of choice in these entrance requirements, which allowed a limited election of studies to secondary pupils, became national tendencies primarily through President Eliot’s potent influence. As chairman of a national Committee of Ten (1890) on secondary school studies, he urged the abandonment of brief disconnected “information” courses, the correlation of subjects taught, the equal rank in college requirements of subjects in which equal time, consecutiveness and concentration were demanded, and a more thorough study of English composition; and to a large degree he secured national sanction for these reforms and their working out by experts into a practicable and applicable system. He laboured to unify the entire educational system, minimize prescription, cast out monotony, and introduce freedom and enthusiasm; and he emphasized the need of special training for special work. He was first to suggest (1894) co-operation by colleges in holding common entrance examinations throughout the country, and it was largely through his efforts that standards were so approximated that this became possible. He contended that secondary schools maintained by public funds should shape their courses for the benefit of students whose education goes no further than such high schools, and not be mere training schools for the universities. His success as administrator and man of affairs and as an educational reformer made him one of the great figures of his time, in whose opinions on any topic the deepest interest was felt throughout the country. In November 1908 he resigned the presidency of Harvard, and retired from the position early in 1909, when he was succeeded by Professor Abbott Lawrence Lowell. In December 1908 he was elected president of the National Civil Service Reform League.

His writings include The Happy Life (1896); Five American Contributions to Civilization, and Other Essays and Addresses (1897); Educational Reform, Essays and Addresses 1869-1897 (1898); More Money for the Public Schools (1903); Four American Leaders (1906), chapters on Franklin, Washington, Channing and Emerson; University Administration (1908); and with F.H. Storer, a Compendious Manual of Qualitative Chemical Analysis (Boston, 1869; many times reissued and revised). His annual reports as President of Harvard were notable contributions to the literature of education in America, and he delivered numerous public addresses, many of which have been reprinted.

See “President Eliot’s Administration,” by different hands, a summary of his work at Harvard in 1869-1894, in The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, vol. 2, pp. 449-504 (Boston, Mass., 1894); and E. Kuhnemann, Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard (Boston, 1909).

His son, Charles Eliot (1859-1897), graduated at Harvard in 1882, studied landscape architecture at the Bussey Institution of Harvard and in Europe, successfully urged the incorporation of the Massachusetts Trustees of Public Reservations (1891) and of the Metropolitan Park Commission (1892) of Boston, became landscape architect to the Metropolitan Park Commission in 1892, and in 1893, with F.L. Olmsted and J.C. Olmsted, formed the firm of Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot, which was employed by the Metropolitan Commission. His life was written by his father, Charles Eliot, Landscape Architect (Boston, 1902).

ELIOT, GEORGE, the pen-name of the famous English writer, née Mary Ann (or Marian) Evans (1819-1880), afterwards Mrs J.W. Cross, born at Arbury Farm, in Warwickshire, on the 22nd of November 1819. Her father, Robert Evans, was the agent of Mr Francis Newdigate, and the first twenty-one years of the great novelist’s life were spent on the Arbury estate. She received an ordinary education at respectable schools till the age of seventeen, when her mother’s death, and the marriage of her elder sister, called her home in the character of housekeeper. This, though it must have sharpened her sense, already too acute, of responsibility, was an immense advantage to her mind, and, later, to her career, for, delivered from the tiresome routine of lessons and class-work, she was able to work without pedantic interruptions at German, Italian and music, and to follow her unusually good taste in reading. The life, inasmuch as she was a girl still in her teens, was no doubt monotonous, even unhappy. Just as Cardinal Newman felt, with such different results, the sadness and chain of evangelical influences from his boyhood till the end of his days, so Marian Evans was subdued all through her youth by a severe religious training which, while it pinched her mind and crushed her spirit, attracted her idealism by the very hardness of its perfect counsels. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that when Mr Evans moved to Coventry in 1841, and so enlarged the circle of their acquaintance, she became much interested in some new friends, Mr and Mrs Charles Bray and Mr Charles Hennell. Mr Bray had literary taste and wrote works on the Education of the Feelings, the Philosophy of Necessity, and the like. Mr Hennell had published in 1838 An Enquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity. Miss Evans, then twenty-two, absorbed immediately these unexpected, and, at that time, daring habits of thought. So compelling was the atmosphere that it led to a complete change in her opinions. Kind in her affection, she was relentless in argument. She refused to go to church (for some time, at least), wrote painful letters to a former governess—the pious Miss Lewis—and barely avoided an irremediable quarrel with her father, a churchman of the old school. Here was rebellion indeed. But rebels come, for the most part, from the provinces where petty tyranny, exercised by small souls, show the scheme of the universe on the meanest possible scale. George Eliot was never orthodox again; she abandoned, with fierce determination, every creed, and although she passed, later, through various phases, she remained incessantly a rationalist in matters of faith and in all other matters. It is nevertheless true that she wrote admirably about religion and religious persons. She had learnt the evangelical point of view; she knew—none better—the strength of religious motives; vulgar doubts of this fact were as distasteful to her as they were to another eminent writer, to whom she refers in one of her letters (dated 1853) as “a Mr Huxley, who was the centre of interest” at some “agreeable evening.” Her books abound in tributes to Christian virtue, and one of her own favourite characters was Dinah Morris in Adam Bede.

She undertook, about the beginning of 1844, the translation of Strauss’s Leben Jesu. This work, published in 1846, was considered scholarly, but it met, in the nature of things, with no popular success. On the death of Mr Evans in 1849, she went abroad for some time, and we hear of no more literary ventures till 1851, when she accepted the assistant-editorship of the Westminster Review. For a while she had lodgings at the offices of that publication in the Strand, London. She wrote several notable papers, and became acquainted with many distinguished authors of that period—among them Herbert Spencer, Carlyle, Harriet Martineau, Francis Newman and George Henry Lewes. Her friendship with the last-named led to a closer relationship which she regarded as a marriage. Among the many criticisms passed upon this step (in view of the fact, among other considerations, that Lewes had a wife living at the time), no one has denied her courage in defying the law, or questioned the quality of her tact in a singularly false position. That she felt the deepest affection for Lewes is evident; that we owe the development of her genius to his influence and constant sympathy is all but certain. Yet it is also sure that what she gained from his intimate companionship was heavily paid for in the unceasing consciousness that most people thought her guilty of a grave mistake, and found her written words, with their endorsement of traditional morality, wholly at variance with the circumstances of her private life. Doubts of her suffering in this respect will be at once dismissed after a study of her journal and letters. Stilted and unnatural as these are to a tragic degree, one can read well enough between the lines, and also in the elaborate dedication of each manuscript to “my husband” (in terms of the strongest love), that self-repression, coupled with audacity, does not make for peace. Her sensitiveness to criticism was extreme; a flippant paragraph or an illiterate review with regard to her work actually affected her for days. The whole history of her union with Lewes is a complete illustration of the force of sheer will—in that case partly her own and not inconsiderably his—over a nature essentially unfitted for a bold stand against attacks. At first she and the man whom she had described “as a sort of miniature Mirabeau in appearance,” went abroad to Weimar and Berlin, but they returned to England the same year and settled, after several moves, in lodgings at East Sheen.

In 1854 she published The Essence of Christianity, a translation from Feuerbach, a philosopher to whom she had been introduced by Charles Bray. During 1855 she translated Spinoza’s Ethics, wrote articles for the Leader, the Westminster Review, and the Saturday Review—then a new thing. It was not until the following year that she attempted the writing of fiction, and produced The Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos Barton—the first of the Scenes of Clerical Life. These, published in Blackwood’s Magazine, were issued in two volumes in 1858. The press in general extended a languid welcome to this work, and although the author received much encouragement from private sources, notably from Charles Dickens, the critics were mostly non-committal, and it was not until the publication of Adam Bede in 1859 that enthusiasm was attracted to the quality of the earlier production. Adam Bede, in the judgment of many George Eliot’s masterpiece, met with a success (in her own words) “triumphantly beyond anything she had dreamed of.” In 1860 appeared The Mill on the Floss. After the sensational good fortune of Adam Bede, the criticism applied to the new novel seems to have been disappointing. We find Miss Evans telling her publisher that “she does not wish to see any newspaper articles.” But the book made its way, and prepared an ever-growing army of readers for Silas Marner (1861), Romola (1862-1863), and Felix Holt (1866).

Silas Marner shows a reversion to her early manner—the manner of Scenes of Clerical Life. Romola, which is what is called an historical novel, owes its vitality not to the portraits of Savonarola or of the heroine, or to its vigorous pictures of Florentine life in the 15th century, but to its superb presentment of the treacherous, handsome Tito Melema, who belongs not to any one period but to every generation. Felix Holt, a novel dealing with political questions, is strained by a painfulness too severe for any reader’s pleasure. Where other eminent authors have produced mechanical books, or books which were mere repetitions of their most popular effort, she erred only on the side of the ponderous and the distressing. Felix Holt is both, and it is the only one of her novels which lacks an unforgettable human note. The Spanish Gypsy (1868), a drama in blank verse, received more public response than most compositions of the kind executed by those connected with the drama or with poetry only; and she published in 1874 another volume of verses, The Legend of Jubal and other Poems.

Any depression which the author may have felt with regard to the faults found with some of the last-named books was completely cured by the praise bestowed on Middlemarch (1872). This profound study of certain types of English character was supreme at the time of its writing, and it remains supreme, of its school, in European literature. Thackeray is brilliant; Tolstoi is vivid to a point where life-likeness overwhelms any consideration of art; Balzac created a whole world; George Eliot did not create, but her exposition of the upper and middle class minds of her day is a masterpiece of scientific psychology. Daniel Deronda (1876), a production on the same lines, was less satisfactory. It exhibited the same human insight, the passionate earnestness, the insinuated special pleading for hard cases, the same intellectual strength, but the subject was unwieldy, almost forbidding, and, as a result, the novel, in spite of its distinction, has never been thoroughly liked. The death of Mr Lewes in 1878 was also the death-blow to her artistic vitality. She corrected the proofs of Theophrastus Such (a collection of essays), but she wrote no more. About two years later, however, she married Mr J.W. Cross, a gentleman whose friendship was especially congenial to a temperament so abnormally dependent on affectionate understanding as George Eliot’s. But she never really recovered from her shock at the loss of George Lewes, and died at 4 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, on the 22nd of December 1880.

No right estimate of her, whether as a woman, an artist or a philosopher, can be formed without a steady recollection of her infinite capacity for mental suffering, and her need of human support. The statement that there is no sex in genius, is on the face of it, absurd. George Sand, certainly the most independent and dazzling of all women authors, neither felt, nor wrote, nor thought as a man. Saint Teresa, another great writer on a totally different plane, was pre-eminently feminine in every word and idea. George Eliot, less reckless, less romantic than the Frenchwoman, less spiritual than the Spanish saint, was more masculine in style than either; but her outlook was not, for a moment, the man’s outlook; her sincerity, with its odd reserves, was not quite the same as a man’s sincerity, nor was her humour that genial, broad, unequivocal humour which is peculiarly virile. Hers approximated, curiously enough, to the satire of Jane Austen, both for its irony and its application to little everyday affairs. Men’s humour, in its classic manifestations, is on the heroic rather than on the average scale: it is for the uncommon situations, not for the daily tea-table.

Her method of attacking a subject shows the influence of Jane Austen, especially in parts of Middlemarch; one can detect also the stronger influence of Mrs Gaskell, of Charlotte Brontë, and of Miss Edgeworth. It was, however, but an influence, and no more than a man writer, anxious to acquire a knowledge of the feminine point of view, might have absorbed from a study of these women novelists. One often hears that she is not artistic; that her characterization is less distinct than Jane Austen’s; that she tells more than should be known of her heroes and heroines. But it should be remembered that Jane Austen dealt with familiar domestic types, whereas George Eliot excelled in the presentation of extraordinary souls. One woman drew members of polite society with correct notions, while the other woman depicted social rebels with ideas and ideals. In every one of George Eliot’s books, the protagonists, tortured by dreams of perfection, are in revolt against the prudent compromises of the worldly. All through her stories, one hears the clash of “the heroic for earth too high,” and the desperate philosophy, disguised it is true, of Omar Khayyam. In her day, Epicureanism had not reached the life of the people, nor passed into the education of the mob. Few dared to confess that the pursuit of pleasure, whether real or imagined, was the aim of mankind. The charm of Jane Austen is the charm of the untroubled and well-to-do materialist, who sees in a rich marriage, a comfortable house, carriages and an assured income the best to strive for; and in a fickle lover of either sex or the loss of money the severest calamities which can befall the human spirit. Jane Austen despised the greater number of her characters: George Eliot suffered with each of hers. Here, perhaps, we find the reason why she is accused of being inartistic. She could not be impersonal.

Again, George Eliot was a little scornful to those of both sexes who had neither special missions nor the consciousness of this deprivation. Men are seldom in favour of missions in any field. She demanded, too strenuously from the very beginning, an aim, more or less altruistic, from every individual; and as she advanced in life this claim became the more imperative, till at last it overpowered her art, and transformed a great delineator of humanity into an eloquent observer with far too many personal prejudices. But she was altogether free from cynicism, bitterness, or the least tendency to pride of intellect. She suffered from bodily weakness the greater part of her life, and, but for an extraordinary mental health—inherited from the fine yeoman stock from which she sprang—it is impossible that she could have retained, at all times, so sane a view of human conduct, or been the least sentimental among women writers of the first rank—the one wholly without morbidity in any disguise. The accumulation of mere book knowledge, as opposed to the friction of a life spent among all sorts and conditions of men, drove George Eliot at last to write as a specialist for specialists: joy was lost in the consuming desire for strict accuracy: her genius became more and more speculative, less and less emotional. The highly trained brain suppressed the impulsive heart,—the heart described with such candour and pathos as Maggie Tulliver’s in The Mill on the Floss. For this reason—chiefly because philosophy is popularly associated with inactive depression, whereas human nature is held to be eternally exhilarating—her later works have not received so much praise as her earlier productions. But one has only to compare Romola or Daniel Deronda with the compositions of any author except herself to realize the greatness of her designs, and the astonishing gifts brought to their final accomplishment.

See also the Life of George Eliot, edited by J.W. Cross (3 vols., 1885-1887); George Eliot, by Sir Leslie Stephen, in the “English Men of Letters” series (1902); by Oscar Browning, “Great Writers” series (1890), with a bibliography by J.P. Anderson; by Mathilde Blind, “Eminent Women” series, a new edition of which also contains a bibliography (Boston, Mass., 1904).

(P. M. T. C.)

ELIOT, SIR JOHN (1592-1632), English statesman, son of Richard Eliot, a member of an old Devonshire family lately settled in Cornwall, was born at his father’s seat at Port Eliot in Cornwall in 1592. He matriculated at Exeter College, Oxford, on the 4th of December 1607, and leaving the university after a residence of three years he studied law at one of the inns of court. He also spent some months travelling in France, Spain and Italy, in company, for part of the time, with young George Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham. He was only twenty-two when he began his parliamentary career as member for St Germans in the “addled parliament” of 1614. In 1618 he was knighted, and next year through the patronage of Buckingham he obtained the appointment of vice-admiral of Devon, with large powers for the defence and control of the commerce of the county. It was not long before the characteristic energy with which he performed the duties in his office involved him in difficulties. After many attempts, in 1623 he succeeded by a clever but dangerous manœuvre in entrapping the famous pirate John Nutt, who had for years infested the southern coast, inflicting immense damage upon English commerce. The issue is noteworthy. The pirate, having a powerful protector at court in Sir George Calvert, the secretary of state, was pardoned; while the vice-admiral, upon charges which could not be substantiated, was flung into the Marshalsea, and detained there nearly four months.

A few weeks after his release Eliot was elected member of parliament for Newport (February 1624). On the 27th of February he delivered his first speech, in which he at once revealed his great powers as an orator, demanding boldly that the liberties and privileges of parliament, repudiated by James I. in the former parliament, should be secured. In the first parliament of Charles I., in 1625, he urged the enforcement of the laws against the Roman Catholics. Meanwhile he had continued the friend and supporter of Buckingham and greatly approved of the war with Spain. Buckingham’s incompetence, however, and the bad faith with which both he and the king continued to treat the parliament, alienated Eliot completely from the administration. Distrust of his former friend quickly grew in Eliot’s excitable mind to a certainty of his criminal ambition and treason to his country. Returned to the parliament of 1626 as member for St Germans, he found himself, in the absence of other chiefs of the opposition whom the king had secured by nominating them sheriffs, the leader of the House. He immediately demanded an inquiry into the recent disaster at Cadiz. On the 27th of March he made an open and daring attack upon Buckingham and his evil administration. He was not intimidated by the king’s threatening intervention on the 29th, and persuaded the House to defer the actual grant of the subsidies and to present a remonstrance to the king, declaring its right to examine the conduct of ministers. On the 8th of May he was one of the managers who carried Buckingham’s impeachment to the Lords, and on the 10th he delivered the charges against him, comparing him in the course of his speech to Sejanus. Next day Eliot was sent to the Tower. On the Commons declining to proceed with business as long as Eliot and Sir Dudley Digges (who had been imprisoned with him) were in confinement, they were released, and parliament was dissolved on the 15th of June. Eliot was immediately dismissed from his office of vice-admiral of Devon, and in 1627 he was again imprisoned for refusing to pay a forced loan, but liberated shortly before the assembling of the parliament of 1628, to which he was returned as member for Cornwall. He joined in the resistance now organized to arbitrary taxation, was foremost in the promotion of the Petition of Right, continued his outspoken censure of Buckingham, and after the latter’s assassination in August, led the attack in the session of 1629 on the ritualists and Arminians.

In February the great question of the right of the king to levy tonnage and poundage came up for discussion; and on the king ordering an adjournment of parliament, the speaker, Sir John Finch, was held down in the chair while Eliot’s resolutions against illegal taxation and innovations in religion were read to the House by Holles (q.v.). In consequence, Eliot, with eight other members, was imprisoned on the 4th of March in the Tower. He refused to answer in his examination, relying on his privilege of parliament, and on the 29th of October was removed to the Marshalsea. On the 26th of January he appeared at the bar of the king’s bench, with Holles and Valentine, to answer a charge of conspiracy to resist the king’s order, and refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court he was fined £2000 and ordered to be imprisoned during the king’s pleasure and till he had made submission. This he steadfastly refused. While some of the prisoners appear to have had certain liberty allowed to them, Eliot’s confinement in the Tower was made exceptionally severe. Charles’s anger had been from the first directed chiefly against him, not only as his own political antagonist but as the prosecutor and bitter enemy of Buckingham; “an outlawed man,” he described him, “desperate in mind and fortune.”

Eliot languished in prison for some time, during which he wrote several works, his Negotium posterorum, an account of the parliament in 1625; The Monarchie of Man, a political treatise; De jure majestatis, a Political Treatise of Government; and An Apology for Socrates, his own defence. In the spring of 1632 he fell into a decline. In October he petitioned Charles for permission to go into the country, but leave could only be obtained at the price of submission, and was finally refused. He died on the 27th of November 1632. When his son requested permission to move the body to Port Eliot, Charles, whose resentment still survived, returned the curt refusal: “Let Sir John Eliot be buried in the church of that parish where he died.” The manner of Eliot’s death, not without suspicion of foul play, and as the result of the king’s implacability and the severe treatment to which he had been subjected, had more effect, probably, than any other single incident in embittering and precipitating the dispute between king and parliament; and the tragic sacrifice of a man so gifted and patriotic, and actuated originally by no antagonistic feeling against the monarchy or the church, is the surest condemnation of the king’s policy and administration. Eliot was essentially a great orator, inspired by enthusiasm and high ideals, which he was able to communicate to his hearers by his eloquence, but, like Chatham afterwards, he had not only the gifts but the failings of the orator, was incapable of well-reasoned and balanced judgment, and, though one of the greatest personalities of the time, was inferior to Pym both as a party leader and as a statesman.

Eliot married Rhadagund, daughter of Richard Gedie of Trebursye in Cornwall, by whom he had five sons, from the youngest of whom Nicholas the present earl of St Germans is descended, and four daughters.

The Life of Sir J. Eliot, by J. Forster (1864), is supplemented and corrected by Gardiner’s History of England, vols. v.-vii., and the article in the Dict. of Nat. Biog., by the same author. Eliot’s writings, together with his Letter-Book, have been edited by Dr Grosart.

ELIOT, JOHN (1604-1690), American colonial clergyman, known as the “Apostle to the Indians,” was born probably at Widford, Hertfordshire, England, where he was baptized on the 5th of August 1604. He was the son of Bennett Eliot, a middle-class farmer. Little is known of his boyhood and early manhood except that he took his degree of B.A. at Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1622. It seems probable that he entered the ministry of the Established Church, but there is nothing definitely known of him until 1629-1630, when he became an usher or assistant at the school of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, at Little Baddow, near Chelmsford. The influence of Hooker apparently determined him to become a Puritan, but his connexion with the school ceased in 1630, when Laud’s persecutions drove Hooker into exile. The realization of the difficulties in the way of a non-conforming clergyman in England undoubtedly determined Eliot to emigrate to America in the autumn of 1631, where he settled first at Boston, assisting for a time at the First Church. In November 1632 he became “teacher” to the church at Roxbury, with which his connexion lasted until his death. There he married Hannah Mulford, who had been betrothed to him in England, and who became his constant helper. In the care of the Roxbury church he was associated with Thomas Welde from 1632 to 1641, with Samuel Danforth (1626-1674) from 1649 to 1674, and with Nehemiah Walter (1663-1750) from 1688 to 1690.

Inspired with the idea of converting the Indians, his first step was to perfect himself in their dialects, which he did by the assistance of a young Indian whom he received into his home. With his aid he translated the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. He first successfully preached to the Indians in their own tongue at Nonantum (Newton) in October 1646. At the third meeting several Indians declared themselves converted, and were soon followed by many others. Eliot induced the Massachusetts General Court to set aside land for their residence, the same body also voting him £10 to prosecute the work, and directing that two clergymen be annually elected by the clergy as preachers to the Indians. As soon as the success of Eliot’s endeavours became known, the necessary funds flowed in upon him from private sources in both Old and New England. In July 1649 parliament incorporated the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England,” which henceforth supported and directed the work inaugurated by Eliot. The first appeal for aid brought contributions of £11,000. In 1651 the Christian Indian town founded by Eliot was removed from Nonantum to Natick, where residences, a meeting-house, and a school-house were erected, and where Eliot preached, when able, once in every two weeks as long as he lived. To this community Eliot applied a plan of government by means of tens, fifties and hundreds, which he subsequently advocated as suitable for all England. Eliot’s missionary labours encouraged others to follow in his footsteps. A second town under his direction was established at Ponkapog (Stoughton) in 1654, in which he had the assistance of Daniel Gookin (c. 1612-1687). His success was duplicated in Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket by the Mayhews, and by 1674 the unofficial census of the “praying Indians” numbered 4000. King Philip’s War (1675-76) was a staggering blow to all missionary enterprise; and although few of the converted Indians proved disloyal, it was some years before adequate support could again be enlisted. Yet at Eliot’s death, which occurred at Roxbury on the 21st of May 1690, the missions were at the height of their prosperity, and that the results of his labours were not permanent was due only to the racial traits of the New England tribes.

Of wider influence and more lasting value than his personal labours as a missionary was Eliot’s work as a translator of the Bible and various religious works into the Massachusetts dialect of the Algonquian language. The first work completed was the Catechism, published in 1653 at Cambridge, Massachusetts, the first book to be printed in the Indian tongue. Several years elapsed before Eliot completed his task of translating the Bible. The New Testament was at last issued in 1661, and the Old Testament followed two years later. The New Testament was bound with it, and thus the whole Bible was completed. To it were added a Catechism and a metrical version of the Psalms. The title of this Bible, now a great rarity, is Mamussee Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God naneeswe Nukkone Testament kah wonk Wusku Testament-Ne quoshkinnumuk nashpe Wuttinneumoh Christ noh assoowesit John Eliot; literally translated, “The Whole Holy His-Bible God, both Old Testament and also New Testament. This turned by the-servant-of-Christ, who is called John Eliot.”

This book was printed in 1663 at Cambridge, Mass., by Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson, and was the first Bible printed in America. In 1685 appeared a second edition, in the preparation of which Eliot was assisted by the Rev. John Cotton (1640-1699), the younger, of Plymouth, who also had a wide knowledge of the Indian tongue.

Besides his Bible, Eliot published at Cambridge in 1664 a translation of Baxter’s Call to the Unconverted, and in 1665 an abridged translation of Bishop Bayly’s Practice of Piety. With the assistance of his sons he completed (1664) his well-known Indian Grammar Begun, printed at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1666. It was reprinted in vol. ix. of the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. The Indian Primer, comprising an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and a translation of the Larger Catechism, was published at Cambridge in 1669, and was reprinted under the editorial superintendence of Mr John Small of the university of Edinburgh in 1877. In 1671 Eliot printed in English a little volume entitled Indian Dialogues, followed in 1672 by his Logick Primer, both of which were intended for the instruction of the Indians in English. His last translation was Thomas Shepard’s Sincere Convert, completed and published by Grindal Rawson in 1689. Eliot’s literary activity, however, extended into other fields than that of Indian instruction. He was, with Richard Mather, one of the editors of the Bay Psalm Book (1640). Several tracts written wholly or in part by him in the nature of reports to the society which supported his missions were published at various times in England. In 1660 he published a curious treatise on government entitled The Christian Commonwealth, in which he found the ideal of government in the ancient Jewish state, and proposed the reorganization of the English government on the basis of a numerical subdivision of the inhabitants. His Harmony of the Gospels (1678) was a life of Jesus Christ.

Bibliography.—An account of Eliot’s life and work is contained in Williston Walker’s Ten New England Leaders (New York, 1901). There is a “Life of John Eliot,” by Convers Francis, in Sparks’ American Biography, vol. v. (New York, 1853); another by N. Adams (Boston, 1847); and a sketch in Cotton Mather’s Magnalia (London, 1702). For a good account of his publications in the Indian language see the chapter on “The Indian Tongue and its Literature,” by J.H. Trumbull, in vol. i. of the Memorial History of Boston (1882).

(W. Wr.)

ELIS, or Eleia, an ancient district of southern Greece, bounded on the N. by Achaea, E. by Arcadia, S. by Messenia, and W. by the Ionian Sea. The local form of the name was Valis, or Valeia, and its meaning, in all probability, “the lowland.” In its physical constitution Elis is practically one with Achaea and Arcadia; its mountains are mere offshoots of the Arcadian highlands, and its principal rivers are fed by Arcadian springs. From Erymanthus in the north, Skollis (now known as Mavri and Santameri in different parts of its length) stretches toward the west, and Pholoe along the eastern frontier; in the south a prolongation of Mount Lycaeon bore in ancient times the names of Minthe and Lapithus, which have given place respectively to Alvena and to Kaiapha and Smerna. These mountains are well clothed with vegetation, and present a soft and pleasing appearance in contrast to the picturesque wildness of the parent ranges. They gradually sink towards the west and die off into what was one of the richest alluvial tracts in the Peloponnesus. Except where it is broken by the rocky promontories of Chelonatas (now Chlemutzi) and Ichthys (now Katakolo), the coast lies low, with stretches of sand in the north and lagoons and marshes towards the south. During the summer months communication with the sea being established by means of canals, these lagoons yield a rich harvest of fish to the inhabitants, who at the same time, however, are almost driven from the coast by the swarms of gnats. The district for administrative purposes forms part of the nome of Elis and Achaea (see Greece).

Elis was divided into three districts—Hollow or Lowland Elis (ἡ κοίλη Ἦλις), Pisatis, or the territory of Pisa, and Triphylia, or the country of the three tribes. (1) Hollow Elis, the largest and most northern of the three, was watered by the Peneus and its tributary the Ladon, whose united stream forms the modern Gastouni. It included not only the champaign country originally designated by its name, but also the mountainous region of Acrorea, occupied by the offshoots of Erymanthus. Besides the capital city of Elis, it contained Cyllene, an Arcadian settlement on the sea-coast, whose inhabitants worshipped Hermes under the phallic symbol; Pylus, at the junction of the Peneus and the Ladon, which, like so many other places of the same name, claimed to be the city of Nestor, and the fortified frontier town of Lasion, the ruins of which are still visible at Kuti, near the village of Kumani. The district was famous in antiquity for its cattle and horses; and its byssus, supposed to have been introduced by the Phoenicians, was inferior only to that of Palestine. (2) Pisatis extended south from Hollow Elis to the right bank of the Alpheus, and was divided into eight departments called after as many towns. Of these Salmone, Heraclea, Cicysion, Dyspontium and Harpina are known—the last being the reputed burial-place of Marmax, the suitor of Hippodamia. From the time of the early investigators it has been disputed whether Pisa, which gave its name to the district, has ever been a city, or was only a fountain or a hill. By far the most important spot in Pisatis was the scene of the great Olympic games, on the northern bank of the Alpheus (see Olympia). (3) Triphylia stretches south from the Alpheus to the Neda, which forms the boundary towards Messenia. Of the nine towns mentioned by Polybius, only two attained to any considerable influence—Lepreum and Macistus, which gave the names of Lepreatis and Macistia to the southern and northern halves of Triphylia. The former was the seat of a strongly independent population, and continued to take every opportunity of resisting the supremacy of the Eleans. In the time of Pausanias it was in a very decadent condition, and possessed only a poor brick-built temple of Demeter; but considerable remains of its outer walls are still in existence near the village of Strovitzi, on a part of the Minthe range.

The original inhabitants of Elis were called Caucones and Paroreatae. They are mentioned for the first time in Greek history under the title of Epeians, as setting out for the Trojan War, and they are described by Homer as living in a state of constant hostility with their neighbours the Pylians. At the close of the 11th century B.C. the Dorians invaded the Peloponnesus, and Elis fell to the share of Oxylus and the Aetolians. These people, amalgamating with the Epeians, formed a powerful kingdom in the north of Elis. After this many changes took place in the political distribution of the country, till at length it came to acknowledge only three tribes, each independent of the others. These tribes were the Epeians, Minyae and Eleans. Before the end of the 8th century B.C., however, the Eleans had vanquished both their rivals, and established their supremacy over the whole country. Among the other advantages which they thus gained was the right of celebrating the Olympic games, which had formerly been the prerogative of the Pisatans. The attempts which this people made to recover their lost privilege, during a period of nearly two hundred years, ended at length in the total destruction of their city by the Eleans. From the time of this event (572 B.C.) till the Peloponnesian War, the peace of Elis remained undisturbed. In that great contest Elis sided at first with Sparta; but that power, jealous of the increasing prosperity of its ally, availed itself of the first pretext to pick a quarrel. At the battle of Mantinea (418 B.C.) the Eleans fought against the Spartans, who, as soon as the war came to a close, took vengeance upon them by depriving them of Triphylia and the towns of the Acrorea. The Eleans made no attempt to re-establish their authority over these places, till the star of Thebes rose in the ascendant after the battle of Leuctra (371 B.C.). It is not unlikely that they would have effected their purpose had not the Arcadian confederacy come to the assistance of the Triphylians. In 366 B.C. hostilities broke out between them, and though the Eleans were at first successful, they were soon overpowered, and their capital very nearly fell into the hands of the enemy. Unable to make head against their opponents, they applied for assistance to the Spartans, who invaded Arcadia, and forced the Arcadians to recall their troops from Elis. The general result of this war was the restoration of their territory to the Eleans, who were also again invested with the right of holding the Olympic games. During the Macedonian supremacy in Greece they sided with the victors, but refused to fight against their countrymen. After the death of Alexander they renounced the Macedonian alliance. At a subsequent period they joined the Aetolian League, but persistently refused to identify themselves with the Achaeans. When the whole of Greece fell under the Roman yoke, the sanctity of Olympia secured for the Eleans a certain amount of indulgence. The games still continued to attract to the country large numbers of strangers, until they were finally put down by Theodosius in 394, two years previous to the utter destruction of the country by the Gothic invasion under Alaric. In later times Elis fell successively into the hands of the Franks and the Venetians, under whose rule it recovered to some extent its ancient prosperity. By the latter people the province of Belvedere on the Peneus was called, in consequence of its fertility, “the milch cow of the Morea.”

ELIS, the chief city of the ancient Greek district of Elis, was situated on the river Peneus, just where it passes from the mountainous district of Acrorea into the champaign below. According to native tradition, it was originally founded by Oxylus, the leader of the Aetolians, whose statue stood in the market-place. In 471 B.C. it received a great extension by the incorporation (synoecism) of various small hamlets, whose inhabitants took up their abode in the city. Up to this date it only occupied the ridge of the hill now called Kalaskopi, to the south of the Peneus, but afterwards it spread out in several suburbs, and even to the other side of the stream. As all the athletes who intended to take part in the Olympic games were obliged to undergo a month’s training in the city, its gymnasiums were among its principal institutions. They were three in number—the “Xystos,” with its avenues of plane-trees, its plethrion or wrestling-place, its altars to Heracles, to Eros and Anteros, to Demeter and Kore (Cora), and its cenotaph of Achilles; the “Tetragonon,” appropriated to boxing exercises; and the “Maltho,” in the interior of which was a hall or council chamber called Lalichmion after its founder. The market-place was of the old-fashioned type, with porticoes at intervals and paths leading between them. It was called the Hippodrome because it was commonly used for exercising horses. Among the other objects of interest were the temple of Artemis Philomirax; the Hellanodicaeon, or office of the Hellanodicae; the Corcyrean Hall, a building in the Dorian style with two façades, built of spoils from Corcyra; a temple of Apollo Acesius; a temple of Silenus; an ancient structure supported on oaken pillars and reputed to be the burial-place of Oxylus; the building where the sixteen women of Elis were wont to weave a robe for the statue of Hera at Olympia; the temple of Aphrodite, with a statue of the goddess by Pheidias as Urania with a tortoise beneath her foot, and by Scopas as Pandemos, riding on a goat; and the shrine of Dionysus, whose festival, the Thyia, was yearly celebrated in the neighbourhood. On the acropolis was a temple of Athena, with a gold and ivory statue by Pheidias. The history of the town is closely identified with that of the country. In 399 B.C. it was occupied by Agis, king of Sparta. The acropolis was fortified in 312 by Telesphorus, the admiral of Antigonus, but it was shortly afterwards dismantled by Philemon, another of his generals. A view of the site is given by Stanhope. It is now called Palaeopolis. No traces of any buildings can be identified, the only remains visible dating from Roman times.

See Pausanias vi. 23-26; J. Spencer Stanhope, Olympia and Elis (1824), folio; W.M. Leake, Morea (1830); E. Curtius, Peloponnesus (1851-1852); Schiller, Stämme und Staaten Griechenlands; C. Bursian, Geographie von Griechenland (1868-1872); P. Gardner, “The Coins of Elis,” in Num. Chr. (1879).

(E. Gr.)

ELIS, PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL OF. This school was founded by Phaedo, a pupil of Socrates. It existed for a very short time and was then transferred by Menedemus to Eretria, where it became known as the Eretrian school. Its chief members, beside Phaedo, were Anchipylus, Moschus and Pleistanus (see Phaedo and Menedemus).

ELISAVETGRAD, a fortress and town of Russia, in the government of Kherson, 296 m. by rail N.E. of Odessa on the Balta-Kremenchug railway, and on the Ingul river, in 48° 31’ N. and 32° 10′ E. The population increased from 23,725 in 1860 to 66,182 in 1900. The town is regularly built, with wide streets, some of them lined with trees, and is a wealthy town, which has become an industrial centre for the region especially on account of its steam flour-mills, in which it is second only to Odessa, its distilleries, mechanical workshops, tobacco and tallow factories and brickworks. It is an important centre for trade in cereals and flour for export, and in sheep, cattle, wool, leather and timber. Five fairs are held annually. It has a military school, a first-class meteorological station and a botanical garden. The town was founded in 1754 and named after the empress Elizabeth. The fortifications are now decayed.

ELISAVETPOL, a government of Russia, Transcaucasia, having the governments of Tiflis and Daghestan on the N., Baku on the E., and Erivan and Tiflis on the W. and Persia on the S. Area, 16,721 sq. m. It includes: (a) the southern slope of the main Caucasus range in the north-east, where Bazardyuzi (14,770 ft.) and other peaks rise above the snow-line; (b) the arid and unproductive steppes beside the Kura, reaching 1000 ft. of altitude in the west and sinking to 100-200 ft. in the east, where irrigation is necessary; and (c) the northern slopes of the Transcaucasian escarpment and portions of the Armenian plateau, which is intersected towards its western boundary, near Lake Gok-cha, by chains of mountains consisting of trachytes and various crystalline rocks, and reaching 12,845 ft. in Mount Kapujikh. Elsewhere the country has the character of a plateau, 7000 to 8000 ft. high, deeply trenched by tributaries of the Aras. All varieties of climate are found from that of the snowclad peaks, Alpine meadows, and stony deserts of the high levels, to that of the hill slopes, clothed with gardens and vineyards, and of the arid Caspian steppes. Thus, at Shusha, on the plateau, at an altitude of 3680 ft., the average temperatures are: year 48°, January 26°, July 66°; annual rainfall, 26.4; while at Elisavetpol, in the valley of the Kura, they are: year 55°, January 32°.2, July 77° and rainfall only 10.3 in. Nearly one-fifth of the surface is under forests.

The population which was 885,379 in 1897 (only 392,124 women; 84,130 urban), and was estimated at 953,300 in 1906, consists chiefly of Tatars (56%) and Armenians (33%). The remainder are Kurds (4.7%), Russians and a few Germans, Jews, Kurins, Udins and Tates. Peasants form the great bulk of the population. Some of the Tatars and the Kurds are nomadic. Wheat, maize, barley, oats and rye are grown, also rice. Cultivation of cotton has begun, but the rearing of silkworms is of old standing, especially at Nukha (1650 tons of cocoons on the average are obtained every year). Nearly 8000 acres are under vines, the yield of wine averaging 82½ million gallons annually. Gardening reaches a high standard of perfection. Liquorice root is obtained to the extent of about 35,000 tons annually. The rearing of live-stock is largely carried on on the steppes. Copper, magnetic iron ore, cobalt and a small quantity of naphtha are extracted, and nearly 10,000 persons are employed in manufacturing industry—copper works and silk-mills. Carpet-weaving is widely spread. Owing to the Transcaucasian railway, which crosses the government, trade, both in the interior and with Persia, is very brisk. The government is divided into eight districts, Elisavetpol, Aresh, Jebrail, Jevanshir, Kazakh, Nukha, Shusha and Zangezur. The only towns, besides the capital, are Nukha (24,811 inhabitants in 1897) and Shusha (25,656).

ELISAVETPOL (formerly Ganja, alternative names being Kenjeh and Kanga), a town of Russia, capital of the government of the same name, 118 m. by rail S.E. of Tiflis and 3½ m. from the railway, at an altitude of 1446 ft. Pop. (1873) 15,439; (1897) 33,090. It is a very old town, which changed hands between Persians, Khazars and Arabs even in the 7th century, and later fell into the possession of Mongols, Georgians, Persians and Turks successively, until the Russians took it in 1804, when the change of name was made. It is a badly built place, with narrow streets and low-roofed, windowless houses, and is situated in a very unhealthy locality, but has been much improved, a new European quarter having been built on the site of the old fortress (erected by the Turks in 1712-1724). The inhabitants are chiefly Tatars and Armenians, famed for their excellent gardening, and also for silkworm breeding. It has a beautiful mosque, built by Shah Abbas of Persia in 1620; and a renowned “Green Mosque” amidst the ruins of old Ganja, 4 m. distant. The Persian poet, Shah Nizam (Nizam-ed-Din), was born here in 1141, and is said to have been buried (1203) close to the town. The Persians were defeated by the Russians under Paskevich outside this town in 1826.

ELISHA (a Hebrew name meaning “God is deliverance”), in the Bible, the disciple and successor of Elijah, was the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah in the valley of the Jordan. He was symbolically elected to the prophetic office by Elijah some time during the reign of Ahab (1 Kings xix. 19-21), and he survived until the reign of Joash. His career thus appears to have extended over a period of nearly sixty years. The relation between Elijah and Elisha was of a particularly close kind, but the difference between them is much more striking than the resemblance. Elijah is the prophet of the wilderness, wandering, rugged and austere; Elisha is the prophet of civilized life, of the city and the court, with the dress, manners and appearance of ordinary “grave citizens.” Elijah is the messenger of vengeance—sudden, fierce and overwhelming; Elisha is the messenger of mercy and restoration. Elijah’s miracles, with few exceptions, are works of wrath and destruction; Elisha’s miracles, with but one notable exception, are works of beneficence and healing. Elijah is the “prophet as fire” (Ecclus, xlviii. 1), an abnormal agent working for exceptional ends; Elisha is the “holy man of God which passeth by us continually” (2 Kings iv. 9), mixing in the common life of the people.

It is impossible to draw up a detailed chronology of his life. In most of the events narrated no further indication of time is given than by the words “the king of Israel,” the name not being specified. There are some instances in which the order of time is obviously the reverse of the order of narrative, and there are other grounds for concluding that the narrative as we now have it is confused and incomplete. This may serve not only to explain the chronological difficulties, but also to throw some light on the altogether exceptional character of the miraculous element in Elisha’s history. On the literary questions, see further Kings.

Not only are Elisha’s miracles very numerous, even more so than those of Elijah, but they stand in a peculiar relation to the man and his work. With all the other prophets the primary function is spiritual teaching; miracles, even though numerous and many of them symbolical like Elisha’s, are only accessory. With Elisha, on the other hand, miracles seem the principal function, and the teaching is altogether subsidiary. An explanation of the superabundance of miracles in Elisha’s life is suggested by the fact that several of them were merely repetitions or doubles of those of his predecessor. Such were: his first miracle, when, returning across the Jordan, he made a dry path for himself in the same manner as Elijah (2 Kings ii. 14); the increase of the widow’s pot of oil (iv. 1-7); and the restoration of the son of the woman of Shunem to life (iv. 18-37). The theory that stories from the earlier life have been imported by mistake into the later, even if tenable, applies only to three of the miracles, and leaves unexplained a much larger number which are not only not repetitions of those of Elijah, but have an entirely opposite character. The healing of the water of Jericho by putting salt in it (ii. 19-22), the provision of water for the army of Jehoshaphat in the arid desert (iii. 6-20), the neutralizing by meal of the poison in the pottage of the famine-stricken sons of the prophets at Jericho (iv. 38-41), the healing of Naaman the Syrian (v. 1-19), and the recovery of the iron axehead that had sunk in the water (vi. 1-7), are all instances of the beneficence which was the general characteristic of Elisha’s wonder-working activity in contrast to that of Elijah. Another miracle of the same class, the feeding of a hundred men with twenty loaves so that something was left over (iv. 42-44), deserves mention as the most striking though not the only instance of a resemblance between the work of Elisha and that of Jesus (Matt. xiv. 13-21). The one distinct exception to the general beneficence of Elisha’s activity—the destruction of the forty-two children who mocked him as he was going up to Bethel (2 Kings ii. 23-25)—presents an ethical difficulty which is scarcely removed by the suggestion that the narrative has lost some particulars which would have shown the real enormity of the children’s offence. We may prefer to imagine that among the homely stories told of him was one which had for its main object the inculcation of respect for one’s elders. The leprosy brought upon Gehazi (v. 20-27), though a miracle of judgment, scarcely belongs to the same class as the other; and it will be observed that Gehazi’s subsequent relations with the court (viii. 1-6) ignore the disease, a fatal hindrance to intercourse. Further, the healing of Naaman (alluded to in Luke iv. 27) presupposes peaceful relations between Israel and the Syrians, with which, however, contrast ch. vi. The wonder-working power of Elisha is represented as continuing even after his death. As the feeding of the hundred men and the cure of leprosy connect his work with that of Jesus, so the story that a dead man who was cast into his sepulchre was brought to life by the mere contact with his bones (2 Kings xiii. 21, cf. Ecclus. xlviii. 12-14) is the most striking instance of an analogy between his miracles and those recorded of medieval saints. Stanley (Jewish Church, 4th ed., ii. 276) in reference to this has remarked that in the life of Elisha alone “in the sacred history the gulf between biblical and ecclesiastical miracles almost disappears.”

The place which Elisha filled in contemporary history was one of great influence and importance, and several narratives testify to his great reputation in Israel. On one occasion, when he delivered the army that had been brought out against Moab from a threatened dearth of water (2 Kings iii.), he plainly intimates that, but for his regard to Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, who was in alliance with Israel, he would not have interfered. Whether he was with the army or was supposed to be living in the desert is left obscure. An interesting touch is the influence of music upon the prophetic mind (v. 15). His next signal interference was during the incursions of the Syrians, when he disclosed the plans of the invaders to the “king of Israel” with such effect that they were again and again baffled. When the “king of Syria” was informed that “Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bed-chamber,” he at once sent an army to take him captive in Dothan. At Elisha’s prayer his terrified servant beheld an army of horses and chariots of fire surrounding the prophet. At a second prayer the invaders were struck blind, and in this state they were led by Elisha to Samaria, where their sight was restored. Their lives were spared at the command of the prophet, and they returned home so impressed that their incursions thenceforward ceased (vi. 8-23). This is immediately followed by the siege of Samaria by Benhadad which caused a famine of the severest kind. The calamity was imputed by the “king of Israel” to the influence of Elisha, and he ordered the prophet to be immediately put to death. Forewarned of the danger, Elisha ordered the messenger who had been sent to slay him to be detained at the door, and, when, immediately afterwards, the king himself came (“messenger” in vi. 33 should rather be king), predicted a great plenty within twenty-four hours. This was fulfilled by the flight of the Syrian army under the circumstances stated in ch. vii. After the episode with regard to the woman of Shunem (viii. 1-6), which is out of its chronological order, Elisha is represented as at Damascus (viii. 7-15). The reverence with which the foreign monarch Benhadad addressed Elisha deserves to be noted as showing the extent of the prophet’s influence. In sending to know the issue of his illness, the king caused himself to be styled “thy son Benhadad.” Equally remarkable is the very ambiguous nature of Elisha’s reply (viii. 10). The most important interference of Elisha in the history of his country constituted the fulfilment of the third of the commands laid upon Elijah. The work of anointing Jehu to be king over Israel was performed by deputy (ix. 1-3). During the forty-five years which the chronological scheme allows for the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz the narratives contain no notice of Elisha, but from the circumstances of his death (xiii. 14-21) it is clear that he had continued to enjoy the esteem of the dynasty which he had helped to found. Joash, the grandson of Jehu, waited on him on his death-bed, and addressed him in the words which he himself had used to Elijah: “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof” (cf. ii. 12). By the result of a symbolic discharge of arrows he informed the king of his coming success against Syria, and immediately thereafter he died. The explicit statement that he was buried completes the contrast between him and his greater predecessor.

On the narratives, see Kings. In general those where “the prophet appears as on friendly terms with the king, and possessed of influence at court (e.g. 2 Kings iv. 13, vi. 9, vi. 21, compared with xiii. 14), plainly belong to the time of Jehu’s dynasty, though they are related before the fall of the house of Omri. We can distinguish portions of an historical narrative which speaks of Elisha in connexion with events of public interest, without making him the central figure, and a series of anecdotes of properly biographical character.... In the latter we may distinguish one circle connected with Gilgal, Jericho and the Jordan valley to which Abel-Meholah belongs (iv. 1-7? 38-44, v.? vi. 1-7). Here Elisha appears as the head of the prophetic gilds, having his fixed residence at Gilgal. Another circle, which presupposes the accession of the house of Jehu, places him at Dothan or Carmel, and represents him as a personage of almost superhuman dignity. Here there is an obvious parallelism with the history of Elijah, especially with his ascension (cf. 2 Kings vi. 17 with ii. 11; xiii. 14 with ii. 12); and it is to this group of narratives that the ascension of Elijah forms the introduction” (Robertson Smith, Ency. Brit., 9th ed., art. Kings, vol. xiv. p. 186). This twofold representation finds a parallel in the narratives of Samuel, whose history and the conditions reflected therein are analogous to the life and times of Elisha.

Elisha is canonized in the Orthodox Eastern Church, his festival being on the 14th of June, under which date his life is entered in the Acta sanctorum.

See especially, W.R. Smith, Prophets of Israel (Index, s.v.), and the literature to Elijah; Kings, Books of; Prophet.

(W. R. S.; S. A. C.)

Similarly Elijah enforces respect for the prophetic office in i. 9 sqq. Prof. Kennett points out to the present writer that the epithet “bald-head” may refer to the sign of mourning for Elisha’s lost master (cf. Ez. vii. 18, Deut. xiv. 1); “Go up” is perhaps to be taken literally (in reference to Elijah’s translation).

The method of obtaining water (v. 16 sq.) is that which still gives its name to the Wādi el-Aḥsā (“valley of water pits”) at the southern end of the Dead Sea (Old Test. Jew. Church, 2nd ed., 147). On the other hand, see Burney, Heb. Text of Kings, p. 270.

R. V. marg. is an alteration to remove from Elisha the suggestion of an untruth.

The Gilgal of Elisha is near the Jordan—comp. vi. 1 with iv. 38, שבים לפניו,—and cannot be other than the great sanctuary 2 m. from Jericho, the local holiness of which is still attested in the Onomastica. It is true that in 2 Kings ii. 1 Bethel seems to lie between Gilgal and Jericho; but v. 25 shows that Gilgal was not originally represented as Elisha’s residence in this narrative, which belongs to the Carmel-Dothan series. On the other hand, for the identification with the Gilgal (Jiljilia) S.W. of Shiloh, see G.A. Smith, Ency. Bib. (s.v. Gilgal); Burney, op. cit., p. 264; Skinner, Century Bible: Kings, p. 278.

ELISHA BEN ABUYAH (c. A.D. 100), a unique figure among the Palestinian Jews of the first Christian century. He was born before the destruction of the Temple (which occurred in A.D. 70) and survived into the 2nd century. It is not easy to decide as to his exact attitude towards Judaism. That he refused to accept the current rabbinical views is certain, though the Talmud cites his legal decisions. Most authorities believe that he was a Gnostic; but while it is certain that he was not a Christian, it is possible that he was simply a Sadducee, and thus an opponent not of Judaism but of Pharisaism. His disciple, the famous Pharisee Meir, remained his steadfast friend, and his efforts to reclaim his former master are among the most pathetic incidents in the Talmud. In later ages Elisha (aḥer “the other,” as he was named) was regarded as the type of a heretic whose pride of intellect betrayed him into infidelity to law and morals. Without much appropriateness Elisha has been sometimes described as the “Faust of the Talmud.”

(I. A.)

ELIXIR (from the Arabic al-iksir, probably an adaptation of the Gr. ξήριον, a powder used for drying wounds, from ξηρός, dry), in alchemy, the medium which would effect the transmutation of base metals into gold; it probably included all such substances—vapours, liquids, &c.—and had a wider meaning than “philosopher’s stone.” The same term, more fully elixir vitae, elixir of life, was given to the substance which would indefinitely prolong life; it was considered to be closely related to, or even identical with, the substance for transmuting metals. In pharmacy the word was formerly given to a strong extract or tincture, but it is only used now for an aromatic sweet preparation, containing one or more drugs, and in such expressions as “elixir of vitriol,” a mixture of sulphuric acid, cinnamon, ginger and alcohol.

ELIZABETH (1533-1603), queen of England and Ireland, born on Sunday the 7th of September 1533, and, like all the Tudors except Henry VII., at Greenwich Palace, was the only surviving child of Henry VIII. by his second queen, Anne Boleyn. With such a mother and with Cranmer as her godfather she represented from her birth the principle of revolt from Rome, but the opponents of that movement attached little importance to her advent into the world. Charles V.’s ambassador, Chapuys, hardly deigned to mention the fact that the king’s amie had given birth to a daughter, and both her parents were bitterly disappointed with her sex. She was, however, given precedence over Mary, her elder sister by sixteen years, and Mary never forgave the infant’s offence. Even this dubious advantage only lasted three years until her mother was beheaded, and by a much more serious freak on Henry’s part “divorced.” Elizabeth has been censured for having made no effort in later years to clear her mother’s memory; but no vindication of Anne’s character could have rehabilitated Elizabeth’s legitimacy. Her mother was not “divorced” for her alleged adultery, because that crime was no ground for divorce by Roman or English canon law. The marriage was declared invalid ab initio either on the ground of Anne’s precontract with Lord Percy or more probably on the ground of the affinity established between Henry and Anne by Henry’s previous relations with Mary Boleyn.

Elizabeth thus lost all hereditary title to the throne, and her early years of childhood can hardly have been happier than Mary’s. Nor was her legitimacy ever legally established; but after Jane Seymour’s death, when Henry seemed likely to have no further issue, she was by act of parliament placed next in order of the succession after Edward and Mary and their issue; and this statutory arrangement was confirmed by the will which Henry VIII. was empowered by statute to make. Queen Catherine Parr introduced some humanity into Henry’s household, and Edward and Elizabeth were well and happily educated together, principally at old Hatfield House, which is now the marquess of Salisbury’s stables. They were there when Henry’s death called Edward VI. away to greater dignities, and Elizabeth was left in the care of Catherine Parr, who married in indecent haste Thomas, Lord Seymour, brother of the protector Somerset. This unprincipled adventurer, even before Catherine’s death in September 1548, paid indelicate attentions to Elizabeth. Any attempt to marry her without the council’s leave would have been treason on his part and would have deprived Elizabeth of her contingent right to the succession. Accordingly, when Seymour’s other misbehaviour led to his arrest, his relations with Elizabeth were made the subject of a very trying investigation, which gave Elizabeth her first lessons in the feminine arts of self-defence. She proved equal to the occasion, partly because she was in all probability innocent of anything worse than a qualified acquiescence in Seymour’s improprieties and a girlish admiration for his handsome face. He or his tragic fate may have touched a deeper chord, but it was carefully concealed; and although in later years Elizabeth seems to have cherished his memory, and certainly showed no love for his brother’s children, at the time she only showed resentment at the indignities inflicted on herself.

For the rest of Edward’s reign Elizabeth’s life was less tempestuous. She hardly rivalled Lady Jane Grey as the ideal Puritan maiden, but she swam with the stream, and was regarded as a foil to her stubborn Catholic sister. She thus avoided the enmity and the still more dangerous favour of Northumberland; and some unknown history lies behind the duke’s preference of the Lady Jane to Elizabeth as his son’s wife and his own puppet for the throne. She thus escaped shipwreck in his crazy vessel, and rode by Mary’s side in triumph into London on the failure of the plot. For a time she was safe enough; she would not renounce her Protestantism until Catholicism had been made the law of the land, but she followed Gardiner’s advice to her father when he said it was better that he should make the law his will than try to make his will the law. As a presumptive ruler of England she was, like Cecil, and for that matter the future archbishop Parker also, too shrewd to commit herself to passive or active resistance to the law; and they merely anticipated Hobbes in holding that the individual committed no sin in subordinating his conscience to the will of the state, for the responsibility for the law was not his but the state’s. Their position was well enough understood in those days; it was known that they were heretics at heart, and that when their turn came they would once more overthrow Catholicism and expect a similar submission from the Catholics.

It was not so much Elizabeth’s religion as her nearness to the throne and the circumstances of her birth that endangered her life in Mary’s reign. While Mary was popular Elizabeth was safe; but as soon as the Spanish marriage project had turned away English hearts Elizabeth inevitably became the centre of plots and the hope of the plotters. Had not Lady Jane still been alive to take off the edge of Mary’s indignation and suspicion Elizabeth might have paid forfeit for Wyat’s rebellion with her life instead of imprisonment. She may have had interviews with French agents who helped to foment the insurrection; but she was strong and wary enough to avoid Henry II.’s, as she had avoided Northumberland’s, toils; for even in case of success she would have been the French king’s puppet, placed on the throne, if at all, merely to keep it warm for Henry’s prospective daughter-in-law, Mary Stuart. This did not make Mary Tudor any more friendly, and, although the story that Elizabeth favoured Courtenay and that Mary was jealous is a ridiculous fiction, the Spaniards cried loud and long for Elizabeth’s execution. She was sent to the Tower in March 1554, but few Englishmen were fanatic enough to want a Tudor beheaded. The great nobles, the Howards, and Gardiner would not hear of such a proposal; and all the efforts of the court throughout Mary’s reign failed to induce parliament to listen to the suggestion that Elizabeth should be deprived of her legal right to the succession. After two months in the Tower she was transferred to Sir Henry Bedingfield’s charge at Woodstock, and at Christmas, when the realm had been reconciled to Rome and Mary was expecting issue, Elizabeth was once more received at court. In the autumn of 1555 she went down to Hatfield, where she spent most of the rest of Mary’s reign, enjoying the lessons of Ascham and Baldassare Castiglione, and planting trees which still survive.

She had only to bide her time while Mary made straight her successor’s path by uprooting whatever affection the English people had for the Catholic faith, Roman jurisdiction and Spanish control. The Protestant martyrs and Calais between them removed all the alternatives to an insular national English policy in church and in state; and no sovereign was better qualified to lead such a cause than the queen who ascended the throne amid universal, and the Spaniards thought indecent, rejoicings at Mary’s death on the 17th of November 1558. “Mere English” she boasted of being, and after Englishmen’s recent experience there was no surer title to popular favour. No sovereign since Harold had been so purely English in blood; her nearest foreign ancestor was Catherine of France, the widow of Henry V., and no English king or queen was more superbly insular in character or in policy. She was the unmistakable child of the age so far as Englishmen shared in its characteristics, for with her English aims she combined some Italian methods and ideas. “An Englishman Italianate,” ran the current jingle, “is a devil incarnate,” and Elizabeth was well versed in Italian scholarship and statecraft. Italians, especially Bernardino Ochino, had given her religious instruction, and the Italians who rejected Catholicism usually adopted far more advanced forms of heresy than Lutheranism, Zwinglianism, or even Calvinism. Elizabeth herself patronized Giacomo Acontio, who thought dogma a “stratagema Satanae,” and her last favourite, Essex was accused of being the ringleader of “a damnable crew of atheists.” A Spanish ambassador early in the reign thought that Elizabeth’s own religion was equally negative, though she told him she agreed with nearly everything in the Augsburg Confession. She was probably not at liberty to say what she really thought, but she made up by saying a great many things which she did not mean. It is clear enough that, although, like her father, she was fond of ritual, she was absolutely devoid of the religious temperament, and that her ecclesiastical preferences were dictated by political considerations. She was sincere enough in her dislike of Roman jurisdiction and of Calvinism; a daughter of Anne Boleyn could have little affection for a system which made her a bastard, and all monarchs agreed at heart with James I.’s aphorism about “no bishop, no king.” It was convenient, too, to profess Lutheran sympathies, for Lutheranism was now an established, monarchical and comparatively respectable religion, very different from the Calvinism against which monarchs directed the Counter-reformation from political motives. Lutheran dogma, however, had few adherents in England, though its political theory coincided with that of Anglicanism in the 16th century. The compromise that resulted from these conflicting forces suited Elizabeth very well; she had little dislike of Catholics who repudiated the papacy, but she was forced to rely mainly on Protestants, and had little respect for any form of ecclesiastical self-government. She valued uniformity in religion, not as a safeguard against heresy, but as a guarantee of the unity of the state. She respected the bishops only as supporters of her throne; and, although the well-known letter beginning “Proud Prelate” is an 18th-century forgery, it is hardly a travesty of Elizabeth’s attitude.

The outlines of her foreign policy are sketched elsewhere (see English History), and her courtships were diplomatic. Contemporary gossip, which was probably justified, said that she was debarred from matrimony by a physical defect; and her cry when she heard that Mary queen of Scots had given birth to a son is the most womanly thing recorded of Elizabeth. Her features were as handsome as Mary’s, but she had little fascination, and in spite of her many suitors no man lost his head over Elizabeth as men did over Mary. She was far too masculine in mind and temperament, and her extravagant addiction to the outward trappings of femininity was probably due to the absence or atrophy of deeper feminine instincts. In the same way the impossibility of marriage made her all the freer with her flirtations, and she carried some of them to lengths that scandalized a public unconscious of Elizabeth’s security. She had every reason to keep them in the dark, and to convince other courts that she could and would marry if the provocation were sufficient. She could not marry Philip II., but she held out hopes to more than one of his Austrian cousins whenever France or Mary Stuart seemed to threaten; and later she encouraged two French princes when Philip had lost patience with Elizabeth and made Mary Stuart his protégée. Her other suitors were less important, except Leicester, who appealed to the least intellectual side of Elizabeth and was always a cause of distraction in her policy and her ministers.

Elizabeth was terribly handicapped by having no heirs of her body and no obvious English successor. She could not afford to recognize Mary’s claim, for that would have been to alienate the Protestants, double the number of Catholics, and, in her own phrase, to spread a winding-sheet before her eyes; for all would have turned to the rising sun. Mary was dangerous enough as it was, and no one would willingly make his rival his heir. Elizabeth could hardly be expected to go out of her way and ask parliament to repeal its own acts for Mary’s sake; probably it would have refused. Nor was it personal enmity on Elizabeth’s part that brought Mary to the block. Parliament had long been ferociously demanding Mary’s execution, not because she was guilty but because she was dangerous to the public peace. She alone could have given the Spanish Armada any real chance of success; and as the prospect of invasion loomed larger on the horizon, fiercer grew the popular determination to remove the only possible centre of a domestic rising, without which the external attack was bound to be a failure. Elizabeth resisted the demand, not from compassion or qualms of conscience, but because she dreaded the responsibility for Mary’s death. She wished Paulet would manage the business on his own account, and when at last her signature was extorted she made a scapegoat of her secretary Davison who had the warrant executed.

The other great difficulty, apart from the succession, with which Elizabeth had to deal arose from the exuberant aggressiveness of England, which she could not, and perhaps did not want to, repress. Religion was not really the cause of her external dangers, for the time had passed for crusades, and no foreign power seriously contemplated an armed invasion of England for religion’s sake. But no state could long tolerate the affronts which English seamen offered Spain. The common view that the British Empire has been won by purely defensive action is not tenable, and from the beginning of her reign Englishmen had taken the offensive, partly from religious but also from other motives. They were determined to break up the Spanish monopoly in the new world, and in the pursuit of this endeavour they were led to challenge Spain in the old. For nearly thirty years Philip put up with the capture of his treasure-ships, the raiding of his colonies and the open assistance rendered to his rebels. Only when he had reached the conclusion that his power would never be secure in the Netherlands or the New World until England was conquered, did he despatch the Spanish Armada. Elizabeth delayed the breach as long as she could, probably because she knew that war meant taxation, and that taxation was the most prolific parent of revolt.

With the defeat of the Spanish Armada Elizabeth’s work was done, and during the last fifteen years of her reign she got more out of touch with her people. That period was one of gradual transition to the conditions of Stuart times; during it practically every claim was put forward that was made under the first two Stuarts either on behalf of parliament or the prerogative, and Elizabeth’s attitude towards the Puritans was hardly distinguishable from James I.’s. But her past was in her favour, and so were her sex and her Tudor tact, which checked the growth of discontent and made Essex’s rebellion a ridiculous fiasco. He was the last and the most wilful but perhaps the best of her favourites, and his tragic fate deepened the gloom of her closing years. The loneliness of a queen who had no husband or children and no relatives to mention must at all times have been oppressive; it grew desolating in old age after the deaths of Leicester, Walsingham, Burghley and Essex, and Elizabeth died, the last of her race, on the 24th of March 1603.

Bishop Creighton’s Queen Elizabeth (1896) is the best biography; there are others by E.S. Beesly (Twelve English Statesmen, 1892); Lucy Aikin, Memoirs of the Court of Queen Elizabeth (1818); and T. Wright, Queen Elizabeth and her Times (1838). See also A. Jessopp’s article in the Dict. Nat. Biog.

(A. F. P.)

ELIZABETH [PETROVNA] (1709-1762), Empress of Russia, the daughter of Peter the Great and Martha Skovronskaya, born at Kolomenskoye, near Moscow, on the 18th of December 1709. Even as a child her parts were good, if not brilliant, but unfortunately her education was both imperfect and desultory. Her father had no leisure to devote to her training, and her mother was too illiterate to superintend her studies. She had a French governess, however, and at a later day picked up some Italian, German and Swedish, and could converse in these languages with more fluency than accuracy. From her earliest years she delighted every one by her extraordinary beauty and vivacity. It was Peter’s intention to marry his second daughter to the young French king Louis XV., but the pride of the Bourbons revolted against any such alliance. Other connubial speculations foundered on the personal dislike of the princess for the various suitors proposed to her, so that on the death of her mother (May 1727) and the departure to Holstein of her beloved sister Anne, her only remaining near relation, the princess found herself at the age of eighteen practically her own mistress. So long as Menshikov remained in power, she was treated with liberality and distinction by the government of Peter II., but the Dolgorukis, who supplanted Menshikov and hated the memory of Peter the Great, practically banished Peter’s daughter from court. Elizabeth had inherited her father’s sensual temperament and, being free from all control, abandoned herself to her appetites without reserve. While still in her teens, she made a lover of Alexius Shubin, a sergeant in the Semenovsky Guards, and after his banishment to Siberia, minus his tongue, by order of the empress Anne, consoled herself with a handsome young Cossack, Alexius Razumovski, who, there is good reason to believe, subsequently became her husband. During the reign of her cousin Anne (1730-1740), Elizabeth effaced herself as much as possible; but under the regency of Anne Leopoldovna the course of events compelled the indolent but by no means incapable beauty to overthrow the existing government. The idea seems to have been first suggested to her by the French ambassador, La Chétardie, who was plotting to destroy the Austrian influence then dominant at the Russian court. It is a mistake to suppose, however, that La Chétardie took a leading part in the revolution which placed the daughter of Peter the Great on the Russian throne. As a matter of fact, beyond lending the tsesarevna 2000 ducats, instead of the 15,000 she demanded of him, he took no part whatever in the actual coup d’état which was as great a surprise to him as to every one else. The merit and glory of that singular affair belong to Elizabeth alone. The fear of being imprisoned in a convent for the rest of her life was the determining cause of her irresistible outburst of energy. At midnight on the 6th of December 1741, with a few personal friends, including her physician, Armand Lestocq, her chamberlain, Michael Ilarionvich Vorontsov, her future husband, Alexius Razumovski, and Alexander and Peter Shuvalov, two of the gentlemen of her household, she drove to the barracks of the Preobrazhensky Guards, enlisted their sympathies by a stirring speech, and led them to the Winter Palace, where the regent was reposing in absolute security. Having on the way thither had all the ministers arrested, she seized the regent and her children in their beds, and summoned all the notables, civil and ecclesiastical, to her presence. So swiftly and noiselessly indeed had the whole revolution proceeded that as late as eight o’clock the next morning very few people in the city were aware of it. Thus, at the age of three-and-thirty, this naturally indolent and self-indulgent woman, with little knowledge and no experience of affairs, suddenly found herself at the head of a great empire at one of the most critical periods of its existence. Fortunately for herself, and for Russia, Elizabeth Petrovna, with all her shortcomings, had inherited some of her father’s genius for government. Her usually keen judgment and her diplomatic tact again and again recall Peter the Great. What in her sometimes seemed irresolution and procrastination, was, most often, a wise suspense of judgment under exceptionally difficult circumstances; and to this may be added that she was ever ready to sacrifice the prejudices of the woman to the duty of the sovereign.

After abolishing the cabinet council system in favour during the rule of the two Annes, and reconstituting the senate as it had been under Peter the Great,—with the chiefs of the departments of state, all of them now Russians again, as ex-officio members under the presidency of the sovereign,—the first care of the new empress was to compose her quarrel with Sweden. On the 23rd of January 1743, direct negotiations between the two powers were opened at Åbo, and on the 7th of August 1743 Sweden ceded to Russia all the southern part of Finland east of the river Kymmene, which thus became the boundary between the two states, including the fortresses of Villmanstrand and Fredrikshamn. This triumphant issue was mainly due to the diplomatic ability of the new vice chancellor, Alexius Bestuzhev-Ryumin (q.v.), whom Elizabeth, much as she disliked him personally, had wisely placed at the head of foreign affairs immediately after her accession. He represented the anti-Franco-Prussian portion of her council, and his object was to bring about an Anglo-Austro-Russian alliance which, at that time, was undoubtedly Russia’s proper system. Hence the reiterated attempts of Frederick the Great and Louis XV. to get rid of Bestuzhev, which made the Russian court during the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign the centre of a tangle of intrigue impossible to unravel by those who do not possess the clue to it (see Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Alexius). Ultimately, however, the minister, strong in the support of Elizabeth, prevailed, and his faultless diplomacy, backed by the despatch of an auxiliary Russian corps of 30,000 men to the Rhine, greatly accelerated the peace negotiations which led to the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (October 18, 1748). By sheer tenacity of purpose, Bestuzhev had extricated his country from the Swedish imbroglio; reconciled his imperial mistress with the courts of Vienna and London, her natural allies; enabled Russia to assert herself effectually in Poland, Turkey and Sweden, and isolated the restless king of Prussia by environing him with hostile alliances. But all this would have been impossible but for the steady support of Elizabeth, who trusted him implicitly, despite the insinuations of the chancellor’s innumerable enemies, most of whom were her personal friends.

The great event of Elizabeth’s later years was the Seven Years’ War. Elizabeth rightly regarded the treaty of Westminster (January 16, 1756, whereby Great Britain and Prussia agreed to unite their forces to oppose the entry into, or the passage through, Germany of the troops of every foreign power) as utterly subversive of the previous conventions between Great Britain and Russia. A by no means unwarrantable fear of the king of Prussia, who was “to be reduced within proper limits,” so that “he might be no longer a danger to the empire,” induced Elizabeth to accede to the treaty of Versailles, in other words the Franco-Austrian league against Prussia, and on the 17th of May 1757 the Russian army, 85,000 strong, advanced against Königsberg. Neither the serious illness of the empress, which began with a fainting-fit at Tsarskoe Selo (September 19, 1757), nor the fall of Bestuzhev (February 21, 1758), nor the cabals and intrigues of the various foreign powers at St Petersburg, interfered with the progress of the war, and the crushing defeat of Kunersdorf (August 12, 1759) at last brought Frederick to the verge of ruin. From that day forth he despaired of success, though he was saved for the moment by the jealousies of the Russian and Austrian commanders, which ruined the military plans of the allies. On the other hand, it is not too much to say that, from the end of 1759 to the end of 1761, the unshakable firmness of the Russian empress was the one constraining political force which held together the heterogeneous, incessantly jarring elements of the anti-Prussian combination. From the Russian point of view, Elizabeth’s greatness as a statesman consists in her steady appreciation of Russian interests, and her determination to promote them at all hazards. She insisted throughout that the king of Prussia must be rendered harmless to his neighbours for the future, and that the only way to bring this about was to reduce him to the rank of an elector. Frederick himself was quite alive to his danger. “I am at the end of my resources,” he wrote at the beginning of 1760, “the continuance of this war means for me utter ruin. Things may drag on perhaps till July, but then a catastrophe must come.” On the 21st of May 1760 a fresh convention was signed between Russia and Austria, a secret clause of which, never communicated to the court of Versailles, guaranteed East Prussia to Russia, as an indemnity for war expenses. The failure of the campaign of 1760, so far as Russia and France were concerned, induced the court of Versailles, on the evening of the 22nd of January 1761, to present to the court of St Petersburg a despatch to the effect that the king of France by reason of the condition of his dominions absolutely desired peace. On the following day the Austrian ambassador, Esterhazy, presented a despatch of a similar tenor from his court. The Russian empress’s reply was delivered to the two ambassadors on the 12th of February. It was inspired by the most uncompromising hostility towards the king of Prussia. Elizabeth would not consent to any pacific overtures until the original object of the league had been accomplished. Simultaneously, Elizabeth caused to be conveyed to Louis XV. a confidential letter in which she proposed the signature of a new treaty of alliance of a more comprehensive and explicit nature than the preceding treaties between the two powers, without the knowledge of Austria. Elizabeth’s object in this mysterious negotiation seems to have been to reconcile France and Great Britain, in return for which signal service France was to throw all her forces into the German war. This project, which lacked neither ability nor audacity, foundered upon Louis XV.’s invincible jealousy of the growth of Russian influence in eastern Europe and his fear of offending the Porte. It was finally arranged by the allies that their envoys at Paris should fix the date for the assembling of a peace congress, and that, in the meantime, the war against Prussia should be vigorously prosecuted. The campaign of 1761 was almost as abortive as the campaign of 1760. Frederick acted on the defensive with consummate skill, and the capture of the Prussian fortress of Kolberg on Christmas day O.S. 1761, by Rumyantsev, was the sole Russian success. Frederick, however, was now at the last gasp. On the 6th of January 1762, he wrote to Finkenstein, “We ought now to think of preserving for my nephew, by way of negotiation, whatever fragments of my territory we can save from the avidity of my enemies,” which means, if words mean anything, that he was resolved to seek a soldier’s death on the first opportunity. A fortnight later he wrote to Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, “The sky begins to clear. Courage, my dear fellow. I have received the news of a great event.” The great event which snatched him from destruction was the death of the Russian empress (January 5, 1762).

See Robert Nisbet Bain, The Daughter of Peter the Great (London, 1899); Sergyei Solovev, History of Russia (Rus.), vols. xx.-xxii. (St Petersburg, 1857-1877); Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen, vols. i.-xxi. (Berlin, 1879, &c.); Colonel Masslowski, Der siebenjährige Krieg nach russischer Darstellung (Berlin, 1888-1893); Kazinsierz Waliszewski, La Dernière des Romanov (Paris, 1902).

(R. N. B.)

ELIZABETH [AMÉLIE EUGÉNIE] (1837-1898), consort of Francis Joseph, emperor of Austria and king of Hungary, was the daughter of Duke Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria and Louisa Wilhelmina, daughter of Maximilian I. of Bavaria, and was born on the 24th of December 1837 at the castle of Possenhofen on Lake Starnberg. She inherited the quick intelligence and artistic taste displayed in general by members of the Wittelsbach royal house, and her education was the reverse of conventional. She accompanied her eccentric father on his hunting expeditions, becoming an expert rider and climber, visiting the peasants in their huts and sharing in rustic pleasures. The emperor of Austria, Francis Joseph, met the Bavarian ducal family at Ischl in August 1853, and immediately fell in love with Elizabeth, then a girl of sixteen, and reported to be the most beautiful princess in Europe. The marriage took place in Vienna on the 24th of April 1854. In the early days of her married life she frequently came into collision with Viennese prejudice. Her attempts to modify court etiquette, and her extreme fondness for horsemanship and frequent visits to the imperial riding school, scandalized Austrian society, while her predilection for Hungary and for everything Hungarian offended German sentiment. There is no doubt that her influence helped the establishment of the Ausgleich with Hungary, but outside Hungarian affairs the empress took small part in politics. She first visited Hungary in 1857, and ten years later was crowned queen. Her popularity with the Hungarians remained unchanged throughout her life; and the castle of Gödöllö, presented as a coronation gift, was one of her favourite residences. Elizabeth was one of the most charitable of royal ladies, and her popularity with her Austrian subjects was more than restored by her assiduous care for the wounded in the campaign of 1866. Besides her public benefactions she constantly exercised personal and private charity. Her eldest daughter died in infancy; Gisela (b. 1856) married the Prince Leopold of Bavaria; and her youngest daughter Marie Valerie (b. 1868) married the Archduke Franz Salvator. The tragic death of her only son, the crown prince Rudolph, in 1889, was a shock from which she never really recovered. She was also deeply affected by the suicide of her cousin Louis II. of Bavaria, and again by the fate of her sister Sophia, duchess of Alençon, who perished in the fire of the Paris charity bazaar in 1897. The empress had shown signs of lung disease in 1861, when she spent some months in Madeira; but she was able to resume her outdoor sports, and for some years before 1882, when she had to give up riding, was a frequent visitor on English and Irish hunting fields. In her later years her dislike of publicity increased. Much of her time was spent in travel or at the Achilleion, the palace she had built in the Greek style in Corfu. She was walking from her hotel at Geneva to the steamer when she was stabbed by the anarchist Luigi Luccheni, on the 10th of September 1898, and died of the wound within a few hours. This aimless and dastardly crime completed the list of misfortunes of the Austrian house, and aroused intense indignation throughout Europe.

See A. de Burgh, Elizabeth, Empress of Austria, a Memoir (London, 1898); E. Friedmann and J. Paves, Kaiserin Elisabeth (Berlin, 1898); and the anonymous Martyrdom of an Empress (1899), containing a quantity of court gossip.

ELIZABETH (1596-1662), consort of Frederick V., elector palatine and titular king of Bohemia, was the eldest daughter of James I. of Great Britain and of Anne of Denmark, and was born at Falkland Castle in Fifeshire in August 1596. She was entrusted to the care of the earl of Linlithgow, and after the departure of the royal family to England, to the countess of Kildare, subsequently residing with Lord and Lady Harington at Combe Abbey in Warwickshire. In November 1605 the Gunpowder Plot conspirators formed a plan to seize her person and proclaim her queen after the explosion, in consequence of which she was removed by Lord Harington to Coventry. In 1608 she appeared at court, where her beauty soon attracted admiration and became the theme of the poets, her suitors including the dauphin, Maurice, prince of Orange, Gustavus Adolphus, Philip III. of Spain, and Frederick V., the elector palatine. A union with the last-named was finally arranged, in spite of the queen’s opposition, in order to strengthen the alliance with the Protestant powers in Germany, and the marriage took place on the 14th of February 1613 midst great rejoicing and festivities. The prince and princess entered Heidelberg on the 17th of June, and Elizabeth, by means of her English annuity, enjoyed five years of pleasure and of extravagant gaiety to which the small German court was totally unaccustomed. On the 26th of August 1618, Frederick, as a leading Protestant prince, was chosen king by the Bohemians, who deposed the emperor Ferdinand, then archduke of Styria. There is no evidence to show that his acceptance was instigated by the princess or that she had any influence in her husband’s political career. She accompanied Frederick to Prague in October 1619, and was crowned on the 7th of November. Here her unrestrainable high spirits and levity gave great offence to the citizens. On the approach of misfortune, however, she showed great courage and fortitude. She left Prague on the 8th of November 1620, after the fatal battle of the White Hill, for Küstrin, travelling thence to Berlin and Wolfenbüttel, finally with Frederick taking refuge at the Hague with Prince Maurice of Orange. The help sought from James came only in the shape of useless embassies and negotiations; the two Palatinates were soon occupied by the Spaniards and the duke of Bavaria; and the romantic attachment and services of Duke Christian of Brunswick, of the 1st earl of Craven, and of other chivalrous young champions who were inspired by the beauty and grace of the “Queen of Hearts,” as Elizabeth was now called, availed nothing. Her residence was at Rhenen near Arnheim, where she received many English visitors and endeavoured to maintain her spirits and fortitude, with straitened means and in spite of frequent disappointments. The victories of Gustavus Adolphus secured no permanent advantage, and his death at Lützen was followed by that of the elector at Mainz on the 29th of November 1632. Subsequent attempts of the princess to reinstate her son in his dominions were unsuccessful, and it was not till the peace of Westphalia in 1648 that he regained a portion of them, the Rhenish Palatinate. Meanwhile, Elizabeth’s position in Holland grew more and more unsatisfactory. The payment of her English annuity of £12,000 ceased after the outbreak of the troubles with the parliament; the death of Charles I. in 1649 put an end to all hopes from that quarter; and the pension allowed her by the house of Orange ceased in 1650. Her children, in consequence of disputes, abandoned her, and her eldest son Charles Louis refused her a home in his restored electorate. Nor did Charles II. at his restoration show any desire to receive her in England. Parliament voted her £20,000 in 1660 for the payment of her debts, but Elizabeth did not receive the money, and on the 19th of May 1661 she left the Hague for England, in spite of the king’s attempts to hinder her journey, receiving no official welcome on her arrival in London and being lodged at Lord Craven’s house in Drury Lane. Charles, however, subsequently granted her a pension and treated her with kindness. On the 8th of February 1662 she removed to Leicester House in Leicester Fields, and died shortly afterwards on the 13th of the same month, being buried in Westminster Abbey. Her beauty, grace and vivacity exercised a great charm over her contemporaries, the enthusiasm for her, however, being probably not merely personal but one inspired also by her misfortunes and by the fact that these misfortunes were incurred in defence of the Protestant cause; later, as the ancestress of the Protestant Hanoverian dynasty, she obtained a conspicuous place in English history. She had thirteen children—Frederick Henry, drowned at sea in 1629; Charles Louis, elector palatine, whose daughter married Philip, duke of Orleans, and became the ancestress of the elder and Roman Catholic branch of the royal family of England; Elizabeth, abbess and friend of Descartes; Prince Rupert and Prince Maurice, who died unmarried; Louisa, abbess; Edward, who married Anne de Gonzaga, “princesse palatine,” and had children; Henrietta Maria, who married Count Sigismund Ragotzki but died childless; Philip and Charlotte, who died childless; Sophia, who married Ernest Augustus, elector of Hanover, and was mother of George I. of England; and two others who died young.

Bibliography.—See the article in Dict. of Nat. Biography and authorities there collected; Five Stuart Princesses, ed. by R.S. Rait (1902); Briefe der Elizabeth Stuart ... an ... den Kurfürsten Carl Ludwig von der Pfalz, by A. Wendland (Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins, 228, Stuttgart, 1902); “Elizabeth Stuart,” by J.O. Opel, in Sybel’s Historische Zeitschrift, xxiii. 289; Thomason Tracts (Brit. Mus.), E., 138 (14), 122 (12), 118 (40), 119 (18). Important material regarding the princess exists in the MSS. of the earl of Craven, at Combe Abbey.

ELIZABETH [PAULINE ELIZABETH OTTILIE LOUISE] (1843- ), consort of King Charles I. (q.v.) of Rumania, widely known by her literary name of “Carmen Sylva,” was born on the 29th of December 1843. She was the daughter of Prince Hermann of Neuwied. She first met the future king of Rumania at Berlin in 1861, and was married to him on the 15th of November 1869. Her only child, a daughter, died in 1874. In the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 she devoted herself to the care of the wounded, and founded the Order of Elizabeth (a gold cross on a blue ribbon) to reward distinguished service in such work. She fostered the higher education of women in Rumania, and established societies for various charitable objects. Early distinguished by her excellence as a pianist, organist and singer, she also showed considerable ability in painting and illuminating; but a lively poetic imagination led her to the path of literature, and more especially to poetry, folk-lore and ballads. In addition to numerous original works she put into literary form many of the legends current among the Rumanian peasantry.

“Carmen Sylva” wrote with facility in German, Rumanian, French and English. A few of her voluminous writings, which include poems, plays, novels, short stories, essays, collections of aphorisms, &c., may be singled out for special mention. Her earliest publications were Sappho and Hammerstein, two poems which appeared at Leipzig in 1880. In 1888 she received the Prix Botta, a prize awarded triennially by the French Academy, for her volume of prose aphorisms Les Pensées d’une reine (Paris, 1882), a German version of which is entitled Vom Amboss (Bonn, 1890). Cuvinte Sufletesci, religious meditations in Rumanian (Bucharest, 1888), was also translated into German (Bonn, 1890), under the name of Seelen-Gespräche. Several of the works of “Carmen Sylva” were written in collaboration with Mite Kremnitz, one of her maids of honour, who was born at Greifswald in 1857, and married Dr Kremnitz of Bucharest; these were published between 1881 and 1888, in some cases under the pseudonyms Dito et Idem, and includes the novel Aus zwei Welten (Leipzig, 1884), Anna Boleyn (Bonn, 1886), a tragedy, In der Irre (Bonn, 1888), a collection of short stories, &c. Edleen Vaughan, or Paths of Peril, a novel (London, 1894), and Sweet Hours, poems (London, 1904), were written in English. Among the translations made by “Carmen Sylva” are German versions of Pierre Loti’s romance Pêcheur d’Islande, and of Paul de St Victor’s dramatic criticisms Les Deux Masques (Paris, 1881-1884); and in particular The Bard of the Dimbovitza, a fine English version by “Carmen Sylva” and Alma Strettell of Helène Vacarescu’s collection of Rumanian folk-songs, &c., entitled Lieder aus dem Dimbovitzathal (Bonn, 1889). The Bard of the Dimbovitza was first published in 1891, and was soon reissued and expanded. Translations from the original works of “Carmen Sylva” have appeared in all the principal languages of Europe and in Armenian.

See Rumania: History; also M. Kremnitz, Carmen Sylva—eine Biographie (Leipzig, 1903); and, for a full bibliography, G. Bengescu, Carmen Sylva—bibliographie et extraits de ses œuvres (Paris, 1904).

ELIZABETH (1635-1650), English princess, second daughter of Charles I., was born on the 28th of December 1635 at St James’s Palace. On the outbreak of the Civil War and the departure of the king from London, while the two elder princes accompanied their father, the princess and the infant duke of Gloucester were left under the care of the parliament. In October 1642 Elizabeth sent a letter to the House of Lords begging that her old attendants might not be removed. In July 1644 the royal children were sent to Sir John Danvers at Chelsea, and in 1645 to the earl and countess of Northumberland. After the final defeat of the king they were joined in 1646 by James, and during 1647 paid several visits to the king at Caversham, near Reading, and Hampton Court, but were again separated by Charles’s imprisonment at Carisbrooke Castle. On the 21st of April 1648 James was persuaded to escape by Elizabeth, who declared that were she a boy she would not long remain in confinement. The last sad meeting between Charles and his two children, at which the princess was overcome with grief, and of which she wrote a short and touching account, took place on the 29th of January 1649, the day before his execution. In June she was entrusted to the care of the earl and countess of Leicester at Penshurst, but in 1650, upon the landing of Charles II. in Scotland, the parliament ordered the royal children to be taken for security to Carisbrooke Castle. The princess fell ill from a wetting almost immediately upon her arrival, and died of fever on the 8th of September. She was buried in St Thomas’s church at Newport, Isle of Wight, where the initials “E.S.” alone marked her grave till 1856, when a monument was erected to her memory by Queen Victoria. The princess’s sorrowful career and early death have attracted general interest and sympathy. She was said to have acquired considerable proficiency in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, as well as in Italian and French, and several books were dedicated to her, including the translation of the Electra of Sophocles by Christopher Wase in 1649. Her mild nature and gentleness towards her father’s enemies gained her the name of “Temperance.”

See Lives of the Princesses of England, by M.A.E. Green (1855), vol. vi.; Notes and Queries, 7th ser., ix. 444, x. 15.

ELIZABETH [Élisabeth Philippine Marie Hélène of France] (1764-1794), commonly called Madame Elizabeth, daughter of Louis the Dauphin and Marie Josephine of Saxony, and sister of Louis XVI., was born at Versailles on the 3rd of May 1764. Left an orphan at the age of three, she was brought up by Madame de Mackau, and had a residence at Montreuil, where she gave many proofs of her benevolent character. She refused all offers of marriage so that she might remain by the side of her brother, whom she loved passionately. At the outset of the Revolution she foresaw the gravity of events, and refused to leave the king, whom she accompanied in his flight on the 20th of June 1792, and with whom she was arrested at Varennes. She was present at the Legislative Assembly when Louis was suspended, and was imprisoned in the Temple with the royal family. By the execution of the king and the removal of Marie Antoinette to the Conciergerie, Madame Elizabeth was deprived of her companions in the Temple prison, and on the 9th of May 1794 she was herself transferred to the Conciergerie, and haled before the revolutionary tribunal. Accused of assisting the king’s flight, of supplying émigrés with funds, and of encouraging the resistance of the royal troops on the 10th of August 1792, she was condemned to death, and executed on the 10th of May 1794. Like her brother, she had all the domestic virtues, and, as was to be expected of a sister of Louis XVI., she was in favour of absolutist principles. Hers was one of the most touching tragedies of the Revolution; she perished because she was the sister of the king.

The Mémoires de Madame Élisabeth (Paris, 1858), by F. de Barghon and Fort-Rion, are of doubtful authenticity; and the collection of letters and documents published in 1865 by F. Feuillet de Conches must be used with caution (see the bibliographical note to the article Marie Antoinette). See le Comte A.F.C. Ferrand, Éloge historique de Madame Élisabeth (1814, containing 94 letters; 2nd ed., 1861, containing additional letters, but correspondence mutilated); Du Fresne de Beaucourt, Étude sur Madame Élisabeth (Paris, 1864); A. de Beauchesne, Vie de Madame Élisabeth (1869); La comtesse d’Armaillé, Madame Élisabeth (Paris, 1886); Madame d’Arvor, Madame Élisabeth (Paris, 1898); and Hon. Mrs Maxwell-Scott, Madame Elizabeth of France (1908).

ELIZABETH, SAINT (1207-1231), daughter of Andrew II., king of Hungary (d. 1235), by his first wife, Gertrude of Andechs-Meran (d. 1213), was born in Pressburg in 1207. At four years of age she was betrothed to Louis IV., landgrave of Thuringia, and conducted to the Wartburg, near Eisenach, to be educated under the direction of his parents. In spite of her decidedly worldly surroundings at the Thuringian court, she evinced from the first an aversion from even the most innocent pleasures, and stimulated by the example of her mother’s sister, St Hedwig, wife of Henry VI., duke of Silesia-Breslau, devoted her whole time to religion and to works of charity. She was married at the age of fourteen, and acquired such influence over her husband that he adopted her point of view and zealously assisted her in all her charitable endeavours. According to the legend, much celebrated in German art, Louis at first desired to curtail her excessive charities, and forbade her unbounded gifts to the poor. One day, returning from hunting, he met his wife descending from the Wartburg with a heavy bundle filled with bread. He sternly bade her open it; she did so, and he saw nothing but a mass of red roses. The miracle completed his conversion. On the death of Louis “the Saint” in 1227, Elizabeth was deprived of the regency by his brother, Henry Raspe IV. (d. 1247), on the pretext that she was wasting the estates by her alms; and with her three infant children she was driven from her home without being allowed to carry with her even the barest necessaries of life. She lived for some time in great hardship, but ultimately her maternal uncle, Egbert, bishop of Bamberg, offered her an asylum in a house adjoining his palace. Through the intercession of some of the principal barons, the regency was again offered her, and her son Hermann was declared heir to the landgraviate; but renouncing all power, and making use of her wealth only for charitable purposes, she preferred to live in seclusion at Marburg under the direction of her confessor, the bigoted persecutor Conrad of Marburg. There she spent the remainder of her days in penances of unusual severity, and in ministrations to the sick, especially those afflicted with the most loathsome diseases. She died at Marburg on the 19th of November 1231, and four years afterwards was canonized by Gregory IX. on account of the frequent miracles reported to have been performed at her tomb.

The exhibition in the Royal Academy of P.H. Calderon’s picture, “St Elizabeth of Hungary’s Great Act of Renunciation,” now in the Tate Gallery in London, roused considerable protest among Catholics. The saint is represented as kneeling nude before the altar, in the presence of her confessor and a couple of nuns. The passage this is intended to illustrate is in Lib. iv. § 1 of Dietrich of Apolda’s Vita, which relates how, on a certain Good Friday, she went into a chapel and, in the presence of some Franciscan brothers, laid her hands on the bare altar, renounced her own will, her parents, children, relations, and all pomps of this kind (hujus modi) in imitation of Christ; and stripped herself utterly naked (omnino se exuit et nudavit) in order to follow Him naked, in the steps of poverty. A literal interpretation of this passage is not impossible; for ecstatic mystics of all ages have indulged in a like κενώσις, and Conrad, who revelled in inflicting religious tortures, was quite capable of imposing this crowning humiliation upon his gentle victim. It is far more probable, however, that the passage is not to be taken literally.

Lives of St Elizabeth were written by Theodoricus (Dietrich) of Apolda (b. 1228), Caesarius of Heisterbach (d. c. 1240), Conrad of Marburg and others (see Potthast, Bibl. Hist. Med. Aev. p. 1284). A metrical life in German exists by Johann Rothe (d. c. 1440), chaplain to the Landgravine Anne of Thuringia (Potthast, p. 985). L’Histoire de Sainte Élisabeth de Hongrie, by Montalembert, was published at Paris in 1836. Her life has also supplied the materials for a dramatic poem by Charles Kingsley, entitled the “Saint’s Tragedy.” The edition of this in vol. xvi. of the Life and Works of Charles Kingsley (London, 1902) has valuable notes, with many extracts from the original sources.

ELIZABETH, a city and the county-seat of Union county, New Jersey, U.S.A., on Elizabeth river, Newark Bay, and Arthur Kill, 10 m. S.W. of Jersey City. Pop. (1890) 37,764; (1900) 52,130, of whom 14,770 were foreign-born and 1139 were negroes; (1910 census) 73,409. It is served by the Pennsylvania, the Lehigh Valley and the Central of New Jersey railways. The site is level and the streets are broad and shaded. There are many residences of New York business men, and several historic buildings, including Liberty Hall, the mansion of William Livingston, first governor of the state; Boxwood Hall (now used as a home for aged women), the former home of Elias Boudinot; the old brick mansion of Jonathan Belcher (1681-1757), governor of the province from 1747 to 1757; the First Presbyterian Church; and the house occupied at different times by General Winfield Scott. The city has several parks, the Union county court house (1905), a public library and several charitable institutions. Elizabethport, that part of the city on Staten Island Sound, about 2 m. S.E. of the centre of Elizabeth, has a port open to vessels of 300 tons; it is an outlet of the Pennsylvania coal fields and is thus one of the most important coal shipping depots in the United States. Here, too, are a plant (covering more than 800 acres) of the Standard Oil Company and a large establishment for the manufacture of the “Singer” sewing machine—according to the U.S. census the largest manufactory of sewing machines in the world—employing more than 6000 workmen in 1905; among the other manufactures of Elizabeth are foundry and machine shop products (value in 1905, $3,887,139), wire, oil (value in 1905, $2,387,656), refined and smelted copper, the output of railway repair shops, edge tools and lager beer. The value of the manufactured products was $10,489,364 in 1890; $22,861,375 (factory product) in 1900; and $29,300,801 (factory product) in 1905.

Elizabeth was settled in 1665 by a company from Long Island for whom the land had been purchased from the Indians and a grant had been obtained from Richard Nicolls as agent for the duke of York. But about the same time the duke conveyed the entire province to John, Lord Berkeley, and Sir George Carteret, and these two conflicting grants gave rise to a long-continued controversy (see New Jersey). The town was named in honour of Elizabeth, wife of Sir George Carteret, and was first known as Elizabethtown. From 1665 to 1686 it was the seat of government of the province, and the legislature sat here occasionally until 1790. In the home of the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson (1688-1747), its first president, the first sessions of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) were held in 1747, but immediately afterwards the college removed to Newark. In December 1776 and twice in June 1780 the British entered Elizabeth and made it a base of operations, but on each occasion they were soon driven out. Elizabeth became a “free town and borough” in 1739; the borough charter was confirmed by the legislature in 1789 and repealed in 1790, and Elizabeth was chartered as a city in 1855.

See E.F. Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, New Jersey (New York, 1868).

ELIZABETHAN STYLE, in architecture, the term given to the early Renaissance style in England, which flourished chiefly during the reign of Queen Elizabeth; it followed the Tudor style, and was succeeded in the beginning of the 16th century by the purer Italian style introduced by Inigo Jones. It responds to the Cinque-Cento period in Italy, the François I. style in France, and the Plateresque or Silversmith’s style in Spain. During the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. many Italian artists came over, who carried out various decorative features at Hampton Court; Layer Marney, Suffolk (1522-1525); Sutton Place, Surrey (1529); Nonsuch Palace and elsewhere. Later in the century Flemish craftsmen succeeded the Italians, and the Royal Exchange in London (1566-1570) is one of the first important buildings designed by Henri de Paschen, an architect from Antwerp. Longford Castle, Wollaton, Hatfield, Blickling, Audley End, and Charterhouse (London) all show the style introduced by Flemish workmen.

ELIZABETH CITY, a town, port of entry and the county-seat of Pasquotank county, North Carolina, U.S.A., on the Pasquotank river, at the head of navigation, 46 m. S. by E. of Norfolk, Virginia. Pop. (1890) 3251; (1900) 6348 (3164 negroes); (1910) 8412. It is served by the Norfolk & Southern, and the Suffolk & Carolina railways, and is on the Dismal Swamp and Albemarle & Chesapeake canals. Elizabeth City is a winter meeting-place for hunters. It is the seat of a state normal school for negroes and of the Atlantic Collegiate Institute, is a trucking centre, has shipyards, and has a large wholesale trade in clothing, groceries and general merchandise; from it are shipped considerable quantities of fish, cotton and lumber. The town is the port of entry of the Albemarle customs district, but its foreign trade is unimportant. Among its manufactures are cotton goods, iron, lumber, nets and twine, bricks, and carriages and wagons. The oyster fisheries in the vicinity are of considerable importance. Elizabeth City was settled in 1793, and was first incorporated in the same year.

ELK, or Moose, the largest of all the deer tribe, distinguished from other members of the Cervidae by the form of the antlers of the males. These arise as cylindrical beams projecting on each side at right angles to the middle line of the skull, which after a short distance divide in a fork-like manner. The lower prong of this fork may be either simple, or divided into two or three tines, with some flattening. In the East Siberian elk (Alces machlis bedfordiae) the posterior division of the main fork divides into three tines, with no distinct flattening. In the common elk (A. machlis or A. alces), on the other hand, this branch usually expands into a broad palmation, with one large tine at the base, and a number of smaller snags on the free border; there is, however, a phase of the Scandinavian elk in which the antlers are simpler, and recall those of the East Siberian race. The palmation appears to be more marked in the North American race (A. m. americanus) than in the typical Scandinavian elk. The largest of all is the Alaskan race (A. m. gigas), which is said to stand 8 ft. in height, with a span of 6 ft. across the antlers. The great length of the legs gives a decidedly ungainly appearance to the elk. The muzzle is long and fleshy, with only a very small triangular naked patch below the nostrils; and the males have a peculiar sac, known as the bell, hanging from the neck. From the shortness of their necks, elks are unable to graze, and their chief food consists of young shoots and leaves of willow and birch. In North America during the winter one male and several females form a “moose-yard” in the forest, which they keep open by trampling the snow. Although generally timid, the males become very bold during the breeding season, when the females utter a loud call; and at such times they fight both with their antlers and their hoofs. The usual pace is a shambling trot, but when pressed elks break into a gallop. The female gives birth to one or two young at a time, which are not spotted. In America the elk is known as the moose, and the former name is transferred to the wapiti deer.

(R. L.*)

ELKHART, a city of Elkhart county, Indiana, U.S.A., at the confluence of the Elkhart and St Joseph rivers, about 100 m. E. of Chicago. Pop. (1890) 11,360; (1900) 15,184, of whom 1353 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 19,282. Elkhart is at the junction of the western division with the main line of the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern railway, and is served by the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis, and the Northern Indiana railways (the latter electric). It is attractively situated and has fine business and public buildings, including a Carnegie library and the Clark hospital, with which a nurses’ training school is connected. It has also several parks, including the beautiful Island Park and McNaughton Park, the latter the annual meeting-place of the St Joseph Valley Chautauqua. A valuable water-power is utilized for manufacturing purposes. There are extensive railway-car shops and iron and brass foundries, and the manufactures include band instruments, furniture, telephone supplies, electric transformers, bridges, paper, flour, starch, rubber goods, acetylene gas machines, printing presses, drugs and carriages. The total value of the factory product was $4,345,466 in 1905, an increase of 10.5% since 1900. At Elkhart is the main publishing house of the Mennonite Church in America, two weekly periodicals being issued, one in English, The Herald of Truth, and one in German, the Mennonitische Rundschau. The first settlement was made here about 1834; and Elkhart was chartered as a city in 1875.

ELKINGTON, GEORGE RICHARDS (1801-1865), founder of the electroplating industry in England, was born in Birmingham on the 17th of October 1801, the son of a spectacle manufacturer. Apprenticed to his uncles, silver platers in Birmingham, he became, on their death, sole proprietor of the business, but subsequently took his cousin, Henry Elkington, into partnership. The science of electrometallurgy was then in its infancy, but the Elkingtons were quick to recognize its possibilities. They had already taken out certain patents for the application of electricity to metals when, in 1840, John Wright, a Birmingham surgeon, discovered the valuable properties of a solution of cyanide of silver in cyanide of potassium for electroplating purposes. The Elkingtons purchased and patented Wright’s process, subsequently acquiring the rights of other processes and improvements. Large new works for electroplating and electrogilding were opened in Birmingham in 1841, and in the following year Josiah Mason became a partner in the firm. George Richards Elkington died on the 22nd of September 1865, and Henry Elkington on the 26th of October 1852.

ELLA, or Ælla, the name of three Anglo-Saxon kings.

Ella (d. c. 514), king of the South Saxons and founder of the kingdom of Sussex, was a Saxon ealdorman, who landed near Arundel in Sussex with his three sons in 477. Defeating the Britons, who were driven into the forest of Andredsweald, Ella and his followers established themselves along the south coast, although their progress was slow and difficult. However, in 491, strengthened by the arrival of fresh bands of immigrants, they captured the Roman city of Anderida and “slew all that were therein.” Ella, who is reckoned as the first Bretwalda, then became king of the South Saxons, and, when he died about 514, he was succeeded by his son Cissa.

Ella (d. 588), king of the Deirans, was the son of an ealdorman named Iffa, and became the first king of Deira when, in 559, the Deirans separated themselves from the neighbouring kingdom of Bernicia. The English slaves, who aroused the interest of Pope Gregory I. at Rome, were subjects of Ella, and on this occasion the pope, punning the name of their king, suggested that “Alleluia” should be sung in his land. When Ella died in 588 Deira was conquered by Bernicia. One of his sons was Edwin, afterwards king of the Northumbrians.

Ella (d. 867), king of the Northumbrians, became king about 862 on the deposition of Osbert, although he was not of royal birth. Afterwards he became reconciled with Osbert, and together they attacked the Danes, who had invaded Northumbria, and drove them into York. Rallying, however, the Danes defeated the Northumbrians, and in the encounter both Ella and Osbert were slain. In certain legends Ella is represented as having brought about the Danish invasion of Northumbria by cruel and unjust actions.

See The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, edited by C. Plummer (Oxford, 1892-1899); Bede, Historiae ecclesiasticae, edited by C. Plummer (Oxford, 1896); Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, edited by T. Arnold, Rolls Series (London, 1879); Asser, De rebus gestis Aelfredi, edited by W.H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1904); J.R. Green, The Making of England (London, 1897), and the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. i. (London, 1895).

ELLAND, an urban district in the Elland parliamentary division of Yorkshire, England, on the Calder, 2½ m. S. of Halifax by the Lancashire & Yorkshire railway. Pop. (1901) 10,412. The church of St Mary is Decorated and Perpendicular. Cotton-mills, woollen-factories, ironworks, flagstone quarries at Elland Edge, and fire-clay works employ the industrial population. Elland Hall, though almost rebuilt, retains the recollection of a remarkable family feud between the Ellands and the Beaumonts of Crosland Hall, the site of which may be traced in the vicinity. A nephew of Sir John Elland, in 1342, met death at the hands of a relative of the Beaumonts upon whom Sir John took vengeance, as also upon the heads of the allied houses of Lockwood and Quarmby. The children of these families were educated in the hope of avenging their parents, and after many years succeeded in doing so, cutting off Sir John Elland and his heir.

ELLENBOROUGH, EDWARD LAW, 1st Baron (1750-1818), English judge, was born on the 16th of November 1750, at Great Salkeld, in Cumberland, of which place his father, Edmund Law (1703-1787), afterwards bishop of Carlisle, was at the time rector. Educated at the Charterhouse and at Peterhouse, Cambridge, he passed as third wrangler, and was soon afterwards elected to a fellowship at Trinity. In spite of his father’s strong wish that he should take orders, he chose the legal profession, and on quitting the university was entered at Lincoln’s Inn. After spending five years as a special pleader under the bar, he was called to the bar in 1780. He chose the northern circuit, and in a very short time obtained a lucrative practice and a high reputation. In 1787 he was appointed principal counsel for Warren Hastings in the celebrated impeachment trial before the House of Lords, and the ability with which he conducted the defence was universally recognized. He had begun his political career as a Whig, but, like many others, he saw in the French Revolution a reason for changing sides, and became a supporter of Pitt. On the formation of the Addington ministry in 1801, he was appointed attorney-general and shortly afterwards was returned to the House of Commons as member for Newtown in the Isle of Wight. In 1802 he succeeded Lord Kenyon as chief justice of the king’s bench. On being raised to the bench he was created a peer, taking his title from the village of Ellenborough in Cumberland, where his maternal ancestors had long held a small patrimony. In 1806, on the formation of Lord Grenville’s ministry “of all the talents,” Lord Ellenborough declined the offer of the great seal, but accepted a seat in the cabinet. His doing so while he retained the chief justiceship was much criticized at the time, and, though not without precedent, was open to such obvious objections on constitutional grounds that the experiment has not since been repeated. As a judge he had grave faults, though his decisions displayed profound legal knowledge, and in mercantile law especially were reckoned of high authority. He was harsh and overbearing to counsel, and in the political trials which were so frequent in his time showed an unmistakable bias against the accused. In the trial of William Hone (q.v.) for blasphemy in 1817, Ellenborough directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty, and their acquittal of the prisoner is generally said to have hastened his death. He resigned his judicial office in November 1818, and died on the 13th of December following.

Ellenborough was succeeded as 2nd baron by his eldest son, Edward, afterwards earl of Ellenborough; another son was Charles Ewan Law (1792-1850), recorder of London and member of parliament for Cambridge University from 1835 until his death in August 1850.

Three of Ellenborough’s brothers attained some degree of fame. These were John Law (1745-1810), bishop of Elphin; Thomas Law (1759-1834), who settled in the United States in 1793, and married, as his second wife, Anne, a granddaughter of Martha Washington; and George Henry Law (1761-1845), bishop of Chester and of Bath and Wells. The connexion of the Law family with the English Church was kept up by George Henry’s sons, three of whom took orders. Two of these were Henry Law (1797-1884), dean of Gloucester, and James Thomas Law (1790-1876), chancellor of the diocese of Lichfield.

ELLENBOROUGH, EDWARD LAW, Earl of (1790-1871), the eldest son of the 1st Lord Ellenborough, was born on the 8th of September 1790. He was educated at Eton and St John’s College, Cambridge. He represented the subsequently disfranchised borough of St Michael’s, Cornwall, in the House of Commons, until the death of his father in 1818 gave him a seat in the House of Lords. He was twice married; his only child died young; his second wife was divorced by act of parliament in 1830.

In the Wellington administration of 1828 Ellenborough was made lord privy seal; he took a considerable share in the business of the foreign office, as an unofficial assistant to Wellington, who was a great admirer of his talents. He aimed at succeeding Lord Dudley at the foreign office, but was forced to content himself with the presidency of the board of control, which he retained until the fall of the ministry in 1830. Ellenborough was an active administrator, and took a lively interest in questions of Indian policy. The revision of the company’s charter was approaching, and he held that the government of India should be transferred directly to the crown. He was impressed with the growing importance of a knowledge of central Asia, in the event of a Russian advance towards the Indian frontier, and despatched Burnes on an exploring mission to that district. Ellenborough subsequently returned to the board of control in Peel’s first and second administrations. He had only held office for a month on the third occasion when he was appointed by the court of directors to succeed Lord Auckland as governor-general of India. His Indian administration of two and a half years, or half the usual term of service, was from first to last a subject of hostile criticism. His own letters sent monthly to the queen, and his correspondence with the duke of Wellington, published in 1874, afford material for an intelligent and impartial judgment of his meteoric career. The events chiefly in dispute are his policy towards Afghanistan and the army and captives there, his conquest of Sind, and his campaign in Gwalior.

Ellenborough went to India in order “to restore peace to Asia,” but the whole term of his office was occupied in war. On his arrival there the news that greeted him was that of the massacre of Kabul, and the sieges of Ghazni and Jalalabad, while the sepoys of Madras were on the verge of open mutiny. In his proclamation of the 15th of March 1842, as in his memorandum for the queen dated the 18th, he stated with characteristic clearness and eloquence the duty of first inflicting some signal and decisive blow on the Afghans, and then leaving them to govern themselves under the sovereign of their own choice. Unhappily, when he left his council for upper India, and learned the trifling failure of General England, he instructed Pollock and Nott, who were advancing triumphantly with their avenging columns to rescue the British captives, to fall back. The army proved true to the governor-general’s earlier proclamation rather than to his later fears; the hostages were rescued, the scene of Sir Alexander Burnes’s murder in the heart of Kabul was burned down. Dost Mahommed was quietly dismissed from a prison in Calcutta to the throne in the Bala Hissar, and Ellenborough presided over the painting of the elephants for an unprecedented military spectacle at Ferozepur, on the south bank of the Sutlej. But this was not the only piece of theatrical display which capped with ridicule the horrors and the follies of these four years in Afghanistan. When Sultan Mahmud, in 1024, sacked the Hindu temple of Somnath on the north-west coast of India, he carried off, with the treasures, the richly studded sandal-wood gates of the fane, and set them up in his capital of Ghazni. The Mahommedan puppet of the English, Shah Shuja, had been asked, when ruler of Afghanistan, to restore them to India; and what he had failed to do the Christian ruler of opposing Mahommedans and Hindus resolved to effect in the most solemn and public manner. In vain had Major (afterwards Sir Henry) Rawlinson proved that they were only reproductions of the original gates, to which the Ghazni moulvies clung merely as a source of offerings from the faithful who visited the old conqueror’s tomb. In vain did the Hindu sepoys show the most chilling indifference to the belauded restoration. Ellenborough could not resist the temptation to copy Napoleon’s magniloquent proclamation under the pyramids. The fraudulent folding doors were conveyed on a triumphal car to the fort of Agra, where they were found to be made not of sandalwood but of deal. That Somnath proclamation (immortalized in a speech by Macaulay) was the first step towards its author’s recall.

Hardly had Ellenborough issued his medal with the legend “Pax Asiae Restituta” when he was at war with the amirs of Sind. The tributary amirs had on the whole been faithful, for Major (afterwards Sir James) Outram controlled them. But he had reported the opposition of a few, and Ellenborough ordered an inquiry. His instructions were admirable, in equity as well as energy, and if Outram had been left to carry them out all would have been well. But the duty was entrusted to Sir Charles Napier, with full political as well as military powers. And to add to the evil, Mir Ali Morad intrigued with both sides so effectually that he betrayed the amirs on the one hand, while he deluded Sir Charles Napier to their destruction on the other. Ellenborough was led on till events were beyond his control, and his own just and merciful instructions were forgotten. Sir Charles Napier made more than one confession like this: “We have no right to seize Sind, yet we shall do so, and a very advantageous, useful and humane piece of rascality it will be.” The battles of Meeanee and Hyderabad followed; and the Indus became a British river from Karachi to Multan.

Sind had hardly been disposed of when troubles arose on both sides of the governor-general, who was then at Agra. On the north the disordered kingdom of the Sikhs was threatening the frontier. In Gwalior to the south, the feudatory Mahratta state, there were a large mutinous army, a Ranee only twelve years of age, an adopted chief of eight, and factions in the council of ministers. These conditions brought Gwalior to the verge of civil war. Ellenborough reviewed the danger in the minute of the 1st of November 1845, and told Sir Hugh Gough to advance. Further treachery and military licence rendered the battles of Maharajpur and Punniar, fought on the same day, inevitable though they were, a surprise to the combatants. The treaty that followed was as merciful as it was wise. The pacification of Gwalior also had its effect beyond the Sutlej, where anarchy was restrained for yet another year, and the work of civilization was left to Ellenborough’s two successors. But by this time the patience of the directors was exhausted. They had no control over Ellenborough’s policy; his despatches to them were haughty and disrespectful; and in June 1844 they exercised their power of recalling him.

On his return to England Ellenborough was created an earl and received the thanks of parliament; but his administration speedily became the theme of hostile debates, though it was successfully vindicated by Peel and Wellington. When Peel’s cabinet was reconstituted in 1846 Ellenborough became first lord of the admiralty. In 1858 he took office under Lord Derby as president of the board of control, for the fourth time. It was then his congenial task to draft the new scheme for the government of India which the mutiny had rendered necessary. But his old fault of impetuosity again proved his stumbling-block. He wrote a caustic despatch censuring Lord Canning for the Oudh proclamation, and allowed it to be published in The Times without consulting his colleagues, who disavowed his action in this respect. General disapprobation was excited; votes of censure were announced in both Houses; and, to save the cabinet, Ellenborough resigned.

But for this act of rashness he might have enjoyed the task of carrying into effect the home constitution for the government of India which he sketched in his evidence before the select committee of the House of Commons on Indian territories on the 8th of June 1852. Paying off his old score against the East India Company, he then advocated the abolition of the court of directors as a governing body, the opening of the civil service to the army, the transference of the government to the crown, and the appointment of a council to advise the minister who should take the place of the president of the board of control. These suggestions of 1852 were carried out by his successor Lord Stanley, afterwards earl of Derby, in 1858, so closely even in details, that Lord Ellenborough must be pronounced the author, for good or evil, of the present home constitution of the government of India. Though acknowledged to be one of the foremost orators in the House of Lords, and taking a frequent part in debate, Ellenborough never held office again. He died at his seat, Southam House, near Cheltenham, on the 22nd of December 1871, when the barony reverted to his nephew Charles Edmund Law (1820-1890), the earldom becoming extinct.

See History of the Indian Administration (Bentley, 1874), edited by Lord Colchester; Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Indian Territories (June 1852); volume i. of the Calcutta Review; the Friend of India, during the years 1842-1845; and John Hope, The House of Scindea: A Sketch (Longmans, 1863). The numerous books by and against Sir Charles Napier, on the conquest of Sind, should be consulted.

ELLERY, WILLIAM (1727-1820), American politician, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was born in Newport, Rhode Island, on the 22nd of December 1727. He graduated from Harvard in 1747, engaged in trade, studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1770. He was a member of the Rhode Island committee of safety in 1775-1776, and was a delegate in Congress in 1776-1781 and again in 1783-1785. Just after his first election to Congress, he was placed on the important marine committee, and he was made a member of the board of admiralty when it was established in 1779. In April 1786 he was elected commissioner of the continental loan office for the state of Rhode Island and from 1790 until his death at Newport, on the 15th of February 1820, he was collector of the customs for the district of Newport.

See Edward T. Channing, “Life of William Ellery,” in vol. 6 of Jared Sparks’s American Biography (Boston and London, 1836).

ELLESMERE, FRANCIS EGERTON, 1st Earl of (1800-1857), born in London on the 1st of January 1800, was the second son of the 1st duke of Sutherland. He was known by his patronymic as Lord Francis Leveson Gower until 1833, when he assumed the surname of Egerton alone, having succeeded on the death of his father to the estates which the latter inherited from the duke of Bridgewater. Educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, he entered parliament soon after attaining his majority as member for the pocket borough of Bletchingly in Surrey. He afterwards sat for Sutherlandshire and for South Lancashire, which he represented when he was elevated to the peerage as earl of Ellesmere and Viscount Brackley in 1846. In politics he was a moderate Conservative of independent views, as was shown by his supporting the proposal for establishing the university of London, by his making and carrying a motion for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, and by his advocating free trade long before Sir Robert Peel yielded on the question. Appointed a lord of the treasury in 1827, he held the post of chief secretary for Ireland from 1828 till July 1830, when he became secretary-at-war for a short time. His claims to remembrance are founded chiefly on his services to literature and the fine arts. Before he was twenty he printed for private circulation a volume of poems, which he followed up after a short interval by the publication of a translation of Goethe’s Faust, one of the earliest that appeared in England, with some translations of German lyrics and a few original poems. In 1839 he visited the Mediterranean and the Holy Land. His impressions of travel were recorded in his very agreeably written Mediterranean Sketches (1843), and in the notes to a poem entitled The Pilgrimage. He published several other works in prose and verse, all displaying a fine literary taste. His literary reputation secured for him the position of rector of Aberdeen University in 1841. Lord Ellesmere was a munificent and yet discriminating patron of artists. To the splendid collection of pictures which he inherited from his great-uncle, the 3rd duke of Bridgewater, he made numerous additions, and he built a noble gallery to which the public were allowed free access. Lord Ellesmere served as president of the Royal Geographical Society and as president of the Royal Asiatic Society, and he was a trustee of the National Gallery. He died on the 18th of February 1857. He was succeeded by his son (1823-1862) as 2nd earl, and his grandson (b. 1847) as 3rd earl.

ELLESMERE, a market town in the Oswestry parliamentary division of Shropshire, England, on the main line of the Cambrian railway, 182 m. N.W. from London. Pop. of urban district (1901) 1945. It is prettily situated on the west shore of the mere or small lake from which it takes its name, while in the neighbourhood are other sheets of water, as Blake Mere, Cole Mere, White Mere, Newton Mere and Crose Mere. The church of St Mary is of various styles from Norman onward, but was partly rebuilt in 1848. The site of the castle is occupied by pleasure gardens, commanding an extensive view from high ground. The town hall contains a library and a natural history collection. The college is a large boys’ school. The town is an important agricultural centre. Ellesmere canal, a famous work of Thomas Telford, connects the Severn with the Mersey, crossing the Vale of Llangollen by an immense aqueduct, 336 yds. long and 127 ft. high.

The manor of Ellesmere (Ellesmeles) belonged before the Conquest to Earl Edwin of Mercia, and was granted by William the Conqueror to Roger, earl of Shrewsbury, whose son, Robert de Belesme, forfeited it in 1112 for treason against Henry I. In 1177 Henry II. gave it with his sister in marriage to David, son of Owen, prince of North Wales, after whose death it was retained by King John, who in 1206 granted it to his daughter Joan on her marriage with Llewellyn, prince of North Wales; it was finally surrendered to Henry III. by David, son of Llewellyn, about 1240. Ellesmere owed its early importance to its position on the Welsh borders and to its castle, which was in ruins, however, in 1349. While Ellesmere was in the hands of Joan, lady of Wales, she granted to the borough all the free customs of Breteuil. The town was governed by a bailiff appointed by a jury at one of the court leets of the lord of the manor, until a local board was formed in 1859. In 1221 Henry III. granted Llewellyn, prince of Wales, a market on Thursdays in Ellesmere. The inquisition taken in 1383 after the death of Roger le Straunge (Lord Strange), lord of Ellesmere, shows that he also held two fairs there on the feasts of St Martin and the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. By 1597 the market had been discontinued on account of the plague by which many of the inhabitants had died, and the queen granted that Sir Edward Kynaston, Kt., and thirteen others might hold a market every Thursday and a fair on the 3rd of November. Since 1792 both have been discontinued. The commerce of Ellesmere has always been chiefly agricultural.

ELLICE (LAGOON) ISLANDS, an archipelago of the Pacific Ocean, lying between 5° and 11° S. and about 178° E., nearly midway between Fiji and Gilbert. It is under British protection, being annexed in 1892. It comprises a large number of low coralline islands and atolls, which are disposed in nine clusters extending over a distance of about 400 m. in the direction from N.W. to S.E. Their total area is 14 sq. m. and the population is about 2400. The chief groups, all yielding coco-nuts, pandanus fruit and yams, are Funafuti or Ellice, Nukulailai or Mitchell, Nurakita or Sophia, Nukufetau or De Peyster, Nui or Egg, Nanomana or Hudson, and Niutao or Lynx. Nearly all the natives are Christians, Protestant missions having been long established in several of the islands. Those of Nui speak the language of the Gilbert islanders, and have a tradition that they came some generations ago from that group. All the others are of Samoan speech, and their tradition that they came thirty generations back from Samoa is supported by recent research. They have an ancient spear which they believe was brought from Samoa, and they actually name the valley from which their ancestors started. A missionary visiting the Samoan valley found there a tradition of a party who put to sea never to return, and he also found the wood of which the staff was made growing plentifully in the district. Borings and soundings taken at Funafuti in 1897 indicate almost beyond doubt that the whole of this Polynesian region is an area of comparatively recent subsidence.

See Geographical Journal, passim; and Atoll of Funafuti: Borings into a Coral Reef (Report of Coral Reef Committee of Royal Society, London, 1904).

ELLICHPUR, or Illichpur, a town of India in the Amraoti district of Berar. Pop. (1901) 26,082. It is first mentioned authentically in the 13th century as “one of the famous cities of the Deccan.” Though tributary to the Mahommedans after 1294, it remained under Hindu administration till 1318, when it came directly under the Mahommedans. It was afterwards capital of the province of Berar at intervals until the Mogul occupation, when the seat of the provincial governor was moved to Balapur. The town retains many relics of the nawabs of Berar. It has ginning factories and a considerable trade in cotton and forest produce. It is connected by good roads with Amraoti and Chikalda. It was formerly the headquarters of the district of Ellichpur, which had an area of 2605 sq. m. and a population in 1901 of 297,403. This district, however, was merged in that of Amraoti in 1905. The civil station of Paratwada, 2 m. from the town of Ellichpur, contains the principal public buildings.

ELLIOTSON, JOHN (1791-1868), English physician, was born at Southwark, London, on the 29th of October 1791. He studied medicine first at Edinburgh and then at Cambridge, in both which places he took the degree of M.D., and subsequently in London at St Thomas’s and Guy’s hospitals. In 1831 he was elected professor of the principles and practice of physic in London University, and in 1834 he became physician to University College hospital. He was a student of phrenology and mesmerism, and his interest in the latter eventually brought him into collision with the medical committee of the hospital, a circumstance which led him, in December 1838, to resign the offices held by him there and at the university. But he continued the practice of mesmerism, holding séances in his home and editing a magazine, The Zoist, devoted to the subject, and in 1849 he founded a mesmeric hospital. He died in London on the 29th of July 1868. Elliotson was one of the first teachers in London to appreciate the value of clinical lecturing, and one of the earliest among British physicians to advocate the employment of the stethoscope. He wrote a translation of Blumenbach’s Institutiones Physiologicae (1817); Cases of the Hydrocyanic or Prussic Acid (1820); Lectures on Diseases of the Heart (1830); Principles and Practice of Medicine (1839); Human Physiology (1840); and Surgical Operations in the Mesmeric State without Pain (1843). He was the author of numerous papers in the Transactions of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, of which he was at one time president; and he was also a fellow both of the Royal College of Physicians and Royal Society, and founder and president of the Phrenological Society. W.M. Thackeray’s Pendennis was dedicated to him.

ELLIOTT, EBENEZER (1781-1849), English poet, the “corn-law rhymer,” was born at Masborough, near Rotherham, Yorkshire, on the 17th of March 1781. His father, who was an extreme Calvinist and a strong radical, was engaged in the iron trade. Young Ebenezer, although one of a large family, had a solitary and rather morbid childhood. He was sent to various schools, but was generally regarded as a dunce, and when he was sixteen years of age he entered his father’s foundry, working for seven years with no wages beyond a little pocket money. In a fragment of autobiography printed in the Athenaeum (12th of January 1850) he says that he was entirely self-taught, and attributes his poetic development to long country walks undertaken in search of wild flowers, and to a collection of books, including the works of Young, Barrow, Shenstone and Milton, bequeathed to his father by a poor clergyman. At seventeen he wrote his Vernal Walk in imitation of Thomson. His earlier volumes of poems, dealing with romantic themes, received little but unfriendly comment. The faults of Night, the earliest of these, are pointed out in a long and friendly letter (30th of January 1819) from Robert Southey to the author.

Elliott’s wife brought him some money, which was invested in his father’s share of the iron foundry. But the affairs of the firm were then in a desperate condition, and money difficulties hastened his father’s death. Elliott lost all his money, and when he was forty years old began business again in Sheffield on a small borrowed capital. He attributed his father’s pecuniary losses and his own to the operation of the corn laws. He took an active part in the Chartist agitation, but withdrew his support when the agitation for the repeal of the corn laws was removed from the Chartist programme. The fervour of his political convictions effected a change in the style and tenor of his verse. The Corn-Law Rhymes (3rd ed., 1831), inspired by a fierce hatred of injustice, are vigorous, simple and full of vivid description. In 1833-1835 he published The Splendid Village; Corn-Law Rhymes, and other Poems (3 vols.), which included “The Village Patriarch” (1829), “The Ranter,” an unsuccessful drama, “Keronah,” and other pieces. He contributed verses from time to time to Tait’s Magazine and to the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent. In the meantime he had been successful in business, but he remained the sturdy champion of the poor. In 1837 he again lost a great deal of money. This misfortune was also ascribed to the corn laws. He retired in 1841 with a small fortune and settled at Great Houghton, near Barnsley, where he died on the 1st of December 1849. In 1850 appeared two volumes of More Prose and Verse by the Corn-Law Rhymer. Elliott lives by his determined opposition to the “bread-tax,” as he called it, and his poems on the subject are saved from the common fate of political poetry by their transparent sincerity and passionate earnestness.

An article by Thomas Carlyle in the Edinburgh Review (July 1832) is the best criticism on Elliott. Carlyle was attracted by Elliott’s homely sincerity and genuine power, though he had small opinion of his political philosophy, and lamented his lack of humour and of the sense of proportion. He thought his poetry too imitative, detecting not only the truthful severity of Crabbe, but a “slight bravura dash of the fair tuneful Hemans.” His descriptions of his native county reveal close observation and a vivid perception of natural beauty.

See an obituary notice in the Gentleman’s Magazine (Feb. 1850). Two biographies were published in 1850, one by his son-in-law, John Watkins, and another by “January Searle” (G.S. Phillips). A new edition of his works by his son, Edwin Elliott, appeared in 1876.

ELLIPSE (adapted from Gr. ἔλλειψις, a deficiency, ἐλλείπειν, to fall behind), in mathematics, a conic section, having the form of a closed oval. It admits of several definitions framed according to the aspect from which the curve is considered. In solido, i.e. as a section of a cone or cylinder, it may be defined, after Menaechmus, as the perpendicular section of an “acute-angled” cone; or, after Apollonius of Perga, as the section of any cone by a plane at a less inclination to the base than a generator; or as an oblique section of a right cylinder. Definitions in plano are generally more useful; of these the most important are: (1) the ellipse is the conic section which has its eccentricity less than unity: this involves the notion of one directrix and one focus; (2) the ellipse is the locus of a point the sum of whose distances from two fixed points is constant: this involves the notion of two foci. Other geometrical definitions are: it is the oblique projection of a circle; the polar reciprocal of a circle for a point within it; and the conic which intersects the line at infinity in two imaginary points. Analytically it is defined by an equation of the second degree of which the highest terms represent two imaginary lines. The curve has important mechanical relations, in particular it is the orbit of a particle moving under the influence of a central force which varies inversely as the square of the distance of the particle; this is the gravitational law of force, and the curve consequently represents the orbits of the planets if only an individual planet and the sun be considered; the other planets, however, disturb this orbit (see Mechanics).

The relation of the ellipse to the other conic sections is treated in the articles Conic Section and Geometry; in this article a summary of the properties of the curve will be given.

To investigate the form of the curve use may be made of the definition: the ellipse is the locus of a point which moves so that the ratio of its distance from a fixed point (the focus) to its distance from a straight line (the directrix) is constant and is less than unity. This ratio is termed the eccentricity, and will be denoted by e. Let KX (fig. 1) be the directrix, S the focus, and X the foot of the perpendicular from S to KX. If SX be divided at A so that SA/AX = e, then A is a point on the curve. SX may be also divided externally at A′, so that SA′/A′X = e, since e is less than unity; the points A and A′ are the vertices, and the line AA′ the major axis of the curve. It is obvious that the curve is symmetrical about AA′. If AA′ be bisected at C, and the line BCB′ be drawn perpendicular to AA′, then it is readily seen that the curve is symmetrical about this line also; since if we take S′ on AA′ so that S′A′ = SA, and a line K′X′ parallel to KX such that AX = A′X′, then the same curve will be described if we regard K′X′ and S′ as the given directrix and focus, the eccentricity remaining the same. If B and B′ be points on the curve, BB′ is the minor axis and C the centre of the curve.

Metrical relations between the axes, eccentricity, distance between the foci, and between these quantities and the co-ordinates of points on the curve (referred to the axes and the centre), and focal distances are readily obtained by the methods of geometrical conics or analytically. The semi-major axis is generally denoted by a, and the semi-minor axis by b, and we have the relation b² = a² (1 − e²). Also a² = CS·CX, i.e. the square on the semi-major axis equals the rectangle contained by the distances of the focus and directrix from the centre; and 2a = SP + S′P, where P is any point on the curve, i.e. the sum of the focal distances of any point on the curve equals the major axis. The most important relation between the co-ordinates of a point on an ellipse is: if N be the foot of the perpendicular from a point P, then the square on PN bears a constant ratio to the product of the segments AN, NA′ of the major axis, this ratio being the square of the ratio of the minor to the major axis; symbolically PN² = AN·NA′ (CB/CA)². From this or otherwise it is readily deduced that the ordinates of an ellipse and of the circle described on the major axis are in the ratio of the minor to the major axis. This circle is termed the auxiliary circle.

Of the properties of a tangent it may be noticed that the tangent at any point is equally inclined to the focal distances of that point; that the feet of the perpendiculars from the foci on any tangent always lie on the auxiliary circle, and the product of these perpendiculars is constant, and equal to the product of the distances of a focus from the two vertices. From any point without the curve two, and only two, tangents can be drawn; if OP, OP′ be two tangents from O, and S, S′ the foci, then the angles OSP, OSP′ are equal and also SOP, S′OP′. If the tangents be at right angles, then the locus of the point is a circle having the same centre as the ellipse; this is named the director circle.

The middle points of a system of parallel chords is a straight line, and the tangent at the point where this line meets the curve is parallel to the chords. The straight line and the line through the centre parallel to the chords are named conjugate diameters; each bisects the chords parallel to the other. An important metrical property of conjugate diameters is the sum of their squares equals the sum of the squares of the major and minor axis.

In analytical geometry, the equation ax² + 2hxy + by² + 2gx + 2fy + c = 0 represents an ellipse when ab > h²; if the centre of the curve be the origin, the equation is a¹x² + 2h¹xy + b¹y² = C¹, and if in addition a pair of conjugate diameters are the axes, the equation is further simplified to Ax² + By² = C. The simplest form is x²/a² + y²/b² = 1, in which the centre is the origin and the major and minor axes the axes of co-ordinates. It is obvious that the co-ordinates of any point on an ellipse may be expressed in terms of a single parameter, the abscissa being a cos φ, and the ordinate b sin φ, since on eliminating φ between x = a cos φ and y = b sin φ we obtain the equation to the ellipse. The angle φ is termed the eccentric angle, and is geometrically represented as the angle between the axis of x (the major axis of the ellipse) and the radius of a point on the auxiliary circle which has the same abscissa as the point on the ellipse.

The equation to the tangent at θ is x cos θ/a + y sin θ/b = 1, and to the normal ax/cos θ − by/sin θ = a² − b².

The area of the ellipse is πab, where a, b are the semi-axes; this result may be deduced by regarding the ellipse as the orthogonal projection of a circle, or by means of the calculus. The perimeter can only be expressed as a series, the analytical evaluation leading to an integral termed elliptic (see Function, ii. Complex). There are several approximation formulae:—S = π(a + b) makes the perimeter about 1/200th too small; s =π√(a² + b²) about 1/200th too great; 2s = π(a + b) + π√(a² + b²) is within 1/30,000 of the truth.

An ellipse can generally be described to satisfy any five conditions. If five points be given, Pascal’s theorem affords a solution; if five tangents, Brianchon’s theorem is employed. The principle of involution solves such constructions as: given four tangents and one point, three tangents and two points, &c. If a tangent and its point of contact be given, it is only necessary to remember that a double point on the curve is given. A focus or directrix is equal to two conditions; hence such problems as: given a focus and three points; a focus, two points and one tangent; and a focus, one point and two tangents are soluble (very conveniently by employing the principle of reciprocation). Of practical importance are the following constructions:—(1) Given the axes; (2) given the major axis and the foci; (3) given the focus, eccentricity and directrix; (4) to construct an ellipse (approximately) by means of circular arcs.

(1) If the axes be given, we may avail ourselves of several constructions, (a) Let AA′, BB′ be the axes intersecting at right angles in a point C. Take a strip of paper or rule and mark off from a point P, distances Pa and Pb equal respectively to CA and CB. If now the strip be moved so that the point a is always on the minor axis, and the point b on the major axis, the point P describes the ellipse. This is known as the trammel construction.

(b) Let AA′, BB′ be the axes as before; describe on each as diameter a circle. Draw any number of radii of the two circles, and from the points of intersection with the major circle draw lines parallel to the minor axis, and from the points of intersection with the minor circle draw lines parallel to the major axis. The intersections of the lines drawn from corresponding points are points on the ellipse.

(2) If the major axis and foci be given, there is a convenient mechanical construction based on the property that the sum of the focal distances of any point is constant and equal to the major axis. Let AA′ be the axis and S, S′ the foci. Take a piece of thread of length AA′, and fix it at its extremities by means of pins at the foci. The thread is now stretched taut by a pencil, and the pencil moved; the curve traced out is the desired ellipse.

(3) If the directrix, focus and eccentricity be given, we may employ the general method for constructing a conic. Let S (fig. 2) be the focus, KX the directrix, X being the foot of the perpendicular from S to the directrix. Divide SX internally at A and externally at A′, so that the ratios SA/AX and SA′/A′X are each equal to the eccentricity. Then A, A′ are the vertices of the curve. Take any point R on the directrix, and draw the lines RAM, RSN; draw SL so that the angle LSN = angle NSA′. Let P be the intersection of the line SL with the line RAM, then it can be readily shown that P is a point on the ellipse. For, draw through P a line parallel to AA′, intersecting the directrix in Q and the line RSN in T. Then since XS and QT are parallel and are intersected by the lines RK, RM, RN, we have SA/AX = TP/PQ = SP/PQ, since the angle PST = angle PTS. By varying the position of R other points can be found, and, since the curve is symmetrical about both the major and minor axes, it is obvious that any point may be reflected in both the axes, thus giving 3 additional points.

(4) If the axes be given, the curve can be approximately constructed by circular arcs in the following manner:—Let AA′, BB′ be the axes; determine D the intersection of lines through B and A parallel to the major and minor axes respectively. Bisect AD at E and join EB. Then the intersection of EB and DB′ determines a point P on the (true) curve. Bisect the chord PB at G, and draw through G a line perpendicular to PB, intersecting BB′ in O. An arc with centre O and radius OB forms part of a curve. Let this arc on the reverse side to P intersect a line through O parallel to the major axis in a point H. Then HA¹ will cut the circular arc in J. Let JO intersect the major axis in O1. Then with centre O1 and radius OJ = OA¹, describe an arc. By reflecting the two arcs thus described over the centre the ellipse is approximately described.

ELLIPSOID, a quadric surface whose sections are ellipses. Analytically, it has for its equation x²/a² + y²/b² + z²/c² = 1, a, b, c being its axes; the name is also given to the solid contained by this surface (see Geometry: Analytical). The solids and surfaces of revolution of the ellipse are sometimes termed ellipsoids, but it is advisable to use the name spheroid (q.v.).

The ellipsoid appears in the mathematical investigation of physical properties of media in which the particular property varies in three directions within the media; such properties are the elasticity, giving rise to the strain ellipsoid, thermal expansion, ellipsoid of expansion, thermal conduction, refractive index (see Crystallography), &c. In mechanics, the ellipsoid of gyration or inertia is such that the perpendicular from the centre to a tangent plane is equal to the radius of gyration of the given body about the perpendicular as axis; the “momental ellipsoid,” also termed the “inverse ellipsoid of inertia” or Poinsot’s ellipsoid, has the perpendicular inversely proportional to the radius of gyration; the “equimomental ellipsoid” is such that its moments of inertia about all axes are the same as those of a given body. (See Mechanics.)

ELLIPTICITY, in astronomy, deviation from a circular or spherical form; applied to the elliptic orbits of heavenly bodies, or the spheroidal form of such bodies. (See also Compression.)

ELLIS (originally Sharpe), ALEXANDER JOHN (1814-1890), English philologist, mathematician, musician and writer on phonetics, was born at Hoxton on the 14th of June 1814. He was educated at Shrewsbury, Eton, and Trinity College, Cambridge, and took his degree in high mathematical honours. He was connected with many learned societies as member or president, and was governor of University College, London. He was the first in England to reduce the study of phonetics to a science. His most important work, to which the greater part of his life was devoted, is On Early English Pronunciation, with special reference to Shakespeare and Chaucer (1869-1889), in five parts, which he intended to supplement by a sixth, containing an abstract of the whole, an account of the views and criticisms of other inquirers in the same field, and a complete index, but ill-health prevented him from carrying out his intention. He had long been associated with Isaac Pitman in his attempts to reform English spelling, and published A Plea for Phonotypy and Phonography (1845) and A Plea for Phonetic Spelling (1848); and contributed the articles on “Phonetics” and “Speech-sounds” to the 9th edition of the Ency. Brit. He translated (with considerable additions) Helmholtz’s Sensations of Tone as a physiological Basis for the Theory of Music (2nd ed., 1885); and was the author of several smaller works on music, chiefly in connexion with his favourite subject phonetics. He died in London on the 28th of October 1890.

ELLIS, GEORGE (1753-1815), English author, was born in London in 1753. Educated at Westminster school and at Trinity College, Cambridge, he began his literary career by some satirical verses on Bath society published in 1777, and Poetical Tales, by “Sir Gregory Gander,” in 1778. He contributed to the Rolliad and the Probationary Odes political satires directed against Pitt’s administration. He was employed in diplomatic business at the Hague in 1784; and in 1797 he accompanied Lord Malmesbury to Lille as secretary to the embassy. On his return he was introduced to Pitt, and the episode of the Rolliad, which had not been forgotten, was explained. He found continued scope for his powers as a political caricaturist in the columns of the Anti-Jacobin, a weekly paper which he founded in connexion with George Canning and William Gifford. For some years before the Anti-Jacobin was started Ellis had been working in the congenial field of Early English literature, in which he was one of the first to arouse interest. The first edition of his Specimens of the Early English Poets appeared in 1790; and this was followed by Specimens of Early English Metrical Romances (1805). He also edited Gregory Lewis Way’s translation of select Fabliaux in 1796. Ellis was an intimate friend of Sir Walter Scott, who styled him “the first converser I ever saw,” and dedicated to him the fifth canto of Marmion. Some of the correspondence between them is to be found in Lockhart’s Life. He died on the 10th of April 1815. The monument erected to his memory in the parish church of Gunning Hill, Berks, bears a fine inscription by Canning.

ELLIS, SIR HENRY (1777-1869), English antiquary, was born in London on the 29th of November 1777. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, and at St John’s College, Oxford, of which he was elected a fellow. After having held for a few months a sub-librarianship in the Bodleian, he was in 1800 appointed to a similar post in the British Museum. In 1827 he became chief librarian, and held that post until 1856, when he resigned on account of advancing age. In 1832 William IV. made him a knight of Hanover, and in the following year he received an English knighthood. He died on the 15th of January 1869. Sir Henry Ellis’s life was one of very considerable literary activity. His first work of importance was the preparation of a new edition of Brand’s Popular Antiquities, which appeared in 1813. In 1816 he was selected by the commissioners of public records to write the introduction to Domesday Book, a task which he discharged with much learning, though several of his views have not stood the test of later criticism. His Original Letters Illustrative of English History (first series, 1824; second series, 1827; third series, 1846) are compiled chiefly from manuscripts in the British Museum and the State Paper Office, and have been of considerable service to historical writers. To the Library of Entertaining Knowledge he contributed four volumes on the Elgin and Townley Marbles. Sir Henry was for many years a director and joint-secretary of the Society of Antiquaries.

ELLIS, ROBINSON (1834- ), English classical scholar, was born at Barming, near Maidstone, on the 5th of September 1834. He was educated at Elizabeth College, Guernsey, Rugby, and Balliol College, Oxford. In 1858 he became fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, and in 1870 professor of Latin at University College, London. In 1876 he returned to Oxford, where from 1883 to 1893 he held the university readership in Latin. In 1893 he succeeded Henry Nettleship as professor. His chief work has been on Catullus, whom he began to study in 1859. His first Commentary on Catullus (1876) aroused great interest, and called forth a flood of criticism. In 1889 appeared a second and enlarged edition, which placed its author in the first rank of authorities on Catullus. Professor Ellis quotes largely from the early Italian commentators, maintaining that the land where the Renaissance originated had done more for scholarship than is commonly recognized. He has supplemented his critical work by a translation (1871, dedicated to Tennyson) of the poems in the metres of the originals. Another author to whom Professor Ellis has devoted many years’ study is Manilius, the astrological poet. In 1891 he published Noctes Manilianae, a series of dissertations on the Astronomica, with emendations. He has also treated Avianus, Velleius Paterculus and the Christian poet Orientius, whom he edited for the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. He edited the Ibis of Ovid, the Aetna of the younger Lucilius, and contributed to the Anecdota Oxoniensia various unedited Bodleian and other manuscripts. In 1907 he published Appendix Vergiliana (an edition of the minor poems); in 1908 The Annalist Licinianus.

ELLIS, WILLIAM (1794-1872), English Nonconformist missionary, was born in London on the 29th of August 1794. His boyhood and youth were spent at Wisbeach, where he worked as a market-gardener. In 1814 he offered himself to the London Missionary Society, and was accepted. During a year’s training he acquired some knowledge of theology and of various practical arts, such as printing and bookbinding. He sailed for the South Sea Islands in January 1816, and remained in Polynesia, occupying various stations in succession, until 1824, when he was compelled to return home on account of the state of his wife’s health. Though the period of his residence in the islands was thus comparatively short, his labours were very fruitful, contributing perhaps as much as those of any other missionary to bring about the extraordinary improvement in the religious, moral and social condition of the Pacific Archipelago that took place during the 19th century. Besides promoting the spiritual object of his mission, he introduced many other aids to the improvement of the condition of the people. His gardening experience enabled him successfully to acclimatize many species of tropical fruits and plants, and he set up and worked the first printing press in the South Seas. Returning home by way of the United States, where he advocated his work, Ellis was for some years employed as a travelling agent of the London Missionary Society, and in 1832 was appointed foreign secretary to the society, an office which he held for seven years. In 1837 he married his second wife, Sarah Stickney, a writer and teacher of some note in her generation. In 1841 he went to live at Hoddesdon, Herts, and ministered to a small Congregational church there. On behalf of the London Missionary Society he paid three visits to Madagascar (1853-1857), inquiring into the prospects for resuming the work that had been suspended by Queen Ranavolona’s hostility. A further visit was paid in 1863. Ellis wrote accounts of all his travels, and Southey’s praise (in the Quarterly Review) of his Polynesian Researches (2 vols., 1829) finds many echoes. He was a fearless, upright and tactful man, and a keen observer of nature. He died on the 25th of June 1872.

ELLISTON, ROBERT WILLIAM (1774-1831), English actor, was born in London on the 7th of April 1774, the son of a watchmaker. He was educated at St Paul’s school, but ran away from home and made his first appearance on the stage as Tressel in Richard III. at Bath in 1791. Here he was later seen as Romeo, and in other leading parts, both comic and tragic, and he repeated his successes in London from 1796. He acted at Drury Lane from 1804 to 1809, and again from 1812; and from 1819 he was the lessee of the house, presenting Kean, Mme Vestris and Macready. Ill-health and misfortune culminated in his bankruptcy in 1826, when he made his last appearance at Drury Lane as Falstaff. But as lessee of the Surrey theatre he acted almost up to his death, which was hastened by intemperance. Leigh Hunt compared him favourably with Garrick; Byron thought him inimitable in high comedy; Macready praised his versatility. Elliston was the author of The Venetian Outlaw (1805), and, with Francis Godolphin Waldron, of No Prelude (1803), in both of which plays he appeared.

ELLORA, a village of India in the native state of Hyderabad, near the city of Daulatabad, famous for its rock temples, which are among the finest in India. They are first mentioned by Ma′sudi, the Arabic geographer of the 10th century, but merely as a celebrated place of pilgrimage. The caves differ from those of Ajanta in consequence of their being excavated in the sloping sides of a hill and not in a nearly perpendicular cliff. They extend along the face of the hill for a mile and a quarter, and are divided into three distinct series, the Buddhist, the Brahmanical and the Jain, and are arranged almost chronologically. The most splendid of the whole series is the Kailas, a perfect Dravidian temple, complete in all its parts, characterized by Fergusson as one of the most wonderful and interesting monuments of architectural art in India. It is not a mere interior chamber cut in the rock, but is a model of a complete temple such as might have been erected on the plain. In other words, the rock has been cut away externally as well as internally. First the great sunken court measuring 276 ft. by 154 ft. was hewn out of the solid trap-rock of the hillside, leaving the rock mass of the temple wholly detached in a cloistered court like a colossal boulder, save that a rock bridge once connected the upper storey of the temple with the upper row of galleried chambers surrounding three sides of the court. Colossal elephants and obelisks stand on either side of the open mandapam, or pavilion, containing the sacred bull; and beyond rises the monolithic Dravidian temple to Siva, 90 ft. in height, hollowed into vestibule, chamber and image-cells, all lavishly carved. Time and earthquakes have weathered and broken away bits of the great monument, and Moslem zealots strove to destroy the carved figures, but these defects are hardly noticed. The temple was built by Krishna I., Rashtrakuta, king of Malkhed in 760-783.

ELLORE, a town of British India, in the Kistna district of Madras, on the East Coast railway, 303 m. from Madras. Pop. (1901) 33,521. The two canal systems of the Godavari and the Kistna deltas meet here. There are manufactures of cotton and saltpetre, and an important Church of England high school. Ellore was formerly a military station, and the capital of the Northern Circars. At Pedda Vegi to the north of it are extensive ruins, which are believed to be remains of the Buddhist kingdom of Vengi. From these the Mahommedans, after their conquest of the district in 1470, obtained material for building a fort at Ellore.

ELLSWORTH, OLIVER (1745-1807), American statesman and jurist, was born at Windsor, Connecticut, on the 29th of April 1745. He studied at Yale and Princeton, graduating from the latter in 1766, studied theology for a year, then law, and began to practise at Hartford in 1771. He was state’s attorney for Hartford county from 1777 to 1785, and achieved extraordinary success at the bar, amassing what was for his day a large fortune. From 1773 to 1775 he represented the town of Windsor in the general assembly of Connecticut, and in the latter year became a member of the important commission known as the “Pay Table,” which supervised the colony’s expenditures for military purposes during the War of Independence. In 1779 he again sat in the assembly, this time representing Hartford. From 1777 to 1783 he was a member of the Continental Congress, and in this body he served on three important committees, the marine committee, the board of treasury, and the committee of appeals, the predecessors respectively of the navy and treasury departments and the Supreme Court under the Federal Constitution. From 1780 to 1785 he was a member of the governor’s council of Connecticut, which, with the lower house before 1784 and alone from 1784 to 1807, constituted a supreme court of errors; and from 1785 to 1789 he was a judge of the state superior court. In 1787, with Roger Sherman and William Samuel Johnson (1727-1819), he was one of Connecticut’s delegates to the constitutional convention at Philadelphia, in which his services were numerous and important. In particular, when disagreement seemed inevitable on the question of representation, he, with Roger Sherman, proposed what is known as the “Connecticut Compromise,” by which the Federal legislature was made to consist of two houses, the upper having equal representation from each state, the lower being chosen on the basis of population. Ellsworth also made a determined stand against a national paper currency. Being compelled to leave the convention before its adjournment, he did not sign the instrument, but used his influence to secure its ratification by his native state. From 1789 to 1796 he was one of the first senators from Connecticut under the new Constitution. In the senate he was looked upon as President Washington’s personal spokesman and as the leader of the Administration party. His most important service to his country was without a doubt in connexion with the establishment of the Federal judiciary. As chairman of the committee having the matter in charge, he drafted the bill by the enactment of which the system of Federal courts, almost as it is to-day, was established. He also took a leading part in the senate in securing the passage of laws for funding the national debt, assuming the state debts and establishing a United States bank. It was Ellsworth who suggested to Washington the sending of John Jay to England to negotiate a new treaty with Great Britain, and he probably did more than any other man to induce the senate, despite widespread and violent opposition, to ratify that treaty when negotiated. By President Washington’s appointment he became chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in March 1796, and in 1799 President John Adams sent him, with William Vans Murray (1762-1803) and William R. Davie (1756-1820), to negotiate a new treaty with France. It was largely through the influence of Ellsworth, who took the principal part in the negotiations, that Napoleon consented to a convention, of the 30th of September 1800, which secured for citizens of the United States their ships captured by France but not yet condemned as prizes, provided for freedom of commerce between the two nations, stipulated that “free ships shall give a freedom to goods,” and contained provisions favourable to neutral commerce. While he was abroad, failing health compelled him (1800) to resign the chief-justiceship, and after some months in England he returned to America in 1801. In 1803 he was again elected to the governor’s council, and in 1807, on the reorganization of the Connecticut judiciary, was appointed chief justice of the new Supreme Court. He never took office, however, but died at his home in Windsor on the 27th of November 1807.

See W.G. Brown’s Oliver Ellsworth (New York, 1905), an excellent biography. There is also an appreciative account of Ellsworth’s life and work in H.C. Lodge’s A Fighting Frigate, and Other Essays and Addresses (New York, 1902), which contains in an appendix an interesting letter by Senator George F. Hoar concerning Ellsworth’s work in the constitutional convention.

ELLSWORTH, a city, port of entry and the county seat of Hancock county, Maine, U.S.A., at the head of navigation on the Union river (and about 3¾ m. from its mouth), about 30 m. S.E. of Bangor. Pop. (1890) 4804; (1900) 4297 (189 foreign-born); (1910) 3549. It is served by the Maine Central railway. The fall of the river, about 85 ft. in 2 m., furnishes good water-power, and the city has various manufactures, including lumber, shoes, woollens, sails, carriages and foundry and machine shop products, besides a large lumber trade. Shipbuilding was formerly important. There is a large United States fish hatchery here. The city is the port of entry for the Frenchman’s Bay customs district, but its foreign trade is unimportant. Ellsworth was first settled in 1763 and for some time was called New Bowdoin; but when it was incorporated as a town in 1800 the present name was adopted in honour of Oliver Ellsworth. A city charter was secured in 1869.

ELLWANGEN, a town of Germany in the kingdom of Württemberg, on the Jagst, 12 m. S.S.E. from Crailsheim on the railway to Goldshöfe. Pop. 5000. It is romantically situated between two hills, one crowned by the castle of Hohen-Ellwangen, built in 1354 and now used as an agricultural college, and the other, the Schönenberg, by the pilgrimage church of Our Lady of Loreto, in the Jesuit style of architecture. The town possesses one Evangelical and five Roman Catholic churches, among the latter the Stiftskirche, the old abbey church, a Romanesque building dating from 1124, and the Gothic St Wolfgangskirche. The classical and modern schools (Gymnasium and Realschule) occupy the buildings of a suppressed Jesuit college. The industries include the making of parchment covers, of envelopes, of wooden hafts and handles for tools, &c., and tanneries. There are also a wool-market and a horse-market, the latter famous in Germany.

The Benedictine abbey of Ellwangen is said to have been founded in 764 by Herulf, bishop of Langres; there is, however, no record of it before 814. In 1460 the abbey was converted, with the consent of Pope Pius II., into a Ritterstift (college or institution for noble pensioners) under a secular provost, who, in 1555, was raised to the dignity of a prince of the Empire. The provostship was secularized in 1803 and its territories were assigned to Württemberg. The town of Ellwangen, which grew up round the abbey and received the status of a town about the middle of the 14th century, was until 1803 the capital of the provostship.

See Seckler, Beschreibung der gefürsteten Probstei Ellwangen (Stuttgart, 1864); Beschreibung des Oberamts Ellwangen, published by the statistical bureau (Landesamt) at Ellwangen (1888). For a list of the abbots and provosts see Stokvis, Manuel d’histoire (Leiden, 1890-1893), iii. p. 242.

ELLWOOD, THOMAS (1639-1714), English author, was born at Crowell, in Oxfordshire, in 1639. He is chiefly celebrated for his connexion with Milton, and the principal facts of his life are related in a very interesting autobiography, which contains much information as to his intercourse with the poet. While he was still young his father removed to London, where Thomas became acquainted with a Quaker family named Pennington, and was led to join the Society of Friends, a connexion which subjected him to much persecution. It was through the Penningtons that he was introduced in 1662 to Milton in the capacity of Latin reader. He spent nearly every afternoon in the poet’s house in Jewin Street, until the intercourse was interrupted by an illness which compelled him to go to the country. After a period of imprisonment in the old Bridewell prison and in Newgate for Quakerism, Ellwood resumed his visits to Milton, who was now residing at a house his friend had taken for him at Chalfont St Giles. In 1665 Ellwood was again arrested and imprisoned in Aylesbury gaol. When he visited Milton after his release the poet gave him the manuscript of the Paradise Lost to read. On returning the manuscript Ellwood said, “Thou hast said much here of Paradise lost; but what hast thou to say of Paradise found?” and when Milton long afterwards in London showed him Paradise Regained, it was with the remark, “This is owing to you, for you put it into my head at Chalfont.” Ellwood was the friend of Fox and Penn, and was the author of several polemical works in defence of the Quaker position, of which Forgery no Christianity (1674) and The Foundation of Tithes Shaken (1678) deserve mention. His Sacred Histories of the Old and New Testaments appeared in 1705 and 1709. He also published some volumes of poems, among them a Davideis in five books. He died on the 1st of March 1714.

The History of the Life of Thomas Ellwood: written by his own hand (1714) has been many times reprinted.

ELM, the popular name for the trees and shrubs constituting the genus Ulmus, of the natural order Ulmaceae. The genus contains fifteen or sixteen species widely distributed throughout the north temperate zone, with the exception of western North America, and extending southwards as far as Mexico in the New and the Sikkim Himalayas in the Old World.

The common elm, U. campestris, a doubtful native of England, is found throughout a great part of Europe, in North Africa and in Asia Minor, whence it ranges as far east as north Asia and Japan. It grows in woods and hedge-rows, especially in the southern portion of Britain, and on almost all soils, but thrives best on a rich loam, in open, low-lying, moderately moist situations, attaining a height of 60 to 100, and in some few cases as much as 130 or 150 ft. The branches are numerous and spreading, and often pendulous at the extremities; the bark is rugged; the leaves are alternate, ovate, rough, doubly serrate, and, as in other species of Ulmus, unequal at the base. The flowers are small, hermaphrodite, numerous, in purplish-brown tufts, and each with a fringed basal bract; the bell-shaped calyx is often four-toothed and surrounds four free stamens; the pistil bears two spreading hairy styles. They appear before the leaves in March and April. The seed-vessels are green, membranous, one-seeded and deeply cleft. Unlike the wych elm, the common elm rarely perfects its seed in England, where it is propagated by means of root suckers from old trees, or preferably by layers from stools. In the first ten years of its growth it ordinarily reaches a height of 25 to 30 ft. The wood, at first brownish white, becomes, with growth, of a brown colour having a greenish shade. It is close-grained, free from knots, without apparent medullary rays, and is hard and tough, but will not take a polish. All parts of the trunk, including the sapwood, are available in carpentry. By drying, the wood loses over 60% of its weight, and has then a specific gravity of 0.588. It has considerable transverse strength, does not crack when once seasoned, and is remarkably durable under water, or if kept quite dry; though it decays rapidly on exposure to the weather, which in ten to eighteen months causes the bark to fall off, and gives to the wood a yellowish colour—a sign of deterioration in quality. To prevent shrinking and warping it may be preserved in water or mud, but it is best worked up soon after felling. Analyses of the ash of the wood have given a percentage of 47.8% of lime, 21.9% of potash, and 13.7% of soda. In summer, elm trees often exude an alkaline gummy substance, which by the action of the air becomes the brown insoluble body termed ulmin. Elm wood is used for keels and bilge-planks, the blocks and dead-eyes of rigging, and ships’ pumps, for coffins, wheels, furniture, carved and turned articles, and for general carpenters’ work; and previous to the common employment of cast iron was much in request for waterpipes. The inner bark of the elm is made into bast mats and ropes. It contains mucilage, with a little tannic acid, and was formerly much employed for the preparation of an antiscorbutic decoction, now obsolete. The bark of Ulmus fulva, the slippery or red elm of the United States and Canada, serves the North American Indians for the same purpose, and also as a vulnerary. The leaves as well as the young shoots of elms have been found a suitable food for live stock. For ornamental purposes elm trees are frequently planted, and in avenues, as at the park of Stratfieldsaye, in Hampshire, are highly effective. They were first used in France for the adornment of public walks in the reign of Francis I. In Italy, as in ancient times, it is still customary to train the vine upon the elm—a practice to which frequent allusion has been made by the poets. The cork-barked elm, U. campestris, var. suberosa, is distinguished chiefly by the thick deeply fissured bark with which its branches are covered. There are numerous cultivated forms differing in size and shape of leaf, and manner of growth.

The Scotch or wych elm, U. montana, is indigenous to Britain and is the common elm of the northern portion of the island; it usually attains a height of about 50 ft., but among tall-growing trees may reach 120 ft. It has drooping branches and a smoother and thinner bark, larger and more tapering leaves, and a far less deeply notched seed-vessel than U. campestris. The wood, though more porous than in that species, is a tough and hard material when properly seasoned, and, being very flexible when steamed, is well adapted for boat-building. Branches of the wych elm were formerly manufactured into bows, and if forked were employed as divining-rods. The weeping elm, the most ornamental member of the genus, is a variety of this species. The Dutch or sand elm is a tree very similar to the wych elm, but produces inferior timber. The American or white elm, U. americana, is a hardy and very handsome species, of which the old tree on Boston (Mass.) Common was a representative. This tree is supposed to have been in existence before the settlement of Boston, and at the time of its destruction by the storm of the 15th of February 1876 measured 22 ft. in circumference.

ELMACIN (Elmakin or Elmacinus), GEORGE (c. 1223-1274), author of a history of the Saracens, which extends from the time of Mahomet to the year 1118 of our era. He was a Christian of Egypt, where he was born; is known in the east as Ibn-Amid; and after holding an official position under the sultans of Egypt, died at Damascus. His history is principally occupied with the affairs of the Saracen empire, but it contains passages which relate to the Eastern Christians. It was published in Arabic and Latin at Leiden in 1625. The Latin version is a translation by Erpenius, under the title, Historia saracenica, and from this a French translation was made by Wattier as L’Histoire mahométane (Paris, 1657).

ELMALI (“apple-town”), a small town of Asia Minor in the vilayet of Konia, the present administrative centre of the ancient Lycia, but not itself corresponding to any known ancient city. It lies about 25 m. inland, at the head of a long upland valley (5000 ft.) inhabited by direct descendants of the ancient Lycians, who have preserved a distinctive facial type, noticeable at once in the town population. There are about fifty Greek families, the rest of the population (4000) being Moslem. The district is agricultural and has no manufactures of importance.

ELMES, HARVEY LONSDALE (1813-1847), British architect, son of James Elmes (q.v.), was born at Chichester in 1813. After serving some time in his father’s office, and under a surveyor at Bedford and an architect at Bath, he became partner with his father in 1835, and in the following year he was successful among 86 competitors for a design for St George’s Hall, Liverpool. The foundation stone of this building was laid en the 28th of June 1838, but, Elmes being successful in a competition for the Assize Courts in the same city, it was finally decided to include the hall and courts in a single building. In accordance with this idea, Elmes prepared a fresh design, and the work of erection commenced in 1841. He superintended its progress till 1847, when from failing health he was compelled to delegate his duties to Charles Robert Cockerell, and leave for Jamaica, where he died of consumption on the 26th of November 1847.

ELMES, JAMES (1782-1862), British architect, civil engineer, and writer on the arts, was born in London on the 15th of October 1782. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, and, after studying building under his father, and architecture under George Gibson, became a student at the Royal Academy, where he gained the silver medal in 1804. He designed a large number of buildings in the metropolis, and was surveyor and civil engineer to the port of London, but is best known as a writer on the arts. In 1809 he became vice-president of the Royal Architectural Society, but this office, as well as that of surveyor of the port of London, he was compelled through partial loss of sight to resign in 1828. He died at Greenwich on the 2nd of April 1862. His publications were:—Sir Christopher Wren and his Times (1823); Lectures on Architecture (1823); The Arts and Artists (1825); General and Biographical Dictionary of the Fine Arts (1826); Treatise on Architectural Jurisprudence (1827), and Thomas Clarkson: a Monograph (1854).

ELMHAM, THOMAS (d. c. 1420), English chronicler, was probably born at North Elmham in Norfolk. He became a Benedictine monk at Canterbury, and then joining the Cluniacs, was prior of Lenton Abbey, near Nottingham; he was chaplain to Henry V., whom he accompanied to France in 1415, being present at Agincourt. Elmham wrote a history of the monastery of St Augustine at Canterbury, which has been edited by C. Hardwick for the Rolls Series (1858); and a Liber metricus de Henrico V., edited by C.A. Cole in the Memorials of Henry V. (1858). It is very probable that Elmham wrote the famous Gesta Henrici Quinti, which is the best authority for the life of Henry V. from his accession to 1416. This work, often referred to as the “chaplain’s life,” and thought by some to have been written by Jean de Bordin, has been published for the English Historical Society by B. Williams (1850). Elmham, however, did not write the Vita et Gesta Henrici V., which was attributed to him by T. Hearne and others.

See C.L. Kingsford, Henry V. (1901).

ELMINA, a town on the Gold Coast, British West Africa, in 5° 4′ N., 1° 20′ W. and about 8 m. W. of Cape Coast. Pop. about 4000. Facing the Atlantic on a rocky peninsula is Fort St George, considered the finest fort on the Guinea coast. It is built square with high walls, and has accommodation for 200 soldiers. On the land side were formerly two moats, cut in the rock on which the castle stands. The castle is the residence of the commissioner of the district and other officials. The houses in the native quarter are mostly built of stone, that material being plentiful in the vicinity.

Elmina is the earliest European settlement on the Gold Coast, and was visited by the Portuguese in 1481. Christopher Columbus is believed to have been one of the officers who took part in this voyage. The Portuguese at once began to build the castle now known as Fort St George, but it was not completed till eighty years afterwards. Another defensive work is Fort St Jago, built in 1666, which is behind the town and at some distance from the coast. (In the latter half of the 19th century it was converted into a prison.) Elmina was captured by the Dutch in 1637, and ceded to them by treaty in 1640. They made it the chief port for the produce of Ashanti. With the other Dutch possessions on the Guinea coast, it was transferred to Great Britain in April 1872. The king of Ashanti, claiming to be ground landlord, objected to its transfer, and the result was the Ashanti war of 1873-1874. For many years the greatest output of gold from this coast came from Elmina. The annual export is said to have been nearly £3,000,000 in the early years of the 18th century, but the figure is probably exaggerated. Since 1900 the bulk of the export trade in gold has been transferred to Sekondi (q.v.). Prempeh, the ex-king of Ashanti, was detained in the castle (1896) until his removal to the Seychelles. (See Ashanti: History, and Gold Coast: History.)

ELMIRA, a city and the county-seat of Chemung county, New York, U.S.A., 100 m. S.E. of Rochester, on the Chemung river, about 850 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1890) 30,893; (1900) 35,672, of whom 5511 were foreign-born (1988 Irish and 1208 German); (1910 census) 37,176. It is served by the Erie, the Pennsylvania, the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, the Lehigh Valley, and the Tioga Division railways, the last of which connects it with the Pennsylvania coalfields 48 m. away. The city is attractively situated on both sides of the river, and has a fine water-supply and park system, among the parks being Eldridge, Rorick’s Glen, Riverside, Brand, Diven, Grove, Maple Avenue and Wisner; in the last-named is a statue of Thomas K. Beecher by J.S. Hartley. The city contains a Federal building, a state armoury, the Chemung county court house and other county buildings, the Elmira orphans’ home, the Steele memorial library, home for the aged, the Arnot-Ogden memorial hospital, the Elmira free academy, and the Railway Commercial training school. Here, also, is Elmira College (Presbyterian) for women, founded in 1855. This institution, chartered in 1852 as Auburn Female University and then situated in Auburn, was rechartered in 1855 as the Elmira Female College; it was established largely through the influence and persistent efforts of the Rev. Samuel Robbins Brown (1810-1880) and his associates, notably Simeon Benjamin of Elmira, who gave generously to the newly founded college, and was the first distinctively collegiate institution for women in the United States, and the first, apparently, to grant degrees to women. The most widely known institution in the city is the Elmira reformatory, a state prison for first offenders between the ages of sixteen and thirty, on a system of general indeterminate sentences. Authorized by the state legislature in 1866 and opened in 1876 under the direction of Zebulon Reed Brockway (b. 1827), it was the first institution of the sort and has served as a model for many similar institutions both in the United States and in other countries (see Juvenile Offenders). Elmira is an important railway centre, with large repair shops, and has also extensive manufactories (value of production in 1900, $8,558,786, of which $6,596,603 was produced under the “factory system”; in 1905, under the “factory system,” $6,984,095), including boot and shoe factories, a large factory for fire-extinguishing apparatus, iron and steel bridge works, steel rolling mills, large valve works, steel plate mills, knitting mills, furniture, glass and boiler factories, breweries and silk mills. Near the site of Elmira occurred on the 29th of August 1779 the battle of Newtown, in which General John Sullivan decisively defeated a force of Indians and Tories under Sir John Johnson and Joseph Brant. There were some settlers here at the close of the War of Independence, but no permanent settlement was made until 1788. The village was incorporated as Newtown in 1815, and was reincorporated as Elmira in 1828. A city charter was secured in 1864. In 1861 a state military camp was established here, and in 1864-1865 there was a prison camp here for Confederate soldiers.

ELMSHORN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein, on the Krückau, 19 m. by rail N.W. from Altona. Pop. (1905) 13,640. Its industries include weaving, dyeing, brewing, iron-founding and the manufacture of leather goods, boots and shoes and machines. There is a considerable shipping trade.

ELMSLEY, PETER (1773-1825), English classical scholar. He was educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford, and having inherited a fortune from his uncle, a well-known bookseller, devoted himself to the study of classical authors and manuscripts. In 1798 he was appointed to the chapelry of Little Horkesley in Essex, which he held till his death. He travelled extensively in France and Italy, and spent the winter of 1818 in examining the MSS. in the Laurentian library at Florence. In 1819 he was commissioned, with Sir Humphry Davy, to decipher the papyri found at Herculaneum, but the results proved insignificant. In 1823 he was appointed principal of St Alban’s Hall, Oxford, and Camden professor of ancient history. He died in Oxford on the 8th of March 1825. Elmsley was a man of most extensive learning and European reputation, and was considered to be the best ecclesiastical scholar in England. But it is chiefly by his collation of the MSS. of the Greek tragedians and his critical labours on the restoration of their text that he will be remembered. He edited the Acharnians of Aristophanes, and several of the plays and scholia of Sophocles and Euripides. He was the first to recognize the importance of the Laurentian MS. (see Sandys, Hist. of Class. Schol. iii. (1908).

ELNE, a town of south-western France in the department of Pyrénées-Orientales, 10 m. S.S.E. of Perpignan by rail. Pop. (1906) 3026. The hill on which it stands, once washed by the sea, which is now over 3 m. distant, commands a fine view over the plain of Roussillon. From the 6th century till 1602 the town was the seat of a bishopric, which was transferred to Perpignan. The cathedral of St Eulalie, a Romanesque building completed about the beginning of the 12th century, has a beautiful cloister in the same style, with interesting sculptures and three early Christian sarcophagi. Remains of the ancient ramparts flanked by towers are still to be seen. Silk-worm cultivation is carried on. Elne, the ancient Illiberis, was named Helena by the emperor Constantine in memory of his mother. Hannibal encamped under its walls on his march to Rome in 218 B.C. The emperor Constans was assassinated there in A.D. 350. The town several times sustained siege and capture between its occupation by the Moors in the 8th century and its capitulation in 1641 to the troops of Louis XIII.

EL OBEID, chief town of the mudiria (province) of Kordofan, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and 230 m. S.W. by S. of Khartum in a direct line. Pop. (1905) about 10,000. It is situated about 2000 ft. above the sea, at the northern foot of Jebel Kordofan, in 13° 11′ N. and 30° 14′ E. It is an important trade centre, the chief articles of commerce being gum, ivory, cattle and ostrich feathers. A considerable part of the trade of Darfur with Egypt passes through El Obeid.

El Obeid, which appears to be a place of considerable antiquity and the ancient capital of the country, was garrisoned by the Egyptians on their conquest of Kordofan in 1821. In September 1882 the town was assaulted by the troops of the mahdi, who, being repulsed, laid siege to the place, which capitulated on the 17th of January 1883. During the Mahdia the city was destroyed and deserted, and when Kordofan passed, in 1899, into the possession of the Anglo-Egyptian authorities nothing was left of El Obeid but a part of the old government offices. A new town was laid out in squares, the mudiria repaired and barracks built. (See Kordofan, and Sudan: Anglo-Egyptian.)

ELOI [Eligius], SAINT (588-659), apostle of the Belgians and Frisians, was born at Cadillac, near Limoges, in 588. Having at an early age shown artistic talent he was placed by his parents with the master of the mint at Limoges, where he made rapid progress in goldsmith’s work. He became coiner to Clotaire II., king of the Franks, and treasurer to his successor Dagobert. Both kings entrusted him with important works, among which were the composition of the bas-reliefs which ornament the tomb of St Germain, bishop of Paris, and the execution (for Clotaire) of two chairs of gold, adorned with jewels, which at that time were reckoned chefs-d’œuvre. Though he was amassing great wealth, Eloi acquired a distaste for a worldly life, and resolved to become a priest. At first he retired to a monastery, but in 640 was raised to the bishopric of Noyon. He made frequent missionary excursions to the pagans of the Low Countries, and also founded a great many monasteries and churches. He died on the 1st of December 659. A mass of legend has gathered round the life of St Eloi, who as the patron saint of goldsmiths is still very popular.

His life was written by his friend and contemporary St Ouen (Audoenus); French translations of the Vita S. Eligii auctore Audoeno were published by L. de Montigny (Paris, 1626), by C. Barthélemy in Études hist., litt. et art. (ib. 1847), and by Parenty, with notes (2nd ed., ib. 1870). For bibliography see Potthast, Bibliotheca hist. med. aevi (Berlin, 1896), s.v. “Vita S. Eligii Noviomensis,” and Ulysse Chevalier, Rép. des sources hist., Bio-bibl. (Paris, 1894), s. “Eloi.”

ELONGATION, strictly “lengthening”; in astronomy, the apparent angular distance of a heavenly body from its centre of motion, as seen from the earth; designating especially the angular distance of the planet Mercury or Venus from the sun, or the apparent angle between a satellite and its primary. The greatest elongation of Venus is about 45°; that of Mercury generally ranges between 18° and 27°.

EL PASO, a city, port of entry, and the county-seat of El Paso county, Texas, U.S.A., on the E. bank of the Rio Grande, in the extreme W. part of the state, at an altitude of 3710 ft. Pop. (1880) 736; (1890) 10,338; (1900) 15,906, of whom 6309 were foreign-born and 466 were negroes; (1910 census) 39,279. Many of the inhabitants are of Mexican descent. El Paso is an important railway centre and is served by the following railways: the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, of which it is the S. terminus; the El Paso & South-Western, which connects with the Chicago, Rock Island & El Paso (of the Rock Island system); the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio, of which it is the W. terminus; the Mexican Central, of which it is the N. terminus; the Texas & Pacific, of which it is the W. terminus; a branch of the Southern Pacific, of which it is the E. terminus; and the short Rio Grande, Sierra Madre & Pacific, of which it is the N. terminus. The city is regularly laid out on level bottom lands, stretching to the table-lands and slopes to the N.E. and N.W. of the city. Opposite, on the W. bank of the river, is the Mexican town of Ciudad Juarez (until 1885 known as Paso del Norte), with which El Paso is connected by bridges and by electric railway. The climate is mild, warm and dry, El Paso being well known as a health resort, particularly for sufferers from pulmonary complaints. Among the city’s public buildings are a handsome Federal building, a county court house, a city hall, a Y.M.C.A. building, a public library, a sanatorium for consumptives, and the Hotel Dieu, a hospital maintained by Roman Catholics. El Paso is the seat of St Joseph’s Academy and of the El Paso Military Institute. Three miles E. of the city limits is Fort Bliss, a U.S. military post, with a reservation of about 2 sq. m. El Paso’s situation on the Mexican frontier gives it a large trade with Mexico; it is the port of entry of the Paso del Norte customs district, one of the larger Mexican border districts, and in 1908 its imports were valued at $2,677,784 and its exports at $5,661,901. Wheat, boots and shoes, mining machinery, cement, lime, lumber, beer, and denatured alcohol are among the varied exports; the principal imports are ore, sugar, cigars, oranges, drawn work and Mexican curios. El Paso has extensive manufactories, especially railway car shops, which in 1905 employed 34.5% of the factory wage-earners. Just outside the city limits are important lead smelting works, to which are brought ores for treatment from western Texas, northern Mexico, New Mexico and Arizona. Among the city’s manufactures are cement, denatured alcohol, ether, varnish, clothing and canned goods. The value of the city’s total factory product in 1905 was $2,377,813, 96% greater than that in 1900. El Paso lies in a fertile agricultural valley, and in 1908 the erection of an immense dam was begun near Engle, New Mexico (100 m. above El Paso), by the U.S. government, to store the flood waters of the Rio Grande for irrigating this area. Before the Mexican War, following which the first United States settlement was made, the site of El Paso was known as Ponce de Leon Ranch, the land being owned by the Ponce de Leon family. El Paso was first chartered as a city in 1873, and in 1907 adopted the commission form of government.

ELPHINSTONE, MOUNTSTUART (1779-1859), Indian statesman and historian, fourth son of the 11th Baron Elphinstone in the peerage of Scotland, was born in 1779. Having received an appointment in the civil service of the East India Company, of which one of his uncles was a director, he reached Calcutta in the beginning of 1796. After filling several subordinate posts, he was appointed in 1801 assistant to the British resident at Poona, at the court of the peshwa, the most powerful of the Mahratta princes. Here he obtained his first opportunity of distinction, being attached in the capacity of diplomatist to the mission of Sir Arthur Wellesley to the Mahrattas. When, on the failure of negotiations, war broke out, Elphinstone, though a civilian, acted as virtual aide-de-camp to General Wellesley. He was present at the battle of Assaye, and displayed such courage and knowledge of tactics throughout the whole campaign that Wellesley told him he had mistaken his profession, and that he ought to have been a soldier. In 1804, when the war closed, he was appointed British resident at Nagpur. Here, the times being uneventful and his duties light, he occupied much of his leisure in reading classical and general literature, and acquired those studious habits which clung to him throughout life. In 1808 he was appointed the first British envoy to the court of Kabul, with the object of securing a friendly alliance with the Afghans; but this proved of little value, because Shah Shuja was driven from the throne by his brother before it could be ratified. The most valuable permanent result of the embassy was the literary fruit it bore several years afterwards in Elphinstone’s great work on Kabul. After spending about a year in Calcutta arranging the report of his mission, Elphinstone was appointed in 1811 to the important and difficult post of resident at Poona. The difficulty arose from the general complication of Mahratta politics, and especially from the weak and treacherous character of the peshwa, which Elphinstone rightly read from the first. While the mask of friendship was kept up Elphinstone carried out the only suitable policy, that of vigilant quiescence, with admirable tact and patience; when in 1817 the mask was thrown aside and the peshwa ventured to declare war, the English resident proved for the second time the truth of Wellesley’s assertion that he was born a soldier. Though his own account of his share in the campaign is characteristically modest, one can gather from it that the success of the British troops was chiefly owing to his assuming the command at an important crisis during the battle of Kirkee.

The peshwa being driven from his throne, his territories were annexed to the British dominions, and Elphinstone was nominated commissioner to administer them. He discharged the responsible task with rare judgment and ability. In 1819 he was appointed lieutenant-governor of Bombay and held this post till 1827, his principal achievement being the compilation of the “Elphinstone code.” He may fairly be regarded as the founder of the system of state education in India, and he probably did more than any other Indian administrator to further every likely scheme for the promotion of native education. His connexion with the Bombay presidency was appropriately commemorated in the endowment of the Elphinstone College by the native communities, and in the erection of a marble statue by the European inhabitants.

Returning to England in 1829, after an interval of two years’ travel, Elphinstone retained in his retirement and enfeebled health an important influence on public affairs. He twice refused the offer of the governor-generalship of India. Long before his return he had made his reputation as an author by his Account of the Kingdom of Cabul and its Dependencies in Persia and India (1815). Soon after his arrival in England he commenced the preparation of a work of wider scope, a history of India, which was published in 1841. It embraces the Hindu and Mahommedan periods, and is still a work of high authority. He died on the 20th of November 1859.

See J.S. Cotton, Mountstuart Elphinstone (“Rulers of India” series), (1892); T.E. Colebrooke, Life of Mountstuart Elphinstone (1884); and G.W. Forrest, Official Writings of Mountstuart Elphinstone (1884).

ELPHINSTONE, WILLIAM (1431-1514), Scottish statesman and prelate, founder of the university of Aberdeen, was born in Glasgow, and educated at the university of his native city, taking the degree of M.A. in 1452. After practising for a short time as a lawyer in the church courts, he was ordained priest, becoming rector of St Michael’s church, Trongate, Glasgow, in 1465. Four years later he went to continue his studies at the university of Paris, where he became reader in canon law, and then, proceeding to Orleans, became lecturer in the university there. Before 1474 he had returned to Scotland, and was made rector of the university, and official of the see of Glasgow. Further promotion followed, but soon more important duties were entrusted to Elphinstone, who was made bishop of Ross in 1481. He was a member of the Scots parliament, and was sent by King James III. on diplomatic errands to Louis XI. of France, and to Edward IV. of England; in 1483 he was appointed bishop of Aberdeen, although his consecration was delayed for four years; and he was sent on missions to England, both before and after the death of Richard III. in 1485. Although he attended the meetings of parliament with great regularity he did not neglect his episcopal duties, and the fabric of the cathedral of Aberdeen owes much to his care. Early in 1488 the bishop was made lord high chancellor, but on the king’s death in the following June he vacated this office, and retired to Aberdeen. As a diplomatist of repute, however, his services were quickly required by the new king, James IV., in whose interests he visited the kings of England and France, and the German king, Maximilian I. Having been made keeper of the privy seal in 1492, and having arranged a dispute between the Scotch and the Dutch, the bishop’s concluding years were mainly spent in the foundation of the university of Aberdeen. The papal bull for this purpose was obtained in 1494, and the royal charter which made old Aberdeen the seat of a university is dated 1498. A small endowment was provided by the king, and the university, modelled on that of Paris and intended principally to be a school of law, soon became the most famous and popular of the Scots seats of learning, a result which was largely due to the wide experience and ripe wisdom of Elphinstone and of his friend, Hector Boece, the first rector. The building of the college of the Holy Virgin in Nativity, now King’s College, was completed in 1506, and the bishop also rebuilt the choir of his cathedral, and built a bridge over the Dee. Continuing to participate in public affairs he opposed the policy of hostility towards England which led to the disaster at Flodden in September 1513, and died in Edinburgh on the 25th of October 1514. Elphinstone was partly responsible for the introduction of printing into Scotland, and for the production of the Breviarium Aberdonense. He may have written some of the lives in this collection, and gathered together materials concerning the history of Scotland; but he did not, as some have thought, continue the Scotichronicon, nor did he write the Lives of Scottish Saints.

See Hector Boece, Murthlacensium et Aberdonensium episcoporum vitae, edited and translated by J. Moir (Aberdeen, 1894); Fasti Aberdonenses, edited by C. Innes (Aberdeen, 1854); and A. Gardyne, Theatre of Scottish Worthies and Lyf of W. Elphinston, edited by D. Laing (Aberdeen, 1878).

EL RENO, a city and the county-seat of Canadian county, Oklahoma, U.S.A., on the N. fork of the Canadian river, about 26 m. W. of Oklahoma City. Pop. (1890) 285; (1900) 3383; (1907) 5370 (401 were of negro descent and 7 were Indians); (1910) 7872. It is served by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf (owned by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific), and the St Louis, El Reno & Western railways, the last extending from El Reno to Guthrie. El Reno lies on the rolling prairie lands, about 1360 ft. above the sea, in an Indian corn, wheat, oats and cotton-producing and dairying region, and has a large grain elevator, a cotton compress, and various manufacturing establishments, among the products being flour, canned goods and crockery. El Reno has a Carnegie library, and within the city’s limits is Bellamy’s Lake (180 acres), a favourite resort. Near the city is a Government boarding school for the Indians of the Cheyenne and the Arapahoe Reservation. Fort Reno, a U.S. military post, was established near El Reno in 1876, and in 1908 became a supply depot of the quartermaster’s department under the name of “Fort Reno Remount Depot.” The first settlement here, apart from the fort, was made in the autumn of 1889; in 1892 El Reno received a city charter.

ELSFLETH, a maritime town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Oldenburg, in a fertile district at the confluence of the Hunte with the Weser, on the railway Hude-Nordenham. Pop. 2000. It has an Evangelical church, a school of navigation, a harbour and docks. It has considerable trade in corn and timber and is one of the centres of the North Sea herring fishery.

ELSINORE (Dan. Helsingör), a seaport of Denmark in the amt (county) of Frederiksborg, on the east coast of the island of Zealand, 28 m. N. of Copenhagen by rail. Pop. (1901) 13,902. It stands at the narrowest part of the Sound, opposite the Swedish town of Helsingborg, 3 m. distant. Communication is maintained by means of a steam ferry. Its harbour admits vessels of 20 ft. draught, and the roadstead affords excellent anchorage. There are shipbuilding yards, with foundry, engineering shops, &c.; the chief export is agricultural produce; imports, iron, coal, cereals and yarn. Helsingör received town-privileges in 1425. In 1522 it was taken and burnt by Lübeck, but in 1535 was retaken by Christian II. It is celebrated as the Elsinore of Shakespeare’s tragedy of Hamlet, and was the birthplace of Saxo Grammaticus, from whose history the story of Hamlet is derived. A pile of rocks surrounded by trees is shown as the grave of Hamlet, and Ophelia’s brook is also pointed out, but both are, of course, inventions. On a tongue of land east of the town stands the castle of Kronberg or Kronenberg, a magnificent, solid and venerable Gothic structure built by Frederick II. towards the end of the 16th century, and extensively restored by Christian IV. after a fire in 1637. It was taken by the Swedes in 1658, but its possession was again given up to the Danes in 1660. From its turrets, one of which serves as a lighthouse, there are fine views of the straits and of the neighbouring countries. The Flag Battery is the “platform before the castle” where the ghost appears in Hamlet. Within it the principal object of interest is the apartment in which Matilda, queen of Christian VII. and sister of George III. of England, was imprisoned before she was taken to Hanover. The chapel contains fine wood-carving of the 17th century. North-west of the town is Marienlyst, originally a royal château, but now a seaside resort.

ELSSLER, FANNY (1810-1884), Austrian dancer, was born in Vienna on the 23rd of June 1810. From her earliest years she was trained for the ballet, and made her appearance at the Kärntner-Thor theatre in Vienna before she was seven. She almost invariably danced with her sister Theresa, who was two years her senior; and, after some years’ experience together in Vienna, the two went in 1827 to Naples. Their success there—to which Fanny contributed more largely than her sister, who used to efface herself in order to heighten the effect of Fanny’s more brilliant powers—led to an engagement in Berlin in 1830. This was the beginning of a series of triumphs for Fanny’s personal beauty and skill in dancing. After captivating all hearts in Berlin and Vienna, and inspiring the aged statesman Friedrich von Gentz (q.v.) with a remarkable passion, she paid a visit to London, where she received much kindness at the hands of Mr and Mrs Grote, who practically adopted the little girl who was born three months after the mother’s arrival in England. In September 1834 Fanny Elssler appeared at the Opera in Paris, a step to which she looked forward with much misgiving on account of Taglioni’s supremacy on that stage. The result, however, was another triumph for her, and the temporary eclipse of Taglioni, who, although the finer artist of the two, could not for the moment compete with the newcomer’s personal fascination. It was conspicuously in her performance of the Spanish cachuca that Fanny Elssler outshone all rivals. In 1840 she sailed with her sister for New York, and after two years’ unmixed success they returned to Europe, where during the following five years Fanny appeared in Germany, Austria, France, England and Russia. In 1845, having amassed a fortune, she retired from the stage and settled near Hamburg. A few years later her sister Theresa contracted a morganatic marriage with Prince Adalbert of Prussia, and was ennobled under the title of Baroness von Barnim. Fanny Elssler died at Vienna on the 27th of November 1884. Theresa was left a widow in 1873, and died on the 19th of November 1878.

ELSTER, the name of two rivers of Germany. (1) The Schwarze (Black) Elster rises in the Lausitz range, on the southern border of Saxony, flows N. and N.W., and after a course of 112 m. enters the Elbe a little above Wittenberg. It is a sluggish stream, winding its way through sandy soil and frequently along a divided channel. (2) The Weisse (White) Elster rises in the north-western corner of Bohemia, a little north of Eger, cuts through the Vogtland in a deep and picturesque valley, passing Plauen, Greiz, Gera and Zeitz on its way north to Leipzig, just below which city it receives its most important tributary, the Pleisse. At Leipzig it divides, the main stream turning north-west and entering the Saale from the right a little above Halle; the other arm, the Luppe, flowing parallel to the main stream and south of it enters the Saale below Merseburg. Total length, 121 m.; total descent, 1286 ft.

ELSTER, a spa and inland watering-place of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony, on the Weisse Elster, close to the Bohemian frontier on the railway Plauen-Eger, and 20 m. S. of the former. It has some industries of lace-making and weaving, and a population of about 2000, in addition to visitors. The mineral springs, saline-chalybeate, specific in cases of nervous disorders and feminine ailments, have been lately supplemented by baths of various kinds, and these, together with the natural attractions of the place as a climatic health resort, have combined to make it a fashionable watering-place during the summer season. The number of visitors amounts annually to about 10,000.

See Flechsig, Bad Elster (Leipzig, 1884).

ELSWICK, a ward of the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, in the western part of the borough, bordering the river Tyne. The name is well known in connexion with the great ordnance and naval works of Sir W.G. Armstrong, Mitchell & Co. Elswick Park, attached to the old mansion of the same name, is now a public recreation ground.

EL TEB, a halting-place in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan near the coast of the Red Sea, 9 m. S.W. of the port of Trinkitat on the road to Tokar. At El Teb, on the 4th of February 1884, a heterogeneous force under General Valentine Baker, marching to the relief of the Egyptian garrison of Tokar, was completely routed by the Mahdists (see Egypt: Military Operations).

ELTON, CHARLES ISAAC (1839-1900), English lawyer and antiquary, was born at Southampton on the 6th of December 1839. Educated at Cheltenham and Balliol College, Oxford, he was elected a fellow of Queen’s College in 1862. He was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 1865. His remarkable knowledge of old real property law and custom helped him to an extensive conveyancing practice and he took silk in 1885. He sat in the House of Commons for West Somerset in 1884-1885 and from 1886 to 1892. In 1869 he succeeded to his uncle’s property of Whitestaunton, near Chard, in Somerset. During the later years of his life he retired to a great extent from legal practice, and devoted much of his time to literary work. He died at Whitestaunton on the 23rd of April 1900. Elton’s principal works were The Tenures of Kent (1867); Treatise on Commons and Waste Lands (1868); Law of Copyholds (1874); Origins of English History (1882); Custom and Tenant Right (1882).

ELTVILLE (Elfeld), a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, on the right bank of the Rhine, 5 m. S.W. from Wiesbaden, on the railway Frankfort-on-Main-Cologne, and with a branch to Schlangenbad. Pop. 3700. It has a Roman Catholic and a Protestant church, ruins of a feudal castle, a Latin school, and a monument to Gutenberg. It has a considerable trade in the wines of the district and two manufactories of sparkling wines. Eltville (originally Adeldvile, Lat. Altavilla) is first mentioned in a record of the year 882. It was given by the emperor Otto I. to the archbishops of Mainz, who often resided here. It received town rights in 1331 and was a place of importance during the middle ages. In 1465 Gutenberg set up his press at Eltville, under the patronage of Archbishop Adolphus of Nassau, shortly afterwards handing over its use to the brothers Heinrich and Nikolaus Bechtermünz. Several costly early examples of printed books issued by this press survive, the earliest being the Vocabularium Latino-Teutonicum, first printed in 1467.

ELTZ, a small river of Germany, a left bank tributary of the Mosel. It rises in the Eifel range, and, after a course of 5 m., joins the latter river at Moselkern. Just above its confluence stands the romantic castle of Eltz, crowning a rocky summit 900 ft. high, and famous as being one of the best preserved medieval strongholds of Germany. It is the ancestral seat of the counts of Eltz and contains numerous antiquities.

See Roth, Geschichte der Herren und Grafen zu Eltz (2 vols., Mainz, 1889-1890).

ELVAS, an episcopal city and frontier fortress of Portugal, in the district of Portalegre and formerly included in the province of Alemtejo; 170 m. E. of Lisbon, and 10 m. W. of the Spanish fortress of Badajoz, by the Madrid-Badajoz-Lisbon railway. Pop. (1900) 13,981. Elvas is finely situated on a hill 5 m. N.W. of the river Guadiana. It is defended by seven bastions and the two forts of Santa Luzia and Nossa Senhora da Graça. Its late Gothic cathedral, which has also many traces of Moorish influence in its architecture, dates from the reign of Emmanuel I. (1495-1521). A fine aqueduct, 4 m. long, supplies the city with pure water; it was begun early in the 15th century and completed in 1622. For some distance it includes four tiers of superimposed arches, with a total height of 120 ft. The surrounding lowlands are very fertile, and Elvas is celebrated for its excellent olives and plums, the last-named being exported, either fresh or dried, in large quantities. Brandy is distilled and pottery manufactured in the city. The fortress of Campo Maior, 10 m. N.E., is famous for its siege by the French and relief by the British under Marshal Beresford in 1811—an exploit commemorated in a ballad by Sir Walter Scott.

Elvas is the Roman Alpesa or Helvas, the Moorish Balesh, the Spanish Yelves. It was wrested from the Moors by Alphonso VIII. of Castile in 1166; but was temporarily recaptured before its final occupation by the Portuguese in 1226. In 1570 it became an episcopal see. From 1642 until modern times it was the chief frontier fortress S. of the Tagus; and it twice withstood sieges by the Spanish, in 1658 and 1711. The French under Marshal Junot took it in March 1808, but evacuated it in August, after the conclusion of the convention of Cintra (see Peninsular War).

ELVEY, SIR GEORGE JOB (1816-1893), English organist and composer, was born at Canterbury on the 27th of March 1816. He was a chorister at Canterbury cathedral under Highmore Skeats, the organist. Subsequently he became a pupil of his elder brother, Stephen, and then studied at the Royal Academy of Music under Cipriani Potter and Dr Crotch. In 1834 he gained the Gresham prize medal for his anthem, “Bow down thine ear,” and in 1835 was appointed organist of St George’s chapel, Windsor, a post he filled for 47 years, retiring in 1882. He took the degree of Mus. B. at Oxford in 1838, and in 1840 that of Mus. D. Anthems of his were commissioned for the Three Choirs Festivals of 1853 and 1857, and in 1871 he received the honour of knighthood. He died at Windlesham in Surrey on the 9th of December 1893. His works, which are nearly all for the Church, include two oratorios, a great number of anthems and services, and some pieces for the organ. A memoir of him, by his widow, was published in 1894.

ELVIRA, SYNOD OF, an ecclesiastical synod held in Spain, the date of which cannot be determined with exactness. The solution of the question hinges upon the interpretation of the canons, that is, upon whether they are to be taken as reflecting a recent, or as pointing to an imminent, persecution. Thus some argue for a date between 300 and 303, i.e. before the Diocletian persecution; others for a date between 303 and 314, after the persecution, but before the synod of Arles; still others for a date between the synod of Arles and the council of Nicaea, 325. Mansi, Hardouin, Hefele and Dale are in substantial agreement upon 305 or 306, and this is probably the closest approximation possible in the present state of the evidence. The place of meeting, Elvira, was not far from the modern Granada, if not, as Dale thinks, actually identical with it. There the nineteen bishops and twenty-four presbyters, from all parts of Spain, but chiefly from the south, assembled, probably at the instigation of Hosius of Cordova, but under the presidency of Felix of Accis, with a view to restoring order and discipline in the church. The eighty-one canons which were adopted reflect with considerable fulness the internal life and external relations of the Spanish Church of the 4th century. The social environment of Christians may be inferred from the canons prohibiting marriage and other intercourse with Jews, pagans and heretics, closing the offices of flamen and duumvir to Christians, forbidding all contact with idolatry and likewise participation in pagan festivals and public games. The state of morals is mirrored in the canons denouncing prevalent vices. The canons respecting the clergy exhibit the clergy as already a special class with peculiar privileges, a more exacting moral standard, heavier penalties for delinquency. The bishop has acquired control of the sacraments, presbyters and deacons acting only under his orders; the episcopate appears as a unit, bishops being bound to respect one another’s disciplinary decrees. Worthy of special note are canon 33, enjoining celibacy upon all clerics and all who minister at the altar (the most ancient canon of celibacy); canon 36, forbidding pictures in churches; canon 38, permitting lay baptism under certain conditions; and canon 53, forbidding one bishop to restore a person excommunicated by another.

See Mansi ii. pp. 1-406; Hardouin i. pp. 247-258; Hefele (2nd ed.) i. pp. 148 sqq. (English translation, i. pp. 131 sqq.); Dale, The Synod of Elvira (London, 1882); and Hennecke, in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie (3rd ed.), s.v. “Elvira,” especially bibliography.

(T. F. C.)

EL WAD, a town in the Algerian Sahara, 125 m. in a straight line S.S.E. of Biskra, and 190 m. W. by S. of Gabes. Pop. (1906) 7586. El Wad is one of the most interesting places in Algeria. It is surrounded by huge hollows containing noble palm groves; and beyond these on every side stretches the limitless desert with its great billows of sand, the encroachments of which on the oasis are only held at bay by ceaseless toil. The town itself consists of a mass of one-storeyed stone houses, each surmounted by a little dome, clustering round the market-place with its mosque and minaret. By an exception rare in Saharan settlements, there are no defensive works save the fort containing the government offices, which the French have built on the south side of the town. The inhabitants are of two distinct tribes, one, the Aduan, of Berber stock, the other a branch of the Sha`ambah Arabs. El Wad possesses a curious currency known as flous, consisting of obsolete copper coins of Algerian and Tunisian dynasties. Seven flous are regarded as equal to the French five-centime piece.

El Wad oasis is one of a group known collectively as the Suf. Five miles N.W. is Kuinine (pop. 3541) and 6 m. farther N.W. Guemar (pop. 6885), an ancient fortified town noted for its manufacture of carpets. Linen weaving is carried on extensively in the Suf. Administratively El Wad is the capital of an annexe to the territory of Tuggurt.

ELWOOD, a city of Madison county, Indiana, U.S.A., on Duck Creek, about 38 m. N.E. of Indianapolis. Pop. (1880) 751; (1890) 2284; (1900) 12,950 (1386 foreign-born); (1910) 11,028. Elwood is served by the Lake Erie & Western and the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis railways, and by an interurban electric line. Its rapid growth in population and as a manufacturing centre was due largely to its situation in the natural gas region; the failure of the gas supply in 1903 caused a decrease in manufacturing, but the city gradually adjusted itself to new conditions. It has large tin plate mills, iron and steel foundries, saw and planing mills, wooden-ware and furniture factories, bottling works and lamp-chimney factories, flour mills and packing houses. In 1905 the value of the city’s factory product was $6,111,083; in 1900 it was $9,433,513; the glass product was valued at $223,766 in 1905, and at $1,011,803 in 1900. There are extensive brick-yards in the vicinity, and the surrounding agricultural country furnishes large supplies of grain, live-stock, poultry and produce, for which Elwood is the shipping centre. The site was first settled under the name of Quincy; the present name was adopted in 1869; and in 1891 Elwood received a city charter.

ELY, RICHARD THEODORE (1854- ), American economist, was born at Ripley, New York, on the 13th of April 1854. Educated at Columbia and Heidelberg universities, he held the professorship of economics at Johns Hopkins University from 1881 to 1892, and was subsequently professor of economics at Wisconsin University. Professor Ely took an active part in the formation of the American Economic Association, was secretary from 1885 to 1892 and president from 1899 to 1901. He published a useful Introduction to Political Economy (1889); Outlines of Economics (1893); The Labour Movement in America (1883); Problems of To-day (1888); Social Aspects of Christianity (1889); Socialism and Social Reform (1894); Monopolies and Trusts (1900), and Studies in the Evolution of Industrial Society (1903).

ELY, a cathedral city and market-town, in the Newmarket parliamentary division of Cambridgeshire, England, 16 m. N.N.E. of Cambridge by the Great Eastern railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 7713. It stands on a considerable eminence on the west (left) bank of the Ouse, in the Isle of Ely, which rises above the surrounding fens. Thus its situation, before the great drainage operations of the 17th century, was practically insular. The magnificent cathedral, towering above the town, is a landmark far over the wide surrounding level. The soil in the vicinity is fertile and market-gardening is carried on, fruit and vegetables (especially asparagus) being sent to the London markets. The town has a considerable manufacture of tobacco pipes and earthenware, and there are in the neighbourhood mills for the preparation of oil from flax, hemp and cole-seed. Besides the cathedral Ely has in St Mary’s church, lying almost under the shadow of the greater building, a fine structure ranging in style from Norman to Perpendicular, but in the main Early English. The sessions house and corn exchange are the principal public buildings. The grammar school, founded by Henry VIII. in 1541, occupies (together with other buildings) the room over the gateway of the monastery, known as the Porta, and the chapel built by Prior John de Cranden (1321-1341) is restored to use as a school chapel. A theological college was founded in 1876 and opened in 1881.

The foundation of the present cathedral was laid by its first Norman abbot, Simeon, in 1083. But the reputation of Ely had been established long before Etheldreda (Æthelthryth), daughter of Anna, king of East Anglia, was married to Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria, against her will, as she had vowed herself wholly to a religious life. Her husband opposed himself to her vow, but with the help of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, she took the veil, and found refuge from her husband in the marsh-girt Isle of Ely. Here she founded a religious house, in all probability a mixed community, in 673, becoming its first abbess, and giving the whole Isle of Ely to the foundation. In 870 the monastery was destroyed by the Danes, as were also the neighbouring foundations at Soham, Thorney, Crowland and Peterborough, and it remained in ruins till 970, when Æthelwold, bishop of Winchester, founded a new Benedictine monastery here. King Edgar in 970 endowed the monks with the former possessions of the convent and also granted them the secular causes of two hundreds within and of five hundreds without the marshes, all charges belonging to the king in secular disputes in all their lands and every fourth penny of public revenue in the province of Grantecestre. The wealth and importance of Ely rose, and its abbots held the post of chancellors of the king’s court alternately with the abbots of Glastonbury and of St Augustine’s, Canterbury. But Ely again became a scene of contest in the desperate final struggle against William the Conqueror of which Hereward “the Wake” was the hero. Finally, in 1071, the monks agreed to surrender the Isle of Ely to the king on condition of the confirmation of all the possessions and privileges, held by them in the time of Edward the Confessor. Abbot Simeon (1081-1094), who now began the reconstruction of the church, was related to William and brother to Walkelin, first Norman bishop of Winchester. Under Abbot Richard (1100-1107) the translation from the Saxon church of the bodies of St Etheldreda and of the two abbesses who had followed her, and their enshrinement in the new edifice, took place; and it was due to the honour in which the memory of the foundresses was held that Ely maintained the position of dignity which it kept henceforth until the dissolution of the monasteries. The feast of St Etheldreda, or St Awdrey as she was generally called, was the occasion every year for a large fair here, at which “trifling objects” were sold to pilgrims by way of souvenirs; whence the word “tawdrey,” a contraction of St Awdrey. In 1109 the Isle of Ely, most of Cambridgeshire, and the abbeys of Thorney and Cetricht were separated from the diocese of Lincoln, and converted into a new diocese, Ely being the seat of the bishopric, and after the dissolution of the monasteries Henry VIII. converted the conventual church into a cathedral (1541). The diocese is extensive. It covers nearly the whole of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire, part of Suffolk, and small portions of Essex, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

The cathedral is a cruciform structure, 537 ft. long and 190 ft. across the great transepts (exterior measurements). A relic of the Saxon foundation is preserved in the cross of St Osyth (c. 670), and a pre-Norman window is kept in the triforium, having been dug up near the cathedral. Of the work of the first two Norman abbots all that remains is the early Norman lower storey of the main transept. The foundations of Abbot Simeon’s apse were discovered below the present choir. The nave, which is Norman throughout, is 208 ft. in length, 72 ft. 9 in. to the top of the walls, and 77 ft. 3 in. broad, including the aisles. The upper parts of the western tower and the transept were begun by Bishop Geoffrey Ridel (d. 1189), and continued by his successor William Longchamp, chancellor of England. The tower, which is 215 ft. high, is surmounted by a Decorated octagon with partly detached side turrets, and underwent alteration and strengthening in the Perpendicular period. The north-western transept wing is in ruins; it is not known when it fell. The Galilee, or western porch, by which the cathedral is entered, is the work of Bishop Eustace (d. 1215), and is a perfect example of Early English style. In 1322 the Norman central tower, erected by Abbot Simeon, fell. Alan of Walsingham, sacrist of the church, designed its restoration in the form of the present octagon, a beautiful and unique conception. Instead of the ordinary four-arched central crossing, an octagon is formed at the crossing, the arches of the nave aisles and choir aisles being set obliquely. Both without and within, the octagon is the principal feature in the unusual general appearance of the cathedral, which gives it a peculiar eminence among English churches. The octagon was completed in 1328, and upon the ribbed vaulting of wood above it rose the lofty lantern, octagonal also, with its angles set opposite those of the octagon below. The total height of the structure is 170 ft. 7 in. Alan of Walsingham was further employed by Bishop John of Hotham (d. 1337) as architect of the Lady chapel, a beautiful example of Decorated work, which served from 1566 onward as a parish church. Of the seven bays of the choir the four easternmost, as well as the two beyond forming the retrochoir, were built by Bishop Hugh of Northwold (d. 1254). The three western bays were destroyed by the fall of the tower in 1321, and were rebuilt by Alan of Walsingham. The earlier portion is a superb example of Early English work, while the later is perhaps the best example of pure Decorated in England. The wooden canopies of the choir stalls are Decorated (1337) and very elaborate. The Perpendicular style is represented by windows and certain other details, including supporting arches to the western tower. There are also some splendid chantry chapels and tombs in this style—the chapels of Bishop John Alcock (d. 1500) and Bishop Nicolas West (d. 1534), in the north and south choir aisles respectively, are completely covered with the most delicate ornamentation; while the tomb of Bishop Richard Redman (d. 1505) has a remarkably beautiful canopy. Among earlier monuments the canopied tomb of Bishop William de Luda (1290-1298) and the finely-carved effigy of Bishop Northwold (1254) are notable. Between 1845 and 1884 the cathedral underwent restoration under the direction of Sir Gilbert Scott. The work included the erection of the modern reredos and choir-screen, both designed by Scott, and the painting of the nave roof by Styleman le Strange (d. 1862), who was succeeded by Gambier Parry. Parry also richly ornamented the octagon and lantern in the style of the 14th century.

Remains of the monastic buildings are fragmentary but numerous. Mention has been made of the Ely “Porta” or gateway (1396), which is occupied by the grammar school, and of Prior John de Cranden’s beautiful little Decorated chapel. But many of the remains, the bulk of which are incorporated in the deanery and canons’ and other residences to the south of the cathedral, are of much earlier date. Thus the fine early Norman undercroft of the prior’s hall is probably of the time of Abbot Simeon. Another notable fragment is the transitional Norman chancel of the infirmary chapel. The remnants of the cloisters show a reconstruction in the 15th century, but the prior’s and monks’ doorways from the cloisters into the cathedral are highly decorated late Norman. The bishop’s palace to the west of the cathedral has towers erected by Bishop Alcock at the close of the 15th century. In the muniment room of the chapter is preserved, among many ancient documents of great interest, the liber Eliensis, a history of the monastery by the monk known as Thomas of Ely (d. c. 1174), of which the first part, which extends to the year 960, contains a life of St Etheldreda, while the second is continued to the year 1107.

Ely, which according to Bede (Hist. eccl. iv. 19) derives its name from the quantity of eels in the waters about it (A.S. æl, eel, -ig, island), was a borough by prescription at least as early as the reign of William the Conqueror. It owed its importance entirely to the monastery, and for a long time the abbot and afterwards the bishop had almost absolute power in the town. The bailiff who governed the town was chosen by the bishop until 1850, when a local board was appointed. Richard I. granted the bishop of Ely a fair there, and in 1319-1320 John of Hotham, a later bishop, received licence to hold a fair on the vigil and day of Ascension and for twenty days following. The markets are claimed by an undated charter by the bishop, who also continues to hold the fairs. In 1295 Ely sent two members to parliament, but has never been represented since.

See C.W. Stubbs, Ely Cathedral (London, 1897); Victoria County History, Cambridgeshire.

ELYOT, SIR THOMAS (c. 1490-1546), English diplomatist and scholar. His father, Sir Richard Elyot (d. 1522), who held considerable estates in Wiltshire, was made (1503) serjeant-at-law and attorney-general to the queen consort, and soon afterwards was commissioned to act as justice of assize on the western circuit, becoming in 1513 judge of common pleas. Thomas was the son of his first marriage with Alice Fynderne, but neither the date nor place of his birth is accurately known. Anthony à Wood claimed him as an alumnus of St Mary Hall, Oxford, while C.H. Cooper in the Athenae Cantabrigienses put in a claim for Jesus College, Cambridge. Elyot himself says in the preface to his Dictionary that he was educated under the paternal roof, and was from the age of twelve his own tutor. He supplies, in the introduction to his Castell of Helth, a list of the authors he had read in philosophy and medicine, adding that a “worshipful physician” read to him Galen and some other authors. In 1511 he accompanied his father on the western circuit as clerk to the assize, and he held this position until 1528. In addition to his father’s lands in Wiltshire and Oxfordshire he inherited in 1523 the Cambridge estates of his cousin, Thomas Fynderne. His title was disputed, but Wolsey decided in his favour, and also made him clerk of the privy council. Elyot, in a letter addressed to Thomas Cromwell, says that he never received the emoluments of this office, while the barren honour of knighthood conferred on him when he was displaced in 1530 merely put him to further expense. In that year he sat on the commission appointed to inquire into the Cambridgeshire estates of his former patron, Cardinal Wolsey. He married Margaret Barrow, who is described (Stapleton, Vita Thomae Mori, p. 59, ed. 1558) as a student in the “school” of Sir Thomas More.

In 1531 he produced the Boke named the Governour, dedicated to King Henry VIII. The work advanced him in the king’s favour, and in the close of the year he received instructions to proceed to the court of the emperor Charles V. to induce him to take a more favourable view of Henry’s projected divorce from Catherine of Aragon. With this was combined another commission, on which one of the king’s agents, Stephen Vaughan, was already engaged. He was, if possible, to apprehend William Tyndale. It is probable that Elyot was suspected, as Vaughan certainly was, of lukewarmness in carrying out the king’s wishes, but this has not prevented his being much abused by Protestant writers. As ambassador Elyot had been involved in ruinous expense, and on his return he wrote to Thomas Cromwell, begging to be excused from serving as sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, on the score of his poverty. The request was not granted. He was one of the commissioners in the inquiry instituted by Cromwell prior to the suppression of the monasteries, but he did not obtain any share of the spoils. There is little doubt that his known friendship for Thomas More militated against his chances of success, for in a letter addressed to Cromwell he admitted his friendship for More, but protested that he rated higher his duty to the king. William Roper, in his Life of More, says that Elyot was on a second embassy to Charles V., in the winter of 1535-1536, when he received at Naples the news of More’s execution. He had been kept in the dark by his own government, but heard the news from the emperor. The story of an earlier embassy to Rome (1532), mentioned by Burnet, rests on a late endorsement of instructions dated from that year, which cannot be regarded as authoritative. In 1542 he represented the borough of Cambridge in parliament. He had purchased from Cromwell the manor of Carleton in Cambridgeshire, where he died on the 26th of March 1546.

Sir Thomas Elyot received little reward for his services to the state, but his scholarship and his books were held in high esteem by his contemporaries. The Boke named the Governour was printed by Thomas Berthelet (1531, 1534, 1536, 1544, &c.). It is a treatise on moral philosophy, intended to direct the education of those destined to fill high positions, and to inculcate those moral principles which alone could fit them for the performance of their duties. The subject was a favourite one in the 16th century, and the book, which contained many citations from classical authors, was very popular. Elyot expressly acknowledges his obligations to Erasmus’s Institutio Principis Christiani; but he makes no reference to the De regno et regis institutione of Francesco Patrizzi (d. 1494), bishop of Gaeta, on which his work was undoubtedly modelled. As a prose writer, Elyot enriched the English language with many new words. In 1534 he published The Castell of Helth, a popular treatise on medicine, intended to place a scientific knowledge of the art within the reach of those unacquainted with Greek. This work, though scoffed at by the faculty, was appreciated by the general public, and speedily went through many editions. His Latin Dictionary, the earliest comprehensive dictionary of the language, was completed in 1538. The copy of the first edition in the British Museum contains an autograph letter from Elyot to Thomas Cromwell, to whom it originally belonged. It was edited and enlarged in 1548 by Thomas Cooper, bishop of Winchester, who called it Bibliotheca Eliotae, and it formed the basis in 1565 of Cooper’s Thesaurus linguae Romanae et Britannicae.

Elyot’s translations include:—The Doctrinal of Princes (1534), from Isocrates; Cyprianus, A Swete and Devoute Sermon of Holy Saynt Ciprian of the Mortalitie of Man (1534); Rules of a Christian Life (1534), from Pico della Mirandola; The Education or Bringing up of Children (c. 1535), from Plutarch; and Howe one may take Profite of his Enymes (1535), from the same author is generally attributed to him. He also wrote: The Knowledge which maketh a Wise Man and Pasquyll the Playne (1533); The Bankette of Sapience (1534), a collection of moral sayings; Preservative agaynste Deth (1545), which contains many quotations from the Fathers; Defence of Good Women (1545). His Image of Governance, compiled of the Actes and Sentences notable of the most noble Emperor Alexander Severus (1540) professed to be a translation from a Greek MS. of the emperor’s secretary Encolpius (or Eucolpius, as Elyot calls him), which had been lent him by a gentleman of Naples, called Pudericus, who asked to have it back before the translation was complete. In these circumstances Elyot, as he asserts in his preface, supplied the other maxims from different sources. He was violently assailed by Humphrey Hody and later by William Wotton for putting forward a pseudo-translation; but Mr H.H.S. Croft has discovered that there was a Neapolitan gentleman at that time bearing the name of Poderico, or, Latinized, Pudericus, with whom Elyot may well have been acquainted. Roger Ascham mentions his De rebus memorabilibus Angliae; and Webbe quotes a few lines of a lost translation of the Ars poëtica of Horace.

A learned edition of the Governour (2 vols., 1880), by H.H.S. Croft, contains, besides copious notes, a valuable glossary of 16th century English words.

ELYRIA, a city and the county-seat of Lorain county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Black river, 8 m. from Lake Erie, and about 25 m. W.S.W. of Cleveland. Pop. (1890) 5611; (1900) 8791, of whom 1397 were foreign-born; (1910 census) 14,825. It is served by the Baltimore & Ohio, and the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern railways. Elyria is about 720 ft. above sea-level, and lies at the junction of the two forks of the Black river, each of which falls about 50 ft. here, furnishing water-power. Among the city’s manufactures are oxide of tin and other chemicals, iron and steel, leather goods, automobiles and bicycles, electrical and telephone supplies, butted tubing, gas engines, screws and bolts, silk, lace and hosiery. In 1905 the city’s factory products were valued at $2,933,450—140.2% more than their value in 1900. Flagging, building-stones and grindstones, taken from quarries in the vicinity (known as the Berea Grit quarries), are shipped from Elyria in large quantities. Elyria was founded about 1819 by Heman Ely, in whose honour it was named; it was selected as the site for the county seat in 1823, and was chartered as a city in 1892.

ELYSIUM, in Greek mythology, the Elysian fields, the abode of the righteous after their removal from earth. In Homer (Od. iv. 563) this region is a plain at the farthest end of the earth on the banks of the river Oceanus, where the fair-haired Rhadamanthys rules, and where the people are vexed by neither snow nor storm, heat nor cold, the air being always tempered by the zephyr wafted from the ocean. It is no dwelling of the dead nor part of the lower world, but distinguished heroes are translated thither without dying, to live a life of perfect happiness. In Hesiod (W. and D. 166) the same description is given of the Islands of the Blessed under the rule of Cronus, which yield three harvests yearly. Here, according to Pindar, Rhadamanthys sits by the side of his father Cronus and administers judgment (Ol. ii. 61, Frag. 95). All who have successfully gone through a triple probation on earth are admitted to share these blessings. In later accounts (Aeneid, vi. 541) Elysium was regarded as part of the underworld, the home of the righteous dead adjudged worthy of it by the tribunal of Minos, Rhadamanthys and Aeacus. Those who had lived evil lives were thrust down into Tartarus, where they suffered endless torments.

ELZE, KARL (1821-1889), German scholar and Shakespearian critic, was born at Dessau on the 22nd of May 1821. Having studied (1839-1843) classical philology, and modern, but especially English, literature at the university of Leipzig, he was a master for a time in the Gymnasium (classical school) at Dessau, and in 1875 was appointed extraordinary, and in 1876 ordinary, professor of English philology at the university of Halle, in which city he died on the 21st of January 1889. Elze began his literary career with the Englischer Liederschatz (1851), an anthology of English lyrics, edited for a while a critical periodical Atlantis, and in 1857 published an edition of Shakespeare’s Hamlet with critical notes. He also edited Chapman’s Alphonsus (1867) and wrote biographies of Walter Scott, Byron and Shakespeare; Abhandlungen zu Shakespeare (English translation by D. Schmitz, as Essays on Shakespeare, London, 1874), and the excellent treatise, Notes on Elizabethan Dramatists with conjectural emendations of the text (3 vols., Halle, 1880-1886, new ed. 1889).

ELZEVIR, the name of a celebrated family of Dutch printers belonging to the 17th century. The original name of the family was Elsevier, or Elzevier, and their French editions mostly retain this name; but in their Latin editions, which are the more numerous, the name is spelt Elzeverius, which was gradually corrupted in English into Elzevir as a generic term for their books. The family originally came from Louvain, and there Louis, who first made the name Elzevir famous, was born in 1540. He learned the business of a bookbinder, and having been compelled in 1580, on account of his Protestantism and his adherence to the cause of the insurgent provinces, to leave his native country, he established himself as bookbinder and bookseller in Leiden. His Eutropius, which appeared in 1592, was long regarded as the earliest Elzevir, but the first is now known to be Drusii Ebraicarum quaestionum ac responsionum libri duo, which was produced in 1583. In all he published about 150 works. He died on the 4th of February 1617. Of his five sons, Matthieu, Louis, Gilles, Joost and Bonaventure, who all adopted their father’s profession, Bonaventure, who was born in 1583, is the most celebrated. He began business as a printer in 1608, and in 1626 took into partnership Abraham, a son of Matthieu, born at Leiden in 1592. Abraham died on the 14th of August 1652, and Bonaventure about a month afterwards. The fame of the Elzevir editions rests chiefly on the works issued by this firm. Their Greek and Hebrew impressions are considered inferior to those of the Aldi and the Estiennes, but their small editions in 12mo, 16mo and 24mo, for elegance of design, neatness, clearness and regularity of type, and beauty of paper, cannot be surpassed. Especially may be mentioned the two editions of the New Testament in Greek (Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, Novum Testamentum, &c.), published in 1624 and 1633, of which the latter is the more beautiful and the more sought after; the Psalterium Davidis, 1653; Virgilii opera, 1636; Terentii comediae, 1635; but the works which gave their press its chief celebrity are their collection of French authors on history and politics in 24mo, known under the name of the Petites Républiques, and their series of Latin, French and Italian classics in small 12mo. Jean, son of Abraham, born in 1622, had since 1647 been in partnership with his father and uncle, and when they died Daniel, son of Bonaventure, born in 1626, joined him. Their partnership did not last more than two years, and after its dissolution Jean carried on the business alone till his death in 1661. In 1654 Daniel joined his cousin Louis (the third of that name and son of the second Louis), who was born in 1604, and had established a printing press at Amsterdam in 1638. From 1655 to 1666 they published a series of Latin classics in 8vo, cum notis variorum; Cicero in 4to; the Etymologicon linguae Latinae; and a magnificent Corpus juris civilis in folio, 2 vols., 1663. Louis died in 1670, and Daniel in 1680. Besides Bonaventure, another son of Matthieu, Isaac, born in 1593, established a printing press at Leiden, where he carried on business from 1616 to 1625; but none of his editions attained much fame. The last representatives of the Elzevir printers were Peter, grandson of Joost, who from 1667 to 1675 was a bookseller at Utrecht, and printed seven or eight volumes of little consequence; and Abraham, son of the first Abraham, who from 1681 to 1712 was university printer at Leiden.

Some of the Elzevir editions bear no other typographical mark than simply the words Apud Elzeverios, or Ex officina Elseveriana, under the rubrique of the town. But the majority bear one of their special devices, four of which are recognized as in common use. Louis Elzevir, the founder of the family, usually adopted the arms of the United Provinces, an eagle on a cippus holding in its claws a sheaf of seven arrows, with the motto Concordia res parvae crescunt. About 1620 the Leiden Elzevirs adopted a new device, known as “the solitary,” and consisting of an elm tree, a fruitful vine and a man alone, with a motto Non solus. They also used another device, a palm tree with the motto, Assurgo pressa. The Elzevirs of Amsterdam used for their principal device a figure of Minerva with owl, shield and olive tree, and the motto, Ne extra oleas. The earliest productions of the Elzevir press are marked with an angel bearing a book and a scythe, and various other devices occur at different times. When the Elzevirs did not wish to put their name to their works they generally marked them with a sphere, but of course the mere fact that a work printed in the 17th century bears this mark is no proof that it is theirs. The total number of works of all kinds which came from the presses of the Elzevirs is given by Willems as 1608; there were also many forgeries.

See “Notice de la collection d’auteurs latins, français, et italiens, imprimée de format petit en 12, par les Elsévier,” in Brunet’s Manuel du libraire (Paris, 1820); A. de Reume, Recherches historiques, généalogiques, et bibliographiques sur les Elsévier (Brussels, 1847); Paul Dupont, Histoire de l’imprimerie, in two vols. (Paris, 1854); Pieters, Annales de l’imprimerie Elsévirienne (2nd ed., Ghent, 1858); Walther, Les Elséviriennes de la bibliothèque impériale de St-Pétersbourg (St Petersburg, 1864); Alphonse Willems, Les Elzévier (Brussels, 1880), with a history of the Elzevir family and their printing establishments, a chronological list and detailed description of all works printed by them, their various typographical marks, and a plate illustrating the types used by them; Kelchner, Catalogus librorum officinae Elsevirianae (Paris, 1880); Frick, Die Elzevirschen Republiken (Halle, 1892); Berghman, Études sur la bibliographie Elzévirienne (Stockholm, 1885), and Nouvelles études, &c. (ib. 1897).

EMANATION (Lat. emanatio, from e-, out, manare, to flow), in philosophy and theology, the name of one of the three chief theories of existence, i.e. of the relation between God and men—the One and the Many, the Universal and the Particular. This theory has been propounded in many forms, but the central idea is that the universe of individuals consists of the involuntary “outpourings” of the ultimate divine essence. That essence is not only all-inclusive, but absolutely perfect, while the “emanated” individuals degenerate in proportion to the degree of their distance from the essence. The existence of evil in opposition to the perfect goodness of God, as thus explained, need not be attributed to God’s agency, inasmuch as the whole emanation-process is governed by necessary—as it were mechanical—laws, which may be compared to those of the physical universe. The doctrine of emanation is thus to be distinguished from the cosmogonic theory of Judaism and Christianity, which explains human existence as due to a single creative act of a moral agent. The God of Judaism and Christianity is essentially a person in close personal relation to his creatures; emanation is the denial of personality both for God and for man. The emanation theory is to be contrasted, on the other hand, with the theory of evolution. The two theories are alike in so far as both recognize the existence of individuals as due to a necessary process of differentiation and a scale of existence. They differ, however, fundamentally in this respect, that, whereas evolution regards the process as from the indeterminate lower towards the determinate higher, emanation regards it as from the highest to the indefinitely lower.

There is considerable superficial similarity between evolution and emanation, especially in their formal statements. The process of evolution from the indeterminate to the determinate is often expressed as a progress from the universal to the particular. Thus the primordial matter assumed by the early Greek physicists may be said to be the universal substance out of which particular things arise. The doctrine of emanation also regards the world as a process of particularization. Yet the resemblance is more apparent than real. The universal is, as Herbert Spencer remarked, a subjective idea, and the general forms, existing ante res, which play so prominent a part in Greek and medieval philosophy, do not in the least correspond to the homogeneous matter of the physical evolutionists. The one process is a logical operation, the other a physical. The theory of emanation, which had its source in certain moral and religious ideas, aims first of all at explaining the origin of mental or spiritual existence as an effluence from the divine and absolute spirit. In the next place, it seeks to account for the general laws of the world, for the universal forms of existence, as ideas which emanate from the Deity. By some it was developed into a complete philosophy of the world, in which matter itself is viewed as the lowest emanation from the absolute. In this form it stands in sharp antithesis to the doctrine of evolution, both because the former views the world of particular things and events as essentially unreal and illusory, and because the latter, so far as it goes, looks on matter as eternal, and seeks to explain the general forms of things as we perceive them by help of simpler assumptions. In certain theories known as doctrines of emanation, only mental existence is referred to the absolute source, while matter is viewed as eternal and distinct from the divine nature. In this form the doctrine of emanation approaches certain forms of the evolution theory (see Evolution).

The doctrine of emanation is correctly described as of oriental origin. It appears in various forms in Indian philosophy, and is the characteristically oriental element in syncretic systems like Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. None the less it is easy to find it in embryo in the speculations of the essentially European philosophers of Greece. Plato, whose philosophy was strongly opposed to the evolution theory, distinctly inclines to the emanation idea in his doctrine that each particular thing is what it is in virtue of a pre-existent idea, and that the particulars are the lowest in the scale of existence, at the head of, or above, which is the idea of the good. The view of Xenocrates is based on the same ideas. Or again, we may compare the Stoic doctrine of ἀπόρροιαι (literally “emanations”) from the divine essence. It is, however, only in the last eclectic period of Greek philosophy that the emanation doctrine was definitely established in the doctrines, e.g. Plotinus.

See especially articles Evolution, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism.

EMANUEL I. [Portuguese Manoel] (1469-1521), fourteenth king of Portugal, surnamed the Happy, knight of the Garter and of the Golden Fleece, was the son of Duke Ferdinand of Vizeu and of Beatrice of Beja, grandchildren of John I. of Portugal. He was born at Alcochete on the 3rd of May 1469, or, according to Barbosa Machado, on the 1st of June. His early education was directed by a Sicilian named Cataldo. In 1495 he became king in succession to his cousin John II. In 1497 he married Isabella, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Castile, who had previously been married to Alphonso, the heir of John II. She died in the next year in giving birth to a son named Miguel, who until his death two years later was considered heir to the entire Iberian Peninsula. Emanuel’s next wife was Maria, another daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, whom he married in 1500. Two of their children, John and Henry, later became kings of Portugal. Maria died in 1516, and in 1518 her niece Leonora, a sister of the emperor Charles V., became Emanuel’s third wife. Emanuel’s reign is noteworthy for the continuance of the Portuguese discoveries and the extension of their chain of trading-posts, Vasco da Gama’s opening an all-sea route to India, Cabral’s landing in Brazil, Corte-Real’s voyage to Labrador, the exploration of the Indian seas and the opening of commercial relations with Persia and China, bringing Portugal international prominence, colonial pre-eminence and a hitherto unparalleled degree of national prosperity. His intense religious zeal variously manifested itself in his persecutions of the Jews, whom at the beginning of his reign he had been disposed to tolerate, his strenuous endeavours to promote an international crusade against the Turks, his eager missionary enterprise throughout his new possessions, and his erection of twenty-six monasteries and two cathedrals, including the stately monastic church of the Jeronymos at Belem (see Lisbon). His jealously despotic character was accentuated by the enormous increase the Indies furnished to his personal wealth, and exemplified in his assumption of new titles and in a magnificent embassy to Pope Leo X. He died at Lisbon on the 13th of December 1521.

The best authorities for the history of Emanuel’s reign are the contemporary 16th-century Chronica d’el Rei D. Manoel, by Damião de Goes, and De rebus Emanuelis, by J. Osorio. El Rei D. Manoel, by M.B. Branco (Lisbon, 1888), is a valuable but ill-arranged biography. See also the Ordenações do S.R.D. Manoel (Coimbra University Press, 1797). For further bibliography see Barbosa Machado, Bibliographica Lusitana, vol. iii. pp. 161-166.

EMBALMING (Gr. βάλσαμον, balsam; Ger. Einbalsamiren; Fr. embaumement), the art of preparing dead bodies, chiefly by the use of medicaments, in order to preserve them from putrefaction and the attacks of insects. The ancient Egyptians carried the art to great perfection, and embalmed not only human beings, but cats, crocodiles, ichneumons, and other sacred animals. It was at one time suggested that the origin of embalming in Egypt was to be traced to a want of fuel for the purpose of cremation, to the inadvisability or at some times impossibility of burial in a soil annually disturbed by the inundation of the Nile, and to the necessity, for sanitary reasons, of preventing the decomposition of the bodies of the dead when placed in open sepulchres. As, however, the corpses of the embalmed must have constituted but a small proportion of the aggregate mass of animal matter daily to be disposed of, the above explanation would in any case be far from satisfactory; and there is no doubt (see Mummy) that embalming originated in the idea of preserving the body for a future life. According to W.H. Prescott, it was a belief in a resurrection of the body that led the ancient Peruvians to preserve the air-dried corpses of their dead with so much solicitude (see Conquest of Peru, bk. i. chap. iii.). And J.C. Prichard (Egyptian Mythology, p. 200) properly compared the Egyptian practice with the views which rendered “the Greeks and Romans so anxious to perform the usual rites of sepulture to their departed warriors, namely, ... that these solemnities expedited the journey of the soul to the appointed region, where it was to receive judgment for its former deeds, and to have its future doom fixed accordingly.” It has been supposed by some that the discovery of the preservation of bodies interred in saline soils may have been the immediate origin of embalming in Egypt. In that country certain classes of the community were specially appointed for the practice of the art. Joseph, we are told in Gen. l. 2, “commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father.”

Herodotus (ii. 86) gives an account of three of the methods of embalming followed by the Egyptians. The most expensive of these, which cost a talent of silver (£243: 15s.), was as follows. The brains were in part removed through the nostrils by means of a bent iron implement, and in part by the injection of drugs. The intestines having been drawn out through an incision in the left side, the abdomen was cleansed with palm-wine, and filled with myrrh, cassia and other materials, and the opening was sewed up. This done, the body was steeped seventy days in a solution of litron or natron. Diodorus (i. 91) relates that the cutter (παρασχίστης) appointed to make the incision in the flank for the removal of the intestines, as soon as he had performed his office, was pursued with stones and curses by those about him, it being held by the Egyptians a detestable thing to commit any violence or inflict a wound on the body. After the steeping, the body was washed, and handed over to the swathers, a peculiar class of the lowest order of priests, called by Plutarch cholchytae, by whom it was bandaged in gummed cloth; it was then ready for the coffin. Mummies thus prepared were considered to represent Osiris. In another method of embalming, costing twenty-two minae (about £90), the abdomen was injected with “cedar-tree pitch” (κεδρία), which, as it would seem from Pliny (Nat. Hist. xvi. 21), was the liquid distillate of the pitch-pine. This is stated by Herodotus to have had a corrosive and solvent action on the viscera. After injection the body was steeped a certain number of days in natron; the contents of the abdomen were allowed to escape; and the process was then complete. The preparation of the bodies of the poorest consisted simply in placing them in natron for seventy days, after a previous rinsing of the abdomen with “syrmaea.” The material principally used in the costlier modes of embalming appears to have been asphalt; wax was more rarely employed. In some cases embalming seems to have been effected by immersing the body in a bath of molten bitumen. Tanning also was resorted to. Occasionally the viscera, after treatment, were in part or wholly replaced in the body, together with wax figures of the four genii of Amenti. More commonly they were embalmed in a mixture of sand and asphalt, and buried in vases, or canopi, placed near the mummy, the abdomen being filled with chips and sawdust of cedar and a small quantity of natron. In one jar were placed the stomach and large intestine; in another, the small intestines; in a third, the lungs and heart; in a fourth, the gall-bladder and liver. Porphyry (De abstinentia, iv. 10) mentions a custom of enclosing the intestines in a box and consigning them to the Nile, after a prayer uttered by one of the embalmers, but his statement is regarded by Sir J.G. Wilkinson as unworthy of belief. The body of Nero’s wife Poppaea, contrary to the usage of the Romans, was not burnt, but as customary among other nations with the bodies of potentates, was honoured with embalmment (see Tacitus, Ann. xvi. 6). The body of Alexander the Great is said to have been embalmed with honey (Statius, Silv. iii. 2. 117), and the same material was used to preserve the corpse of Agesipolis I. during its conveyance to Sparta for burial. Herodotus states (iii. 24) that the Ethiopians, in embalming, dried the body, rubbed it with gypsum (or chalk), and, having painted it, placed it in a block of some transparent substance. The Guanches, the aborigines of the Canaries, employed a mode of embalming similar to that of the Egyptians, filling the hollow caused by the removal of the viscera with salt and an absorbent vegetable powder (see Bory de Saint Vincent, Essais sur les Îles Fortunées, 1803, p. 495). Embalming was still in vogue among the Egyptians in the time of St Augustine, who says that they termed mummies gabbarae (Serm. 120, cap. 12).

In modern times numerous methods of embalming have been practised. Dr Frederick Ruysch of Amsterdam (1665-1717) is said to have utilized alcohol for this purpose. By William Hunter essential oils, alcohol, cinnabar, camphor, saltpetre and pitch or rosin were employed, and the final desiccation of the body was effected by means of roasted gypsum placed in its coffin. J.P. Boudet (1778-1849) embalmed with tan, salt, asphalt and Peruvian bark, camphor, cinnamon and other aromatics and corrosive sublimate. The last-mentioned drug, chloride and sulphate of zinc, acetate and sulphate of alumina, and creasote and carbolic acid have all been recommended by various modern embalmers.

See Mummy; Louis Penicher, Traité des embaumements (Paris, 1669); S. Blancard, Anatomia reformata, et de balsamatione nova methodus (Lugd. Bat., 1695); Thomas Greenhill, The Art of Embalming (London, 1705); J.N. Marjolin, Manuel d’anatomie (Paris, 1810); Pettigrew, History of Mummies (London, 1834); Gannal, Traité d’embaumements (Paris, 1838; 2nd ed., 1841); Magnus, Das Einbalsamiren der Leichen (Brunsw., 1839); Sucquet, Embaumement (Paris, 1872); Lessley, Embalming (Toledo, Ohio, 1884); Myers, Textbook of Embalming (Springfield, Ohio, 1900); Rawlinson, Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 141; G. Elliot Smith, A Contribution to the Study of Mummification in Egypt (Cairo, 1906).

Neutral carbonate of sodium, Na2CO3, found at the natron lakes in the Libyan desert, and at El Hegs, in Upper Egypt.

EMBANKMENT, in engineering, a mound of earth or stone, usually narrow in comparison with its length, artificially raised above the prevailing level of the ground. Embankments serve for two main classes of purpose. On the one hand, they are used to preserve the level of railways, canals and roads, in cases where a valley or piece of low-lying ground has to be crossed. On the other, they are employed to stop or limit the flow of water, either constituting the retaining wells of reservoirs constructed in connexion with water-supply schemes, or protecting low-lying tracts of land from river floods or the encroachments of the sea. The word embankment has thus come to be used for the mass of material, faced and supported by a stone wall and protected by a parapet, placed along the banks of a river where it passes through a city, whether to guard against floods or to gain additional space. Such is the Thames Embankment in London, which carries a broad roadway, while under it runs the Underground railway. In this sense an embankment is distinguished from a quay, though the mechanical construction may be the same, the latter word being confined to places where ships are loaded and unloaded, thus differing from the French quai, which is used both of embankments and quays, e.g. the Quais along the Seine at Paris.

EMBARGO (a Spanish word meaning “stoppage”), in international law, the detention by a state of vessels within its ports as a measure of public, as distinguished from private, utility. In practice it serves as a mode of coercing a weaker state. In the middle ages war, being regarded as a complete rupture between belligerent states, operated as a suspension of all respect for the person and property of private citizens; an article of Magna Carta (1215) provided that “... if there shall be found any such merchants in our land in the beginning of a war, they shall be attached, without damage to their bodies or goods, until it may be known unto us, or our Chief Justiciary, how our merchants are treated who happen to be in the country which is at war with us; and if ours be safe there, theirs shall be safe in our lands” (art. 48).

Embargoes in anticipation of war have long since fallen into disuse, and it is now customary on the outbreak of war for the belligerents even to grant a respite to the enemy’s trading vessels to leave their ports at the outbreak of war, so that neither ship nor cargo is any longer exposed to embargo. This has been confirmed in one of the Hague Conventions of 1907 (convention relative to the status of enemy merchant ships at the outbreak of hostilities, Oct. 18, 1907), which provides that “when a merchant ship belonging to one of the belligerent powers is at the commencement of hostilities in an enemy port, it is desirable that it should be allowed to depart freely, either immediately, or after a reasonable number of days of grace, and to proceed, after being furnished with a pass, direct to its port of destination, or any other port indicated” (art. 1). The next article of the same convention limits the option apparently granted by the use of the word “desirable,” providing that “a merchant ship unable, owing to circumstances of force majeure, to leave the enemy port within the period contemplated (in the previous article), or which was not allowed to leave, cannot be confiscated. The belligerent may only detain it, without compensation, but subject to the obligation of restoring it after the war, or requisition it on payment of compensation” (art. 2).

(T. Ba.)

EMBASSY, the office of an ambassador, or, more generally, the mission on which an ambassador of one power is sent to another, or the body of official personages attached to such a mission, whether temporary or permanent. Hence “embassy” is often quite loosely used of any mission, diplomatic or otherwise. The word is also used of the official residence of an ambassador. “Embassy” was originally “ambassy,” the form used in the 17th century, but by the time of Johnson considered quite obsolete. “Ambassy” is from the O. Fr. ambassée, derived through such forms as the Port. ambassada, Ital. ambasciata from a lost Med. Lat. ambactiata, ambactiare, to go on a mission. (See further Ambassador, Exterritoriality and Diplomacy.)

EMBER DAYS and EMBER WEEKS, the four seasons set apart by the Western Church for special prayer and fasting, and the ordination of clergy, known in the medieval Church as quatuor tempora, or jejunia quatuor temporum. The Ember weeks are the complete weeks next following Holy Cross day (September 14), St Lucy’s day (December 13), the first Sunday in Lent and Whitsun day. The Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays of these weeks are the Ember days distinctively, the following Sundays being the days of ordination. These dates are given in the following memorial distich with a frank indifference to quantity and metre—

“Vult Crux, Lucia, Cinis, Charismata dia

Quod det vota pia quarta sequens feria.”

The word has been derived from the A.S. ymb-ren, a circuit or revolution (from ymb, around, and rennen, to run); or by process of agglutination and phonetic decay, exemplified by the Ger. quatember, Dutch quatertemper and Dan. kvatember, from the Lat. quatuor tempora. The occurrence of the Anglo-Saxon compounds ymbren-tid, ymbren-wucan, ymbren-fæstan, ymbren-dagas for Ember tide, weeks, fasts, days, favours the former derivation, which is also confirmed by the use of the word imbren in the acts of the council of Ænham, A.D. 1009 (“jejunia quatuor tempora quae imbren vocant”). It corresponds also with Pope Leo the Great’s definition, “jejunia ecclesiastica per totius anni circulum distributa.”

The observance of the Ember days is confined to the Western Church, and had its origin as an ecclesiastical ordinance in Rome. They were probably at first merely the fasts preparatory to the three great festivals of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. A fourth was subsequently added, for the sake of symmetry, to make them correspond with the four seasons, and they became known as the jejunium vernum, aestivum, autumnale and hiemale, so that, to quote Pope Leo’s words, “the law of abstinence might apply to every season of the year.” An earlier mention of these fasts, as four in number—the first known—is in the writings of Philastrius, bishop of Brescia, in the middle of the 4th century. He also connects them with the great Christian festivals (De haeres. 119). In Leo’s time, A.D. 440-461, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday were already the days of special observance. From Rome the Ember days gradually spread through the whole of Western Christendom. Uniformity of practice, however, was of somewhat slow growth. Neither in Gaul nor Spain do they seem to have been generally recognized much before the 8th century. Their introduction into Britain appears to have been earlier, dating from Augustine, A.D. 597, acting under the authority of Gregory the Great. The general period of the four fasts being roughly fixed, the precise date appears to have varied considerably, and in some cases to have lost its connexion with the festivals altogether. The Ordo Romanus fixes the spring fast in the first week of March (then the first month); the summer fast in the second week of June; the autumnal fast in the third week of September; and the winter fast in the complete week next before Christmas eve. Other regulations prevailed in different countries, until the inconveniences arising from the want of uniformity led to the rule now observed being laid down under Pope Urban II. as the law of the church, in the councils of Piacenza and Clermont, A.D. 1095.