The Project Gutenberg EBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition,
Volume 3, Slice 7, by Various

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net


Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 3, Slice 7
       "Bible" to "Bisectrix"

Author: Various

Release Date: December 19, 2010 [EBook #34702]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYC. BRITANNICA, VOL 3 SL 7 ***




Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME III SLICE VII

Bible to Bisectrix

Articles in This Slice

849

BIBLE. The word “Bible,” which in English, as in medieval Latin, is treated as a singular noun, is in its original Greek form a plural, τὰ βιβλία, the (sacred) books—correctly expressing the fact that the sacred writings of Christendom (collectively described by this title) are made up of a number of independent records, which set before us the successive stages in the history of revelation. The origin of each of these records forms a distinct critical problem, and for the discussion of these questions of detail the reader is referred to the separate articles on the Biblical books. An account of the Bible as a whole involves so many aspects of interest, that, apart from the separate articles on its component books, the general questions of importance arising out of its present shape require to be discussed in separate sections of this article. They are here divided accordingly, into two main divisions:—(A) Old Testament, and (B) New Testament; and under each of these are treated (1) the Canon, (2) the texts and versions, (3) textual criticism, (4) the “higher criticism,” i.e. a general historical account (more particularly considered for separate books in the articles on them) of the criticism and views based on the substance and matter, as apart from criticism devoted to the correction and elucidation of the text, and (5) chronology. For the literary history of the translated English Bible, see the separate article under Bible, English.

(A) Old Testament

1. Canon.

We shall begin by giving a general account of the historical and literary conditions under which the unique literature of the Old Testament sprang up, of the stages by which it gradually reached its present form, and (so far as this is possible) of the way in which the Biblical books were brought together in a canonical collection. There exists no formal historical account of the formation of the Old Testament canon. The popular idea that this canon was closed by Ezra has no foundation in antiquity. Certainly in the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras, written towards the end of the 1st century A.D., we read (xiv. 20-26, 38-48), that, the law being burnt, Ezra, at his own request, was miraculously inspired to rewrite it; he procured accordingly five skilled scribes, and dictated to them for forty days, during which time they wrote 94 books, i.e. not only (according to the Jewish reckoning) the 24 books of the Old Testament, but 70 apocryphal books as well, which, being filled, it is said, with a superior, or esoteric wisdom, are placed upon even a higher level (vv. 46, 47) than the Old Testament itself. No argument is needed to show that this legend is unworthy of credit; even if it did deserve to be taken seriously, it still contains nothing respecting either a completion of the canon, or even a collection, or redaction, of sacred books by Ezra. Yet it is frequently referred to by patristic writers; and Ezra, on the strength of it, is regarded by them as the genuine restorer of the lost books of the Old Testament (see Ezra).

In 2 Macc. ii. 13 it is said that Nehemiah, “founding a library, gathered together the things concerning the kings and prophets, and the (writings) of David, and letters of kings about sacred gifts.” These statements are found in a part of 2 Macc. which is admitted to be both late and full of untrustworthy matter; still, the passage may preserve an indistinct reminiscence of an early stage in the formation of the canon, the writings referred 850 to being possibly the books of Samuel and Kings and some of the Prophets, a part of the Psalter, and documents such as those excerpted in the book of Ezra, respecting edicts issued by Persian kings in favour of the Temple. But obviously nothing definite can be built upon a passage of this character.

The first traces of the idea current in modern times that the canon of the Old Testament was closed by Ezra are found in the 13th century A.D. From this time, as is clearly shown by the series of quotations in Ryle’s Canon of the Old Testament, p. 257 ff. (2nd ed., p. 269 ff.), the legend—for it is nothing better—grew, until finally, in the hands of Elias Levita (1538), and especially of Johannes Buxtorf (1665), it assumed the form that the “men of the Great Synagogue,”—a body the real existence of which is itself very doubtful, but which is affirmed in the Talmud to have “written” (!) the books of Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Daniel and Esther—with Ezra as president, first collected the books of the Old Testament into a single volume, restored the text, where necessary, from the best MSS., and divided the collection into three parts, the Law, the Prophets and the “Writings” (the Hagiographa). The reputation of Elias Levita and Buxtorf led to this view of Ezra’s activity being adopted by other scholars, and so it acquired general currency. But it rests upon no authority in antiquity whatever.

The statement just quoted, however, that in the Jewish canon the books of the Old Testament are divided into three parts, though the arrangement is wrongly referred to Ezra, is in itself both correct and important. “The Law, the Prophets and the Writings (i.e. the Hagiographa)” is the standing Jewish expression for the Old Testament; and in every ordinary Hebrew Bible the books are arranged accordingly in the following three divisions:—

1. The Torah (or “Law”), corresponding to our “Pentateuch” (5 books).

2. The “Prophets,” consisting of eight books, divided into two groups:—

(a) The “Former Prophets”; Joshua, Judges, Samuel; Kings.1

(b) The “Latter Prophets”; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets (called by the Jews “the Twelve,” and counted by them as one book).

3. The “Writings,” also sometimes the “Sacred Writings,” i.e., as we call them, the “Hagiographa,” consisting of three groups, containing in all eleven books:—

(a) The poetical books, Psalms, Proverbs, Job.

(b) The five Megilloth (or “Rolls”)—grouped thus together in later times, on account of the custom which arose of reading them in the synagogues at five sacred seasons—Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther.

(c) The remaining books, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (forming one book), Chronicles.

There are thus, according to the Jewish computation, twenty-four “books” in the Hebrew canon. The threefold division of the canon just given is recognized in the Talmud, and followed in all Hebrew MSS., the only difference being that the books included in the Latter Prophets and in the Hagiographa are not always arranged in the same order. No book, however, belonging to one of these three divisions is ever, by the Jews, transferred to another. The expansion of the Talmudic twenty-four to the thirty-nine Old Testament books of the English Bible is effected by reckoning the Minor Prophets one by one, by separating Ezra from Nehemiah, and by subdividing the long books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. The different order of the books in the English Bible is due to the fact that when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek between the 3rd and 1st centuries B.C., the Hebrew tripartite division was disregarded, and the books (including those now known as the “Apocrypha”) were grouped mostly by subjects, the historical books being placed first (Genesis—Esther), the poetical books next (Job—Song of Songs), and the prophetical books last (Isaiah—Malachi). Substantially the same order was followed in the Vulgate. The Reformers separated the books which had no Hebrew original (i.e. the Apocrypha) from the rest, and placed them at the end; the remaining books, as they stood in the Vulgate, were then in the order which they still retain in the English Bible.

The tripartite division of the Hebrew canon thus recognized by Jewish tradition can, however, be traced back far beyond the Talmud. The Proverbs of Jesus, the son of Sirach (c. 200 B.C.), which form now the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, were translated into Greek by the grandson of the author at about 130 B.C.; and in the preface prefixed by him to his translation he speaks of “the law, and the prophets, and the other books of our fathers,” and again of “the law, and the prophets, and the rest of the books,” expressions which point naturally to the same threefold division which was afterwards universally recognized by the Jews. The terms used, however, do not show that the Hagiographa was already completed, as we now have it; it would be entirely consistent with them, if, for instance, particular books, as Esther, or Daniel, or Ecclesiastes, were only added to the collection subsequently. Another allusion to the tripartite division is also no doubt to be found in the expression “the law, the prophets, and the psalms,” in Luke xxiv. 44. A collection of sacred books, including in particular the prophets, is also referred to in Dan. ix. 2 (R. V.), written about 166 B.C.

This threefold division of the Old Testament, it cannot reasonably be doubted, rests upon an historical basis. It represents three successive stages in the history of the collection. The Law was the first part to be definitely recognized as authoritative, or canonized; the “Prophets” (as defined above) were next accepted as canonical; the more miscellaneous collection of books comprised in the Hagiographa was recognized last. In the absence of all external evidence respecting the formation of the canon, we are driven to internal evidence in our endeavour to fix the dates at which these three collections were thus canonized. And internal evidence points to the conclusion that the Law could scarcely have been completed, and accepted formally, as a whole, as canonical before 444 B.C. (cf. Neh. viii.-x.); that the “Prophets” were completed and so recognized about 250 B.C., and the Hagiographa between about 150 and 100 B.C. (See further Ryle’s Canon of the Old Testament.)

Having thus fixed approximately the terminus ad quem at which the Old Testament was completed, we must now begin at the other end, and endeavour to sketch in outline the process by which it gradually reached its completed form. And here it will be found to be characteristic of nearly all the longer books of the Old Testament, and in some cases even of the shorter ones as well, that they were not completed by a single hand, but that they were gradually expanded, and reached their present form by a succession of stages.

Among the Hebrews, as among many other nations, the earliest beginnings of literature were in all probability poetical. At least the opening phrases of the song of Moses in Exodus xv.; the song of Deborah in Judges v.; the fragment from the “Book of the Wars of Yahweh,” in Numbers xxi. 14, 15; the war-ballad, celebrating an Israelitish victory, in Numbers xxi. 27-30; the extracts from the “Book of Jashar” (or “of the Upright,” no doubt a title of Israel) quoted in Joshua x. 12, 13 (“Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,” &c.); in 2 Sam. i. (David’s elegy over Saul and Jonathan); and, very probably, in the Septuagint of 1 Kings viii. 13 [Sept. 53], as the source of the poetical fragment in vv. 12, 13, describing Solomon’s building of the Temple, show how great national occurrences and the deeds of ancient Israelitish heroes stimulated the national genius for poetry, and evoked lyric songs, suffused with religious feeling, by which their memory was perpetuated. The poetical descriptions of the character, or geographical position, of the various tribes, now grouped together as the Blessings of Jacob (Gen. xlix.) and Moses (Deut. xxxiii.), may be mentioned at the same time. These poems, which are older, and in most cases considerably older, than the narratives in which they are now embedded, if they were collected into books, must have been fairly numerous, 851 and we could wish that more examples of them had been preserved.

The historical books of the Old Testament form two series: one, consisting of the books from Genesis to 2 Kings (exclusive of Ruth, which, as we have seen, forms in the Hebrew canon part of the Hagiographa), embracing the period from the Creation to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans in 586 B.C.; the other, comprising the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, beginning with Adam and ending with the second visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem in 432 B.C. These two series differ from one another materially in scope and point of view, but in one respect they are both constructed upon a similar plan; no entire book in either series consists of a single, original work; but older writings, or sources, have been combined by a compiler—or sometimes, in stages, by a succession of compilers—in such a manner that the points of juncture are often clearly discernible, and the sources are in consequence capable of being separated from one another. The authors of the Hebrew historical books, as we now have them, do not, as a rule, as a modern author would do, rewrite the matter in their own language; they excerpt from pre-existing documents such passages as are suitable to their purpose, and incorporate them in their work, sometimes adding at the same time matter of their own. Hebrew writers, however, exhibit usually such strongly marked individualities of style that the documents or sources, thus combined, can generally be distinguished from each other, and from the comments or other additions of the compiler, without difficulty. The literary differences are, moreover, often accompanied by differences of treatment, or representation of the history, which, where they exist, confirm independently the conclusions of the literary analysis. Although, however, the historical books generally are constructed upon similar principles, the method on which these principles have been applied is not quite the same in all cases. Sometimes, for instance, the excerpts from the older documents form long and complete narratives; in other cases (as in the account of the Flood) they consist of a number of short passages, taken alternately from two older narratives, and dovetailed together to make a continuous story; in the books of Judges and Kings the compiler has fitted together a series of older narratives in a framework supplied by himself; the Pentateuch and book of Joshua (which form a literary whole, and are now often spoken of together as the Hexateuch) have passed through more stages than the books just mentioned, and their literary structure is more complex.

The Hexateuch (Gen.-Josh.).—The traditions current among the Israelites respecting the origins and early history of their nation—the patriarchal period, and the times of Moses and Joshua—were probably first cast into a written form in the 10th or 9th century B.C. by a prophet living in Judah, who, from the almost exclusive use in his narrative of the sacred name “Jahveh” (“Jehovah”),—or, as we now commonly write it, Yahweh,—is referred to among scholars by the abbreviation “J.” This writer, who is characterized by a singularly bright and picturesque style, and also by deep religious feeling and insight, begins his narrative with the account of the creation of man from the dust, and tells of the first sin and its consequences (Gen. ii. 4b-iii. 24); then he gives an account of the early growth of civilization (Gen. iv.), of the Flood (parts of Gen. vi.-viii.), and the origin of different languages (xi. 1-9); afterwards in a series of vivid pictures he gives the story, as tradition told it, of the patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the journey through the wilderness, and the conquest of Canaan. It would occupy too much space to give here a complete list of the passages belonging to “J”; but examples of his narrative (with the exception here and there of a verse or two belonging to one of the other sources described below) are to be found, for instance, in Gen. xii., xiii., xviii.-xix. (the visit of the three angels to Abraham, and the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah), xxiv. (Abraham’s servant sent to find a wife for Isaac), xxvii. 1-45 (Jacob obtaining his father’s blessing), xxxii., xliii., xliv. (parts of the history of Joseph); Ex. iv.-v. (mostly), viii. 20-ix. 7, x. 1-11, xxxiii. 12-xxxiv. 26 (including, in xxxiv. 17-26, a group of regulations, of a simple, undeveloped character, on various religious observances); Num. x. 29-36, and most of Num. xi.

Somewhat later than “J,” another writer, commonly referred to as “E,” from his preference for the name Elohim (“God”) rather than “Jehovah,” living apparently in the northern kingdom, wrote down the traditions of the past as they were current in northern Israel, in a style resembling generally that of “J,” but not quite as bright and vivid, and marked by small differences of expression and representation. The first traces of “E” are found in the life of Abraham, in parts of Gen. xv.; examples of other passages belonging to this source are:—Gen. xx. 1-17, xxi. 8-32, xxii. 1-14, xl.-xlii. and xlv. (except a few isolated passages); Ex. xviii., xx.-xxiii. (including the decalogue—in its original, terser form, without the explanatory additions now attached to several of the commandments—and the collection of laws, known as the “Book of the Covenant,” in xxi.-xxiii.), xxxii., xxxiii. 7-11; Num. xii., most of Num. xxii.-xxiv. (the history of Balaam); Josh. xxiv. “E” thus covers substantially the same ground as “J,” and gives often a parallel, though somewhat divergent, version of the same events. The laws contained in Ex. xx. 23-xxiii. 19 were no doubt taken by “E” from a pre-existing source; with the regulations referred to above as incorporated in “J” (Ex. xxxiv. 17-26), they form the oldest legislation of the Hebrews that we possess; they consist principally of civil ordinances, suited to regulate the life of a community living under simple conditions of society, and chiefly occupied in agriculture, but partly also of elementary regulations respecting religious observances (altars, sacrifices, festivals, &c.).

Not long, probably, after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C., a prophet of Judah conceived the plan of compiling a comprehensive history of the traditions of his people. For this purpose he selected extracts from the two narratives, “J” and “E,” and combined them together into a single narrative, introducing in some places additions of his own. This combined narrative is commonly known as “JE.” As distinguished from the Priestly Narrative (to be mentioned presently), it has a distinctly prophetical character; it treats the history from the standpoint of the prophets, and the religious ideas characteristic of the prophets often find expression in it. Most of the best-known narratives of the patriarchal and Mosaic ages belong to “JE.” His style, especially in the parts belonging to “J,” is graphic and picturesque, the descriptions are vivid and abound in detail and colloquy, and both emotion and religious feeling are warmly and sympathetically expressed in it.

Deuteronomy.—In the 7th century B.C., during the reign of either Manasseh or Josiah, the narrative of “JE” was enlarged by the addition of the discourses of Deuteronomy. These discourses purport to be addresses delivered by Moses to the assembled people, shortly before his death, in the land of Moab, opposite to Jericho. There was probably some tradition of a farewell address delivered by Moses, and the writer of Deuteronomy gave this tradition form and substance. In impressive and persuasive oratory he sets before Israel, in a form adapted to the needs of the age in which he lived, the fundamental principles which Moses had taught. Yahweh was Israel’s only god, who tolerated no other god beside Himself, and who claimed to be the sole object of the Israelite’s reverence. This is the fundamental thought which is insisted on and developed in Deuteronomy with great eloquence and power. The truths on which the writer loves to dwell are the sole godhead of Yahweh, His spirituality (ch. iv.), His choice of Israel, and the love and faithfulness which He had shown towards it, by redeeming it from slavery in Egypt, and planting it in a free and fertile land; from which are deduced the great practical duties of loyal and loving devotion to Him, an uncompromising repudiation of all false gods, the rejection of all heathen practices, a cheerful and ready obedience to His will, and a warm-hearted and generous attitude towards man. Love of God is the primary spring of human duty (vi. 5). In the course of his argument (especially in chs. xii.-xxvi.), the writer takes up most of the laws, both civil 852 and ceremonial, which (see above) had been incorporated before in “J” and “E,” together with many besides which were current in Israel; these, as a rule, he expands, applies or enforces with motives; for obedience to them is not to be rendered merely in deference to external authority, it is to be prompted by right moral and religious motives. The ideal of Deuteronomy is a community of which every member is full of love and reverence towards his God, and of sympathy and regard for his fellow-men. The “Song” (Deut. xxxii.) and “Blessing” (Deut. xxxiii.) of Moses are not by the author of the discourses; and the latter, though not Mosaic, is of considerably earlier date.

The influence of Deuteronomy upon subsequent books of the Old Testament is very perceptible. Upon its promulgation it speedily became the book which both gave the religious ideals of the age, and moulded the phraseology in which these ideals were expressed. The style of Deuteronomy, when once it had been formed, lent itself readily to imitation; and thus a school of writers, imbued with its spirit, and using its expressions, quickly arose, who have left their mark upon many parts of the Old Testament. In particular, the parts of the combined narrative “JE,” which are now included in the book of Joshua, passed through the hands of a Deuteronomic editor, who made considerable additions to them—chiefly in the form of speeches placed, for instance, in the mouth of Joshua, or expansions of the history, all emphasizing principles inculcated in Deuteronomy and expressed in its characteristic phraseology (e.g. most of Josh. i., ii. 10-11, iii. 2-4, 6-9, x. 28-43, xi. 10-23, xii., xiii. 2-6, 8-12, xxiii.). From an historical point of view it is characteristic of these additions that they generalize Joshua’s successes, and represent the conquest of Canaan, effected under his leadership, as far more complete than the earlier narratives allow us to suppose was the case. The compilers of Judges and Kings are also (see below) strongly influenced by Deuteronomy.

The Priestly sections of the Hexateuch (known as “P”) remain still to be considered. That these are later than “JE,” and even than Deut., is apparent—to mention but one feature—from the more complex ritual and hierarchical organization which they exhibit. They are to all appearance the work of a school of priests, who, after the destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C., began to write down and codify the ceremonial regulations of the pre-exilic times, combining them with an historical narrative extending from the Creation to the establishment of Israel in Canaan; and who completed their work during the century following the restoration in 537 B.C. The chief object of these sections is to describe in detail the leading institutions of the theocracy (Tabernacle, sacrifices, purifications, &c.), and to refer them to their traditional origin in the Mosaic age. The history as such is subordinate; and except at important epochs is given only in brief summaries (e.g. Gen. xix. 29, xli. 46). Statistical data (lists of names, genealogies, and precise chronological notes) are a conspicuous feature in it. The legislation of “P,” though written down in or after the exile, must not, however, be supposed to be the creation of that period; many elements in it can be shown from the older literature to have been of great antiquity in Israel; it is, in fact, based upon pre-exilic Temple usage, though in some respects it is a development of it, and exhibits the form which the older and simpler ceremonial institutions of Israel ultimately assumed. In “P’s” picture of the Mosaic age there are many ideal elements; it represents the priestly ideal of the past rather than the past as it actually was. The following examples of passages from “P” will illustrate what has been said:—Gen. i. 1-ii. 4a, xvii. (institution of circumcision), xxiii. (purchase of the cave of Machpelah), xxv. 7-17, xlvi. 6-27; Ex. vi. 2-vii. 13, xxv.-xxxi. (directions for making the Tabernacle, its vessels, dress of the priests, &c.), xxxv.-xl. (execution of these directions); Lev. (the whole); Num. i. 1-x. 28 (census of people, arrangement of camp, and duties of Levites, law of the Nazirite, &c.), xv., xviii., xix., xxvi.-xxxi., xxxiii.-xxxvi.; Josh. v. 10-12, the greater part of xv.-xix. (distribution of the land among the different tribes), xxi. 1-42. The style of “P” is strongly marked—as strongly marked, in fact, as (in a different way) that of Deuteronomy is; numerous expressions not found elsewhere in the Hexateuch occur in it repeatedly. The section Lev. xvii.-xxvi. has a character of its own; for it consists of a substratum of older laws, partly moral (chs. xviii.-xx. mostly), partly ceremonial, with a hortatory conclusion (ch. xxvi.), with certain very marked characteristics (from one of which it has received the name of the “Law of Holiness”), which have been combined with elements belonging to, or conceived in the spirit of, the main body of “P.”

Not long after “P” was completed, probably in the 5th century B.C., the whole, consisting of “JE” and Deuteronomy, was combined with it; and the existing Hexateuch was thus produced.

Judges, Samuel and Kings.—The structure of these books is simpler than that of the Hexateuch. The book of Judges consists substantially of a series of older narratives, arranged together by a compiler, and provided by him, where he deemed it necessary, with introductory and concluding comments (e.g. ii. 11-iii. 6, iii. 12-15a, 30, iv. 1-3, 23, 24, v. 31b). The compiler is strongly imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy; and the object of his comments is partly to exhibit the chronology of the period as he conceived it, partly to state his theory of the religious history of the time. The compiler will not have written before c. 600 B.C.; the narratives incorporated by him will in most cases have been considerably earlier. The books of Samuel centre round the names of Samuel, Saul and David. They consist of a series of narratives, or groups of narratives, dealing with the lives of these three men, arranged by a compiler, who, however, unlike the compilers of Judges and Kings, rarely allows his own hand to appear. Some of these narratives are to all appearance nearly contemporary with the events that they describe (e.g. 1 Sam. ix. 1-x. 16, xi. 1-11, 15, xiii.-xiv., xxv.-xxxi.; 2 Sam. ix.-xx.); others are later. In 1 Sam. the double (and discrepant) accounts of the appointment of Saul as king (ix. 1-x. 16, xi. 1-11, 15, and viii., x. 17-27, xii.), and of the introduction of David to the history (xvi. 14-23 and xvii. 1-xviii. 5) are noticeable; in ix. 1-x. 16, xi. 1-11, 15, the monarchy is viewed as God’s gracious gift to His people; in viii., x. 17-27, xii., which reflect the feeling of a much later date, the monarchy is viewed unfavourably, and represented as granted by God unwillingly. The structure of the book of Kings resembles that of Judges. A number of narratives, evidently written by prophets, and in many of which also (as those relating to Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah) prophets play a prominent part, and a series of short statistical notices, relating to political events, and derived probably from the official annals of the two kingdoms (which are usually cited at the end of a king’s reign), have been arranged together, and sometimes expanded at the same time, in a framework supplied by the compiler. The framework is generally recognizable without difficulty. It comprises the chronological details, references to authorities, and judgments on the character of the various kings, especially as regards their attitude to the worship at the high places, all cast in the same literary mould, and marked by the same characteristic phraseology. Both in point of view and in phraseology the compiler shows himself to be strongly influenced by Deuteronomy. The two books appear to have been substantially completed before the exile; but short passages were probably introduced into them afterwards. Examples of passages due to the compiler: 1 Kings ii. 3-4, viii. 14-61 (the prayer of dedication put into Solomon’s mouth), ix. 1-9, xi. 32b-39, xiv. 7-11, 19-20, 21-24, 29-31, xv. 1-15, xxi. 20b-26; 2 Kings ix. 7-10a, xvii. 7-23.

The Latter Prophets.—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve. The writings of the canonical prophets form another important element in the Old Testament, also, like the historical books, of gradual growth. Beginning with Amos and Hosea, they form a series which was not completed till more than three centuries had passed away. The activity of the prophets was largely called forth by crises in the national history. They were partly moral reformers, partly religious teachers, partly political advisers. They held up before a backsliding people the ideals of human duty, of religious truth and of national policy. They expanded and developed, and applied to new situations and 853 circumstances of the national life, the truths which in a more germinal form they had inherited from their ancestors. The nature and attributes of God; His gracious purposes towards man; the relation of man to God, with the practical consequences that follow from it; the true nature of religious service; the call to repentance as the condition of God’s favour; the ideal of character and action which each man should set before himself; human duty under its various aspects; the responsibilities of office and position; the claims of mercy and philanthropy, justice and integrity; indignation against the oppression of the weak and the unprotected; ideals of a blissful future, when the troubles of the present will be over, and men will bask in the enjoyment of righteousness and felicity,—these, and such as these, are the themes which are ever in the prophets’ mouths, and on which they enlarge with unwearying eloquence and power.

For the more special characteristics of the individual prophets, reference must be made to the separate articles devoted to each; it is impossible to do more here than summarize briefly the literary structure of their various books.

Isaiah.—The book of Isaiah falls into two clearly distinguished parts, viz. chs. i.-xxxix., and xl.-lxvi. Chs. xl.-lxvi., however, are not by Isaiah, but are the work of a prophet who wrote about 540 B.C., shortly before the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, and whose aim was to encourage the Israelites in exile, and assure them of the certainty of their approaching restoration to Canaan. (According to many recent critics, this prophet wrote only chs. xl.-lv., chs. lvi.-lxvi. being added subsequently, some time after the return.) The genuine prophecies of Isaiah are contained in chs. i.-xii., xiv. 24-xxiii., xxviii.-xxxiii., xxxvii. 22-32,—all written between 740 and 700 B.C. (or a little later), and all (except ch. vi.) having reference to the condition of Judah and Israel, and the movements of the Assyrians during the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. The opinion has, however, latterly gained ground that parts even of these chapters are of later origin than Isaiah’s own time. Of the rest of chs. i.-xxxix. this is generally admitted. Thus chs. xiii. 1-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10, xxxiv.-xxxv. belong to the same age as chs. xl.-lxvi., xiii. 1-xiv. 23, and xxi. 1-10, looking forward similarly to the approaching fall of Babylon; chs. xxiv.-xxvii. have a character of their own, and form an apocalypse written not earlier than the 5th century B.C.; chs. xxxvi.-xxxix., describing incidents in which Isaiah took a part, consist of narratives excerpted from 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx. with the addition of Hezekiah’s song (xxxviii. 9-20). It is evident from these facts that the book of Isaiah did not assume its present form till considerably after the return of the Jews from exile in 537, when a compiler, or series of compilers, arranged the genuine prophecies of Isaiah which had come to his hands, together with others which at the time were attributed to Isaiah, and gave the book its present form.

Jeremiah.—Jeremiah’s first public appearance as a prophet was in the 13th year of Josiah (Jer. i. 2, xxv. 3), i.e. 626 B.C., and his latest prophecy (ch. xliv.) was delivered by him in Egypt, whither he was carried, against his will, by some of the Jews who had been left in Judah, shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 586. Jeremiah was keenly conscious of his people’s sin; and the aim of most of his earlier prophecies is to bring his countrymen, if possible, to a better mind, in the hope that thereby the doom which he sees impending may be averted—an end which eventually he saw clearly to be unattainable. Jeremiah’s was a sensitive, tender nature; and he laments, with great pathos and emotion, his people’s sins, the ruin to which he saw his country hastening, and the trials and persecutions which his predictions of disaster frequently brought upon him. A large part of his book is biographical, describing various incidents of his ministry. Prophecies of restoration are contained in chs. xxx.-xxxiii. The prophecies of the first twenty-three years of his ministry, as we are expressly told in ch. xxxvi., were first written down in 604 B.C. by his friend and amanuensis Baruch, and the roll thus formed must have formed the nucleus of the present book. Some of the reports of Jeremiah’s prophecies, and especially the biographical narratives, also probably have Baruch for their author. But the chronological disorder of the book, and other indications, show that Baruch could not have been the compiler of the book, but that the prophecies and narratives contained in it were collected together gradually, and that it reached its present form by a succession of stages, which were not finally completed till long after Israel’s return from Babylon. The long prophecy (l. 1-li. 58), announcing the approaching fall of Babylon, is not by Jeremiah, and cannot have been written till shortly before 538 B.C.

Ezekiel.—Ezekiel was one of the captives who were carried with Jehoiachin in 597 B.C. to Babylonia, and was settled with many other exiles at a place called Tel-abib (iii. 15). His prophecies (which are regularly dated) are assigned to various years from 592 to 570 B.C. The theme of the first twenty-four chapters of his book is the impending fall of Jerusalem, which took place actually in 586, and which Ezekiel foretells in a series of prophecies, distinguished by great variety of symbolism and imagery. Chs. xxv.-xxxii. are on various foreign nations, Edom, Tyre, Egypt, &c. Prophecies of Israel’s future restoration follow in chs. xxxiii.-xlviii., chs. xl.-xlviii. being remarkable for the minuteness with which Ezekiel describes the organization of the restored community, as he would fain see it realized, including even such details as the measurements and other arrangements of the Temple, the sacrifices to be offered in it, the duties and revenues of the priests, and the redistribution of the country among the twelve tribes. The book of Ezekiel bears throughout the stamp of a single mind; the prophecies contained in it are arranged methodically; and to all appearance—in striking contrast to the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah—it received the form in which we still have it from the prophet himself.

The Twelve Minor Prophets.—These, as was stated above, were reckoned by the Jews as forming a single “book.” The two earliest of the Minor Prophets, Amos and Hosea, prophesied in the northern kingdom, at about 760 and 740 B.C. respectively; both foresaw the approaching ruin of northern Israel at the hands of the Assyrians, which took place in fact when Sargon took Samaria in 722 B.C.; and both did their best to stir their people to better things. The dates of the other Minor Prophets (in some cases approximate) are: Micah, c. 725-c. 680 B.C. (some passages perhaps later); Zephaniah, c. 625; Nahum, shortly before the destruction of Nineveh by the Manda in 607; Habakkuk (on the rise and destiny of the Chaldaean empire) 605-600; Obadiah, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans in 586; Haggai, 520; Zechariah, i.-viii. (as in Haggai, promises and encouragements connected with the rebuilding of the Temple) 520 and 518; Malachi, c. 460-450; Joel, 5th century B.C.; Jonah, 4th century B.C. The latest prophecies in the book are, probably, those contained in Zech. ix.-xiv. which reflect entirely different historical conditions from Zech. i.-viii. (520 and 518 B.C.), and may be plausibly assigned to the period beginning with the conquests of Alexander the Great, between 332 and c. 300 B.C. Why these prophecies were attached to Zech. i.-viii. must remain matter of conjecture; but there are reasons for supposing that, together with the prophecy of Malachi, they came to the compiler of the “book” of the Twelve Prophets anonymously, and he simply attached them at the point which his collection had reached (i.e. at the end of Zech. viii.).

The Psalms.—The Psalter is that part of the Old Testament in which the devotional aspect of the religious character finds its completest expression; and in lyrics of exquisite tenderness and beauty the most varied emotions are poured forth by the psalmists to their God—despondency and distress, penitence and resignation, hope and confidence, jubilation and thankfulness, adoration and praise. The Psalter, it is clear from many indications, is not the work of a single compiler, but was formed gradually. A single compiler is not likely to have introduced double recensions of one and the same psalm (as Ps. liii. = Ps. xiv., Ps. lxx. = Ps. xi. 13-17, Ps. cviii. = Ps. lvii. 7-11 + lx. 5-12); in the Hebrew canon the Psalter is composed of five 854 books (i.-xli., xlii.-lxxii., lxxiii.-lxxxix., xc.-cvi., cvii.-cl.); and in many parts it is manifestly based upon independent smaller collections; for it contains groups of psalms headed “David,” the “sons of Korah,” “Asaph,” “Songs of Ascents.” Each of the five books of which it is composed contains psalms which show that its compilation cannot have been completed till after the return from the Captivity; and indeed, when the individual psalms are studied carefully it becomes apparent that in the great majority of cases they presuppose the historical conditions, or the religious experiences, of the ages that followed Jeremiah. Thus, though it is going too far to say that there are no pre-exilic psalms, the Psalter, as a whole, is the expression of the deeper spiritual feeling which marked the later stages of Israel’s history. It has been not inaptly termed the Hymn-book of the second Temple. Its compilation can hardly have been finally completed before the 3rd century B.C.; if it is true, as many scholars think, that there are psalms dating from the time of the Maccabee struggle (Ps. xliv., lxxiv., lxxix., lxxxiii, and perhaps others), it cannot have been completed till after 165 B.C.

The Book of Proverbs.—This is the first of the three books belonging to the “Wisdom-literature” of the Hebrews, the other two books being Job and Ecclesiastes. The Wisdom-literature of the Hebrews concerned itself with what we should call the philosophy of human nature, and sometimes also of physical nature as well; its writers observed human character, studied action in its consequences, laid down maxims for education and conduct, and reflected on the moral problems which human society presents. The book of Proverbs consists essentially of generalizations on human character and conduct, with (especially in chs. i.-ix.) moral exhortations addressed to an imagined “son” or pupil. The book consists of eight distinct portions, chs. i.-ix. being introductory, the proverbs, properly so called, beginning at x. 1 (with the title “The Proverbs of Solomon”), and other, shorter collections, beginning at xxii. 17, xxiv. 23, xxv. 1, xxx. 1, xxxi. 1, xxxi. 10 respectively. The book, it is evident, was formed gradually. A small nucleus of the proverbs may be Solomon’s; but the great majority represent no doubt the generalizations of a long succession of “wise men.” The introduction, or “Praise of Wisdom,” as it has been called (chs. i.-ix), commending the maxims of Wisdom as a guide to the young, will have been added after most of the rest of the book was already complete. The book will not have finally reached its present form before the 4th century B.C. Some scholars believe that it dates entirely from the Greek period (which began 332 B.C.); but it may be doubted whether there are sufficient grounds for this conclusion.

Job.—The book of Job deals with a problem of human life; in modern phraseology it is a work of religious philosophy. Job is a righteous man, overwhelmed with undeserved misfortune; and thus the question is raised, Why do the righteous suffer? Is their suffering consistent with the justice of God? The dominant theory at the time when Job was written was that all suffering was a punishment of sin; and the aim of the book is to controvert this theory. Job’s friends argue that he must have been guilty of some grave sin; Job himself passionately maintains his innocence; and on the issue thus raised the dialogue of the book turns. The outline of Job’s story was no doubt supplied by tradition; and a later poet has developed this outline, and made it a vehicle for expressing his new thoughts respecting a great moral problem which perplexed his contemporaries. A variety of indications (see Job) combine to show that the book of Job was not written till after the time of Jeremiah—probably, indeed, not till after the return from exile. The speeches of Elihu (chs. xxxii.-xxxvii.) are not part of the original poem, but were inserted in it afterwards.

There follow (in the Hebrew Bible) the five short books, which, as explained above, are now known by the Jews as the Megilloth, or “Rolls,” viz. Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. Of these, the Song of Songs, in exquisite poetry, extols the power and sweetness of pure and faithful human love. The date at which it was written is uncertain; there are features in it which point to its having been the work of a poet living in north Israel, and writing at an early date; but most recent scholars, on account chiefly of certain late expressions occurring in it, think that it cannot have been written earlier than the 4th or 3rd century B.C. In the graceful and tender idyll of Ruth, it is told how Ruth, the Moabitess, and a native consequently of a country hostile theocratically to Israel, adopted Israel’s faith (i. 16), and was counted worthy to become an ancestress of David. The date of Ruth is disputed; Driver has defended a pre-exilic date for it, but the general opinion of modern scholars is that it belongs to the 5th century B.C. The Lamentations consist of five elegies on the fall of Jerusalem, and the sufferings which its people experienced in consequence; they must all have been composed not long after 586 B.C. Ecclesiastes, the third book belonging (see above) to the Wisdom-literature, consists of moralizings, prompted by the dark times in which the author’s lot in life was cast, on the disappointments which seemed to him to be the reward of all human endeavour, and the inability of man to remedy the injustices and anomalies of society. If only upon linguistic grounds—for the Hebrew of the book resembles often that of the Mishnah more than the ordinary Hebrew of the Old Testament—Ecclesiastes must be one of the latest books in the Hebrew canon. It was most probably written during the Greek period towards the end of the 3rd century B.C. The book of Esther, which describes, with many legendary traits, how the beautiful Jewess succeeded in rescuing her people from the destruction which Haman had prepared for them, will not be earlier than the closing years of the 4th century B.C., and is thought by many scholars to be even later.

The Book of Daniel.—The aim of this book is to strengthen and encourage the pious Jews in their sufferings under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168-165 B.C. Chs. i.-vi. consist of narratives, constructed no doubt upon a traditional basis, of the experiences of Daniel at the Babylonian court, between 605 and 538 B.C., with the design of illustrating how God, in times of trouble, defends and succours His faithful servants. Chs. vii.-xii. contain a series of visions, purporting to have been seen by Daniel, and describing, sometimes (especially in ch. xi.) with considerable minuteness, the course of events from Alexander the Great, through the two royal lines of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae, to Antiochus Epiphanes, dwelling in particular on the persecuting measures adopted by Antiochus against the Jews, and promising the tyrant’s speedy fall (see e.g. viii. 9-14, 23-25, xi. 21-45). Internal evidence shows clearly that the book cannot have been written by Daniel himself; and that it must in fact be a product of the period in which its interest culminates, and the circumstances of which it so accurately reflects, i.e. of 168-165 B.C.

Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.—These books form the second series of historical books referred to above, Ezra and Nehemiah carrying on the narrative of Chronicles, and forming its direct sequel. 1 Chr. i.-ix. consists mostly of tribal genealogies, partly based upon data contained in the older books (Gen.-Kings), partly including materials found by the compiler elsewhere. 1 Chr. x.-2 Chr. xxxvi. consists of a series of excerpts from the books of Samuel and Kings—sometimes transcribed without substantial change, at other times materially altered in the process—combined with matter, in some cases limited to a verse or two, in others extending to several chapters, contributed by the compiler himself, and differing markedly from the excerpts from the older books both in phraseology and in point of view. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah are of similar structure; here the sources excerpted are the Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, written by themselves in the first person; viz. Ezra vii. 12-ix. (including the decree of Artaxerxes, vii. 12-26); Neh. i. 1-vii. 73a, xii. 31-41, xiii.; and a narrative written in Aramaic (Ezra iv. 8-vi. 18); Ezra x. and Neh. viii.-x. also are in all probability based pretty directly upon the Memoirs of Ezra; the remaining parts of the books are the composition of the compiler. The additions of the compiler, especially in the Chronicles, place the old history in a new light; he invests it with the associations of his own day; and pictures pre-exilic Judah as already possessing the fully developed ceremonial 855 system, under which he lived himself, and as ruled by the ideas and principles current among his contemporaries. There is much in his representation of the past which cannot be historical. For examples of narratives which are his composition see 1 Chr. xv. 1-24, xvi. 4-42, xxii. 2-xxix.; 2 Chr. xiii. 3-22, xiv. 6-xv. 15, xvi. 7-11, xvii., xix. 1-xx. 30, xxvi. 16-20, xxix. 3-xxxi. 21. On account of the interest shown by the compiler in the ecclesiastical aspects of the history, his work has been not inaptly called the “Ecclesiastical Chronicle of Jerusalem.” From historical allusions in the book of Nehemiah, it may be inferred that the compiler wrote at about 300 B.C.

2. Texts and Versions.

Text.—The form in which the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is presented to us in all MSS. and printed editions is that of the Massoretic text, the date of which is usually placed somewhere between the 6th and 8th centuries of the Christian era. It is probable that the present text became fixed as early as the 2nd century A.D., but even this earlier date leaves a long interval between the original autographs of the Old Testament writers and our present text. Since the fixing of the Massoretic text the task of preserving and transmitting the sacred books has been carried out with the greatest care and fidelity, with the result that the text has undergone practically no change of any real importance; but before that date, owing to various causes, it is beyond dispute that a large number of corruptions were introduced into the Hebrew text. In dealing, therefore, with the textual criticism of the Old Testament it is necessary to determine the period at which the text assumed its present fixed form before considering the means at our disposal for controlling the text when it was, so to speak, in a less settled condition.

An examination of the extant MSS. of the Hebrew Old Testament reveals two facts which at first sight are somewhat remarkable. The first is that the oldest dated MS., the Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, only goes back to the year A.D. 916, though it is probable that one or two MSS. Massoretic text. belong to the 9th century. The second fact is that all our Hebrew MSS. represent one and the same text, viz. the Massoretic. This text was the work of a special gild of trained scholars called Massoretes (בעלי המסרת) or “masters of tradition” (מסורה or less correctly מסרת),2 whose aim was not only to preserve and transmit the consonantal text which had been handed down to them, but also to ensure its proper pronunciation. To this end they provided the text with a complete system of vowel points and accents.3 Their labours further included the compilation of a number of notes, to which the term Massorah is now usually applied. These notes for the most part constitute a sort of index of the peculiarities of the text, and possess but little general interest. More important are those passages in which the Massoretes have definitely adopted a variation from the consonantal text. In these cases the vowel points attached to the written word (Kěthībh) belong to the word which is to be substituted for it, the latter being placed in the margin with the initial letter of Qěrē (= to be read) prefixed to it. Many even of these readings merely relate to variations of spelling, pronunciation or grammatical forms; others substitute a more decent expression for the coarser phrase of the text, but in some instances the suggested reading really affects the sense of the passage. These last are to be regarded either as old textual variants, or, more probably, as emendations corresponding to the errata or corrigenda of a modern printed book. They do not point to any critical editing of the text; for the aim of the Massoretes was essentially conservative. Their object was not to create a new text, but rather to ensure the accurate transmission of the traditional text which they themselves had received. Their work may be said to culminate in the vocalized text which resulted from the labours of Rabbi Aaron ben Asher in the 10th century.4 But the writings of Jerome in the 4th, and of Origen in the 3rd century both testify to a Hebrew text practically identical with that of the Massoretes. Similar evidence is furnished by the Mishna and the Gemara, the Targums, and lastly by the Greek version of Aquila,5 which dates from the first half of the 2nd century A.D. Hence it is hardly doubtful that the form in which we now possess the Hebrew text was already fixed by the beginning of the 2nd century. On the other hand, evidence such as that of the Book of Jubilees shows that the form of the text still fluctuated considerably as late as the 1st century A.D., so that we are forced to place the fixing of the text some time between the fall of Jerusalem and the production of Aquila’s version. Nor is the occasion far to seek. After the fall of Jerusalem the new system of biblical exegesis founded by Rabbi Hillel reached its climax at Jamnia under the famous Rabbi Aqiba (d. c. 132). The latter’s system of interpretation was based upon an extremely literal treatment of the text, according to which the smallest words or particles, and sometimes even the letters of scripture, were invested with divine authority. The inevitable result of such a system must have been the fixing of an officially recognized text, which could scarcely have differed materially from that which was finally adopted by the Massoretes. That the standard edition was not the result of the critical investigation of existing materials may be assumed with some certainty.6 Indeed, it is probable, as has been suggested,7 that the manuscript which was adopted as the standard text was an old and well-written copy, possibly one of those which were preserved in the Court of the Temple.

But if the evidence available points to the time of Hadrian as the period at which the Hebrew text assumed its present form, it is even more certain that prior to that date the various MSS. of the Old Testament differed very materially from one another. Sufficient proof of this statement is furnished by the Samaritan Pentateuch and the versions, more especially the Septuagint. Indications also are not wanting in the Hebrew text itself to show that in earlier times the text was treated with considerable freedom. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, there are eighteen8 passages in which the older scribes deliberately altered the text on the ground that the language employed was either irreverent or liable to misconception. Of a similar nature are the changes introduced into proper names, e.g. the substitution of bosheth (= shame) for ba’al in Ishbosheth (2 Sam. ii. 8) and Mephibosheth (2 Sam. ix. 6; cf. the older forms Eshbaal and Meribaal, 1 Chron. viii. 34, 35); the use of the verb “to bless” (ברך) in the sense of cursing (1 Kings xxi. 10, 13; Job i. 5, 11, ii. 5, 9; Ps. x. 3); and the insertion of “the enemies of” in 1 Sam. xxv. 22, 2 Sam. xii. 14. These intentional alterations, however, only affect a very limited portion of the text, and, though it is possible that other changes were introduced at different times, it is very 856 unlikely that they were either more extensive in range or more important in character. At the same time it is clear both from internal and external evidence that the archetype from which our MSS. are descended was far from being a perfect representative of the original text. For a comparison of the different parallel passages which occur in the Old Testament (e.g. 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles; 2 Kings xviii. 13-xx. 19 and Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix; 2 Sam. xxii. and Ps. xviii.; Ps. xiv. and liii., &c.) reveals many variations which are obviously due to textual corruption, while there are many passages which in their present form are either ungrammatical, or inconsistent with the context or with other passages. Externally also the ancient versions, especially the Septuagint, frequently exhibit variations from the Hebrew which are not only intrinsically more probable, but often explain the difficulties presented by the Massoretic text. Our estimate of the value of these variant readings, moreover, is considerably heightened when we consider that the MSS. on which the versions are based are older by several centuries than those from which the Massoretic text was derived; hence the text which they presuppose has no slight claim to be regarded as an important witness for the original Hebrew. “But the use of the ancient versions” (to quote Prof. Driver9) “is not always such a simple matter as might be inferred.... In the use of the ancient versions for the purposes of textual criticism there are three precautions which must always be observed; we must reasonably assure ourselves that we possess the version itself in its original integrity; we must eliminate such variants as have the appearance of originating merely with the translator; the remainder, which will be those that are due to a difference of text in the MS. (or MSS.) used by the translator, we must then compare carefully, in the light of the considerations just stated, with the existing Hebrew text, in order to determine on which side the superiority lies.”

3. Textual Criticism.

The aim of scientific Old Testament criticism is to obtain, through discrimination between truth and error, a full appreciation of the literature which constitutes the Old Testament, of the life out of which it grew, and the secret of Distinction between Textual and Higher Criticism. the influence which these have exerted and still exert. For such an appreciation many things are needed; and the branches of Old Testament criticism are correspondingly numerous. It is necessary in the first instance to detect the errors which have crept into the text in the course of its transmission, and to recover, so far as possible, the text in its original form; this is the task of Textual, or as it is sometimes called in contradistinction to another branch, Lower Criticism. It then becomes the task of critical exegesis to interpret the text thus recovered so as to bring out the meaning intended by the original authors. This Higher Criticism partakes of two characters, literary and historical. One branch seeks to determine the scope, purpose and character of the various books of the Old Testament, the times in and conditions under which they were written, whether they are severally the work of a single author or of several, whether they embody earlier sources and, if so, the character of these, and the conditions under which they have reached us, whether altered and, if altered, how; this is Literary Criticism. A further task is to estimate the value of this literature as evidence for the history of Israel, to determine, as far as possible, whether such parts of the literature as are contemporary with the time described present correct, or whether 858 in any respect one-sided or biased or otherwise incorrect, descriptions; and again, how far the literature that relates the story of long past periods has drawn upon trustworthy records, and how far it is possible to extract historical truth from traditions (such as those of the Pentateuch) that present, owing to the gradual accretions and modifications of intervening generations, a composite picture of the period described, or from a work such as Chronicles, which narrates the past under the influence of the conception that the institutions and ideas of the present must have been established and current in the past; all this falls under Historical Criticism, which, on its constructive side, must avail itself of all available and well-sifted evidence, whether derived from the Old Testament or elsewhere, for its presentation of the history of Israel—its ultimate purpose. Finally, by comparing the results of this criticism as a whole, we have to determine, by observing its growth and comparing it with others, the essential character of the religion of Israel.

In brief, then, the criticism of the Old Testament seeks to discover what the words written actually meant to the writers, what the events in Hebrew history actually were, what the religion actually was; and hence its aim differs from the dogmatic or homiletic treatments of the Old Testament, which have sought to discover in Scripture a given body of dogma or incentives to a particular type of life or the like.

Biblical criticism, and in some respects more especially Old Testament criticism, is, in all its branches, very largely of modern growth. This has been due in part to the removal of conditions unfavourable to the critical study of the evidence that existed, in part to the discovery in recent times of fresh evidence. The unfavourable conditions and the critical efforts which were made in spite of them can only be briefly indicated.

For a long time Biblical study lacked the first essential of sound critical method, viz. a critical text of the literature. Jewish study was exclusively based on the official Hebrew text, which was fixed, probably in the 2nd century A.D., Growth of criticism. and thereafter scrupulously preserved. This text, however, had suffered certain now obvious corruptions, and, probably enough, more corruption than can now, or perhaps ever will be, detected with certainty. The position of Christian (and Jewish Alexandrian) scholars was considerably worse; for, with rare exceptions, down to the 5th century, and practically without exception between the 5th and 15th centuries, their study was exclusively based on translations. Beneath the ancient Greek version, the Septuagint, there certainly underlay an earlier form of the Hebrew text than that perpetuated by Jewish tradition, and if Christian scholars could have worked through the version to the underlying Hebrew text, they would often have come nearer to the original meaning than their Jewish contemporaries. But this they could not do; and since the version, owing to the limitations of the translators, departs widely from the sense of the original, Christian scholars were on the whole kept much farther from the original meaning than their Jewish contemporaries, who used the Hebrew text; and later, after Jewish grammatical and philological study had been stimulated by intercourse with the Arabs, the relative disadvantages under which Christian scholarship laboured increased. Still there are not lacking in the early centuries A.D. important, if limited and imperfect, efforts in textual criticism. Origen, in his Hexapla, placed side by side the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and certain later Greek versions, and drew attention to the variations: he thus brought together for comparison, an indispensable preliminary to criticism, the chief existing evidence to the text of the Old Testament. Unfortunately this great work proved too voluminous to be preserved entire; and in the form in which it was fragmentarily preserved, it even largely enhanced the critical task of later centuries. Jerome, perceiving the unsatisfactory position of Latin-speaking Christian scholars who studied the Old Testament at a double remove from the original—in Latin versions of the Greek—made a fresh Latin translation direct from the Hebrew text then received among the Jews. It is only in accordance with what constantly recurs in the history of Biblical criticism that this effort to approximate to the truth met at first with considerable opposition, and was for a time regarded even by Augustine as dangerous. Subsequently, however, this version of Jerome (the Vulgate) became the basis of Western Biblical scholarship. Henceforward the Western Church suffered both from the corruptions in the official Hebrew text and also from the fact that it worked from a version and not from the original, for a knowledge of Hebrew was rare indeed among Christian scholars between the time of Jerome and the 16th century.

But if the use of versions, or of an uncritical text of the original, was one condition unfavourable to criticism, another that was not less serious was the dominance over both Jews and Christians of unsound methods of interpretation—legal or dogmatic or allegorical. The influence of these can be traced as early as the Greek version (3rd century B.C. and later); allegorical interpretation is conspicuous in the Alexandrian Jewish scholar Philo (q.v.); it may be seen in many New Testament interpretations of the Old Testament (e.g. Gal. iii. 16, iv. 21-31), found a classical exponent in Origen, and, in spite of the opposition of the school of Antioch, pre-eminently of Theodore (d. A.D. 428), maintained its power virtually unbroken down to the Reformation. It is true that even by the most thorough-going allegorists the literal sense of Scripture was not openly and entirely disregarded; but the very fact that the study of Hebrew was never more than exceptional, and so early ceased to be cultivated at all, is eloquent of indifference to the original literal sense, and the very principle of the many meanings inherent in the sacred writings was hostile to sound interpretation; greater importance was attached to the “deeper” or “hidden” senses, i.e. to the various unreal interpretations, and when the literal sense conflicted with the dogmas or tradition of the Church its validity was wholly denied. The extraordinary ambiguity and uncertainty which allegorical interpretation tacitly ascribed to Scripture, and the ease with which heretical as well as orthodox teaching could be represented as “hidden” under the literal sense, was early perceived, but instead of this leading to any real check on even wild subjectivity in interpretation and insistence on reaching the literal sense, it created an ominous principle that maintained much of its influence long after the supremacy of allegorism was overthrown. This is the principle that all interpretation of Scripture must be according to the Regula fidei—that all interpretation which makes Scripture contradict or offend the traditions of the Church is wrong.

The spirit and the age of humanism and the Reformation effected and witnessed important developments in the study of the Old Testament. It was still long before any considerable results were achieved; but in various ways the dogmatic and traditional treatment of Scripture was undermined; the way was opened for a more real and historical method. It must suffice to refer briefly to two points.

The fundamental principles of the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament are the same as those which apply to any other ancient text and need not be described here (see the article Textual Criticism). There are also, however, Conditions of Textual Criticism in the Bible. certain conditions peculiar to the text of the Old Testament. The significance of these and the extent to which they must govern the application of the general principles have even yet scarcely obtained full and general recognition. These, then, must be briefly described.

The earliest Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament date from not earlier than the 9th century A.D., or nearly one thousand years after the latest parts of the Old Testament were written. These MSS., and the Hebrew Bibles as usually printed, contain in reality two perfectly distinct texts—the work of two different ages separated from one another by centuries: the one is a text of the Old Testament itself, the other a text of a later Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. The text of the Old Testament consists of consonants only, for the alphabet of the ancient Hebrews, like that of their Moabite, Aramaean and Phoenician neighbours, contained no vowels; the text of the interpretation consists of vowels and accents only—for vowel signs and accents had been invented by Jewish scholars between the 5th and 9th centuries A.D.; the text of the Old Testament is complete in itself and intelligible, though ambiguous; but the text of the interpretation read by itself is unintelligible, and only becomes intelligible when read with the consonants (under, over, or in which they are inserted) of the text of the Old Testament. But the fact that the later text makes use of the earlier to make itself intelligible in no way destroys the fact that it is as entirely distinct a work from the earlier as is any commentary distinct from the work on which it comments. The first task of Old Testament textual criticism after the Reformation was to prove the independence of these two texts, to gain general recognition of the fact that vowels and accents formed no part of the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The conflict that arose over this question in the Christian Church was prolonged and bitter—in part because it unfortunately became inflamed by the contending interests of Roman Catholic and Protestant. The coeval origin of consonants and vowels had indeed been questioned or denied by the earliest reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin), but later, in the period of Protestant scholasticism and under the influence of one school of Jewish Rabbis, Protestant scholars in particular, and especially those of the Swiss school, notably the Buxtorfs, had committed themselves to the view that the vowels formed an integral and original part of the text of the Old Testament; and this they maintained with all the more fervency because the ambiguity of the consonants without the vowels was a troublesome fact in the way of the extreme Protestant doctrine of the inspiration, verbal infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture, while it was by no means unwelcome to Catholic theologians with their doctrine of the need for an authoritative interpretation. Still in the end it was due in large measure to the learning and argumentative power devoted to this subject by the French Protestant scholar, Louis Capell, and, amongst others, by the English Protestant scholar, Brian Walton, that by the end of the 17th century this particular controversy was practically at an end; criticism had triumphed, and the later origin of the vowels was admitted. Yet, as often happens, the influence of tradition lingered long after it had been proved to be false; thus the R.V., instead of being an independent translation of the Hebrew text, is intended (with rare exceptions, as e.g. in Is. lix. 19, where R.V. translates the Hebrew text and R.V. margin the Jewish interpretation) to be merely a translation of the Jewish interpretation; and to the present day it is usual, though obviously uncritical and wrong, to describe perfectly legitimate translations of the received consonantal text, if they happen to presuppose other vowels than those provided by Jewish tradition, as based on emendation; even in the English edition of Haupt’s Sacred Books of the Old Testament (see below) the possibility of this unfortunate misunderstanding is not altogether removed.

But the original text of the Old Testament long before it was combined with the text of the Jewish or Massoretic interpretation had already undergone a somewhat similar change, the extent of which was indeed far less, but also less clearly discoverable. This change consisted in the insertion into the original text of certain consonants which had come to be also used to express vowel sounds: e.g. the Hebrew consonant corresponding to w also expressed the vowel o or u, the consonant h the vowel a, and so forth. For reasons suggested partly by the study of Semitic inscriptions, partly by comparison of passages occurring twice within the Old Testament, and partly by a comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint, it is clear that the authors of the Old Testament (or at least most of them) themselves made some use of these vowel consonants, but that in a great number of cases the vowel consonants that stand in our present text were inserted by transcribers and editors of the texts. Again, and for similar reasons, it is probable that in many cases, if not in all, the original texts were written without any clear division of the consonants into words. In view of all this, the first requisite for a critical treatment of the text of the Old Testament is to consider the consonants by themselves, to treat every vowel-consonant as possibly not original, and the existing divisions of the text into words as original only in those cases where they yield a sense better than any other possible division (or, at least, as good). Certainly all this brings us face to face with much ambiguity and demands increased skill in interpretation, but anything short of it falls short also of strict critical method. A perception of this has only been gradually reached, and is even now none too general.

Apart from these changes in the history of the text, it has, like all ancient texts, suffered from accidents of transmission, from the unintentional mistakes of copyists. This fact was, naturally enough and under the same dogmatic stress, denied by those scholars who maintained that the vowels were an integral part of the text. Here again we may single out Capellus as a pioneer in criticism, in his Critica sacra sive de variis quae in sacris V. T. libris occurrunt lectionibus, written in 1634, much studied in MS. by scholars before its publication in 1650, and unavailingly criticized by Buxtorf the younger in his Anticritica seu vindiciae veritatis hebraicae (1653). Capellus drew conclusions from such important facts as the occurrence of variations in the two Hebrew texts of passages found twice in the Old Testament itself, and the variations brought to light by a comparison of the Jewish and Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch, the Hebrew 860 text and the Septuagint, the Hebrew text and New Testament quotations from the Old Testament.

In order that the principles already perceived by Capellus might be satisfactorily applied in establishing a critical text, many things were needed; for example, a complete collation of existing MSS. of the Jewish text and of the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, the establishing of a critical text of the Septuagint, a careful study of the several versions directed to determining when real variants are implied and what they are. Some of this work has been accomplished: much of it remains to be done.

The Hebrew MSS. were collated by Kennicott and de Rossi at the close of the 18th century, with sufficient thoroughness to justify the important conclusion that all existing MSS. reproduce a single recension. The Samaritan MSS. are still very imperfectly collated; the same is true of the Syriac and other versions except the Septuagint. In regard to the Septuagint, though the work is by no means complete, much has been done. For collection of material the edition of Holmes and Parsons (Oxford, 1798-1827), with its magnificent critical apparatus, is pre-eminent; the preparation of a similar edition, on a rather smaller scale but embodying the results of fresh and more careful collation, was subsequently undertaken by Cambridge scholars.19 These editions furnish the material, but neither attempts the actual construction of a critical text of the version. Some important contributions towards a right critical method of using the material collected have been made—in particular by Lagarde, who has also opened up a valuable line of critical work, along which much remains to be done, by his restoration of the Lucianic recension, one of the three great recensions of the Greek text of the Old Testament which obtained currency at the close of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th centuries A.D.

More especially since the time of Capellus the value of the Septuagint for correcting the Hebrew text has been recognized; but it has often been used uncritically, and the correctness of the Hebrew text underlying it in comparison with the text of the Hebrew MSS., though still perhaps most generally underestimated, has certainly at times been exaggerated.

It has only been possible here to indicate in the briefest way what is involved in the collection and critical sifting of the extant evidence for the text of the Old Testament, how much of the work has been done and how much Results of Criticism. remains; and with equal brevity it must suffice to indicate the position which faces the textual critic when all that can be done in this way has been done. In so far as it is possible to recover the Hebrew text from which the Greek version was made, it is possible to recover a form of the Hebrew text current about 280 B.C. in the case of the Pentateuch, some time before 100 B.C. in the case of most of the rest of the Old Testament. By comparison of the Hebrew MSS. it is not difficult to recover the recension which with few and unimportant variants they have perpetuated, and which may safely be regarded as differing but slightly from the text current and officially established before the end of the 2nd century A.D. By a comparison of these two lines of evidence we can approximate to a text current about 300 B.C. or later; but for any errors which had entered into the common source of these two forms of the text we possess no documentary means of detection whatsoever. The case then stands thus. Except by the obviously absurd assumption of the infallibility of copyists for the centuries before c. 300 B.C., we cannot escape the conclusion that errors lurk even where no variants now exist, and that such errors can be corrected, if at all, only by conjectural emendation. The dangers of conjectural emendation are well known and apparent; large numbers of such emendations have been ill-advised; but in the case of many passages the only alternative for the textual critic who is at once competent and honest is to offer such emendations or to indicate that such passages are corrupt and the means of restoring them lacking.

Conjectural emendations were offered by Capellus in the 17th, and by scholars such as C.F. Houbigant, Archbishop Seeker, Bishop Lowth and J.D. Michaelis in the 18th century. Some of these have approved themselves to successive generations of scholars, who have also added largely to the store of such suggestions; conjectural emendation has been carried furthest by upholders of particular metrical theories (such as Bickell and Duhm) which do not accommodate themselves well to the existing text, and by T.K. Cheyne (in Critica Biblica, 1903), whose restorations resting on a dubious theory of Hebrew history have met with little approval, though his negative criticism of the text is often keen and suggestive.

A model of the application of the various resources of Old Testament textual criticism to the restoration of the text is C.H. Cornill’s Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel (1886): outstanding examples of important systematic critical notes are J. Wellhausen’s Der Text der Bücher Samuelis (1871) and S.R. Driver’s Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890). Haupt’s Sacred Books of the Old Testament, edited by various scholars, was designed to present, when complete, a critical text of the entire Old Testament with critical notes. The results of textual criticism, including a considerable number of conjectural emendations, are succinctly presented in Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (1906); but the text here printed is the ordinary Massoretic (vocalized) text. The valuable editions of the Old Testament by Baer and Delitzsch, and by Ginsburg, contain critical texts of the Jewish interpretation of Scripture, and therefore necessarily uncritical texts of the Hebrew Old Testament itself: it lies entirely outside their scope to give or even to consider the evidence which exists for correcting the obvious errors in the text of the Old Testament as received and perpetuated by the Jewish interpreters. See also the authorities mentioned in the following section.

4. Higher Criticism.

We now pass on to consider the growth of literary and historic criticism, which constitute the Higher Criticism as already explained. Down to the Reformation conditions were unfavourable to such criticism; the prevailing dogmatic use of Scripture gave no occasion for inquiry into the human origins or into the real purport and character of the several books. Nevertheless we find some sporadic and tentative critical efforts or questions. The most remarkable of these was made outside the Church—a significant indication of the adverse effect of the conditions within; the Neo-platonist philosopher Porphyry20 in the 3rd century A.D., untrammelled by church tradition and methods, anticipated one of the clearest and most important conclusions of modern criticism: he detected the incorrectness of the traditional ascription of Daniel to the Jewish captivity in Babylon and discerned that the real period of its composition was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, four centuries later. In the mind even of Augustine (Locutio in Jos. vi. 25) questions were raised by the occurrence of the formula “until this day” in Jos. iv. 9, but were stilled by a rather clever though wrong use of Jos. vi. 25; Abelard (Heloissae Problema, xli.) considers the problem whether the narrative of Moses’s death in Deut. contains a prophecy by Moses or is the work of another and later writer, while the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra (Abenezra), in a cryptic note on Deut. i. 1, which has been often quoted of late years, gathers together several indications that point, as he appears to perceive, to the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Even rarer than these rare perceptions of the evidence of the quasi-historical books to their origin are such half-perceptions of the literary origin of the prophetical books as is betrayed by Ibn Ezra, who appears to question the Isaianic authorship of Is. xl.-lxvi., and by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century, who, according to Diestel (Gesch. des A. T., 169), raises the question why the sixth chapter of Isaiah, containing the inaugural vision, does not stand at the beginning of the book.

Even after the Renaissance and the Reformation tradition continued influential. For though the Reformers were critical of the authority of ecclesiastical tradition in the matter of 861 the interpretation and use of Scripture, they were not immediately The Reformers. interested in literary and historical criticism, nor concerned to challenge the whole body of traditional lore on these matters. At the same time we can see from Luther’s attitude how the doctrine of the Reformers (unlike that of the Protestant scholastics who came later) admitted considerable freedom, in particular with reference to the extent of the canon, but also to several questions of higher criticism. Thus it is to Luther a matter of indifference whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch; the books of Chronicles he definitely pronounces less credible than those of Kings, and he considers that the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea probably owe their present form to later hands. Carlstadt again definitely denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch on the ground that Moses could not have written the account of his own death and yet that Deut. xxxiv. cannot be separated from the rest of the Pentateuch. The later scholastic Protestant doctrine of verbal infallibility necessarily encouraged critical reaction and proved a widely extended retarding force far down into the 19th century. Nevertheless criticism advanced by slow degrees among individuals, now in the Roman Church, now in the number of those who sat loosely to the restrictions of either Roman or Protestant authority, and now among Protestant scholars and theologians.

It would be impossible to refer here even briefly to all these, and it may be more useful to select for somewhat full description, as showing what could be achieved by, and what limitations beset, even a critical spirit in the 17th Hobbes. century, the survey of the origin of the Old Testament given by one such individual—Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan21 (published 1651) c. xxxiii. As far as possible this survey shall be cited verbatim:—

Except in strangely making Zephaniah contemporary with Isaiah, Hobbes’ conclusions, in so far as they differ from the traditional views, have been confirmed by the more thorough criticism of subsequent scholars. But apart from the special conclusions, the opening and closing considerations contain clear and important statements which still hold good. No fresh discoveries since the time of Hobbes have furnished any “testimony of other history” to the origin of the books of the Old Testament: this must still be determined by the statements and internal evidence of the Old Testament itself, and a deeper criticism has given to the final consideration that the Old Testament received its present form after the Exile a far greater significance than Hobbes perhaps guessed.

But the limitations of Hobbes’ literary criticism judged from our present standpoint are great. The considerations from which he acutely and accurately draws far-reaching and important conclusions might be suggested by a very superficial examination of the literature; they involve, for example, no special philological knowledge. The effect of a deeper criticism has been (a) to give a more powerful support to some of Hobbes’ conclusions; (b) to show that works (e.g. Ecclesiastes) whose traditional antiquity is left unquestioned by him are in reality of far more recent origin; (c) to eliminate the earlier sources or elements in the writings which Hobbes was content to date mainly or as a whole by their latest elements (e.g. Pentateuch, Judges, Kings), and thus to give to these earlier sources an historical value higher than that which would be safely attributed to them as indistinguishable parts of a late compilation.

Hobbes argues in the case of the Pentateuch that two authors are distinguishable—Moses and a much later compiler and editor. Spinoza, whose conclusions in his Tractatus theologicopoliticus (1671), c. viii. ix., had in general much in common with Hobbes, drew attention in particular to the confused mixture of law and narrative in the Pentateuch, the occurrence of duplicate narratives and chronological incongruities. Father Simon in his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (1682) also argues that the Pentateuch is the work of more than one author, and makes an important advance towards a systematic analysis of the separate elements by observing that the style varies, being sometimes very curt and sometimes very copious “although the variety of the matter does not require it.” But none of these makes any attempt to carry through a continuous analysis.

The first attempt of this kind is that of a French Catholic physician, Jean Astruc. In a work published anonymously in 1753 under the title of Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroît que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse, he argued that in Genesis and Astruc. Ex. i. ii. Moses had used different documents, and that of these the two chief were distinguished by their use of different divine names—Elohim and Yahweh; by the use of this clue he gave a detailed analysis of the passages belonging to the several documents. Astruc’s criteria were too slight to give to all the details of his analysis anything approaching a final analysis; but later criticism has shown that his criteria, so far as they went, were valid, and his results, broadly speaking, sound though incomplete: and, moreover, they have abundantly justified his really important fundamental theory that the documents used by the compiler of the Pentateuch have been incorporated so much as they lay before him that we can get 862 behind the compiler to the earlier sources and thus push back the evidence of much of the Pentateuch beyond the date of its compilation to the earlier date of the sources. In identifying the compiler with Moses, Astruc failed to profit from some of his predecessors: and the fact that he held to the traditional (Mosaic) origin of the Pentateuch may have prevented him from seeing the similar facts which would have led him to continue his analysis into the remaining books of the Pentateuch.

For subsequent developments, and the fruitful results of documentary analysis as applied to the Pentateuch and other composite books, which cannot be dealt with in any detail here, reference must be made to the special articles on the books of the Old Testament.

The year of the publication of Astruc’s book saw also the publication of Bishop Lowth’s De sacra poesi Hebraeorum; later Lowth published a new translation of Isaiah with notes (1778). Lowth’s contribution to a more critical Lowth. appreciation of the Old Testament lies in his perception of the nature and significance of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, in his discernment of the extent to which the prophetical books are poetical in form, and in his treatment of the Old Testament as the expression of the thought and emotions of a people—in a word, as literature. Both Lowth’s works were translated and became influential in Germany.

In spite of these earlier achievements, it is J.G. Eichhorn who has, not without reason, been termed the “founder of modern Old Testament criticism.” Certainly the publication of his Einleitung (Introduction to the Old Testament), Eichhorn. in 1780-1783, is a landmark in the history of Old Testament criticism. An intimate friend of Herder, himself keenly interested in literature, he naturally enough treats the Old Testament as literature—like Lowth, but more thoroughly; and, as an Oriental scholar, he treats it as an Oriental literature. In both respects he was to be widely followed. His Introduction, consisting of three closely packed volumes dealing with textual as well as literary criticism, is the first comprehensive treatment of the entire Old Testament as literature. Much of the voluminous detailed work in this and other works is naturally enough provisional, but in the Introduction there emerge most of the broad conclusions of literary criticism (sometimes incomplete) which, after more than a century of keen examination by scholars unwilling to admit them, have passed by more or less general consent into the number of historical certainties or high probabilities. With his wide linguistic knowledge Eichhorn perceived that the language alone (though he also adduces other considerations) betrays the late origin of Ecclesiastes, which he places in the Persian Period (538-332 B.C.): Canticles, too, preserves linguistic features which are not of the Solomonic age. He analyses significant stylistic peculiarities such as occur, e.g., in Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii. For various reasons (here following Koppe, who just previously in additions to his translation of Lowth’s Isaiah had shown himself the pioneer of the higher criticism of the book of Isaiah) he argues that “in our Isaiah are many oracles not the work of this prophet.” In other directions the still powerful influence of tradition affects Eichhorn. He maintains the exilic origin of parts of Daniel, though he is convinced (here again in part by language) of the later origin of other parts. His Pentateuchal criticism is limited by the tradition of Mosaic authorship: but even within these limits he achieves much. He carries through, as Astruc had done, the analysis of Genesis into (primarily) two documents; he draws the distinction between the Priests’ Code, of the middle books of the Pentateuch, and Deuteronomy, the people’s law book; and admits that even the books that follow Genesis consist of different documents, many incomplete and fragmentary (whence the theory became known as the “Fragment-hypothesis”), but all the work of Moses and some of his contemporaries.

Other literary critics of the same period or a little later are Alex. Geddes, a Scottish Catholic priest, who projected, and in part carried out (1792-1800), a critically annotated new translation of the Old Testament, and argued therein that the Pentateuch ultimately rests on a variety of sources partly written, partly oral, but was compiled in Canaan probably in the reign of Solomon; K.D. Ilgen, the discoverer (1798) that there were two distinct documents in Genesis using the divine name Elohim, and consequently that there were three main sources in the books, not two, as Astruc and Eichhorn had conjectured; and J.S. Vater, the elaborator of the “Fragment-hypothesis.”

But the next distinct stage is reached when we come to De Wette, whose contributions to Biblical learning were many and varied, but who was pre-eminent in historical criticism. He carried criticism beyond literary analysis and De Wette. literary appreciation to the task of determining the worth of the documents as records, the validity of the evidence. His peculiar qualities were conspicuous in his early and exceedingly influential work—the Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1806-1807). In the introduction to vol. ii. he carefully analyses the principles of sound historical method and the essentials of a trustworthy historical record. These principles he applied to the Old Testament, firstly to the Books of Chronicles, and then to the Pentateuch. The untrustworthiness of Chronicles—briefly admitted by Luther—he proved in detail, and so cleared the way for that truer view of the history and religion of Israel which the treatment of Chronicles as a trustworthy record of the past hopelessly obscured. In the criticism of the Pentateuch his most influential and enduring contributions to criticism are his proof that Deuteronomy is a work of the 7th century B.C., and his insistence that the theory of the Mosaic origin of all the institutions described in the Pentateuch is incompatible with the history of Israel as described in the historical books, Judges, Samuel and Kings.

Strong in historical criticism, De Wette was weak in historical construction. But what he failed to give, Ewald supplied, and if more of De Wette’s than of Ewald’s work still stands to-day, that is but an illustration of the melancholy Ewald. fact that in history negative criticism is surer than positive construction. But Ewald’s History of the People of Israel (1843-1859) was the first great attempt to synthesize the results of criticism and to present the history of Israel as a great reality of the past. By the force of his wide learning and even more of his personality, Ewald exercised for long an all-pervading and almost irresistible influence. He closes one epoch of Old Testament criticism; by his influence he retards the development of the next. Before passing to the new epoch it must suffice to make a simple reference to the philological work of Gesenius and Ewald, which assisted a sounder exegesis and so secured for later criticism a more stable basis.

The next stage brings us to the critical theories or conclusions which at first gradually and then rapidly, in spite of the keenest criticisms directed against them both by those who clung more or less completely to tradition and by the Vatke; Reuss. representatives of the earlier critical school, gained increasing acceptance, until to-day they dominate Old Testament study. The historico-critical starting-point of the movement was really furnished by De Wette: but it was Vatke who, in his Biblische Theologie wissenschaftlich dargestellt (1835), first brought out its essential character. The fundamental peculiarity of the movement lies in the fact that it is a criticism of what is supreme in Israel—its religion, and that it has rendered possible a true appreciation of this by showing that, like all living and life-giving systems of thought, belief and practice, the religion of Israel was subject to development. It seized on the prophetic element, and not the ceremonial, as containing what is essential and unique in the religion of Israel. In literary criticism its fundamental thesis, stated independently of Vatke and in the same year by George in Die älteren jüdischen Feste, and in a measure anticipated by Reuss, who in 1832 was maintaining in his academical lectures that the prophets were older than the Law and the Psalms more recent than both, is that the chronological order of the three main sources of the Hexateuch is (1) the prophetic narratives (JE), (2) Deuteronomy, (3) the Priestly Code (P), the last being post-exilic. This entirely reversed the prevailing view that P with its exact details and developed ceremonial and sacerdotal system was at once the earliest portion 863 of the Pentateuch and the Grundschrift or foundation of the whole—a view that was maintained by Ewald and, though with very important modifications, to the last by A. Dillmann (d. 1894). Inherent in this view of religious development and the new critical position were far-reaching changes in the literary, historical and religious criticism of the Old Testament: these have been gradually rendered clear as the fundamental positions on which they rest have been secured by the manifold work of two generations of scholars.

Nearly a generation passed before Vatke’s point of view gained any considerable number of adherents. This is significant. In part it may fairly be attributed to the retarding influence of the school of Ewald, but in large part also Graf; Kuenen; Wellhausen; Colenso. to the fact that Vatke, a pupil of Hegel, had developed his theory on a priori grounds in accordance with the principles of Hegel’s philosophy of history. It was only after a fresh and keener observation of facts that the new theory made rapid progress. For that, when it came, much was due to the work of Graf (a pupil of Reuss, whose Geschichtliche Bücher des Alten Testaments appeared in 1866); to the Dutch scholar Kuenen, who, starting from the earlier criticism, came over to the new, made it the basis of his Religion of Israel (1869-1870), a masterly work and a model of sound method, and continued to support it by a long series of critical essays in the Theologisch Tijdschrift; and to Wellhausen, who displayed an unrivalled combination of grasp of details and power of historical construction: his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels was published in 1878 and translated into English in 1885; the history itself, Israelitische u. jüdische Geschichte, followed twenty years later, after much further critical work had been done in the meantime. Not a little also was due to Colenso (The Pentateuch ... critically examined, pt. i., 1862), who, though he never entirely accepted the new position, contributed by his searching analysis of the unreality of P’s narrative to the formation (for example, in the mind of Kuenen) or ratification of the judgment on that work which is fundamental to the general theory.

This sketch of the critical movement has now been brought down to the point at which the comprehensive conclusions which still dominate Old Testament study gained clear expression and were shown to be drawn from the observation of a large body of facts. It does not fall within the scope of this article to examine the validity of these conclusions, nor even to notice the various subsidiary or consequential conclusions. Nor again is it possible to survey the more special developments of literary criticism which have later emerged, amongst which one of the most important has been the radical examination of the prophetic writings introduced and developed by (amongst others) Stade, Wellhausen, Duhm, Cheyne, Marti.22 The starting-point of this newer criticism of the prophets is the clearer practical recognition of the fact that all pre-exilic prophecy has come down to us in the works of post-exilic editors, and that for the old statement of the problem of the prophetic books—What prophecies or elements in Isaiah, Jeremiah and the rest are later than these prophets?—is to be substituted the new critical question—From these post-exilic collections how are the pre-exilic elements to be extracted? Bound up with this question of literary criticism is the very important question of the origin and development of the Messianic idea.

But two things, the extent of the influence of criticism and the relation of archaeology and criticism, yet remain for consideration, in the course of which it will be possible just to indicate some other problems awaiting solution.

It is one thing for scholars to reach conclusions: it is another for these conclusions to exercise a wide influence in the Churches and over general culture. In the 16th century we find obiter dicta of the Reformers challenging traditional opinions on the Influence of Criticism. origin and character of the Old Testament; in the 17th century, among certain isolated scholars, elementary critical surveys of the whole field, which exercised, however, no extensive influence. Nor was it till late in the 18th century that criticism seriously challenged the dominance of the Protestant scholastic treatment of the Old Testament on the one hand, and the rough and ready, uncritical explanations or depreciations of the Rationalists on the other. But Eichhorn’s Introduction appealed to more than technical scholars: its influence was great, and from that time forward criticism gradually or even rapidly extended its sway in Germany. Very different was the case in England; after Geddes and Lowth, at the close of the 18th, till far down into the 19th century, the attitude even of scholars (with rare exceptions) was hostile to critical developments, and no independent critical work was done. Pusey indeed studied under Eichhorn, and in his Historical Enquiry into the probable causes of the Rationalist Character lately predominant in German Theology (1828-1830) speaks sympathetically of the attitude of the Reformers on the question of Scripture and in condemnation of the later Protestant scholastic doctrine; but even in this book he shows no receptivity for any of the actual critical conclusions of Eichhorn and his successors, and subsequently threw the weight of his learning against critical conclusions—notably in his Commentary on Daniel (1864). Dean Stanley owed something to Ewald and spoke warmly of him, but the Preface to the History of the Jewish Church in which he does so bears eloquent testimony to the general attitude towards Old Testament criticism in 1862, of which we have further proof in the almost unanimous disapprobation and far-spread horror with which Colenso’s Pentateuch, pt. i., was met on its publication in the same year.

From 1869 T.K. Cheyne worked indefatigably as a resourceful pioneer, but for many years, in view of the prevailing temper, with “extreme self-suppression” and “willingness to concede to tradition all that could with any plausibility be conceded.” (Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 15); more especially is his influence observable after 1890, when he published his Bampton Lectures, the Origin of the Psalter, a work of vast learning and keen penetration, without restraint on the freedom of his judgment—always stimulating to students and fellow-workers, though by no means always carrying large numbers with him. From about 1880 the prevailing temper had changed; within a decade of this date the change had become great; since then the influence of Old Testament criticism has grown with increased acceleration. The change in the former period with regard to a single point, which is however typical of many, is briefly summed up by Dr Cheyne: “In 1880 it was still a heresy to accept with all its consequences the plurality of authorship of the Book of Isaiah; in 1890 to a growing school of church-students this has become an indubitable fact” (Origin of the Psalter, xv.). By 1906 this plurality of authorship had become almost a commonplace of the market. Many, particularly of late, have contributed to the wide distribution, if not of the critical spirit itself, yet at least of a knowledge of its conclusions. To two only of the most influential is it possible to make more definite reference—to W. Robertson Smith and S.R. Driver. From 1875 onwards Smith contributed to the 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica a long series of important articles, which, together with the articles of Cheyne, Wellhausen and others, made that work an important factor in the change which was to pass over English thought in regard to the Bible; in 1878, by his pleadings in the trial for heresy brought against him on the ground of these articles, he turned a personal defeat in the immediate issue into a notable victory for the cause which led to his condemnation; and subsequently (in 1880), in two series of lectures, afterwards published23 and widely read, he gave a brilliant, and, as it proved, to a rapidly increasing number a convincing exposition of the criticism of the literature, history and religion of Israel, which was already represented in Germany 864 by Wellhausen and in Holland by Kuenen. In 1891 Dr Driver published his Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (6th ed., 1897); less popular in form than Smith’s lectures, it was a more systematic and comprehensive survey of the whole field of the literary criticism of the Old Testament. The position of the author as regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford and canon of Christ Church in succession to Pusey, and his well-established reputation as a profound Hebrew scholar, commanded wide attention; the qualities of the book itself—its marked sobriety, its careful discrimination between the differing degrees of probability attaching to various conclusions and suggestions, and in general its soundness of method—rapidly extended the understanding of what Old Testament criticism is and commanded acceptance of the well-established conclusions.

No less rapid has been the change in America during the same period, nor less numerous the scholars well equipped to pursue the detailed investigation involved in critical study or those who have shown ability in popular presentations of the critical standpoint.24 Pre-eminent amongst these is C.A. Briggs, whose influence has been due in part to a large and varied body of work (Biblical Study, 1883, and many articles and volumes since) and in part to his organization of united critical, international and interconfessional labour, the chief fruits of which have been the Hebrew Lexicon (based on Gesenius, and edited by F. Brown, one of the most eminent of American scholars, S.R. Driver and himself), and the International Critical Commentary. Other important works in which English and American scholars have co-operated are the Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903) and Hastings’ Bible Dictionary (1898-1904)—the latter less radical, but yet on the whole based on acceptance of the fundamental positions of Vatke, Graf, Wellhausen. Between either of these and Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (1863) yawns a great gulf. Space forbids any attempt to sketch here the special growth of criticism in other countries, such as France, where the brilliant genius of Renan was in part devoted to the Old Testament, or within the Roman Catholic Church, which possesses in Père Lagrange, for example, a deservedly influential critical scholar, and in the Revue Biblique an organ which devotes much attention to the critical study of the Old Testament.

Rapid and extensive as has been the spread of critical methods, there have not been lacking anticritica. Many of these have been not only apologetic, but unscholarly; that is, however, not the case with all. In Dr James Orr’s learned work, The Problem of the Old Testament considered with reference to Recent Criticism (1906), the author’s chief aim is to prove insecure the fundamental positions of the now dominant school of criticism.

In view of extensive misconception occasioned by many of these anticritica, it needs to be pointed out that terms like “criticism,” “higher criticism,” “critics” are often loosely used: criticism is a method, its results are many. Again, many of the results or conclusions of criticism are mutually independent, while others are interrelated and depend for their validity on the validity of others. For example, among the generally or largely accepted critical conclusions are these: (1) Moses is not the author of the whole Pentateuch; (2) Isaiah is not the author of Is. xl.-lxvi.; (3) the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.; (4) the Priestly Code is post-exilic; (5) most of the Psalms are post-exilic. Now 1, 2, 3 are absolutely independent—if 1 were proved false, 2 and 3 would still stand; and so with 2 and 3; so also 2 and 3 could be proved false without in any way affecting the validity of 4. On the other hand, if 1 were disproved, 4 would immediately fall through, and the strength of 5 would be weakened (as it would also by the disproof of 2), because the argument for the date of many Psalms is derived from religious ideas and the significance of these varies greatly according as the Priestly Code is held to be early or late. In view of the number of critical conclusions and the mutual independence of many of them, “higher criticism” can only be overthrown by proving the application of criticism to the Old Testament to be in itself unlawful, or else by proving the falseness or inconclusiveness of all its mutually independent judgments one by one. On examination, the authors of anticritica are generally found to disown, tacitly or openly, the first of these alternatives; for example, Prof. Sayce, who frequently takes the field against the “higher criticism,” and denies, without, however, disproving, the validity of the literary analysis of the Hexateuch, nevertheless himself asserts that “no one can study the Pentateuch ... without perceiving that it is a compilation, and that its author, or authors, has made use of a large variety of older materials,” and that “it has probably received its final shape at the hands of Ezra” (Early History of the Hebrews, 129 and 134). This is significant enough; Prof. Sayce, the most brilliant and distinguished of the “anti-critics,” does not really reoccupy the position of the “able and pious men” of the mid-19th century, to whom “even to speak of any portion of the Bible as a history” was “an outrage upon religion” (Stanley, Jewish Church, Preface); these may still have pious, but they have no longer scholarly successors. Prof. Sayce travels farther back, it is true, but on critical lines: he abandons the Pentateuchal criticism of the 20th century, to reoccupy the critical position of Hobbes, Spinoza and Simon in the 17th century—whether reasonably or not must here be left an open question.

Briefly, in conclusion, it remains to consider the relation of Archaeology to Criticism, partly because it is frequently asserted in the loose language just discussed that Archaeology has overthrown Criticism, or in Archeology and Criticism. particular the “higher criticism,” and partly because Archaeology has stimulated and forced to the front certain important critical questions.

More especially since the middle of the 19th century the decipherment of Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions and systematic excavation in Palestine and other parts of the East have supplied a multitude of new facts bearing more or less directly on the Old Testament. What has been the general effect of these new facts on traditional theories or critical conclusions?

(1) Literary Criticism.—No discovery has yielded any direct testimony as to the authorship of any book of the Bible, or as to the mode or date of its composition. Any documentary analysis of the Pentateuch may be right or wrong; but archaeology contributes nothing either one way or another as to the answer. On the other hand, archaeology has in some cases greatly strengthened the critical judgment that certain writings (e.g. Daniel, the story of Joseph in Genesis) are not contemporary with the events described.

(2) Historical Criticism.—Here the gain has been more direct; e.g. the Assyrian inscriptions have furnished independent evidence of the relations of certain Hebrew kings (Ahab, Jehu, Ahaz) with the Assyrians, and thus supported more or less completely the evidence of the Old Testament on these points: they have also served to clear up in part the confused chronology of the Hebrews as given in the books of Kings. But above all archaeology has immensely increased our knowledge of the nations among which Israel was placed, and of the political powers which from time to time held Palestine in subjection. In this way archaeology has greatly helped to bring the history of Israel into relation with the history of the ancient East, and in so doing has raised important questions as to the origin of Hebrew culture. For example, the recent discovery of the Code of Khammurabi, which contains some remarkable resemblances to the Pentateuchal codes, raises the question of the relation of Hebrew to Babylonian law. On the other hand, there are certain great historical questions which have been greatly affected by criticism, but on which archaeology has hitherto shed no light. For example, much as archaeology has increased our knowledge of the conditions obtaining in Palestine before the Hebrew invasion, it has so far contributed nothing to our knowledge of the Hebrew nation before that time beyond the statement in the now famous stele of Merenptah (Mineptah) (c. 1270 B.C.), discovered in 1896, “Ysirael is desolated, its seed is not,” and a few possible but vague and uncertain 865 allusions to particular tribes. It has contributed nothing whatsoever to our knowledge of any Hebrew individual of this period,25 and consequently what elements of history underlie the stories in Genesis, in so far as they relate to the Hebrew patriarchs, must still be determined, if at all, by a critical study of the Old Testament. The story in Gen. xiv. is no exception to this statement: archaeology has made probable the historic reality of Chedorlaomer, which some critics had previously divined; it has not proved the historical reality of the patriarch Abraham or the part played by him in the story, which some critics, whether rightly or wrongly, had questioned. The Dutch scholar Kosters called in question the return of the Jews in the days of Cyrus; his view, adopted by many, has hardly obtained, as yet at all events, the weight of critical judgment: here again, unfortunately, archaeology at present is silent.

(3) Criticism of Religion.—Here, perhaps, archaeology has contributed most new material, with the result that religious terms, ideas, institutions, once supposed to be peculiar to Israel, are now seen to be common to them and other nations; in some cases, moreover, priority clearly does not lie with the Hebrews, as, for example, in the case of the materials (as distinct from the spirit in which they are worked up) of the stories of Creation and the Flood. Of late, too, it has been much argued, and often somewhat confidently maintained, that Hebrew monotheism is derivative from Babylonian monotheism.

This and similar questions, leading up to the ultimate and supreme question—Wherein does lie the uniqueness of Israel’s religion?—are among those which will require in the future renewed examination in the light of a critical study alike of the Old Testament and of all the relevant material furnished by archaeology. Archaeology has not yet found the key to every unopened door; but it has already done enough to justify the surmise that if criticism had not already disintegrated the traditional theories of the Old Testament, archaeology in the latter half of the 19th century would itself have initiated the process.

5. Old Testament Chronology.

A sense of the importance of a fixed standard of chronology was only acquired gradually in the history of the world. Nations in a primitive state of civilization were not, and are not, conscious of the need. When the need began to be felt events were probably at first dated by the regnal years of kings; the reigns of successive kings were then arranged in order, and grouped, if necessary, in dynasties, and thus a fixed standard was gradually constructed. Particular states also not unfrequently introduced fixed eras, which obtained a more or less extensive currency, as the era of the first Olympiad (776 B.C.), of the foundation of Rome (753 B.C.), and of the Seleucidae at Antioch (312 B.C.), which is followed by the Jewish author of the first book of Maccabees. Some of the earliest documents which we possess are dated by the year in which some noticeable event took place, as in contract-tablets of the age of Sargon of Agade (Akkad) (3800 B.C., or, according to other authorities, 2800 B.C.), “In the year in which Sargon conquered the land of Amurru [the Amorites]”; or, “In the year in which Samsu-ditana [c. 1950 B.C.] made the statue of Marduk”: Is. vi. 1 (“In the year of King Uzziah’s death”), xiv. 28, xx. 1, are examples of this method of dating found even in the Old Testament. In process of time, however, the custom of dating by the regnal year of the king became general. The Babylonians and Assyrians were probably the first to construct and employ a fixed chronological standard; and the numerous contract-tablets, and list of kings and yearly officials, discovered within recent years, afford striking evidence of the precision with which they noted chronological details. Biblical chronology is, unfortunately, in many respects uncertain. Prior to the establishment of the monarchy the conditions for securing an exact and consecutive chronology did not exist; the dates in the earlier period of the history, though apparently in many cases precise, being in fact added long after the events described, and often (as will appear below) resting upon an artificial basis, so that the precision is in reality illusory. And after the establishment of the monarchy, though the conditions for an accurate chronology now existed, errors by some means or other found their way into the figures; so that the dates, as we now have them, are in many cases at fault by as much as two to three decades of years. The exact dates of events in Hebrew history can be determined only when the figures given in the Old Testament, can be checked and, if necessary, corrected by the contemporary monuments of Assyria and Babylonia, or (as in the post-exilic period) by the knowledge which we independently possess of the chronology of the Persian kings. In the following parts of this article the chronological character of each successive period of the Old Testament history will be considered and explained as far as the limits of space at the writer’s disposal permit.

I. From the Creation of Man to the Exodus.—In the whole of this period the chronology, in so far as it consists of definite figures, depends upon that part of the Pentateuch which is called by critics the “Priestly Narrative.” The figures are in most, if not in all cases artificial, though the means now fail us of determining upon what principles they were calculated. It is also to be noted that in the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, and in the LXX., the figures, especially in the period from the Creation to the birth of Abraham, differ considerably from those given in the Hebrew, yielding in Sam. a lower, but in the LXX. a much higher total. The following tables will make the details clear:—

(1) From the Creation of Man to the Flood (Gen. v. and vii. 11).

The figures in parentheses indicate the entire ages assigned to the several patriarchs; these are generally the same in the three texts. The Sam., however, it will be noticed, makes in three cases the father’s age at the birth of his eldest son less than it is in the Heb. text, while the LXX. makes it in several cases as much as 100 years higher, the general result of these differences being that the total in the Sam. is 349 years less than in the Heb., while in the LXX. it is 606 years more. The names, it need hardly be remarked, belong to the prehistoric period, and equally with the figures are destitute of historical value.

866

(2) From the Flood to the Call of Abraham (Gen. xi.).

The variations are analogous to those under (1), except that here the birth-years of the patriarchs in both Sam. and LXX. differ more consistently in one direction, being, viz., almost uniformly higher by 100 years. It has been much debated, in both cases, which of the three texts preserves the original figures. In (2) it is generally agreed that the Heb. does this, the figures in Sam. and LXX. having been arbitrarily increased for the purpose of lengthening the entire period. The majority of scholars hold the same view in regard also to (1); but Dillmann gives here the preference to the figures of the Sam. The figures, of course, in no case possess historical value: accepting even Ussher’s date of the Exodus, 1491 B.C., which is earlier than is probable, we should obtain from them for the creation of man 4157 B.C., or (LXX.) 5328,29 and for the confusion of tongues, which, according to Gen. xi. 1-9, immediately followed the Flood, 2501 B.C., or (LXX.) 3066 B.C. But the monuments of Egypt and Babylonia make it certain that man must have appeared upon the earth long before either 4157 B.C. or 5328 B.C.; and numerous inscriptions, written in three distinct languages—Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian—are preserved dating from an age considerably earlier than either 2501 B.C. or 3066 B.C.30 The figures of Gen. v. and xi. thus merely indicate the manner in which the author of the Priestly Narrative—and probably to some extent tradition before him—pictured the course of these early ages of the world’s history. The ages assigned to the several patriarchs (except Enoch) in Gen. v. are much greater than those assigned to the patriarchs mentioned in Gen. xi., and similarly the ages in Gen. xi. 10-18 are higher than those in Gen. xi. 19-26; it is thus a collateral aim of the author to exemplify the supposed gradual diminution in the normal years of human life.

On these figures the following remarks may be made:—(i.) In Genesis the chronology of the Priestly Narrative (“P”) is not consistent with the chronology of the other parts of the book (“JE”). Three or four illustrations will suffice: (a) The author of Gen. xii. 10-20 evidently pictures Sarai as a comparatively young woman, yet according to P (xii. 4, xvii. 17) she was 65 years old. (b) In Gen. xxi. 15 it is clearly implied that Ishmael has been carried by his mother, yet according to xvi. 16, xxi. 5, 8, he must have been at least 15 years old. (c) In Gen. xxvii. Isaac is to all appearance on his death-bed (cf. ver. 2), yet according to P (xxv. 26, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 28) he survived for eighty years, dying at the age of 180. Ussher and others, arguing back from the dates in xlvii. 9, xlv. 6, xli. 46, xxxi. 41, infer that Jacob’s flight to Haran took place in his 77th year. This reduces the 80 years to 43 years, though that is scarcely less incredible. It involves, moreover, the incongruity of supposing that thirty-seven years elapsed between Esau’s marrying his Hittite wives (xxvi. 34) and Rebekah’s expressing her apprehensions (xxvii. 46) lest Jacob, then aged seventy-seven, should follow his brother’s example. (d) In Gen. xliv. 20 Benjamin is described as a “little one”; in P, almost immediately afterwards (xlvi. 21), he appears as the father of ten sons; for a similar anomaly in xlvi. 12, see the Oxford Hexateuch, i. p. 25n. (ii.) The ages to which the various patriarchs lived (Abraham, 175; Isaac, 180; Jacob, 147), though not so extravagant as those of the antediluvian patriarchs, or (with one exception) as those of the patriarchs between Noah and Abraham, are much greater than is at all probable in view of the structure and constitution of the human body. (iii.) The plain intention of Ex. xii 40, 41 is to describe the Israelites as having dwelt in Egypt for 430 years, which is also in substantial agreement with the earlier passage, Gen. xv. 13 (“shall sojourn in a land that is not theirs, ... and they shall afflict them 400 years”). It does not, however, accord with other passages, which assign only four generations from Jacob’s children to Moses (Ex. vi. 16-20; Num. xxvi. 5-9; cf. Gen. xv. 16), or five to Joshua (Josh. vii. 1); and for this reason, no doubt, the Sam. and LXX. read in Ex. xii. 40, “The sojourning of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, was 430 years,” reducing the period of the sojourn in Egypt to half of that stated in the Hebrew text, viz. 215 years. This computation attained currency among the later Jews (Josephus and others; cf. the “400 years” of Gal. iii. 17). The forced and unnatural rendering of Ex. xii. 40 in the A.V. (contrast R.V.), which was followed by Ussher, is intended for the purpose of making it possible. From the facts that have been here briefly noted it must be evident how precarious and, in parts, how impossible the Biblical chronology of this period is. (iv.) It has been observed as remarkable that 2666, the number of years (in the Hebrew text) from the Creation of Man to the Exodus, is, in round numbers, just two-thirds of 4000; and the fact has suggested the inference that the figure was reached by artificial computation.

The Date of the Exodus.—Is it possible to determine this, even approximately, upon the basis of external data? (i.) The correspondence between the Egyptian governors established in different parts of Palestine and the Egyptian kings Amen-hôtep (Amenophis) III. and IV. of the 18th dynasty, which was discovered in 1887 at Tel el-Amarna, makes it evident that Palestine could not yet have been in the occupation of the Israelites. It was still an Egyptian province, and the Babylonian language, in which the correspondence is written, shows that the country must have been for a considerable time past, before it came into the possession of Egypt, under Babylonian 867 influence. Now one of the kings, who corresponds with Amen-hotep IV., is Burnaburiash (Burna-buryas), king of Babylon, and Egyptologists and Assyriologists are agreed that the date of these monarchs was c. 1400 B.C. The conquest of Canaan, consequently, could not have taken place till after 1400 B.C. (ii.) It is stated in Ex. i. 11 that the Israelites built in Egypt for the Pharaoh two store-cities, Pithom and Rameses. The excavations of M. Naville have, however, shown that Ramses II. of the 19th dynasty was the builder of Pithom; and though the other city has not at present been certainly identified, its name is sufficient to show that he was its builder likewise. Hence the Pharaoh of the Exodus is commonly supposed to have been Ramses (Rameses) II.’s successor, Merenptah (Mineptah). Egyptian chronology is unfortunately imperfect; but Professor Petrie, who has paid particular attention to the subject, and who assigns the reign of Amen-hotep IV. to 1383-1365 B.C., assigns Ramses II. to 1300-1234 B.C.31 In Merenptah’s fifth year the Delta was invaded by a formidable body of Libyans and other foes;32 and it has been conjectured that the Israelites took the opportunity of escaping during the unsettlement that was thus occasioned.

The mention of Israel on the stele of Merenptah, discovered by Petrie in 1896 (“Israel [Ysirael] is desolated; its seed [or fruit] is not”), is too vague and indefinite in its terms to throw any light on the question of the Exodus. The context speaks of places in or near Canaan; and it is possible that the reference is to Israelite clans who either had not gone down into Egypt at all, or had already found their way back to Palestine. See Hogarth’s Authority and Archaeology, pp. 62-65.

2. From the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple (in the fourth year of Solomon, 1 Kings vi. 1).—In the chronological note, 1 Kings vi. 1, this period is stated to have consisted of 480 (LXX. 440) years. Is this figure correct? If the years of the several periods of oppression and independence mentioned in the Book of Judges (Judges iii. 8, 11, 14, 30, iv. 3, v. 31, vi. 1, viii. 28, ix. 22, x. 2, 3, 8, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14, xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvi. 31) be added up, they will be found to amount to 410 years; to these must be added further, in order to gain the entire period from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple, the 40 years in the wilderness, x years under Joshua and the elders (Judges ii. 7), the 40 (LXX. 20) years’ judgeship of Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), the 20 or more years of Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 2, 15), the y years of Saul (the two years of 1 Sam. xiii. 1 [R.V.] seem too few), the 40 years of David (1 Kings ii. 11), and the first four years of Solomon, i.e. 144 + x + y years, in all 554 years, + two unknown periods denoted by x and y—in any case considerably more than the 480 years of 1 Kings vi. 1. This period might no doubt be reduced to 480 years by the supposition, in itself not improbable, that some of the judges were local and contemporaneous; the suggestion has also been made that, as is usual in Oriental chronologies, the years of foreign domination were not counted, the beginning of each judge’s rule being reckoned, not from the victory which brought him into power, but from the death of his predecessor; we should in this case obtain for the period from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple 440 + x + y years,33 which if 30 years be assigned conjecturally to Joshua and the elders, and 10 years to Saul, would amount exactly to 480 years. The terms used, however (“and the land had rest forty years,” iii. 11, similarly, iii. 30, v. 31, viii. 28), seem hardly to admit of the latter supposition; and even if they did, it would still be scarcely possible to maintain the correctness of the 480 years: it is difficult to harmonize with what, as we have seen, appears to be the most probable date of the Exodus; it is, moreover, open itself to the suspicion of having been formed artificially, upon the assumption that the period in question consisted of twelve generations,34 of 40 years each. In the years assigned to the different judges, also, the frequency of the number 40 (which certainly appears to have been regarded by the Hebrews as a round number) is suspicious. On the whole no certain chronology of this period is at present attainable.35

3. From the Fourth Year of Solomon to the Captivity of Judah.—During this period the dates are both more abundant, and also, approximately, far more nearly correct, than in any of the earlier periods; nevertheless in details there is still much uncertainty and difficulty. The Books of Kings are a compilation made at about the beginning of the Exile, and one object of the compiler was to give a consecutive and complete chronology of the period embraced in his work. With this purpose in view, he not only notes carefully the length of the reign of each king in both kingdoms, but also (as long as the northern kingdom existed) brings the history of the two kingdoms into relation with one another by equating the commencement of each reign in either kingdom with the year of the reign of the contemporary king in the other kingdom.

In these chronological notices the lengths of the reigns were derived, there is every reason to suppose, either from tradition or from the state annals—the “book of the chronicles of Israel” (or “Judah”), so constantly referred to by the compiler as his authority (e.g. 1 Kings xv. 23, 31, xvi. 5); but the “synchronisms”—i.e. the corresponding dates in the contemporary reigns in the other kingdom were derived, it is practically certain, by computation from the lengths of the successive reigns. Now in some cases, perhaps, in the lengths of the reigns themselves, in other cases in the computations based upon them, errors have crept in, which have vitiated more or less the entire chronology of the period. The existence of these errors can be demonstrated in two ways: (1) The chronology of the two kingdoms is not consistent with itself; (2) the dates of various events in the history, which are mentioned also in the Assyrian inscriptions, are in serious disagreement with the dates as fixed by the contemporary Assyrian chronology.

(1) That the chronology of the two kingdoms is inconsistent with itself is readily shown. After the division of the kingdom the first year of Jeroboam in Israel coincides, of course, with the first year of Rehoboam in Judah; and after the death of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah in battle with Jehu (2 Kings ix. 24, 27), the first year of Jehu in Israel coincides similarly with the first year of Athaliah in Judah; there are thus in the history of the two kingdoms two fixed and certain synchronisms. Now, if the regnal years of the kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Jehoram be added together, they will be found to amount to 98, while if those of the kings of Judah for the same period (viz. from Rehoboam to Ahaziah) be added together, they amount only to 95. This discrepancy, if it stood alone, would not, however, be serious. But when we proceed to add up similarly the regnal years in the two kingdoms from the division after Solomon’s death to the fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 10), we find in the southern kingdom 260 years, and in the northern kingdom only 241 years 7 months. This is a formidable discrepancy. Ussher, in order to remove it, has recourse to the doubtful expedient of artificially lengthening the northern series of years, by assuming (without any authority in the text) an “interregnum of 11 years” after the death of Jeroboam II., and an “anarchy for some years” between Pekah and Hoshea (see the margin of A.V. at 2 Kings xiv. 29; xv. 8, 29).

868

Chronological Table.

The dates printed in heavy type are certain, at least within a unit.

(2) As we now know, the methods of chronological computation adopted by the Assyrians were particularly exact. Every year a special officer was appointed, who held office for that year, and gave his name to the year; and “canons,” or lists, of these officers have been discovered, extending from 893 to 666 B.C.49 The accuracy of these canons can in many cases be checked by the full annals which we now possess of the reigns of many of the kings—as of Asshur-nazir-abal or Assur-nasir-pal (885-860 B.C.), Shalmaneser II. (860-825), Tiglath-pileser IV. (745-727), Sargon (722-705), Sennacherib (704-781), Esarhaddon (681-668), and Asshurbanipal or Assur-bani-pal (668-626). Thus from 893 B.C. the Assyrian chronology is certain and precise. Reducing now both the Assyrian and Biblical dates to a common standard,50 and adopting for the latter the computations of Ussher, we obtain the following singular series of discrepancies:—

Manifestly all the Biblical dates earlier than 733-732 B.C. are too high, and must be considerably reduced: the two events, also, in Hezekiah’s reign—the fall of Samaria and the invasion of Sennacherib—which the compiler of the book of Kings treats as separated by an interval of eight years, were separated in reality by an interval of twenty-one years.52

872

Much has been written on the chronology of the kings and many endeavours have been made to readjust the Biblical figures so as to bring them into consistency with themselves and at the same time into conformity with the Assyrian dates. But, though the fact of there being errors in the Biblical figures is patent, it is not equally clear at what points the error lies, or how the available years ought to be redistributed between the various reigns. It is in any case evident that the accession of Jehu and Athaliah must be brought down from 884 to 842 B.C.; and this will involve, naturally, a corresponding reduction of the dates of the previous kings of both kingdoms, and of course, at the same time, of those of Solomon, David and Saul. The difficulty is, however, greatest in the 8th century. Here, in Judah, from the accession of Athaliah to the accession of Ahaz, tradition gives 143 years, whereas, in fact, there were but 106 years (842-736); and in Israel, from the death of Menahem to the fall of Samaria, it gives 31 years, whereas from 738 (assuming that Menahem died in that year) to 722 there are actually only 16 years. The years assigned by tradition to the reigns in both kingdoms in the middle part of the 8th century B.C. have thus to be materially reduced. But in the following period, from the fall of Samaria in 722 to the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans in 586, the Biblical dates, so far as we can judge, are substantially correct. (See further the table above.)

4. From the Destruction of Jerusalem in 586 to the close of the Old Testament History.—Here, though it is true that there are events in the Biblical history which are not fully or unambiguously dated, there is otherwise no difficulty. The lengths of the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors on the throne of Babylon, and also, after the conquest of Babylon, of Cyrus and the following Persian kings, are known from the “Canon of Ptolemy,” referred to above, the particulars in which, for the earlier part of this period, are also confirmed by the testimony of the monuments.

(B) New Testament.

1. Canon.

The New Testament is the collection of the Sacred Books of Christians. It forms in the Bible the distinctive possession of Christians, just as the Old Testament is the collection of Sacred Books which Christians share with Jews. Every term in the definition is significant and has a history. There are, first, the Books; then, the Collection; then, the Sacred Volume, complete as such in idea, though not as yet complete in its actual contents; and, lastly, the Sacred Volume in its full dimensions, as it has come down to us.

There is a double development, of quality and of quantity; of quality, as to the estimate formed of the books, their increasing recognition as sacred; and of quantity, by which the books so recognized were gradually brought up to their present number. Our duty will be to describe this double process, and we shall do so under the four heads: (α) The Growth of a specifically Christian Literature; (β) The Collection of the Books into a single volume, made up of ordered groups; (γ) The investing of this volume with the character of a Sacred Book; and (δ) The gradual settlement by which the volume assumed its present dimensions, neither less nor more.

The model throughout was the Old Testament. The result was attained when there was a definite volume called the New Testament by the side of the earlier volume called the Old Testament, complete like it, and like it endowed with the attributes of a Sacred Book. This is the consummation towards which events had been steadily moving—not at first consciously, for it was some time before the tendencies at work were consciously realized—but ending at last in the complete equation of Old Testament and New, and in the bracketing together of both as the first and second volumes of a single Bible. This is the process that we shall have to describe. And because the process before us is the gradual assimilation of New Testament and Old Testament, we shall have to include at each step all that bears upon this. For instance, at starting, it will not be enough for us simply to tell the story how the Books of the New Testament came to be written, but we shall have to point out what there was about them which fitted them to be what they afterwards became, what inherent qualities they possessed which suggested the estimate ultimately put upon them; in others words, how they came to be not only a collection of Christian books, but a collection of Christian sacred books, or part of a Bible.

(α) The Growth of a Christian Literature. 1. The Pauline Epistles.—The Bible of Jesus and His disciples was the Old Testament. And both Jesus and His disciples were to all appearance content with this. It was probably two full decades after the death of Christ before there were any specifically Christian writings at all. The first generation of Christians was not given to writing. There was not only no obvious reason why it should write, but there was a positive reason why it should not write. This reason lay in the dominant attitude of Christians, which was what we call “eschatological.” The first generation of Christians lived in the daily expectation that Christ would return from heaven. The truth is, that not only were Christians expecting (as we say) the Second Coming of the Messiah, but what they expected was the Coming. The Messiah, as all Jews conceived of Him, was a superhuman being; and His First Coming as a man among men did not count as really Messianic. The whole first generation of Christians looked intently for His Coming in power and great glory, which they believed to be near at hand. In such a state of mind as this there was no motive for seeking permanence by writing. Men who imagined that they might at any moment be caught up to meet the Lord in the air were not likely to take steps for the instruction of the generations that might come after them.

Hence the first Christian writings were no deliberate product of theologians who supposed themselves to be laying the foundation of a sacred volume. They were not an outcome of the dominant tendencies of the time, but they arose rather in spite of them, in the simplest way, just from the practical needs of the moment.

It was thus that St Paul came to write his two epistles to the Thessalonians, the oldest Christian documents that we possess. By this time he was launched on his missionary labours; he had founded a number of churches, and he was going on to found others. And these earliest epistles are just the substitute for his personal presence, advice which he took occasion to send to his converts after he had left them. There are a few indications that he had sent similar communications to other churches before, but these have not been preserved. Indeed the wonder is—and it is a testimony to the strength of the impression which St Paul left upon all with whom he came into contact—that these missionary letters of his should have begun to be preserved so soon.

Both Epistles to the Thessalonians have for their object to calm somewhat the excited expectations of which we have spoken.

The first Epistle hits exactly the prominent features in the situation, when it reminds the Thessalonians how they had “turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven,” who would deliver them from the wrath to come (1 Thess. i. 9, 10). The turning from idols was of course peculiar to the Gentile communities, but the waiting for the Messiah from heaven was common to all Christians, whatever their origin. In this we may take the epistle as typical of the state of the whole Church at the time. And there is another important passage which shows why, in spite of its natural and occasional character, the epistle exhibits the germs of that essential quality which caused all the books of the New Testament to be so highly estimated. The apostle again reminds his readers how they had received his preaching “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” which showed its power by the way in which it took hold of those who believed in it (1 Thess. ii. 13). The reference is of 873 course primarily to the spoken word, but the written word had the same qualities as the spoken. It was the deep impression made by these which prepared Christians generally to accept the apostolic writings as inspired, and therefore sacred. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that the estimate formed by the early Church of its Bible was a merely arbitrary verdict imposed by an external authority; it was the expression, and the natural expression (though following certain prescribed lines), of its real sense of the value and fundamentally divine origin of the writings which it treasured.

Nearest in character to the Thessalonian Epistles are the two to Corinth, which have perhaps an interval of a year and a half between them. When 1 Corinthians was written, the attitude of the Church was still strongly eschatological (1 Cor. i. 7, 8, iii. 13-15, vii. 26, 29-31, xv. 25, 26, 51-54, xvi. 23). The thoughts of men were still set upon the near approach of the end, the troublous times that would issue in the break-up of the existing order and the return of Christ to introduce a new era. There was no idea of constructing a systematic theology; Christ was still the Jewish Messiah, and His Coming was conceived of as the Jews conceived of the coming of the Messiah, as a great supernatural event transforming the face of things and inaugurating the reign of God. In view of this approaching revolution, both the Church and the world were regarded as living from hand to mouth. It was useless to attempt to found permanent institutions; everything was provisional and for the moment. And yet, even under these conditions, some practical arrangements had to be made. The epistle is taken up with matters of this kind; either the apostle is reproving disorders and abuses actually existing in the Church, and almost sure to exist in a young community that had just adopted a novel method of life and had as yet no settled understanding of the principles involved in it; or else he is replying to definite questions put to him by his converts. In all this the epistle is still a genuine letter, and not a treatise. It only rises from time to time above the level of a letter, through the extraordinary penetration, force, enthusiasm and elevation of feeling that the apostle throws into his treatment of more or less ordinary topics. He can never rest until he has carried up the question of the moment to some higher ground of faith or conduct. It is in this incidental and digressive way that we get the description of the Gospel in i. 18-ii. 16; of the Christian ministry in chs. iii., iv.; of the principle of consideration for others in ch. ix.; of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in chs. x., xi.; of Christian love in ch. xiii.; of the Resurrection and its consequences in ch. xv.

2 Corinthians is even more a product of the situation: it is even more taken up with personal relations. No epistle sheds more light on St Paul’s character as a man—so mobile, so tactful, so tender and affectionate, and yet so statesmanlike and so commanding. If doctrinal utterances occur from time to time, they are in every case incidental and unpremeditated.

The development of doctrine in St Paul’s epistles is due in part to the gradual subsiding of the eschatological temper, but even more to the growth of controversy. A crisis had arisen in Galatia owing to the invasion of the churches, which St Paul had founded there, by reactionary Jews. This called forth a letter53 from St Paul, who felt himself compelled to grapple at close quarters with teaching which he saw cut at the very root of his own. He was thus led both to clear up for himself and to state for the sake of others his whole conception of soteriology—his answer to the question how was man to be set right before God. That was a large part, and at the moment the most crucial part, of the whole problem of religion.

Two or three years later (c. A.D. 55-56) St Paul was bent on paying a visit to Rome. He was not going there straight, but to Jerusalem first. He knew that he could only do this at the imminent peril of his life. It seemed very doubtful whether he would accomplish his desire. And therefore he took the opportunity to send to the Romans what is really a summing up, not of the whole of Christianity, but of that side of Christianity which the preceding controversy had brought into special relief. He states his case as part of a larger question still—a question that inevitably became pressing at that particular time—as to the entire religious relation of Jew and Gentile.

These years of shock and conflict could not fail to have marked effect upon the shaping of definite Christian doctrine. They drew attention away from the future to the present, and to the past as leading up to the present. They compelled a man like St Paul to theorize: thought was driven inward; it was made to search for foundations, to organize itself and knit together part with part. And the impulse thus given continued. It showed itself strongly in the epistles of the next group, especially Ephesians and Colossians. These epistles took their form at once from a natural progression of thought and from a new phase of controversy, a sort of Gnosticizing theory, or theories, which perverted Christian practice and impaired the supremacy of Christ by placing other beings or entities by His side. The apostle meets this by renewed emphasis on the central position of Christ; and he at the same time carries a step farther his conception of the unity of the Church, as embracing both Jew and Gentile. The predominance of this somewhat recondite teaching gave to these epistles even more the character of treatises, which in the case of Ephesians is further enhanced by the fact that it is probably a circular letter addressed not to a single church but to a group of churches. Philemon is of course a pure letter, and Philippians mainly so, the Pastorals, as their name implies, contain advice and instructions to the apostle’s lieutenants, Timothy and Titus, in the temporary charge committed to them of churches that the apostle could not visit himself.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is an epistolary treatise of uncertain date, on the Pauline model, and by a disciple of St Paul or at least a writer strongly influenced by him, though influenced also in no small degree by the Jewish school of Alexandria represented by Philo. Of the many theories as to the address, the most plausible are perhaps those which would apply to a single congregation of Hebrew Christians in Rome, or to a local church or group of local churches in Palestine, perhaps like that of which the centre would be at Caesarea. It is not probable that the epistle was addressed to the mother church at Jerusalem.

2. The Gospels and Acts.—The Gospels and Acts arose in a way very similar to the Pauline Epistles. Here too there was no deliberate intention of writing a series of books that should be at once accepted as sacred and authoritative. Here too the expectation of the near return of Christ doubtless delayed for a number of years the desire and need for written compositions. Here too the first steps were taken as the exigencies of the moment dictated. We are again driven to fill up the gaps in our knowledge by conjectures; but some such outline as the following has much to commend it.

When the enterprise of Christian missionaries had gone on for some little time, especially in the regions outside Palestine where there was little or no previous knowledge of Christ and of Christian ideals, the wandering prophets and apostles by whom the missions were mainly conducted must have soon begun to feel the need for some sort of written manual to supplement their own personal teaching. It was one of the characteristics of the early Christian teachers that they rarely stayed for any length of time in a place; they moved on, and the little congregation was left to wait for another visitor, who might be some time in coming. How was this interval to be filled? There would be every degree of preparation, or want of preparation, for the reception of Christian teaching. Some Jews, like those who are described in the Gospel as “waiting for the kingdom of God,” would be pious men and women carefully trained in the Old Testament, who would be almost fit for the kingdom even before they had heard of Christ. Other Gentile converts would require instruction in the very rudiments of ethical and monotheistic religion. Between these extremes there would be many shades and degrees of ignorance and knowledge. How could these various cases be met at once most simply and most effectually? We remember that the Christian preachers were preaching before all things a Person, but a Person whose interest for these new converts lay chiefly in the fact that He was about to come and establish a supernatural kingdom for which they had to fit themselves. The best way therefore of helping them to do this was to provide them with an outline of the characteristic teaching of Christ, which should be at the same time a clear statement of His moral demands. It is probable that these requirements suggested the form of the first Christian Gospel, which the writer believes to be rightly identified with the so-called Logia of St Matthew, now often designated by the symbol Q. It did not aim at being a history, and still less a complete history, but it was mainly a collection of sayings or discourses suited to supply a rule of life.

It would be somewhat later than this, and not until the eschatological outlook became weaker, and men began to turn their regard to the past rather than to the future, that there would gradually arise a more strictly historical interest. There is reason to think that in the Christian Church this interest did not begin to be active much before the decade A.D. 60-70. Its first conspicuous product was our present Gospel of St Mark, which was probably composed at Rome within the years 64-70. We say advisedly “our present Gospel of St Mark,” because there does not seem to us to be any sufficient reason for presupposing an Ur-Marcus, or older form of this Gospel.

These two works, the Logia (or, as some prefer to call it, the Non-Marcan document common to Matthew and Luke) and the Mark-Gospel, were the prime factors in all the subsequent composition of Gospels. Our Matthew and our Luke are just combinations, differently constructed, of these two documents, with a certain amount of additional matter which the editors had collected for themselves. And it is probable that other Gospels of which only fragments have come down to us, like the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Peter, have been built up out of the same materials.

St Luke was the first to write, as we may see from his preface, definitely in the spirit of a historian. He addresses his work to Theophilus, apparently an official person, who had already been taught the main outlines of Christianity. He had planned his work on a large scale; and in Acts we have its second volume. It is an event of no small importance for criticism that so eminent a scholar as Prof. Harnack should have come round to the view, almost universally prevalent in England, that St Luke himself was the final editor and author of both the Third Gospel and the Acts. It is a very secondary question what is their exact date.

The reasons which converge upon the conclusion just expressed as to the origin and nature of the fundamental documents worked up in our present Synoptic Gospels are as follows:—(i.) The literary analysis of the Synoptic Gospels brings out a number of sections common to Matthew and Luke which probably at one time existed as an independent document. (ii.) This document consisted, in the main though not entirely, of a collection of Sayings of the Lord, which set in strong relief at once His character and the moral and religious ideal that He desired to commend. (iii.) We have an express statement, which must have been originally made before the end of the first century, that the apostle Matthew composed in Hebrew a work described as Logia. This word need not mean, but may quite well and pointedly mean, a collection specially of Sayings, and would still more aptly denote a collection of divine or authoritative sayings (λόγια = prop. “oracles”). (iv.) We know further that the conditions of early Christian missionary teaching were such as have been described. We learn this especially from the Didache; and the first part of that work, the so-called “Two-Ways,” is commonly thought to have been in the first instance a Jewish manual put into the hands of proselytes. On our hypothesis the Logia would have been a sort of Christian manual used with a similar object. (v.) We are confirmed in this opinion by the fact that the epistles of St Paul furnish many indications that Christians in general, including those who had not been much in contact with the original Twelve, were well acquainted with the leading features in the character of Christ and in the Christian ideal, although there is little corresponding evidence for their knowledge of details in the life of Christ.

There is a similar statement to the one mentioned above, that like it must have been originally made before the end of the first century, as to a Gospel composed by St Mark on the basis mainly of the preaching of St Peter, though this need not exclude personal experience (as, e.g., perhaps in Mark xiv. 51-52) or information derived from other sources. Only raw materials came from St Peter, and those probably not checked or revised by him; the arrangement is due to Mark himself, and is more successful than might have been expected in the circumstances—indeed so successful as to suggest advice from some good quarter. According to Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185), who is more precise than Clement of Alexandria, the Gospel was not published until after the death of Peter, which would place its composition between the limits A.D. 65 and 70. The phenomena which are sometimes supposed to require the hypothesis of an Ur-Marcus are more simply and satisfactorily explained as incidents in the transmission of the Marcan text.

The matter peculiar to Matthew and Luke raises a number of interesting questions which are still too much sub judice to 875 be answered decidedly or dogmatically, though approximate and provisional answers may before long be forthcoming. All parts of the problem have been greatly forwarded by the recent publication of important works by Wellhausen and Harnack (see below). The date of the completed Luke depends (a) on whether or not we believe Luke himself or a later disciple to be the author, and (b) whether or not we believe that the author of Acts had seen Josephus’ Antiquities, published in A.D. 93 or 94. Professor Burkitt takes an original line in maintaining that Luke was the author of both works, and yet that he had seen Antiq. The present writer is inclined to think the latter hypothesis not proven. The date of Matthew cannot be fixed more nearly than 70-100.

3. The Catholic Epistles.—The Catholic Epistles were so called in the first instance from their wider and more indefinite address; they were intended for Christians generally, or over some wide area, rather than for a particular church or individual. 2 and 3 John are exceptions, but probably came in under the wing of the larger epistle, which is strictly “catholic.” As applied to a class of epistles, the title dates from Eusebius, early in the 4th century; the epithet is given to single epistles by Origen, and is found as far back as the end of the 2nd century. In later Latin usage “catholic” came to mean much the same as “canonical,” another name that was also given.

This group of epistles practically continues and supplements the work of the epistles of St Paul, 1 Peter, if genuine, must date from the end of the apostle’s career (for the early composition claimed for it by B. Weiss is a paradox that may be disregarded). It was written to instruct and encourage the Christians of Asia Minor at a time of persecution, which on the hypothesis of genuineness, would be the Neronian, i.e. a secondary outbreak perhaps loosely connected with the onslaught in Rome. The Epistle of James (also, if genuine) must be placed late in the lifetime of the brother of the Lord. In that case it was probably not written with any direct polemic against writings of St Paul, but against hearsay versions of his teaching that had reached Jerusalem. Controversy of this kind is not always conducted with complete understanding of that which is being opposed. The Epistle of Jude cannot be either dated or localized with any certainty. It seems on the whole most probable that 2 Peter is not a genuine work, but that it came from the same factory of pseudonymous Petrine writings as the Apocalypse which bears the same name, though the one has, and the other has not, obtained a place within the Canon. This epistle was questioned from the first, and only gained its place with much hesitation, and rather through slackness of opposition than any conclusiveness of proof. The three Johannine epistles may be more conveniently treated under the next head.

Even in the case of the two more important epistles, 1 Peter and James, we have to add the qualification “if genuine,” but rather perhaps because of the persistence with which they are challenged than because of inherent defect of attestation. The evidence for 1 Peter is both early in date and wide in range, and the book was one of those that passed as “acknowledged” in antiquity. The evidence for James is not so widely diffused but is found in early writings. Perhaps the position of these two epistles might be described as not unlike that of Colossians and Ephesians. Instead of casting doubt upon them, we should prefer to say that they are both probably genuine, but that there are features about them that are not as yet fully explained. The chief of these features is their relation to the writings of St Paul. There is indeed so much that is Pauline in 1 Peter as to give distinct attractiveness to the hypothesis, which is most elaborately maintained by Zahn, that a larger share than usual in the composition of the letter was left to Silvanus (1 Peter v. 12). Nor does it appear to us that the objections to this theory brought by Dr Chase in his excellent article on the epistle in Hastings’ Dictionary are really so fatal as he supposes. The epistle is more the work of a companion of St Paul of long standing than of one who, with quite different and independent antecedents, had only been influenced by the perusal of one or two of St Paul’s letters. In the Epistle of James we have a really distinct type; and it seems to us that the degree to which the epistle misses its mark as a polemic may be easily and naturally accounted for in more ways than one.

4. The Johannine Writings.—The Gospel and Epistles that bear the name of John, and the Apocalypse, form a group of writings that stand very much by themselves and are still the subject of active discussion. The points in regard to them that would unite the greatest number of suffrages would seem to be these:—(i.) That, except 2 Peter, they are probably the latest of the New Testament writings, and that they form a group closely connected among themselves, though it is not clear how many hands have been at work in them, (ii.) That they arose not far from each other towards the end of the 1st century. The Apocalypse is plausibly dated by Reinach and Harnack near to the precise year 93, and the other writings may be referred to the reign of Domitian (81-96), though many critics would extend the limit to some two decades later, (iii.) The writings are to be connected, either more or less closely, with John of Ephesus, who was a prominent figure towards the end of the 1st century. On the other hand, the greatest differences would be:—(i.) As to the personal identity of this John—is he himself “the beloved disciple”? Is he the apostle, the son of Zebedee or another? Can the writer of the Apocalypse be the same as the writer of the Gospel and Epistles? (ii.) What is the exact relation of John of Ephesus to the Gospel? Is he its author or only the authority behind it? (iii.) How far is the Gospel intended to be, and how far is it, in the strict sense historical? This last question is beginning to overshadow all the rest.

Whatever may be the ultimate decision on these intricate questions, the Fourth Gospel in any case played a very important part in the history of the Church and of Christian theology. It drew together and gathered up into itself the forces at work in the apostolic age; and, by reaching out a hand as it were (through the preface) towards Greek philosophy, it succeeded in so formulating the leading doctrines of Christianity as to make it more acceptable than it had as yet been to the Gentile world, and in securing for the Gospel a place in the main stream of European thought. It is probably true to say that no other primitive Christian writing has had so marked an effect on all later attempts to systematize the Christian creed.

5. Other Literature not included in the New Testament.—It must not be thought that the primitive Christian literature came abruptly to an end with the writings that are included in our present New Testament. On the contrary, all round these there was a broad fringe of writings more or less approximating to them in character. Most nearly on the lines of the New Testament are the so-called Apostolic (really Sub-Apostolic) Fathers (Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, Didachē, Barnabas, the letters of Ignatius and the single letter of Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, the homily commonly known as the Second Epistle of Clement). These are in most cases the writings of leading persons in the Church who took up and continued the tradition of the apostles. Barnabas and 2 Clement are more 876 eccentric, but the writers must have been persons of some note. Outside this group would come what are called the Apocryphal Gospels and Acts (Gospel according to Hebrews, according to Egyptians, of Peter, of Truth, of the Twelve [or Ebionite Gospel], the recently recovered so-called Logia; the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas; the Preaching of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter). As the 2nd century wears on, we come to controversial or philosophical works by Agrippa, Castor, Quadratus, Aristides. With the middle of the century we reach a considerable writer in Justin Martyr. With him the twilight period which succeeds to the apostolic age is over, and we enter upon the main course of ecclesiastical history. At this point, therefore, our survey may end.

(β) The Process of Discrimination and Collection, 1. Discrimination.—Throughout the apostolic age Christians were conscious of being carried forward in a great movement, the origin and motive-power of which they regarded as supernatural. It began on the Day of Pentecost, but continued in full tide almost to the end of the 1st century, and, even when it began to subside, it did so quite gradually. The moment of transition is clearly marked in the Didachē, where the charismatic ministry of “apostles and prophets” is beginning to give place to permanent local officials of the Church, bishops, presbyters and deacons. The literature that we now call the New Testament held its place because it was regarded as a product of the palmy days of that great movement. It was considered to be the work of inspired men, of men whom the Holy Spirit, at that time specially active in the Church, had chosen as its organs. We have seen how St Paul, for instance, fully believed that his own preaching had a force behind it which vindicated for it the claim to be “the word of God” (1 Thess. ii. 13); and it was inevitable that the other preachers and teachers should have had in different degrees something of the same consciousness. This consciousness receives perhaps its strongest expression in the Apocalypse.

There is really no contradiction between this sense of a high calling and mission, with a special endowment corresponding to it, and the other fact that the writings from this age that have come down to us are all (except perhaps the Apocalypse, and even the Apocalypse, in some degree, as we see by the letters to the Seven Churches) strictly occasional and natural in their origin. The lives and actions of apostles and prophets were in their general tenor like those of other men; it was only that, for the particular purpose of their mission, they found themselves carried beyond and above themselves. St Paul himself knew when he was speaking by the Spirit, and when he was not; and we too can recognize to some extent when the afflatus comes upon him. It is fortunate that this should be so clearly marked in his epistles, because it enables us to argue by analogy to the other writers. When we come to historical books like the third Gospel and the Acts, we find the writer just pursuing the ordinary methods of history, and not claiming to do anything more (Luke i. 1-4). With the methods of history, these writers were naturally exposed to the risks and chances of error attendant upon those methods. There was hot at first among the writers any idea that they were composing an infallible narrative. The freedom with which they used each other’s work, and with which the early texts were transmitted, excludes this. But there was the idea that the whole movement of the Church to which they gave expression was in a special sense divine. And this belief was the fundamental principle that determined the marking off of the writings of the first, or apostolic, age from the rest.

At the same time it must not be supposed that a hard and fast line can be drawn beyond which the spiritual stimulus of this first age ceased. The writings of Clement of Rome (A.D. 97) and of Ignatius (c. A.D. 110) mark the transition. Ignatius, for instance, clearly distinguishes between his own position and that of the apostles: “I do not enjoin you. as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour” (Rom. iv. 3). And yet, none the less, Ignatius is conscious of acting and speaking at times from a kind of inspiration. “Even though certain persons desired to deceive me after the flesh, yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it knoweth whence it cometh and where it goeth, and it searcheth out the hidden things. I cried out, when I was among you; I spake with a loud voice, with God’s own voice, give ye heed to the bishops, and the presbyters and deacons” (Philadelph. vii. 1). In like manner Clement, in two places (lix. 1, lxiii. 2), writes as though God were speaking through him.

2. Collection.—Concurrently with the tendency to discriminate between the higher authority of certain writings and the lower authority of others, there was also a tendency to collect and group together writings of the first class. The earliest example of this tendency is in the case of the Pauline Epistles. Marcion, we know (c. A.D. 140), had a collection of ten out of thirteen, in the order, Gal., 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodic. (= Eph.), Col., Phil., Philem. We observe that the Pastorals are omitted. But it is highly probable that the collection went back a full generation before Marcion. The short Epistle of Polycarp contains references or allusions to no less than nine out of the thirteen epistles, including 2 Thess., Eph., 1 and 2 Tim. Ignatius, writing just before, gives clear indications of six, including 1 Tim. and Titus. The inference lies near at hand that both writers had access to the full collection of thirteen, not omitting the Pastorals. Polycarp (ad Phil. xiii. 2) shows how strong was the interest in collecting the writings of eminent men.

It of course did not follow that, because the letters of St Paul were collected, they were therefore regarded as sacred. The feeling towards them at first would be simply an instinct of respect and deference; but we have seen above that the essential conditions of the higher estimate were present all along, and were only waiting to be recognized as soon as reflective thought was turned upon them. This process appears to have been going on throughout the middle years of the 2nd century.

The famous passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii. 15. 8) assumes the possession by the Church of four authoritative Gospels and no more. This is the general view of the Church of his time, except the little clique known as the Alogi who rejected the Fourth Gospel, and Marcion, who only recognized St Luke. But here again, we may go back some way farther. Irenaeus writes (c. A.D. 185) as though the Four Gospels had held the field as far back as he can remember. About A.D. 170 Tatian, the disciple of Justin, composed out of these Gospels his Diatessaron. If Justin used any other Gospel, his use of it was very subordinate. Practically we may say that the estimate of the Four to which Tatian and Irenaeus testify must have been well established by the middle of the century, though sporadic instances may be found of the use of other Gospels that did not become canonical. The sifting out of these was proceeding steadily and gradually, and by the end of the century it may be regarded as complete.

We must make allowance for the existence of this margin, and for the blurring of the boundary-line that goes along with it. We cannot claim for the Church absolute sureness of judgment as to what falls on one side of the line and what on the other. It is possible, e.g., that a mistake has been made in the case of 2 Peter, which, however, is edifying enough. It is not less possible that writings like 1 Clem, and Epp. Ignat. are not inferior in real religious value to the Epistle of Jude. But, broadly speaking, the judgment of the early Church has been endorsed by that of after ages.

3. Influences at work.—The whole process of the formation of the New Testament was steady and gradual. The critical period, during which the conception grew up of the New Covenant with its sacred book by the side of the Old Covenant, which in its written embodiment we call the Old Testament, extends roughly over the 2nd century. By the last decades of that century a preliminary list of these new Sacred Books had been formed and placed by the side of the Old with substantially the same attributes. We must briefly sketch the process by which this came about, tracing the causes which led to the result and indicating the manner in which they operated.

We have seen that the ultimate cause was the consciousness on the part of the Church that the first age of its own history was characterized by spiritual workings more intense than other times. This feeling had been instinctive, and it found expression in several ways, each one of them partial, when taken alone, but obtaining their full effect in combination. It should be understood that the goal towards which events were moving all the time was the equalizing of the New Testament with the Old Testament.

(γ) Provisional Canon of New Testament (end of 2nd century).—By the last quarter of the 2nd century the conception of a Christian Bible in two parts, Old Testament and New Testament, may be said to be definitely established. Already at the beginning of this period Melito had drawn up a list of the twenty-two Books of the Old Covenant, i.e. of the documents to which the Old Covenant made its appeal. It was a very short step to the compiling of a similar list for the New Covenant, which by another very short step becomes the New Testament, by the side of the Old Testament. It is therefore not surprising, though a piece of great good fortune, that there should be still extant a list of the New Testament books that may be roughly dated from the end of the century. This list published by Muratori in 1740, and called after him “the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon,” is commonly believed to be of Roman origin and to be a translation from the Greek, though there are a few dissentients on both heads. The list recognized four Gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, two epistles of John, Jude, Apocalypse of John and (as the text stands) of Peter; there is no mention of Hebrews or (apparently) of 3 John or Epistles of Peter, where it is possible—we cannot say more—that the silence as to 1 Peter is accidental; the Shepherd of Hermas on account of its date is admitted to private, but not public, reading; various writings associated with Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides and Montanus are condemned.

When the data of Fragm. Murat. are compared with those supplied by the writers of the last quarter of the 2nd and first of the 3rd centuries (Tatian, Theoph. Ant., Iren., Clem. Alex., Tert., Hippol.), it is seen that there is a fixed nucleus of writings that is acknowledged, with one exception, over all parts of the Christian world. The exception is the Syriac-speaking Church of Edessa and Mesopotamia. This Church at first acknowledged only the Gospel (in the form of Tatian’s Diatessaron), Acts and the Epistles of Paul. These seem to have been the only books translated immediately upon the foundation of the Edessan Church, though an edition of the separate Gospels must have followed either before or very soon afterwards. In all other churches the four Gospels, Acts and Epistles of Paul are fixed, with the addition in nearly all of 1 Peter, 1 John. The Apocalypse was generally accepted in the West. Hebrews and James were largely accepted in the East.

In the 3rd century the conspicuous figure is Origen (ob. 253), whose principal service was, through the vast range of his knowledge, his travels and his respect for tradition wherever he found it, to keep open the wider limits of the Canon. There is not one of our present books that he does not show himself inclined to accept, though he notes the doubts in regard to 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. Later in the century Dionysius of Alexandria applies some acute criticism to justify the Alexandrian dislike of the Apocalypse.

(δ) The Final Canon (4th century).—Early in the 4th century Eusebius, as a historian reviews the situation (H.E. iii. 25. 1). He makes three classes; the first, including the Gospels, Acts, Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, is acknowledged; to these, if one likes, one may add the Apocalypse. The second class is questioned, but accepted by the majority; viz. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. The third class, of works to be decidedly rejected, contains the Acts of Paul, Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, Didachē; to these some would add Apoc. of John, and others Ev. sec. Hebr. About the same time another line of tradition is represented by Lucian and the school of Antioch. The vernacular Church of Syria represented yet a third. In Egypt the uncertainty and laxity of usage was still greater. This state of things the great Athanasius set himself to correct, and he did so by laying down a list identical with our New Testament as we have it now. It was very largely the influence of Athanasius that finally turned the scale. He was peculiarly qualified for exercising this influence, as his long exile in the West made him familiar with Western usage, while he was also able to bring to the West the usage that he was trying to establish in the East. His efforts would be helped by Westerns, like Hilary and Lucifer, who were exiled to the East. The triumph of the Athanasian Canon, indeed, went along with the triumph of Nicene Christianity. And while the movement 878 received its impulse from Athanasius, the power by which it was carried through and established was largely that of his powerful ally, the Church of Rome.

The final victory was no doubt a little delayed. Asia Minor and Syria were for most of the 4th century divided between the following of Eusebius (Cyril of Jerusalem in A.D. 348, Gregory of Nazianzus, the list of Apost. Can. 85, that attached to Can. 59 of the Council of Laodicea, c. A.D. 363) and the school of Antioch. The leading members of that school adopted 3 Epp. Cath. (James, 1 Peter, 1 John), Theod. Mops. omitting this group altogether, and the whole school omitting Apoc. Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 380) gives the two lists, Eusebian and Antiochene, as alternatives. The Eusebian list only wanted the complete admission of the Apocalypse to be identical with the Athanasian; and Athanasius had one stalwart supporter in Epiphanius (ob. 403).

The original Syriac list, as we have seen, had neither Epp. Cath. nor Apoc. The Peshito version, in regard to which Professor Burkitt’s view is now pretty generally accepted, that it was the work of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, 411-433, added the 3 Epp. Cath. The remaining 4 Epp. Cath. and Apoc. were supplied in the Philoxenian version of 508, and retained in the Harklean revision of 616. But both these were Monophysite and of limited use, and the Nestorians still went on using the Peshito.

Meantime, in the West, an important Synod was held by Damasus at Rome in 382 which, under the dominant influence of Jerome and the Athanasian tradition, drew up a list corresponding to the present Canon. This was ratified by Pope Gelasius (492-496), and independently confirmed for the province of Africa by a series of Synods held at Hippo Regius in 393, and at Carthage in 397 and 419, under the lead of Augustine. The formal completion of the whole process in East and West was reserved for the Quinisextine Council (Council in Trullo) of 692. But even after that date irregularities occur from time to time, especially in the East.

In the fixing of the Canon, as in the fixing of doctrine, the decisive influence proceeded from the bishops and the theologians of the period 325-450. But behind these was the practice of the greater churches; and behind that again was not only the lead of a few distinguished individuals, but the instinctive judgment of the main body of the faithful. It was really this instinct that told in the end more than any process of quasi-scientific criticism. And it was well that it should be so, because the methods of criticism are apt to be, and certainly would have been when the Canon was formed, both faulty and inadequate, whereas instinct brings into play the religious sense as a whole; with spirit speaking to spirit rests the last word. Even this is not infallible; and it cannot be claimed that the Canon of the Christian Sacred Books is infallible. But experience has shown that the mistakes, so far as there have been mistakes, are unimportant; and in practice even these are rectified by the natural gravitation of the mind of man to that which it finds most nourishing and most elevating.

2. Texts and Versions.

The apparatus criticus of the New Testament consists, from one point of view, entirely of MSS.; but these MSS. may be divided into three groups: (A) Greek MSS., which in practice are known “The MSS,” (B) MSS. of versions in other languages representing translations from the Greek, (C) MSS. of other writings whether in Greek or other languages which contain quotations from the New Testament.

(A) Greek MSS.—These may be divided into classes according to style of writing, material, or contents. The first method distinguishes between uncial or majuscule, and cursive or minuscule; the second between papyrus, vellum or parchment, and paper (for further details see Manuscript and Palaeography); and the third distinguishes mainly between Gospels, Acts and Epistles (with or without the Apocalypse), New Testaments (the word in this connexion being somewhat broadly interpreted), lectionaries and commentaries.

Quite accurate statistics on this subject are scarcely attainable. Von Soden’s analysis of numbers, contents and date may be tabulated as follows, but it must be remembered that it reckons many small fragments as separate MSS., especially in the earlier centuries. It is also necessary to add that there is one small scrap of papyrus of the 3rd century containing a few verses of the 4th Gospel.

Plate I.

Fig. 1.—Codex Vaticanus (From facsimile ed. by J. Cozza-Luzi, 1889-1890.)	Fig. 2.—Codex Sinaiticus (From facsimile published by Palaeographical Soc. 1873.)
Fig. 3.—Codex Alexandrinus. (British Museum.)	Fig. 4.—From a probable Northumbrian Copy of the Codex Amiatinus. (British Museum.)
Fig. 5.—Pentateuch in Hebrew, 9th Century. (British Museum.)	Fig. 6.—Vulgate. (From MS written for the monastery of Ste Marie de Parco, Louvain, A.D. 1148. British Museum.)

Plate II.

Fig. 7.—13th Century Latin Bible. (From copy belonging to Robert de Bello, abbot of St Augustine’s, Canterbury. British Museum.)	Fig. 8.—Early Wycliffite Version. (From copy belonging to Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, written towards the end of 14th century. British Museum.)
Fig. 9.—The 42-Line Bible. (Printed at Mainz, 1452-6. British Museum.)	Fig. 10.—Tyndale’s Quarto Edition of New Testament. (Printed by P. Quentel, Cologne, 1525, from the only remaining fragment, in British Museum.)
Fig. 11.—First printed English Bible, 1535. (British Museum.)	Fig. 12.—First Edition of the Authorized Version, 1611. (British Museum.)

879

This table says nothing about style of writing or material, but it may be taken as a general rule that MSS. earlier than the 13th century are on vellum and later than the 14th century are on paper, and that MSS. earlier than the 9th century are uncial and later than the 10th are minuscule. There are said to be 129 uncial MSS. of the New Testament (Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 45), but it is not easy to be quite accurate on the point.

Besides the MSS. mentioned in the table above, there are 281 MSS. containing commentaries on the Gospels, 169 on Acts and Epistles, 66 on the Apocalypse, 1072 lectionaries of the Gospels and 287 of Acts and Epistles, making a grand total of 3698 MSS. It must be remembered that the dating of the MSS., especially of minuscules, is by no means certain: Greek Palaeography is a difficult subject, and not all the MSS. have been investigated by competent palaeographers.

The notation of this mass of MSS. is very complicated. There are at present two main systems: (1) Since the time of Wetstein it has been customary to employ capital letters, at first of the Latin and latterly also of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, to designate the uncials, and Arabic figures to designate the minuscules. Of this system there are two chief representatives, Gregory and Scrivener. These agree in the main, but differ for the more recently discovered minuscules. Gregory’s notation is more generally used, and Scrivener’s, though still followed by a few English scholars, is likely to become obsolete. This method of notation has various disadvantages. There are not enough letters to cover the uncials, the same letter has to serve for various fragments which are quite unconnected except by the accident of simultaneous discovery, and no information is given about the MS. referred to. (2) To remedy these drawbacks an entirely new system was introduced in 1902 by von Soden in his Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, Bd. 1, Abt. 1, pp. 33-40. He abandons the practice of making a distinction between uncial and minuscule, on the ground that for textual criticism the style of writing is less important than the date and contents of a MS. To indicate these he divided MSS. into three classes, (1) New Testaments (the Apocalypse being not regarded as a necessary part), (2) Gospels, and (3) Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse (the latter again being loosely regarded). These three classes he distinguished as δ (= διαθήκη), ε (= εὐαγγέλιον) and α (= ἀπόστολος). To these letters he attaches numbers arranged on a principle showing the century to which the MS. belongs and defining its contents more precisely. The number is determined thus:—MSS. of the δ and α classes from the earliest period to the 9th century inclusive are numbered 1 to 49; those of the 10th century 50 to 99; for the later centuries numbers of three figures are used, and the choice is made so that the figure in the hundreds’ place indicates the century, 1 meaning 11th century, 2 meaning 12th century, and so on; to all these numbers the appropriate letter, if it be δ or α, must be always prefixed, but if it be ε, only when there is any chance of ambiguity. In δ MSS. a distinction is made for those of the 11th and subsequent centuries by reserving 1 to 49 in each hundred for MSS. containing the Apocalypse, 50 to 99 for those which omit it. Similarly, in α MSS. a distinction is made according to their contents; the three-figure numbers are reserved for MSS. which contain Acts, Catholic Epistles and Pauline Epistles with or without the Apocalypse, the presence or absence of which is indicated as in the δ MSS.; but when a MS. consists of only one part a “1” is prefixed, thus making a four-figure number, and the precise part is indicated by the two last of the four figures; 00-19 means Acts and Catholic Epistles, 20-69 means Pauline Epistles and 70-99 means Apocalypse. In the case of ε MSS. 1-99 is used for the earliest MSS. up to the 9th century, and as this is insufficient, the available numbers are increased by prefixing a 0, and reckoning a second hundred from 01 to 099; 1000 to 1099 are MSS. of the 10th century; 100 to 199 are MSS. of the 11th century, 200-299 of the 12th century, and so on; as this is insufficient, the range of numbers is increased by prefixing a 1, and so obtaining another hundred, e.g. 1100 to 1199, and in the 12th and subsequent centuries, where even this is not enough, by passing on to the thousands and using 2000-2999 for the 12th century, 3000-3999 for the 13th and so on. In each case ε is prefixed whenever there is any chance of ambiguity. It is claimed that this system gives the maximum of information about a MS., and that it leaves room for the addition of any number of MSS. which are likely to be discovered. At present it has not seriously threatened the hold of Gregory’s notation on the critical world, but it will probably have to be adopted, at least to a large extent, when von Soden’s text is published.

It is neither possible nor desirable to give any description of most of these MSS., but the following are, critically, the most important.

(B) The Versions.—These are generally divided into (α) primary and (β) secondary; the former being those which represent translation made at an early period directly from Greek originals, and the latter being those which were made either from other versions or from late and unimportant Greek texts.

(C) Quotations in Patristic Writings.—The value of this source of evidence lies in the power which it gives us to date and localize texts. Its limitations are found in the inaccuracy of quotation of the writers, and often in the corrupt condition of their text. This latter point especially affects quotations which later scribes frequently forced into accord with the text they preferred.

3. Textual Criticism.

The problem which faces the textual critic of the New Testament is to reconstruct the original text from the materials supplied by the MSS., versions, and quotations in early writers, which have been described in the preceding section on the apparatus criticus. His object, therefore, is to discover and remove the various corruptions which have crept into the text, by the usual methods of the textual critic—the collection of material, the grouping of MSS. and other authorities, the reconstruction of archetypes, and the consideration of transcriptional and intrinsic probability. No book, however, presents such a complicated problem or such a wealth of material for the textual critic.

In a certain wide sense the textual criticism of the New Testament began as soon as men consciously made recensions and versions, and in this sense Origen, Jerome, Augustine and many other ecclesiastical writers might be regarded as textual critics. But in practice it is general, and certainly convenient, to regard their work rather as material for criticism, and to begin the history of textual criticism with the earliest printed editions which sought to establish a standard Greek Text. It is, of course, impossible here to give an account of all these, but the following may fairly be regarded as the epoch-making books from the beginning to the present time.

4. Higher Criticism.

The New Testament is a series of early Christian writings which the Church came to regard as canonical, i.e. they were placed in the same category as the Old Testament, the writings which the Christian had inherited from the Jewish Church. Just as the ancient Scriptures were considered to be the Word of God, so that what they contained was necessarily the true and inspired doctrine, so also the New Testament was available for proving the Church’s dogma. The assured canonicity of the whole New Testament resulted in its use by the medieval theologians, the Schoolmen, as a storehouse of proof-texts. Thus the New Testament seemed to exist in order to prove the Church’s conclusions, not to tell its own tale.

The Novum Instrumentum published by Erasmus in 1516 (see above, Textual Criticism) contained more than the mere Editio Princeps of the Greek text: Erasmus accompanied it with a Latin rendering of his own, in which Erasmus. he aimed at giving the meaning of the Greek without blindly following the conventional phraseology of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only form in which the New Testament had been current in western Europe for centuries. This rendering of Erasmus, together with his annotations and prefaces to the several books, make his editions the first great monument of modern Biblical study. Medieval Bibles contain short prefaces by St Jerome and others. The stereotyped information supplied in these prefaces was drawn from various sources: Erasmus distinguishes, e.g., between the direct statements in the Acts and the inferences which may be drawn from incidental allusions in the Pauline Epistles, or from the statements of ancient non-canonical writers.54 This discrimination of sources is the starting-point of scientific criticism.

The early champions of Church reform in the beginning of the 16th century found in the Bible their most trustworthy weapon. The picture of Apostolical Christianity found in the New Testament offered indeed a glaring The Reformers. contrast to the papal system of the later middle ages. Moreover, some of the “authorities” used by the Schoolmen had been discovered by the New Learning of the Renaissance to be no authorities at all, such as the writings falsely attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite. When, therefore, the breach came, and the struggle between reformers and conservatives within the undivided Church was transformed into a struggle between Protestants and Romanists, it was inevitable that the authority which in the previous centuries had been ascribed to the Church should be transferred by the Reformed Churches to the Bible. “The Bible, the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants”55 did really express the watchword of the anti-Romanist parties, especially towards the close of the acuter struggle. At the beginning of the movement the New Testament itself had been freely criticized. Luther, like his countrymen of to-day, judged the contents of the New Testament by the light of his leading convictions; and in his German translation, which occupies the same place in Germany as the Authorized Version of 1611 does in English-speaking lands, he even placed four of the books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Apocalypse) in an appendix at the end, with prefaces explanatory of this drastic act of criticism. But though we may trace a real affiliation between the principles of Luther and modern German critical study—notably in the doctrines of the Gospel within the Gospel and of the residual Essence of Christianity—Luther’s discriminations were in the 17th century ignored in practice.

From cover to cover the whole New Testament was regarded at the beginning of the 18th century by almost all Protestants as the infallible revelation of the true religion. The doctrines of Christianity, and in many communities Influence of textual criticism. the customs of the Church, were held to be inferences from the inspired text of the Scriptures. The first serious blow to this view came from the study of textual criticism. The editions of Mill (1707) and of Wetstein (1751) proved once for all that variations in the text, many of them serious, had existed from the earliest times. It was evident, therefore, that the true authority of the New Testament could not be that of a legal code which is definite in all its parts. More important still was the growing perception of the general uniformity of nature, which had forced itself with increasing insistence upon men’s minds as the study of the natural sciences progressed in the 17th and 18th centuries. The miracles of the New Testament, which had formerly been received as bulwarks of Christianity, now appeared as difficulties needing explanation. Furthermore, the prevailing philosophies of the 18th century tended to demand that a real divine revelation should be one which expressed itself in a form convincing to the reason of the average plain man, whatever his predispositions might be; it was obvious that the New Testament did not wholly conform to this standard.

But if the New Testament be not itself the direct divine revelation in the sense of the 18th century, the question still remains, how we are to picture the true history of the rise of Christianity, and what its true meaning is. Rationalists. This is the question which has occupied the theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps the most significant event from which to date the modern period is the publication by Lessing in 1774-1777 of the “Wolfenbüttel Fragments,” i.e. H.S. Reimarus’ posthumous attack on Christianity, a work which showed that the mere study of the New Testament is not enough to compel belief in an unwilling reader. Lessing’s publication also helped to demonstrate the weakness of the older rationalist position, a position which really belongs to the 18th century, though its best-remembered exponent, Dr H.E.G. Paulus, only died in 1851. The characteristic of the rationalists was the attempt to explain away the New Testament miracles as coincidences or naturally occurring events, while at the same time they held as tenaciously as possible to the accuracy of the letter of the New Testament narratives. The opposite swing Strauss. of the pendulum appears in D.F. Strauss: in his Leben Jesu (1833) he abandons the shifts and expedients by which the rationalists eliminated the miraculous from the Gospel stories, but he abandons also their historical character. According to Strauss the fulfilments of prophecy in the New Testament arise from the Christians’ belief that the Christian Messiah must have fulfilled the predictions of the prophets, and the miracles of Jesus in the New Testament either originate in the same way or are purely mythical embodiments of Christian doctrines.

887

The main objection to this presentation, as also to that of the rationalists, is that it is very largely based not upon the historical data, but upon a pre-determined theory. Granted the philosophical basis, the criticism practised Tübingen school. upon the New Testament by Paulus and Strauss follows almost automatically. Herein lies the permanent importance of the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur, professor of theology at Tübingen from 1826 to 1860. The corner-stone of his reconstruction of early Christian history is derived not so much from philosophical principles as from a fresh study of the documents. Starting from Galatians and I Corinthians, which are obviously the genuine letters of a Christian leader called Paul to his converts, Baur accepted 2 Corinthians and Romans as the work of the same hand. From the study of these contemporary and genuine documents, he elaborated the theory that the earliest Christianity, the Christianity of Jesus and the original apostles, was wholly Judaistic in tone and practice. Paul, converted to belief in Jesus as Messiah after the Crucifixion, was the first to perceive that for Christians Judaism had ceased to be binding. Between him and the older apostles arose a long and fierce controversy, which was healed only when at last his disciples and the Judaizing disciples of the apostles coalesced into the Catholic Church. This only occurred, according to Baur, early in the 2nd century, when the strife was finally allayed and forgotten. The various documents which make up the New Testament were to be dated mainly by their relation to the great dispute. The Apocalypse was a genuine work of John the son of Zebedee, one of the leaders of the Judaistic party, but most of the books were late, at least in their present form. The Acts, Baur thought, were written about A.D. 140, after the memory of the great controversy had almost passed away. All four Gospels also were to be placed in the 2nd century, though that according to Matthew retained many features unaltered from the Judaistic original upon which it was based.

The Tübingen school founded by Baur dominated the theological criticism of the New Testament during a great part of the 19th century and it still finds some support. The main position was not so much erroneous as one-sided. Later views. The quarrel between St Paul and his opponents did not last so long as Baur supposed, and the great catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem effectually reduced thorough-going Judaistic Christianity into insignificance from A.D. 70 onwards. Moreover, St Paul’s converts do not seem to have adopted consistent “Paulinism” as a religious philosophy. St Paul was an emancipated Jew, but his converts were mostly Greeks, and the permanent significance of St Paul’s theories of law and faith only began to be perceived after his letters had been collected together and had been received into the Church’s canon. All these considerations tend to make the late dates proposed by Baur for the greater part of the New Testament books unnecessary; the latest investigators, notably Professor A. Harnack of Berlin, accept dates that are not far removed from the ancient Christian literary tradition.

Literary criticism of the Gospels points to a similar conclusion. A hundred years’ study of the synoptic problem, i.e. the causes which make the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke at once so much alike and so different, has resulted in the demonstration of the priority of Mark, which “was known to Matthew and Luke in the same state and with the same contents as we have it now.”56 This Gospel may be dated a very few years after A.D. 70. Luke and Matthew appear to have been published between 80 and 100.57 Besides the Gospel of Mark these Evangelists made use of another document, now lost, which contained many sayings of Jesus and some narratives not found in Mark. This document is by many scholars identified with the “Logia,” mentioned by Papias (Eusebius, Ch. Hist. in. 39) as being the work of Matthew the Apostle, but the identification is not certain.

The Johannine writings, i.e. the Fourth Gospel and the three Epistles of John, represent the view of Christ and Christianity taken by a Christian teacher, who seems to have lived and written in Asia Minor at the close of the 1st century A.D. The value of the Fourth Gospel as a narrative of events is a matter of dispute, but the view of the personality of Jesus Christ set forth in it is unquestionably that which the Church has accepted.

The discoveries of papyri in Upper Egypt during recent years, containing original letters written by persons of various classes and in some cases contemporary with the Epistles of the New Testament, have immensely increased our knowledge of the Greek of the period, and have cleared up not a few difficulties of language and expression. More important still is the application of Semitic study to elucidate the Gospels. It is idle indeed to rewrite the Gospel narratives in the Aramaic dialect spoken by Christ and the apostles, but the main watchwords of the Gospel theology—phrases like “the Kingdom of God,” “the World to come,” the “Father in Heaven,” “the Son of Man,”—can be more or less surely reconstructed from Jewish writings, and their meaning gauged apart from the special significance which they received in Christian hands. This line of investigation has been specially followed by Professor G. Dalman in his Worte Jesu. The study of the Semitic elements in early Christianity is less advanced than the study of the Greek elements, so that it is doubtless from the Semitic side that further progress in the criticism of the New Testament may be expected.

5. New Testament Chronology.

The subject of the chronology of the New Testament falls naturally into two distinct sections—the chronology of the Gospels, that is, of the life of Christ; and the chronology of the Acts, that is, of the apostolic age.

The Chronology of the Gospels.

The data group themselves round three definite points and the intervals between them: the definite points are the Nativity, the Baptism and the Crucifixion; the age of Christ at the time of the Baptism connects the first two points, and the duration of his public ministry connects the second and third. The results obtained under the different heads serve mutually to test, and thereby to correct or confirm, one another.

1. The date of the Nativity as fixed according to our common computation of Anni Domini (first put forward by Dionysius Exiguus at Rome early in the 6th century) has long been recognized to be too late. The fathers of the primitive church had been 888 nearer the truth with the years 3 or 2 B.C. (see Irenaeus, Haer. 111. xxi. 3 [xxiv. 2]; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. i. 21, p. 147; Hippolytus, in Danielem, iv. ed. Bonwetsch, p. 242; [Tertullian], adv. Judaeos, 8). What may be called the received chronology during the last two centuries has pushed the date farther back to 4 B.C. But the considerations now to be adduced make it probable that the true date is earlier still.

(a) Evidence of St Matthew’s Gospel (i. 18-ii. 22).—The birth of Christ took place before the death of Herod, and the evidence of Josephus fixes the death of Herod, with some approach to certainty, in the early spring of 4 B.C. Josephus, indeed, while he tells us that Herod died not long before Passover, nowhere names the exact year; but he gives four calculations which serve to connect Herod’s death with more or less known points, namely, the length of Herod’s own reign, both from his de jure and from his de facto accession, and the length of the reigns of two of his successors, Archelaus and Herod Philip, to the date of their deposition and death respectively. The various calculations are not quite easy to harmonize, but the extent of choice for the year of Herod’s death is limited to the years 4 and 3 B.C., with a very great preponderance of probability in favour of the former. How long before this the Nativity should be placed the Gospel does not enable us to say precisely, but as Herod’s decree of extermination included all infants up to two years of age, and as a sojourn of the Holy Family in Egypt of unknown length intervened between the massacre and Herod’s death, it is clear that it is at least possible, so far as the evidence of this Gospel goes, that the birth of Christ preceded Herod’s death by as much as two or three years. What is thus shown to be possible would, of course, be necessary if we went on, with the astronomer Kepler, to identify the star of the Magi with the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn which occurred, in the constellation Pisces, in May, October and December of 7 B.C.58

(b) Evidence of St Luke’s Gospel (ii. 1-8).-The birth of Christ took place at the time of a general census of the empire ordered by Augustus: “it was the first census, and was made at the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Against this account it has been urged that we know that the governorship of Syria from 10 or 9 B.C. down to and after Herod’s death was held successively by M. Titius, C. Sentius Saturninus, and P. Quintilius Varus; and further, that when Judaea became a Roman province on the deposition of Archelaus in A.D. 6, Quirinius was governor of Syria, and did carry out an elaborate census. The notice in the Gospel, it is suggested, grew out of a confused recollection of the later (and only historical) census, and is devoid of any value whatever. At the other extreme Sir W. M. Ramsay (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?, 1898, pp. 149 ff.) defends the exact accuracy of St Luke’s “first census” as witnessing to the (otherwise of course unknown) introduction into Syria of the periodic fourteen years’ census which the evidence of papyri has lately established for Egypt, at least from A.D. 20 onwards. Reckoning back from A.D. 20, the periodic census should fall in 9 B.C., but Ramsay alleges various causes for delay, which would have postponed the actual execution of the census till 7 B.C., and supposes that Quirinius was an imperial commissioner specially appointed to carry it out. The truth seems to rest midway between these extremes. St Luke’s statement of a general census is in all probability erroneous, and the introduction of the name Quirinius appears to be due to confusion with the census of A.D. 6. But the confusion in question would only be possible, or at any rate likely, if there really was a census at the time of the Nativity; and it is no more improbable that Herod should have held, or permitted to be held, a local census than that Archelaus of Cappadocia in the reign of Tiberius (Tacitus, Ann. vi. 41) should have taken a census of his own native state “after the Roman manner.” But St Luke’s account, when the name of Quirinius is subtracted from it, ceases to contain any chronological evidence.

(c) Evidence of Tertullian.—Strangely enough, however, the missing name of the governor under whom the census of the Nativity was carried out appears to be supplied by an author who wrote more than a century after St Luke, and has by no means a good reputation for historical trustworthiness. Tertullian, in fact (adv. Marcionem, iv. 19), employs against Marcion’s denial of the true humanity of Christ the argument that it was well known that Sentius Saturninus carried out a census under Augustus in Judaea, by consulting which the family and relationships of Christ could have been discovered. This Saturninus was the middle one of the three governors of Syria named above, and as his successor Varus must have arrived by the middle of 6 B.C. at latest (for coins of Varus are extant of the twenty-fifth year of the era of Actium), his own tenure must have fallen about 8 and 7 B.C., and his census cannot be placed later than 7 or 7-6 B.C. The independence of Tertullian’s information about this census is guaranteed by the mere fact of his knowledge of the governor’s name; and if there was a census about that date, it would be unreasonable not to identify it with St Luke’s census of the Nativity.

The traditional Western day for the Christmas festival, 25th December, goes back as far as Hippolytus, loc. cit.; the traditional Eastern day, 6th January, as far as the Basilidian Gnostics (but in their case only as a celebration of the Baptism), mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, loc. cit.

2. The interval between the Nativity and the Baptism.

Evidence of St Luke’s Gospel (iii. 23).—At the time of his baptism Jesus was ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, of which words two opposite misinterpretations must be avoided: (i.) ἀρχόμενος does not mean (as Valentinian interpreters thought, Iren. 11. xxii. 5 [xxxiii. 3]; so also Epiphanius, Haer. li. 16) “beginning to be thirty years” in the sense of “not yet quite thirty,” but “at the beginning of His ministry,” as in Luke xxiii. 5; Acts i. 22, x. 37; (ii.) ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα does not mean “on attaining the full age of thirty, before which he could not have publicly taught,” for if there was by Jewish custom or tradition any minimum age for a teacher, it was not thirty, but forty (Bab. Talm. ed. 1715, fol. 19 b; Iren. loc cit.). St Luke’s phrase is a general one, “about thirty years old,” and cannot be so pressed as to exclude some latitude in either direction.

3. The date of the Baptism.

(a) Evidence of St Luke’s Gospel (iii. 1).—A terminus a quo for the Baptism is the synchronism of the commencement of the Baptist’s public ministry with the fifteenth year of the rule (ἡγεμονία) of Tiberius. Augustus died on 19th August A.D. 14, and, reckoned from that point, Tiberius’s fifteenth year might be, according to different methods of calculation, either A.D. 28, or 28-29, or 29. But any such result would be difficult to reconcile with the results yielded by other lines of investigation in this article; among alternative views the choice seems to lie between the following:—(i.) The years of Tiberius are here reckoned from some earlier starting-point than the death of his predecessor—probably from the grant to him of co-ordinate authority with Augustus over the provinces made in A.D. 11 (see, for the parallel with the case of Vespasian and Titus, Ramsay, St Paul the Roman Traveller, p. 387), so that the fifteenth year would be roughly A.D. 25; or (ii.) St Luke has made here a second error in chronology, caused perhaps in this case by reckoning back from the Crucifixion, and only allowing one year to the ministry of Christ.

(b) Evidence of St John’s Gospel (ii. 13, 20).—A terminus ad quem for the Baptism is the synchronism of the first Passover mentioned after it with the forty-sixth year of the building of Herod’s Temple. Herod began the Temple in the eighteenth year of his reign, probably 20-19 B.C., and the Passover of the forty-sixth year is probably that of A.D. 27. While too much stress must not be laid on a chain of reasoning open to some uncertainty at several points, it is difficult to suppose with Loisy, Quatrième Évangile, 1903, p. 293, that the number was intended 889 by the evangelist as purely figurative, and is therefore destitute of all historical meaning.

On the whole, the Baptism of Christ should probably be placed in A.D. 26-27; and as the Nativity was placed in 7-6 B.C. (at latest), this would make the age of Christ at his Baptism to be about thirty-two, which tallies well enough with St Luke’s general estimate.

4. The interval between the Baptism and the Crucifixion, or, in other words, the duration of the public ministry of Christ.

(a) Evidence of the Synoptic Tradition and of St Mark’s Gospel (ii. 23, vi. 39, xiv. 1).—The order of events in the primitive synoptic tradition appears to be faithfully reproduced in St Mark; and if this order is chronological, Christ’s ministry lasted at least two years, since the plucking of the ears of corn (April-June) marks a first spring; the feeding of the five thousand when the grass was fresh green (χλωρός: about March), a second; and the Passover of the Crucifixion a third: and these three points are so far removed from one another in the narrative that the conclusion would hold, even if the general arrangement in St Mark were only roughly, and not minutely, chronological. On the other hand, it may be true that an impression of a briefer period of ministry naturally results, and in early generations did actually result, from the synoptic account considered as a whole.

(b) Evidence of St Luke’s Gospel (ix. 51-xix. 28 compared with iv. 14-ix. 50; iv. 19).—Still stronger is the impression of brevity suggested by St Luke. The second and larger half of the narrative of the ministry is introduced at ix. 51 with the words, “It came to pass as the days of His assumption were coming to the full, He set His face firmly to go to Jerusalem,” under which phrase the evangelist cannot have meant to include more than a few months, perhaps not more than a few weeks; so that even if the earlier and shorter half of the account, which describes a purely Galilean ministry (“Judaea” in iv. 44, if it is the true reading, means Judaea in the sense of Palestine), is to be spread over a longer period of time, the combined narrative can hardly have been planned on the scale of more than a single year. St Luke himself may have understood literally, like so many of his readers in ancient times, the reference which he records to the “acceptable year of the Lord” (iv. 19 = Isaiah lxi. 2): see, too, above, 3 (a) ad fin.

(c) Evidence of St John’s Gospel (ii. 13, “the Passover of the Jews was near,” and 23, “He was in Jerusalem at the Passover at the feast”; v. 1, “after these things was a feast [or ‘the feast’] of the Jews”; vi. 4, “and the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near”; vii. 2, “and the feast of the Jews, the Tabernacles, was near”; x. 22, “at that time the feast of dedication took place at Jerusalem”; xi. 55, “and the Passover of the Jews was near”: besides iv. 35, “say ye not that there is yet a period of four months and harvest cometh? behold, I tell you, lift up your eyes and see the fields that they are white to harvest”). This catena of time-references is of course unique in the Gospels as a basis for a chronology of the ministry; and it is not reasonable to doubt (with Loisy, loc. cit., who suggests that the aim was to produce an artificial correspondence of a three and a half years’ ministry with the half-week of Daniel; but many and diverse as are the early interpretations of Daniel’s seventy weeks, no one before Eusebius thought of connecting the half-week with the ministry), that the evangelist intended these notices as definite historical data, possibly for the correction of the looser synoptic narratives and of the erroneous impressions to which they had given rise. Unfortunately, difficulties, either (i.) of reading, or (ii.) of interpretation, or (iii.) of arrangement, have been raised with regard to nearly all of them; and these difficulties must be briefly noticed here.

Not only do the fourth and second Gospels thus agree in indications of a two years’ ministry, but the notes of the middle spring of the three (John vi. 4; Mark vi. 39) both belong to the feeding of the 5000, one of the few points of actual contact Detween the two Gospels.

The question, however, may still be raised, whether these time-indications of the two Gospels are exhaustive, whether (that is) two years, and two years only, are to be allotted to the ministry. Irenaeus (ii. xxii. 3-6 [xxxiii. 1-4]), in favour of a ministry of not less than ten years, appeals (i.) to the tradition of Asia Minor; (ii.) to the record in St John that Christ, who was thirty years old at the time of his baptism, was addressed by the Jews as “not yet [i.e. nearly] fifty years old”: but both his arguments are probably derived from a single source, Papias’s interpretation of John viii. 57. With this exception, however, all ancient writers, whether they enumerated two or three or four Passovers in the Gospel history, believed that the enumeration was exhaustive; and their belief appears correctly to represent the mind of the author of the Fourth Gospel, seeing that his various notes of time were probably in intentional contrast to the looser synoptic accounts. Moreover, the wide currency in early times of the tradition of the single-year ministry (Ptolemaeus, 890 ap. Iren, loc. cit.; Clementine Homilies, xvii. 19; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 145, vi. 279; Julius Africanus, ap. Routh, Rell. Sacr. ii. 240, 306; Hippolytus, Paschal Cycle and Chronicle; Origen, in Levit. Hom. ix. 5, de Principiis, iv. 5) becomes more difficult to account for the farther it is removed from the actual facts.

5. The date of the Crucifixion.

(a) The Roman Governor.—Pontius Pilate was on his way back to Rome, after ten years of office, when Tiberius died on the 16th March A.D. 37 (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. ii. 2, iv. 2). Luke xiii. 1, xxiii. 12, show that he was not a newcomer at the time of the Crucifixion. For the Crucifixion “under Pontius Pilate” the Passover of A.D. 28 is therefore the earliest possible and the Passover of A.D. 36 the latest.

(b) The Jewish High-Priest.—Caiaphas was appointed before Pilate’s arrival, and was deposed at a Passover apparently not later than that of the year of Herod Philip’s death, A.D. 34 (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. ii. 2, iv. 3-v. 3). The Crucifixion at some previous Passover would then fall not later than A.D. 33.

(c) The Day of the Week.—The Resurrection on “the first day of the week” (Sunday) was “on the third day” after the Crucifixion; and that “the third day” implies an interval of only two days hardly needed to be shown, but has been shown to demonstration in Field’s Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (on Matt. xvi. 21). The Crucifixion was therefore on a Friday in some year between A.D. 28 and 33 inclusive.

(d) The Day of the Jewish Month Nisan.—The Passover was kept at the full moon of the lunar month Nisan, the first of the Jewish ecclesiastical year; the Paschal lambs were slain on the afternoon of the 14th Nisan, and the Passover was eaten after sunset the same day—which, however, as the Jewish day began at sunset, was by their reckoning the early hours of the 15th Nisan; the first fruits (of the barley harvest) were solemnly offered on the 16th. The synoptic Gospels appear to place the Crucifixion on the 15th, since they speak of the Last Supper as a Passover;59 St John’s Gospel, on the other hand (xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28), distinctly implies that the feast had not yet taken place, and thus makes the Crucifixion fall on the 14th. Early Christian tradition is unanimous on this side; either the 14th is mentioned, or the Crucifixion is made the antitype of the slaughter of the Paschal Lamb (and the Resurrection of the first fruits), in the following authorities anterior to A.D. 235: St Paul, 1 Cor. v. 7, xv. 20; Quartodecimans of Asia Minor, who observed the Christian Pascha on the “14th,” no matter on what day of the week it fell; Claudius Apollinaris, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, all three quoted in the Paschal Chronicle; Irenaeus (apparently) iv. x. 1 [xx. 1]; [Tertullian] adv. Judaeos, 8; Africanus, in Routh, Rell. Sacr. ii. 297. The Crucifixion, then, should be placed rather on the 14th than on the 15th of Nisan.

These four lines of inquiry have shown that the Crucifixion fell on Friday, Nisan 14 (rather than 15), in one of the six years 28-33 A.D.; and therefore, if it is possible to discover (i.) exactly which moon or month was reckoned each year as the moon or month of Nisan, and (ii.) exactly on what day that particular moon or month was reckoned as beginning, it will, of course, be possible to tell in which of these years Nisan 14 fell on a Friday. To neither question can an answer be given in terms so precise as to exclude some latitude, but to both with sufficient exactness to rule out at once three of the six years. (i.) The difficulty with regard to the month is to know how the commencement of the Jewish year was fixed—in what years an extra month was intercalated before Nisan. If the Paschal full moon was, as in later Christian times, the first after the spring equinox, the difficulty would be reduced to the question on what day the equinox was reckoned. If, on the other hand, it was, as in ancient Jewish times, the first after the earliest ears of the barley harvest would be ripe, it would have varied with the forwardness or backwardness of the season from year to year. (ii.) The difficulty with regard to the day is, quite similarly, to know what precise relation the first day of the Jewish month bore to the astronomical new moon. In later Christian times the Paschal month was calculated from the astronomical new moon; in earlier Jewish times all months were reckoned to begin at the first sunset when the new moon was visible, which in the most favourable circumstances would be some hours, and in the most unfavourable three days, later than the astronomical new moon.

Direct material for answering the question when and how far astronomical calculations replaced simple observations as the basis of the Jewish calendar is not forthcoming. Jewish traditions represented the Sanhedrin as retaining to the end its plenary power over the calendar, and as still fixing the first day of every month and the first month of every year. But as it is quite inconceivable that the Jews of the Dispersion should not have known beforehand at what full moon they were to present themselves at Jerusalem for the Passover, it must be assumed as true in fact, whether or no it was true in theory, that the old empirical methods must have been qualified, at least partially, by permanent, that is in effect by astronomical rules. Exactly what modifications were first made in the system under which each month began by simple observation of the new moon we do not know, and opinions are not agreed as to the historical value of the rabbinical traditions; but probably the first step in the direction of astronomical precision would be the rule that no month could consist of less than twenty-nine or more than thirty days—to which appears to have been added, but at what date is uncertain, the further rule that Adar, the month preceding Nisan, was always to be limited to twenty-nine. In the same way the beginning of the Jewish year according to the state of the harvest was supplanted by some more fixed relation to the solar year. But this relation was not, it would seem, regulated by the date, real or supposed, of the equinox. Christian controversialists from Anatolius of Laodicea (A.D. 277) onwards accused the Jews of disregarding the (Christian) equinoctial limit, and of sometimes placing the Paschal full moon before it; and it is possible that in the time of Christ the 14th of Nisan might have fallen as far back as the 17th of March. In the following table the first column gives the terminus paschalis, or 14th of the Paschal moon, according to the Christian calendar; the second gives the 14th, reckoned from the time of the astronomical new moon of Nisan; the third the 14th, reckoned from the probable first appearance of the new moon at sunset. Alternative moons are given for A.D. 29, according as the full moon falling about the 18th of March is or is not reckoned the proper Paschal moon.

It will be seen at once that Friday cannot have fallen on Nisan 14th in any of the three years A.D. 28, 31 and 32. The choice is narrowed down to A.D. 29, Friday, 18th March (Friday, 15th April, would no doubt be too early even for the 14th of Nisan); A.D. 30, Friday 7th April; and A.D. 33, Friday, 3rd April.

(e) The Civil Year (consuls, or regnal years of Tiberius) in early Christian tradition. It is not a priori improbable that the year of the central event from which the Christian Church dated her own existence should have been noted in the apostolic age and handed down to the memory of succeeding generations; and the evidence does go some way to suggest that we have in favour of A.D. 29, the consulate of the two Gemini (15th or 16th year of Tiberius), a body of tradition independent of the Gospels and ancient, if not primitive, in origin.

The earliest witness, indeed, who can be cited for a definite date for the crucifixion gave not 29, but 33 A.D. The pagan chronicler, Phlegon, writing in the reign of Hadrian, noted under Olympiad 202.4 (= A.D. 32-33), besides a great earthquake in Bithynia, an eclipse so remarkable that it became night 891 “at the sixth hour of the day.” The eclipse meant is, presumably, that of the Crucifixion (so Origen, contra Celsum,, ii. 33 [but see in Matt. 134, Delarue iii. 922], Eusebius’s Chronicle Tib. 19 [= A.D. 33], Anon, in Cramer’s Catena in Matt. p. 237), but as the notice of it was clearly derived by Phlegon, pagan as he was, directly or indirectly from the Gospel narrative, there is no reason at all to ascribe any independent value to the date. Phlegon may have had grounds for dating the Bithynian earthquake in that year, and have brought the dateless portent into connexion with the dated one. Eusebius adopted and popularized this date, which fell in with his own system of Gospel chronology, but of the year 33 as the date of the Passion there is no vestige in Christian tradition before the 4th century.

The only date, in fact, which has any real claim to represent Christian tradition independent of the Gospels, is the year 29. Tiberius 15 is given by Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 147; Origen, Hom. in Jerem. xiv. 13; cf. c. Cels. iv. 22. Tiberius 16 by Julius Africanus (Routh, Rell. Sacr. ii. 301-304), and pseudo-Cyprian de pascha computus (A.D. 243), § 20. The consulship of the two Gemini by Lactantius, Div. Inst. iv. x. 18, and (Lactantius?) de morte pers. § 2; the consulship of the two Gemini = Tiberius 18 by Hippolytus, Comm. in Danielem, iv. (ed. Bonwetsch, p. 242); the consulship of the two Gemini = Tiberius 15 by [Tertullian] adv. Judaeos, § 8; the consulship of the two Gemini = Tiberius 15 (al. 18 or 19) = Ol. 202.4 [this last is a later interpolation from Eusebius] in the Acts of Pilate. Other methods of expressing the year 29 appear in Hippolytus’s Paschal Cycle and Chronicle, and in the Abgar legend (ap. Eusebius, H.E. i. 13). No doubt it would be possible to explain Tiberius 16 as a combination of Luke iii. 1 with a one-year ministry, and even to treat Tiberius 15 as an unintelligent repetition from St Luke—though the omission to allow a single year for the ministry would be so strange as to be almost unintelligible—but the date by the consuls has an independent look about it, and of its extreme antiquity the evidence gives two indications: (i.) Hippolytus’s Commentary on Daniel (now generally dated c. A.D. 200) combines it with an apparently inconsistent date, Tiberius 18; the latter is clearly his own combination of the length of the ministry (he says in the same passage that Christ suffered in his 33rd year) with Luke iii. 1—the consulship must have been taken from tradition without regard to consistency; (ii.) the names of the Gemini are divergently given in our oldest authorities; in [Tert.] adv. Judaeos correctly as Rubellius Geminus and Fufius (or Rufius) Geminus, but in Hippolytus and the Acts of Pilate as Rufus and Rubellio. But if the tradition of the consulship was thus, it would seem, already an old one about the year 200, there is at least some reason to conclude that trustworthy information in early Christian circles pointed, independently of the Gospels, to the year 29 as that of the Crucifixion.

(f) The Civil Month and Day.—The earliest known calculations, by Basilidian Gnostics, quoted in Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 147, gave alternative dates, Phamenoth 25, Pharmuthi 25, Pharmuthi 19; that is, according to the fixed Alexandrine calendar of B.C. 26, 21st March, 20th April, 14th April; in the older, not wholly superseded, Egyptian calendar the equivalents with Roman days varied from year to year. But in all probability these dates were only one development of those speculations in the region of numbers to which Gnosticism was so prone; and in any case to look for genuine traditions among Egyptian Gnostics, or even in the church of Alexandria, would be to misread the history of Christianity in the 2nd century. Such traditions must be found, if anywhere, in Palestine and Syria, in Asia Minor, in Rome, not in Egypt; within the Church, not among the Gnostics. The date which makes the most obvious claim to satisfy these conditions would be the 25th of March, as given by Hippolytus, [Tert.] adv. Judaeos, and the Acts of Pilate (according to all extant MSS. and versions, but see below), locc. citt.—the same three authorities who bear the earliest witness for the consuls of the year of the Crucifixion—and by many later writers. It cannot be correct, since no full moon occurs near it in any of the possible years; yet it must be very early, too early to be explained with Dr Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography, iii. 92b), as originated by Hippolytus’s Paschal cycle of A.D. 221. Now Epiphanius (Haer. l. 1) had seen copies of the Acts of Pilate in which the day given was not 25th March, but a.d. xv. kal. Apr. (= 18th March); and if this was the primitive form of the tradition, it is easy to see how 25th March could have grown out of it, since the 18th would from comparatively early times, in the East at any rate, have been thought impossible as falling before the equinox, and no substitution would be so natural as that of the day week, Friday, 25th March. But Friday, 18th March, A.D. 29, was one of the three alternative dates for the Crucifixion which on astronomical and calendar grounds were found (see above, 5d) to be possible.

Thus A.D. 29 is the year, the 18th of March is the day, to which Christian tradition (whatever value, whether much or little, be ascribed to it) appears to point. Further, the Baptism was tentatively placed in A.D. 26-27; the length of the ministry was fixed, with some approach to certainty, at between two and three years, and here too the resultant date for the Crucifixion would be the Passover of A.D. 29.

To sum up: the various dates and intervals, to the approximate determination of which this article has been devoted, do not claim separately more than a tentative and probable value. But it is submitted that their harmony and convergence give them some additional claim to acceptance, and at any rate do something to secure each one of them singly—the Nativity in 7-6 B.C., the Baptism in A.D. 26-27, the Crucifixion in A.D. 29—from being to any wide extent in error.

The Chronology of the Apostolic Age.

The chronology of the New Testament outside the Gospels may be defined for the purposes of this article as that of the period between the Crucifixion in A.D. 29 (30) on the one hand, and on the other the persecution of Nero in A.D. 64 and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Of the events in Christian history which fall between these limits it must be admitted that there are many which with our present information we cannot date with exactness. But the book of Acts, our only continuous authority for the period, contains two synchronisms with secular history which can be dated with some pretence to exactness and constitute fixed points by help of which a more or less complete chronology can be constructed for at least the latter half of the apostolic age. These are the death of Herod Agrippa I. (xii. 23) and the replacement of Felix by Festus (xxiv. 27).

1. The death of Herod Agrippa I. This prince, son of Aristobulus and grandson of Herod the Great, was made (i.) king over the tetrarchy which had been Herod Philip’s, “not many days” after the accession of Gaius, 16th of March A.D. 37; (ii.) ruler of the tetrarchy of Antipas, in A.D. 39-40; (iii.) ruler of the whole of Palestine (with Abilene), on the accession of Claudius at the beginning of A.D. 41. Josephus’s Jewish Wars and Antiquities differ by one in the number of years they allot to his reign over the tetrarchies (the former work says three years, the latter four), but agree in the more important datum that he reigned three years more after the grant from Claudius, which would make the latest limit of his death the spring of A.D. 44. The Antiquities also place his death in the seventh year of his reign, which would be A.D. 43-44. On the other hand, coins whose genuineness there is no apparent reason to doubt are extant of Agrippa’s ninth year; and this can only be reconciled even with A.D. 44 by supposing that he commenced reckoning a second year of his reign on Nisan 1, A.D. 37, so that his ninth would run from Nisan 1, A.D. 44. On the balance of evidence the only year which can possibly reconcile all the data appears to be A.D. 44 after Nisan, so that it will have been at the Passover of that year that St Peter’s arrest and deliverance took place.

After Agrippa’s death Judaea was once more governed by procurators, of whom Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander ruled from A.D. 44 to 48; the third, Cumanus, was appointed in A.D. 48; and the fourth, Felix, in A.D. 52. Under Tiberius 892 Alexander, i.e. in A.D. 46 or 47, occurred the great famine which Agabus had foretold, and in which the Antiochene church sent help to that of Jerusalem by the ministry of Barnabas and Saul (Acts xi. 30, xii. 25). Thus the earliest date at which the commencement of the first missionary journey (Acts xiii. 4) can be placed is the spring of A.D. 47. The journey extended from Salamis “throughout the whole island” of Cyprus as far as Paphos, and on the mainland from Pamphylia to Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, at each of which places indications are given of a prolonged visit (xiii. 49, xiv. 3, 6, 7, 21). The same places were visited in reverse order on the return journey, as far as Perga on the Pamphylian coast; but instead of revisiting Cyprus the voyage to Syria was this time made direct. In estimating the length of time occupied by this first missionary journey, it must be remembered that a sea voyage could never have been undertaken, and land travel only rarely, during the winter months, say November to March; and as the amount of the work accomplished is obviously more than could fall within the travelling season of a single year, the winter of 47-48 must have been spent in the interior, and return to the coast and to Syria made only some time before the end of autumn A.D. 48. The succeeding winter, at least, was spent again at Antioch of Syria (xiv. 28). The council at Jerusalem of Acts xv. will fall at earliest in the spring of A.D. 49, and as only “certain days” were spent at Antioch after it (xv. 36) the start on the second missionary journey might have been made in the (late) summer of the same year. The “confirmation” of the existing churches of Syria and Cilicia, and of those of the first journey beginning with Derbe (xv. 41, xvi. 5), cannot have been completed under several months, nor would the Apostle have commenced the strictly missionary part of the journey in districts not previously visited, before the opening of the travelling season of A.D. 50. No delay was then made on the Asiatic side: it may still have been in spring when St Paul crossed to Europe and began the course of preaching at Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea and Athens which finally brought him to Corinth. The stay of eighteen months at the last-named place (xviii. 11) will naturally begin at the end of one travelling season and end at the beginning of another, i.e. from the autumn of A.D. 50 to the spring of A.D. 52. From Corinth the Apostle went to Jerusalem to “salute the church,” and then again to Antioch in Syria, where he stayed only for “a time” (xviii. 22), and soon left—on the third missionary journey, as conventionally reckoned—proceeding “in order” through the churches of the interior of Asia Minor. These journeys and the intervening halts must have occupied seven or eight months, and it must have been about the end of the year when St Paul established his new headquarters at Ephesus. The stay there lasted between two and three years (xix. 8, 10, xx, 31), and cannot have terminated before the spring of A.D. 55. From Ephesus he went into Europe, and after “much teaching” given to the churches of Macedonia (xx. 2), spent the three winter months at Corinth, returning to Philippi in time for the Passover (xx. 3, 6) of A.D. 56. Pentecost of the same year was spent at Jerusalem, and there St Paul was arrested, and kept in prison at Caesarea for two full years, until Festus succeeded Felix as governor (xx. 16, xxiv. 27), an event which, on this arrangement of the chronology of the missionary journeys, would therefore fall in A.D. 58.

Care, however, must be taken to remember exactly what this line of argument amounts to—what it can fairly be said to have proved, and what it still leaves open. It has been shown, firstly, that the missionary journeys cannot have commenced before the spring of A.D. 47, and, secondly, that between their commencement and the end of the two years’ imprisonment at Caesarea not less than eleven full years must have elapsed. Consequently A.D. 58 appears to be the earliest date possible for the arrival of Festus. On the other hand, a later date for Festus is not absolutely excluded. It is possible that the first missionary journey should be placed in A.D. 48 instead of A.D. 47; and it is possible, though not probable, that the missionary journeys should be spread over one year more than has been suggested above. At any rate, then, the alternative is open that every date given above, from A.D. 47 to A.D. 58, should be moved on one year, with the result of placing Festus’s arrival in A.D. 50.

It is now time to run to the direct evidence for the date of Festus’s arrival as procurator, in order to test by it the result already tentatively obtained.

2. The replacement of Felix by Festus. This is the pivot date of St Paul’s later life, but unfortunately two schools of critics date it as differently as A.D. 55 and A.D. 60 (or 61). The former are represented by Harnack, the latter by Wieseler, whom Lightfoot follows. It can be said confidently that the truth is between these two extremes (though in what exact year it is not easy to say), as will be evident from a consideration of the arguments urged, which in each case appear less to prove one extreme than to disprove its opposite.

In the result, then, the arguments brought forward in favour of each extreme fail to prove their case, but at the same time prove something against the opposite view. Thus the point that Josephus catalogues the events of Felix’s procuratorship under Nero cannot be pressed to bring down Felix’s tenure as far as 60 or 61, but it does seem to exclude as early a termination as 56, or even 57. Conversely, the influence of Pallas at court need not be terminated by his ceasing to be minister early in 55; but it would have been overshadowed not later than the year 60 by the influence of Poppaea, who in the summer of that year61 enabled the Jews to win their cause in the matter of the Temple wall, and would certainly have supported them against Felix. Thus the choice again appears to lie between the years 58 and 59 for the recall of Felix and arrival of Festus.

If St Paul was arrested in 56 or 57, and appealed to Caesar on the arrival of Festus in 58 or 59, then, as he reached Rome in the early part of the year following, and remained there a prisoner for two full years, we are brought down to the early spring of either 61 or 62 for the close of the period recorded in the Acts. That after these two years he was released and visited Spain in the west, and in the east Ephesus, Macedonia, Crete, Troas, Miletus, and perhaps Achaea and Epirus, is probable, in the one case, from the evidence of Romans xv. 28, Clem. ad Cor. v. and the Muratorian canon, and, in the other, from the Pastoral Epistles. These journeys certainly cannot have occupied less than two years, and it is more natural to allow three for them, which takes us down to 64-65.

Early evidence is unanimous in pointing to St Peter and St Paul as victims of the persecution of Nero (Clem, ad Cor. v. vi., Dionysius of Corinth ap. Eus. H.E. ii. 25, &c., combined with what we know from Tacitus of the course of the persecution, and from Gaius of Rome, ap. Eus. ii. 25, of the burial-places of the two apostles); and tradition clearly distinguished the fierce outbreak at Rome that followed on the fire of the city in July 64 from any permanent disabilities of the Christians in the eye of the law which the persecution may have initiated. There is, therefore, no reason at all to doubt that both apostles were martyred in 64-65, and the date serves as a confirmation of the chronology adopted above of the imprisonment, release and subsequent journeys of St Paul.

Investigation, then, of that part of the book of Acts which follows the death of Agrippa, recorded in chap. xii.—i.e. of that part of the apostolic age which follows the year 44—has shown that apparent difficulties can be to a large extent set aside, and that there is nowhere room between A.D. 44 and 64 for doubt extending to more than a single year. The first missionary journey may have begun in 47 or 48; the arrival of Festus may have taken place in the summer of 58 or of 59; the two years of the Roman imprisonment recorded in the last chapter of Acts may have ended in the spring of 61 or 62; and the dates which fall in between these extremes are liable to the same variation. The present writer leans to the earlier alternative in each case, 47, 58, 61; but he willingly concedes that the evidence, as he understands it, is not inconsistent with the later alternative.

But if the events of A.D. 44-64 can thus be fixed with a fair approximation to certainty, it is unfortunately otherwise with the events of A.D. 29-44. Here we are dependent (i.) on general indications given in the Acts; (ii.) on the evidence of the Epistle to the Galatians, which, though in appearance more precise, can be and is interpreted in very different ways.

(i.) The book of Acts is divided, by general summaries from time to time inserted in the narrative, into six periods: i. 1-vi. 7, vi. 8-ix. 31, ix. 32-xii. 24, xii. 25-xvi. 5, xvi. 6-xix. 20, xix. 2l-xxviii. 31. Of these the three last extend respectively from the death of Herod to the start for Europe in the second missionary journey (A.D. 44 to the spring of 50 [51]), from the start for Europe to the end of the long stay at Ephesus (A.D. 50 [51] to the spring of A.D. 55 [56]), and from the departure from Ephesus to the end of the two years’ captivity at Rome (A.D. 55 [56] to the beginning of A.D. 61 [62]). It will be seen that these periods are of more or less the same length, namely, six (or seven) years, five years, six years. There is, therefore, some slight presumption that the three earlier periods, which together cover about fifteen years, were intended by so artistic a writer as St Luke to mark each some similar lapse of time. If that were so, the preaching of the apostles at Jerusalem and organization of the Church at the capital—the preaching of the seven and the extension of the Church all over Palestine—the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the commencement of St Paul’s work—might each occupy five years more or less, that is to say, roughly, A.D. 29-34, 34-39, 39-44. The conversion of St Paul, which falls within the second period, would on this arrangement fall somewhere between five and ten years after the Crucifixion. Such conclusions are, however, of course general in the extreme.

(ii.) A nearer attempt to date at least the chronology of St Paul’s earlier years as a Christian could be made by the help of the Galatian Epistle if we could be sure from what point and to what point its reckonings are made. The apostle tells us that on his conversion he retired from Damascus into Arabia, and thence returned to Damascus; then after three years (from his conversion) he went up to Jerusalem, but stayed only a fortnight, and went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Then after fourteen years (from his conversion? or from his last visit?) he went up to Jerusalem again to confer with the elder apostles. Now, if either of these visits to Jerusalem could be identified with any of the visits whose dates have been approximately settled in the chronology of A.D. 44-64, we should have a fixed point from which to argue back. Unfortunately, even less agreement exists on this head than on the question whether the fourteen years of the last-mentioned visit are to be reckoned from the conversion or from the previous visit. Most critics, indeed, are now agreed that the fourteen years are to be calculated from the conversion; and most of them still hold that the visit of Galatians ii. is the same as the council of Acts xv., partly, no doubt, on the ground that the latter visit was too important and decisive for St Paul to have omitted in giving even the most summary description of his relations with the twelve. This ground would, however, be cut away from their feet if it were possible to hold (with J.V. Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 1900, and V. Weber, Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil, Ravensburg, 1900) that the epistle was actually written just before the council, i.e. in the winter of 48-49 [49-50]. In that case, of course, the two visits of Galatians i. and ii. would be those of Acts ix. 26 and xi. 30. The fourteen years reckoned back from the latter (c. A.D. 46) would bring us to A.D. 32-33 as the latest possible date for the conversion. With the older view, on the other hand, the fourteen years reckoned from the council in A.D. 49 [50] would allow us to bring down the conversion to A.D. 36. The new view clears away some manifest difficulties in the reconciliation of the Epistle and the Acts, and the early date for Galatians in relation to the other Pauline epistles is not so improbable as it may seem; but the chronology still appears more satisfactory on the older view, which enables the conversion to be placed at least three years later than on the alternative theory. But it is clear that the last word has not been said, and that definite results for this period cannot yet be looked for.

To sum up: an attempt has been made, it is hoped with some success, to provide a framework of history equipped with dates from the time of St Peter’s arrest by Herod Agrippa I. at the 894 Passover of A.D. 44 down to the martyrdom of St Peter and St Paul in the persecution of Nero, A.D. 64-65. For the previous period, on the other hand, from A.D. 29 to A.D. 44, it appeared impossible in our present state of knowledge to state conclusions other than in the most general form.

BIBLE, ENGLISH. The history of the vernacular Bible of the English race resolves itself into two distinctly marked periods—the one being that of Manuscript Bibles, which were direct translations from the Latin Vulgate, the other that of Printed Bibles, which were, more or less completely, translations from the original Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments.

1. The Manuscript Bible.—The first essays in Biblical translation, or rather paraphrasing, assumed in English, as in many other languages, a poetical form. Even in the 7th century, according to the testimony of Bede (Hist. Eccl. Cædmon. iv. 24), Cædmon sang “de creatione mundi et origine humani generis, et tota Genesis historia, de egressu Israel ex Aegypto et ingressu in terram repromissionis, de aliis plurimis sacrae Scripturae historiis, de incarnatione Dominica, passione, resurrectione et ascensione in coelum, de Spiritus Sancti adventu, et apostolorum doctrina.” It is, however, doubtful whether any of the poetry which has been ascribed to him can claim to be regarded as his genuine work.

The first prose rendering of any part of the Bible—and with these we are mainly concerned in the present inquiry—originated in all probability in the 8th century, when Bede, the eminent scholar and churchman, translated Bede. the first portion (chs. i.-vi. 9) of the Gospel of St John into the vernacular, but no part of this rendering is extant. His pupil Cuthberht recorded this fact in a letter to a fellow-student, Cuthwine: “a capite sancti evangelii Johannis usque ad eum locum in quo dicitur, ‘sed haec quid sunt inter tantos?’ in nostram linguam ad utilitatem ecclesiae Dei convertit” (Mayor and Lumby, Bedae Hist. Eccl. p. 178).

The 9th century is characterized by interlinear glosses on the Book of Psalms, and towards its close by a few attempts at independent translation. Of these “glossed Psalters” twelve MSS. are known to exist, and they may be 9th and 10th century glosses. ranged into two groups according to the Latin text they represent. The Roman Psalter is glossed in the following MSS.: (1) Cotton Vesp. A. 1 (Vespasian Psalter); (2) Bodl. Junius 27; (3) Univ. Libr. Camb. Ff. 1. 23; (4) Brit. Mus. Reg. 2. B. 5; (5) Trin. Coll. Camb. R. 17. 1 (Eadwine’s Psalter); (6) Brit. Mus. Add. 37517. The Gallican Psalter in the following: (1) Brit. Mus. Stowe 2 (Spelman’s text); (2) Cotton Vitell. E. 18; (3) Cotton Tib. C. 16; (4) Lambeth 48; (5) Arundel 60; (6) Salisbury Cath. 150.1

The oldest and most important of these MSS. is the so-called Vespasian Psalter, which was written in Mercia in the first half of the 9th century. It was in all probability the original from which all the above-mentioned Old English glosses were derived, though in several instances changes and modifications were introduced by successive scribes. The first verse of Psalm c. (Vulg. xcix. 2) may serve as a specimen of these glosses.

To the late 9th or early 10th century a work may be assigned which is in so far an advance upon preceding efforts as to be a real translation, not a mere gloss corresponding word for word with the Latin original. This is the famous Paris Psalter,2 a rendering of the first fifty Psalms (Vulg. i.-l. 10), contained in the unique MS. lat. 8824 in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. The authorship of this version is doubtful, being by some scholars attributed to King Alfred (d. 901), of whom William of Malmesbury writes (Gesta Regum Anglorum, ii. 123), “Psalterium transferre aggressus vix prima parte explicata vivendi finem fecit.” This view is, however, denied by others.

In the course of the 10th century the Gospels were glossed and translated. The earliest in date is a Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels, contained in a beautiful and highly interesting MS. variously known as the Durham Book, Lindisfarne Gospels. the Lindisfarne Gospels, or the Book of St Cuthbert (MS. Cotton, Nero. D. 4). The Latin text dates from the close of the 7th century, and is the work of Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721). The English gloss was added about a century and a half later (c. 950) by one Aldred, whom Dr Charles O’Conor (Bibl. Stowensis, 1818-1819, ii. 180) supposes to have been the bishop of Durham of that name. The Lord’s Prayer is glossed in the following way:—

Lindisfarne Gospels.

      Matthew vi. 9. Suae ðonne iuih gie bidde  fader  urer  ðu  arð
                     sic   ergo  uos orabitis + Pater noster qui és

       ðu bist in heofnum & in heofnas; sie gehalgad   noma  ðin;
               in      caelis;          sanctificetur nomen tuum;

    (10)  to-cymeð   ric   ðin.  sie    willo  ðin  suae is in heofne
          adueniat regnum tuum   fiat uoluntas tua sicut    in caelo

          J in eorðo.
         et in terra.

    (11)  hlaf      userne      oferwistlic       sel ús to dæg.
         panem     nostrum  super-substantiale[m] dá nobis hodie.

    (12) J forgef   us   scylda  usra  suae  uoe  forgefon   scyldgum
        et demitte nobis debita nostra sicut nos dimittimus debitoribus

           usum.
         nostris.

    (13) J  ne  inlæd  usih in   costunge   ah gefrig  usich  from yfle
         et ne  inducas nos in temtationem sed libera   nos    a   malo.3

895

Of a somewhat later date is the celebrated Rushworth Version of the Gospels (MS. Bodl. Auct. D. ii. 9), which contains an independent translation of the Gospel of St Matthew, and a gloss on those of St Mark, St Luke and St John, Rushworth Version. founded upon the Lindisfarne glosses. From a note in the manuscript we learn that two men, Færman and Owun, made the version. Færman was a priest at Harewood, or Harwood, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and to him the best part of the work is due. He translated the whole of St Matthew, and wrote the gloss of St Mark i.-ii. 15, and St John xviii. 1-3. The remaining part, a mere transcript, is Owun’s work. The dialect of the translation of St Matthew is Mercian.4

A further testimony to the activity which prevailed in the field of Biblical lore is the fact that at the close of the century—probably about the year 1000—the Gospels were rendered anew for the first time in the south of England. West-Saxon Gospels. Of this version—the so-called West-Saxon Gospels—not less than seven manuscripts have come down to us. A note in one of these, MS. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 140, states, ego Ælfricus scripsi hunc librum in Monasterio Baðþonio et dedi Brihtwoldo preposito, but of this Ælfric and his superior nothing further is known.5

The Lord’s Prayer is rendered in the following way in these gospels:—

Towards the close of the century the Old Testament found a translator in Ælfric (q.v.), the most eminent scholar in the close of the 10th and the opening decades of the 11th century. According to his own statement in De vetere testamento, Ælfric. written about 1010, he had at that period translated the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith and the Maccabees.6 His rendering is clear and idiomatic, and though he frequently abridges, the omissions never obscure the meaning or hinder the easy flow of the narrative.

Dietrich, Ælfric’s most competent biographer (Niedner’s, Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, 1855-1856), looks upon the Pentateuch, Joshua and Judges as a continuation of his Lives of Saints, including as they do in a series of narratives the Old Testament saints. Genesis is but slightly abridged, but Job, Kings, Judges, Esther and Judith as well as the Maccabees are mere homilies epitomized from the corresponding Old Testament books. Judith is metrical in form.

The 11th century, with its political convulsions, resulting in the establishment of an alien rule and the partial suppression of the language of the conquered race, was unfavourable to literary efforts of any kind in the vernacular. With the exception of Ælfric’s late works at the very dawn of the century, we can only record two transcripts of the West-Saxon Gospels as coming at all within the scope of our inquiry.

In the 12th century the same gospels were again copied by pious hands into the Kentish dialect of the period.

The 13th century, from the point of view of Biblical renderings into the vernacular, is an absolute blank. French—or rather the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period—reigned supreme amongst the upper classes, in schools, in Anglo-Norman Period. parliament, in the courts of law and in the palace of the king. English lurked in farms and hovels, amongst villeins and serfs, in the outlying country-districts, in the distant monasteries, amongst the lower clergy, amongst the humble and lowly and ignorant. There were certainly renderings of the Bible during the 12th, 13th and early 14th centuries, but they were all in French. Some of these translations were made in England, some were brought over to England and copied and recopied. Amongst the latter was the magnificently illuminated Norman Commentary on the Apocalypse, some of the earliest copies of which were written in an English hand. In fact before the middle of the 14th century the entire Old Testament and the greater part of the New Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period. (MSS. Bibl. Nat. fr. 1, 9562, Brit. Mus. Reg. I.C. iii. Cf. S. Berger, La Bible française au moyen âge, Paris, 1884, pp. 78 ff.)

When English finally emerged victorious, towards the middle and latter half of the 14th century, it was for all practical purposes a new language, largely intermixed with French, differing from the language of the older period in sound, flexion and structure. It is evident that any Old English versions which might have survived the ravages of time would now be unintelligible, it was equally natural that as soon as French came to be looked upon as an alien tongue, the French versions hitherto in use would fail to fulfil their purpose, and that attempts should again be made to render the Bible into the only language 14th-century renderings. intelligible to the greater part of the nation—into English. It was also natural that these attempts should be made where the need was most pressing, where French had gained least footing, where parliament and court were remote, where intercourse with France was difficult. In fact in the Northern Midlands, and in the North even before the middle of the 14th century, the book of Psalms had been twice rendered into English, and before the end of the same century, probably before the great Wycliffite versions had spread over the country, the whole of the New Testament had been translated by different hands into one or other of the dialects of this part of the country.

At the same time we can record only a single rendering during the whole century which originated in the south of England, namely the text of James, Peter, 1 John and the Pauline Epistles (edited by A.C. Paues, Cambridge, 1904).

Of these pre-Wycliffite versions possibly the earliest is the West Midland Psalter, once erroneously ascribed to William of Shoreham.7 It occurs in three MSS., the earliest of which, Brit. Mus. Add. 17376, was probably written between 1340 and 1350. It contains a complete version of the book of Psalms, followed by the usual eleven canticles and the Athanasian Creed. The Latin original is a glossed version of the Vulgate, and in the English translation the words of the gloss are often substituted for the strong and picturesque expressions of the Biblical text; in other respects the rendering is faithful and idiomatic. The following two verses of the first psalm may exemplify this:—

Before the middle of the century Richard Rolle (q.v.), the hermit of Hampole (+ 1349), turned into English, with certain additions and omissions, the famous Commentary on the Psalms by Peter Lombard. The work was undertaken, Richard Rolle. as the metrical prologue of one of the copies tells us (MS. Laud. misc. 286), “At a worthy recluse prayer, cald dame Merget Kyrkby.” The Commentary gained immediate and lasting popularity, and spread in numerous copies throughout the country, the peculiarities of the hermit’s vigorous northern dialect being either modified or wholly removed in the more 896 southerly transcripts. The translation, however, is stiff and literal to a fault, violating idiomatic usage and the proper order of words in its strict adherence to the Latin. The following brief extracts may exemplify the hermit’s rendering and the change the text underwent in later copies.8

Approximately to the same period as these early renderings of the Psalter belongs a version of the Apocalypse with a Commentary, the earliest MS. of which (Harleian 874) is written in the dialect of the North Midlands. This Commentary, for a long time attributed to Wycliffe, is really nothing but a verbal rendering of the popular and widely-spread Norman Commentary on the Apocalypse (Paul Meyer and L. Delisle, L’Apocalypse en Français au XIIIe siècle, Paris, 1901), which dates back as far as the first half of the 13th century, and in its general tenor represents the height of orthodoxy. The English apocalypse, to judge from the number of MSS. remaining, must have enjoyed great and lasting popularity. Several revisions of the text exist, the later of which present such striking agreement with the later Wycliffite version that we shall not be far wrong if we assume that they were made use of to a considerable extent by the revisers of this version.

To the North Midlands or the North belongs further a complete version of the Pauline Epistles found in the unique MS. 32, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, of the 15th century.

Commentaries on the Gospels of St Matthew, St Mark and St Luke, we are told by the heading in one of the MSS. (Univ. Libr. Camb. Ii. 2. 12), were also translated into English by “a man of þe north cuntre.” The translation of these Gospels as well as of the Epistles referred to above is stiff and awkward, the translator being evidently afraid of any departure from the Latin text of his original. The accompanying commentary is based on the Fathers of the Church and entirely devoid of any original matter. The opening lines of the third chapter of Matthew are rendered in the following way:—

A version of the Acts and the Catholic Epistles completes the number of the New Testament books translated in the northern parts of England. It is found in several MSS. either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary Southern Version of the Pauline Epistles, Peter, James and 1 John in a curiously compiled volume, evidently made, as the prologue tells us, by a brother superior for the use and edification of an ignorant “sister,” or woman vowed to religion.9 The translation of this, our only southern text, surpasses all previous efforts from the point of view of clearness of expression and idiomatic use of English, and, though less exact, it may be even said in these respects to rank equal with the later or revised Wycliffite version.

Apart from these more or less complete versions of separate books of the Bible, there existed also numerous renderings of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, accounts of the Life, Passion and Resurrection of our Lord, translations of the epistles and gospels used in divine service, and other means of familiarizing the people with Holy Scripture. It was the custom of the medieval preachers and writers to give their own English version of any text which they quoted, not resorting as in later times to a commonly received translation. This explains the fact that in collections of medieval homilies that have come down to us, no two renderings of the Biblical text used are ever alike, not even Wyclilfe himself making use of the text of the commonly accepted versions that went under his name.

It is noteworthy that these early versions from Anglo-Saxon times onwards were perfectly orthodox, executed by and for good and faithful sons of the church, and, generally speaking, with the object of assisting those whose knowledge of Latin proved too scanty for a proper interpretation and understanding of the holy text. Thus Richard Rolle’s version of the Psalms was executed for a nun; so was in all likelihood the southern version of the epistles referred to above. Again the earliest MS. (Harl. 874) of the Commentary on the Apocalypse gives the owner’s name in a coeval hand as “Richard Schepard, presbiter,” and the Catholic Epistles of MS. Douce 25010 were probably glossed for the benefit of men in religious orders, if one may judge from a short Commentary to James ii. 2, “& þerfore if eny man come into youre siȝt, þat is, into youre cumpenye þat beþ Godes religiouse men in what degre so ȝe be.” Nor do any of the remaining works contain anything but what is strictly orthodox.

It is first with the appearance of Wycliffe (q.v.) and his followers on the arena of religious controversy that the Bible in English came to be looked upon with suspicion by the orthodox party within the Church. For it is a well-known fact The Wycliffite Versions. that Wycliffe proclaimed the Bible, not the Church or Catholic tradition, as a man’s supreme spiritual authority, and that he sought in consequence by every means in his power to spread the knowledge of it among the people. It is, therefore, in all likelihood to the zeal of Wycliffe and his followers that we owe the two noble 14th-century translations of the Bible which tradition has always associated with his name, and which are the earliest complete renderings that we possess of the Holy Scriptures into English.11

The first of these, the so-called Early Version, was probably completed about 1382, at all events before 1384, the year of Wycliffe’s death. The second, or Later Version, being a thorough revision of the first, is ascribed to the year 1388 by Sir Frederic Madden and the Rev. Joshua Forshall in their edition of these two versions.12

It is a matter of uncertainty what part, if any, Wycliffe himself took in the work. The editors of the Wycliffite versions say in the Preface, pp. xv. ff.—“The New Testament was naturally the first object. The text of the Gospels was extracted from the Commentary upon them by Wycliffe, and to these were added the Epistles, the Acts and the Apocalypse, all now translated anew. This translation might probably be the work of Wycliffe himself; at least the similarity of style between the Gospels and the other parts favours the supposition.” The Wycliffite authorship of the Commentaries on the Gospels, on which the learned editors base their argument, is, however, unsupported by any evidence beyond the fact that the writer of the Prologue to Matthew urges in strong language “the propriety of translating Scripture for the use of the laity.” The Biblical text found in these Commentaries is in fact so far removed from the original type of the Early Version as to be transitional to the Late, and, what is still more convincing, passages from the Early Version, from both the Old Testament and the New Testament, are actually quoted in the Commentary. Under such circumstances it would be folly to look upon them as anything but late productions, at all events later than the Early Version, and equal folly to assign these bulky volumes to the last two years of Wycliffe’s 897 life merely because the text used in them happens to be that of the Early Version. It is therefore at present impossible to say what part of the Early Version of the New Testament was translated by Wycliffe.13

The Old Testament of the Early Version was, according to the editors (Preface, p. xvii.), taken in hand by one of Wycliffe’s coadjutors, Nicholas de Herford. The translator’s original copy and a coeval transcript of it are still extant in the Bodleian library (Bodl. 959, Douce 360). Both break off abruptly at Baruch iii. 19, the latter having at this place a note inserted to the following effect: Explicit translacionem Nicholay de herford. There is consequently but little doubt that Nicholas de Herford took part in the translation of the Old Testament, though it is uncertain to what extent. The translator’s copy is written in not less than five hands, differing in orthography and dialect. The note may therefore be taken to refer either to the portion translated by the last or fifth hand, or to the whole of the Old Testament up to Baruch iii. 19. Judging from uniformity of style and mode of translation the editors of the Bible are inclined to take the latter view; they add that the remaining part of the Old Testament was completed by a different hand, the one which also translated the New Testament. This statement is, however, not supported by sufficient evidence. In view of the magnitude of the undertaking it is on the contrary highly probable that other translators besides Wycliffe and Nicholas de Herford took part in the work, and that already existing versions, with changes when necessary, were incorporated or made use of by the translators.

The Early Version, apart from its completeness, shows but little advance upon preceding efforts. It is true that the translation is more careful and correct than some of the renderings noticed above, but on the other hand it shares all their faults. The translation of the Old Testament as far as Baruch iii. 19 is stiff and awkward, sometimes unintelligible, even nonsensical, from a too close adherence to the Latin text (e.g. Judges xx. 25). In the remaining parts the translation is somewhat easier and more skilful, though even here Latinisms and un-English renderings abound.

It is small wonder, therefore, if a revision was soon found necessary and actually taken in hand within a few years of the completion of the Earlier Version. The principles of work adopted by the revisers are laid down in the general prologue to their edition, the so-called “Later Version.”

It is uncertain who the revisers were; John Purvey, the leader of the Lollard party after Wycliffe’s death, is generally assumed to have taken a prominent part in the work, but the evidence of this is extremely slight (cf. Wycl. Bible, Preface, oo. xxv. f.). The exact date of the revision is also doubtful: the editors of the Wycliffe Bible, judging from the internal evidence of the Prologue, assume it to have been finished about 1388. This Revised or Later Version is in every way a readable, correct rendering of the Scriptures, it is far more idiomatic than the Earlier, having been freed from the greater number of its Latinisms; its vocabulary is less archaic. Its popularity admits of no doubt, for even now in spite of neglect and persecution, in spite of the ravages of fire and time, over 150 copies remain to testify to this fact. The following specimens of the Early and Late Versions will afford a comparison with preceding renderings:—

The 15th century may well be described as the via dolorosa of the English Bible as well as of its chief advocates and supporters, the Lollards. After the death of Wycliffe violence and anarchy set in, and the Lollards came The Lollards. gradually to be looked upon as enemies of order and disturbers of society. Stern measures of suppression were directed not only against them but against “Goddis Lawe,” the book for which they pleaded with such passionate earnestness. The bishops’ registers bear sufficient testimony to this fact.14 It would appear, however, as if at first at all events the persecution was directed not so much against the Biblical text itself as against the Lollard interpretations which accompanied it. In a convocation held at Oxford under Archbishop Arundel in 1408 it was enacted “that no man hereafter by his own authority translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue, by way of a book, booklet, or tract; and that no man read any such book, booklet, or tract, now lately composed in the time of John Wycliffe or since, or hereafter to be set forth in part or in whole, publicly or privately, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial. He that shall do contrary to this shall likewise be punished as a favourer of heresy and error.”15

It must be allowed that an enactment of this kind was not without justification. The Lollards, for instance, did not hesitate to introduce into certain copies of the pious and orthodox Commentary on the Psalms by the hermit of Hampole interpolations of their own of the most virulently controversial kind (MSS. Trin. Coll. Camb. B.V. 25, Brit. Mus. Reg. 18. C. 26, &c.), and although the text of their Biblical versions was faithful and true, the General Prologue of the Later Version was interlarded with controversial matter. It is small wonder if the prelates and priests sought to repress such trenchant criticism of their lives and doctrines as appeared more especially in the former work, and probably in many others which since have perished in “faggots and burning.”

For all this, manuscripts of Purvey’s Revision were copied and re-copied during this century, the text itself being evidently approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, when in the hands of the right people and if unaccompanied by controversial matter.

Of the Lollard movement in Scotland but little is known, but a curious relic has come down to our times in the shape of a New Testament of Purvey’s Revision in the Scottish dialect of the early 16th century. The transcriber was in all probability a certain Murdoch Nisbet, who also showed his reforming tendencies by adding to it a rendering of Luther’s Prologue to the New Testament.16

898

2. The Printed Bible.—It is singular that while France, Spain, Italy, Bohemia and Holland possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the accession of Henry VIII., and in Germany the Scriptures were printed in 1466 and seventeen times reprinted before Luther began his great work, yet no English printer attempted to put the familiar English Bible into type. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538.

Versions of the Scriptures so far noticed were all secondary renderings of the Vulgate, translations of a translation. It was only with the advent of the “new learning” in England that a direct rendering from the originals became possible. Erasmus in 1516 published the New Testament in Greek, with a new Latin version of his own; the Hebrew text of the Old Testament had been published as early as 1488.

The first to take advantage of these altered conditions was William Tyndale (q.v.), “to whom,” as Dr Westcott says,17 “it has been allowed more than to any other man to give its characteristic shape to the English Bible.” Of William Tyndale. Tyndale’s early life but little is known. Be it enough for our purpose to say that he thoroughly saturated his mind with the “new learning,” first at Oxford, where in 1515 he was admitted to the degree of M.A., and then in Cambridge, where the fame of Erasmus still lingered. Before the beginning of 1522 we find Tyndale as chaplain and tutor in the family of Sir John Walsh of Old Sodbury in Gloucestershire. He was there constantly involved in theological controversies with the surrounding clergy, and it was owing to their hostility that he had to leave Gloucestershire. He then resolved to open their eyes to the serious corruptions and decline of the church by translating the New Testament into the vernacular. In order to carry out this purpose he repaired in July or August 1523 to London, and to the famous protector of scholars and scholarship, Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall. His reception was, however, cold, the bishop advising him to seek a livelihood in the town. During a year of anxious waiting, it became clear to him “not only that there was no rowme in my lorde of londons palace to translate the new testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all englonde.”18 In May 1524 he consequently betook himself to Hamburg, his resolution to carry out his great work never for a moment flagging, and it was probably during his stay in this free city and in Wittenberg, where he may have been stimulated by Luther, that his translation of the New Testament was actually made. At all events there is no doubt that in 1525 he was in Cologne, engaged in printing at the press of Peter Quentel a quarto edition of the New Testament. This edition was provided with prefaces and marginal glosses. He had advanced as far as the tenth sheet, bearing the signature K, when his work was discovered by Johann Cochlaeus (q.v.), a famous controversialist and implacable enemy of the Reformation, who not only caused the Senate of Cologne to prohibit the continuation of the printing, but also communicated with Henry VIII. and Wolsey, warning them to stop the importation of the work at the English seaports. Tyndale and his assistant, William Roye, managed, however, to escape higher up the Rhine to Worms, and they succeeded in carrying with them some or all of the sheets which had been printed. Instead of completing Quentel’s work, Peter Schoeffer, the Worms printer, was employed to print another impression of 3000 in a small octavo size, without prefaces to the books or annotations in the margin, and only having an address “To the Reder” at the end in addition to the New Testament itself. Two impressions, the quarto having possibly been completed by Schoeffer, arrived in England early in the summer of 1526, and were eagerly welcomed and bought. Such strong measures of suppression were, however, at once adopted against these perilous volumes, that of the quarto only a single fragment remains (Matt, i.-xxii. 12), now preserved in the British Museum (Grenville, 12179),19 of the octavo only one perfect copy (the title-page missing) in the Baptist College at Bristol,20 and one imperfect in the library of St Paul’s cathedral.

But Tyndale continued his labours undaunted. In 1529 the manuscript translation of Deuteronomy is mentioned as having perished with his other books and papers in a shipwreck which he suffered on the coast of Holland, on his way to Hamburg. In 1530, however, the whole of the Pentateuch was printed in Marburg by Hans Luft; it is provided with prefaces and marginal annotations of a strongly controversial character. The only perfect copy is preserved in the Grenville library of the British Museum.21 It was reissued in 1534 with a new preface and certain corrections and emendations in Genesis, and again in London in 1551.

In 1531 the Book of Jonah appeared with an important and highly interesting prologue, the only copy known of which is in the British Museum.22

Meanwhile the demand for New Testaments, for reading or for the flames, steadily increased, and the printers found it to their advantage to issue the Worms edition of the New Testament in not less than three surreptitious reprints before 1534. This is testified by George Joye in his Apology, who himself brought out a fourth edition of Tyndale’s New Testament in August 1534, freed from many of the errors which, through the carelessness of the Flemish printers, had crept into the text, but with such alterations and new renderings as to arouse the indignation of Tyndale. The only remaining copy, a 16mo, is in the Grenville library. To counteract and supersede all these unauthorized editions, Tyndale himself brought out his own revision of the New Testament with translations added of all the Epistles of the Old Testament after the use of Salisbury. It was published in November 1534 at Antwerp by Martin Emperowr. Prologues were added to all books except the Acts and the Apocalypse, and new marginal glosses were introduced. Three copies of this edition are in the British Museum, and it was reprinted in 1841 in Bagster’s Hexapla. In the following year Tyndale once more set forth a revised edition, “fynesshed in the yere of oure Lorde God A.M.D. and XXXV.,” and printed at Antwerp by Godfried van der Haghen.23 In this headings were added to the chapters in the Gospels and the Acts, and the marginal notes of the edition of 1534 were omitted. It is chiefly noted for the peculiarities of its orthography. Of this edition one copy is in the University library, Cambridge, a second in Exeter College, Oxford, and a fragment in the British Museum. It is supposed to have been revised by Tyndale while in prison in the castle of Vilvorde, being the last of his labours in connexion with the English Bible. His execution took place on the 6th of October 1536, and about the same time a small folio reprint of his revised edition of 1534 was brought out in England, the first volume of Scripture printed in this country, probably by T. Berthelet.24 A perfect copy is found in the Bodleian library. In later years, between 1536 and 1550, numerous editions of Tyndale’s New Testament were printed, twenty-one of which have been enumerated and fully described by Francis Fry.25

“The history of our English Bible begins with the work of Tyndale and not with that of Wycliffe,” says Dr Westcott in his History of the English Bible, p. 316, and it is true that one of the most striking features of the work of Tyndale is its independence. Attempts have been made to show that especially in the Old Testament he based a great deal of his work on the Wycliffite translations, but in face of this we have his own explicit 899 statement, “I had no man to counterfet, nether was holpe with englysshe of eny that had interpreted the same (i.e. the New Testament), or soche lyke thīge ī the scripture beforetyme.”26

He translated straight from the Hebrew and Greek originals, although the Vulgate and more especially Erasmus’s Latin version were on occasion consulted. For his prefaces and marginal notes he used Luther’s Bible freely, even to paraphrasing or verbally translating long passages from it.

Apart from certain blemishes and awkward and even incorrect renderings, Tyndale’s translation may be described as a truly noble work, faithful and scholarly, though couched in simple and popular language. Surely no higher praise can be accorded to it than that it should have been taken as a basis by the translators of the Authorized Version, and thus have lived on through the centuries up to the present day.

The following specimens may prove of interest:—

Meanwhile a complete English Bible was being prepared by Miles Coverdale (q.v.), an Augustinian friar who was afterwards for a few years (1551-1553) bishop of Exeter. As the printing was finished on the 4th of October 1535 it Miles Coverdale. is evident that Coverdale must have been engaged on the preparation of the work for the press at almost as early a date as Tyndale. Foxe states (op. cit. v. 120) that Coverdale was with Tyndale at Hamburg in 1529, and it is probable that most of his time before 1535 was spent abroad, and that his translation, like that of Tyndale, was done out of England.

In 1877 Henry Stevens, in his catalogue of the Caxton Exhibition, pointed out a statement by a certain Simeon Ruytinck in his life of Emanuel van Meteren, appended to the latter’s Nederlandische Historie (1614), that Jacob van Meteren, the father of Emanuel, had manifested great zeal in producing at Antwerp a translation of the Bible into English, and had employed for that purpose a certain learned scholar named Miles Conerdale (sic). In 1884 further evidence was adduced by W.J.C. Moens, who reprinted an affidavit signed by Emanuel van Meteren, 28 May 1609, to the effect that “he was brought to England anno 1550 ... by his father, a furtherer of reformed religion, and he that caused the first Bible at his costes to be Englisshed by Mr Myles Coverdal in Andwarp, the w’h his father, with Mr Edward Whytchurch, printed both in Paris and London” (Registers of the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, 1884, p. xiv.). Apart from the reference to Whytchurch and the place of printing, this statement agrees with that of Simeon Ruytinck, and it is possible that van Meteren showed his zeal in the matter by undertaking the cost of printing the work as well as that of remunerating the translator. Mr W. Aldis Wright, however, judging from the facts that the name of Whytchurch was introduced, that the places of printing were given as London and Paris, not Antwerp, and lastly that Emanuel van Meteren being born in 1535 could only have derived his knowledge from hearsay, is inclined to think that the Bible in which J. van Meteren was interested “was Matthew’s of 1537 or the Great Bible of 1539, and not Coverdale’s of 1535.”27

It is highly probable that the printer of Coverdale’s Bible was Christopher Froschouer of Zürich,28 who printed the edition of 1550, and that the sheets were sent for binding and distribution to James Nicolson, the Southwark printer.29 This first of all printed English Bibles is a small folio in German black letter, bearing the title: “Biblia, The Bible; that is, the Holy Scripture of the Olde and New Testament, faithfully and truly translated out of Douche (German) and Latyn into Englishe, M.D.XXXV.” The volume is provided with woodcuts and initials, the title-page and preliminary matter in the only two remaining copies (British Museum and Holkam Hall) being in the same type as the body of the book. A second issue of the same date, 1535, has the title-page and the preliminary matter in English type, and omits the words “out of Douche and Latyn”; a third issue bears the date 1536. A second edition in folio, “newly oversene and corrected,” was printed by Nicolson, with English type, in 1537; and also in the same year, a third edition in quarto. On the title-page of the latter were added the significant words, “set forth with the Kynge’s moost gracious licence.”

Coverdale, however, was no independent translator. Indeed, he disavows any such claim by stating expressly, in his dedication to the king, “I have with a cleare conscience purely & faythfully translated this out of fyue sundry interpreters, hauyng onely the manyfest trueth of the scripture before myne eyes,” and in the Prologue he refers to his indebtedness to “The Douche (German) interpreters: whom (because of theyr synguler gyftes and speciall diligence in The Bible) I haue ben the more glad to folowe for the most parte, accordynge as I was requyred.”30 These “fyue interpreters” Dr Westcott (ibid. p. 163) identifies as Luther, the Zürich Bible, the Latin version of Pagninus, the Vulgate, and, in all likelihood, the English translation of Tyndale.

Though not endowed with the strength and originality of mind that characterized Tyndale’s work, Coverdale showed great discrimination in the handling and use of his authorities, and moreover a certain delicacy and happy ease in his rendering of the Biblical text, to which we owe not a few of the beautiful expressions of our present Bible.

The following extracts from the edition of 1535 may serve as examples of his rendering:—

It should be added that Coverdale’s Bible was the first in which the non-canonical books were left out of the body of the Old Testament and placed by themselves at the end of it under the title Apocripha.

The large sale of the New Testaments of Tyndale, and the success of Coverdale’s Bible, showed the London booksellers that a new and profitable branch of business was opened out to them, and they soon began to avail Matthew’s Bible. themselves of its advantages. Richard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch were the first in the field, bringing out a fine and full-sized folio in 1537, “truely and purely translated into English by Thomas Matthew.” Thomas Matthew, is, however, in all probability, an alias for John Rogers, a friend and fellow-worker of Tyndale, and the volume is in reality no new translation at all, but a compilation from the renderings of Tyndale and Coverdale. Thus the Pentateuch and the New Testament were reprinted from Tyndale’s translations of 1530 and 1535 respectively, with very slight variations; 900 the books from Joshua to the end of Chronicles are traditionally, and lately also by external evidence,31 assigned to Tyndale and were probably left by him in the hands of Rogers. From Ezra to Malachi the translation is taken from Coverdale, as is also that of the Apocryphal books. John Roger’s own work appears in a marginal commentary distributed through the Old and New Testaments and chiefly taken from Olivetan’s French Bible of 1535. The volume was printed in black letter in double columns, and three copies are preserved in the British Museum. In 1538 a second edition in folio appeared; it was reprinted twice in 1549, and again in 1551. It is significant that this Bible, like Coverdale’s second edition, was “set forth with the kinges most gracyous lycence,” probably with the concurrence of Cranmer, since he, in a letter to Cromwell, begged him to “exhibit the book unto the king’s highness, and to obtain of his grace ... a licence that the same may be sold and read of every person, without danger of any act, proclamation or ordinance, heretofore granted to the contrary.”32 And thus it came to pass, as Dr Westcott strikingly puts it, that “by Cranmer’s petition, by Crumwell’s influence, and by Henry’s authority, without any formal ecclesiastical decision, the book was given to the English people, which is the foundation of the text of our present Bible. From Matthew’s Bible—itself a combination of the labours of Tyndale and Coverdale—all later revisions have been successively formed” (op. cit. p. 71).

Meanwhile the successful sale of Matthew’s Bible, the private venture of the two printers Grafton and Whitchurch, was threatened by a rival edition published in 1539 in folio and quarto by “John Byddell for Thomas Barthlet” Taverner. with Richard Taverner as editor. This was, in fact, what would now be called “piracy,” being Grafton’s Matthew Bible revised by Taverner, a learned member of the Inner Temple and famous Greek scholar. He made many alterations in the Matthew Bible, characterized by critical acumen and a happy choice of strong and idiomatic expressions. He is, perhaps, the first purist among the Biblical translators, endeavouring, whenever possible, to substitute a word of native origin for the foreign expression of his predecessors.33 His revision seems, however, to have had little or no influence on subsequent translators, and was only once, in 1549, reprinted in its entirety. Quarto and octavo editions of the New Testament alone were published in the same year, 1539, as the original edition, and in the following year, 1540, the New Testament in duodecimo. The Old Testament was reprinted as part of a Bible in 1551, but no other editions are known than those named.

It will have been observed that the translations of Holy Scripture which had been printed during these years (1525-1539) were all made by private men and printed without any public authority. Some of them had indeed been set The Great Bible, 1539. forth by the king’s licence, but the object of this is shown by the above-quoted letter of Archbishop Cranmer to Cromwell, touching Matthew’s Bible. It is “that the same may be sold and read of every person ... until such time that we, the bishops, shall set forth a better translation, which I think will not be till a day after doomsday.” This letter was written on the 4th of August 1537, and the impatient words at the end refer to an authorized version which had been projected several years before, and which was, in fact, at that very time in preparation, though not proceeding quickly enough to satisfy Cranmer. In the year 1530, Henry VIII. had issued a commission of inquiry respecting the expediency and necessity of having “in the English tongue both the New Testament and the Old” (Wilkins’ Concilia, iii. 737). This commission reported against the expediency of setting forth a vernacular translation until there was a more settled state of religious opinion, but states that the king “intended to provide that the Holy Scripture shall be, by great, learned and Catholic persons, translated into the English tongue if it shall then seem to His Grace convenient to be” (ib. 740). The Convocation of Canterbury refreshed the royal memory on the subject by petitioning the king on the 19th of December 1534 “that His Majesty would vouchsafe to decree, that the Scriptures should be translated into the vulgar tongue ... and ... delivered to the people according to their learning” (ibid. 770). The subject was again before Convocation in 1536,34 but the detailed history is lost to us—all that is known being that Cromwell had placed Coverdale at the head of the enterprise, and that the result was an entirely new revision, based on Matthew’s Bible.35 Coverdale consulted in his revision the Latin version of the Old Testament with the Hebrew text by Sebastian Münster, the Vulgate and Erasmus’s editions of the Greek text for the New Testament.

Concerning the printing of this authorized Bible more details are known. Cromwell had planned the work on a large scale, too large evidently for the resources of the English presses, for it was determined that the printing should be entrusted to Francis Regnault, a famous Paris printer. At the request of Henry VIII., a licence was granted to Regnault for this purpose by Francis I., while Coverdale and Grafton were sent over in 1538 to superintend the work as it passed through the press. The work was pressed forward with all speed, for, as Coverdale writes to Cromwell, they were “dayly threatened” and ever feared “to be spoken withall.”36 Indeed, when the printing was far advanced, on the 17th of December 1538, its further progress was interdicted by the Inquisitor-general for France, and orders were given to seize the whole of the impression. Coverdale and Grafton left Paris quickly, but soon returned, rescued a great number of the finished sheets, “four great dry-vats” full of them having been sold to a haberdasher instead of being burnt—and conveyed types, printing-presses and workmen to England. Thus the volume which had been begun in Paris in 1538 was completed in London, the colophon stating that it was “Fynisshed in Apryll, Anno M.CCCCC.XXXIX.” It is a splendid folio Bible of the largest volume, and was distinguished from its predecessors by the name of The Great Bible. The title-page represents Henry VIII. giving the “Word of God” to Cromwell and Cranmer, who, in their order, distribute it to laymen and clerics, and describes the volume as “truly translated after the veryte of the Hebreue and Greke texts by þe dylygent studye of dyverse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tongues. Prynted by Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch.” “Certain godly annotations,” which Coverdale promised in the Prologue, did not, however, appear in the first issue, nor in any of the following. This was the first of seven editions of this noble Bible which issued from the press during the years 1539-1541,—the second of them, that of 1540, called Cranmer’s Bible from the fact that it contained a long Preface by Archbishop Cranmer, having the important addition “This is the Byble apoynted to the vse of the churches” on the title-page. Seventy years afterwards it assumed the form ever since known as the Authorized Version, but its Psalter is still embedded, without any alteration, in the Book of Common Prayer.

For the sake of comparison the following extracts from St Matthew are given, according to the edition of 1539.

Meanwhile the closing years of Henry VIII.’s reign were characterized by restrictive measures as to the reading and use of the Bible. Tyndale Version was prohibited by an act of 901 parliament, 1543; at the same time it was enacted that all notes and marginal commentaries in other copies should be obliterated, and that “no woman (unless she be a noble or gentle woman), no artificers, apprentices, journeymen, servingmen, under the degree of yeomen ... husbandmen or labourers” should read or use any part of the Bible under pain of fines and imprisonment.37

In 1546 Coverdale’s Bible was included in the proscription, the Great Bible being the only translation not interdicted. During Edward VI.’s reign there was a brief respite, but with the accession of Mary the persecutions of the William Whittingham. English Bible and its friends were renewed. Cranmer suffered martyrdom at the stake, as John Rogers had done before him. Other prominent reformers, amongst them Coverdale, sought refuge in Geneva, the town of Calvin and Beza, where they employed their enforced leisure in planning and carrying out a new revision of the Bible. The first fruits of these labours was a New Testament issued in June 1557, with an introduction by Calvin, probably the work of William Whittingham.38 The volume, in a convenient quarto size, printed in clear Roman type, and provided with marginal annotations, gained immediate popularity in England, where a Bible suited for household demands had long been needed. It was the first Bible which had the text divided into “verses and sections according to the best editions in other languages.”39

Whittingham’s enterprise was, however, soon superseded by an issue of the whole Bible, which appeared in 1560, the so-called Genevan Bible, popularly also known as the Breeches Bible, from its rendering of Gen. iii. 7, “They sewed The Genevan Bible. fig leaves together and made themselves breeches.” This edition was mainly due to the combined efforts of William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby and Thomas Sampson, and the expenses towards printing and publication were borne by members of the congregation at Geneva. It represented in the Old Testament a thorough and independent revision of the text of the Great Bible with the help of the Hebrew original, the Latin versions of Leo Judä (1543), Pagninus (1528), Sebastian Münster (1534-1535), and the French versions of Olivetan. The New Testament consisted of Tyndale’s latest text revised to a great extent in accordance with Beza’s translation and commentary. The changes introduced by the Genevan translators were, as a rule, a great improvement, and the version received a ready welcome and immediate popularity, not only on account of its intrinsic merits, but because of its handy size, usually that of a small quarto, and of its being printed, like Whittingham’s New Testament, in a readable Roman type instead of black letter. Like this earlier publication, it had the division of the chapters into verses, and a marginal commentary which proved a great attraction to the Puritans. The popularity of the Genevan Bible was so great that between 1560 and 1644 at least 140 editions of it were published,40 and this in spite of its not being allowed for use in the churches.

In 1576 the New Testament of the Genevan Bible was again revised by Lawrence Tomson and provided with a new commentary mainly translated from Beza. It soon became popular and even replaced the Genevan New Testament in later editions of this Bible.

Some time after the accession of Queen Elizabeth an attempt was made to improve the authorized Great Bible, and in this way to challenge the ever growing popularity of the Calvinistic Genevan Bible. The initiative was taken The Bishops’ Bible. by Archbishop Parker, about 1563-1565, who, according to Strype (Parker i. 414) “took upon him the labour to contrive and set the whole work a going ... by sorting out the whole Bible into parcels ... and distributing these parcels to able bishops and other learned men, to peruse and collate each the book or books allotted them ... and they to add some short marginal notes for the illustration or correction of the text.”

The work was pushed forward with energy, and on the 5th of October 1568 the volume was ready for publication. It was a magnificent folio, generally known as the Bishops’ Bible, since not less than eight of these dignitaries took part in the revision. But the detached and piecemeal way in which the revision had been carried out naturally caused certain inequalities in the execution of the work. The different parts of the Bible vary considerably in merit, the alterations in the New Testament, for instance, showing freshness and vigour, whereas most of the changes introduced in the Old Testament have been condemned as “arbitrary and at variance with the exact sense of the Hebrew text” (Westcott, op. cit. p. 237). Several editions of the Bishops’ Bible were afterwards published, but it is doubtful whether the ecclesiastical authorities in spite of repeated enactments (Cardwell, Synodalia, pp. 115, 123, 210, 292) ever succeeded in entirely enforcing its public use in the churches. After 1569 the Great Bible ceased, however, to be reprinted. But in the homes the Genevan version still maintained its supremacy. One thing is certain, that the book of Psalms of the new revision had fairly soon to give way before the well-known and smooth rendering of the Great Bible. In the second edition of the Bishops’ Bible, 1572, the two texts were actually printed side by side; in all later editions except one (1585) the older Psalter alone remained.

From the time of Tyndale onwards the translation of the Scriptures into English had been more or less an outcome of the great reformatory movements within the church. It was not until Queen Elizabeth’s reign that members The Reims and Douai Version. of the Romanist party found it expedient to translate the Bible into the vernacular “for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sectes, and for the better preseruation or reclaime of many good soules endangered thereby” (Preface to the Rhemish Version).

According to the title-page the New Testament was “translated faithfvlly into English ovt of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred vvith the Greeke and other editions in diuers languages.... In the English College of Rhemes, 1582.” The Old Testament had been “long since” completed, but “for lacke of good meanes” (Preface to the New Testament), its appearance was delayed till 1609-1610, when it was published at Douai. The complete work, known as the Rhemes and Douay Version, was reprinted in Rouen in 1635, and after a considerable time revised by Dr Challoner (1749-1750). The translation is really anonymous, but there seems to be little doubt that it was carried out by some of the Romanist refugees connected with the Seminary at Douai and the English college at Reims, the chief amongst them being Gregory Martin, William Allen, Richard Bristow and J. Reynolds. Like the Wycliffite Versions it is merely a secondary rendering from the Latin Vulgate, and it suffered from many of the defects which characterized these versions, extreme literalness, often stilted, ambiguous renderings, at times unintelligible except by a reference to the Latin original, as in Luke xxii. 18, “I will not drink of the generation of the vine,” or Phil. ii. 7, “But he exinanited himself.”

902

As further examples of this rendering we print the same passages from St Matthew:—

The strongly Latinized vocabulary of this version was not without its influence on the next great venture in English translations of the Bible, the Authorized Version.41

The English Bible, which is now recognized as the Authorized Version wherever the English language is spoken, is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible, begun in 1604, and published in 1611. It arose incidentally out of a Conference The Authorized Version, 1611. between the High Church and the Low Church parties convened by James I. at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604, for the purpose of determining “things pretended to be amiss in the church,” and was originally proposed by Dr Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the leader and spokesman of the Low Church party, and subsequently on the committee which revised the translation of the Prophets.

No real opposition was offered to the proposal, and the king cleverly sketched out on the moment a plan to be adopted. He “wished that some special pains should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation—professing that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English—and this to be done by the best learned in both the Universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the privy council; and lastly to be ratified by his royal authority; and so this whole church to be bound unto it and none other.”42 He also particularly desired that no notes should be added by way of comment in the margin, since some of those in the Genevan Bible appeared to him “very partial, untrue, seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits.”

The appointment of the revisers was a work of much responsibility and labour, and five months elapsed before they were selected and their respective portions assigned to them; but the list of those who began the work, and who, with some few changes in consequence of deaths, brought it to a happy conclusion, shows how large an amount of scholarship was enlisted. It includes Dr Andrewes, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was familiar with Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek, Latin and at least ten other languages, while his knowledge of patristic literature was unrivalled; Dr Overall, regius professor of theology and afterwards bishop of Norwich; Bedwell, the greatest Arabic scholar of Europe; Sir Henry Savile, the most learned layman of his time; and, to say nothing of others well known to later generations, nine who were then or afterwards professors of Hebrew or of Greek at Oxford or Cambridge. It is observable also that they were chosen without reference to party, at least as many of the Puritan clergy as of the opposite party being placed on the committees.

When this large body of scholars were set down to their task, an elaborate set of rules was drawn up for their guidance, which contained a scheme of revision as well as general directions for the execution of their work. This is one of the very few records that remain of their undertaking.44

It is not possible to determine in how far all these rules were adhered to. All we know of the way this noble work was carried out is contained in the Preface, where Dr Miles Smith, in 1612 bishop of Gloucester, in the name of his fellow-workers gives an account of the manner and spirit in which it was done:—

From the above it appears that the actual work of revision occupied about two years and nine months, an additional nine months being required for the final preparation for press. The edition appeared at length in 1611, the full title being as follows: The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues, & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall comandement. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie. Anno Dom. 1611.45 Since that time many millions of this revised translation have been printed, and the general acceptance of it by all English-speaking people of whatever denomination is a testimony to its excellence.

Still the work of improving and correcting went on through the centuries, and a modern copy of the Authorized Version shows no inconsiderable departures from the standard edition of 1611. Dr Scrivener imputes some of those differences “to oversight and negligence ... but much the greater part of them” he holds to be “deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown.”

More ambitious attempts at amending the new version were not lacking, but they all proved fruitless, until in February 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of revision. The report of The Revised Version. this committee, presented in May, was adopted, to the effect “that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong”; and shortly afterwards two companies were formed for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments.

Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of the Protestant denominations in America, with the result that similar companies were formed in the United States. The work of the English revisers was regularly submitted to their consideration; their comments were carefully considered and largely adopted, and their divergences from the version ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to the published work. Thus the Revised Version was the achievement of English-speaking Christendom as a whole; only the Roman Catholic Church, of the great English-speaking denominations, refused to take part in the undertaking. The Church of England, which had put forth the version of 1611, fitly initiated the work, but for its performance most wisely invited the help of the sister churches. The delegates of the Clarendon Press in Oxford, and the syndics of the Pitt Press in Cambridge, entered into a liberal arrangement with the revisers, by which the necessary funds were provided for all their expenses. On the completion of its work the New Testament company divided itself into three committees, working at London, Westminster and Cambridge, for the purpose of revising the Apocrypha.

The work of the Old Testament company was different in some important respects from that which engaged the attention of the New Testament company. The received Hebrew text has undergone but little emendation, and the revisers had before them substantially the same Massoretic text which was in the hands of the translators of 1611. It was felt that there was no sufficient justification to make any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the versions. The Old Testament revisers were therefore spared much of the 904 labour of deciding between different readings, which formed one of the most important duties of the New Testament company. But the advance in the study of Hebrew since the early part of the 17th century enabled them to give a more faithful translation of the received text. The value of their work is evident, especially in Job, Ecclesiastes and the prophetical books.

It is the work of the New Testament committee which has attracted most attention, whether for blame or praise. The critical resources at the disposal of scholars in 1611 were very meagre, and the few early manuscripts with which they were acquainted failed to receive the attention they deserved. The results of modern critical methods could not fail to make the incompleteness of the “Received Text,” and of the “Authorized Version,” which was based on it, obvious. It had long been the opinion of all competent scholars that a thorough revision was necessary. A proposal in favour of this course was made in Convocation in 1856, but it was not until fourteen years later that the committee was appointed to undertake the work. The revisers’ first task was to reconstruct the Greek text, as the necessary foundation of their work. In this difficult duty they were no doubt influenced by Westcott and Hort’s edition of the New Testament. These two scholars were members of the committee which prepared the Revised Version, and on the question of various readings they appear to have exercised a predominating influence. The revisers were privately supplied with instalments of Westcott and Hort’s text as their work required them. But it is scarcely necessary to say that the Revised Version is not the work of one or two scholars. Different schools of criticism were represented on the committee, and the most careful discussion took place before any decision was formed. Every precaution was taken to ensure that the version should represent the result of the best scholarship of the time, applied to the work before it with constant devotion and with the highest sense of responsibility. The changes in the Greek text of the Authorized Version when compared with the textus receptus are numerous, but the contrast between the English versions of 1611 and 1881 is all the more striking because of the difference in the method of translation which was adopted. The revisers aimed at the most scrupulous faithfulness. They adopted the plan—deliberately rejected by the translators of 1611—of always using the same English word for the same Greek word. “They endeavoured to enable the English reader to follow the correspondences of the original with the closest exactness, to catch the solemn repetition of words and phrases, to mark the subtleties of expression, to feel even the strangeness of unusual forms of speech.”

The revision of the New Testament was completed in 407 meetings, distributed over more than ten years. It was formally presented to Convocation on May 17, 1881. The revision of the Old Testament occupied 792 days, and was finished on June 20, 1884. The revised Apocrypha did not make its appearance until 1895.

The text of the Revised Version is printed in paragraphs, the old division of books into chapters and verses being retained for convenience of reference. By this arrangement the capricious divisions of some books is avoided. Various editions of the New Version have been published, the most complete being the edition of the whole Bible with marginal references. These references had their origin in the work of two small subcommittees of the revisers, but they received their present form at the hands of a specially appointed committee. The marginal references given in the original edition of the Authorized Version of 1611 have been retained as far as possible.

The work of the revisers was received without enthusiasm. It was too thorough for the majority of religious people. Partisans found that havoc had been played with their proof texts. Ecclesiastical conservatives were scandalized by the freedom with which the traditional text was treated. The advocates of change were discontented with the hesitating acceptance which their principles had obtained. The most vulnerable side of the revision was that on which the mass of English readers thought itself capable of forming a judgment. The general effect of so many small alterations was to spoil the familiar sonorous style of the Authorized Version. The changes were freely denounced as equally petty and vexatious; they were, moreover, too often inconsistent with the avowed principles of the revisers. The method of determining readings and renderings by vote was not favourable to the consistency and literary character of the Version. A whole literature of criticism and apology made its appearance, and the achievement of so many years of patient labour seemed destined to perish in a storm of resentments. On the whole, the Revised Version weathered the storm more successfully than might have been expected. Its considerable excellences were better realized by students than stated by apologists. The hue and cry of the critics largely died away, and was replaced by a calmer and juster appreciation.

The work of the revisers has been sharply criticized from the standpoint of specialists in New Testament Greek. Dr Rutherford stated the case briefly and pointedly in the preface to his translation of the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1900). He maintains that “the Greek of the New Testament may never be understood as classical Greek is understood,” and accuses the revisers of distorting the meaning “by translating in accordance with Attic idiom phrases that convey in later Greek a wholly different sense, the sense which the earlier translators in happy ignorance had recognized that the context demanded.”

The use of the new Version has become general. Familiarity has mitigated the harshness of the revisers’ renderings; scholarship, on the whole, has confirmed their readings. The Version has been publicly read in parish churches both in London and in the country. In Canterbury cathedral and Westminster Abbey it has definitely displaced the older Version. Bishops have acquiesced and congregations approved. It is no longer possible to maintain the plausible and damaging contention that the Revised Bible is ill suited for public use. The Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in May 1898 appointed a committee to consider the expediency of “permitting or encouraging” the use of the Revised Version in the public services of the Church.

BIBLE CHRISTIANS, one of the denominations now merged in the United Methodist Church (see United Methodists), so called because its early preachers appealed solely to the Bible in confirmation of their doctrines. The denomination arose in the agricultural districts and fishing villages of north Cornwall and Devon; a district only slightly influenced by John Wesley and the original Methodist movement. The founder was William O’Bryan (afterwards Bryant), a Methodist lay preacher of Luxillian, Cornwall. Finding that the people had no evangelical preaching he began an itinerary to supply the need. The coastmen were expert smugglers and wreckers, the agriculturists were ignorant and drunken, the parish clergy were slothful, in many cases intemperate, and largely given to fox-hunting. Only in a parish or two was there any approach to religious ministry. O’Bryan commenced his labours in north Devon, and in 1815 a small society was formed at Lake Farm, Shebbear. The movement had the seeds of great vitality in it. In 1819 the first conference was held at Launceston. There were present besides O’Bryan one accepted minister—James Thorne—fourteen ministers on trial and fifteen women preachers, a class that was always conspicuous in the denomination. At that conference the work had spread from Ring’s Ash in Devon to Morrah, a lonely and desolate parish in west Cornwall. In 1820-1821 Kent, Northumberland, the Scilly and Norman (i.e. Channel) Islands appeared on the list of stations. Then came a serious break. In 1829 there was a severance between the larger part of the new body and O’Bryan, who had claimed to be perpetual president, and to have all property vested in him personally. He tried to establish a separate conference, but failed, and in 1836 there was a reunion. O’Bryan left England for America, where he remained for the rest of his life, and his contingent (numbering 565 members and 4 ministers) returned to the original conference. The growth continued. In 1831 agents were sent to Canada and Prince Edward’s Island, in 1850 to South Australia, in 1855 to Victoria, in 1866 to Queensland, in 1877 to New Zealand and in 1885 to China, so that the original O’Bryan tradition of fervid evangelism was amply maintained.

On O’Bryan’s departure, James Thorne, the first fully recognized minister, at whose father’s farm the connexion started, became its leader. Although reared as an ordinary farm lad, he proved to be a man of singular devotion and spiritual genius. He laid the foundations broadly in evangelism, finance, temperance and education, founding in the latter connexion a middle-class school at Shebbear, at which generations of ministers’ sons and numerous students for the ministry have been educated. James Thorne was five times president of the conference and fifteen times secretary. He died in 1872. In this period there was much persecution. Landowners refused sites, and in the Isle of Wight the people worshipped for many months in a quarry. The preachers were sometimes imprisoned and many times assaulted. The old Methodist body even excommunicated persons for attending “Bryanite” meetings. Partly co-operative with James Thorne and at his death independently, the Church was favoured with the influence of Frederick William Bourne. He was a minister for fifty-five years, and served the Bible Christians as editor, missionary treasurer, book steward and three times president of conference. With him will always be associated the name of Billy Bray, an illiterate but inimitable Cornish evangelist, a memoir of whom, written by Bourne, exerted a great influence in the religious life of the denomination.

BIBLE SOCIETIES, associations for translating and circulating the Holy Scriptures. This object has engaged the attention of the leaders of Christendom from early times. In an extant letter, dated A.D. 331, the emperor Constantine requested Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, to provide him with fifty copies of the Old and New Testaments for use in the principal churches in Constantinople. In 797 Charlemagne commissioned Alcuin to prepare an emended text of the Vulgate; copies of this text were multiplied, not always accurately, in the famous writing-schools at Tours. The first book printed in Europe was the Latin Bible, and Copinger estimates that 124 editions of the Vulgate had been issued by the end of the 15th century. The Italian Bible was printed a dozen times before A.D. 1500, and eighteen editions of the German Bible had already been published before Luther’s version appeared.

The Reformation quickened men’s interest in the Scriptures to an extraordinary degree, so that, notwithstanding the adverse attitude adopted by the Roman Church at and after the council of Trent, the translation and circulation of the Bible were taken in hand with fresh zeal, and continued in more systematic fashion.

Christian missionaries to non-Christian lands have naturally been among the most skilful translators and the most assiduous distributors of the Bible. The earliest complete Arabic Bible was produced at Rome in 1671, by the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide. Protestant missionary societies have engaged energetically in the task not only of translating, but of printing, publishing and distributing the Scriptures. Thus the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (founded 1698), besides its other activities, has done much to cheapen and multiply copies of the Scriptures, not only in English and Welsh, but in many foreign languages. Early in the 18th century it printed editions in Arabic, and promoted the first versions of the Bible in Tamil and Telugu, made by the Danish Lutheran missionaries whom it then supported in south India. The earliest New Testament (1767) and Old Testament (1783-1801) in Gaelic were published by the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge (founded 1709). The S.P.C.K. now publishes versions of the Scriptures (either complete, or in part) in 38 different languages (without reckoning versions of the Prayer Book in 45 other languages); and during 1905-1906 the S.P.C.K. issued in England 116,126 Bibles and 17,783 New Testaments.

The earliest noteworthy organization, formed for the specific purpose of circulating the Scriptures, was the Canstein Bible Institute (Bibelanstalt), founded in 1710 at Halle in Saxony, by Karl Hildebrand, baron von Canstein (1667-1719), who was associated with P.J. Spener and other leaders of Pietism in Germany. He invented a method of printing, perhaps somewhat akin to stereotyping—though the details are not clearly known,—whereby the Institute could produce Bibles and Testaments in Luther’s version at a very low cost, and sell them, in small size, at prices equivalent to 10d. and 3d. per copy, respectively. In 1722 editions of the Scriptures were also issued in Bohemian and Polish. At von Canstein’s death he left the Institute to the care of his friend August Hermann Francke, founder in 1698 of the famous Waisenhaus (orphanage) at Halle. The Canstein Institute has issued some 6,000,000 copies of the Scriptures.

In England various Christian organizations, which arose out of the Evangelical movement in the 18th century, took part in the work. Among such may be mentioned the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge among the Poor (1750); and the Society for the Support and Encouragement of Sunday Schools (1785). An institution was founded in 1780 under the name of the Bible Society, but as its sphere was restricted to soldiers and seamen the title was afterwards changed to the Naval and Military Bible Society. The first ship among whose crew it distributed the Scriptures was the “Royal George,” which had 400 of this society’s Bibles on board when it foundered at Spithead on the 29th of August 1782. The French Bible Society, instituted in 1792, came to an end in 1803, owing to the Revolution.

The British and Foreign Bible Society.—In 1804 was founded in London the British and Foreign Bible Society, the most important association of its kind. It originated in a proposal made to the committee of the Religious Tract Society, by the Rev. Thomas Charles of Bala, who found that his evangelistic and philanthropic labours in Wales were sorely hindered by the dearth of Welsh Bibles. His colleagues in the Religious Tract Society united with other earnest evangelical leaders to establish a new society, which should have for its sole object “to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment.” This simplicity of aim is combined with a catholicity of constitution which admits the co-operation of all persons interested in the society’s object. The committee of management consists of thirty-six laymen, six of them being foreigners resident in or near London, while of the remaining thirty, half are members of the Church of England, and half are members of other Christian denominations.

Supported by representative Christian leaders, such as Granville Sharp, Zachary Macaulay, William Wilberforce, Charles Grant and Henry Thornton, with Lord Teignmouth, ex-governor-general of India, as its first president, and Dr Porteus, bishop of London, as its friendly counsellor, the new society made rapid progress. It spread throughout Great Britain, mainly by means of auxiliaries, i.e. local societies, affiliated but self-controlled, with subsidiary branches and associations (these last being often managed by women). Up to 1816-1817 the parent society had received from its auxiliaries altogether £420,000. This system continues to flourish. In 1905-1906 the society had about 5800 auxiliaries, branches and associations in England and Wales, and more than 2000 auxiliaries abroad, mainly in the British Colonies, many of which undertake vigorous local work, besides remitting contributions to London.

In Scotland the Edinburgh Bible Society (1809), the Glasgow Bible Society (1812), and other Scottish auxiliaries, many of which had dissociated themselves from the British and Foreign Bible Society after 1826, were finally incorporated (1861) with the National Bible Society of Scotland, which has carried on vigorous work all over the world, especially in China. During 1905, with an income of £27,108, it issued 1,590,881 copies, 907,000 of which were circulated in China. Its total issues from 1861 to 1906 were 26,106,265 volumes.

In Ireland the Hibernian Bible Society (originally known as the Dublin Bible Society) was founded in 1806, and with it were federated kindred Irish associations formed at Cork, Belfast, Derry, &c. The Hibernian Bible Society, whose centenary was celebrated in 1906, had then issued a total of 5,713,837 copies. It sends an annual subsidy to aid the foreign work of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Other European Societies.—The impulse which founded the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1804 soon spread over Europe, and, notwithstanding the turmoils of the Napoleonic wars, kindred organizations on similar lines quickly sprang up, promoted and subsidized by the British and Foreign Bible Society. Many of these secured royal and aristocratic patronage and encouragement—the tsar of Russia, the kings of Prussia, Bavaria, Sweden, Denmark and Württemberg all lending their influence to the enterprise.

Within fourteen years the following Bible societies were in active operation: the Basel Bible Society (founded at Nuremberg, 1804), the Prussian Bible Society (founded as the Berlin Bible Society, 1805), the Revel Bible Society (1807), the Swedish Evangelical Society (1808), the Dorpat Bible Society (1811), the Riga Bible Society (1812), the Finnish Bible Society (1812), the Hungarian Bible Institution (Pressburg, 1812), the Württemberg Bible Society (Stuttgart, 1812), the Swedish Bible Society (1814), the Danish Bible Society (1814), the Saxon Bible Society (Dresden, 1814), the Thuringian Bible Society (Erfurt, 1814), the Berg Bible Society (Eberfeld, 1814), the Hanover Bible Society (1814), the Hamburg-Altona Bible Society (1814), the Lübeck Bible Society (1814), the Netherlands Bible Society (Amsterdam, 1814). These were increased in 1815 by the Brunswick, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, Strassburg and Eichsfeld (Saxony) Bible Societies, and the Icelandic Bible Society. In 1816-1817 came the Norwegian Bible Society, the Polish Bible Society and ten minor German Bible Societies. Twelve cantonal societies had also been formed in Switzerland.

Up to 1816-1817 these societies had printed altogether 436,000 copies of the Scriptures, and had received from the British and Foreign Bible Society gifts amounting to over £62,000. The decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826 with regard to circulating the Apocrypha (see above) modified its relations with the most influential of these continental societies. Some of them were ultimately dissolved or suppressed through political or ecclesiastical opposition, the Roman Church proving especially hostile. But many of them still flourish, and are actively engaged in their original task.

In America the earliest Bible society was founded at Philadelphia in 1808. Six more societies—including those of New York and of Massachusetts—were formed during 1809, and other societies, auxiliaries and associations quickly followed. In 1816 a convention of delegates representing 31 of these institutions met at New York and established the American Bible Society, with Elias Boudinot as president. All kindred organizations in the states gradually became amalgamated with this national body, and the federation was completed in 1839 by the adhesion of the Philadelphia Society (which now changed its name to the Pennsylvania Bible Society). Not a few noteworthy versions of the Bible, such as those in Arabic, 15 dialects of Chinese, Armenian, and Zulu, and many American Indian, Philippine, and African languages have appeared under the auspices of the American Bible Society. Turkish, classical Chinese, and Korean versions have been made by the American and British societies jointly. The society’s foreign agencies extend to China, Japan, Korea, the Turkish empire, Bulgaria, Egypt, Micronesia, Siam, Mexico, Central America, the South American republics, Cuba and the Philippines. In the year ending March 31st 1909 the income of the Society was $502,345, and it issued 2,153,028 copies of the Scriptures, nearly half of which went to readers outside the United States. The total distribution effected by the American Bible Society and its federated societies had in 1909 exceeded 84,000,000 volumes, in over a hundred different languages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND BIBLIOLOGY. The word βιβλιογραφία was used in post-classical Greek for the writing of books, and as late as 1761, in Fenning’s English Dictionary, a bibliographer is defined as “one who writes or copies books.” The transition from the meaning “a writing of books” to that of “a writing about books,” was accomplished in France in the 18th century—witness the publication in 1763 of the Bibliographie instructive of de Bure. In England the new meaning seems to have been popularized by the Rev. Thomas Frognall Dibdin early in the 19th century, while Southey preferred the rival form bibliology, which is now hardly used. Present custom inclines to restrict the province of bibliography to printed books as opposed to manuscripts, and on the other hand recognizes as coming within its scope almost everything in which a book-loving antiquary can be interested, including the history of printing (see Typography), book-binding (q.v.), book-illustration (see Illustration) and book-collecting (q.v.). The present article is only concerned with bibliography as the art of the examination, collation and description of books, their enumeration and arrangement in lists for purposes of information, and further with the literature of this subject, i.e. with the bibliography of bibliography.

Examination and Collation.—Books are submitted to examination in order to discover their origin, or to test statements concerning it which there is reason to doubt, or to ascertain if they are perfect, and if perfect whether they are in their original condition or have been “made up” from other copies. The discovery of where, when and by whom a book, or fragment of a book, was printed, is the most difficult of these tasks, though as regards books printed in the 15th century it has been much facilitated by the numerous facsimiles enumerated under Incunabula (q.v.). In the article Book (q.v.) a sketch is given of the chief external characteristics of books in each century since the invention of printing. Familiarity with books of different ages and countries soon creates a series of general ideas as to the dates and places with which any combination of these characteristics may be connected, and an experienced bibliographer, more especially if he knows something of the history of paper, will quickly narrow down the field of inquiry sufficiently to make special search possible.

As regards the correction of mis-statements in early books as to their place and origin, glaring piracies such as the Lyonnese counterfeits of the octavo editions of the classics printed by Aldus at Venice, and the numerous unauthorized editions of works by Luther, professing to be printed at Wittenberg, have long ago been exposed. A different variety of the same kind of puzzle arises from the existence of numerous original editions with fictitious imprints. As early as 1499 a Brescia printer, in order to evade the privilege granted to Aldus, gave to an edition of Politian the spurious imprint “Florentiae,” and in the 16th century many controversial books printed in England purported to have been issued in German towns, or with pleasant humour, “at Rome before the castle of S. Angel at the sign of S. Peter.” Only a knowledge of the general characteristics which a book printed at such a place and such a time should possess will secure avoidance of these traps, but when suspicion has been aroused the whole story will often be found in such books as Weller’s Die maskirte Literatur der älteren und neueren Sprachen (1856-1867), and Die falschen und fingirten Druckörte (1864), Brunet’s Imprimeurs imaginaires et libraires supposés (1866), de Brouillant’s La Liberté de la Presse en France; Histoire de Pierre du Marteau, imprimeur à Cologne, &c. (1888); in the various bibliographies of Erotica and in Brunet’s Manuel de l’Amateur and other handbooks for the use of collectors. A special case of this problem of piracies and spurious imprints is that of the modern photographic or type-facsimile forgery of small books possessing a high commercial value, such as the early editions of the letter of Columbus announcing his discovery of the New World. Bad forgeries of this kind can be detected by the tendency of all photographic processes of reproduction to thicken letters and exaggerate every kind of defect, but the best of these imitations when printed on old paper require a specific knowledge of the originals and often cause great trouble. The type-facsimile forgeries are mostly of short pieces by Tennyson, George Eliot and A.C. Swinburne, printed (or supposed to have been printed—for it is doubtful if some of these “forgeries” ever had any originals) for circulation among friends. These trifles should never be purchased without a written guarantee.

When the edition to which a book belongs is known, further examination is needed to ascertain if it is perfect and in its original state. Where no standard collation is available, this can only be ascertained by a detailed examination of the quires or gatherings of which it is made up (see below). In the earliest books these are often very irregular. A large book was usually printed simultaneously in four or six sections on as many different presses, and the several compositors, if unable to end their sections at the end of a complete quire, would insert a single leaf to give more space, or sometimes leave a blank page, or half page, for lack of matter, occasionally adding the note “Hic nullus est defectus.” A careful examination of the text, a task from which bibliographers often shrink, and a comparison with other editions, are the only remedies in these cases.

If a copy contains the right number of leaves, the further question arises as to whether any of these have been supplied from other copies, or are in facsimile. Few collectors even now are educated enough to prefer copies in the condition in which the ravages of time have left them to those which have been “completed” by dealers; hence many old books have been “made up” with leaves from other copies, or not infrequently from other editions. These meddlings often defy detection, but proof of them may be found in differences in the height and colour of the paper, in the two corresponding leaves at either end of a folio quire both possessing a watermark, or in their wiremarks not corresponding, or (in very early books) by the ornamentation added by hand being in a different style.

When it has been ascertained that a copy contains the right number of leaves and that all these leaves are original, the last point to be settled is as to whether it differs in any respect from the standard collation. Owing to the extreme slowness of the presswork for the first two centuries after the invention of printing, there were more opportunities for making small corrections while an old book was passing through the press than there are in the case of modern ones, and on the other hand the balls used for inking the type sometimes caught up words or individual letters and these were replaced by the compositors as best they could. The small variations in the text noticed in different copies of the First Folio edition of Shakespeare, and again of Milton’s Paradise Lost, are probably to be explained by a mixture of these two causes. Where a serious error was discovered after a sheet had been printed off, the leaf on which it occurred was sometimes cut out and a new leaf (called a “cancel”) printed to replace it and pasted on to the rest of the sheet. Variations between different copies of the first edition of Herrick’s Hesperides which have puzzled all his editors are due to the presence of several of such cancels. Lastly, a printer when he had printed part of a book might wish to increase the size of the edition, and the leaves already printed off would have to be reprinted, thus causing a combination of identical and different leaves in different copies. The famous 42-line Bible of c. 1455, variously attributed to Gutenberg and to Fust and Schoeffer, and the Valerius Maximus printed by Schoeffer in 1471, are instances of editions being thus enlarged while passing through the press. As each book was set up simultaneously on several different presses, the reprinted leaves occur at the beginning of each of the sections.

It should be mentioned that there are books of which it is difficult to find two copies in exact agreement. Either to quicken presswork or to comply with trade-regulations made in the interest of compositors, in some books of which large 909 numbers were required, e.g. the Paraphrases of Erasmus, the First Prayer-book of Edward VI., and the “Songs and Sonnets” known as Tottell’s Miscellany, each forme was set up two or more different times. The formes were then used at haphazard for printing, and both at this stage and when the printed sheets came to be stitched almost any number of different combinations might be made. The books named were all printed in the middle of the 16th century, but probably later instances could be produced.

Description.—The ideal towards which all bibliographical work should be directed is the provision in an accessible form of a standard description of a perfect copy of every book of literary, historical or typographical interest as it first issued from the press, and of all the variant issues and editions of it. When such standard descriptions shall have been made, adequately checked and printed, it will be possible to describe every individual copy by a simple reference to them, with a statement of its differences, if any, and an insistence on the points bearing on the special object with which it is being re-described. Only in a few cases has any approach been made to a collection of such standard descriptions. One instance which may be cited is that of the entries of the 15th century books in the Repertorium Bibliographicum of Ludwig Hain (1826-1838), which the addition of an asterisk marks as having been examined by Hain himself in the copies in the Royal library at Munich. The high standard of accuracy of these asterisked entries (save for the omission to note blank leaves at the beginning or end) has been so well established, and the Repertorium is so widely known, that in many catalogues of incunabula the short title of the book together with the number of Hain’s entry has been usefully substituted for a long description. Books printed at Oxford up to 1640 can be equally well described by their short titles and a reference to Mr Falconer Madan’s Early Oxford Press published in 1895. At present the number of works which can thus be taken as a standard is only small, owing partly to the greater and more accurate detail now demanded, partly to the absence of any system of co-operation among libraries, each of which is only willing to pay for catalogues relating exclusively to its own collections. It may be hoped that through the foundation of bibliographical institutes more work of this kind may be done.

A standard description of any book must, as a rule, consist of the following sections, though in the case of works which have no typographical interest, some of the details may be advantageously omitted:—(a) A literal transcript of the title-page, also of the colophon, if any, and of any headings or other portions of the book serving to distinguish it from other issues; (b) Statements as to the size or form of the book, the gatherings or quires of which it is made up, with the total number of leaves, the measurement of an uncut copy or of the type-page, a note of the types in which different parts of the book are printed, and a reference to any trustworthy information already in print; (c) A statement of the literary contents of the book and of the points at which they respectively begin; (d) A note giving any additional information which may be needed.

Enumeration and Arrangement.—In the 18th and early 19th centuries there was a tendency, especially among French writers, to exaggerate the scope of bibliography, on the ground that it was the duty of the bibliographer to appraise the value of all the books he recorded, and to indicate the exact place which each work should occupy in a logical classification of all literature based on a previous classification of all knowledge. Bibliographers are now more modest. They recognize that the classification of human knowledge is a question for philosophers and men of science, that the knowledge of chemistry and of its history needed to make a good bibliography of chemistry is altogether extrinsic to bibliography itself; that all, in fact, to which bibliography can pretend is to suggest certain general principles of arrangement and to point out to some extent how they may be applied. The principles are neither numerous nor recondite. To illustrate the history of printing, books may be arranged according to the places and printing-houses where they were produced. For the glorification of a province or county, they are sometimes grouped under the places where their authors were born or resided. For special purposes, they may be arranged according to the language or dialect in which they are written. But, speaking generally, the choice for a basis of arrangement rests between the alphabetical order of authors and titles, a chronological order according to date of publication, a “logical” or alphabetical order according to subjects, and some combination of these methods. In exercising the choice the essential requisite is a really clear idea of the use to which the bibliography, when made, is to be put. If its chief object be to give detailed information about individual books, a strictly alphabetical arrangement “by authors and titles” (i.e. by the names of authors in their alphabetical order, and the titles of their books in alphabetical sequence under the names) will be the most useful, because it enables the student to obtain the information he seeks with the greatest ease. But while such an alphabetical arrangement offers the speediest access to individual entries, it has no other merit, unless the main object of the bibliography be to show what each author has written. If it is desired to illustrate the history and development of a subject, or the literary biography of an author, the books should be entered chronologically. If direction in reading is to be given, this can best be offered by a subject-index, in which the subjects are arranged alphabetically for speedy reference, and the books chronologically under the subject, so that the newest are always at the end. Lastly if the object is to show how far the whole field has been covered and what gaps remain to be filled, a class catalogue arranged according to what are considered the logical subdivisions of the subject has its advantages. It is important, however, to remember that, if the bulk of the bibliography is very large, a principle of arrangement which would be clear and useful on a small scale may be lost in the quantity of pages over which it extends. An arrangement which cannot be quickly grasped, whatever satisfaction it may give its author, is useless to readers, the measure of its inutility being the worn condition of the alphabetical index to which those who cannot carry a complicated “logical” arrangement in their heads are obliged to turn, in the first instance, to find what they want. It should be obvious that any system which necessitates a preliminary reference to a key or index rests under grave suspicion, and needs some clear counterbalancing gain to justify the loss of time which it entails. The main classification should always be that which will be most immediately useful to readers of the books. To throw light on the history of a subject and to indicate how far the field is covered are honourable objects for compilers, but should mostly be held subordinate to practical use. It is noteworthy also that they may often be better forwarded by means of an index or table than by the main arrangement. The history of Hain’s Repertorium Bibliographicum, which enumerates in an alphabetical arrangement of authors and titles some 16,000 books printed in the 15th century, is a good example of this. For sixty-five years it was of the utmost use for its accurate descriptions of individual books, but threw practically no light on the history of printing. In 1891 Dr Konrad Burger published an appendix to it containing an Index of Printers, since greatly enlarged in his index to Dr Copinger’s Supplement to Hain (1902). The form of the index enables each printer’s work to be seen at a glance, and the impetus given to the study of the history of printing was very great. But if the book had originally been arranged under Printers instead of Authors, it would have been far more difficult to use; its literary value would have been halved, and the record of the output of each press, now instantly 911 visible, would have been obscured by the fuller entries causing it to extend over many pages.

The Bibliography of Bibliography.—The zeal of students of early printing has provided the material for an almost exhaustive list (see Incunabula) of the books printed in the 15th century still extant. Of those printed in the years 1501-1536 there is a tentative enumeration in the continuation of Panzer’s Annales Typographici (1803), and materials are gradually being collected for improving and extending this. But the projects once formed for a universal bibliography have dwindled in proportion as the output of the press has increased, and the nearest approaches to such a work are the printed catalogue of the library of the British Museum, and that of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, now in progress. Of books of great rarity unrepresented in these catalogues a fairly sufficient record exists in Brunet’s Manuel du libraire, the bibliographical collections of Mr W.C. Hazlitt, the Bibliographer’s Manual by Lowndes, and the other bibliographical works enumerated in the article on book-collecting (q.v.). When a universal bibliography was recognized as an impossibility, patriotism suggested the compilation of national bibliographies, and the Bibliotheca Britannica of Robert Watt (Edinburgh, 1824) remains an extraordinary example of what the zeal of a single man could accomplish in this direction. Quérard’s La France littéraire (Paris, 1827-1839), while it gives fuller titles, is much less comprehensive, embracing mainly books of the 18th and early 19th centuries, and only such of these as appeared to the compiler to be written by “savants, historiens, et gens de lettres.” In the works of Heinsius (Allgemeines Bücherlexikon, 1700-1815, Leipzig, 1812-1817), and Kayser (Bücherlexikon, 1750, &c., Leipzig, 1834, &c.) Germany possesses a fine record of her output of books during the last two centuries, and since the organization of the book-trade, contemporary lists of books, with résumés and indexes issued at intervals, exist for most European countries. For the period before these became of importance in England much bibliographical material has been collected in the Catalogues of English Books printed up to the end of the year 1640, issued by the British Museum in 1884, by the John Rylands library, Manchester, in 1895, and by the University library, Cambridge, in 1900-1906. A similar record of the rich English collections in the Bodleian library, Oxford, remains a great desideratum. While these substitutes for a universal author catalogue have gradually been provided, similar contributions to a universal subject catalogue have been made in the form of innumerable special bibliographies compiled by students or bookmen interested in special subjects or departments of literature. The most important of these are enumerated in the bibliographical notes appended to articles in this Encyclopaedia, but many attempts have been made to compile separate catalogues of them.

BIBLIOMANCY (from the Gr. βιβλίον, a book, and μαντεία, prophecy), a form of divination (q.v.) by means of the Bible or other books. The method employed is to open the Bible haphazard and be guided by the first verse which catches the eye. Among the Greeks and Romans the practice was known under the name of sortes Homericae or sortes Virgilianae, the books consulted being those of Homer or Virgil.

BIBRACTE, an ancient Gaulish town, the modern Mont Beuvray, near Autun in France. Here, on a hilltop 2500 ft. above sea-level, excavation has revealed a vast area of 330 acres, girt with a stone and wood rampart 3 m. long, and containing the remains of dwelling-houses, a temple of Bibractis, and the workshops of iron and bronze workers and enamellers. It was the capital of the Aedui in the time of Julius Caesar. Later on Augustus removed the inhabitants to his new town Augustodunum (Autun), to destroy the free native traditions. Another far more obscure town in Gaul, near Reims, also bore the name.

BIBULUS, a surname of the Roman gens Calpurnia. The best-known of those who bore it was Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, consul with Julius Caesar, 59 B.C. He was the candidate put forward by the aristocratical party in opposition to L. Lucceius, who was of the party of Caesar; and bribery was freely used, with the approval of even the rigid Cato (Suetonius, Caesar, 9), to secure his election. But he proved no match for his able colleague. He made an attempt to oppose the agrarian law introduced by Caesar for distributing the lands of Campania, but was overpowered and even personally ill-treated by the mob. After making vain complaints in the senate, he shut himself up in his own house during the remaining eight months of his consulship, taking no part in public business beyond fulminating edicts against Caesar’s proceedings, which only provoked an attack upon his house by a mob of Caesar’s partisans. His conduct gave rise to the jest, that Julius and Caesar were consuls during that year. When the relations of Caesar and Pompey became strained, Bibulus supported Pompey (Plutarch, Cato Minor, 41) and joined in proposing his election as sole consul (52 B.C.). Next year he went to Syria as proconsul and claimed credit for a victory gained by one of his officers over the Parthians, before his own arrival in the province. After the expiration of his term of office, Pompey gave him command of his fleet in the Ionian Sea. He proved himself utterly incapable; his chief exploit was the burning of thirty transports on their return from Epirus whither they had succeeded in conveying Caesar and some troops from Brundusium. He died soon afterwards (48) of fatigue and mortification (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 5-18; Dio Cassius xli. 48). Although not a man of great importance, Bibulus showed great persistency as the enemy of Caesar. Cicero says of him that he was no orator, but a careful writer. By his wife Porcia, daughter of Cato, afterwards married to Brutus, he had three sons. The two eldest were murdered in Egypt by some of the soldiery of Gabinius; the youngest, Lucius Calpurnius Bibulus, fought on the side of the republic at the battle of Philippi, but surrendered to Antony soon afterwards, and was by him appointed to the command of his fleet. He died (about 32) while governor of Syria under Augustus. He wrote a short memoir of his step-father Brutus, which was used by Plutarch (Appian, B.C. iv. 136; Plutarch, Brutus, 13. 23).

BICE (from Fr. bis, a word of doubtful origin, meaning dark-coloured), a term erroneously applied in English to particular shades of green or blue pigments from the French terms vert bis and azur bis, dark green or blue. These colours are generally prepared from basic copper carbonates, but sometimes from ultramarine and other pigments.

BICESTER, a market town in the Woodstock parliamentary division of Oxfordshire, England, 12 m. N.N.E. of Oxford by a branch of the London & North-Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 3023. It lies near the northern edge of the flat open plain of Ot Moor, in a pastoral country. The church of St Eadburg, the virgin of Aylesbury, is cruciform, with a western tower, and contains examples of Norman and each succeeding style. There is, moreover, in the nave a single rude angular arch considered to be Saxon. Incorporated with a farm-house, scanty Perpendicular remains are seen of an 912 Augustinian priory founded at the close of the 12th century. Bicester has considerable agricultural trade and a brewing industry. It is a favourite hunting centre.

The termination cester, commonly indicating Roman origin, does not do so here, and is perhaps copied from Alchester and Chesterton, 2 m. west of Bicester, where there is a small Roman site, probably a wayside village, at the meeting of roads from the south (Dorchester), west, north-east and east.

Bicester (Berncestre, Burencestre, Bissiter), according to the Domesday survey, was held by Robert d’Oily. In 1182 Gilbert Basset founded here an Augustinian priory, which from that date until its dissolution in 1538 became the centre of the industrial life and development of the town. In 1253 William Longspey obtained a grant of a fair at the feast of St Edburg, and a Friday market is mentioned in the 14th century. Richard II. granted a Monday market and a fair at the feast of St James the Apostle, and in 1440 an additional market was granted to be held in that part of the town called Bury-End, from this date known as Market-End. Bicester never possessed any manufactures of importance, but the fairs and markets were much frequented, and in the 16th century the cattle market was especially famous.

BICHAT, MARIE FRANÇOIS XAVIER (1771-1802), French anatomist and physiologist, was born at Thoirette (Jura) on the 14th of November 1771. His father, a physician, was his first instructor. He entered the college of Nantua, and afterwards studied at Lyons. In mathematics and the physical sciences he made rapid progress, but ultimately devoted himself to the study of anatomy and surgery, under the guidance of M.A. Petit (1766-1811), chief surgeon to the Hôtel Dieu at Lyons. The revolutionary disturbances compelled him to fly from Lyons and take refuge in Paris in 1793. He there became a pupil of P.J. Desault, who was so strongly impressed with his genius that he took him into his house and treated him as his adopted son. For two years he actively participated in all the labours of Desault, prosecuting at the same time his own researches in anatomy and physiology. The sudden death of Desault in 1795 was a severe blow to Bichat. His first care was to acquit himself of the obligations he owed his benefactor, by contributing to the support of his widow and her son, and by conducting to a close the fourth volume of Desault’s Journal de Chirurgie, to which he added a biographical memoir of its author. His next object was to reunite and digest in one body the surgical doctrines which Desault had published in various periodical works. Of these he composed Œuvres chirurgicales de Desault, ou tableau de sa doctrine, et de sa pratique dans le traitement des maladies externes (1798-1799), a work in which, although he professes only to set forth the ideas of another, he develops them with the clearness of one who is a master of the subject. In 1797 he began a course of anatomical demonstrations, and his success encouraged him to extend the plan of his lectures, and boldly to announce a course of operative surgery. In the following year, 1798, he gave in addition a separate course of physiology. A dangerous attack of haemoptysis interrupted his labours for a time; but the danger was no sooner past than he plunged into new engagements with the same ardour as before. He had now scope in his physiological lectures for a fuller exposition of his original views on the animal economy, which excited much attention in the medical schools at Paris. Sketches of these doctrines were given by him in three papers contained in the Memoirs of the Société Médicale d’Émulation, which he founded in 1796, and they were afterwards more fully developed in his Traité sur les membranes (1800). His next publication was the Recherches physiologiques sur la vie et sur la mort (1800), and it was quickly followed by his Anatomie générale (1801), the work which contains the fruits of his most profound and original researches. He began another work, under the title Anatomie descriptive (1801-1803), in which the organs were arranged according to his peculiar classification of their functions, but lived to publish only the first two volumes. It was completed on the same plan by his pupils, M.F.R. Buisson (1776-1805) and P.J. Roux (1780-1854).

Before Bichat had attained the age of eight-and-twenty he was appointed physician to the Hôtel Dieu, a situation which opened an immense field to his ardent spirit of inquiry. In the investigation of diseases he pursued the same method of observation and experiment which had characterized his researches in physiology. He learned their history by studying them at the bedside of his patients, and by accurate dissection of their bodies after death. He engaged in a series of examinations, with a view to ascertain the changes induced in the various organs by disease, and in less than six months he had opened above six hundred bodies. He was anxious also to determine with more precision than had been attempted before, the effects of remedial agents, and instituted with this view a series of direct experiments which yielded a vast store of valuable material. Towards the end of his life he was also engaged on a new classification of diseases. A fall from a staircase at the Hôtel Dieu resulted in a fever, and, exhausted by his excessive labours and by constantly breathing the tainted air of the dissecting-room, he died on the 22nd of July 1802. His bust, together with that of Desault, was placed in the Hôtel Dieu by order of Napoleon.

BICHROMATES AND CHROMATES. Chromium trioxide dissolves readily in water, and the solution is supposed to contain chromic acid, H2CrO4; the salts of this acid are known as the chromates. In addition to these normal salts, others exist, namely bichromates, trichromates, &c., which may be regarded as combinations of one molecular proportion of the normal salt with one or more molecular proportions of chromium trioxide. The series will thus possess the following general formulae:—

BICKER (connected by Skeat with bike, to thrust or strike), an Old English word (traced from the 13th century) implying conflict or disputation. A poetical use, from the noise, is seen in Tennyson’s Brook, “to bicker down the valley.”

BICKERSTAFFE, ISAAC (c. 1735-c. 1812), English dramatist, was born in Ireland about 1735. At the age of eleven he was appointed a page to Lord Chesterfield, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, and subsequently held a commission in the Marines, but was dismissed the service under discreditable circumstances. He was the author of a large number of plays and burlesque farces interspersed with songs, produced between 1760 and 1771. The best-known are Maid of the Mill (founded on Richardson’s Pamela), The Padlock, He Would if he Could, Love in a Village, The Hypocrite and The Captive. In 1772 Bickerstaffe, suspected of a capital offence, fled to the continent. The exact date of his death is unknown, but he is stated to have been still living in abject misery in 1812.

BICKERSTETH, EDWARD (1786-1850), English evangelical divine, brother of Henry, Baron Langdale, master of the rolls (1836-1851), and uncle of Robert Bickersteth, bishop of Ripon (1857-1884), was born at Kirkby Lonsdale, and practised as a solicitor at Norwich from 1812 to 1815. In 1816 he took orders, and was made one of the secretaries of the Church Missionary Society. On receiving the living of Watton, Hertfordshire, in 1830, he resigned his secretaryship, but continued to lecture and preach, both for the Church Missionary Society and the Society for the Conversion of the Jews. His works include A Scripture Help (London, 1816), which has been translated into many European languages, and Christian Psalmody (London, 1833), a collection of over 700 hymns, which forms the basis of the Hymnal Companion (London, 1870), compiled by his son, E.H. Bickersteth, bishop of Exeter (1885-1890). He was active in promoting the Evangelical Alliance of 1845, strongly opposed the Tractarian Movement, and was one of the founders of the Irish Church Missions, and Parker, Societies.

Edward Bickersteth (1814-1892), dean of Lichfield, was his nephew, and Edward Bickersteth (1850-1897), bishop of South Tokyo, his grandson.

BICYCLE (from prefix bi = twice, and κὐκλος a circle, wheel). The modern bicycle, as developed from the old velocipede (see Cycling), consists essentially of two wheels placed one behind the other and mounted on a frame which carries a saddle for the rider. Between the wheels is a crank-axle which the rider drives by means of the cranks and pedals, and its motion is transmitted to the rear or driving wheel either by a chain which passes over two chain wheels, one fixed on the crank-axle and the other on the hub of the rear wheel, or, in the chainless bicycle, by a tubular shaft and two pairs of bevel-wheels. The rear wheel is usually so arranged that it can turn, when the bicycle is running by its own momentum, independently of the chain and pedals (“free-wheel”), and a variable speed gear is often provided so that the rider may at will alter the ratio between the rate of revolution of the crank-axle and the driving wheel. The front, or steering wheel, is mounted in a fork having its two upper ends brazed into the “crown,” to which also the lower end of the steering tube is brazed. The steering tube is mounted by ball bearings in the socket tube, which forms the forward portion of the rear-frame.

The highest quality of materials and the most accurate workmanship are required to produce a first-class bicycle. Steel of 75 to 100 tons per sq. in. tensile strength is used in chains, spokes, &c. In balls and ball-races, hardness without brittleness, and homogeneity are of primary importance. Broken balls, or even traces of wear in bearings, are now seldom heard of in a first-class bicycle. The process of case-hardening, whereby an extremely hard outer skin is combined with a tough interior, has been brought to a high degree of perfection, and is applied to many parts of the bicycle, particularly chains, free-wheels and toothed-wheel variable speed gears. Interchangeability of parts is secured by working to the smallest possible limits of error of workmanship.

Fig. 1.

Frames.—Fig. 1 represents a road-racer. A full roadster would have the handles a little higher relatively to the saddle, and would be provided with mud-guards, free-wheel and sometimes a gear-case and variable speed gear. Fig. 2 shows a lady’s bicycle with gear-case and dress-guard. The rear frame of the “diamond” type (fig. 1) is subjected to very small stresses due to vertical load. The front fork and steering post are subject to bending moment due to the reaction from the ground in the direction dcb. A slight amount of elasticity in the front fork adds considerably to the comfort in riding over rough roads. When the brake is applied lightly to the front wheel, the reaction from the ground falls more closely along the axis of the front fork, and the bending moment at the crown is diminished. If the front brake is applied harder the reaction from the ground at d may pass through the crown, in which case the bending moment at the crown is zero. Still harder application of the brake causes a bending moment in the opposite direction. In fig. 1 the axes of the top and bottom tubes of the rear frame are produced to meet at a. 914 If the reaction from the ground is in the direction da, the top and bottom tubes are subjected to pure compressive and tensile stresses respectively. When no brake pressure is applied a bending moment due to the overhang ab is superimposed on these tubes. Thus a short socket head with top tube sloping downwards towards the head gives a stronger frame than a horizontal top tube. The steering axis ef is arranged so as to cut the ground at f, a little in front of the point of contact d of the wheel with the ground, giving a slight castor action, and making steering possible without use of the handle-bar. The rake of the steering head (that is the angle between ef and bd) and the set of the fork (that is the displacement of the wheel centre c from the axis ef) may be varied within tolerably large limits without much affecting the easy steering properties of the bicycle. The transverse stresses on the rear frame due to the action of pedalling are more severe than those due to the vertical load. The pedal pressure is applied at a considerable distance from the central plane of the bicycle, and the pedal pin, cranks and crank-axle are subjected to a bending moment which is transmitted by the ball bearings to the frame. The down-tube from the seat lug to the crank-bracket and the bottom tube from the foot of the steering socket tube to the crank-bracket are made fairly stout to resist this bending moment. Further, the pull of the chain causes a transverse bending moment in the plane of the chain-stays, which must be stiff enough under heavy pedal pressure.

Fig. 2.

The tubular portions of the frame are made of weldless cold-drawn steel tube. The junctions or lugs are usually of malleable cast iron, bored to fit the outside of the tube, the final union being effected by brazing. In very light bicycles the tubes are kept thin, 22 or 24 W.G. (.028 in. or .022 in. thickness) at the middle, and are strengthened at the ends by internal liners. Or butt-ended tubes are employed, the tubes being drawn thicker at the ends than in the middle. The steering post and fork sides especially should be thus strengthened at their junction with the crown. Some of the best makers use sheet steel stampings instead of cast lugs, greater lightness and strength being secured, and in some cases the sheet steel lugs are inside the tubes, so that the joints are all flush on the outside. The front fork blades are best made of sheet steel stamped to shape and with the edges brazed together to form a hollow tube. The sheet steel that can be thus employed has a much higher elastic limit than a weldless steel tube.

Fig. 3.

Bearings.—Ball bearings are universally used. Each row of balls runs between two ball-races of hardened steel, one on the stationary member, the other on the rotating member. The outer is called the “cup,” and the inner the “cone.” One of the four ball-races is adjustable axially so that the bearing may run without any shake. The ball-races are often made of separate pieces of steel, but the crank-axle usually has the cones formed integral with it, the necessary hardness being obtained by case-hardening. According as the two cups face outwards or inwards the bearing is said to have outward or inward cups, and according as the adjustable ball race is the cone or cup, the bearing is said to be cone-adjusting or cup-adjusting. Fig. 3 shows a ball-bearing hub with outward cups. The hub-shell H is turned out of mild steel, and the cups C are forced into the ends of the hub-shell and soldered thereto. A thin washer W is then spun into the end, for the purpose of retaining oil, and a thin internal tube T unites the two cups, and guides the oil fed in at the middle of the hub to the balls. The projecting flanges S are for the attachment of the tangent spokes used to build the hub into the wheel. The spindle A has the two cones screwed on it, one C1 against a shoulder, the other C2 adjustable. The spindle ends are passed through the back-fork ends and are there adjusted in position by the chain-tension adjusters. After adjustment the nuts N clamp the spindle securely between the fork-ends. The chain-wheel or free-wheel clutch is screwed on the end of the hub-shell, with a right-hand thread. The chain being at the right-hand side of the bicycle (as the rider is seated) the driving pull of the chain tends to screw the chain-wheel tight against the shoulder. A locking-ring R with a left-hand thread, screwed tight against the chain-wheel, prevents the latter from being unscrewed by back-pedalling. With a free-wheel clutch screwed on the hub, the locking-ring may be omitted.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 shows one end of the cup-adjusting hub, with inward bearings. The cones are formed of one piece with the spindles, and the adjusting cup C is screwed in the end of the hub shell, and locked in position by the screwed locking-ring R. The figure also illustrates a divided spindle for facilitating the removal of the tire for repair when required without disturbing the wheel, bearings, chain or gear-case. The chain side of the hub-spindle, not shown in the figure, is secured to the frame in the usual way; on the left side the spindle S projects very little beyond the adjusting cup. A distance washer W is placed between the end of the spindle S and the fork-end F. A detachable screw-pin, or the footstep, P, passes through the chain-adjusting draw-bolt B, the fork-end F, and the distance washer W, and is screwed into the end of the spindle S, the hexagon head of the detachable pin drawing all the parts securely together. On unscrewing the detachable pin, the distance washer W drops out of place, leaving a clear space for removing the tire without disturbing any other part.

The inward-cups bearing retains more oil than the other form. The pressure on a ball being normal to the surface of contact with the ball race, and each ball touching two ball races, the two points of contact must be in line with the centre of the ball. All the lines of pressure on the balls of a row meet at a point f on the axis of the spindle. The distance between the two points f (fig. 5) may be called the virtual length of the bearing. Other things being equal, the outward-cups bearing has a greater virtual length than the inward-cups bearing. In hubs and pedals where the actual distance between the two rows of balls is sufficient, this point is of little importance. At the crank-axle bearing, however, where the pedal pressure which produces pressure on the axle bearings is applied at a considerable overhang beyond the ball-races, the greater virtual length of the outward-cups is an advantage.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 shows diagrammatically the usual form of crank-axle bearing which has inward-cups and is cup-adjusting. The end of the bracket is split and the cup after adjustment is clamped in position by the clamping screw S. The usual mode of fastening the cranks to the axle is by round cotters C with a flat surface at a slight angle to the axis, thus forming a wedge, which is driven in tight. The small end of the cotter projects through the crank, and is screwed and held in place by a nut. The chain-wheel at the crank-axle is usually detachably fastened to the right-hand crank.

915

The Rudge-Whitworth crank-bracket has outward cups and is cup-adjusting. The cranks are cotterless. Fig. 6 is a sectional view. The left crank and axle are forged in one piece. The fastening of the right crank and chain-wheel is by multiple grooves and teeth, this fastening being better mechanically than the cotter type.

Fig. 6.

Pedals.—The pedal consists of a pedal body, on which the foot of the rider rests, mounted by ball-bearings on a pedal-pin, which is secured to the end of the crank and turns with it. The pedal body is made in many forms, but usually the bearing-cups are contained in a tube from the ends of which project plates, carrying rubber blocks, or serrated plates (rat-trap pedals), on which the foot of the rider rests. Cone adjustment is most used. The fastening of the pedal pin to the crank is best effected by screwing it up against a shoulder, the right and left crank eyes being tapped with right and left hand screws respectively. With this arrangement, if the pedal pin screw is a slack fit in the crank eye, the pressure on the pedal tends to screw it up against the shoulder.

Wheels.—Bicycle and tricycle wheels are made on the “suspension” principle, the spokes being of high-tenacity steel wire, screwed up to a certain initial tension, thus putting a circumferential compression on the rim. In the “artillery” wheel, the wooden spokes are in compression, and the rim is under tension. The rims, which are made to a section suitable for pneumatic tires (see Tire), may be of sheet steel or aluminium alloy rolled to the required section, either without joint or jointed by brazing or riveting. Wood rims are used on racing bicycles, but in England are not popular for roadster bicycles. Holes are drilled at or near the central plane of the rim for the spoke nipples, which have shoulders resting on the outer surface of the rim and shanks projecting through the rim towards the hub. The spoke ends are screwed to fit the nipples. The shank of the nipple has a square cut on its outside surface by which it can be screwed up. The spoke flanges on the hub are placed far apart and the spread of the spokes gives the wheel lateral stability. Tangential rigidity under driving and braking is obtained by fastening the spokes to the hub tangentially (figs. 1 and 2). The hub fastening of the spoke is simply obtained by forming a hook and head on the spoke end, and passing it through a hole in the hub flange. The best spokes are butted at the ends, i.e. made of larger diameter than at the middle, to allow for screwing at one end and the hook bend at the other.

Fig. 7.

Chains.—There are two widely used types of chains. The “block” chain (fig. 7) consists of a series of central blocks connected by side plates. The “roller” chain (fig. 8) consists of a series of outside and inside links. The outside link A is made up of two steel side plates P united by two shouldered rivets R. The inside link B consists of two side plates P united by two tubular pieces T, which form bushes for the rivets R and pivots for the rollers L. The rivets, bushes and rollers are case-hardened.

Fig. 8.

Roller chains for cycles are made in two pitches, ½ in. and 5⁄8 in., and in widths from 1⁄8 in. to ¼ in. between the side plates of the inside links. The weight of 4 ft. length (96 links) of a ½ in. pitch 1⁄8 in. wide roller chain is about 12¼ oz., and its breaking load is about 2000 ℔ In a block chain the ends of the blocks engage with the teeth of the chain-wheels, and the same surfaces continually coming into contact, the wear may become excessive, especially when exposed to mud and grit. In the roller chain the outer surfaces of the rollers engage with the teeth of the chain-wheels, and during the engagement and disengagement may roll slightly on the tubular rivets. The surface of contact of the roller and tubular rivet is not directly exposed to the dust and grit from the road. The rollers therefore serve the double purpose of (1) transferring the relative motion of the parts to a pair of surfaces under better conditions as regards lubrication, and (2) presenting a new part of the outside surface of the roller for the next engagement with the chain-wheel. The durability of roller chains is thus much greater than that of block chains, under the usual conditions of cycling.

Fig. 9.

Chain-wheels.—The pitch line of the chain-wheel is polygonal (fig. 9), a, b, c, d being centres of adjacent joints of the chain when lying in contact with the wheel. The path of the joint a of the chain, relative to the chain-wheel as it enters on to and leaves the chain-wheel, is evidently the curve a3 a2 a a′1 a′2 made up of a series of circular arcs having centres d, c, b, b′, c′, respectively. Similarly for the path of the adjacent joint b. The fullest possible form of the tooth is that between the two parallel curves, of radii less by an amount equal to the radius of the roller, as indicated in fig. 9. But since it is neither necessary nor desirable that the roller should roll along the whole length of the tooth, the radii of curvature of the tooth outline may be less than shown in fig. 9. A good arrangement of tooth form is shown in fig. 10.

Fig. 10.

Owing to the polygonal pitch surfaces of the chain-wheels a chain does not transmit motion with constant speed-ratio of the shafts. The variation of speed-ratio in a chain with links of equal pitch is approximately inversely proportional to the square of the number of teeth in the smaller chain-wheel, as shown in the table annexed, in which the percentage variation is—

maximum speed-ratio − minimum speed-ratio	× 100.
average speed-ratio

Number of teeth on hub chain-wheel	10	12	14	16	18	20	24	28
Percentage Variation	5.1	3.5	2.7	2.1	1.6	1.3	0.9	0.7

The rollers as they come in contact with the chain-wheel strike it with a speed proportional to the angular speed of the chain-wheel and to the pitch of the chain, causing a certain amount of noise.

Chain Adjustment.—To keep the chain running at correct tension, it is necessary to have some adjustment of the distance between the crank-axle and hub. This is obtained either by an eccentric adjustment at the crank-bracket, an eccentric adjustment at the hub-spindle or by draw-bolts at the fork-ends, the last method being most common.

Gear-case.—The modern roller chain by makers of repute is so durable that the necessity for a gear-case is not so great as when chains were of inferior quality. But if the bicycle is to require the minimum amount of care and attention a gear-case should be fitted. The Sunbeam gear-case is built into the frame and is oil-retaining, and the chain, chain-wheels, free-wheel and two-speed gear are continually lubricated by an oil-bath. A detachable gear-case is not usually oil-retaining, but serves to exclude grit and mud from the chain.

Gear and Crank-length.—The “gear” of a bicycle is given by the formula Dn1/n2 where D is the diameter of the driving wheel in inches, n1 and n2 the numbers of teeth on the crank-axle and hub chain-wheels respectively. At each revolution of the crank-axle, the bicycle is moved forward a distance equal to the circumference of the circle of diameter equal to the gear. Thus with a 28 in. diameter driving-wheel, 18 teeth on the hub chain-wheel, 45 teeth on the crank-axle chain-wheel, the bicycle is geared to 70 in. The usual crank-length is 6½ to 7 in. Cranks of 7½, 8 and 9 in. length can be had, but require a bicycle frame of special design. The gear should be roughly proportional to the crank-length. The gear 10 times the crank-length is a good proportion for an average rider.

Fig. 11.

Free-wheels.—A free-wheel clutch transmits the drive in one direction only, allowing the pedals to remain at rest at the will of the rider, while the bicycle runs on. With a free-wheel, chain breakages are reduced or nearly eliminated, as should the chain get accidentally caught the free-wheel comes into play. There are three principal types of free-wheel clutches—roller, ratchet and friction cone. The roller type was the earliest in use, but has fallen into disfavour. A sectional view of a ball-bearing ratchet free-wheel, with outer cover removed, is shown in fig. 11. The ring on which the three pawls and springs are carried is screwed on the end of the hub; the chain-wheel is combined with an inner ratchet wheel and is mounted by two rows of ball bearings on the pawl ring. The friction cone type of free-wheel clutch is usually combined with a brake 916 inside the hub, the whole combination being termed a coaster hub. Fig. 12 shows a sectional view of the Eadie two-speed coaster, in which the free-wheel clutch and brake are combined with a two-speed gear. The free-wheel clutch action is as follows: A forward pressure of the pedals turns the externally threaded driving cone H in the internally threaded cone F, the latter being thus forced to the right into engagement with the cup J which is screwed to the hub-shell, thus forming a friction driving clutch. The pedals being held stationary the driving cone H is stationary, and the hub running on the ball bearings G, the cone F travels towards the left until released from the cup J, when it also remains at rest. In this type of free-wheel clutch it is essential that there be little or no friction between the screwed surfaces of H and F, else on beginning to pedal, the cone F may remain stationary relative to the driving cone H, and no engagement between F and J may take place. If F be prevented from turning faster than the hub-shell, as is sometimes done by a light spring between the two, the engagement of the friction clutch must take place as soon as the pedals tend to move faster than the speed corresponding to that of the hub-shell.

Fig. 12.—Eadie Two-speed Coaster Hub.

Brakes of many types are used, differing in the place and mode of application. The tire brake has fallen into disuse, rim brakes and internal hub brakes being usual. The retarding force that can be applied by a brake is limited by the possibility of skidding the wheel. In riding at uniform speed, without acceleration, the greater part of the load is on the rear-wheel; but as soon as the brake is applied to cause retardation the wheel load distribution is altered, more load being thrown on the front wheel. Thus the most powerful brake is one applied to the front wheel. On the other hand, a front-wheel brake often sets up an unpleasant vibration of the front fork. On a greasy road too powerful pressure on the front-wheel brake may cause a side-slip with no chance of recovery; while with the back-wheel brake recovery is possible. The Bowden system of transmission, which is largely used for cycle brake work, consists of a steel stranded cable inside a flexible tube formed by a closely wound spiral of steel wire, the cable being practically inextensible and the spiral tube practically incompressible; if the ends of the latter be fastened it forms a guide tube for the cable, any movement given to one end of the cable being transmitted to the other end. The spiral tube may be led round any corners, but the frictional resistance of the cable inside the spiral tube increases with the total angle of curvature of the guide tube; the laws of friction of a rope passing over a drum apply. In fitting the Bowden system the total curvature should therefore be kept as small as possible. With a back-pedalling rim brake the cycle cannot be wheeled backwards unless a special device is used to throw the operating clutch out of action. A back-pedalling brake is most conveniently applied inside the hub, as in the coaster hub. In the Eadie two-speed coaster (fig. 12) the braking action is obtained by the expansion of the steel band I against a phosphor bronze ring L carried by the rotating hub-shell. The steel band I is mounted on a disk with a projecting arm, the end of which is clipped to the frame tube. The expansion of the steel band is effected by the movement of the lever K fixed to the cone E. On moving the pedals backward the screw drive-ring H forces the cone nut F with which it engages to the left into contact with the cone E. The backward movement of the pedals being continued sets up the required movement of the lever K, and applies the brake.

Fig. 13: Sunbeam Two-Speed Gear.

Variable Speed Gears.—The effort required to propel a bicycle varies greatly, according to the conditions of road surface, gradient up or down hill, wind against or behind. To meet these variable conditions, a variable speed-gear is an advantage. The action of the human motor is, however, so entirely different from that of a mechanical motor that it is easy, without practical experience, to over-estimate the value of a variable speed gear. Probably from 50 in. to 80 in. represents the greatest useful range of gear for an average rider. With a gear lower than 50 in., the speed of climbing a steep gradient is so slow that balancing difficulties begin, and it is better to walk up. With 80 in. gear and 7 in. cranks, the speed of pedalling, even at 25 miles an hour, is not irksome, provided the conditions are favourable. For those who have not cultivated the art of quick pedalling the useful range of gear under favourable conditions may be extended to say 90 in. or 100 in. The gear-ratio of a two-speed gear is the ratio of the high to the low gear. The most suitable gear-ratio for any rider will depend upon his personal physique and the nature of the country in which he rides. For a middle-aged rider of average physique a gear-ratio of 125 : 100 is suitable, for those of weaker physique the gear-ratio may with advantage be greater, say 137.5 : 100; while for road racing it may be smaller, say 117:100. With a three-speed gear the low and high gears should be chosen respectively below and above the single gear which suits the rider, the middle gear being about the same as the rider’s usual single gear.

All the variable speed gears at present made consist of toothed wheel mechanism either at the hub or crank-bracket, and nearly all are based on the same epicyclic train of toothed wheels. At one speed there is no relative motion of the toothed wheels, the whole mechanism revolving as one solid piece; this is called the “normal” speed. At the other speed one part of the mechanism is held stationary and the driven part revolves faster or slower than the driver, according as the gearing is up or down. In some two-speed gears the normal is the high speed, in others the low. In expressing the gear-ratio, the normal speed will be denoted by 100. At the normal gear there is of course no additional friction. The type of two-speed gear used practically settles whether the normal gear is at high or low speed; but it seems best, other things being equal, to have the low speed the normal gear, as then the conditions are worst. If the high speed is at normal gear, then at low speed the chain gears up and the two-speed gear gears down; which is, to say the least, a roundabout transmission.

Fig. 13 is a sectional view of the Sunbeam two-speed gear which is arranged at the crank-axle, and clearly shows the relative disposition of the toothed wheel mechanism common to nearly all cycle speed gears. The chain-wheel is fixed to the annular wheel A; the planet carrier C is fixed to the crank; and when the sun-wheel D is held stationary, the chain-wheel is driven faster than the cranks. When the sun-wheel D is released, the planet carrier C drives the annular wheel A by the ratchet free-wheel clutch; the part thus revolves as a solid piece, and gives the normal or low speed. The gear-ratio is 133.3 : 100.

Fig. 14.

Fig. 14 is a sectional view of the “Hub” two-speed gear, the chain-wheel or free-wheel clutch being omitted. In this the annular wheel is the driver, and the planet carrier is part of the hub-shell. When the central pinion is held stationary the hub is driven at a less speed than the chain-wheel; the gear-ratio is 100 : 76.2.

In the Fagan two-speed gear, shown combined with the Eadie coaster hub in fig. 12, the sun-wheel B can be moved laterally by the striking gear, so as to engage with the chain-wheel centre C, giving normal gear, or with an internally toothed wheel A fixed to the spindle. The chain-wheel centre C carries the annular wheel, and the four planet pinions D are mounted on the driving cone H. Thus the gear gives a reduction of speed, the gear-ratio being 100 : 75. 917 The Sturmey-Archer three-speed hub (fig. 15) has gear-ratios 125 : 100 : 80. In the high gear position the epicyclic toothed wheels are to the extreme left position. The chain-wheel is mounted by a free-wheel on a drive-ring, with which the ends of the spindles of the planet wheels engage at high gear. The sun-wheel, not shown in the figure, is held stationary, and the annular wheel engages with a ring screwed to the hub-shell, by means of keys engaging in notches. The hub is thus driven at a higher speed than the chain-wheel. For normal gear, the striking gear draws the internal mechanism of the hub towards a central position, compressing a spring, disengaging the sun-wheel and locking the drive-ring hub and annular wheel together. At low gear, the internal mechanism is drawn to the right-hand side, where the planet carrier engages with the end plate of the hub by means of claw-clutches. The annular wheel is still engaged with the drive-ring, and the sun-wheel is again locked to the spindle. The hub is thus driven at a lower speed.

Fig. 15.

Tandem Bicycles.—The weight of a roadster tandem is about the same as, or a trifle less than, that of two single roadster bicycles, but the frictional resistance of the mechanism, the rolling resistance of the tires, and the air resistance at a given speed are much less than twice the values for a single bicycle. Consequently, much higher speeds are attained on the level, and free-wheeling down hill is much faster. On the other hand for riding up hill on a moderate gradient, the effort required is about the same as on a single, while on very steep gradients the tandem is at a slight disadvantage. For the full enjoyment of tandem riding, therefore, a two-speed gear is a necessity, while a three-speed gear is better. In the Raleigh tandem (fig. 16) the frame design is such that it can be ridden by two ladies, and the strength and rigidity is sufficient for two heavyweight riders. The steering and control of the brakes is done by the front rider. Connected steering is employed in some tandems, allowing the rear rider to steer if necessary. For two expert tandem riders, connected steering is slightly more pleasurable than fixed handle grips for the rear rider, but on the other hand, divided control may lead to disaster at a critical moment. Most passengers on a tandem with connected steering unconsciously give the steering a bias in one direction or the other, putting a nervous strain on the steersman which becomes almost intolerable towards the end of a long ride.

Fig. 16.

Motor Bicycles.—Fig. 17 shows a touring motor bicycle, fitted with luggage carrier and stand, the latter for supporting the bicycle while at rest. The average speed of a motor bicycle being much greater than that of a pedal bicycle the stresses on the frame due to moving over rough roads are greater. This necessitates greater strength and weight in all parts—frame, wheels and tires. To take this increased weight up steep gradients requires increased engine power. The weight of a touring motor bicycle may be from 150 to 200 ℔ The drive is usually by a V belt of leather, or of canvas and rubber, the angle of the V being 28°. The engine speed at maximum power is from 1500 to 2000 revolutions a minute, and the belt gears down in a ratio varying between 1⁄3 and 1⁄6 according to the cylinder capacity of the engine. The possibility of the belt slipping slightly is conducive to smoothness of drive; chain-driving, except in combination with a slipping clutch, is too harsh. The principal defect of the belt drive is that the belt stretches, and on coming to a steep hill may have to be tightened before the bicycle can be driven up. The control of the speed and power of the engine is effected by the throttle, extra air valve and spark advance, the levers for which are all placed within convenient reach of the driver. As the engine is almost invariably air-cooled, the skilful manipulation of these three levers is essential for satisfactory results. On a good level road when the engine may be working at a small fraction of its maximum power, the proportion of air mixed with the petrol vapour from the carburettor may be great, giving a “weak” mixture, yet one rich enough to be ignited in the cylinder. The throttle valve may be fully open and the spark advanced for high speed; the throttle partially closed and spark retarded for slow speed. Under these conditions the engine will run for an indefinite period without overheating. Up a steep gradient, the mixture may have to be made “richer” by partial closing of the extra air opening, and as more heat is evolved, the cylinder walls may become overheated, unless the engine power is sufficient to keep the bicycle moving through the air at a good speed. As the engine cannot run steadily at low speed, pedalling is resorted to for starting and for riding slowly through traffic. For this purpose, an “exhaust valve lifter” is usually fitted, by means of which the exhaust can be kept permanently open, in order to relieve the resistance to pedalling which the compression stroke would otherwise offer.

Fig. 17.

The nominal rating of the horse-power of a motor cycle engine is rather vague and indefinite. A 3-H.P. engine may have a cylinder of 76-80 mm. diameter and 76-80 mm. stroke. Twin-cylinder engines, with one crank, are largely used, and some excellent 4-cylinder motor bicycles are made with bevel gear transmission. The chief advantage of the multicylinder engine is the smoother drive obtained.

A “trailer” with two wheels for carrying a passenger can be attached to a motor bicycle, but the element of risk is increased. A side-car, with one additional wheel, forms a safer passenger carrier.

BIDA, a town and administrative district in the British protectorate of Northern Nigeria. Bida town, situated in 9° 5′ N., 6° E., 25 m. N. by E. of Muraji on the Niger, is the capital of the province of Nupe. It was founded in 1859 when Fula rule was established in Nupe, is walled and of considerable size. In 1909 it was connected by railway with Baro, 40 m. S.S.E., the river terminus of the Northern Nigeria railway. The inhabitants, mostly Hausa, carry on an extensive trade and are especially noted for their embossed brass and copper work. The Bida goblets, in which brass and copper are beautifully blended, are of extremely elegant design. The town also boasts a glass factory. The preparation of indigo and the dyeing of cloths are other flourishing industries. The streets are planted with huge shade-trees, so that as Bida is approached it looks like a forest.

In 1897 there was a two-days’ fight outside the walls of Bida between the forces of the emir of Nupe and those of the Royal Niger Company, ending in the defeat of the Fula army (mostly cavalry). The victory was not followed at the time by a British occupation, and the defeated king returned after the withdrawal of the company’s troops and re-established himself upon the throne. In 1900 he allied himself with other hostile chiefs and adopted an openly antagonistic attitude to the British government. In 1901 it became necessary for British troops to march on Bida. The emir fled, without fighting, to Kano. Another emir was appointed in his place, and the province of Nupe was placed under British administrative control. Since that date the town has been peaceful and very prosperous. A mission school has been established, and is attended by the sons of the emir and of the principal chiefs, who are desirous of learning to read and write English. The administrative district of Bida includes the town and is the western division of the province of Nupe (q.v.). (See also Nigeria: History.)

918

BIDDEFORD, a city of York county, Maine, U.S.A., on the Saco river, opposite Saco, and on the Atlantic Ocean, 15 m. S.W. of Portland. Pop. (1890) 14,443; (1900) 16,145, of whom 7,149 were foreign-born (mostly French Canadians); (census, 1910) 17,079. Biddeford is served by the Boston & Maine railway, and is connected by electric lines with Portland and with Old Orchard Beach, a popular summer resort north of the Saco river. The climate and the scenery in and about Biddeford attract summer visitors and there are two resorts, Biddeford Pool and Fortune Rocks within the municipal limits; but the city is chiefly a manufacturing centre (third in rank among the cities of the state in 1905)—good water-power being furnished by the river—and cotton goods, foundry and machine shop products and lumber are the principal products, the first being by far the most important. The value of the factory products increased from $5,472,254 in 1900 to $6,948,722 in 1905, or 27%. There are large quarries of granite of excellent quality. A permanent settlement was established on both sides of the river about 1630 under the leadership of Richard Vines (1585-1651) and was named Saco. In 1718 the present name was adopted. In 1762 that portion of Biddeford which lay east of the river was incorporated as the town of Pepperellborough, for which name Saco was substituted in 1805. Biddeford was incorporated as a city in 1855.

BIDDER, GEORGE PARKER (1806-1878), English engineer, was born at Moreton Hampstead, in Devonshire, on the 14th of June 1806. From a very early age he manifested an extraordinary natural aptitude for calculation, which induced his father, who was a stone-mason, to exhibit him as a “calculating boy.” In this way his talent was turned to profitable account, but his general education was in danger of being completely neglected. Interest, however, was taken in him by some of those who happened to witness his performances, among them being Sir John Herschel, and it was arranged that he should be sent to school in Camberwell. There he did not remain long, being removed by his father, who wished to exhibit him again, but he was saved from this misfortune and enabled to attend classes at Edinburgh University, largely through the kindness of Sir Henry Jardine, to whom he subsequently showed his gratitude by founding a “Jardine Bursary” at the university. On leaving college in 1824 he received a post in the ordnance survey, but gradually drifted into engineering work. In 1834 Robert Stephenson, whose acquaintance he had made in Edinburgh, offered him an appointment on the London & Birmingham railway, and in the succeeding year or two he began to assist George Stephenson in his parliamentary work, which at that time included schemes for railways between London and Brighton and between Manchester and Rugby via the Potteries. In this way he was introduced to engineering and parliamentary practice at a period of great activity which saw the establishment of the main features and principles that have since governed English railway construction. He is said to have been the best witness that ever entered a committee-room. He was quick to discover and take advantage of the weak points in an opponent’s case, and his powers of mental calculation frequently stood him in good stead, as when, for example, an apparently casual glance at the plans of a railway enabled him to point out errors in the engineering data that were sufficient to secure rejection of the scheme to which he was opposed. In consequence there was scarcely an engineering proposal of any importance brought before parliament in connexion with which his services were not secured by one party or the other.

On the constructive side of his profession he was also busily occupied. In 1837 he was engaged with R. Stephenson in building the Blackwall railway, and it was he who designed the peculiar method of disconnecting a carriage at each station while the rest of the train went on without stopping, which was employed in the early days of that line when it was worked by means of a cable. Another series of railways with which he had much to do were those in the eastern counties which afterwards became the Great Eastern system. He also advised on the construction of the Belgian railways; with R. Stephenson he made the first railway in Norway, from Christiania to Eidsvold; he was engineer-in-chief of the Danish railways; and he was largely concerned with railways in India, where he strongly and successfully opposed break of gauge on through-routes. But though he sometimes spoke of himself as a mere “railway-engineer,” he was in reality very much more; there was indeed no branch of engineering in which he did not take an interest, as was shown by the assiduity with which for half a century he attended the weekly meetings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, of which he was elected president in 1860. He was one of the first to recognize the value of the electric telegraph. That invention was in its infancy when, in 1837, jointly with R. Stephenson he recommended its introduction on a portion of the London & Birmingham and on the Blackwall lines, while three years later he advised that it should be adopted to facilitate the working of the single line between Norwich and Yarmouth. He was also one of the founders of the Electric Telegraph Company, which enabled the public generally to enjoy the benefits of telegraphic communication. In hydraulic engineering, he was the designer of the Victoria Docks (London), being responsible not only for their construction, but also for what was regarded by some people at the time as the foolish idea of utilizing the Essex marshes for dock accommodation on a large scale. His advice was frequently sought by the government on points both of naval and military engineering. He died at Dartmouth on the 28th of September 1878.

His son, George Parker Bidder, Junr. (1836-1896), who inherited much of his father’s calculating power, was a successful parliamentary counsel and an authority on cryptography.

BIDDERY, or Bidri (an Indian word, from Bedar or Bidar, a town in the Nizam’s Dominions), an alloy of copper, lead, tin and zinc used in making various articles and ornaments which are inlaid with gold and silver.

BIDDING-PRAYER (O. Eng. biddan, to pray, cf. Ger. beten), the formula of prayer or exhortation to prayer said in England before the sermon in cathedrals, at university sermons, in the Inns of Court and elsewhere on special occasions. Such formulae are found in the ancient Greek liturgies, e.g. that of St Chrysostom, in the Gallican liturgy, and in the pre-Reformation liturgies of England. The form varies, but in all the characteristic feature is that the minister tells the people what to pray for. Thus in England in the 16th century it took the form of a direction to the people what to remember in “bidding their beads.” In course of time the word “bid” in the sense of “pray” became obsolete and was confused with “bid” in the sense of “command” (from O. Eng. beodan, to offer, present, and hence to announce, or command; cf. Ger. bieten, to offer, gebieten, to command), and the bidding-prayer has come practically to mean the exhortation itself. A form of exhortation which “preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer” is given in the 55th canon of the Church of England (1603).

BIDDLE, JOHN (1615-1662), frequently called the father of English Unitarianism, was born on the 14th of January 1615, at Wotton-under-Edge, in Gloucestershire. He was educated at the grammar school of his native town and at Magdalen Hall, Oxford. He graduated B.A. in 1638 and proceeded M.A. in 1641, and was then appointed to the mastership of the free school in the city of Gloucester, where “he was much esteemed for his diligence in his profession, serenity of manners and sanctity of life.” He also diligently prosecuted theological studies, and the results he arrived at were of such a nature as to draw down upon him the reprobation of the civic authorities. A treacherous friend obtained the manuscript of his Twelve Arguments drawn out of Scripture, wherein the commonly received opinion touching the deity of the Holy Spirit is clearly and fully refuted; and in December 1645 he was summoned before the parliamentary committee then sitting at Gloucester. By them he was committed to prison, though he was at the time labouring under a dangerous fever. He was released on bail after a short imprisonment, but was in July 1647 called before parliament, which 919 desired to inquire into his views. After tedious proceedings, during which Sir Henry Vane befriended him, Biddle was committed to custody and his Twelve Arguments, which he had now published, was ordered by parliament to be seized and burned by the hangman. Notwithstanding this and the ordinance of the 2nd of May 1648, visiting denial of the doctrine of the Trinity with death, Biddle issued two tracts, one a Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity, and the other The Testimonies of Irenaeus, &c., concerning the one God and the Persons of the Trinity (1648). These were suppressed by government, and the Westminster assembly of divines eagerly pressed for the passing of an act by which heretics like Biddle could be put to death. This, however, was resisted by the army, and by many of the Independent parliamentarians; and after the death of the king, Biddle was allowed to reside in Staffordshire under surveillance. He engaged in preaching and in literary work, particularly an edition of the Septuagint, published by Roger Daniel. In February 1652 the general act of oblivion gave him complete freedom, and his adherents soon began to meet regularly for worship on Sundays. They were called Biddellians, or Socinians, or Unitarians, the name which has now become associated with their opinions. Biddle was not left long in peace. He translated some Socinian books, among others the Life of Socinus, and published two catechisms which excited a fury of indignation. He was summoned before the parliament in December 1654 and imprisoned. The dissolution of that body again set him at liberty for a short time, but he was presently brought up for some expressions used by him in a discussion with John Griffin, an illiterate Baptist pastor, who invoked the law against his superior opponent. He was put upon trial, and was only rescued by Cromwell, who sent him (October 1655) out of the way to one of the Scilly Islands, allowed him 100 crowns a year, and in 1658, on the solicitation of many friends, released him. For a few years he lived and taught quietly in the country, but returning to London he was in June 1662 again arrested, and fined £100. As he was unable to pay this sum, he was at once committed to prison, where fever, caused by the pestilential atmosphere, carried him off on the 22nd of September 1662.

BIDDLE, NICHOLAS (1786-1844), American financier, was born in Philadelphia on the 8th of January 1786. He was the nephew of a naval officer, Captain Nicholas Biddle (1750-1778), who lost his life while fighting on the American side, during the War of American Independence. After almost finishing the prescribed course at the university of Pennsylvania, the boy went to Princeton, where he graduated with high honours in 1801. During 1804-1807 he was the secretary, first of John Armstrong, minister to France, and then of James Monroe, minister to Great Britain. After his return to America he practised law for several years in Philadelphia, was an associate editor of Dennie’s Portfolio, to which he contributed both prose and verse, and, with much literary skill, prepared for the press from the explorers’ own journals a History of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark (1814). He was a prominent member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1810-1811 and of the Senate in 1814-1817, and in 1819 became, by President Monroe’s appointment, one of the five government directors of the Bank of the United States. In 1823 he replaced Langdon Cheves as its president. In general he followed a conservative policy and showed marked ability in the management of the bank, but during President Andrew Jackson’s warfare upon that institution, his character and his policy were violently assailed by the president and his followers. The bank’s national charter lapsed in 1836, but it was immediately chartered by Pennsylvania as the “Bank of the United States, of Pennsylvania”; and Biddle remained president until 1839, two years before the bank failed. As president of the board of trustees appointed for the purpose, he took a prominent part in the establishment of Girard College, in accordance with the will of Stephen Girard (q.v.). He died in Philadelphia on the 27th of February 1844.

His son, Charles John Biddle (1819-1873), served in the Mexican War as a captain of infantry, earning the brevet of major at Chapultepec; practised law in Philadelphia; was a representative in Congress in 1861-1863; was long editor-in-chief of the Philadelphia Age; and published ”The Case of Major André, with a Review of the Statement of it in Lord Mahon’s History of England,” in the Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (1858).

BIDEFORD, a seaport, market town and municipal borough in the Barnstaple parliamentary division of Devonshire, England, 8¼ m. S.W. of Barnstaple. Pop. (1901) 8754. It is served by the London & South-Western and the Bideford, Westward Ho & Appledore railways. It is picturesquely situated on two hills rising from the banks of the river Torridge, 3 m. above its junction with the estuary of the Taw. Many of the houses are built with timber framework in Elizabethan style, and the two parts of the town are united by a bridge of 24 arches, originally erected in the 14th century, when the revenue of certain lands was set apart for its upkeep. The church of St Mary, with the exception of the tower, is a modern reconstruction. A stone chancel screen and a Norman font are also preserved. Industries include the manufacture of earthenware, leather goods, sails, ropes and linen, and ironfounding. The small harbour has about 17 ft. of water at high tide, but is dry at low tide. Anthracite and a coarse potter’s clay are found near the town. The borough is under a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area, 3398 acres.

BIDPAI (or Pilpay), FABLES OF, the name given in the middle ages (from Sanskrit Vidya-pati, chief scholar) to a famous collection of Hindu stories. The origin of them is undoubtedly to be found in the Pancha Tantra, or Five Sections, an extensive body of early fables or apologues. A second collection, called the Hitopadesa, has become more widely known in Europe than the first, on which it is apparently founded. In the 6th century A.D., a translation into Pahlavi of a number of these old fables was made by a physician at the court of Chosroes I. Anushirvan, king of Persia. No traces of this Persian translation can now be found, but nearly two centuries later, Abdallah-ibn-Mokaffa translated the Persian into Arabic; and his version, which is known as the “Book of Kalilah and Dimna,” from the two jackals in the first story, became the channel through which a knowledge of the fables was transmitted to Europe. It was translated into Greek by Simeon Sethus towards the close of the 11th century; his version, however, does not appear to have been retranslated into any other European language. But the 920 Hebrew version of Rabbi Joel, made somewhat later, was translated in the 13th century into Latin by John of Capua, a converted Jew, in his Directorium vitae humanae (first published in 1480), and in that form became widely known. Since then the fables have been translated into nearly every European tongue. There are also versions of them in the modern Persian, Malay, Mongol and Afghan languages.

BIEKKICH, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau, on the right bank of the Rhine, 3 m. S. from Wiesbaden, of which it is the river port, and on the main line of railway from Cologne to Frankfort-on-Main. Pop. (1900) 15,048; (1905) 20,137. The palace of the former dukes of Nassau occupies a fine position on the river bank, and the shady gardens and groves attract large numbers of visitors during the summer. It is an important steamboat station for both passenger and cargo traffic, and besides manufactures of cement, dyes and soap, has a considerable trade in the wines of the district.

BIEDERMANN, FRIEDRICH KARL (1812-1901), German publicist and historian, was born at Leipzig on the 25th of September 1812, and after studying at Leipzig and Heidelberg became professor in the university of his native town in 1838. His early writings show him as an ardent advocate of German unity, and he was a member of the national parliament which met at Frankfort in 1848. Becoming a member of the Upper House of the parliament of Saxony, he advocated union under the leadership of Prussia; and, subsequently losing his professorship, he retired to Weimar, where he edited the Weimarische Zeitung. Returning to Leipzig in 1863 he edited the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, and regained his professorship in 1865. He was again a member of the Saxon Upper House, and from 1871 to 1874 a member of the German Reichstag. He died at Leipzig on the 5th of March 1901. Biedermann’s chief works are: Erinnerungen aus der Paulskirche (Leipzig, 1849); Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1854-1880); Friedrich der grosse und sein Verhältnis zur Entwickelung des deutschen Geisteslebens (Brunswick, 1859); Geschichte Deutschlands 1815-1871 (Berlin, 1891); Deutsche Volks- und Kulturgeschichte (Wiesbaden, 1901). He also wrote the dramas, Kaiser Heinrich IV. (Weimar, 1861); Kaiser Otto III. (Leipzig, 1862); and Der letzte Bürgermeister von Strassburg (Leipzig, 1870).

BIEL, GABRIEL (c. 1425-1495), scholastic philosopher, was born at Spires (Speier). He was the first professor of theology at the newly founded (1477) university of Tübingen, of which he was twice rector. Some years before his death he entered a religious fraternity. His work consists in the systematic development of the views of his master, William of Occam. His Epitome et Collectorium ex Occamo super libros quatuor Sententiarum (1508, 1512, and various dates) is a clear and consistent account of the nominalist doctrine, and presents the complete system of scholastic thought from that point of view. The empirical individualism of the work, tending necessarily to limit the province of reason and extend that of faith, together with scattered utterances on special points, which gained for Biel the title of Papista Antipapista, had considerable influence in giving form to the doctrines of Luther and Melanchthon. It is the best specimen of the final aspect of scholasticism. His other works also have been frequently reprinted. The title Ultimus Scholasticorum is often wrongly bestowed on Biel; scholasticism did not cease with him, even in Germany, and continued to flourish long after his time in the universities of Spain.

BIELEFELD, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Westphalia, 68 m. S.W. from Hanover on the main line to Cologne. Pop. (1885) 34,931; (1905) 71,797. It is situated at the foot of the Teutoburger Wald, and consists of two portions, separated by the river Lutter, which were first united into one town in 1520. Among its public buildings and institutions are the old town church, with a curious carved altar-piece, the town hall, the gymnasium and the provincial industrial school. On the height above the town is the old castle of Sparenburg, built in the 12th century by Bernhard, count of Lippe. It was for a long time employed as a prison, but was restored after its destruction by fire in 1877 and now contains a historical museum. Bielefeld is the centre of the Westphalian linen industry. It has also important plush, silk and hosiery manufactures, as well as extensive bleaching works, and does a very large export trade to all parts of the world in these branches. Engines, automobiles, biscuits, glass, pianos, furniture and paper are also manufactured.

Bielefeld is mentioned as early as the 9th century, as Belanvelde, but its first recorded mention as a town is in 1233. It belonged at this time to the counts of Ravensberg, who often resided in the Sparenburg. It joined the Hanseatic league in 1270, and about the same time began to engage in the linen manufacture, which was greatly extended during the 16th and 17th centuries by a number of refugees from the Netherlands. In 1347 the town passed with the countship of Ravensberg to the duchy of Jülich, and in 1666 to that of Brandenburg.

BIELITZ (Czech Bilsko, Polish Bielsko), a town of Austria, in Silesia, 80 m. S.E. of Troppau by rail. Pop. (1900) 16,885, chiefly German. It is situated on the Biala river, just opposite the Galician town of Biala and possesses a fine castle belonging to the Sulkowsky family, in favour of whom the lordship of Bielitz was raised to a duchy in 1752. It has an important woollen and linen industry, and manufactures of jute and machinery, as well as an active trade, especially of woollens, to the East. The town was founded in the 13th century, and in the 15th and 16th was a fortified place.

BIELLA, a town and episcopal see of Piedmont, Italy, in the province of Novara, 55 m. N.E. of Turin by rail, and 38 m. direct, situated on the S. edge of the lower Alps. Pop. (1901) town, 3454; commune, 19,267. The old town (1558 ft.) lies on a hill above the new town, and is reached from it by a cable tramway. It has fine palaces with decorations in terra-cotta; and a modern bath establishment is situated here. The new town contains the 15th-century cathedral and the fine Renaissance church of S. Sebastiano; near the former is a baptistery of the 9th century. It is a considerable manufacturing centre for woollens, silks and cottons, electric power being furnished by the torrents descending from the mountains at the foot of which it lies. It is frequented as a tourist centre, and several hydropathic establishments and mountain resorts lie in the vicinity.

BIENNE, or Biel, an industrial town in the Swiss canton of Bern. It is built between the N.E. end of the lake of the same name and the point at which the river Suze or Scheuss (on the right bank of which it is situated) issues from a deep cleft (called the Taubenloch) in the Jura range. Bienne is 19 m. by rail N.E. of Neuchâtel, and 21 m. N.W. of Bern. Its industrial importance is shown by the fact that it is the site of the West Swiss technical institute, which has departments for instruction in watch-making, in electricity, in engraving and chasing, and in subjects relating to railway, postal and telegraph matters. Its chief industries are watch-making, chain-making, the manufacture of machines and other objects for use on railways, &c. Its rapidly increasing commercial activity accounts no doubt for the rapid rise in its population, which in 1850 was but 3589, rose in 1870 to 8165, and in 1900 was 22,016, mainly Protestant, 921 and two-thirds German-speaking. The parish church of St Benedict dates from 1451, but was restored in 1775—it has some fine 15th-century painted glass in the choir. In the town is the Schwab museum, which is chiefly notable for its fine collection of objects from the lake-dwellings. To the north-west of Bienne two funicular railways lead up to Évilard (or Leubringen) and Macolin (or Magglingen), both situated on the slope of the Jura.

First mentioned in the 12th century, Bienne continued for centuries to be under the jurisdiction of the prince-bishop of Basel. In 1279 (permanently in 1352) it made an alliance with Bern, in 1344 with Soleure, and in 1382 with Fribourg. But its attempts to be admitted into the Swiss Confederation were fruitless, though after it adopted the Reformation in 1525, it was closely associated with the Protestant cantons. In 1798 it was seized by the French, but in 1815, with the greater part of the bishopric of Basel, it became part of the canton of Bern.

BIENNE, LAKE OF, or Bielersee, a lake in Switzerland, S.W. of the town of Bienne, and extending along the southern foot of the Jura range. It is 7½ m. in length, 2½ m. broad and 249 ft. in depth, while its surface is 1424 ft. above the sea-level, and its area 16 sq. m. In it is the Île de St Pierre, where Rousseau resided for a short time in 1765. Many traces of lake-dwellings have been discovered on the shores of the lake. It receives the river Suze or Scheuss at its north-east end, while the Hagneck canal leads the waters of the Aar into the lake, as that of Nidau conducts them out again. At the southwestern end the river Thièle or Zihl flows into this lake from that of Neuchâtel.

BIERSTADT, ALBERT (1830-1902), American landscape painter, was born in Solingen, Westphalia, Germany, on the 7th of January 1830, and was taken to the United States when about a year old. In 1853-1856 he studied painting at Düsseldorf. His pictures of the western part of the United States, and particularly the Rocky Mountains, made him widely popular. His “Estes Park, Colorado,” is in the collection of the earl of Dunraven; his “Sierra Nevada” (1878) is in the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, and “The Valley of Yosemite” in the James Lenox collection in New York. He received many German and Austrian decorations, and was a chevalier of the French Legion of Honour. He rendered panoramic views with a certain ability, though his work was rather topographically correct and impressive than artistic in conception and execution. He was a member of the National Academy of Design of New York, and is represented by two historical paintings, “The Discovery of the Hudson River,” and “The Settlement of California,” in the Capitol in Washington, D.C. He died in New York City on the 18th of February 1902.

BIFROST, in Old Norse mythology, the rainbow, which was supposed to form the bridge by which the gods passed between heaven and earth. It was guarded by Heimdal, god of light.

BIGAMY (from Lat. bis, twice, and Gr. γάμος, marriage), in English law. according to the statute now in force (24 and 25 Vict. c. 100, § 57), the offence committed by a person who “being married shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife.” In the canon law the word had a rather wider meaning, and the marriage of a clerk in minor orders with a widow came within its scope. At the council of Lyons (A.D. 1274) bigamists were stripped of their privilege of clergy. This canon was adopted and explained by an English statute of 1276; and bigamy, therefore, became a usual counterplea to the claim of benefit of clergy. However, by an act of 1547 every person entitled to the benefit of clergy is to be allowed the same, “although he hath been divers times married to any single woman or single women, or to any widow or widows, or to two wives or more.”

A bigamous marriage, by the ecclesiastical law of England, is simply void. By a statute of 1604 the offence was made a felony. This statute, after being repealed in 1828, was re-enacted and reproduced in the Offences against the Person Act 1861. It is immaterial whether the second marriage has taken place within England and Ireland or elsewhere, and the offence may be dealt with in any county or place where the defendant shall be apprehended or be in custody. The following clause embodies the necessary exceptions to the very general language used in the definition of the offence.—“Provided that nothing in this section contained shall extend to any second marriage contracted elsewhere than in England and Ireland by any other than a British subject, or to any person marrying a second time whose husband or wife shall have been continuously absent from such person for the space of seven years then last past, and shall not have been known by such person to be living within that time, or shall extend to any person who at the time of such second marriage shall have been divorced from the bond of the first marriage, or to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by any court of competent jurisdiction.” The punishment is penal servitude for not more than seven nor less than five years, or imprisonment with or without hard labour, not exceeding two years.

A valid marriage must be proved in the first instance in order to support a charge of bigamy. A voidable marriage, such as were marriages between persons within the prohibited degrees before the Marriage Act 1836, will be sufficient, but a marriage which is absolutely void as all such marriages now are, will not. For example, if a woman marry B during the lifetime of her husband A, and after A’s death marry C during the lifetime of B, her marriage with C is not bigamous, because her marriage with B was a nullity. In regard to the second marriage (which constitutes the offence) the English courts have held that it is immaterial whether, but for the bigamy, it would have been a valid marriage or not. An uncle, for example, cannot marry his niece; but if being already married he goes through the ceremony of marriage with her he is guilty of bigamy. In an Irish case, however, it has been held that to constitute the offence the second marriage must be one which, but for the existence of the former marriage, would have been valid. With reference to the case in which the parties to the first marriage have been divorced, it may be observed that no sentence or act of any foreign country dissolving a vinculo a marriage contracted in England by persons continuing to be domiciled in England, for grounds on which it is not liable to be dissolved a vinculo in England will be recognized as a divorce (R. v. Lolley 1812, R. & R. 237). Hence, a divorce a vinculo for adultery, in a Scottish court, of persons married in England, is not within the statute. But if a person charged with bigamy in England can prove that he has been legally divorced by the law of the country where the divorced parties were domiciled at the time (even though the ground on which the divorce was granted was not one that would justify a divorce in England) it will be good defence to the charge. Criminal jurisdiction is always regarded as purely territorial, but bigamy (together with homicide and treason) is an exception to this rule. A British subject committing bigamy in any country may be tried for the same in the United Kingdom (Earl Russell’s case, 1901).

In Scotland, at the date of the only statute respecting bigamy, that of 1551, cap. 19, the offence seems to have been chiefly considered in a religious point of view, as a sort of perjury, or violation of the solemn vow or oath which was then used in contracting marriage; and, accordingly, it was ordained to be punished with the proper pains of perjury.

Bigamy was punished in England until the reign of William III. by death, then the penalty changed to life imprisonment and branding of the right hand. An act of George I. still in force lessened the penalty to deportation for seven years or imprisonment for two years with or without hard labour. The Offences against the Person Act 1861 changed deportation to penal servitude.

In the United States the law in regard to bigamy is practically founded on the English statute of 1604, with the exception that imprisonment and a fine, varying in the different states, were substituted instead of making the offence a felony. Congress has passed a statute declaring bigamy within the territories and places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United 922 States to be a misdemeanour (U.S. Rev. Stat. § 5352). By statute in some states, upon absence of one spouse from the state for five years without being heard of, the other may marry again without committing bigamy, in other states the period is seven years. In most of the states, prosecutions for bigamy are barred after the lapse of a certain number of years. The marriage wherever solemnized must be a valid marriage according to the law of the place of solemnization; if void there, no prosecution for bigamy can be founded upon it. In some jurisdictions, an honest belief that a prior divorce of one of the parties was valid would be a defence to a prosecution for bigamy, in others the contrary is held.

On the continent of Europe, bigamy is punishable in most countries with varying terms of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, according to the circumstances of the case.

BIGELOW, JOHN (1817-  ), American journalist and diplomat, was born at Malden, New York, on the 25th of November 1817. He graduated at Union College in 1835, practised law in New York for several years after 1839; took up journalistic work; was joint owner (with William Cullen Bryant) and managing editor of the New York Evening Post (1849-1861); was United States consul at Paris in 1861-1864, and was minister to France in 1864-1867. While consul, Bigelow wrote Les États-Unis d’Amérique en 1863 in order to counteract the apparent desire of the French people for a dissolution of the American Union, by showing them the relative importance of the commerce of the northern and southern states. On discovering in 1863 that a French shipbuilder, with the connivance of Napoleon III., was constructing two formidable iron-clads and two corvettes for the use of the Confederacy, he devoted his energies to thwarting this scheme, and succeeded in preventing the delivery of all but one of these vessels to the Confederate agents. In his work entitled France and the Confederate Navy (New York, 1888) he gives an account of this episode. In 1865-1866, it devolved upon Bigelow, as minister to France, to represent his government in its delicate negotiations concerning the French occupation of Mexico, and he discharged this difficult task with credit. From 1875 to 1877 he served as secretary of state of New York. He wrote books of travel, of popular biography, or of historical or political discussion, &c., from time to time; but his principal literary achievements were editions, between 1868 and 1888, of Franklin’s autobiography and autobiographical writings, copiously annotated; and of the complete works of Franklin, in ten octavo volumes (New York, 1887-1889). These editions were based in part upon the editor’s personal investigations of manuscript sources in France and elsewhere, and supplanted the well-known, long serviceable, but less accurate edition of Jared Sparks (Boston, 1836-1840); they have in turn been supplanted by the edition of A.H. Smythe (10 vols., 1905-1907). Mr Bigelow was a close friend of Samuel J. Tilden, and became his literary executor, editing his speeches and other political writings (1885), publishing a biography in 1895, and editing a two-volume collection of Tilden’s letters and literary memorials (1908). He also wrote a biography of William Cullen Bryant (1890). In 1897 he published a volume entitled The Mystery of Sleep (2nd ed., 1903). In 1909 he published Retrospections of an Active Life.

BIGGAR, a police burgh of Lanarkshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 1366. It is situated about 10 m. S.E. of Carstairs Junction (Caledonian railway), where the lines from Edinburgh and Glasgow connect. Lying on Biggar Water and near the Clyde, in a bracing, picturesque, upland country, Biggar enjoys great vogue as a health and holiday resort. It was the birthplace of Dr John Brown, author of Rab and his Friends, whose father was secession minister in the town. It was created a burgh of barony in 1451 and a police burgh in 1863. St Mary’s church was founded in 1545 by Lord Fleming, the head of the ruling family in the district, whose seat, Boghall Castle, however, is now a ruin. John Gledstanes, great-grandfather of W.E. Gladstone, was a burgess of Biggar, and lies in the churchyard. Easter Gledstanes, the seat of the family from the 13th to the 17th century, and the estate of Arthurshiels, occupied by them for nearly a hundred years more, are situated about 3½ m. to the north-west of the burgh. On the top of Quothquan Law (1097 ft.), about 3 m. west is a rock called Wallace’s Chair, from the tradition that he held a council there prior to the battle of Biggar in 1297. Lamington, nearly 6 m. south-west, is well situated on the Clyde. It is principally associated with the family of the Baillies, of whom the most notable were Cuthbert Baillie (d. 1514), lord high treasurer of Scotland, William Baillie, Lord Provand (d. 1593), the judge, and William Baillie (fl. 1648), the general whose strategy in opposition to the marquess of Montrose was so diligently stultified by the committee of estates. The ancient church of St Ninian’s has a fine Norman doorway. Lamington Tower was reduced to its present fragmentary condition in the time of Edward I., when William Heselrig, the sheriff, laid siege to it. The defenders, Hugh de Bradfute and his son, were slain, and his daughter Marion—the betrothed, or, as some say, the wife of William Wallace—was conveyed to Lanark, where she was barbarously executed because she refused to reveal the whereabouts of her lover. Wallace exacted swift vengeance. He burnt out the English garrison and killed the sheriff.

BIGGLESWADE, a market town in the Biggleswade parliamentary division of Bedfordshire, England, 41 m. N. by W. of London by the Great Northern railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 5120. It lies on the east bank of the Ivel, a tributary of the Ouse, in a flat plain in which vegetables are largely grown for the London markets. The town is a centre of this trade.

BIGHT (O. Eng. bight, bend; cf. Ger. Bucht, a bay, and beugen, to bend), a nautical term for the loop or bent part of a rope, as distinguished from the ends; also a geographical term for a bay between two distant headlands, or with a shallow curve, e.g. the Bight of Benin, the Great Bight of Australia.

BIGNON, JÉRÔME (1589-1656), French lawyer, was born at Paris in 1589. He was uncommonly precocious, and under his father’s tuition had acquired an immense mass of knowledge before he was ten years of age. In 1600 was published a work by him entitled Chorographie, ou description de la Terre Sainte. The great reputation gained by this book introduced the author to Henry IV., who placed him for some time as a companion to the duc de Vendôme, and made him tutor to the dauphin, afterwards Louis XIII. In 1604 he wrote his Discours de la ville de Rome, and in the following year his Traité sommaire de l’élection du pape. He then devoted himself to the study of law, wrote in 1610 a treatise on the precedency of the kings of France, which gave great satisfaction to Henry IV., and in 1613 edited, with learned notes, the Formulae of the jurist Marculfe. In 1620 he was made advocate-general to the grand council, and shortly afterwards a councillor of state, and in 1626 he became advocate-general to the parlement of Paris. In 1641 he resigned his official dignity, and in 1642 was appointed by Richelieu to the charge of the royal library. He died in 1656.

BIGNON, LOUIS PIERRE ÉDOUARD, Baron (1771-1841), French diplomatist and historian, born on the 3rd of January 1771, was the son of a dyer at Rouen. Though he had received a good education, he served throughout the early part of the revolutionary wars without rising above the rank of private. In 1797, however, the attention of Talleyrand, then minister of foreign affairs, was called to his exceptional abilities by General 923 Huet, and he was attached to the diplomatic service. After serving in the legations in Switzerland and the Cisalpine republic, he was appointed in 1799 attaché to the French legation at Berlin, of which three years later he became chargé d’affaires. As minister-plenipotentiary at Cassel, between the years 1804 and 1806, he took a prominent share in the formation of the confederation of the Rhine; and after the battle of Jena he returned to Prussia as administrator of the public domains and finances. He filled a similar function in Austria after the battle of Wagram. At the end of 1810 he became French resident at Warsaw and was for a couple of years supreme in the affairs of the grand duchy.

The preparation of a constitution for Poland, on which he was engaged, was, however, interrupted by the events of 1812. Bignon, after a short imprisonment at the hands of the allies, returned to France in time to witness the downfall of Napoleon. During the Hundred Days he once more entered Napoleon’s service, and, after Waterloo, as minister of foreign affairs under the executive commission, it was he who signed the convention of the 3rd of July 1815, by which Paris was handed over to the allies. Bignon did not re-enter public life until 1817, when he was elected to the chamber of deputies, in which he sat until 1830, consistent in his opposition to the reactionary policy of successive governments. His great reputation and his diplomatic experience gave a special weight to the attacks which he published on the policy of the continental allies, two of his works attracting special attention. Du Congrès de Troppau ou Examen des prétentions des monarchies absolues à l’égard de la monarchie constitutionelle de Naples (Paris, 1821), and Les Cabinets el les peuples depuis 1815 jusqu’à la fin de 1822 (Paris, 1822).

The revolution of 1830, which brought his party into power, only led to a very temporary resumption of office by Bignon. He was for a few weeks minister of foreign affairs in the first government of Louis Philippe, and again for a few weeks minister of public instruction. But the idea of making him responsible for the foreign policy of France could not be realized owing to the necessity under which Louis Philippe lay of courting the goodwill of the powers, whom Bignon had offended by his outspoken writings. Elected deputy in 1831 and member of the chamber of peers in 1839, he withdrew for the most part from politics, to devote himself to his great work, the Histoire de France sous Napoléon (10 vols. 1829-1838, then 4 posthumous vols., 1847-1850). This history, while suffering from the limitations of all contemporaneous narratives, contains much that does not exist elsewhere, and is one of the best-known sources for the later histories of Napoleon’s reign.

BIGOD, HUGH (d. 1177), earl of Norfolk, was the second son of Roger Bigod (d. 1107), the founder of the English family of this name. Hugh inherited large estates in East Anglia on the death of his brother William in 1120, and enjoyed the favour of Henry I. At first a supporter of Stephen during this king’s struggle with the empress Matilda, Hugh was rewarded with the earldom of Norfolk before 1141. After having fought for the king at the battle of Lincoln the earl deserted him, assumed a position of armed neutrality during the general anarchy, and then assisted Henry II. in his efforts to obtain the throne. This king confirmed him in the possession of his earldom; but becoming restless under the rule of law initiated by Henry, he participated in the revolt of 1173, which so far as England was concerned centred round his possessions. Though defeated and compelled to surrender his castles, Bigod kept his lands and his earldom, and lived at peace with Henry II. until his death, which probably took place in Palestine.

His son Roger (d. 1221), who succeeded to the earldom of Norfolk, was confirmed in his earldom and other honours by Richard I., after he had fallen under the displeasure of Henry II. He took part in the negotiations for the release of Richard from prison, and after the king’s return to England became justiciar. The earl was one of the leaders of the baronial party which obtained John’s assent to Magna Carta, and his name appears among the signatories to this document.

Roger was succeeded as 3rd earl by his son, Hugh, who died in 1225, leaving a son, Roger (d. 1270), who became 4th earl of Norfolk. Through his mother, Matilda, a daughter of William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, Roger obtained the office of marshal of England in 1246. He was prominent among the barons who wrested the control of the government from the hands of Henry III., and assisted Simon de Montfort. The earl married Isabella, daughter of William the Lion, king of Scotland, but left no sons.

Hugh, the 3rd earl, left a younger son, Hugh (d. 1266), who was chief justiciar of England from 1258 to 1260, and who fought for Henry III. at the battle of Lewes. The latter’s son, Roger, succeeded his uncle Roger as 5th earl of Norfolk in 1270. This earl is the hero of a famous altercation with Edward I. in 1297, which arose out of the king’s command that Bigod should serve against the king of France in Gascony, while he went to Flanders. The earl asserted that by the tenure of his lands he was only compelled to serve across the seas in the company of the king himself, whereupon Edward said, “By God, earl, you shall either go or hang,” to which Bigod replied, “By the same oath, O king, I will neither go nor hang.” The earl gained his point, and after Edward had left for France he and Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, prevented the collection of an aid for the war and forced Edward to confirm the charters in this year and again in 1301. Stubbs says Bigod and Bohun “are but degenerate sons of mighty fathers; greater in their opportunities than in their patriotism.” The earl died without issue in December 1306, when his title became extinct, and his estates reverted to the crown. The Bigods held the hereditary office of steward (dapifer) of the royal household, and their chief castle was at Framlingham in Suffolk.

BIGOT, one obstinately and intolerantly holding particular religious opinions, who refuses to listen to reason and is ready to force others to agree with him; hence also applied to one who holds similar views on any subject. The early meaning of the word in English, at the end of the 16th century, was that of a religious hypocrite. The origin is obscure; it appears in French, in the forms bigot or bigos, in the 12th century romance of Girard of Roussillon, where it is applied to certain tribes of southern Gaul, and in the Roman du Rou of Wace (d. 1175?) as an abusive name given by the French to the Normans:

To this use has been attached the absurd origin from “ne se, bi god,” the words in which, according to the 12th century chronicle, Rollo, duke of the Normans, refused to kiss the foot of Charles III., the Simple, king of the West Franks. The word may have some connexion with a corruption of Visigoth, a suggestion to which the use in the Girard romance lends colour. The meaning changed in French to that of “religious hypocrite” through the application, in the feminine bigote, to the members of the religious sisterhoods called Beguines (q.v.).

BIG RAPIDS, a city and the county-seat of Mecosta county, Michigan, U.S.A., on both sides of the Muskegon river, 56 m. N. by E. of Grand Rapids, in the west central portion of the lower peninsula. Pop. (1890) 5303; (1900) 4686, of whom 881 were foreign-born; (1910, U.S. census) 4519. It is served by the Père Marquette and the Grand Rapids & Indiana railways. Big Rapids is the seat of the Ferris Institute (opened 1884, incorporated 1894), a large private co-educational school, founded by W.N. Ferris. The river, which falls 16 ft. within the city limits, is dammed a short distance south of the city, and 16,000 horse-power is generated, part of which is transmitted to the city. The principal manufactures are lumber and furniture, and saw-filing and filing-room machinery. Big Rapids, named from the falls of the Muskegon here, was settled in 1854, was platted in 1859 and was chartered as a city in 1869.

924

BIGSBY, JOHN JEREMIAH (1792-1881), English geologist and physician, the son of Dr John Bigsby, was born at Nottingham on the 14th of August 1792. Educated at Edinburgh, where he took the degree of M.D., he joined the army medical service and was stationed at the Cape of Good Hope in 1817. About a year later he went to Canada as medical officer to a regiment, and having developed much interest in geology he was commissioned in 1819 to report on the geology of Upper Canada. In 1822 he was appointed British secretary and medical officer to the Boundary Commission, and for several years he made extensive and important geological researches, contributing papers to the American Journal of Science and other scientific journals; and later embodying an account of his travels in a book entitled The Shoe and Canoe (1850). Returning to England in 1827 he practised medicine at Newark until 1846 when he removed to London, where he remained until the end of his life. He now took an active interest in the Geological Society of London, of which he had been elected a fellow in 1823. In 1869 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1874 he was awarded the Murchison medal by the council of the Geological Society. During the last twenty years of his long life he was continually at work preparing, after the most painstaking research, tabulated lists of the fossils of the Palaeozoic rocks. His Thesaurus Siluricus was published with the aid of the Royal Society in 1868; and the Thesaurus Devonico-Carboniferus in 1878. In 1877 he founded the Bigsby medal to be awarded by the Geological Society of London, with the stipulation that the receiver should not be more than forty-five years old. He died in London on the 10th of February 1881.

BIHARI (properly Bihārī), the name of the most western of the four forms of speech which comprise the Eastern Group of modern Indo-Aryan Languages (q.v.). The other members are Bengali, Oriya and Assamese (see Bengali). The number of speakers of Bihari in 1901 was 34,579,844 in British India, out of a total of 90,242,167 for the whole group. It is also the language of the inhabitants of the neighbouring Tarai districts of Nepal. In the present article it is throughout assumed that the reader is in possession of the facts described under the heads of Indo-Aryan Languages and Prakrit. The article Bengali may also be studied with advantage.

“Bihārī” means the language of the province of “Bihār,” and to a certain extent this is a true description. It is the direct descendant of the old Māgadhī Prakrit (see Prakrit), of which the headquarters were South Bihár, or the present districts of Patna and Gaya. It is, however, also spoken considerably beyond the limits of this province. To the west it extends over the province of Agra so far as the longitude of Benares, and to the south it covers nearly the whole of the province of Chota Nagpur. Allowing for the speakers in Nepal, its area extends over about 90,000 sq. m., and the total number of people who claim it as a vernacular is about the same as the population of France. Bihari has been looked upon as a separate language only during the past twenty-five years. Before that it was grouped with all the other languages spoken between Bengal and the Punjab, under the general term “Hindi.”

The usual character employed for writing Bihari is that known as Kaithī, a cursive form of the well-known Nagari character of Upper India. The name of the character is derived from the Kāyath or Kāyasth caste, whose profession is that of scribes. Kaithi is widely spread, under various names, all over northern India, and is the official character of Gujarati. The Nagari character is commonly employed for printed books, while the Brahmans of Tirhut have a character of their own, akin to that used for writing Bengali and Assamese. In the south of the Bihari tract the Oriya character belonging to the neighbouring Orissa is also found.

Bihari has to its east Bengali, also a language of the Outer Band. To its west it has Eastern Hindi, a language of the Intermediate Band (see Indo-Aryan Languages). While it must decidedly be classed as an Outer language, it nevertheless shows, as might be expected, some points of contact with the Intermediate ones. Nothing is so characteristic of Bengali as its pronunciation of the vowel a and of the consonant s. The first is sounded like the o in “hot” (transliterated o). In Eastern Bihari the same vowel has a broad sound, but not so broad as in Bengali. As we go westwards this broad sound is gradually lost, till it entirely disappears in the most western dialect, Bhojpurī. As regards s, the Māgadhī Prakrit pronounced it as ś, like the sh in “shin.” The Prakrits of the West preserved its dental sound, like that of the s in “sin.” Here Bengali and Eastern Hindi exactly represent the ancient state of affairs. The former has the ś-sound and the latter the s-sound. At the present day Bihari has abandoned the practice of the old Māgadhī Prakrit in this respect, and pronounces its s’s as clearly as in the West. There are political reasons for this. The pronunciation of s is a literal shibboleth between Bengal and Upper India. For centuries Bihár has been connected politically with the West, and has in the course of generations rid itself of the typical pronunciation of the East. On the other hand, a witness as to the former pronunciation of the letter is present in the fact that, in the Kaithi character, s is always written ś. In the declension of nouns, Bihari follows Bengali more closely than it follows Eastern Hindi, and its conjugation is based on the same principles as those which obtain in the former language.

The age of Bihari as an independent language is unknown. We have songs written in it dating from the 15th century, and at that time it had received considerable literary culture. Bihari has three main dialects, which fall Language. into two divisions, an eastern and a western. The eastern division includes Maithilī or Tirhutiā and Magahī. Magahi is the dialect of the country corresponding to the ancient Magadha, and may therefore be taken as the modern representative of the purest Māgadhī Prakrit. Its northern boundary is generally the river Ganges, and its western the river Son. To the south it has overflowed into the northern half of Chota Nagpur. It is nearly related to Maithili, but it is quite uncultivated and has no literature, although it is the vernacular of the birthplace of Buddhism. Nowadays it is often referred to by natives of other parts of the country as the typically boorish language of India. Maithili faces Magahi across the Ganges. It is the dialect of the old country of Mithilā or Tirhut, famous from ancient times for its learning. Historically and politically it has long been closely connected with Oudh, the home of the hero Rāma-candra, and its people are amongst the most conservative in India. Their language bears the national stamp. It has retained numerous antiquated forms, and parts of its grammar are extraordinarily complex. It has a small literature which has helped to preserve these peculiarities in full play, so that though Magahi shares them, it has lost many which are still extant in the everyday talk of Mithila. The western division consists of the Bhojpuri dialect, spoken on both sides of the Gangetic valley, from near Patna to Benares. It has extended south-east into the southern half of Chota Nagpur, and is spoken by at least twenty millions of people who are as free from prejudice as the inhabitants of Mithila are conservative. The Bhojpuris are a fighting race, and their language is a practical one, made for everyday use, as simple and straightforward as Maithili and Magahi are complex. In fact, it might almost be classed as a separate language, had it any literature worthy of the name.

927

Bihari Literature.—In all three dialects there are numerous folk-epics transmitted by word of mouth. Several have been published at various times in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and in the Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft. The only dialect which has any Literature. real literature is Maithili. The earliest writer of whom we have any record is Vidyapati Ṭhakkura (Bidyapati Thakur), who lived at the court of Rājā Śiva Siṁha of Sugaonā in Tirhut in the 15th century. He was a voluminous Sanskrit writer, but his fame rests chiefly on his dainty lyrics in Maithili dealing with the loves of Rādhā and Krishna. These have exercised an important influence on the religious history of eastern India. They were adopted and enthusiastically recited by the reformer Caitanya (16th century), and through him became the home-poetry of the Bengali-speaking Lower Provinces. Their language was transformed (we can hardly say translated) into Bengali, and in that shape they have had numerous imitators. A collection of poems by the old Master-singer in their Maithili dress has been published by the present writer in his Chrestomathy of that language. The most admired of Vidyapati’s successors is Manbōdh Jhā, who died in 1788. He composed a Haribans, or poetical life of Krishna, which has great popularity. Many dramas have been composed in Mithila. The fashion is to write the body of the work in Sanskrit and Prakrit, but the songs in Maithili. Two dramas, the Pārijāta-haraṇa and the Rukmiṇī-pariṇaya, are attributed to Vidyāpati. Among modern writers in the dialect, we may mention Harṣanātha, an elegant lyric poet and author of a drama entitled Uṣā-haraṇa, and Candra Jhā, whose version of the Rāmayāṇa and translation of Vidyāpati’s Sanskrit Puruṣa-parīkṣā are deservedly popular.

BIHĀRĪ-LĀL, a name famous in Hindustani literature as the author of the Sat-saī, a collection of approximately seven hundred distichs, which is perhaps the most celebrated Hindi work of poetic art, as distinguished from narrative and simpler styles. The language is the form of Hindi called Braj-bhāshā, spoken in the country about Mathura, where the poet lived. The couplets are inspired by the Krishna side of Vishnu-worship, and the majority of them take the shape of amorous utterances of Radha, the chief of the Gopis or cowherd maidens of Braj, and her divine lover, the son of Vasudeva. Each couplet is independent and complete in itself, and is a triumph of skill in compression of language, felicity of description, and rhetorical artifice. The distichs, in their collected form, are arranged, not in any sequence of narrative or dialogue, but according to the technical classification of the sentiments which they convey as set forth in the treatises on Indian rhetoric.

Little is known of the author beyond what he himself tells us. He was born in Gwalior, spent his boyhood in Bundēlkhand, and on his marriage settled in his father-in-law’s household in Mathurā. His father was named Kēsab Rāy; he was a twiceborn (Dwija) by caste, which is generally understood to mean that he was a Brahman, though some assert that he belonged to the mixed caste, now called Rāy, sprung from the offspring of a Brahman father by a Kshatriya mother. A couplet in the Sat-saī states that it was completed in A.D. 1662. It is certain that his patron, whom he calls Jai Shāh, was the Rājā of Āmbēr or Jaipur, known as Mīrzā Jai Singh, who ruled from 1617 to 1667 during the reigns of the emperors Jahāngīr, Shāh Jahān and Aurangzēb. A couplet (No. 705) appears to refer to an event which occurred in 1665, and in which Rājā Jai Singh was concerned. For this prince the couplets were composed, and for each dōhā the poet is said to have received a gold piece worth sixteen rupees.

The collection very soon became celebrated. As the couplets are independent one of another, and were put together fortuitously as composed, many different recensions exist; but the standard is that settled by an assembly of poets under the direction of Prince A‘zam Shāh, the third son of the emperor Aurangzēb (1653-1707), and hence called the A‘zam-shāhī; it comprises 726 couplets. The estimation in which the work is held may be measured by the number of commentators who have devoted themselves to its elucidation, of whom Dr Grierson mentions seventeen. Two of them were Musalmans, and two other commentaries were composed for Musalman patrons. The collection has also twice been translated into Sanskrit.

BIJAPUR, an ancient city and modern district of British India in the southern division of Bombay. It is a station on the Southern Mahratta railway, 60 m. S. of Sholapur. The ancient city was supplied with water by an elaborate underground system of reservoirs and aqueducts, which has been restored in part as a famine relief work. The population in. 1901 was 23,811. The city used to be the extensive, splendid and opulent capital of an independent sovereignty of the same name, but now retains only the vestiges of its former grandeur. It is still, however, the most picturesque collection of ruins in India. The city of Bijapur owed its greatness to Yusuf Adil Shah, the founder of the independent state of Bijapur. It consists of three distinct portions—the citadel, the fort and the remains of the city. The citadel, built by Yusuf Adil Shah, a mile in circuit, is of great strength, well built of the most massive materials, and encompassed by a ditch 100 yds. wide, formerly supplied with water, but now nearly filled up with rubbish, so that its original depth cannot be discovered. Within the citadel are the remains of Hindu temples, which prove that Bijapur was an important town in pre-Mahommedan times. The fort, which was completed by Ali Adil Shah in 1566, is surrounded by a wall 6 m. in circumference. This wall is from 30 to 50 ft. high, and is strengthened with ninety-six massive bastions of various designs. In addition there are ten others at the various gateways. The width is about 25 ft.; from bastion to bastion runs a battlemented curtained wall about 10 ft. high. The whole is surrounded by a deep moat 30 to 40 ft. broad. Inside these walls the Bijapur kings bade defiance to all comers. Outside the walls are the remains of a vast city, now for the most part in ruins, but the innumerable tombs, mosques, caravanserais and other edifices, which have resisted the havoc of time, afford abundant evidence of the ancient splendour of the place. Among its many buildings three are specially worthy of mention. The Gol Gunbaz, or tomb of Sultan Mahommed Adil Shah, which was built 1626-1656, is one of the most interesting buildings in the world. It is a square building, 135 ft. each way, which is surmounted by a great circular dome 198 ft. high. The inside area (18,360 ft.) is greater than the Pantheon at Rome (15,833 sq. ft.). When first built the dome was covered by gold leaf, and the outer walls were adorned with stucco work picked out in gold and blue, but to-day there are very few traces of this 928 ornamentation. Of late years this mosque has been thoroughly restored, and one portion is now used as a museum in which all objects of interest discovered in the surrounding country are exhibited. Next to this comes the Ibrahim Roza, or tomb and mosque of Ibrahim Adil Shah II., which was completed about 1620 and is supposed to be one of the most exquisite buildings in the world after the Taj at Agra. It is said to have cost £1,700,000 and to have occupied thirty-six years in its construction. The Gagan Mahal, or ancient audience hall, is now a mass of ruins, but when complete must have been a beautiful building. The archway remains. It is over 60 ft. span and about 90 ft. high. Through this arch Sikandar Adil Shah, the last king of Bijapur, was brought bound with silver chains, while on a raised platform sat Aurangzeb, the Mogul emperor, who had left Delhi three years previously to conquer the Deccan. This magnificent palace, where so many scenes historic in the Bijapur dynasty occurred, is now the abode of hundreds of pigeons. Their cooing is the only sound that breaks the silence of the old halls.

History.—The founder of the Bijapur dynasty, Yusuf Adil Shah, is said by Ferishta to have been a son of the Ottoman sultan Murad II. When on his accession Mahommed II. gave orders for the strangling of all his brothers, Yusuf was saved by a stratagem of his mother. He went to India, where he took service under the Bahmani king of the Deccan, and ultimately became a person of great importance at the court of Mahmud II. In 1489 he took advantage of the break-up of the Bahmani power to establish himself as an independent sultan at Bijapur, his dominions including Goa on the west coast. He died in 1511 (Goa had been taken by the Portuguese a few months before), and was succeeded by his son Ismail, who reigned prosperously till 1534. The next king worth mentioning is Ali Adil Shah I., who reigned from 1557 to 1579 and, besides the fort, built the Jama Masjid or great mosque, the aqueducts and other notable works in the city. His son Ibrahim (d. 1626) maintained the prosperity of the state; but under his successor, Mahommed Adil Shah (d. 1656), the rise of the Mahratta power under Sivaji began to make inroads upon it, and it was exposed to the yet more formidable ambition of Shah Jahan. On the death of Mahommed the succession passed to Ali Adil Shah II., and on his death in 1672 to his infant son, Sikandar Adil Shah, the last of the race. The kingdom had been for some time rapidly falling to ruin, and in 1686 the Mogul emperor Aurangzeb, who as Shah Jahan’s general had unsuccessfully besieged the city under Mahommed Adil Shah, took Bijapur and annexed the kingdom to the Delhi empire. Among the curiosities of the capital is the celebrated monster gun (Malik-i-Maidan), stated to be the largest piece of cast bronze ordnance in the world. It was captured from the king of Ahmednagar by the king of Bijapur about the middle of the 17th century. An inscription on the gun recording that fact was erased by Aurangzeb, who substituted the present inscription stating that he conquered Bijapur in 1686. The city and territory of Bijapur remained annexed to Delhi till 1724, when the nizam established his independence in the Deccan, and included Bijapur within his dominions. His sway over this portion of his acquisitions, however, was of brief duration; for, being defeated by the Peshwa in 1760, he was compelled to purchase peace by its cession to the Mahrattas. Upon the fall of the Peshwa in 1818 Bijapur passed into the hands of the British, and was by them included in the territory assigned to the raja of Satara. In 1848 the territory of Satara was escheated through the failure of heirs. The city was made the administrative headquarters of the district in 1885.

The district of Bijapur, formerly called Kaladgi, occupies a barren plain, sloping eastward from a string of feudatory Mahratta states to the nizam’s dominions. It contains an area of 5669 sq. m., and its population in 1901 was 735,435, showing a decrease of 8% compared with an increase of 27% in the preceding decade, and a decrease of 21% in the period between 1872 and 1881. These changes in population reveal the effects of famine, which was very severely felt in 1876-1878 and again in 1899-1000. There is very little irrigation in the district. The principal crops are millet, wheat, pulse, oil-seeds and cotton. There are considerable manufactures of cotton and silk goods and blankets, and several factories for ginning and pressing cotton. The East Deccan line of the Southern Mahratta railway traverses the district from north to south.

BIJAWAR, a native state of central India, in the Bundelkhand agency. Area, 973 sq. m.; pop. (1901) 110,500; revenue, £10,000. Forests cover nearly half the total area of the state, which is believed to be rich in minerals, but lack of transport facilities has hindered the development of its resources.

The state takes its name from the chief town, Bijawar (pop. in 1901, 5220), which was founded by Bijai Singh, one of the Gond chiefs of Garha Mandla, in the 17th century. It was conquered in the 18th century by Chhatarsal, the founder of Panna, a Rajput of the Bundela clan, by whose descendants it is still held. It was confirmed to Ratan Singh in 1811 by the British government for the usual deed of allegiance. In 1857 Bhan Pratap Singh rendered signal services to the British during the Mutiny, being rewarded with certain privileges and a hereditary salute of eleven guns. In 1866 he received the title of maharaja, and the prefix sawai in 1877. Bhan Pratap was succeeded on his death in 1899 by his adopted son, Sanwant Singh, a son of the maharaja of Orchha.

BIJNOR, or Bijnaur, a town and district of British India in the Bareilly division of the United Provinces. The town is about 3 m. from the left bank of the Ganges. The population in 1901 was 17,583. There is a large trade in sugar. The American Methodists have a mission, which maintains some aided schools, and there is an English high school for boys.

The District of Bijnor has an area of 1791 sq. m. The aspect of the country is generally a level plain, but the northern part of it rises towards the Himalayas, the greatest elevation being 1342 ft. above the sea-level. The Koh and Ramganga are the principal rivers that flow through the district, and the Ganges forms its western boundary. In 1901 the population was 779,451, showing a decrease of 2% in the decade. The country is watered in most parts by streams from the hills, but a series of small canals has been constructed. Sugar is largely exported. A line of the Oudh & Rohilkhand railway from Moradabad to Saharanpur runs through the district.

History.—Of the early history of Bijnor even after it passed under Mahommedan rule little is known with any certainty. The district was ravaged by Timur in 1399, and thenceforward nothing is heard of it till the time of Akbar, when it formed part of the Delhi empire and so continued undisturbed, save for occasional raids, so long as the power of the Moguls survived intact. In the early part of the 18th century, however, the Rohilla Pathans established their independence in the country called by them Rohilkhand; and about 1748 the Rohilla chief Ali Mahommed made his first annexations in Bijnor, the rest of which soon fell under the Rohilla domination. The northern districts were granted by Ali Mahommed to Najib Khan, who gradually extended his influence west of the Ganges and at Delhi, receiving the title of Najib-ud-daula and becoming paymaster of the royal forces. His success, however, raised up powerful enemies against him, and at their instigation the Mahrattas invaded Bijnor. This was the beginning of a feud which continued for years. Najib, indeed, held his own, and for the part played by him in the victory of Panipat was made vizier of the empire. After his death in 1770, however, his son Zabita Khan was defeated by the Mahrattas, who overran all Rohilkhand. In 1772 the nawab of Oudh made a treaty with the Rohillas, covenanting to expel the Mahrattas in return for a money payment. He carried out his part of the bargain; but the Rohilla chieftains refused to pay. In 1774 the nawab concluded with the government of Calcutta a treaty of alliance, and he now called upon the British, in accordance with its terms, to supply a brigade to assist him in enforcing his claims against the Rohillas. This was done; the Rohillas were driven beyond the Ganges, and Bijnor was incorporated in the territories of the nawab, who in 1801 ceded it to the East India Company. From this time the history of Bijnor is uneventful, until the Mutiny of 1857, when 929 (on the 1st of June) it was occupied by the nawab of Najibabad a grandson of Zabita Khan. In spite of fighting between the Hindus and the Mahommedan Pathans the nawab succeeded in maintaining his position until the 21st of April 1858, when he was defeated by the British at Nagina; whereupon British authority was restored.

BIKANIR, a native state of India, in the Rajputana agency with an area of 23,311 sq. m. The natural aspect of the country is one desolate tract, without a single permanently running stream. Its surface is overspread with undulating sand-hills of from 20 to 100 ft. above the average level, and so loose that men and quadrupeds stepping off the beaten track sink as if in snow. Two streams, the Katli and Ghaggar, attempt to flow through this dismal region, but are lost in its sands. Water is very scarce, and is raised from wells of from 250 to 340 ft. in depth. A few shallow salt lakes are filled by rain water, but they dry up on the setting in of the hot weather, leaving a thick crust of salt on their beds, which is used for commercial and domestic purposes. The inhabitants are very poor. They live chiefly by pasturage—rearing camels, of which their chief agricultural stock consists, and horses of a fine breed, which fetch good prices. From the wool which their sheep yield they manufacture every article of native dress and good blankets. The other industries are leather work, sugar-refining, goldsmith’s work, ivory carving, iron, brass, copper, stone masonry, tanning, weaving, dyeing and carpentry. The principal towns are Bikanir, the capital, Churu, Rajgarh, Ratangarh and Reni. In 1901 the population was 584,627, showing a decrease of 30% due to the results of famine. The revenue is £141,000. The military force consists of 500 men, besides the Imperial Service Corps of the same strength. The schools include a high school affiliated to the university of Allahabad, a school for the sons of nobles, and a girls’ school called after Lady Elgin. The railway from Jodhpur has been extended towards Bhatinda in the Punjab; on the northern border, the Ghaggar canal in the Punjab irrigates about 5000 acres. Drought is of common occurrence. The famine of 1899-1900 was severely felt. The city of Bikanir has a railway station. The city is surrounded by a stone wall, 6 ft. thick, 15 to 30 ft. high and 3½ m. in circuit, with five gates and three sally-ports. The citadel is half a mile north-east of the city, and is surrounded by a rampart with bastions. The population in 1901 was 53,075. There are manufactures of fine blankets and sugar-candy.

History.—In the 15th century the territory which now forms the state of Bikanir was occupied by Rajput clans, partly Jats, partly Mahommedans. About 1465 Bika, a Rathor Rajput, sixth son of Rao Jodha, chief of Marwar, started out to conquer the country. By taking advantage of the rivalries of the clans he succeeded; in 1485 he built the small fort at the capital which still bears his name, and in 1488 began the building of the city itself. He died in 1504, and his successors gradually extended their possessions. In the reign of Akbar the chiefs of Bikanir were esteemed among the most loyal adherents of the Delhi empire, and in 1570 Akbar married a daughter of Kalyan Singh. Kalyan’s son, Rai Singh, who succeeded him in 1571, was one of Akbar’s most distinguished generals and the first raja of Bikanir; his daughter married Selim, afterwards the emperor Jahangir. Two other distinguished chiefs of the house were Karan Singh (1631-1669), who in the struggle of the sons of Shah Jahan for the throne threw in his lot with Aurangzeb, and his eldest son, Anup Singh (1669-1698), who fought with distinction in the Deccan, was conspicuous in the capture of Golconda, and earned the title of maharaja. From this time forward the history of Bikanir was mainly that of the wars with Jodhpur, which raged intermittently throughout the 18th century. In 1802, during one of these wars, Elphinstone passed through Bikanir on his way to Kabul; and the maharaja, Surat Singh (1788-1828), applied to him for British protection, which was, however, refused. In 1815 Surat Singh’s tyranny led to a general rising of his thakurs, and in 1816 the maharaja again applied for British protection. On the 9th of May 1818 a treaty was concluded, and order was restored in the country by British troops. Ratan Singh, who succeeded his father in 1828, applied in vain in 1830 to the British government for aid against a fresh outbreak of his thakurs; but during the next five years dacoity became so rife on the borders that the government raised a special force to deal with it (the Shakhawati Brigade), and of this for seven years Bikanir contributed part of the cost. Henceforth the relations of the maharajas with the British government were increasingly cordial. In 1842 Ratan Singh supplied camels for the Afghan expedition; in 1844 he reduced the dues on goods passing through his country, and he gave assistance in both Sikh campaigns. His son, Sardar Singh (1851-1872), was rewarded for help given during the Mutiny by an increase of territory. In 1868 a rising of the thakurs against his extortions led to the despatch of a British political officer, by whom affairs were adjusted. Sardar Singh had no son, and on his death in 1872 his widow and principal ministers selected Dungar Singh as his successor, with the approval of the British government. The principal event of his reign was the rebellion of the thakurs in 1883, owing to an attempt to increase the dues payable in lieu of military service; this led to the permanent location at Bikanir of a British political agent. Dungar Singh died in 1887 without a son, but he had adopted his brother, Ganga Singh (b. 1880), who succeeded as 21st chief of Bikanir with the approval of the government. He was educated at the Mayo College at Ajmere, and was invested with full powers in 1898. He attended King Edward’s coronation in 1902, and accompanied the British army in person in the Chinese campaign of 1901 in command of the Bikanir Camel Corps, which also did good service in Somaliland in 1904. The state owes to this ruler the opening up of new railways across the great desert, which was formerly passable only by camels, and the tapping of the valuable coal deposits that occur in the territory. For his conspicuous services he was given the Kaisar-i-Hind medal of the first class, made an honorary major in the Indian army, a G.C.I.E., a K.C.S.I., and A.D.C. to the prince of Wales.

BILASPUR, a town and district of British India in the Chhattisgarh division of the Central Provinces. The town is situated on the right bank of the river Arpa. It is said to have been founded by a fisherwoman named Bilasa in the 17th century, and it still retains her name. The place, however, came into note only after 1741, the year of the Mahratta invasion (see below), when a Mahratta official took up his abode there and began to build a fort which was never completed. In 1862 it was made the headquarters of the district. The population in 1901 was 18,937. It is an important junction on the Bengal-Nagpur railway, where the two lines from the west meet on their way to Calcutta, 255 m. from Nagpur.

The District of Bilaspur has an area of 7602 sq. m. It forms the upper half of the basin of the river Mahanadi. It is almost enclosed on the north, west and east by ranges of hills, while its southern boundary is generally open and accessible, well cultivated, and closely dotted with villages embedded in groups of fruit trees. The principal hills are—(1) the Maikal range, situated in the north-western extremity of the district; (2) a chain of hills forming part of the Vindbyan range, on the north; (3) the Korba hills, an off-shoot of the Vindhyas, on the eastern boundary; and (4) the Sonakhan block of hills, in the vicinity of the Mahanadi river. The Mahanadi is the principal river of the district, and governs the whole drainage and river system of the surrounding country. It takes its rise in a mountainous region which is described as the wildest of all wild parts of the Central Provinces, crosses the Bilaspur boundary near Seorinarain, and after a course of 25 m. in the south-eastern extremity of the district enters Sambalpur district. Within Bilaspur the river is everywhere navigable for six months in the year. Minor rivers are the Sakri, Hamp, Tesua, Agar, Maniari, Arpa, Kharod, Lilagar, Jonk and Bareri. The most important affluents of the Mahanadi are the Seonath and Hasdu. Besides the natural water supply afforded by the rivers, Bilaspur abounds in tanks. There are large forest areas, those belonging to the government covering over 600 sq. m. Sal (Shorea robusta) is the chief timber tree.

930

Bilaspur, which was formerly a very isolated tract, is now traversed in three directions by lines of the Bengal-Nagpur railway. It suffered severely from the famine of 1896-1897. In 1897 the general death-rate was as high as 90 per thousand, rising to 297 in Bilaspur town. It suffered no less severely in 1900, when in May the number of persons relieved rose to one-fourth of the total population.

In 1901 the population was 1,012,972, showing a decrease of 13%, compared with an increase of 14% in the preceding decade. In 1906, however, the new district of Drug was formed, which took away 739 sq. m. from Bilaspur; the population on this reduced area of Bilaspur in 1901 was 917,240.

Among the Hindu inhabitants of the district, the Chamars and Pankas deserve particular notice. The former, who form the shoemaker and leather-dealing caste of the Hindu community, had always been held in utter contempt by the other Hindu castes. But between 1820 and 1830 a religious movement, having for its object their freedom from the trammels of caste, was inaugurated by a member of the caste, named Ghasi Das, who preached the unity of God and the equality of men. Ghasi Das gave himself out as a messenger of God; he prohibited the adoration of idols, and enjoined the worship of the Supreme Being without any visible sign or representation. The followers of the new faith call themselves Satnamis, or the worshippers of Satnam or God. They do not keep the Hindu festivals and they defy the contempt of the Brahmans. Ghasi Das, the founder of the faith, was their first high priest. He died in 1850; his son succeeded him, but was assassinated (it was said by the Hindus), and the grandson succeeded him. The Pankas, who form about a sixth of the population, are all Kabirpanthis, or followers of Kabir, a religious reformer of the 15th century. There is no great difference between the Kabir Pankas and the Satnamis. They both abstain from meat and liquor, marry at the age of puberty, ordinarily celebrate their ceremonies through the agency of the elders of their own caste and bury their dead. The Pankas worship the Supreme Being under the name of Kabir, and the Chamars under the name of Satnam; while each community has a high priest to whom reverence is paid. At present the majority of the Pankas are cultivators, though formerly all were weavers. The Gonds are the most numerous among the aboriginal tribes, but so great an intermixture has taken place between them and the Hindu races that they have lost their language and most of their ethnical characteristics, such as the flat forehead, squat nose, prominent nostril, dark skin, &c., and are scarcely distinguishable from the other classes of the Hindu labouring population. In addition to some of the Hindu deities which they worship, the Gonds have their own gods—Bara Deva and Dula Deva. The Kanwars are the next largest section of the aboriginal population. The upper class among them claim to be Rajputs, and are divided into numerous septs. Although an aboriginal tribe, the census returns them as a Hindu caste. All the northern landholders of Bilaspur belong to this tribe, which consequently occupies an influential position.

The chief wealth of the district consists in its agricultural produce. Rice, wheat, pulses, millet, mustard, oil-seeds and cotton are the chief crops. Rice, the chief export, is sent to Bombay, Berar and northern India. The tussur silk industry is of considerable importance, and the silk is reputed the best in the Central Provinces. Sal and other timber is exported. Lac is sent in large quantities to Calcutta and Mirzapur. Coal and iron are the chief minerals; sandstone for building purposes is quarried near Bilaspur and Seorinarain. Among local industries the most important is the weaving trade.

The early history of the district is very obscure. From remote ages it was governed by kings of the Haihai dynasty of Ratanpur and Raipur, known as the Chhattisgarh rajas, on account of thirty-six forts (garhs), of which they were the lords. A genealogical list of kings of this dynasty was carefully kept up to the fifty-fifth representative in the year 1741, when the country was seized without a struggle by the Mahrattas of Nagpur. From 1818 to 1830 Bilaspur came under the management of the British government, the Mahratta chief of Nagpur being then a minor. In 1854 the country finally lapsed to the British government, the chief having died without issue. During the Sepoy mutiny a hill chief of the district gave some trouble, but he was speedily captured and executed.

BILBAO, formerly sometimes written Bilboa, the capital of the province of Biscay, in northern Spain; in 43° 15′ N. and 2° 45′ W.; on the river Nervion on Ansa (in Basque Ibaizabal), and about 8 m. inland from the Bay of Biscay. Pop. (1900) 83,306. Bilbao is one of the principal seaports of Spain, and the greatest of Basque towns. It occupies a small but fertile and beautiful valley, shut in by mountains on every side except towards the sea, and containing the fortified haven of Portugalete, the industrial town of Baracaldo (q.v.), and the villages of Santurce and Las Arenas, where the Nervion broadens to form the Bay of Bilbao at its mouth. Bilbao comprises two distinct parts, ancient and modern. The new town lies on the left bank, while the old town rises on the right in terraces. Communication across the river is afforded by five bridges, of which the oldest, San Antonio, is of stone, and dates from the 14th century. The houses in the principal streets are built of hewn stone, and are several storeys high, with projecting eaves that give shelter from both sun and rain. Many of the streets in the old town are very narrow, and have an appearance of cleanliness and quiet. For a long time no carts or carriages were permitted to enter the city for fear of polluting and injuring the pavement, and the transport of goods was carried on in hand-carts. But after 1876 entirely new districts were mapped out on the left bank of the Nervion. Fine broad streets, splendid squares and public gardens, hotels, villas, palatial new public buildings and numerous schools came into existence. The part of the town on the right bank is, however, still the great centre of business, the narrow streets containing the best shops. There, too, are the banks, the town hall, the theatre, the principal clubs, and the principal churches, including that of Santiago, which dates from the 14th century. In and around Bilbao there are more than thirty convents and monasteries, and at Olaveaga, about a mile off, is the Jesuit university, attended by 850 students. Public education is not, however, entirely in the hands of the priesthood and nuns; there are an institute, a normal school to train teachers, a school of arts and handicrafts, a nautical school and numerous public primary schools for both sexes.

Few Spanish cities grew so rapidly in size, importance and wealth as Bilbao in the latter half of the 19th century. Its first bank was founded in 1857; its first railway (Bilbao-Tudela) opened in 1863. Thenceforward, despite the check it received from the Carlist rebellion of 1870-1876, and the contemporaneous decline of its wool and shipbuilding industries, its prosperity increased steadily. The population, 17,649 in 1870, rose to 50,734 in 1887, 74,076 in 1897, and 83,306 in 1900. This development was due principally to the growth of the mining and metallurgical industries. From a very early period, as the Old English word bilbo, “a sword,” attests, Bilbao was celebrated for the excellent quality of its steel blades; in modern times it was the natural headquarters of the important steel and iron trades of the Basque Provinces. Hence it became the centre of a network of railway lines unsurpassed in Spain. The harbour works board, constituted in 1877, improved the river channel and the bar; made wharves and embankments; lighted the lower reaches of the river by electricity, so as to allow vessels to enter by night; and constructed a breakwater and counter-mole outside the bar of the river Nervion, between Santurce, Portugalete and the opposite headland at the village of Algorta, so as to secure deep anchorage and easy access to the river. The first dry dock was constructed in 1896; in 1905 it was supplemented by another, the largest in Spain. The exports are chiefly iron; the imports coal; large quantities of wine from Navarre and the Ebro valley are also sent abroad, and the importation of timber of all kinds from Scandinavia and Finland, and coastwise from Asturias, is of great importance. In the coasting trade the exports are mostly pig-iron, codfish and some products of local industries and agriculture. The shipping 931 at Bilbao is mainly Spanish, owing to the multitude of small vessels employed in the coasting trade; but from 1880 onwards the majority of foreign ships were British. In 1904, 3319 vessels of 2,267,957 tons were accommodated at Bilbao; more than 2000 were Spanish and nearly 700 British. In the same year new harbour works and lighting arrangements were undertaken on a large scale, and a movement was initiated for the revival of shipbuilding. Besides the mining and metallurgic industries, Bilbao has breweries, tanneries, flour mills, glass works, brandy distilleries, and paper, soap, cotton and mosaic factories.

Bilbao, or Belvao, as it was often called, was founded by Don Pedro Lopez de Haro about 1300, and soon rose into importance. It was occupied by the French in 1795, and from 1808 to 1813; and in 1835 and 1874 it was unavailingly besieged by the Carlists.

BILBEIS, or Belbes, a town of lower Egypt, on the eastern arm of the Nile, 36 m. N.N.E. of Cairo by rail. Pop. (1907) 13,485. The Coptic name, Phelbes, seems to have been derived from Egyptian, but nothing is known of the place before medieval times. Considered the bulwark of the kingdom on that side, Bilbeis was by the Moslems defended with strong fortifications. In 1163-1164 it was besieged for three months by the crusaders under Amalric, and in 1168 was captured and pillaged by another army of crusaders. Napoleon in 1798 ordered the restoration of the fortifications, but they have again fallen into decay. Bilbeis was the first halting-place of the English cavalry in their march on Cairo after the fight at Tel-el-Kebir on the 13th of September 1882.

BILBERRY, Blaeberry or Whortleberry, known botanically as Vaccinium myrtillus (natural order Ericaceae), a low-growing shrub, found in woods, copses and on heaths, chiefly in hilly districts. The stiff stems, from half a foot to two feet long, bear small ovate leaves with a serrate margin, and small, globose, rosy flowers tinged with green. The berries are dark blue, with a waxy bloom, and about one-third of an inch in diameter; they are used for tarts, preserves, &c. The plant is widely distributed throughout the north temperate and extends into the arctic zone. Cowberry is a closely allied species, V. Vitis-Idaea, growing in similar situations, but not found in the south-eastern portion of England, distinguished by its evergreen leaves and red acid berry.

BILBO (from the Spanish town Bilbao, formerly called in England “Bilboa,” and famous, like Toledo, for its sword-blades), in the earliest English use, a sword, especially one of superior temper. In the plural form (as in Shakespeare’s phrase “methought I lay worse than the mutines in the bilboes”) it meant the irons into which offenders were put on board ship.

BILDERDIJK, WILLEM (1756-1831), Dutch poet, the son of an Amsterdam physician, was born on the 7th of September 1756. When he was six years old an accident to his foot incapacitated him for ten years, and he developed habits of continuous and concentrated study. His parents were ardent partisans of the house of Orange, and Bilderdijk grew up with strong monarchical and Calvinistic convictions. He was, says Da Costa, “anti-revolutionary, anti-Barneveldtian, anti-Loevesteinish, anti-liberal.” After studying at Leiden University, he obtained his doctorate in law in 1782, and began to practise as an advocate at the Hague. Three years later he contracted an unhappy marriage with Rebecca Woesthoven. He refused in 1795 to take the oath to the new administration, and was consequently obliged to leave Holland. He went to Hamburg, and then to London, where his great learning procured him consideration. There he had as a pupil Katharina Wilhelmina Schweickhardt (1776-1830), the daughter of a Dutch painter and herself a poet. When he left London in June 1797 for Braunschweig, this lady followed him, and after he had formally divorced his first wife (1802) they were married. In 1806 he was persuaded by his friends to return to Holland. He was kindly received by Louis Napoleon, who made him his librarian, and a member and eventually president (1809-1811) of the Royal Institute. After the abdication of Louis Napoleon he suffered great poverty; on the accession of William of Orange in 1813 he hoped to be made a professor, but was disappointed and became a history tutor at Leiden. He continued his vigorous campaign against liberal ideas to his death, which took place at Haarlem on the 18th of December 1831.

A picture of the Bilderdijk household is given in the letters (vol. v., 1850) of Robert Southey, who stayed some time with Bilderdijk in 1825. Madame Bilderdijk had translated Roderick into Dutch (1823-1824). For his work as a poet see Dutch Literature. His many-sided activity showed itself also in historical criticism—Geschiedenis des Vaderlands (1832-1851, 13 vols.), a conservative commentary on Wagenaar’s Vaderlandsche Historie; in translations from Sophocles (1779 and 1789), of part of the Iliad, of the hymns and epigrams of Callimachus, and from the Latin poets; in philology—Taal en Dichtkundige Verscheidenheden (1820-1825, 4 vols.); and in drama—the tragedies, Floris de Vijfde (1808), Willem I. van Holland (1808), and others. His most important poetical works are the didactic poem, De Ziekte der geleerden (“The Disease of the Learned”), 2 vols., 1807; a descriptive poem in the manner of Delille in Het Buitenleven (1803); and his fragmentary epic, De Ondergang der eerste wereld (1820). Other volumes were Mijne Verlustigung (Leiden, 1781), Bloemtjens (1785), Mengel-poezij (1799, 2 vols.), Poezij (1803-1807, 4 vols.), Mengelingen (1804-1808, 4 vols.), Nieuwe Mengelingen (1806, 2 vols.), Hollands Verlossing (1813-1814, 2 vols.), Vaderlandsche Uitboezemingen (Leiden, 1815), Winterbloemen (1811, 2 vols.), &c., in some of which his wife collaborated.

BILEJIK (Byzantine Belocome), chief town of the Ertoghrul sanjak of the Brusa vilayet in Asia Minor, altitude 1900 ft., situated on a hill 2½ m. from its station on the Ismid-Angora railway. Pop. 10,500 (Moslems, 7200; Christians, 3300). It is an important centre of the silk industry, and has several silk-spinning factories.

BILFINGER (Bülffinger), GEORG BERNHARD (1693-1750), German philosopher, mathematician and statesman, son of a Lutheran minister, was born on the 23rd of January 1693, at Kanstatt in Württemberg. As a boy he showed great aptitude for study, and at first devoted himself to theology, but under the influence of Wolff’s writings he took up mathematics and philosophy on the lines of Wolff and Leibnitz. Returning to theology, he attempted to connect it with philosophy in a treatise, Dilucidationes philosophicae, de deo, anima humana, mundo (Tübingen, 1725, 1746, 1768). This work, containing nothing original, but giving a clear representation of Wolff’s philosophy, met with great success, and the author was appointed to the office of preacher at the castle of Tübingen and of reader in the school of theology. In 1721, after two years’ study under Wolff, he became professor of philosophy at Halle, and in 1724 professor of mathematics. His friends at Tübingen disapproved his new views, and in 1725, on Wolff’s recommendation, he was invited by Peter the Great to lecture in St Petersburg, where he was well received. His success in winning the prize of a thousand crowns offered for a dissertation on the cause of gravity by the Academy of Sciences of Paris secured his return to his native land in 1731. In 1735, largely on account of his knowledge of military engineering, Duke Charles Alexander (1733-1737) made him a privy councillor, but his hands were tied owing to the frivolous atmosphere of the court. On the death of the duke, however, he became a member of the Regency Council, and devoted himself with energy and success to the reorganization of the state. In the departments of education, state-religion, agriculture and commerce, his administration was uniformly successful, and he became in a real sense the head of the state. He died at Stuttgart on the 18th of February 1750. After his return from Russia, he won the highest respect at home and abroad, and Frederick the Great is recorded to have said of him, “He was a great man whom I shall ever remember with admiration.”

932

Beside the Dilucidationes, he wrote:—De harmonia animi et corporis humani commentatio (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1735; Tübingen, 1741); De origine et permissione mali (1724), an account of the Leibnitzian theodicy.

BILGE (a corruption of bulge, from Fr. bouge, Lat. bulga, a bag, deriving probably from an original Celtic word), the “belly” or widest part of a cask; the broad horizontal part of a ship’s bottom above the keel; also the lowest interior part of the hull; hence “bilge-water,” the foul water which collects in the bilge. “Bilge-keels” are pieces of timber fastened to the bottom of a ship to reduce rolling (see Shipbuilding).

BILHARZIOSIS. In various parts of Africa the inhabitants are liable to suffer from a form of endemic haematuria caused by the presence of a parasite in the mucous membrane of the urinary passages. This parasite was discovered in 1852 by Bilharz, and hence is generally known as Bilharzia, though it has been more scientifically named Schistosoma haematobium. The condition to which it gives rise is that of bilharziosis. (For description and life history of the parasite see Trematodes.) In man the parasites and ova have been found in the minute veins of the bladder, ureter and pelvis of the kidney (more rarely in other organs), where they infest the mucous and submucous tissues. In an affected bladder the mucous membrane presents swollen vascular patches of varying size, or warty prominences on which the urinary salts may be deposited. The ova often serve as a nucleus for urinary calculi. Similar changes may take place in the ureter, and the consequent swelling lead to obstruction to the passage of urine, and if left untreated to pyelitis and pyonephrosis. If the rectum be affected the mucous membrane becomes thickened, polypoid growths form and large submucous haemorrhages may take place.

As to the mode of entrance of this parasite opinion is divided. Some authorities favour the view that the entrance is through the skin, urethra or rectum, the result of bathing in infected water; others that it is taken by the mouth in water or uncooked fish. The symptoms to which it gives rise are haematuria, pain in the perineal region and a greater or less degree of anaemia through loss of blood. If the disease continue, cystitis and its consequent train of symptoms ensue (see Bladder and Prostate Diseases). If the rectum be affected there is considerable discharge of mucus, and later prolapsus ani may be the result. But the symptoms vary to a remarkable extent, from the slightest producing but little discomfort, to the most severe resulting in death. The liquid extract of male fern is the only drug used with much success. The symptoms caused by the parasite must be treated as they arise. Polypoid growths of the rectum must be surgically treated.

BILIN (Czech Bilina), a town of Bohemia, Austria, 90 m. N. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900) 7871, chiefly German. It is a very old town situated on the Biela, and contains a 17th-century castle, belonging to Prince Lobkowitz. In the vicinity of the towns are extensive lignite mines. Bilin is famous for its mineral springs, the Biliner Sauerbrunnen. They have a temperature of 45.6° F., and contain a large proportion of bicarbonate of soda. About 4,000,000 bottles of water are exported annually, and another article of export is the salt recovered from the water by evaporation. About 5 m. to the S. of the Sauerbrunnen lies the Boren or Biliner Stein (1763 ft.), a large mass of phonolite or clinkstone, with rare flora and fine view. The town is indeed surrounded by basaltic rocks, the largest of them being the Radelstein (2460 ft.), from which a fine view is obtained.

BILL. There are three words in English with distinct meanings and derivations. (1) A written, originally sealed, document. The word is derived from the Early English bille, Anglo-Latin billa, from Latin bulla, in the medieval sense of “seal.” It is a doublet, therefore, of “bull.” (2) A common Teutonic word for a long-handled cutting weapon (O. Eng. bil, billes, sword or falchion, O. Sax. bill, M.H.G. Bil, Mod. Ger. Bille, a pickaxe; no connexion with Ger. Beil, an axe), of which the name and shape is preserved in the hedging-bills used for pruning hedges and lopping the branches of trees. For an account of the weapon see (2) below. (3) The beak of a bird. This may be connected with (2), but it does not appear in any Teutonic language other than English.

(1) In the sense of a document the word is used in various connexions in law and commerce.

In the English parliament, and similar legislative bodies, a bill is a form of statute (q.v.) submitted to either house, which when finally passed becomes an act. The modern system of legislating by means of bill and statute appears to have been introduced in the reign of Henry VI., superseding the older mode of proceeding by petitions from the Commons, assented to by the king, and afterwards enrolled by the judges. A bill consists of a preamble, reciting the necessity for legislation, and clauses which contain the enactments. (For procedure see Parliament.)

A Bill in Chancery, in former days, in English law, was a written statement of the plaintiff’s case whereby he complained of the wrong upon which the suit was based and prayed for relief. By the Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875 its place was taken by a writ and statement of claim (see Pleading).

A Bill of Indictment is a presentment against a prisoner, charging him with an offence, and presented at quarter sessions or assizes to the grand jury (see Indictment).

A Bill of Costs is an account setting forth the charges and disbursements incurred by a solicitor in the conduct of his client’s business. The delivery of a bill of costs is by statute a condition necessary before the solicitor can sue upon it (see Costs).

A Bill of Exceptions was formerly a statement in writing of objections to the ruling of a judge, who, at the trial, had mistaken the law, either in directing the jury, or in refusing or admitting evidence or otherwise. The bill of exceptions was tendered at any time before the verdict by counsel of the dissatisfied party, who required the judge to seal it. The case proceeded to the jury, and judgment being given, the point raised was brought before a court of error. Bills of exceptions were confined to civil cases. They were abolished by the Judicature Act 1875, and a “motion for a new trial” substituted (see Trial).

A Bill of Health is a document given to the master of a ship by the consul or other proper authority of the port from which he clears, describing the sanitary state of the place. A bill of health may be either “clean,” “suspected” or “touched,” or “foul.” A “clean” bill imports that at the time the ship sailed, no disease of an infectious or contagious kind is known to exist, a “suspected” or “touched” bill, that no such disease has as yet appeared, but that there is reason to fear it; a “foul” bill, that such a disease actually exists at the time of the ship’s departure. Bills of health are necessary where the destination of the ship is a country whose laws require the production of such a bill before the ship is allowed into port, and where, in default of such production, the ship is subjected to quarantine.

A Bill of Mortality in England was a weekly return issued under the supervision of the company of parish clerks showing the number of deaths in a parish. During the Tudor period England suffered much from plague, and various precautionary measures became necessary. Quarantine or isolation was the most important, but to carry it out successfully it was necessary to have early warning of the existence of plague in each parish or house. For this purpose searchers—usually women—were appointed, who reported to the clerk the cause of each death in the parish. He, in turn, sent a report to the parish clerks’ hall, from whence was issued weekly a return of all the deaths from plague and other causes in the various parishes, as well as a list of those parishes which were free from plague. Bills of mortality are usually said to date from 1538, when parish registers were established by Cromwell (Lord Essex), but there is extant a bill which dates from August 1535, and one which is possibly even earlier than this. It is certain that they first began to be compiled in a recognized manner in December 1603, and they were continued regularly from that date down to 1842, when under the 933 Births and Deaths Registration Act 1836 they were superseded by the registrar-general’s returns. It was not till 1728, when the ages of the dead were first introduced, that bills of mortality acquired any considerable statistical value. It was on the data thus furnished that the science of life insurance was founded.

A Bill of Particulars was, in law, a statement in writing, informing each party to a suit the precise nature of the case they had to meet. It contained the plaintiff’s cause of action or the defendant’s set-off. Particulars are now usually indorsed on the pleadings (see Pleading).

A Bill of Peace is, in equity, a suit brought by a person to establish and perpetuate a right which he claims, and which from its nature may be controverted by different persons at different times and by different actions; or where several attempts have already been unsuccessfully made to overthrow the same right, and justice requires that the party should be quieted in the right if it is already sufficiently established. Bills of this nature were usually filed where there was one general right to be established against a great number of persons, or where one person claimed or defended a right against many, or where many claimed or defended a right against one. Thus, a bill might be filed by a parson for tithes against his parishioners; by parishioners against a parson to establish a modus; by a lord against tenants for an encroachment under colour of a common right; or by tenants against a lord for disturbance of a common right. Bills were also filed in cases where the plaintiff had, after repeated and satisfactory trials, established his right at law, and yet was in danger of further litigation and obstruction to his right from new attempts to controvert it. Actions in the nature of bills of peace are still maintainable.

A Bill of Sight is a document furnished to a collector of customs or other proper officer by an importer of goods in England, who, being unable for want of full information to make a perfect entry of goods consigned to him, describes the same to the best of his knowledge and information. The goods may then be provisionally landed, but perfect entry must be made within three days by indorsing on the bill of sight the necessary particulars. In default of perfect entry within three days the goods are taken to the king’s warehouse, and if perfect entry is not made within one month and all duties and charges paid, they are sold for payment thereof. See the Customs Consolidation Act 1876.

A Bill of Store is a license granted by the custom-house to re-import British goods into the United Kingdom. All British goods re-imported into the United Kingdom are entered as foreign, unless re-imported within ten years after their exportation and unless the property in the goods continues and remains in the person by whom they were exported. But in such case they may be entered as British goods, by bill of store, with the exception of corn, grain, meal, flour and hops.

A Bill of Victualling or Victualling Bill, in its original meaning, is a list of all stores for shipment, but now an order from an export officer of the customs for the shipment from a bonded warehouse or for drawback of such stores as may be required and allowed with reference to the number of the crew and passengers on board a ship proceeding on an oversea voyage. It is made out by the master and countersigned by the collector of customs. Its object is to prevent frauds on the revenue. No such stores are supplied for the use of any ship nor any articles taken on board deemed to be stores unless they are borne upon the victualling bill, and any such stores relanded at any place in the United Kingdom without the sanction of the proper officers of the customs will be forfeited and the master and owner will each be liable to a penalty of treble the value of the stores or £100. A victualling bill serves as a certificate of clearance when there is nothing but stores on board the ship.

(2) In the sense of a weapon, the primitive forms of a bill suggest short scythe-blades or hedgers’ bill-hooks mounted on tall staves. In such shape it is found in the hands of the English before the Conquest. English medieval documents make much confusion between the bill and the halbert and other forms of staved weapons with cutting heads. Before the 15th century the bill had been reinforced with a pike head above the curved blade and another jutting at a right angle from the blade’s back. In this form it became a popular English weapon, the “brown bill” of many ballads. Billmen are not found in the king’s host at Crécy and Calais, the bowmen carrying malls or short swords, and Henry VII.’s contracts for troops do not name the bill, which may be regarded rather as the private man’s weapon. But when, in the middle of the 15th century, Walter Strickland, a Westmorland squire, contracts to raise armed men, it is noticeable that more than half his horsemen carry the bill as their chief arm, while seventy-one bowmen are to march on foot with seventy-six billmen. In the 16th century the bill, with the halbert, fell out of use among regular troops, the pike taking their place on account of the longer staff, which made it a better defence against cavalry. It remained during the 17th century as a watchman or constable’s weapon, although rudely-fashioned bills were seen in Sedgemoor fight.

BILLAUD-VARENNE, JACQUES NICOLAS (1756-1819), French revolutionist, was the son of an avocat at the parlement of Paris. He was badly brought up by a feeble father, a mother who combined immorality with religion, and a libertine abbé. At nineteen he donned the robe of an Oratorian, but did not take the vows, and busied himself with literature rather than with religion. In 1785 he left the Oratorian college where he was prefect of studies, came to Paris, married and bought a position as avocat in the parlement. Early in 1789 he published at Amsterdam a three-volume work on the Despotisme des ministres de la France, and he adopted with enthusiasm the principles of the Revolution.

At the Jacobin club he became from 1790 one of the most violent of the anti-royalist orators. After the flight of Louis XVI. to Varennes, he published a pamphlet, L’Acéphocratie, in which he demanded the establishment of a federal republic. On the 1st of July, in a speech at the Jacobin club he spoke of a republic, and the reference called out the stormy derision of the partisans of the constitutional monarchy; but repeating his demand for a republic on the 15th of the same month, the speech was ordered to be printed and to be sent to the branch societies throughout France. In the night of the 10th of August 1792 he was elected one of the “deputy-commissioners” of the sections who shortly afterwards became the general council of the commune. He was accused, though proof is lacking, of having been an accomplice in the massacres in the prison of the Abbaye. Elected a deputy of Paris to the National Convention, he at once spoke in favour of the immediate abolition of the monarchy, and the next day demanded that all acts be dated from the year 1 of the republic. At the trial of Louis XVI. he added new charges to the accusation, proposed to refuse counsel to the king, and voted for death “within 24 hours.” On the 2nd of June 1793 he proposed a decree of accusation against the Girondists; on the 9th, at the Jacobin club, he outlined a programme which the Convention was destined gradually to realize: the expulsion of all foreigners not naturalized, the establishment of an impost on the rich, the deprivation of the rights of citizenship of all “anti-social” men, the creation of a revolutionary army, the licensing of all officers ci-devant nobles, the death penalty for unsuccessful generals. On the 15th of July he made a violent speech in the Convention in accusation of the Girondists. Sent in August as “representative on mission” to the departments of the Nord and of Pas-de-Calais, he showed himself inexorable to all suspects. On his return he was added to the Committee of Public Safety, which had decreed the arrest en masse of all suspects and the establishment of a revolutionary army, caused the extraordinary criminal tribunal to be named officially “Revolutionary Tribunal” (on the 29th of October 1793), demanded the execution of Marie Antoinette and then attacked Hébert and Danton. Meanwhile he published a book, Les Éléments du républicanisme, in which he demanded a division of property, if not equally, at least proportionally among the citizens. But he became uneasy for his own safety and turned 934 against Robespierre, whom he attacked on the 8th Thermidor as a “moderate” and a Dantonist. Surprised and menaced by the Thermidorian reaction, he denounced its partisans to the Jacobin club. He was then attacked himself in the Convention for his cruelty, and a commission was appointed to examine his conduct and that of some other members of the former Committee of Public Safety. He was arrested, and as a result of the insurrection of the 12th Germinal of the year 3 (the 1st of April 1795), the Convention decreed his immediate deportation to French Guiana. After the 18th Brumaire he refused the pardon offered by the First Consul. In 1816 he left Guiana and took refuge in Port-au-Prince (Haiti), where he died of dysentery.

BILLET, (1) (Like the Fr. billet, a diminutive of bille, a writing), a small paper or “note,” commonly used in the 18th and early 19th centuries as a “billet of invitation.” A particular use of the word in this sense is to denote an order issued to a soldier entitling him to quarters with a certain person (see Billeting). From meaning the official order, the word billet came to be loosely used of the quarters thus obtained, giving rise to such colloquial expressions as “a good billet.” Hence arises the sense of “billet” as the destination allotted to anything, for example in the saying of William III. “every bullet has its billet.” Another special sense of the word is that of a voting-paper, found in the 17th century, especially with reference to the Act of Billets passed by the Scottish parliament in 1662.

(2) (From the diminutive billette or billot of the Fr. bille, the trunk of a tree), a piece of wood roughly cylindrical, cut for use as fuel. In medieval England it was used of the club or bludgeon which was the weapon proper to the serf (Du Cange, s. Billus). The name has been transferred to various objects of a similar shape: to ingots of gold, for example, or bars of iron; and in heraldry, to a bearing of rectangular shape. The term is applied in architecture to a form of ornamental moulding much used in Norman and sometimes in Early English work. It bears a resemblance to small billets of wood arranged at regular intervals in a sunk moulding. In French architecture it is found in early work and there, sometimes, forms the decoration of a string-course under the gutter, with two or three rows of billets.

BILLETING, the providing of quarters (i.e. board and lodgings) for soldiers (see Billet, 1). Troops have at all times made use of the shelter and local resources afforded by the villages on or near their line of march. The historical interest of billeting in England begins with the repeated petitions against it in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I. and Charles I., which culminated in the Petition of Right. The billeting of troops was superintended by a civil magistrate of the district to which the troops were sent or through which they passed. The magistrate, who acted under an order from the king, too often spared his friends at the expense of his political or personal opponents. Owing to the abuses to which the system led, it was declared illegal by the Petition of Right 1628, and again by an act of 1679. During the reign of James II., however, orders were frequently issued for billeting, and one of the grievances in the Bill of Rights was the quartering of soldiers contrary to law. On the organization of a standing army after the revolution it was necessary to make legal provision for billeting owing to the deficiency of barrack accommodation, which sufficed only for 5000 men. Accordingly, the Mutiny Act 1689 authorized billeting among the various innkeepers and victuallers throughout the kingdom. This statute was renewed annually from 1689 to 1879, when the Army Discipline Act, consolidating the provisions of the Mutiny Act, was passed. This statute was replaced by the Army Act 1881 (renewed annually by a “commencement” act), which contains the provisions by which billeting is now regulated. But modern conditions have practically dispensed with the necessity for billeting; there is extensive barrack accommodation in most parts of the United Kingdom, and, moreover, troops are entrained or sent by sea when the distance to be covered is more than one day’s march. In Scotland the provisions as to billeting were assimilated to those in England in 1857, and in Ireland in 1879. The Army (Annual) Act 1909 provided for the billeting of the Territorial forces in case of national emergency, on occupiers of any kind of house at the discretion of the chief officer of police.

BILLIARDS, an indoor game of skill, played on a rectangular table,1 and consisting in the driving of small balls with a stick called a cue either against one another or into pockets according to the methods and rules described below. The name probably originated in the Fr. bille (connected with Eng. “billet”) signifying a stick. Of the origin of the game comparatively little is known—Spain, Italy, France and Germany all being regarded as its original home by various authorities. In an American text-book, Modern Billiards, it is stated that Catkire More (Conn Cetchathach), king of Ireland in the 2nd century, left behind him “fifty-five billiard balls, of brass, with the pools and cues of the same materials.” The same writer refers to the travels of Anacharsis through Greece, 400 B.C., during which he saw a game analogous to billiards. French writers differ as to whether their country can claim its origin, though the name suggests this. While it is generally asserted that Henrique Devigne, an artist, who lived in the reign of Charles IX., gave form and rule to the pastime, the Dictionnaire universel and the Académie des jeux ascribe its invention to the English. Bouillet in the first work says: “Billiards appear to be derived from the game of bowls. It was anciently known in England, where, perhaps, it was invented. It was brought into France by Louis XIV., whose physician recommended this exercise.” In the other work mentioned we read: “It would seem that the game was invented in England.” It was certainly known and played in France in the time of Louis XI. (1423-1483). Strutt, a rather doubtful authority, notwithstanding the reputation attained by his Sports and Pastimes of the People of England, considers it probable that it was the ancient game of Paille-maille (Pall Mall) on a table instead of on the ground or floor—an improvement, he says, “which answered two good purposes: it precluded the necessity of the player to kneel or stoop exceedingly when he struck the bowl, and accommodated the game to the limits of a chamber.” Whatever its origin, and whatever the manner in which it was originally played, it is certain that it was known in the time of Shakespeare, who makes Cleopatra, in the absence of Anthony, invite her attendant to join in the pastime—

In Cotton’s Compleat Gamester, published in 1674, we are told that this “most gentile, cleanly and ingenious game” was first played in Italy, though in another page he mentions Spain as its birthplace. At that date billiards must have been well enough known, for we are told that “for the excellency of the recreation, it is much approved of and played by most nations of Europe, especially in England, there being few towns of note therein which hath not a public billiard table, neither are they wanting in many noble and private families in the country.”

The game was at one time played on a lawn, like modern croquet.1 Some authorities consider that in this form it was 935 introduced into Europe from the Orient by the Crusaders. The ball was rolled or struck with a mallet or cue (with the latter, if Strutt’s allusion to “inconveniences” is correct) through hoops or rings, and these were reproduced for indoor purposes on a billiard-table, as well as a “king” or pin which had to be struck. In the original tables, which were square, there was one pocket, a hole in the centre of the table, as on a bagatelle board, the hoop or ring being retained. Then came similar pockets along one of the side cushions sunk in the bed of the table; and eventually the modern table was evolved, a true oblong or double-square, with pockets opening in the cushions at each corner and in the middle of each long side. The English tables are of this type, small bags of netting being attached to the pockets. The French and American game of billiards is played on a pocketless table. We shall deal first with the English game.

English Billiards

The English table consists of a framework of mahogany or other hard wood, with six legs, and strong enough to bear the weight of five slabs of slate, each 22⁄5 ft. wide by 6 ft. 1½ in., and about 2 in. thick. These having been fitted together with the utmost accuracy to form a level surface, and a green cloth of the finest texture having been tightly strained over it, the cushions are screwed on, and the pockets, for which provision has been made in the slates, are adjusted. As the inside edge of the cushion is not perpendicular to the bed of the table, but is bevelled away so that the top overhangs the base by about ¾ of an in., the actual playing area of the table is 6 ft. wide but is 1½ in. short of 12 ft. long. The height of the table is 2 ft. 8 in. measured from the floor to the cloth. The cloth is in the shape shown in the diagram.

A. The billiard spot measured from the nearest point of the face of the cushion. B. Pyramid spot. C. Centre spot. XY. Baulk line. D. Semicircle of 11½ in. radius, known as the D.

The principal games are three in number,—billiards proper, pyramids and pool; and from these spring a variety of others. The object of the player in each game, however, is either to drive one or other of the balls into one or other of the pockets, or (only in billiards proper) to cause the striker’s ball to come into successive contact with two other balls. The former stroke is known as a hazard (a term derived from the fact that the pockets used to be called hazards in old days), the latter as a cannon. When the ball is forced into a pocket the stroke is called a winning hazard; when the striker’s ball falls into a pocket after contact with the object ball, the stroke is a losing hazard; “red hazards” mean that the red ball is the object-ball, “white hazards” the white.

The game of billiards proper consists of the making of winning and losing hazards and cannons. It is usually played between two opponents (or four, two against two) for 100 or more points, three being scored for each red hazard, two for each white hazard and two for each cannon. Certain forfeitures on the other hand score to the opponent: running your ball off the table or into a pocket without having hit another ball, 3 (a coup); ordinary 936 misses (not hitting an object-ball), 1. All these forfeits involve the termination of the turn. There are also “foul strokes” which score nothing to the opponent, and only involve the termination of the turn: such as playing with the wrong ball, forcing a ball off the table, hitting a ball twice, &c. When the red ball is pocketed it is replaced on the billiard-spot; if that is occupied, on the pyramid-spot; if that too, on the centre-spot; but if the opponent’s white ball is pocketed it remains out of play till his turn comes. Public matches between adepts are played for higher points, but the rules which govern them are the same. The players have alternate turns, each being “in play” and continuing his “break” until he fails to score.

Development in Billiard Play.—The modern development of English billiards is due mainly to the skill of such leading players as John Roberts, sen., and his son of the same name. Indeed, their careers form the history of modern billiards from 1849 when the elder Roberts challenged Kentfield (who declined to play) for the championship. No useful comparison can be made between the last-named men, and the change of cushions from list to india-rubber further complicates the question. Kentfield represented the best of the old style of play, and was a most skilful performer; but Roberts had a genius for the game, combined with great nerve and physical power. This capacity for endurance enabled him to practise single strokes till they became certainties, when weaker men would have failed from sheer fatigue; and that process applied to the acquisition of the spot-stroke was what placed him decisively in front of the players of his day until a younger generation taught by him came forward. In 1869 the younger generation had caught him up, and soon afterwards surpassed him at this stroke; both W. Cook and J. Roberts, jun., carried it to greater perfection, but they were in turn put entirely in the shade by W. Mitchell and W.J. Peall. It is curious to realize that John Roberts, sen., developed the game chiefly by means of spot-play, whereas his son continued the process by abandoning it. The public, however, liked quick scoring and long breaks, and therefore a substitute had to be devised. This was provided chiefly by the younger Roberts, whose fertility of resource and manual dexterity eventually placed him by a very long way at the head of his profession. In exhibition matches he barred the spot-stroke and gave his attention chiefly to top-of-the-table play.

The next development was borrowed from the French game (see below), which consists entirely of cannons. Both French and American professors, giving undivided attention to cannons and not being permitted to use the push-stroke, arrived at a perfection in controlling or “nursing” the balls to which English players could not pretend; yet the principles involved in making a long series of cannons were applied, and leading professionals soon acquired the necessary delicacy of touch. The plan is to get the three balls close to each other, say within a space which a hand can cover, and not more than from 4 to 8 in. from a cushion. The striker’s ball should be behind the other two, one of which is nearer the cushion, the other a little farther off and farther forward. The striker’s ball is tapped quietly on the one next the cushion, and hits the third ball so as to drive it an inch or two in a line parallel to the cushion. The ball first struck rebounds from the cushion, and at the close of the stroke all three balls are at rest in a position exactly similar to that at starting, which is called by the French position mère. Thus each stroke is a repetition of the previous one, the positions of the balls being relatively the same, but actually forming a series of short advances along the cushion. With the push-stroke a great number of these cannons could be quickly made, say 50 in 3½ minutes; and, as that means 100 points, scoring was rapid. Most of the great spot-barred breaks contained long series of these cannons, and their value as records is correspondingly diminished, for in such hair’s-breadth distances very often no one but the player, and sometimes not even he, could tell whether a stroke was made or missed or was foul. Push-barred, the cannons are played nearly as fast; but with most men the series is shorter, massé strokes being used when the cannon cannot be directly played.

Championship.—When Kentfield declined to play in 1849, John Roberts, sen., assumed the title, and held the position till 1870, when he was defeated by his pupil W. Cook. The following table gives particulars of championship matches up to 1885:—

These games were played on three-inch-pocket tables, and John Roberts, jun., fairly contended that he remained champion till beaten on such a table under the rules in force when he won the title or under a new code to which he was a consenting party. A match was played for the championship between Roberts and Dawson, in 1899 of 18,000 up, level. The main departure from a championship game lay in the table, which had ordinary, though not easy pockets, instead of three-inch pockets. The match excited much interest, because Dawson, who had already beaten North for the Billiard Association championship, was the first man for many years to play Roberts even; but Roberts secured the game by 1814 points. After this Dawson improved materially, and in 1899, for the second time, he won the Billiard Association championship. His position was challenged by Diggle and Stevenson, who contested a game of 9000 points. Stevenson won by 2900, but lost to Dawson by 2225 points; he beat him in January 1901, and though Dawson won a match before the close of the spring, Stevenson continued to establish his superiority, and at the beginning of 1907 was incontestably the English champion.

Pyramids is played by two or four persons—in the latter case in sides, two and two. It is played with fifteen balls, placed close together by means of a frame in the form of a triangle or pyramid, with the apex towards the player, and a white striking ball. The centre of the apex ball covers the second or pyramid 938 spot, and the balls forming the pyramid should lie in a compact mass, the base in a straight line with the cushion.

Pool, a game which may be played by two or more persons, consists entirely of winning hazards. Each player subscribes a certain stake to form the pool, and at starting has three chances or lives. He is then provided with a coloured or numbered ball, and the game commences thus:—The white ball is placed on the spot and the red is played at it from the baulk semicircle. If the player pocket the white he receives the price of a life from the owner of the white; but if he fail, the next player, the yellow, plays on the red; and so on alternately till all have played, or till a ball be pocketed. When a ball is pocketed the striker plays on the ball nearest his own, and goes on playing as long as he can score.

French and American Billiards.—French and American billiards is played on a pocketless table, the only kind of table that is used in France, though the English table with six pockets is also occasionally to be found in America. For match purposes the table used measures 10 ft. by 5 ft., but in private houses and clubs 9 ft. by 4¼ ft. is the usual size, while tables 8 ft. by 4 ft. are not uncommon. The balls, three in number as in English billiards, measure from 2¼ to 23⁄8 in., the latter being “match” size. Since they are both larger and heavier than the English balls, the cues are somewhat heavier and more powerful, so that better effects can be produced by means of “side,” masses, &c. Only cannons (called in America “caroms,” in French caramboles) are played, each counting one point.

BILLINGTON, ELIZABETH (1768?-1818), British opera-singer, was born in London, her father being a German musician named Weichsel, and her mother a popular vocalist. She was trained in music, and at fourteen sang at a concert in Oxford. In 1783 she married James Billington, a double-bass player. She had a voice of unusual compass, and as Rosetta in Love in a Village she had a great success at Covent Garden in 1786, being engaged for the season at a salary of £1000, a large sum for those days. Her position as a singer in London was now assured. In 1794 she and her husband went to Italy, and Mrs Billington appeared at Naples (where she was the heroine of a new opera, Inez di Castro, written for her by F. Bianchi), at Florence, at Venice and at Milan. Her husband died suddenly during the tour, and in 1799 she married a Frenchman named Felissent, whom, however, she left in 1801. Returning to England she appeared alternately at Covent Garden and Drury Lane, her professional income during 1801 amounting to between £10,000 and £15,000. Henceforward she sang in Italian opera till the end of 1810, when ill-health forced her to abandon her profession. In 1817 she was reconciled to her husband, and went with him to live near Venice, where she died on the 25th of August 1818.

BILLITON (Dutch Blitoeng), an island of the Dutch East Indies, between Banka and Borneo, from which it is separated respectively by Caspar and Karimata straits. Politically it is under an assistant resident. It is roughly circular in form, its extreme measurements being 55 m. by 43, and its area 1773 sq. m. In physical structure and in products it resembles Banka; its coasts are sandy or marshy; in the interior an extreme elevation of 1670 ft. is found. The geological formation is Devonian and granitic, with laterites. The mean annual rainfall is heavy, 102 to 126 in. The day temperature varies from 80° to 87° Fahr. The nights are very cool. Like Banka, Billiton is chiefly noted for its production of tin, the island forming the southern limit of the occurrence of this metal in this locality. There are upwards of 80 mines, which employ some 7500 workmen, and have produced more than 6500 tons of tin in a year. Iron is also worked. On the rocks along the coast are found tortoises, trepang and edible birds’ nests, which are articles of export. The forests supply wood of different kinds for boat-building, in which the inhabitants are expert; and also provide trade in cocoa-nuts, sago, gum and other produce. The population is about 42,000, of whom some 12,000 are Chinese. The natives belong to two classes, the Orang Darat, the aborigines, thought to be akin to the Battas and other branches of the pre-Malayan or Indonesian race; and the Orang Sekah, people of Malayan stock who live in boats. The coast is as a rule difficult of access, being beset with rocks and coral banks, and the best harbour is that at the chief town of Tanjong Pandan on the west coast. The island was formerly under the sultan of Palembang, by whom it was ceded to the British in 1812. As no mention was made of it in the treaty between the British and Dutch in 1814, the former at first refused to renounce their possession, and only recognized the Dutch claim in 1824. Till 1852 Billiton was dependent on Banka.

BILL OF EXCHANGE, a form of negotiable instrument, defined below, the history of which, though somewhat obscure, was ably summed up by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwinn v. Robarts (1875), L.R. 10 Ex. pp. 346-358. Bills of exchange were probably invented by Florentine Jews. They were well known in England in the middle ages, though there is no reported decision on a bill of exchange before the year 1603. At first their use seems to have been confined to foreign bills between English and foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons, whether traders or not. But for some time after they had come into general employment, bills were always alleged in legal proceedings to be drawn secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum. The foundations of modern English law were laid by Lord Mansfield with the aid of juries of London merchants. No better tribunal of commerce could have been devised. Subsequent judicial decisions have developed and systematized the principles thus laid down. Promissory notes are of more modern origin than bills of exchange, and their validity as negotiable instruments was doubtful until it was confirmed by a statute of Anne (1704). Cheques are the creation of the modern system of banking.

Before 1882 the English law was to be found in 17 statutes dealing with isolated points, and about 2600 cases scattered over some 300 volumes of reports. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 codifies for the United Kingdom the law relating to bills of exchange, promissory notes and cheques. One peculiar Scottish rule is preserved, but in other respects uniform rules are laid down for England, Scotland and Ireland. After glancing briefly at the history of these instruments, it will probably be convenient to discuss the subject in the order followed by the act, namely, first, to treat of a bill of exchange, which is the original and typical negotiable instrument, and then to refer to the special provisions which apply to promissory notes and cheques. Two salient characteristics distinguish negotiable instruments from other engagements to pay money. In the first place, the assignee of a negotiable instrument, to whom it is transferred by indorsement or delivery according to its tenor, can sue thereon in his own name; and, secondly, he holds it by an independent title. If he takes it in good faith and for value, he takes it free from “all equities,” that is to say, all defects of title or grounds of defence which may have attached to it in the hands of any previous party. These characteristic privileges were conferred by the law merchant, which is part of the common law, and are now confirmed by statute.

Definition.—By § 3 of the act a bill of exchange is defined to be “an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.”1 The person who gives the order is called the drawer. The person thereby required to pay is called the drawee. If he assents to the order, he is then called 941 the acceptor. An acceptance must be in writing and must be signed by the drawee. The mere signature of the drawee is sufficient (§17). The person to whom the money is payable is called the payee. The person to whom a bill is transferred by indorsement is called the indorsee. The generic term “holder” includes any person in possession of a bill who holds it either as payee, indorsee or bearer. A bill which in its origin is payable to order becomes payable to bearer if it is indorsed in blank. If the payee is a fictitious person the bill may be treated as payable to bearer (§7).

The following is a specimen of an ordinary form of a bill of exchange:—

The scope of the definition given above may be realized by comparing it with the definition given by Sir John Comyns’ Digest in the early part of the 18th century:—“A bill of exchange is when a man takes money in one country or city upon exchange, and draws a bill whereby he directs another person in another country or city to pay so much to A, or order, for value received of B, and subscribes it.” Comyns’ definition illustrates the original theory of a bill of exchange. A bill in its origin was a device to avoid the transmission of cash from place to place to settle trade debts. Now a bill of exchange is a substitute for money. It is immaterial whether it is payable in the place where it is drawn or not. It is immaterial whether it is stated to be given for value received or not, for the law itself raises a presumption that it was given for value. But though bills are a substitute for cash payment, and though they constitute the commercial currency of the country, they must not be confounded with money. No man is bound to take a bill in payment of debt unless he has agreed to do so. If he does take a bill, the instrument ordinarily operates as conditional, and not as absolute payment. If the bill is dishonoured the debt revives. Under the laws of some continental countries, a creditor, as such, is entitled to draw on his debtor for the amount of his debt, but in England the obligation to accept or pay a bill rests solely on actual agreement. A bill of exchange must be an unconditional order to pay. If an instrument is made payable on a contingency, or out of a particular fund, so that its payment is dependent on the continued existence of that fund, it is invalid as a bill, though it may, of course, avail as an agreement or equitable assignment. In Scotland it has long been the law that a bill may operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee, and § 53 of the act preserves this rule.

Stamp.—Bills of exchange must be stamped, but the act of 1882 does not regulate the stamp. It merely saves the operation of the stamp laws, which necessarily vary from time to time according to the fluctuating needs and policy of the exchequer. Under the Stamp Act 1891, bills payable on demand are subject to a fixed stamp duty of one penny, and by the Finance Act 1899, a similar privilege is extended to bills expressed to be payable not more than three days after sight or date. The stamp may be impressed or adhesive. All other bills are liable to an ad valorem duty. Inland bills must be drawn on stamped paper, but foreign bills, of course, can be stamped with adhesive stamps. As a matter of policy, English law does not concern itself with foreign revenue laws. For English purposes, therefore, it is immaterial whether a bill drawn abroad is stamped in accordance with the law of its place of origin or not. On arrival in England it has to conform to the English stamp laws.

Maturity.—A bill of exchange is payable on demand when it is expressed to be payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation or when notice for payment is expressed. In calculating the maturity of bills payable at a future time, three days, called days of grace, must be added to the nominal due date of the bill. For instance, if a bill payable one month after sight is accepted on the 1st of January, it is really payable on the 4th of February, and not on the 1st of February as its tenor indicates. On the continent generally days of grace have been abolished as anomalous and misleading. Their abolition has been proposed in England, but it has been opposed on the ground that it would curtail the credit of small traders who are accustomed to bills drawn at certain fixed periods of currency. When the last day of grace is a non-business day some complicated rules come into play (§ 14). Speaking generally, when the last day of grace falls on Sunday or a common law holiday the bill is payable on the preceding day, but when it falls on a bank holiday the bill is payable on the succeeding day. Complications arise when Sunday is preceded by a bank holiday; and, to add to the confusion, Christmas day is a bank holiday in Scotland, but a common law holiday in England. When the code was in committee an attempt was made to remove these anomalies, but it was successfully resisted by the bankers on alleged grounds of practical convenience.

Acceptance.—By the acceptance of a bill the drawee becomes the principal debtor on the instrument and the party primarily liable to pay it. The acceptor of a bill “by accepting it engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance,” and is precluded from denying the drawer’s right to draw or the genuineness of his signature (§ 54). The acceptance may be either general or qualified. As a qualified acceptance is so far a disregard of the drawer’s order, the holder is not obliged to take it; and if he chooses to take it he must give notice to antecedent parties, acting at his own risk if they dissent (§§ 19 and 44). The drawer and indorsers of a bill are in the nature of sureties. They engage that the bill shall be duly accepted and paid according to its tenor, and that if it is dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment, as the case may be, they will compensate the holder provided that the requisite proceedings on dishonour are duly taken. Any indorser who is compelled to pay the bill has the like remedy as the holder against any antecedent party (§55). A person who is not the holder of a bill, but who backs it with his signature, thereby incurs the liability of an indorser to a holder in due course (§ 56). An indorser may by express term either restrict or charge his ordinary liability as stated above. Prima facie every signature to a bill is presumed to have been given for valuable consideration. But sometimes this is not the case. For friendship, or other reasons, a man may be willing to lend his name and credit to another in a bill transaction. Hence arise what are called accommodation bills. Ordinarily the acceptor gives his acceptance to accommodate the drawer. But occasionally both drawer and acceptor sign to accommodate the payee, or even a person who is not a party to the bill at all. The criterion of an accommodation bill is the fact that the principal debtor according to the instrument has lent his name and is in substance a surety for some one else. The holder for value of an accommodation bill may enforce it exactly as if it was an ordinary bill, for that is the presumable intention of the parties. But if the bill is dishonoured the law takes cognizance of the true relations of the parties, and many of the rules relating to principal and surety come into play. Suppose a bill is accepted for the accommodation of the drawer. It is the drawer’s duty to provide the acceptor with funds to meet the bill at maturity. If he fails to do so, he cannot rely on the defence that the bill was not duly presented for payment or that he did not receive due notice of dishonour. If the holder, with notice of the real state of the facts, agrees to give time to the drawer to pay, he may thereby discharge the acceptor.

Holder in due Course.—The holder of a bill has special rights and special duties. He is the mercantile owner of the bill, but in order to establish his ownership he must show a mercantile title. The bill must be negotiated to him, that is to say, it must be transferred to him according to the forms prescribed by mercantile law. If the bill is payable to order, he must not only get possession of the bill, but he must also obtain the indorsement of the previous holder. If the bill is payable to bearer it is transferable by mere delivery. A bill is payable to bearer which is expressed to be so payable, or on which the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank. If a man lawfully obtains possession of a bill payable to order without the necessary indorsement, he may obtain some common law rights in respect 942 of it, but he is not the mercantile owner, and he is not technically the holder or bearer. But to get the full advantages of mercantile ownership the holder must be a “holder in due course”—that is to say, he must satisfy three business conditions. First, he must have given value, or claim through some holder who has given value. Secondly, when he takes the bill, it must be regular on the face of it. In particular, the bill must not be overdue or known to be dishonoured. An overdue bill, or a bill which has been dishonoured, is still negotiable, but in a restricted sense. The transferee cannot acquire a better title than the party from whom he took it had (§ 36). Thirdly, he must take the bill honestly and without notice of any defect in the title of the transferor,—as, for instance, that the bill or acceptance had been obtained by fraud, or threats or for an illegal consideration. If he satisfies these conditions he obtains an indefeasible title, and can enforce the bill against all parties thereto. The act substitutes the expression “holder in due course” for the somewhat cumbrous older expression “bona fide holder for value without notice.” The statutory term has the advantage of being positive instead of negative. The French equivalent “tiers porteur de bonne foi” is expressive. Forgery, of course, stands on a different footing from a mere defect of title. A forged signature, as a general rule, is a nullity. A person who claims through a forged signature has no title himself, and cannot give a title to any one else (§ 24). Two exceptions to this general rule require to be noted. First, a banker who in the ordinary course of business pays a demand draft held under a forged indorsement is protected (§ 60). Secondly, if a bill be issued with material blanks in it, any person in possession of it has prima facie authority to fill them up, and if the instrument when complete gets into the hands of a holder in due course the presumption becomes absolute. As between the immediate parties the transaction may amount to forgery, but the holder in due course is protected (§ 20).

Dishonour.—The holder of a bill has special duties which he must fulfil in order to preserve his rights against the drawers and indorsers. They are not absolute duties; they are duties to use reasonable diligence. When a bill is payable after sight, presentment for acceptance is necessary in order to fix the maturity of the bill. Accordingly the bill must be presented for acceptance within a reasonable time. When a bill is payable on demand it must be presented for payment within a reasonable time. When it is payable at a future time it must be presented on the day that it is due. If the bill is dishonoured the holder must notify promptly the fact of dishonour to any drawer and indorser he wishes to charge. If, for example, the holder only gives notice of dishonour to the last indorser, he could not sue the drawer unless the last indorser or some other party liable has duly sent notice to the drawer. When a foreign bill is dishonoured the holder must cause it to be protested by a notary public. The bill must be noted for protest on the day of its dishonour. If this be duly done, the protest, i.e. the formal notarial certificate attesting the dishonour, can be drawn up at any time as of the date of the noting. A dishonoured inland bill may be noted, and the holder can recover the expenses of noting, but no legal consequences attach thereto. In practice, however, noting is usually accepted as showing that a bill has been duly presented and has been dishonoured. Sometimes the drawer or indorser has reason to expect that the bill may be dishonoured by the drawee. In that case he may insert the name of a “referee in case of need.” But whether he does so or not, when a bill has been duly noted for protest, any person may, with the consent of the holder, intervene for the honour of any party liable on the bill. If the bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance it may be “accepted for honour supra protest.” If it has been dishonoured by non-payment it may be paid supra protest. When a bill is thus paid and the proper formalities are complied with, the person who pays becomes invested with the rights and duties of the holder so far as regards the party for whose honour he has paid the bill, and all parties antecedent to him (§§ 65 to 68).

Discharge.—Normally a bill is discharged by payment in due course, that is to say, by payment by the drawee or acceptor to the holder at or after maturity. But it may also be discharged in other ways, as for example by coincidence of right and liability (§ 61), voluntary renunciation (§ 62), cancellation (§ 63), or material alteration (§ 64).

Conflict of Laws.—A bill of exchange is the most cosmopolitan of all contracts. It may be drawn in one country, payable in another, and indorsed on its journey to its destination in two or three more. The laws of all these countries may differ. Provision for this conflict of laws is made by § 72, which lays down rules for determining by what law the rights and duties of the various parties are to be measured and regulated. Speaking broadly, these rules follow the maxim Locus regit actum. A man must be expected to know and follow the law of the place where he conducts his business, but no man can be expected to know the laws of every country through which a bill may travel. For safety of transmission from country to country bills are often made out in sets. The set usually consists of three counterparts, each part being numbered and containing a reference to the other parts. The whole set then constitutes one bill, and the drawee must be careful only to accept one part, otherwise if different accepted parts get into the hands of different holders, he may be liable to pay the bill twice (§ 71). Foreign bills circulating through different countries have given rise to many intricate questions of law. But the subject is perhaps one of diminishing importance, as in many trades the system of “cable transfers” is superseding the use of bills of exchange.

A cheque “is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable on demand” (§ 73). For the most part the rules of law applicable to bills payable on demand apply in their entirety to cheques. But there are certain peculiar rules Cheques. relating to the latter which arise from the fact that the relationship of banker and customer subsists between the drawer and drawee of a cheque. For example, when a person has an account at a bank he is, as an inference of law, entitled to draw on it by means of cheques. A right to overdraw, can, of course, only arise from agreement. The drawer of a cheque is not absolutely discharged by the holder’s omission to present it for payment within a reasonable time. He is only discharged to the extent of any actual damage he may have suffered through the delay (§ 74). Apart from any question of delay, a banker’s authority to pay his customer’s cheques is determined by countermand of payment or by notice of the customer’s death (§ 75). Of recent years the use of cheques has enormously increased, and they have now become the normal machinery by which all but the smallest debts are discharged. To guard against fraud, and to facilitate the safe transmission of cheques by post, a system of crossing has been devised which makes crossed cheques payable only through certain channels. The first act which gave legislative recognition to the practice of crossing was the 19 and 20 Vict. c. 95. That act was amended in 1858, and a consolidating and amending act was passed in 1876. The act of 1876 is now repealed, and its provisions are re-enacted with slight modifications by §§ 76 to 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1883. A cheque may be crossed either “generally” or “specially.” A cheque is crossed generally by drawing across it two parallel lines and writing between them the words “& Co.” When a cheque is crossed generally it cannot be paid over the counter. It must be presented for payment by a banker. A cheque is crossed specially by adding the name of the banker, and then it can only be presented through that particular banker. A cheque, whether crossed generally or specially, may further be crossed with the words “not negotiable.” A cheque crossed “not negotiable” is still transferable, but its negotiable quality is restricted. It is put on pretty much the same footing as an overdue bill. The person who takes it does not get, and cannot give a better title to it, than that which the person from whom he took it had. These provisions are supplemented by provisions for the protection of paying and collecting bankers who act in good faith and without negligence. Suppose that a cheque payable to bearer, which is crossed generally and with the words “not 943 negotiable,” is stolen. The thief then gets a tradesman to cash it for him, and the tradesman gets the cheque paid on presentment through his banker. The banker who pays and the banker who receives the money for the tradesman are protected, but the tradesman would be liable to refund the money to the true owner. Again, assuming payment of the cheque to have been stopped, the tradesman could not maintain an action against the drawer.

A promissory note is defined by section 83 of the act to be an “unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another, signed by the maker, engaging to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, Promissory notes. a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer.” A promissory note may be made by two or more makers, and they may be liable either jointly, or jointly and severally, according to its tenor (§ 85). For the most part, rules of law applicable to a bill of exchange apply also to a promissory note, but they require adaptation. A note differs from a bill in this: it is a direct promise to pay, and not an order to pay. When it issues it bears on it the engagement of the principal debtor who is primarily liable thereon. The formula for applying to notes the rules as to bills is that “the maker of a note shall be deemed to correspond with the acceptor of a bill, and the first indorser of a note shall be deemed to correspond with the drawer of a bill payable to drawer’s order” (§ 89). Rules relating to presentment for acceptance, acceptance, acceptance supra protest, and bills in a set, have no application to a note. Moreover, when a foreign note is dishonoured it is not necessary, for English purposes, to protest it. All promissory notes are, under the Stamp Act 1891, subject to an ad valorem stamp duty. Inland notes must be on impressed stamp paper. Foreign notes are stamped with adhesive stamps. For ordinary legal purposes a bank note may be regarded as a promissory note made by a banker payable to bearer on demand. It is, however, subject to special stamp regulations. It is not discharged by payment, but may be re-issued again and again. In the interests of the currency the issue of bank notes is subject to various statutory restrictions. A bank, other than the Bank of England, may not issue notes in England unless it had a lawful note issue in 1844. On the other hand, Bank of England notes are legal tender except by the bank itself.

In fundamental principles there is general agreement between the laws of all commercial nations regarding negotiable instruments. As Mr Justice Story, the great American lawyer, says: “The law respecting negotiable instruments Foreign laws. may be truly declared, in the language of Cicero, to be in a great measure not the law of a single country only, but of the whole commercial world. Non erit lex alia Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc alia posthac, sed et apud omnes gentes et omni tempore, una eademque lex obtinebit” (Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters i). But in matters of detail each nation has impressed its individuality on its own system. The English law has been summarized above. Perhaps its special characteristics may be best brought out by comparing it with the French code and noting some salient divergences. English law has been developed gradually by judicial decision founded on trade custom. French law was codified in the 17th century by the “Ordonnance de 1673.” The existing “Code de Commerce” amplifies but substantially adopts the provisions of the “Ordonnance.” The growth of French law was thus arrested at an early period of its development. The result is instructive. A reference to Marius’ treatise on bills of exchange, published about 1670, or Beawes’ Lex Mercatoria, published about 1740, shows that the law, or rather the practice, as to bills of exchange was even then fairly well defined. Comparing the practice of that time with the law as it now stands, it will be seen that it has been modified in some important respects. For the most part, where English law differs from French law, the latter is in strict accordance with the rules laid down by Beawes. The fact is that, when Beawes wrote, the law or practice of both nations on this subject was nearly uniform. But English law has gone on growing while French law has stood still. A bill of exchange in its origin was an instrument by which a trade debt due in one place was transferred to another place. This theory French law rigidly keeps in view. In England bills have developed into a paper currency of perfect flexibility. In France a bill represents a trade transaction; in England it is merely an instrument of credit. English law affords full play to the system of accommodation paper; French law endeavours to stamp it out. A comparison of some of the main points of difference between English and French law will show how the two theories work. In England it is no longer necessary to express on a bill that value has been given for it, for the law raises a presumption to that effect. In France the nature of the consideration must be stated, and a false statement of value avoids the bill in the hands of all parties with notice. In England a bill may be drawn and payable in the same place. In France the place where a bill is drawn should be so far distant from the place where it is payable that there may be a possible rate of exchange between the two. This so-called rule of distantia loci is said to be disregarded now in practice, but the code is unaltered. As French lawyers put it, a bill of exchange necessarily presupposes a contract of exchange. In England since 1765 a bill may be drawn payable to bearer, though formerly it was otherwise. In France it must be payable to order; if it were not so it is clear that the rule requiring the consideration to be truly stated would be a nullity. In England a bill originally payable to order becomes payable to bearer when indorsed in blank. In France an indorsement in blank merely operates as a procuration. An indorsement, to operate as a negotiation, must be to order, and must state the consideration; in short, it must conform to the conditions of an original draft. In England, if a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, a right of action at once accrues to the holder. In France no cause of action arises unless the bill is again dishonoured at maturity; the holder in the meantime is only entitled to demand security from the drawer and indorsers. In England a sharp distinction is drawn between current and overdue bills. In France no such distinction is drawn. In England no protest is required in the case of the dishonour of an inland bill, notice of dishonour being sufficient. In France every dishonoured bill must be protested. Opinions may differ whether the English or the French system is better calculated to serve sound commerce and promote a healthy commercial morality. But an argument in favour of the English system may be derived from the fact that as the various continental codes are from time to time revised and re-enacted, they tend to depart from the French model and to approximate to the English rule. The effect upon English law of its codification has yet to be proved. A common objection to codification in England is that it deprives the law of its elastic character. But when principles are once settled common law has very little elasticity. On the other hand no code is final. Modern parliaments legislate very freely, and it is a much simpler task to alter statute law than to alter common law. Moreover, legislation is cheaper than litigation. One consequence of the codification of the English law relating to bills is clear gain. Nearly all the British colonies have adopted the act, and where countries are so closely connected as England and her colonies, it is an obvious advantage that their mercantile transactions should be governed by one and the same law expressed in the same words.

BILL OF RIGHTS, an important statute in English constitutional history. On the 13th of February 1689 the Declaration of Right, a document drawn up by a committee of the commons, and embodying the fundamental principles of the constitution, was delivered by the lords and commons to the prince and princess of Orange, afterwards William III. and Mary. In 944 December 1689 the rights claimed by the declaration were enacted with some alterations by the Bill of Rights, next to Magna Carta the greatest landmark in the constitutional history of England and the nearest approach to the written constitutions of other countries. The act (the full name of which is An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown), after reciting the unconstitutional proceedings of James II., the abdication of that king, the consequent vacancy of the crown, and the summons of the convention parliament, declared, on the part of the lords and commons, “for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties”—

The further provisions of the act were concerned with the settlement of the crown upon the prince and princess of Orange, with the exception of § 12, which negatived the right of dispensation by non obstante1 to or of any statute or any part thereof, unless a dispensation be allowed in the statute itself or by bill or bills to be passed during the then session of parliament.

It is to be noticed that the Declaration of Right and the Bill of Rights introduced no new principle into the English constitution; it was merely a declaration of the law as it stood. In the United States, the main provisions of the Bill of Rights, so far as they are applicable, have been adopted both in the constitution of the United States and in the state constitutions.

BILL OF SALE, in its original sense, a legal document assigning personal property, and still used in connexion with the transference of property in ships. The term has come to be applied to mortgages as well as to sales, and the expression “bill of sale” may now be understood to signify generally a document evidencing a sale or mortgage of personal chattels, unaccompanied by an actual transfer of possession to the purchaser or mortgagor.

The first English legislation on the subject was the Bills of Sale Act 1854, which, after reciting that “frauds were frequently committed upon creditors by secret bills of sale of personal chattels, whereby persons are enabled to keep up the appearance of being in good circumstances and possessed of property, and the grantees or holders of such bills of sale have the power of taking possession of the property of such person to the exclusion of the rest of their creditors,” provided that all bills of sale, as defined in the act, should be void against execution creditors unless registered. This act was amended by the Bills of Sale Act 1866. These acts were repealed and a new act passed, the Bills of Sale Act 1878, which, in the main, followed the lines of the act of 1854. The scope of this legislation was very much widened by the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882, which was intended primarily “to prevent needy persons being entrapped into signing complicated documents which they might often be unable to comprehend, and so being subjected by their creditors to the enforcement of harsh and unreasonable provisions” (Manchester &c. Ry. Co. v. N.C. Wagon Co., 1888, 13 App. Ca. 554). The law is now regulated by these two acts, together with the Bills of Sale Acts of 1890 and 1891, which effected further small amendments by excluding from the operation of the principal acts instruments hypothecating, charging or declaring trusts on imported goods, during the interval between their unloading from a ship and their deposit in a warehouse, or re-shipping.

Under the acts of 1878 and 1882 bills of sale are of two kinds, i.e. absolute bills of sale (where chattels are sold absolutely to a purchaser), and bills of sale by way of security for the payment of money. The Bills of Sale Act 1878 governs both kinds and is the only act which applies to absolute bills. Bills of sale given by way of security for the payment of money on or after the 1st of November 1882 are governed by the act of 1882, which, however, does not apply to absolute bills. Section 4 of the act of 1878 defines a bill of sale as (1) including bills of sale, assignments, transfers, declarations of trust without transfer, inventories of goods with receipt thereto attached, or receipts for purchase moneys of goods and other assurances of personal chattels; the term assurance has been best explained as a document “on which the title of the transferee of the goods depends, either as the actual transfer of the property, or an agreement to transfer,” Marsden v. Meadows, 1881, 7 Q.B.D. 80; (2) powers of attorney, authorities or licences to take possession of personal chattels as security for any debt; these words would not include a power of distress for rent in an ordinary lease or bona fide hiring or hire purchase agreements; (3) any agreement, whether intended or not to be followed by the execution of any other instrument, by which a right in equity to any personal chattels, or to any charge or security thereon, shall be conferred; (4) any mode of disposition of trade machinery and attornments and other instruments giving powers of distress to secure a debt or advance. On the other hand, certain assurances and instruments are expressly exempt by statute from the definition: marriage settlements, assignments of ships, assignments for the benefit of creditors, bills of lading and dock warrants, and by the act of 1882, debentures and debenture stock of a company. The expression “personal chattels” is defined as goods, furniture and other articles capable of complete transfer by delivery, and (when separately assigned or charged) fixtures and growing crops.

BILLROTH, ALBERT CHRISTIAN THEODOR (1829-1894), Viennese surgeon, was born on the 26th of April 1829 at Bergen, on the island of Rügen, his family being of Swedish origin. He studied at the universities of Greifswald, Göttingen and Berlin, and after taking his doctor’s degree at the last in 1852, started on an educational tour, in the course of which he visited the medical schools of Vienna, Prague, Paris, Edinburgh and London. On his return to Berlin he acted as assistant to B.R.K. Langenbeck from 1853 to 1860, and then accepted the professorship of surgery at Zürich. In 1867 he was invited to fill the same position at Vienna, and in that city the remainder of his professional life was spent. In 1887 he received the distinction, rarely bestowed on members of his profession, of a seat in the Austrian Herrnhaus. He died at Abbazia, on the Adriatic, where he had a beautiful villa, on the 6th of February 1894. Billroth was one of the most distinguished surgeons of his day. His boldness as an operator was only equalled by his skill and resourcefulness; no accident or emergency could disturb his coolness and presence of mind, and his ability to invent or carry out any new procedure that might be demanded in the particular case with which he was dealing, gained for him the appellation of “surgeon of great initiatives.” At the same time he was full of consideration for the comfort and well-being of his patient, and never forgot that he had before him a human being to be relieved, not a mere “case” for the display of technical dexterity. He was especially interested in military surgery, and during the Franco-German War volunteered to serve in the hospitals of Mannheim and Weissenburg. His efforts did much to improve the arrangements for the transport and treatment of the wounded in war, and in a famous speech on the War Budget in 1891, he eloquently urged the necessity for an improved ambulance system, pointing out that the use of smokeless powder and the greater precision of the arms of modern warfare must tend to increase the number of men wounded, and that therefore more efficient means must be provided for removing them from the battlefield. Possessing a clear and graceful style, he was the author of numerous papers and books on medical subjects; his Allgemeine chirurgische Pathologie und Therapie (1863) ran through many editions, and was translated into many languages. He was of an exceedingly artistic disposition, and in particular was devoted to music. A good performer on the pianoforte and violin, he was an intimate friend and admirer of Brahms, many of whose compositions were privately performed at his house before they were published. His work on the physiology of music (Wer ist musikalisch?) was published after his death.

BILMA, or Kawar, an oasis in the heart of the Sahara desert, some 60 m. long by 10 broad. The inhabitants are Tibbu and Kanuri. The name Bilma is properly confined to the southern part of this region, where is the chief settlement, called Bilma or Garu. This place is 800 m. due S. of the town of Tripoli and about 350 N. of the N.W. corner of Lake Chad. In the vicinity are a number of lakes, the waters of which on evaporation yield large quantities of very pure and fine salt, which is the object of an extensive trade with the countries of Central Africa. North of Bilma is the town of Dirki, said to date from the 11th century. Near Bilma is a small circular oasis, kept green by a fine spring, but immediately to the south begins the most dreary part of the Saharan desert, over which the caravans travel for fifteen days without discovering the slightest trace of vegetable life. Gustav Nachtigal, who visited Bilma in 1870, records that the temperature during the day rarely sank below 113° Fahr. By the Anglo-French Declaration of the 21st of March 1899 Bilma was included in the French sphere of influence in West Africa. Turkey claimed the oasis as part of the hinterland of Tripoli and garrisoned Bilma in 1902. In 1906, however, a French force from Zinder occupied the town, no opposition being offered by the Ottoman authorities. In 1907 the oasis and surrounding district was created a circle of the Military Territory of the Niger (see Sahara).

BILNEY, THOMAS (d. 1531), English martyr, was born at or near Norwich. The exact date of his birth is uncertain, but at all events it was not before 1495. He was educated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, graduating LL.B. and taking holy orders in 1519. Finding no satisfaction in the mechanical system of the schoolmen, he turned his attention to the edition of the New Testament published by Erasmus in 1516. “Immediately,” he records, “I felt a marvellous comfort and quietness.” The Scriptures now became his chief study, and his influence led other young Cambridge men to think along the same lines. Among his friends were Matthew Parker, the future archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh Latimer. Latimer, previously a strenuous conservative, was completely won over, and a warm friendship sprang up between him and Bilney. “By his confession,” said Latimer, “I learned more than in twenty years before.” In 1525 Bilney obtained a licence to preach throughout the diocese of Ely. He denounced saint and relic worship, together with pilgrimages to Walsingham and Canterbury, and refused to accept the mediation of the saints. The diocesan authorities raised no objection, for, despite his reforming views in these directions, he was to the last perfectly orthodox on the power of the pope, the sacrifice of the mass, the doctrine of transubstantiation and the authority of the church. But Wolsey took a different view. In 1526 he appears to have summoned Bilney before him. On his taking an oath that he did not hold and would not disseminate the doctrines of Luther, Bilney was dismissed. But in the following year serious objection was taken to a series of sermons preached by him in and near London, and he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower. Arraigned before Wolsey, Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, 946 and several bishops in the chapter-house at Westminster, he was convicted of heresy, sentence being deferred while efforts were made to induce him to recant, which eventually he did. After being kept for more than a year in the Tower, he was released in 1529, and went back to Cambridge. Here he was overcome with remorse for his apostasy, and after two years determined to preach again what he had held to be the truth. The churches being no longer open to him, he preached openly in the fields, finally arriving in Norwich, where the bishop, Richard Nix, caused him to be arrested. Articles were drawn up against him by Convocation, he was tried, degraded from his orders and handed over to the civil authorities to be burned. The sentence was carried out in London on the 19th of August 1531. A parliamentary inquiry was threatened into this case, not because parliament approved of Bilney’s doctrine but because it was alleged that Bilney’s execution had been obtained by the ecclesiastics without the proper authorization by the state. In 1534 Bishop Nix was condemned on this charge to the confiscation of his property. The significance of Bilney’s execution lies in the fact that on essential points he was an orthodox Roman Catholic.

BILOXI, a city of Harrison county, Mississippi, U.S.A., in the south part of the state, on Biloxi Bay, a branch of the Mississippi Sound, which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. By rail it is 80 m. N.E. of New Orleans and 61 m. S.E. of Mobile, Alabama. Pop. (1880) 1540; (1890) 3234; (1900) 5467 (949 being negroes and 455 foreign-born); (1910) 7988. The city is served by a branch of the Louisville & Nashville railway, and by an electric railway extending to Bay St Louis, through Gulfport (pop., 1900, 1060; 1910, 6386), 13 m. S.W., the port of entry of the Pearl River customs district, whose exports, chiefly timber, lumber, naval stores and charcoal, were valued at $8,392,271 in 1907. Biloxi is both a summer and a winter resort, particularly for the people of New Orleans and Mobile, and has a fine beach, extending for about 12 m. around its peninsula, and bordered by an automobile drive; along the beach are some attractive residences, hotels and boarding houses, and several sanatoriums. The city’s principal industries are the canning of oysters, shrimp, fish, figs and vegetables, and the manufacture of fertilizers and flour. A beautiful thin faience with remarkable metallic glazes is made here. The municipality owns the water-works, the water being obtained from artesian wells. Pierre le Moyne d’Iberville (1661-1706) in 1699 built Fort Maurepas across the bay from the present city; and the settlement there, called Biloxi after the Biloxi Indians, was the first to be established by the French in this region. In 1702 this post, known as Old Biloxi, was abandoned, and the seat of government was removed to the Mobile river. In 1712 a settlement was made on the present site, being the first permanent settlement within what is now the state of Mississippi. Many of the early settlers were French Canadians, who came down the Mississippi to join the new colony. Biloxi was again the capital from 1719 until 1722. It was incorporated as a village in 1872, and was chartered as a city in 1896.

BILSTON, a market town of Staffordshire, England, 2½ m. S.E. of Wolverhampton and 124 N.W. of London, in the Black Country. Pop. of urban district (1901) 24,034. It is served by the Great Western railway, and by the London & North-Western at Ettingshall Road station. In the vicinity are very productive mines of coal and ironstone, as well as sand of fine quality for casting, and grinding-stones for cutlers. Bilston contains numerous furnaces, forges, rolling and slitting mills for the preparation of iron, and a great variety of factories for japanned and painted goods, brass-work and heavy iron goods. Though retaining no relics of antiquity, the town is very ancient, appearing in Domesday. The parish church of St Leonard, dating as it stands mainly from 1827, is on the site of a building of the 13th century. Bilston suffered severely from an outbreak of cholera in 1832. The town is within the parliamentary borough of Wolverhampton.

BILTONG, a South African Dutch word (from bil, buttock, and tong, tongue), for sun-dried strips of antelope or buffalo meat.

BIMANA (Lat. “two-handed”), a word first used by the naturalist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach to distinguish the order of man from Quadrumana or other mammals. The term was popularized by Cuvier, and the majority of writers followed him in its adoption. In 1863, however, Huxley in his Man’s Place in Nature demonstrated that the higher apes might fairly be included in Bimana. Again and again it has been proved that the human great toe can be by constant practice used as a thumb; artists exist who have painted pictures grasping the brush with their toes, and violinists have been known to play their instruments in the same manner. Among many savage races there is developed a remarkable power of foot-grasp, which in a lesser degree is often so noticeable among sailors. Haeckel calls attention to the fact that a baby can hold a spoon with the big-toe as with a thumb. Man, in a word, is potentially quadrumanous.

BIMETALLISM. The very general employment of both gold and silver for currency purposes (see Money) has given rise to serious practical difficulties which have in turn led to keen theoretical discussion as to the proper remedies to be employed. Though every arrangement under which two metals form the money of a region may be described as “bimetallism,” the term—as often happens in economics—has received a specialized meaning. It denotes a system under which the two metals are freely received by the mint and are equally available as legal tender. The last clause implies the establishment of a definite ratio in value between the two metals (e.g. 1 oz. of gold = 15½ oz. of silver) so that the title “rated bimetallism” may be given to it, in contradistinction to the “unrated bimetallism” which exists wherever two metals circulate together, but have their relative values determined, not by law, but by “the higgling of the market.” Further, the inventor of the term—H. Cernuschi in 1869—regarded it as properly applicable to an international arrangement by which a number of states agree to adopt the same ratio, rather than to the use of the two metals by a single country, which may be described as national bimetallism. International bimetallism is at all events the form which has attracted attention in recent times, and it is certainly the most important.

Regarded from the historical point of view it appears that the failure of separate countries to maintain the two metals in circulation was the cause which produced the idea of bimetallism as an international system. We find first the upholders of a national double standard, as in France and the United States, and these are followed by the advocates of bimetallism set up by a combination of countries. The theoretical considerations which underlie the controversy between the supporters and the opponents of bimetallism find their appropriate place in the article Money, as does also the earlier history of the double standard. The circumstances that have led to the prominence of the bimetallic question and the principal events that have marked the course of the movement form the subject of this article.

In the earlier years of the 19th century, when the monetary disturbances that resulted from the Revolutionary wars had ceased, we find France (1803) and the United States (1792) with the double standard legally established. England, on the other hand, had in 1816 accepted by law the gold standard, which had come into use in the 18th century. Silver formed the currency of the other European countries. The great discoveries of gold in California (1848) and Australia (1851) brought about the displacement of silver by gold in France, and the continuance of gold as the principal currency metal in the United States, where by the law of 1834 it had been somewhat over-rated (1 : 16), as compared with the ratio adopted in France (1 : 15½), and had therefore expelled most of the silver previously in circulation. Between 1848 and 1860 over £100,000,000 of gold was coined in France, while an equivalent amount of silver was exported, principally to the East.

At this time the weight of economic and official opinion was very decidedly in favour of the single gold standard as the best system. In 1865 the Latin Union was established, in which the French currency system was adopted and was followed by the 947 international conference of 1867 in Paris (see Monetary Conferences), when gold was unanimously accepted as the standard for the proposed international system to be produced by coordinating the various currencies with that of the Latin Union.

A series of political and economic events speedily changed this situation. The Franco-German War (1870-71) deposed France from her leading position, and led to the establishment of a German gold currency with a different unit from the franc, accompanied by the demonetization of the silver currencies previously in use in the German states. The United States, where an inconvertible paper currency had been introduced during the Civil War, formally established the gold dollar as the standard coin (1873) and arranged for a return to specie payments (1878). At this time, too, the great production of gold which had marked the period 1850-1870 diminished, while very productive silver mines were discovered in the Pacific states of America. As a result of these combined influences the gold price of silver, which had risen a little during the height of the gold discoveries, began to fall rapidly, and the reverse process to that by which France had in the ’fifties acquired a gold currency came into operation. Silver, in accordance with Gresham’s Law, was imported and offered for coinage. To obviate this the policy of limiting the coinage of silver (the Limping Standard) was adopted by the Latin Union. A further fall in the gold price of silver naturally resulted, and this made the position of Eastern trade and the finances of the Indian government insecure. American silver producers, and the German government, as holders of a large mass of demonetized silver, were also sufferers by the depreciation. The effect on public and official opinion was shown by the English parliamentary committee on the depreciation of silver (1876), the American silver commission of the same year, and the appearance of many works on the subject, most of them advocating the double standard. On the initiative of the United States an international monetary conference met in Paris in 1878, but though the necessity of keeping a place for silver in the money of the world was recognized, the proposal to adopt the double standard for general use was rejected by the European states. By the Bland-Allison Act (Feb. 1878) the United States had provided for the coinage of a certain amount of silver per month as a mode of keeping up the price of the metal, which notwithstanding fell to 48 pence per oz. in 1879. The prolonged depression of trade in America and Germany was attributed to the scarcity of money, due to what was described as “the outlawry of silver.” By the joint action of France and the United States a fresh monetary conference was held in Paris in 1881, where the advocates of bimetallism were very strongly represented. After prolonged discussion no conclusion was reached, in consequence of the refusal of England and Germany to abandon the gold standard. Though an adjournment to the following year was resolved on, the conference did not reassemble, and the bimetallic movement took the form of agitation, carried on in each country. The English inquiry into the depression of trade (1885-1886) drew from the commission a recommendation for a fresh commission to investigate the relation of gold and silver. This latter body, appointed in 1886, obtained a great body of important evidence, and in 1888 closed its work by a report in which the views of the two sections of the commission were separately presented. Six members supported the existing gold standard and six were in favour of the bimetallic system. This inconclusive result was soon followed in the United States by the Sherman Act (1890), providing for a larger monthly coinage of silver. A temporary rise in the price of the metal was followed by a further fall, making the situation still more critical. A new monetary conference was summoned by the United States and met in Brussels in November 1892. To modify opposition the “desirability of increasing the use of silver” was the resolution proposed; the actual method being left open. This conference also proved abortive and adjourned to 1893, but like that of 1881 did not meet again.

International action having failed to secure any system of bimetallism, the United States and India sought to relieve their position by local legislation. The former repealed the Sherman Act, and the latter closed its mints to the free coinage of silver (1893). As these measures were opposed to bimetallism in that they restricted the use of silver, and were followed by a lower price for that metal than had ever been known, the agitation in the United States and Europe continued. In America it took the form of advocating the free coinage of silver by the United States without waiting for other countries; and in this shape made the principal issue at the presidential elections of 1896 and 1900, in each of which it was emphatically rejected.

A further attempt at securing international bimetallism was made by Senator Wolcott’s commission in 1897. The American envoys, in concert with the French government, proposed to England (1) the reopening of the Indian mints, and (2) the annual purchase by England of £10,000,000 of silver. The French minister claimed further concessions which were regarded as inadmissible by the English government; but the fate of the mission was settled by the refusal of the Indian government to reopen its mints.

After the American election of 1900, bimetallism as a popular cause disappeared from view. The silver issue was withdrawn from the democratic platform in 1904, and the bimetallic movement died out in England.

Amongst the causes of this collapse the most important are: (1) the adoption of the gold standard by so many countries—Austria-Hungary (1892), Russia and Japan (1897), India (1899), Mexico (1904)-a movement which pointed to the complete triumph of gold in the future; (2) the great increase in the output of gold. Australia and South Africa so developed their gold mines as to bring the yield for 1906 to £81,000,000 as contrasted with the less than £20,000,000 of 1883. This growing supply removed all that dread of a “gold famine” which served as a popular argument with bimetallists. To these may be added (3) the knowledge that experience had brought of the difficulties surrounding any attempt to establish a common ratio where the interests of different countries are so opposed; and (4) the great expansion of trade and industry, concomitantly with the wider adoption of the gold standard. Therefore, to quote the words of perhaps the ablest advocate of bimetallism, “The outcome of the prolonged controversy ... appears to be that the commercial world will carry on its business principally and more and more on a gold basis, and that particular countries will endeavour in different ways to adjust their actual medium ... to the gold standard” (Nicholson, Money and Monetary Problems, 6th ed.).

Perhaps the principal service rendered by the many able minds engaged in the movement will prove to be the fuller development of the more difficult parts of monetary theory and the additional light thrown on the course of monetary history.

A proposal, sometimes confounded with bimetallism, is that for a standard composed of both gold and silver, which is better described as the Joint-standard or as Symmetallism.

BIMLIPATAM, a town of British India, in the Vizagapatam district of Madras, on the sea-coast 18 m. N.E. of Vizagapatam. Pop. (1901) 10,212. It was formerly a Dutch factory, and is now the principal port of the district. The anchorage is an open roadstead protected to some extent by headlands with a lighthouse at Santapalli. Nearly half the sea-borne trade is conducted with foreign countries. The principal exports are oil-seeds, hides and jute.

BIN, a receptacle of various kinds, originally of wicker or basket work. The word appears in most European languages, of. M.L. and Ital. benna, Ger. Benne, &c.; etymologists trace the word to a root meaning “to plait.” It survives in various 948 connexions, e.g. dust-bin, wine-bin (for holding bottles), hop-bin, coal-bin, corn-bin.

BINAN, a town of the province of La Laguna, Luzon, Philippine Islands, on the W. shore of Laguna de Bay, about 20 m. S.S.E. of Manila. Pop. (1903) 9563. The town is surrounded by an extensive and extremely fertile plain which produces very large quantities of rice as well as a great variety of tropical fruits, and a ready market for these products is found in Manila whither they are shipped by boat. The language is Tagalog.

BINARY SYSTEM, in astronomy, a system composed of two stars revolving around each other under the influence of their mutual attraction. A distinction was formerly made between double stars of which the components were in revolution around each other, and those in which no relative motion was observed; but it is now considered that all double stars must really be binary systems.

BINCHOIS, EGIDIUS (d. 1460), an early 15th-century musical composer evidently named after his birthplace, Binche, near Mons. He was esteemed by contemporary and later theorists as second only to Dunstable and Dufay.

BINGEN (anc. Vincum or Bingium), a town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, 15 m. N.W. from Mainz, on the main line to Cologne. Pop. (1905) 9950. It is situated on the left bank of the Rhine opposite Rüdesheim, at the confluence of the Nahe (or Nava), which is crossed near its mouth by a stone bridge, attributed to Drusus, and certainly of Roman origin, and an iron railway bridge. On a height immediately to the south-east is the ruined castle of Klopp, on the site of a fortress founded by Drusus, and higher still the celebrated chapel of St Roch (rebuilt in 1895 after a fire), where thousands of pilgrims gather on the first Sunday after the 16th of August. Apart from its situation, which renders it a convenient place of tourist resort, the town itself presents but few attractions. There are a Protestant and three Roman Catholic churches, among the latter the parish church with a crypt dating from the 11th century, and a medieval town hall. It has a considerable commerce in wine, grain and cattle, and, new quays and a harbour having been recently constructed, does an extensive transit trade in coal and iron. A short way down the Rhine is the Bingerloch, a famous whirlpool, while about halfway between it and the town rises on a rock in the middle of the stream the Mäuseturm (derived from Muserie, cannon), in which, according to legend, Archbishop Hatto II. of Mainz was in 969 eaten by mice (the legend being doubtless due to the erroneous derivation from Mäuse, mice). Another legend states that the Nibelung treasure is hidden hereabouts in the Rhine.

BINGERBRÜCK, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine province, at the confluence of the Nahe and the Rhine, lying just below Bingen, and at the junction of the main lines of railway—Mainz-Coblenz and Bingerbrück-Metz. It has an extensive trade in the wines of the district. Pop. 2500.

BINGHAM, JOSEPH (1668-1723), English scholar and divine, was born at Wakefield in Yorkshire in September 1668. He was educated at University College, Oxford, of which he was made fellow in 1689 and tutor in 1691. A sermon preached by him from the university pulpit, St Mary’s, on the meaning of the terms “Person” and “Substance” in the Fathers, brought upon him a most unjust accusation of heresy. He was compelled to give up his fellowship and leave the university; but he was immediately presented by Dr John Radcliffe to the rectory of Headbournworthy, near Winchester (1695). In this country retirement he began his laborious and valuable work entitled Origines Ecclesiasticae, or Antiquities of the Christian Church, the first volume of which appeared in 1708 and the tenth and last in 1722. His design, learnedly, exhaustively and impartially executed, was “to give such a methodical account of the antiquities of the Christian Church as others have done of the Greek and Roman and Jewish antiquities, by reducing the ancient customs, usages and practices of the church under certain proper heads, whereby the reader may take a view at once of any particular usage or custom of Christians for four or five centuries.” Notwithstanding his learning and merit, Bingham received no higher preferment than that of Headbournworthy till 1712, when he was collated to the rectory of Havant, near Portsmouth, by Sir Jonathan Trelawney, bishop of Winchester. Nearly all his little property was lost in the great South Sea Bubble of 1720. He died on the 17th of August 1723.

BINGHAMTON, a city and the county-seat of Broome county, New York, U.S.A., in the south part of the state, on both banks of the north branch of the Susquehanna river, at the mouth of the Chenango river. Pop. (1880) 17,317; (1890) 35,005; (1900) 39,647, of whom 4272 were foreign-born; (1910), 48,443. It is an important railway centre, being served by the Delaware & Hudson, the Erie, and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western railways; and an extensive system of electric railways connects it with the suburbs and neighbouring towns. Binghamton is picturesquely situated and has a number of parks, the most attractive of which are Ross Park of 100 acres, and Ely Park of 134 acres. Among the principal buildings are the city hall, the court-house, the post-office, the Binghamton city hospital, Stone opera-house, the Carnegie library (1904), the central high school, and a state armoury. Binghamton has also some fine office buildings. Among the city’s educational and charitable institutions are the Lady Jane Grey school (for girls), St Joseph’s academy, St Mary’s home for orphans, the Susquehanna Valley orphan asylum, and a state hospital for the insane. Binghamton is a manufacturing centre of considerable importance, ranking twelfth in the state in 1905 in the value of factory products, $13,907,403, which was an increase of 32.0% over the value of the factory products in 1900; among its manufactures are tobacco, cigars, chewing tobacco and snuff (value in 1905, $2,879,217), patent medicines (value in 1905, $2,133,198), flour and grist mill products ($1,089,910), men’s clothing ($833,835), and, of less importance, commercial and computing scales and time recorders, chemicals, distilled liquor, beer, fire-alarm apparatus, overalls, agricultural implements, wagons, electrical apparatus, refined oil, sheet metal, paper bags and envelopes, tacks and nails, window glass, glass-ware, clocks, whips and furniture (especially Morris chairs). In the village of Lestershire (pop. in 1910, 3775; incorporated in 1892), about 2 m. west, and in Endicott, another suburb, are large boot and shoe factories. The municipality owns and operates the water-works. When Binghamton was first settled, about 1787, it was known as Chenango Point. Its site was originally included in the so-called “Bingham Patent,” a tract on both sides of the Susquehanna river owned by William Bingham (1751-1804), a Philadelphia merchant, who was a member of the Continental Congress in 1787-1788 and of the United States Senate in 1795-1801, being president pro tempore of the Senate from the 16th of February to the 3rd of March 1797. In 1800 a village was laid out by an agent of Mr Bingham, and was named Binghamton. In 1834 it was incorporated as a village, and in 1867 was chartered as a city.

BINGLEY, a market town in the Otley parliamentary division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, England, on the Aire, 5½ m. N.W. of Bradford, on the Midland railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 18,449. The church of All Saints is good Perpendicular, though considerably restored. The large industrial population is engaged principally in the worsted and cotton manufacture. The neighbourhood is populous, but the natural beauty of the Aire valley is not greatly impaired.

BINIOU, or Bignou, a species of cornemuse or bagpipe, still in use at the present day in Brittany. The biniou is a primitive kind of bagpipe consisting of a leather bag inflated by means of a short valved insufflation tube or blow-pipe, a chaunter with conical bore furnished with a double reed concealed within the stock or socket (see Bag-Pipe), and seven holes, the first being duplicated to accommodate left- and right-handed players.

The scale of the biniou is usually 1 949 and the single drone is tuned to the lower octave of the first hole

The more primitive biniou, still occasionally found in the remote districts of Cornouailles and Morbihan, has a chaunter with but five holes,2 giving part of the scale of D, the drone being also tuned to D. The drone of the biniou is of boxwood, handsomely inlaid with tin, and has a single or beating reed hidden within the stock.

The word biniou or bignou (a Gallicized form), often erroneously derived from bigno, se renfler beaucoup—an etymology not supported by Breton dictionaries—is the Breton plural form of benvek, instrument, tool, i.e. binviou, binvijou.3 The word is also found in the phrase, “Sac’h ar biniou” (a biniou bag), a bag used by weavers to hold their tools, spindles, &c. The biniou is still the traditional and popular instrument of the Breton peasants of Cornouailles and Morbihan, and is almost inseparable from the bombard (q.v.), which is no other than a survival of the medieval musette, hautbois or chalémie, formerly associated with the bag-pipe in western Europe (see Oboe). At all festivals, at the pardons, wedding feasts and threshing dances, the two traditional musicians or sonneurs give out in shrill penetrating tones the ancient Breton rondes4 and melodies.

BINMALEY, a town of the province of Pangasinan, Luzon, Philippine Islands, on the delta of the Agno river, about 5 m. W. of Dagupan, the north terminus of the Manila & Dagupan railway. Pop. (1903) 16,439. It has important fisheries, and manufactures salt, pottery, roofing (made of nipa leaves), and nipa wine. Rice and cocoanuts are the principal agricultural products of the town.

BINNACLE (before 18th century bittacle, through Span. bitácula, from Lat. habitaculum, a little dwelling), a case on the deck of a ship, generally in front of the steersman, in which is kept a compass, and a light by which the compass is read at night.

BINNEY, EDWARD WILLIAM (1812-1881), English geologist, was born at Morton, in Nottinghamshire, in 1812. He was articled to a solicitor in Chesterfield, and in 1836 settled at Manchester. He retired soon afterwards from legal practice and gave his chief attention to geological pursuits. He assisted in 1838 in founding the Manchester Geological Society, of which he was then chosen one of the honorary secretaries; he was elected president in 1857, and again in 1865. He was also successively secretary and president of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester. Working especially at the Carboniferous and Permian rocks of the north of England, he studied also the Drift deposits of Lancashire, and made himself familiar with the geology of the country around Manchester. On the Coal Measures in particular he became an acknowledged authority, and his Observations on the Structure of Fossil Plants found in the Carboniferous Strata (1868-1875) formed one of the monographs of the Palaeontographical Society. His large collection of fossils was placed in Owens College. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1856. He died at Manchester on the 19th of December 1881.

BINNEY, HORACE (1780-1875), American lawyer, was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 4th of January 1780. He graduated at Harvard College in 1797, and studied law in the office of Jared Ingersoll (1749-1822), who had been a member of the Constitutional convention of 1787, and who from 1791 to 1800 and again from 1811 to 1816 was the attorney-general of Pennsylvania. Admitted to the bar in Philadelphia in 1800, Binney practised with great success for half a century, and was recognized as one of the leaders of the bar in the United States. He served in the Pennsylvania legislature in 1806-1807, and was a Whig member of the National House of Representatives from 1833 until 1835, ably defending the United States Bank, and in general opposing the policy of President Andrew Jackson. His most famous case, in which he was unsuccessfully opposed by Daniel Webster, was the case of Bidal v. Girard’s Executors, which involved the disposition of the fortune of Stephen Girard (q.v.). Binney’s argument in this case greatly influenced the interpretation of the law of charities. Binney made many public addresses, the most noteworthy of which, entitled Life and Character of Chief Justice Marshall, was published in 1835. He also published Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia (1858), and an Inquiry into the Formation of Washington’s Farewell Address (1859); and during the Civil War he issued three pamphlets (1861, 1862 and 1865), discussing the right of habeas corpus under the American Constitution, and justifying President Lincoln in his suspension of the writ.

BINNEY, THOMAS (1798-1874), English Congregationalist divine, was born of Presbyterian parents at Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1798, and educated at an ordinary day school. After spending seven years in the employment of a bookseller he entered the theological school at Wymondley, Herts, now incorporated in New College, Hampstead. In 1829, after short pastorates at Bedford (New Meeting) and Newport, Isle of Wight, he accepted a call to the historic Weigh House chapel, London. Here he became very popular, and it was found necessary to build a much larger chapel on Fish Street Hill, to which the congregation removed in 1834. An address delivered on the occasion of the laying of the foundation stone was published, with an appendix containing a strong attack on the influence of the Church of England, which gave rise to a long and bitter controversy. Throughout his whole career Binney was a vigorous opponent of the state church principle, but those who simply classified him as a narrow-minded political dissenter did him injustice. His liberality of view and breadth of ecclesiastical sympathy entitle him to rank on questions of Nonconformity among the most distinguished of the school of Richard Baxter; and he maintained friendly relations with many of the dignitaries of the Established Church. He continued to discharge the duties of the ministry until 1869, when he resigned. In 1845 he paid a visit to Canada and the United States, and in 1857-1859 to the Australian colonies. The university of Aberdeen conferred the LL.D. degree on him in 1852, and he was twice chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales.

Binney was the pioneer in a much-needed improvement of the forms of service in Nonconformist churches, and gave a special impulse to congregational psalmody by the publication of a book entitled The Service of Song in the House of the Lord. Of numerous other works the best-known is his Is it Possible to Make the Best of Both Worlds? an expansion of a lecture delivered to young men in Exeter Hall, which attained a circulation of 30,000 copies within a year of its publication. He wrote much devotional verse, including the well-known hymn “Eternal Light! Eternal Light!” His last sermon was preached in November 1873, and after some months of suffering he died on the 24th of February 1874. Dean Stanley assisted at his funeral service in Abney Park cemetery.

BINOCULAR INSTRUMENT, or briefly Binocular,1 an apparatus through which objects are viewed with both eyes. In this article only those instruments will be considered in which solid objects or objects in space are viewed; reference should be made to the article Stereoscope for the instruments in which plane representations are offered to both eyes. The natural vision is such that different central projections of the objects are communicated to both eyes; the difference of the two perspective representations arises from the fact that the projection centres are laterally separated by an interval about equal to the distance between the eyes (the inter-pupillary distance). Binocular instruments should aid the natural spatial or stereoscopic vision, or make it possible if the eyes fail. If the objects be so far 950 distant that the two perspectives formed by the naked eye are no more distinguished from each other, recourse may be had to binocular telescopes and range-finders; and if the objects be so small that, in order to observe details on them, we must bring our eyes so close to the objects that they cannot accommodate the images, recourse may be had to binocular microscopes and magnifying glasses.

The construction of binocular instruments dates back over several centuries, and has now been brought to great perfection. The subject of their theory and history has been exhaustively treated by M. von Rohr, Die binokularen Instrumente (Berlin, 1907), the first publication to present a complete account of these instruments.

Fig. 1.

Binocular Instruments for Observation only.—The first binocular telescope, consisting of two telescopes placed side by side, was constructed in 1608 by Johann Lipperhey, the inventor of the ordinary or Dutch telescope. The subject was Telescope. next taken up by the monks. The Capuchin Antonius Maria Schyrläus (Schyrl) de Rheita (1597-1660) described in 1645 the construction of double terrestrial telescopes. Greater success attended the efforts of the Capuchin Chérubin d’Orléans, who flourished at about the same time, and constructed large double telescopes of the Dutch type of high magnification, for use in war, and smaller instruments of lower magnification; these instruments were provided with mechanism for adjusting to the interval between the eyes of the observer (fig. 1). After these discoveries the subject received no more attention until the 19th century; no improvements of these instruments are recorded in the literature of the second half of the 18th century.

The re-invention of the Dutch binocular telescope apparently dates from 1823, and is to be assigned to the Viennese optician, Johann Friedrich Voigtländer (1779-1859); but the credit of having placed these instruments on the market probably belongs to J.P. Lemière in Paris, who, in 1825, took out a French patent for an improvement of the Dutch double telescope. Lemière’s instruments were furnished with a common focusing arrangement, and the adapting to the inter-pupillary distance was effected by turning the two parallel telescopes round their common axis. The development of this instrument was studied by opticians for the remainder of the first half of the 19th century; the last improvement apparently was made by P.G. Bardou in 1854, and by H. Helmholtz in 1857 when he described the telestereoscope (fig. 2) with telescopic magnification. By utilizing the telescope with prism-inversion, devised in 1851 by Ignazio Porro (1795-1875), A.A. Boulanger succeeded in producing a binocular of an entirely new type in 1859 (fig. 3). But he overlooked the possibility of increasing the distance between the objectives; Camille Nachet introduced this improvement in 1875, but his instruments did not meet with much popularity. This was probably due to the fact that, at this time, the manufacture of the glass for the prisms was too difficult; this was overcome by E. Abbe, after the founding of the glass-works at Jena, who effected, independently of his predecessors, the wider separation of the objectives (fig. 4), and increased it in the telestereoscope (fig. 5), or relief telescope, in a manner nearly approaching to Helmholtz’s proposal.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.	Fig. 4.

The first binocular microscope was invented by the previously mentioned Father Chérubin, whose instrument consisted of two inverting systems, and consequently gave a totally wrong impression of depth, i.e. depressions appeared as elevations, Microscope. and vice versa, or, as we must say after Charles Wheatstone, it presented a pseudoscopic impression; this quality, however, was not recognized by the microscopists of the time. The instrument subsequently fell into complete neglect for nearly two centuries, to be revived in 1852 by Charles Wheatstone, who has stated that he had previously studied the problem; the publication of his views in his second great paper “On Binocular Vision,”2 in the Phil. Trans. for 1852, undoubtedly stimulated the investigation of this instrument, which was carried on with zeal and success more especially in England and the United States. In 1853 the American J.L. Riddell (1807-1867) devised his binocular microscope, which contained the essentials of Wheatstone’s pseudoscope. F.H. Wenham, another constructor, did not at first succeed in avoiding the pseudoscopic effect, but, by the application of refracting dividing prisms, he subsequently arrived at orthoscopic representations and continued the development of the different methods for producing micro-photographic stereograms; this was effected in the first case by placing a diaphragm over one half of the objective for each exposure, and in the second case by a suitable direction of the illuminating pencil (fig. 6). Of greater benefit, however, for stimulating interest in binocular microscopes, was his invention of reflecting dividing prisms (fig. 7). Other experiments, begun by Powell and Lealand, and developed with greater skill by Wenham, were concerned with the binocular vision of identical images. Such an impression could not possibly be stereoscopic, and these experiments led to the construction of a non-stereoscopic binocular microscope. Of the other workers in this field mention may be made 951 of Alfred Nachet, who in 1853, and subsequently in 1863, brought forward two forms of binocular microscope.

Fig. 5.

The earliest stages of the development of the binocular microscope had been always confined to those instruments with one objective, in the immediate neighbourhood of which the systems for dividing the pencil were placed. At a later date attempts were made to separate the two halves of the objective by modifying the eye-piece; this led to the construction of stereoscopic eye-pieces, initiated by R.B. Tolles, E. Abbe and A. Prazmowski. Of special importance is the work of Abbe; although, as he himself has stated, his methods accidentally led to the Wenham system, he certainly was far above his predecessors in his theoretical treatment of the problem, and in the perspicuity and clearness of his explanation. To him is also due the re-establishment of the instruments, which Wenham had abandoned by reason of too great technical difficulties (fig. 8). The newest form of the binocular microscope is very similar to the oldest form in which two completely separated tubes were employed. The inventor, H.S. Greenough, employs two systems for setting up the image, in order to avoid the pseudoscopic effect. After experiments in the Zeiss works, the erecting of Porro’s prisms simultaneously permitted a convenient adaptation to the eye-distance of the observer.

Fig. 6.	Fig. 7.	Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

The first binocular magnifying glass or simple microscope (German, Lupe) was devised by J.L. Riddell in 1853; in this instrument (fig. 9) the pencil of light is transmitted to the eyes by means of two pairs of parallel mirrors. Simple microscope. Of the many different improvements mention may be made of A. Nachet’s. H. Westien made use of two Chevalier-Brücke’s simple microscopes with their long working distances in order to form an instrument in which the curvature of the image was not entirely avoided. Mention may also be made of the binoculars of K. Fritzsch (formerly Prokesch) and E. Berger.

Binocular Instruments for Range-finding.—For measuring purposes binocular telescopes with parallel axes are the only types employed. The measurement is effected by adjoining to the space or interval to be measured some means of measurement defined; for example, by a fixed scale which extends into the space, or by a movable point (Wandermarke). This instrument shows a transition to the stereoscope, inasmuch as the scale or means of measurement is not directly observed, but to each eye a plane representation is offered, just as in the stereoscope; the space to be measured, on the other hand, is portrayed in exactly the same way as in the double telescope. The method for superposing the two spaces on one another was deduced by Sir David Brewster in 1856, but he does not appear to have dealt with the problem of range-finding. The problem was attacked in 1861 by A. Rollet; later, in 1866, E. Mach published a promising idea, and finally—independently of the researches of his predecessors—Hektor de Grousilliers, in partnership with the Zeiss firm (E. Abbe and C. Pulfrich), constructed the first stereoscopic range-finder suitable for practical use.

BINOMIAL (from the Lat. bi-, bis, twice, and nomen, a name or term), in mathematics, a word first introduced by Robert Recorde (1557) to denote a quantity composed of the sum or difference to two terms; as a + b, a − b. The terms trinomial, quadrinomial, multinomial, &c., are applied to expressions composed similarly of three, four or many quantities.

The binomial theorem is a celebrated theorem, originally due to Sir Isaac Newton, by which any power of a binomial can be expressed as a series. In its modern form the theorem, which is true for all values of n, is written as

The reader is referred to the article Algebra for the proof and applications of this theorem; here we shall only treat of the history of its discovery.

The original form of the theorem was first given in a letter, dated the 13th of June 1676, from Sir Isaac Newton to Henry Oldenburg for communication to Wilhelm G. Leibnitz, although Newton had discovered it some years previously. Newton there states that

where p + pq is the quantity whose (m/n)th power or root is required, p the first term of that quantity, and q the quotient of the rest divided by p, m/n the power, which may be a positive or negative integer or a fraction, and a, b, c, &c., the several terms in order, e.g.

In a second letter, dated the 24th of October 1676, to Oldenburg, Newton gave the train of reasoning by which he devised the theorem.

The binomial theorem was thus discovered as a development of John Wallis’s investigations in the method of interpolation. Newton gave no proof, and it was in the Ars Conjectandi (1713) that James Bernoulli’s proof for positive integral values of the exponent was first published, although Bernoulli must have discovered it many years previously. A rigorous demonstration was wanting for many years, Leonhard Euler’s proof for negative and fractional values being faulty, and was finally given by Niels Heinrik Abel.

The multi- (or poly-) nomial theorem has for its object the expansion of any power of a multinomial and was discussed in 1697 by Abraham Demoivre (see Combinatorial Analysis).

BINTURONG (Arctictis binturong), the single species of the viverrine genus Arctictis, ranging from Nepal through the Malay Peninsula to Sumatra and Java. This animal, also called the bear-cat, is allied to the palm-civets, or paradoxures, but differs from the rest of the family (Viverridae) by its tufted ears and long, bushy, prehensile tail, which is thick at the root and almost equals in length the head and body together (from 28 to 33 inches). The fur is long and coarse, of a dull black hue with a grey wash on the head and fore-limbs. In habits the binturong is nocturnal and arboreal, inhabiting forests, and living on small vertebrates, worms, insects and fruits. It is said to be naturally fierce, but when taken young is easily tamed and becomes gentle and playful.

BINYON, LAURENCE (1869-  ), English poet, born at Lancaster on the 10th of August 1869, was educated at St Paul’s school, London, and Trinity College, Oxford, where he won the Newdigate prize in 1890 for his Persephone. He entered the department of printed books at the British Museum in 1893, and was transferred to the department of prints and drawings in 1895, the Catalogue of English Drawings in the British Museum (1898, &c.) being by him. As a poet he is represented by Lyric Poems (1894), Poems (Oxford, 1895), London Visions (2 vols., 1895-1898), The Praise of Life (1896), Porphyrion and other Poems (1898), Odes (1900), The Death of Adam (1903), Penthesilea (1903), Dream come true (1905), Paris and Oenone (1906), a one-act tragedy, and Attila, a poetical drama (1907); as an art critic by monographs on the 17th-century Dutch etchers, on John Crome and John Sell Cotman, contributed to the Portfolio, &c. In 1906 he published the first volume of a series of reproductions from William Blake, with a critical introduction.

BIO-BIO, a river of southern Chile, rising in the Pino Hachado pass across the Andes, 38° 45′ S. lat., and flowing in a general north-westerly direction to the Pacific at Concepción, where it is 2 m. wide and forms an excellent harbour. It has a total length of about 225 m., nearly one half of which is navigable.

BIO-BIO, an inland province of southern Chile, bounded N., W. and S. respectively by the provinces of Concepción, Arauco and Malleco, and E. by Argentina. It has an area of 5246 sq. m. of well-wooded and mountainous country, and exports timber to a large extent. The great trunk railway from Santiago S. to Puerto Montt crosses the western part of the province and also connects it with the port of Concepción. The capital, Los Angeles (est. pop. 7777 in 1902) lies 15½ m. E. of this railway and is connected with it by a branch line.

BIOGENESIS (from the Gr. βίος, life, and γένεσις, generation, birth), a biological term for the theory according to which each living organism, however simple, arises by a process of budding, fission, spore-formation of sexual reproduction from a parent organism. Under the heading of Abiogenesis (q.v.) is discussed the series of steps by which the modern acceptance of biogenesis and rejection of abiogenesis has been brought about. No biological generalization rests on a wider series of observations, or has been subjected to a more critical scrutiny than that every living organism has come into existence from a living portion or portions of a pre-existing organism. In the articles Reproduction and Heredity the details of the relations between parent and offspring are discussed. There remains for treatment here a curious collateral issue of the theory. It is within common observation that parent and offspring are alike: that the new organism resembles that from which it has come into existence: in fine, biogenesis is homogenesis. Every organism takes origin from a parent organism of the same kind. The conception of homogenesis, however, does not imply an absolute similarity between parent and organism. In the first place, the normal life-cycle of plants and animals exhibits what is known as alternation of generations, so that any individual in the chain may resemble its grand-parent and its grand-child, and differ markedly from its parent and child. Next, any organism may pass through a series of free-living larval stages, so that the new organism at first resembles its parent only very remotely, corresponding to an early stage in the life-history of that parent. (See Embryology, Larval Forms and Reproduction.) Finally, the conception of homogenesis does not exclude the differences between parent and offspring that continually occur, forming the material for the slow alteration of stocks in the course of evolution (see Variation and Selection). Homogenesis means simply that such organism comes into existence directly from a parent organism of the same race, and hence of the same species, sub-species, genus and so forth.

From time to time there have been observers who have maintained a belief in the opposite theory, to which the name heterogenesis has been given. According to the latter theory, the offspring of a given organism may be utterly different from itself, so that a known animal may give rise to another known animal of a different race, species, genus, or even family, or to a plant, or vice versa. The most extreme cases of this belief is the well-known fable of the “barnacle-geese,” an illustrated account of which was printed in an early volume of the Royal Society of London. Buds of a particular tree growing near the sea were described as producing barnacles, and these, falling into the water, were supposed to develop into geese. The whole story was an imaginary embroidery of the facts that barnacles attach themselves to submerged timber and that a species of goose is known as the bernicle goose. In modern times the exponents of heterogenesis have limited themselves to cases of microscopic animals and plants, and in most cases, the observations that they have brought forward have been explained by minuter observation as cases of parasitism. No serious observer, acquainted with modern microscopic technical methods, has been able to confirm the explanation of their observations given by the few modern believers in heterogenesis.

BIOGRAPHY (from the Gr. βίος, life, and γράφη, writing), that form of history which is applied, not to races or masses of men, but to an individual. The earliest use of the word βιογραφία is attributed to Damascius, a Greek writer of the beginning of the 6th century, and in Latin biographia was used, but in English no earlier employment of the word, “biography” has been traced than that of Dryden in 1683, who uses it to describe the literary work of Plutarch, “the history of particular men’s lives.” It is obvious that this definition is necessary, for biography is not the record of “life” in general, but of the life of a single person. The idea of the distinction between this and history is a modern thing; we speak of “antique biography,” but it is doubtful whether any writer of antiquity, even Plutarch, clearly perceived its possible existence as an independent branch of literature. All of them, and Plutarch certainly, considered the writing of a man’s life as an opportunity for celebrating, in his person, certain definite moral qualities. It was in these, and not in the individual characteristics of the man, that his interest as a subject of biography resided.

The true conception of biography, therefore, as the faithful portrait of a soul in its adventures through life, is very modern. 953 We may question whether it existed, save in rare and accidental instances, until the 17th century. The personage described was, in earlier times, treated either from the philosophical or from the historical point of view. In the former case, rhetoric inevitably clouded the definiteness of the picture; the object was to produce a grandiose moral effect, to clothe the subject with all the virtues or with all the vices; to make his career a splendid example or else a solemn warning. The consequence is that we have to piece together unconsidered incidents and the accidental record of features in order to obtain an approximate estimate. We may believe, for instance, that a faithful and unprejudiced study of the emperor Julian, from the life, would be a very different thing from the impression left upon us by the passions of Cyril or of Theodoret. In considering what biography, in its pure sense, ought to be, we must insist on what it is not. It is not a philosophical treatise nor a polemical pamphlet. It is not, even, a portion of the human contemporary chronicle. Broad views are entirely out of place in biography, and there is perhaps no greater literary mistake than to attempt what is called the “Life and Times” of a man. In an adequate record of the “times,” the man is bound to sink into significance; even a “Life and Times” of Napoleon I. would be an impossible task. History deals with fragments of the vast roll of events; it must always begin abruptly and close in the middle of affairs; it must always deal, impartially, with a vast number of persons. Biography is a study sharply defined by two definite events, birth and death. It fills its canvas with one figure, and other personages, however great in themselves, must always be subsidiary to the central hero. The only remnant of the old rhetorical purpose of “lives” which clearer modern purpose can afford to retain is the relative light thrown on military or intellectual or social genius by the achievements of the selected subject. Even this must be watched with great care, lest the desire to illuminate that genius, and make it consistent, should lead the biographer to glose over frailties or obscure irregularities. In the old “lives” of great men, this is precisely what was done. If the facts did not lend themselves to the great initial thesis, so much the worse for them. They must be ignored or falsified, since the whole object of the work was to “teach a lesson,” to magnify a certain tendency of conduct. It was very difficult to persuade the literary world that, whatever biography is, it is not an opportunity for panegyric or invective, and the lack of this perception destroys our faith in most of the records of personal life in ancient and medieval times. It is impossible to avoid suspecting that Suetonius loaded his canvas with black in order to excite hatred against the Roman emperors; it is still more difficult to accept more than one page in three of the stories of the professional hagiographers. As long as it was a pious merit to deform the truth, biography could not hope to flourish. It appears to have originally asserted itself when the primitive instinct of sympathy began to have free play, that is to say, not much or often before the 17th century. Moreover, the peculiar curiosity which legitimate biography satisfies is essentially a modern thing; and presupposes our observation of life not unduly clouded by moral passion or prejudice.

Among the ancients, biography was not specifically cultivated until comparatively later times. The lost “Lives” of Critias were probably political pamphlets. We meet first with deliberate biography in Xenophon’s memoirs of Socrates, a work of epoch-making value. Towards the close of the 1st century, Plutarch wrote one of the most fascinating books in the world’s literature, his Parallel Lives of 46 Greeks and Romans. In later Greek, the Life of Apollonius of Tyana was written by Philostratus, who also produced a Lives of the Sophists. In the 3rd century, Diogenes Laertius compiled a Lives of the Philosophers, which is of greater interest than a Lives of the Sophists composed a hundred years later by Eunapius. Finally in the 10th century, Suidas added a biographical section to his celebrated Lexicon. In Latin literature, the earliest biography we meet with is the fragment of the Illustrious Men of Cornelius Nepos. Memoirs began to be largely written at the close of the Augustan age, but these, like the Life of Alexander the Great, by Q. Curtius Rufus, were rather historical than biographical. Tacitus composed a life of his father-in-law, Agricola; this is a work of the most elegant and stately beauty. Suetonius was the author of several biographical compilations, of which the Lives of the Twelve Caesars is the best-known; this was produced in the year 120. Marius Maximus, in the 4th century, continued the series of emperors down to Heliogabalus, but his work has not been preserved. The Augustan History, finished under Constantine, takes its place, and was concluded and edited by Flavius Vopiscus.

Biography hardly begins to exist in English literature until the close of the reign of Henry VIII. William Roper (1496-1578) wrote a touching life of his father-in-law, Sir Thomas More, and George Cavendish (1500-1561?), a memoir of Cardinal Wolsey which is a masterpiece of liveliness and grace. It is with these two works, both of which remained in manuscript until the 17th century, that biography in England begins. The lives of English writers compiled by John Bale (1495-1563) are much more primitive and slight. John Leland (d. 1552) and John Pits (1560-1616) were antiquaries who affected a species of biography. In the early part of the 17th century, the absence of the habit of memoir writing extremely impoverishes our knowledge of the illustrious authors of the age, of none of whom there are preserved such records as our curiosity would delight in. The absence of any such chronicle was felt, and two writers, Thomas Heywood and Sir Aston Cokayne, proposed to write lives of the poets of their time. Unfortunately they never carried their plans into execution. The pioneer of deliberate English biography was Izaak Walton, who, in 1640, published a Life of Donne, followed in 1651 by that of Sir Henry Wotton, in 1665 by that of Richard Hooker, in 1670 by that of George Herbert, and in 1678 by that of Dr Robert Saunderson. These five reprinted, under the title of Walton’s Lives, were not only charming in themselves, but the forerunners of a whole class of English literature. Meanwhile, Fuller was preparing his History of the Worthies of England, which appeared after his death, in 1662, and John Aubrey (1626-1697) was compiling his Minutes of Lives, which show such a perfect comprehension of the personal element that should underlie biography; these have only in our own days been completely given to the public. Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1583-1648), wrote a brilliant autobiography, first printed in 1764; that of Anne Harrison, Lady Fanshawe (1625-1680), remained unknown until 1829. A very curious essay in biography is the memoir of Colonel John Hutchinson, written by his widow, Lucy, between 1664 and 1671. Margaret Lucas, duchess of Newcastle (1624?-1674), wrote her own life (1656) and that of her duke (1667). The Athenae Oxonienses of Anthony à Wood (1632-1695) was a complicated celebration of the wit, wisdom and learning of Oxford notabilities since the Reformation. In 1668 Thomas Sprat (1635-1713) wrote a Life of Cowley, which was very much admired and which exercised for many years a baneful influence on British biography. Sprat considered that all familiar anecdote and picturesque detail should be omitted in the composition of a memoir, and that moral effect and a solemn vagueness should be aimed at. The celebrated funeral orations of Jeremy Taylor were of the same order of eloquence, and the wind of those grandiose compositions destroyed the young shoot of genuine and simple biography which had budded in Walton and Aubrey.

From this time forth, for more than half a century, English biography became a highly artificial and rhetorical thing, lacking all the salient features of honest portraiture. William Oldys (1696-1761) was the first to speak out boldly; in 1747, in the preface to the Biographia Britannica, he pointed out “the cruelty, we might even say the impiety, of sacrificing the glory of great characters to trivial circumstances and mere conveniency,” and attacked the timid and scrupulous superficiality of those who undertook to write lives of eminent men, while omitting everything which gave definition to the portrait. In 1753 the Lives of the Poets, which bore the name of Theophilus Cibber (1703-1758), but was mainly written by Robert Shiels 954 (d. 1753), gave a great deal of valuable information with regard to the personal adventures of our writers. Dr Johnson’s Life of Savage (1744), though containing some passages of extreme interest, was a work of imperfect form, but Mason’s Life and Letters of Gray (1774) marks a great advance in the art of biography. This was the earliest memoir in which correspondence of a familiar kind was used to illustrate and to expand the narrative, and Mason’s Gray is really the pioneer of almost all modern English biography. For the first time it was now admitted that letters to intimate friends, not written with a view to publication, might be used with advantage to illustrate the real character of the writer. Boswell, it is certain, availed himself of Mason’s example, while improving upon it, and in 1791 he published his Life of Dr Samuel Johnson, which is the most interesting example of biography existing in English, or perhaps in any language.

As soon as the model of Boswell became familiar to biographers, it could no longer be said that any secret in the art was left unknown to them, and the biographies of the 19th century are all more or less founded upon the magnificent type of the Life of Johnson. But few have even approached it in courage, picturesqueness or mastery of portraiture. In the next generation Southey’s lives of Nelson (1813) and John Wesley (1820) at once became classics; but the pre-eminent specimen of early 19-century biography is Lockhart’s superb Life of Sir Walter Scott (1837-1838). The biographies of the 19th century are far too numerous to be mentioned here in detail; in the various articles dedicated to particular men and women in this Encyclopaedia, the date and authorship of the authoritative life of each person will in most cases be found appended. Towards the close of the century there was unquestionably an excess, and even an abuse, in the habit of biography. It became the custom a few years or even months after the decease of an individual who had occupied a passing place in the eyes of the public, to issue a “Life” of him; in many cases such biography was a labour of utter supererogation. But the custom has become general, and it is very unlikely, notwithstanding the ephemeral interest of readers in the majority of the subjects, that it will ever go out of fashion, for it directly indulges both vanity and sentiment. What is true of Great Britain is true, though in less measure, of all other modern nations, and it is not necessary here to deal with more than the early manifestations of biography in the principal European literatures.

To Switzerland appears due the honour of having given birth to the earliest biographical dictionary ever compiled, the Bibliotheca Universalis of Konrad Gesner (1516-1565), published at Zürich in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, from 1545 to 1549. A very rare work, by a writer of the greatest obscurity, the Prosopographia of Verdier de Vauprivas, published at Lyons in 1573, professed to deal with the lives of all illustrious persons who had flourished since the beginning of the world.

In medieval and renaissance France there existed numerous memoirs and histories, such as those of Brantôme, into which the lives of great men were inserted, and in which a biographical character was given to studies of virtue and valour, or of the reverse. But the honour of being the earliest deliberate contribution to biography is generally given to the Acta Sanctorum, compiled by the Bollandists, the first volume of which appeared in 1653. This was the first biographical dictionary compiled in Europe, and its publication produced a great sensation. It was confined to the lives of saints and martyrs, but in 1674 Louis Moréri, in his Grand Dictionnaire, included a biographical section of a general character. But the earliest biographical dictionary which had anything of a modern form was the celebrated Dictionnaire historique et critique of Pierre Bayle, in 1696; the lives in this great work, however, are too often used as mere excuses for developing the philosophical and controversial views of the author; they are nevertheless the result of genuine research and have a true biographical view. The Dictionnaire was translated into English in 1734, and had a wide influence in creating a legitimate interest in biography in England.

In Italian literature, biography does not take a prominent place until the 15th century. The Lives of Illustrious Florentines, in which a valuable memoir of Dante occurs, was written in Latin by Filippo Villani. Vespasiano da Bistrici (1421-1498) compiled a set of biographies of his contemporaries, which are excellent of their kind. The so-called Life of Castruccio Castracani, by Machiavelli, is hardly a biography, but a brilliant essay on the ideals of statecraft. Paolo Giovio (1483-1552) wrote the lives of poets and soldiers whom he had known. All these attempts, however, seem insignificant by the side of the autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini (1501-1571), confessedly one of the most entertaining works of the world’s literature. A great deal of biography is scattered throughout the historical compilations of the Italian renaissance, and the Lives of the Artists, by Giorgio Vasari (1512-1574), is a storehouse of anecdotes admirably told. We find nothing else that requires special mention till we reach the memoir-writers of the 18th century, with the autobiographies of Count Carlo Gozzi and Alfieri; and on the whole, Italy, although adopting in the 19th century the habit of biography, has rarely excelled in it.

In Spanish literature Fernán Pérez de Guzmán (1378-1460), with great originality, enshrined, in his Generations and Likenesses, a series of admirable literary portraits; he has been called the Plutarch of Spain. But, in spite of numerous lives of saints, poets and soldiers, Spanish literature has not excelled in biography, nor has it produced a single work of this class which is universally read. In Germany there is little to record before the close of the 18th century.

In the course of the 19th century a new thing in biography was invented, in the shape of dictionaries of national biography. Of these, the first which was carried to a successful conclusion was the Swedish (1835-1857), which occupied 23 volumes. This dictionary was followed by the Dutch (1852-1878), in 24 volumes; the Austrian (1856-1891), in 35 volumes; the Belgian (which was begun in 1866); the German (1875-1900), in 45 volumes; and others, representing nearly all the countries of Europe. England was behind the competitors named above, but when she joined the ranks a work was produced the value of which can hardly be exaggerated. The project was started in 1882 by the publisher George Smith (1824-1901), who consulted Mr (afterwards Sir) Leslie Stephen. The first volume of the English Dictionary of National Biography was published on the 1st of January 1885, under Stephen’s editorship. A volume was published quarterly, with complete punctuality until Midsummer 1900, when volume 63 closed the work, which was presently extended by the issue of three supplementary volumes. In May 1891 Leslie Stephen resigned the editorship and was succeeded by Mr Sidney Lee, who conducted the work to its prosperous close, bringing it up to the death of Queen Victoria. The Dictionary of National Biography contains the lives of more than 30,000 persons, and has proved of inestimable service in elucidating the private annals of the British people.

BIOLOGY (Gr. βίος, life). The biological sciences are those which deal with the phenomena manifested by living matter; and though it is customary and convenient to group apart such of these phenomena as are termed mental, and such of them as are exhibited by men in society, under the heads of psychology and sociology, yet it must be allowed that no natural boundary separates the subject matter of the latter sciences from that of biology. Psychology is inseparably linked with physiology; and the phases of social life exhibited by animals other than man, which sometimes curiously foreshadow human policy, fall strictly within the province of the biologist.

On the other hand, the biological sciences are sharply marked off from the abiological, or those which treat of the phenomena manifested by not-living matter, in so far as the properties of living matter distinguish it absolutely from all other kinds of things, and as the present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living.

955

These distinctive properties of living matter are—

1. Its chemical composition—containing, as it invariably does, one or more forms of a complex compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, the so-called protein or albumin (which has never yet been obtained except as a product The properties of living matter. of living bodies), united with a large proportion of water, and forming the chief constituent of a substance which, in its primary unmodified state, is known as protoplasm.

2. Its universal disintegration and waste by oxidation; and its concomitant reintegration by the intussusception of new matter.

A process of waste resulting from the decomposition of the molecules of the protoplasm, in virtue of which they break up into more highly oxidated products, which cease to form any part of the living body, is a constant concomitant of life. There is reason to believe that carbonic acid is always one of these waste products, while the others contain the remainder of the carbon, the nitrogen, the hydrogen and the other elements which may enter into the composition of the protoplasm.

The new matter taken in to make good this constant loss is either a ready-formed protoplasmic material, supplied by some other living being, or it consists of the elements of protoplasm, united together in simpler combinations, which consequently have to be built up into protoplasm by the agency of the living matter itself. In either case, the addition of molecules to those which already existed takes place, not at the surface of the living mass, but by interposition between the existing molecules of the latter. If the processes of disintegration and of reconstruction which characterize life balance one another, the size of the mass of living matter remains stationary, while, if the reconstructive process is the more rapid, the living body grows. But the increase of size which constitutes growth is the result of a process of molecular intussusception, and therefore differs altogether from the process of growth by accretion, which may be observed in crystals and is effected purely by the external addition of new matter—so that, in the well-known aphorism of Linnaeus, the word “grow” as applied to stones signifies a totally different process from what is called “growth” in plants and animals.

3. Its tendency to undergo cyclical changes.

In the ordinary course of nature, all living matter proceeds from pre-existing living matter, a portion of the latter being detached and acquiring an independent existence. The new form takes on the characters of that from which it arose; exhibits the same power of propagating itself by means of an offshoot; and, sooner or later, like its predecessor, ceases to live, and is resolved into more highly oxidated compounds of its elements.

Thus an individual living body is not only constantly changing its substance, but its size and form are undergoing continual modifications, the end of which is the death and decay of that individual; the continuation of the kind being secured by the detachment of portions which tend to run through the same cycle of forms as the parent. No forms of matter which are either not living, or have not been derived from living matter, exhibit these three properties, nor any approach to the remarkable phenomena defined under the second and third heads. But in addition to these distinctive characters, living matter has some other peculiarities, the chief of which are the dependence of all its activities upon moisture and upon heat, within a limited range of temperature, and the fact that it usually possesses a certain structure or organization.

As has been said, a large proportion of water enters into the composition of all living matter; a certain amount of drying arrests vital activity, and the complete abstraction of this water is absolutely incompatible with either Life conditioned by moisture. actual or potential life. But many of the simpler forms of life may undergo desiccation to such an extent as to arrest their vital manifestations and convert them into the semblance of not-living matter, and yet remain potentially alive. That is to say, on being duly moistened they return to life again. And this revivification may take place after months, or even years, of arrested life.

The properties of living matter are intimately related to temperature. Not only does exposure to heat sufficient to coagulate protein matter destroy life, by demolishing the molecular structure upon which life depends; but Life conditioned by temperature. all vital activity, all phenomena of nutritive growth, movement and reproduction are possible only between certain limits of temperature. These limits may be set down as from a little above the freezing point of water to a little below the boiling point It is to be noted, however, that these limits apply to the living matter itself, and many of the apparent exceptions are due to cases in which the living matter is enclosed in protective wrappings capable of resisting heat and cold. In many low organisms, such as the spores of bacteria, the thick, non-conducting wall may preserve the living protoplasm from subjection to external temperatures below freezing point, or above boiling point, but all the evidence goes to show that applications of such cold or heat, if prolonged or arranged so as to penetrate to the living matter, destroy life. In warm-blooded animals, such as birds and mammals, protective mechanisms for the regulation of temperature enable them to endure exposure to extreme heat or cold, but in such cases the actually living cells do not appreciably rise or fall in temperature. A variation of a very few degrees in the blood itself produces death.

Recent investigations point to the conclusion that the immediate cause of the arrest of vitality, in the first place, and of its destruction, in the second, is the coagulation of certain substances in the protoplasm, and that the latter contains various coagulable matters, which solidify at different temperatures. And it remains to be seen, how far the death of any form of living matter, at a given temperature, depends on the destruction of its fundamental substance at that heat, and how far death is brought about by the coagulation of merely accessory compounds.

It may be safely said of all those living things which are large enough to enable us to trust the evidence of microscopes, that they are heterogeneous optically, and that their different parts, and especially the surface layer, as Life and organization. contrasted with the interior, differ physically and chemically; while, in most living things, mere heterogeneity is exchanged for a definite structure, whereby the body is distinguished into visibly different parts, which possess different powers or functions. Living things which present this visible structure are said to be organized; and so widely does organization obtain among living beings, that organized and living are not unfrequently used as if they were terms of co-extensive applicability. This, however, is not exactly accurate, if it be thereby implied that all living things have a visible organization, as there are numerous forms of living matter of which it cannot properly be said that they possess either a definite structure or permanently specialized organs: though, doubtless, the simplest particle of living matter must possess a highly complex molecular structure, which is far beyond the reach of vision.

The broad distinctions which, as a matter of fact, exist between every known form of living substance and every other component of the material world, justify the separation of the biological sciences from all others. But it must not be supposed that the differences between living and not-living matter are such as to justify the assumption that the forces at work in the one are different from those which are to be met with in the other. Considered apart from the phenomena of consciousness, the phenomena of life are all dependent upon the working of the same physical and chemical forces as those which are active in the rest of the world. It may be convenient to use the terms “vitality” and “vital force” to denote the causes of certain great groups of natural operations, as we employ the names of “electricity” and “electrical force” to denote others; but it ceases to be proper to do so, if such a name implies the absurd assumption that “electricity” and “vitality” are entities playing the part of efficient causes of electrical or vital phenomena. A mass of living protoplasm is simply a molecular machine of great complexity, the total results of the working of which, or its vital phenomena, depend—on the one hand, 956 upon its construction, and, on the other, upon the energy supplied to it; and to speak of “vitality” as anything but the name of a series of operations is as if one should talk of the “horologity” of a clock.

Living matter, or protoplasm and the products of its metamorphosis, Classification of the phenomena of life. may be regarded under four aspects:—

1. It has a certain external and internal form, the latter being more usually called structure;

2. It occupies a certain position in space and in time;

3. It is the subject of the operation of certain forces in virtue of which it undergoes internal changes, modifies external objects, and is modified by them; and

4. Its form, place and powers are the effects of certain causes.

In correspondence with these four aspects of its subject, biology is logically divisible into four chief subdivisions—I. Morphology; II. Distribution; III. Physiology; IV. Aetiology.

Various accidental circumstances, however, have brought it about that the actual distribution of scientific work does not correspond with the logical subdivisions of biology. The difference in technical methods and the historical evolution of teaching posts (for in all civilized countries the progress of biological knowledge has been very closely associated with the existence of institutions for the diffusion of knowledge and for professional education) have been the chief contributory causes to this practical confusion. Details of the morphology of plants will be found in the articles relating to the chief groups of plants, those of animals in the corresponding articles on groups of animals, while the classification of animals adopted in this work will be found in the article Zoology. Distribution is treated of under Zoological Distribution, Plankton, Palaeontology and Plants: Distribution. Physiology and its allied articles deal with the subject generally and in relation to man, while the special physiology of plants is dealt with in a section of the article Plants. Aetiology is treated of under the heading Evolution. But practical necessity has given rise to the existence of many other divisions; see Cytology, for the structure of cells; Embryology, for the development of individual organisms; Heredity and Reproduction, for the relations between parents and offspring.

BION, Greek bucolic poet, was born at Phlossa near Smyrna, and flourished about 100 B.C. The account formerly given of him, that he was the contemporary and imitator of Theocritus, the friend and tutor of Moschus, and lived about 280 B.C., is now generally regarded as incorrect. W. Stein (De Moschi et Bionis aetate, Tübingen, 1893) puts Bion, chiefly on metrical grounds, in the first half of the 1st century B.C. Nothing is known of him except that he lived in Sicily. The story that he died of poison, administered to him by some jealous rivals, who afterwards suffered the penalty of their crime, is probably only an invention of the author of the Ἐπιτάφιος Βίωνος (see Moschus). Although his poems are included in the general class of bucolic poetry, the remains show little of the vigour and truthfulness to nature characteristic of Theocritus. They breathe an exaggerated sentimentality, and show traces of the overstrained reflection frequently observable in later developments of pastoral poetry. The longest and best of them is the Lament for Adonis (Ἐπιτάφιος Ἀδώνιδος). It refers to the first day of the festival of Adonis (q.v.), on which the death of the favourite of Aphrodite was lamented, thus forming an introduction to the Adoniazusae of Theocritus, the subject of which is the second day, when the reunion of Adonis and Aphrodite was celebrated. Fragments of his other pieces are preserved in Stobaeus; the epithalamium of Achilles and Deidameia is not his.

BION, of Borysthenes (Olbia), in Sarmatia, Greek moralist and philosopher, flourished in the first half of the 3rd century B.C. He was of low origin, his mother being a courtesan and his father a dealer in salt fish, with which he combined the occupation of smuggling. Bion, when a young man, was sold as a slave to a rhetorician, who gave him his freedom and made him his heir. After the death of his patron, Bion went to Athens to study philosophy. Here he attached himself in succession to the Academy, the Cynics, the Cyrenaics and the Peripatetics. One of his teachers was the Cyrenaic Theodorus, called “the atheist,” whose influence is clearly shown in Bion’s attitude towards the gods. After the manner of the sophists of the period, Bion travelled through Greece and Macedonia, and was admitted to the literary circle at the court of Antigonus Gonatas. He subsequently taught philosophy at Rhodes and died at Chalcis in Euboea. His life was written by Diogenes Laertius. Bion was essentially a popular writer, and in his Diatribae he satirized the follies of mankind in a manner calculated to appeal to the sympathies of a low-class audience. While eulogizing poverty and philosophy, he attacked the gods, musicians, geometricians, astrologers, and the wealthy, and denied the efficacy of prayer. His influence is distinctly traceable in succeeding writers, e.g. in the satires of Menippus. Horace (Epistles, ii. 2. 60) alludes to his satires and caustic wit (sal nigrum). An idea of his writings can be gathered from the fragments of Teles, a cynic philosopher who lived towards the end of the 3rd century, and who made great use of them. Specimens of his apophthegms may be found in Diogenes Laertius and the florilegium of Stobaeus, while there are traces of his influence in Seneca.

BIOT, JEAN BAPTISTE (1774-1862), French physicist, was born at Paris on the 21st of April 1774. After serving for a short time in the artillery, he was appointed in 1797 professor of mathematics at Beauvais, and in 1800 he became professor of physics at the Collège de France, through the influence of Laplace, from whom he had sought and obtained the favour of reading the proof sheets of the Mécanique céleste. Three years later, at an unusually early age, he was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences, and in 1804 he accompanied Gay Lussac on the first balloon ascent undertaken for scientific purposes. In 1806 he was associated with F.J.D. Arago, with whom he had already carried out investigations on the refractive properties of different gases, in the measurement of an arc of the meridian in Spain, and in subsequent years he was engaged in various other geodetic determinations. In 1814 he was made chevalier and in 1849 commander, of the Legion of Honour. He failed in his ambition of becoming perpetual secretary of the Academy of Sciences, but was somewhat consoled by his election as a member of the French Academy in 1856. He died in Paris on the 3rd of February 1862. His researches extended to almost every branch of physical science, but his most important work was of an optical character. He was especially interested in questions relating to the polarization of light, and his observations in this field, which gained him the Rumford medal of the Royal Society in 1840, laid the foundations of the polarimetric analysis of sugar.

Biot was an extremely prolific writer, and besides a great number of scientific memoirs, biographies, &c., his published works include: Analyse de la mécanique céleste de M. Laplace (1801); Traité analytique des courbes et des surfaces du second degré (1802); Recherches sur l’intégration des équations différentielles partielles et sur les vibrations des surfaces (1803); Traité de physique (1816); Recueil d’observations géodésiques, astronomiques et physiques exécutées en Espagne et Écosse, with Arago (1821); Mémoire sur la vraie constitution de l’atmosphère terrestre (1841); Traité élementaire d’astronomie physique (1805); Recherches sur 957 plusieurs points de l’astronomie égyptienne (1823); Recherches sur l’ancienne astronomie chinoise (1840); Études sur l’astronomie indienne et sur l’astronomie chinoise (1862); Essai sur l’histoire générale des sciences pendant la Révolution (1803); Discours sur Montaigne (1812); Lettres sur l’approvisionnement de Paris et sur le commerce des grains (1835); Mélanges scientifiques et littéraires (1858).

His son, Edouard Constant Biot (1803-1850), after amassing a competence from railway engineering, turned to the study of Chinese subjects, and published Causes de l’abolition de l’esclavage ancien en occident (1840); Dictionnaire des noms anciens et modernes des villes et des arrondissements compris dans l’empire chinois (1842); Essai sur l’histoire de l’instruction publique en Chine et de la corporation des lettres (1847); Mémoire sur les colonies militaires et agricoles des chinois (1850).

BIOTITE, an important rock-forming mineral belonging to the group of micas (q.v.). The name was given by J.F.L. Hausmann in 1847 in honour of the French physicist, J.B. Biot, who in 1816 found the magnesia-micas to be optically uniaxial or nearly so. The magnesia-micas are now referred to the species biotite and phlogopite, which differ in that the former contains a considerable but widely varying amount of iron. Biotite is an orthosilicate of aluminium, magnesium, ferrous and ferric iron, potassium and basic hydrogen, with small amounts of calcium, sodium, lithium, fluorine, titanium, &c., and ranges in composition between (H, K)2(Mg, Fe)4(Al, Fe)2(SiO4)4 and (H, K)2(Mg, Fe)2Al2(SiO4)3.