This is a modern-English version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Anjar" to "Apollo": Volume 2, Slice 2, originally written by Various. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.


Transcriber’s note: Sections in Greek and Hebrew will yield a transliteration when the pointer is moved over them, and words using diacritic characters in the Latin Extended Additional block, which may not display in some fonts or browsers, will display an unaccented version.

Links to other EB articles: Links to articles residing in other EB volumes will be made available when the respective volumes are introduced online.
 

THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

 

VOLUME II SLICE II

Anjar to Apollo


 

Articles in This Slice

Articles in This Section

ANJAR ANTIGONUS GONATAS
ANJOU ANTIGONUS OF CARYSTUS
ANKERITE ANTIGUA
ANKLAM ANTILEGOMENA
ANKLE ANTILIA
ANKOBER ANTILLES
ANKYLOSIS ANTILOCHUS
ANKYLOSTOMIASIS ANTIMACASSAR
ANNA, BALDASARRE ANTIMACHUS
ANNA (Indian penny) ANTI-MASONIC PARTY
ANNA AMALIA ANTIMONY
ANNABERG ANTINOMIANS
ANNABERGITE ANTINOMY
ANNA COMNENA ANTINOÜS
ANNA LEOPOLDOVNA ANTIOCH
ANNALISTS ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA
ANNALS ANTIOCHUS
ANNAM ANTIOCHUS OF ASCALON
ANNAN ANTIOCHUS OF SYRACUSE
ANNA PERENNA ANTIOPE
ANNAPOLIS (Maryland, U.S.A.) ANTIOQUIA
ANNAPOLIS (Nova Scotia) ANTIPAROS
ANN ARBOR ANTIPATER
ANNATES ANTIPHANES
ANNE (queen of Great Britain) ANTIPHILUS
ANNE (empress of Russia) ANTIPHON
ANNE OF BRITTANY ANTIPHONY
ANNE OF CLEVES ANTIPODES
ANNE OF DENMARK ANTIPYRINE
ANNE OF FRANCE ANTIQUARY
ANNEALING, HARDENING AND TEMPERING ANTIQUE
ANNECY ANTI-SEMITISM
ANNELIDA ANTISEPTICS
ANNET, PETER ANTISTHENES
ANNEXATION ANTISTROPHE
ANNICERIS ANTITHESIS
ANNING, MARY ANTITYPE
ANNISTON ANTIUM
ANNO, SAINT ANTIVARI
ANNOBON ANT-LION
ANNONA ANTOFAGASTA
ANNONAY ANTOINE, ANDRÉ
ANNOY ANTONELLI, GIACOMO
ANNUITY ANTONELLO DA MESSINA
ANNULAR, ANNULATE ANTONINI ITINERARIUM
ANNUNCIATION ANTONINUS, SAINT
ANNUNZIO, GABRIELE D’ ANTONINUS LIBERALIS
ANOA ANTONINUS PIUS
ANODYNE ANTONIO
ANOINTING ANTONIO, NICOLAS
ANOMALY ANTONIO DE LEBRIJA
ANORTHITE ANTONIUS
ANQUETIL, LOUIS PIERRE ANTONOMASIA
ANQUETIL, DUPERRON, ABRAHAM HYACINTHE ANTRAIGUES, EMMANUEL HENRI LOUIS ALEXANDRE DE LAUNAY
ANSA ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL
ANSBACH ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL
ANSDELL, RICHARD ANTRIM (county of Ireland)
ANSELM (archbishop) ANTRIM (town of Ireland)
ANSELM (French theologian) ANTRUSTION
ANSELME ANTWERP (province of Belgium)
ANSON, GEORGE ANSON ANTWERP (city of Belgium)
ANSON, SIR WILLIAM REYNELL ANU
ANSONIA ANUBIS
ANSTED, DAVID THOMAS ANURADHAPURA
ANSTEY, CHRISTOPHER ANVIL
ANSTRUTHER ANVILLE, JEAN BAPTISTE BOURGUIGNON D’
ANSWER ANWARI
ANT ANWEILER
ANTAE ANZENGRUBER, LUDWIG
ANTAEUS ANZIN
ANTALCIDAS AONIA
ANTANÀNARÌVO AORIST
‘ANTARA IBN SHADDĀD AOSTA
ANTARCTIC APACHE
ANTEATER APALACHEE
ANTE-CHAPEL APALACHICOLA
ANTE-CHOIR APAMEA
ANTE-FIXAE APARRI
ANTELOPE APATITE
ANTEMNAE APATURIA
ANTENOR (Athenian sculptor) APE
ANTENOR (Trojan elder) APELDOORN
ANTEQUERA APELLA
ANTEROS APELLES
ANTHELION APELLICON
ANTHEM APENNINES
ANTHEMION APENRADE
ANTHEMIUS APERTURE
ANTHESTERIA APEX
ANTHIM THE IBERIAN APHANITE
ANTHOLOGY APHASIA
ANTHON, CHARLES APHELION
ANTHONY, SAINT APHEMIA
ANTHONY OF PADUA, SAINT APHIDES
ANTHONY, SUSAN BROWNELL APHORISM
ANTHOZOA APHRAATES
ANTHRACENE APHRODITE
ANTHRACITE APHTHONIUS
ANTHRACOTHERIUM APHTHONIUS, AELIUS FESTUS
ANTHRAQUINONE APICIUS
ANTHRAX APICULTURE
ANTHROPOID APES APION
ANTHROPOLOGY APIS
ANTHROPOMETRY APLITE
ANTHROPOMORPHISM APNOEA
ANTI APOCALYPSE
ANTIBES APOCALYPSE, KNIGHTS OF THE
ANTICHRIST APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
ANTICLIMAX APOCATASTASIS
ANTICOSTI APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE
ANTICYCLONE APODICTIC
ANTICYRA APOLDA
ANTIETAM APOLLINARIS
ANTI-FEDERALISTS APOLLINARIS, SULPICIUS
ANTIGO APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS, CAIUS SOLLIUS
ANTIGONE APOLLO
ANTIGONUS CYCLOPS  

55

55

ANJAR, a fortified town of India, and the capital of a district of the same name in the native state of Cutch, in the presidency of Bombay. The country is dry and sandy, and entirely depends on well irrigation for its water supply. The town is situated nearly 10 miles from the Gulf of Cutch. It suffered severely from an earthquake in 1819, which destroyed a large number of houses, and occasioned the loss of several lives. In 1901 the population was 18,014. The town and district of Anjar were both ceded to the British in 1816, but in 1822 they were again transferred to the Cutch government in consideration of an annual money payment. Subsequently it was discovered that this obligation pressed heavily upon the resources of the native state, and in 1832 the pecuniary equivalent for Anjar, both prospectively and inclusive of the arrears which had accrued to that date, was wholly remitted by the British government.

ANJAR, is a fortified town in India and the capital of a district with the same name in the native state of Kutch, located in the presidency of Bombay. The area is dry and sandy, relying entirely on well irrigation for its water supply. The town is situated about 10 miles from the Gulf of Kutch. It was heavily affected by an earthquake in 1819, which destroyed many homes and caused several fatalities. In 1901, the population was 18,014. The town and district of Anjar were handed over to the British in 1816, but in 1822 they were transferred back to the Kutch government in exchange for an annual payment. Later, it was found that this financial obligation was burdensome for the native state, and in 1832, the British government completely canceled the financial equivalent for Anjar, including any arrears that had accumulated up to that point.


ANJOU, the old name of a French territory, the political origin of which is traced to the ancient Gallic state of the Andes, on the lines of which was organized, after the conquest by Julius Caesar, the Roman civitas of the Andecavi. This was afterwards preserved as an administrative district under the Franks with the name first of pagus, then of comitatus, or countship of Anjou. This countship, the extent of which seems to have been practically identical with that of the ecclesiastical diocese of Angers, occupied the greater part of what is now the department of Maine-et-Loire, further embracing, to the north, Craon, Bazouges (Château-Gontier), Le Lude, and to the east, Château-la-Vallière and Bourgueil, while to the south, on the other hand, it included neither the present town of Montreuil-Bellay, nor Vihiers, Cholet, Beaupréau, nor the whole district lying to the west of the Ironne and Thouet, on the left bank of 56 the Loire, which formed the territory of the Mauges. It was bounded on the north by the countship of Maine, on the east by that of Touraine, on the south by that of Poitiers and by the Mauges, on the west by the countship of Nantes.

ANJOU, is the old name of a French region with its political roots traced back to the ancient Gallic state of the Andes. Following Julius Caesar's conquest, the Roman civitas of the Andecavi was established along similar lines. This area later became an administrative district under the Franks, initially referred to as pagus and then as the comitatus, or countship, of Anjou. The extent of this countship appears to align almost perfectly with that of the ecclesiastical diocese of Angers, covering most of what is now the department of Maine-et-Loire. To the north, it included Craon, Bazouges (Château-Gontier), and Le Lude; to the east, it encompassed Château-la-Vallière and Bourgueil. However, it did not include the present town of Montreuil-Bellay, nor Vihiers, Cholet, Beaupréau, or the entire area west of the Ironne and Thouet rivers on the left bank of the Loire, which comprised the territory of the Mauges. The countship was bordered on the north by the countship of Maine, on the east by Touraine, on the south by Poitiers and the Mauges, and on the west by the countship of Nantes.

From the outset of the reign of Charles the Bald, the integrity of Anjou was seriously menaced by a two-fold danger: from Brittany and from Normandy. Lambert, a former count of Nantes, after devastating Anjou in concert with Nominoé, duke of Brittany, had by the end of the year 851 succeeded in occupying all the western part as far as the Mayenne. The principality, which he thus carved out for himself, was occupied, on his death, by Erispoé, duke of Brittany; by him it was handed down to his successors, in whose hands it remained till the beginning of the 10th century. All this time the Normans had not ceased ravaging the country; a brave man was needed to defend it, and finally towards 861, Charles the Bald entrusted it to Robert the Strong (q.v.), but he unfortunately met with his death in 866 in a battle against the Normans at Brissarthe. Hugh the Abbot succeeded him in the countship of Anjou as in most of his other duties, and on his death (886) it passed to Odo (q.v.), the eldest son of Robert the Strong, who, on his accession to the throne of France (888), probably handed it over to his brother Robert. In any case, during the last years of the 9th century, in Anjou as elsewhere the power was delegated to a viscount, Fulk the Red (mentioned under this title after 898), son of a certain Ingelgerius.

From the beginning of Charles the Bald's reign, Anjou's integrity faced a serious double threat: from Brittany and Normandy. Lambert, a former count of Nantes, after devastating Anjou alongside Nominoé, the duke of Brittany, managed to occupy all of the western part up to the Mayenne by the end of 851. The principality he created for himself was taken over by Erispoé, the duke of Brittany, after Lambert's death; it was passed down to his successors and remained in their control until the early 10th century. Throughout this time, the Normans continued to ravage the region; a strong leader was needed to defend it. Finally, around 861, Charles the Bald assigned it to Robert the Strong (q.v.), but he tragically lost his life in 866 during a battle against the Normans at Brissarthe. Hugh the Abbot took over the countship of Anjou and most of Robert's other roles, and upon his death in 886, it went to Odo (q.v.), the eldest son of Robert the Strong, who likely handed it over to his brother Robert when he became king of France in 888. In any event, during the final years of the 9th century, power in Anjou, like elsewhere, was delegated to a viscount, Fulk the Red (mentioned under this title after 898), the son of a man named Ingelgerius.

In the second quarter of the 10th century Fulk the Red had already usurped the title of count, which his descendants kept for three centuries. He was succeeded first by his son Fulk II. the Good (941 or 942-c. 960), and then by the son of the latter, Geoffrey I. Grisegonelle (Greytunic) (c. 960-21st of July 987), who inaugurated a policy of expansion, having as its objects the extension of the boundaries of the ancient countship and the reconquest of those parts of it which had been annexed by the neighbouring states; for, though western Anjou had been recovered from the dukes of Brittany since the beginning of the 10th century, in the east all the district of Saumur had already by that time fallen into the hands of the counts of Blois and Tours. Geoffrey Greytunic succeeded in making the count of Nantes his vassal, and in obtaining from the duke of Aquitaine the concession in fief of the district of Loudun. Moreover, in the wars of king Lothaire against the Normans and against the emperor Otto II. he distinguished himself by feats of arms which the epic poets were quick to celebrate. His son Fulk III. Nerra (q.v.) (21st of July 987-21st of June 1040) found himself confronted on his accession with a coalition of Odo I., count of Blois, and Conan I., count of Rennes. The latter having seized upon Nantes, of which the counts of Anjou held themselves to be suzerains, Fulk Nerra came and laid siege to it, routing Conan’s army at Conquereuil (27th of June 992) and re-establishing Nantes under his own suzerainty. Then turning his attention to the count of Blois, he proceeded to establish a fortress at Langeais, a few miles from Tours, from which, thanks to the intervention of the king Hugh Capet, Odo failed to oust him. On the death of Odo I., Fulk seized Tours (996); but King Robert the Pious turned against him and took the town again (997). In 1016 a fresh struggle arose between Fulk and Odo II., the new count of Blois. Odo II. was utterly defeated at Pontlevoy (6th of July 1016), and a few years later, while Odo was besieging Montboyau, Fulk surprised and took Saumur (1026). Finally, the victory gained by Geoffrey Martel (q.v.) (21st of June 1040-14th of November 1060), the son and successor of Fulk, over Theobald III., count of Blois, at Nouy (21st of August 1044), assured to the Angevins the possession of the countship of Touraine. At the same time, continuing in this quarter also the work of his father (who in 1025 took prisoner Herbert Wake-Dog and only set him free on condition of his doing him homage), Geoffrey succeeded in reducing the countship of Maine to complete dependence on himself. During his father’s life-time he had been beaten by Gervais, bishop of Le Mans (1038), but now (1047 or 1048) succeeded in taking the latter prisoner, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Leo IX. at the council of Reims (October 1049). In spite, however, of the concerted attacks of William the Bastard (the Conqueror), duke of Normandy, and Henry I., king of France, he was able in 1051 to force Maine to recognize his authority, though failing to revenge himself on William.

In the second quarter of the 10th century, Fulk the Red had already taken the title of count, which his descendants held for three centuries. He was first succeeded by his son Fulk II, the Good (941 or 942-c. 960), and then by Fulk II's son, Geoffrey I. Grisegonelle (Greytunic) (c. 960-21st of July 987), who started a policy of expansion aimed at increasing the borders of the ancient countship and reclaiming parts that had been taken by neighboring states. Although western Anjou had been regained from the dukes of Brittany since the early 10th century, the eastern area of Saumur had already fallen under the control of the counts of Blois and Tours by then. Geoffrey Greytunic managed to make the count of Nantes his vassal and secured a feudal grant of the Loudun area from the duke of Aquitaine. Additionally, during King Lothaire's wars against the Normans and Emperor Otto II, he made a name for himself with impressive feats of arms that were soon celebrated by epic poets. His son Fulk III. Nerra (q.v.) (21st of July 987-21st of June 1040) faced a coalition led by Odo I., count of Blois, and Conan I., count of Rennes, upon his accession. After Conan captured Nantes, which the counts of Anjou considered themselves suzerains of, Fulk Nerra laid siege to it, defeating Conan's army at Conquereuil (27th of June 992) and reasserting his own control over Nantes. He then focused on the count of Blois and established a fortress at Langeais, just a few miles from Tours, which Odo was unable to dislodge thanks to King Hugh Capet's intervention. Following Odo I.'s death, Fulk took over Tours (996); however, King Robert the Pious turned against him and recaptured the town (997). In 1016, a new conflict arose between Fulk and Odo II., the new count of Blois. Odo II. was decisively defeated at Pontlevoy (6th of July 1016), and a few years later, while Odo was besieging Montboyau, Fulk surprised and captured Saumur (1026). Ultimately, the victory of Geoffrey Martel (q.v.) (21st of June 1040-14th of November 1060), Fulk’s son and successor, over Theobald III., count of Blois, at Nouy (21st of August 1044), secured the Angevins' control of the countship of Touraine. Simultaneously, continuing the work of his father (who had captured Herbert Wake-Dog in 1025 and only released him on the condition of homage), Geoffrey succeeded in making the countship of Maine entirely dependent on him. During his father’s lifetime, he had been defeated by Gervais, bishop of Le Mans (1038), but now (1047 or 1048) managed to capture Gervais, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Leo IX. at the council of Reims (October 1049). Despite the coordinated efforts of William the Bastard (the Conqueror), duke of Normandy, and Henry I., king of France, he was able to compel Maine to acknowledge his authority in 1051, although he failed to take revenge on William.

On the death of Geoffrey Martel (14th of November 1060) there was a dispute as to the succession. Geoffrey Martel, having no children, had bequeathed the countship to his eldest nephew, Geoffrey III. the Bearded, son of Geoffrey, count of Gâtinais, and of Ermengarde, daughter of Fulk Nerra. But Fulk le Réchin (the Cross-looking), brother of Geoffrey the Bearded, who had at first been contented with an appanage consisting of Saintonge and the châtellenie of Vihiers, having allowed Saintonge to be taken in 1062 by the duke of Aquitaine, took advantage of the general discontent aroused in the countship by the unskilful policy of Geoffrey to make himself master of Saumur (25th of February 1067) and Angers (4th of April), and cast Geoffrey into prison at Sablé. Compelled by the papal authority to release him after a short interval and to restore the countship to him, he soon renewed the struggle, beat Geoffrey near Brissac and shut him up in the castle of Chinon (1068). In order, however, to obtain his recognition as count, Fulk IV. Réchin (1068-14th of April 1109) had to carry on a long struggle with his barons, to cede Gâtinais to King Philip I., and to do homage to the count of Blois for Touraine. On the other hand, he was successful on the whole in pursuing the policy of Geoffrey Martel in Maine: after destroying La Flèche, by the peace of Blanchelande (1081), he received the homage of Robert “Courteheuse” (“Curthose”), son of William the Conqueror, for Maine. Later, he upheld Elias, lord of La Flèche, against William Rufus, king of England, and on the recognition of Elias as count of Maine in 1100, obtained for Fulk the Young, his son by Bertrade de Montfort, the hand of Eremburge, Elias’s daughter and sole heiress.

On the death of Geoffrey Martel (November 14, 1060), there was a dispute over who would succeed him. Geoffrey Martel, having no children, had left the countship to his eldest nephew, Geoffrey III the Bearded, son of Geoffrey, count of Gâtinais, and Ermengarde, daughter of Fulk Nerra. However, Fulk le Réchin (the Cross-looking), brother of Geoffrey the Bearded, who had originally been satisfied with a territory that included Saintonge and the châtellenie of Vihiers, took advantage of the general discontent caused by Geoffrey's poor leadership after Saintonge was seized by the Duke of Aquitaine in 1062. Fulk then managed to take control of Saumur (February 25, 1067) and Angers (April 4), imprisoning Geoffrey at Sablé. Forced by the papal authority to release him after a short period and to return the countship, he soon resumed the conflict, defeating Geoffrey near Brissac and imprisoning him in the castle of Chinon (1068). However, to gain recognition as count, Fulk IV Réchin (1068-April 14, 1109) had to engage in a lengthy struggle with his barons, give up Gâtinais to King Philip I, and pay homage to the count of Blois for Touraine. On the other hand, he mostly succeeded in continuing Geoffrey Martel's policies in Maine: after destroying La Flèche, he gained the homage of Robert "Courteheuse" ("Curthose"), son of William the Conqueror, for Maine through the peace of Blanchelande (1081). Later, he supported Elias, lord of La Flèche, against William Rufus, king of England, and upon Elias’s recognition as count of Maine in 1100, secured for Fulk the Young, his son with Bertrade de Montfort, the hand of Eremburge, Elias’s daughter and sole heiress.

Fulk V. the Young (14th of April 1109-1129) succeeded to the countship of Maine on the death of Elias (11th of July 1110); but this increase of Angevin territory came into such direct collision with the interests of Henry I., king of England, who was also duke of Normandy, that a struggle between the two powers became inevitable. In 1112 it broke out, and Fulk, being unable to prevent Henry I. from taking Alençon and making Robert, lord of Bellême, prisoner, was forced, at the treaty of Pierre Pecoulée, near Alençon (23rd of February 1113), to do homage to Henry for Maine. In revenge for this, while Louis VI. was overrunning the Vexin in 1118, he routed Henry’s army at Alençon (November), and in May 1119 Henry demanded a peace, which was sealed in June by the marriage of his eldest son, William the Aetheling, with Matilda, Fulk’s daughter. William the Aetheling having perished in the wreck of the “White Ship” (25th of November 1120), Fulk, on his return from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (1120-1121), married his second daughter Sibyl, at the instigation of Louis VI., to William Clito, son of Robert Courteheuse, and a claimant to the duchy of Normandy, giving her Maine for a dowry (1122 or 1123). Henry I. managed to have the marriage annulled, on the plea of kinship between the parties (1123 or 1124). But in 1127 a new alliance was made, and on the 22nd of May at Rouen, Henry I. betrothed his daughter Matilda, widow of the emperor Henry V., to Geoffrey the Handsome, son of Fulk, the marriage being celebrated at Le Mans on the 2nd of June 1129. Shortly after, on the invitation of Baldwin II., king of Jerusalem, Fulk departed to the Holy Land for good, married Melisinda, Baldwin’s daughter and heiress, and succeeded to the throne of Jerusalem (14th of September 1131). His eldest son, Geoffrey IV. the Handsome or “Plantagenet,” succeeded him as count of Anjou (1129-7th of September 1151). From the first he tried to profit by his marriage, and after the death of Henry I. (1st of December 1135), laid the foundation of the conquest of Normandy by a series of campaigns: about the end of 1135 or the beginning of 1136 he entered that country and rejoined his wife, the countess Matilda, who had received the submission of Argentan, Domfront and Exmes. Having been abruptly recalled into Anjou by a revolt of his barons, he returned to the charge in September 1136 with a 57 strong army, including in its ranks William, duke of Aquitaine, Geoffrey, count of Vendôme, and William Talvas, count of Ponthieu, but after a few successes was wounded in the foot at the siege of Le Sap (October 1) and had to fall back. In May 1137 began a fresh campaign in which he devastated the district of Hiémois (round Exmes) and burnt Bazoches. In June 1138, with the aid of Robert of Gloucester, Geoffrey obtained the submission of Bayeux and Caen; in October he devastated the neighbourhood of Falaise; finally, in March 1141, on hearing of his wife’s success in England, he again entered Normandy, when he made a triumphal procession through the country. Town after town surrendered: in 1141, Verneuil, Nonancourt, Lisieux, Falaise; in 1142, Mortain, Saint-Hilaire, Pontorson; in 1143, Avranches, Saint-Lô, Cérences, Coutances, Cherbourg; in the beginning of 1144 he entered Rouen, and on the 19th of January received the ducal crown in its cathedral. Finally, in 1149, after crushing a last attempt at revolt, he handed over the duchy to his son Henry “Curtmantel,” who received the investiture at the hands of the king of France.

Fulk V. the Young (April 14, 1109 – 1129) took over the countship of Maine after the death of Elias (July 11, 1110); however, this expansion of Angevin land directly conflicted with the interests of Henry I, King of England and Duke of Normandy, making a clash between the two sides unavoidable. The conflict began in 1112, and Fulk was unable to stop Henry I from capturing Alençon and taking Robert, Lord of Bellême, prisoner. As a result, he was forced to acknowledge Henry's authority over Maine in the treaty of Pierre Pecoulée, near Alençon (February 23, 1113). In retaliation, while Louis VI was invading the Vexin in 1118, Fulk defeated Henry’s army at Alençon (November), and in May 1119, Henry sought peace, which was formalized in June with the marriage of his eldest son, William the Aetheling, to Matilda, Fulk’s daughter. After William the Aetheling tragically died in the wreck of the “White Ship” (November 25, 1120), Fulk, returning from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (1120-1121), arranged for his second daughter Sibyl, at Louis VI’s urging, to marry William Clito, the son of Robert Courteheuse and a contender for the duchy of Normandy, providing her with Maine as her dowry (1122 or 1123). Henry I managed to have the marriage annulled on the grounds of kinship (1123 or 1124). However, in 1127 a new alliance was formed, and on May 22 in Rouen, Henry I betrothed his daughter Matilda, widow of Emperor Henry V, to Geoffrey the Handsome, Fulk's son, with the wedding taking place in Le Mans on June 2, 1129. Soon after, invited by Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem, Fulk left for the Holy Land permanently, married Melisinda, Baldwin’s daughter and heiress, and ascended to the throne of Jerusalem (September 14, 1131). His eldest son, Geoffrey IV the Handsome or “Plantagenet,” became count of Anjou (1129 – September 7, 1151). From the start, he sought to benefit from his marriage, and following Henry I’s death (December 1, 1135), he laid the groundwork for the conquest of Normandy through a series of campaigns. Around the end of 1135 or the beginning of 1136, he entered Normandy and reunited with his wife, Countess Matilda, who had secured the surrender of Argentan, Domfront, and Exmes. After being abruptly recalled to Anjou due to a baron revolt, he returned in September 1136 with a strong army, including William, Duke of Aquitaine, Geoffrey, Count of Vendôme, and William Talvas, Count of Ponthieu. However, after some initial victories, he was wounded in the foot during the siege of Le Sap (October 1) and had to withdraw. In May 1137, he launched a new campaign that devastated the Hiémois area (around Exmes) and burned Bazoches. In June 1138, with Robert of Gloucester’s help, Geoffrey secured the submission of Bayeux and Caen; in October, he ravaged the vicinity of Falaise. Finally, in March 1141, hearing about his wife's successes in England, he re-entered Normandy and made a celebratory tour through the region. One town after another surrendered: in 1141, Verneuil, Nonancourt, Lisieux, Falaise; in 1142, Mortain, Saint-Hilaire, Pontorson; in 1143, Avranches, Saint-Lô, Cérences, Coutances, Cherbourg; at the start of 1144, he entered Rouen and on January 19 received the ducal crown in its cathedral. Ultimately, in 1149, after quelling one last revolt, he handed over the duchy to his son Henry “Curtmantel,” who received the investiture from the King of France.

All the while that Fulk the Young and Geoffrey the Handsome were carrying on the work of extending the countship of Anjou, they did not neglect to strengthen their authority at home, to which the unruliness of the barons was a menace. As regards Fulk the Young we know only a few isolated facts and dates: about 1109 Doué and L’Île Bouchard were taken; in 1112 Brissac was besieged, and about the same time Eschivard of Preuilly subdued; in 1114 there was a general war against the barons who were in revolt, and in 1118 a fresh rising, which was put down after the siege of Montbazon: in 1123 the lord of Doué revolted, and in 1124 Montreuil-Bellay was taken after a siege of nine weeks. Geoffrey the Handsome, with his indefatigable energy, was eminently fitted to suppress the coalitions of his vassals, the most formidable of which was formed in 1129. Among those who revolted were Guy of Laval, Giraud of Montreuil-Bellay, the viscount of Thouars, the lords of Mirebeau, Amboise, Partbenay and Sablé. Geoffrey succeeded in beating them one after another, razed the keep of Thouars and occupied Mirebeau. Another rising was crushed in 1134 by the destruction of Cand and the taking of L’Île Bouchard. In 1136, while the count was in Normandy, Robert of Sable put himself at the head of the movement, to which Geoffrey responded by destroying Briollay and occupying La Suze, and Robert of Sable himself was forced to beg humbly for pardon through the intercession of the bishop of Angers. In 1139 Geoffrey took Mirebeau, and in 1142 Champtoceaux, but in 1145 a new revolt broke out, this time under the leadership of Elias, the count’s own brother, who, again with the assistance of Robert of Sable, laid claim to the countship of Maine. Geoffrey took Elias prisoner, forced Robert of Sable to beat a retreat, and reduced the other barons to reason. In 1147 he destroyed Doue and Blaison. Finally in 1150 he was checked by the revolt of Giraud, lord of Montreuil-Bellay: for a year he besieged the place till it had to surrender: he then took Giraud prisoner and only released him on the mediation of the king of France.

While Fulk the Young and Geoffrey the Handsome were busy expanding the countship of Anjou, they also worked on solidifying their power at home, where the rebellious barons posed a threat. We only know a few scattered facts and dates about Fulk the Young: in 1109, Doué and L’Île Bouchard were captured; in 1112, Brissac was under siege, and around the same time, Eschivard of Preuilly was brought under control; in 1114, there was a widespread war against the rebellious barons, and in 1118, another uprising occurred, which was quelled after the siege of Montbazon. In 1123, the lord of Doué revolted, and in 1124, Montreuil-Bellay fell after a nine-week siege. Geoffrey the Handsome, with his tireless energy, was well-suited to suppress his vassals’ coalitions, the most significant of which was formed in 1129. Those who revolted included Guy of Laval, Giraud of Montreuil-Bellay, the viscount of Thouars, and the lords of Mirebeau, Amboise, Partbenay, and Sablé. Geoffrey managed to defeat them one by one, destroyed the keep of Thouars, and took over Mirebeau. Another uprising was crushed in 1134 with the downfall of Cand and the capture of L’Île Bouchard. In 1136, while the count was in Normandy, Robert of Sable led a new movement, which Geoffrey countered by destroying Briollay and taking La Suze, while Robert of Sable was forced to humbly plead for forgiveness through the bishop of Angers' help. In 1139, Geoffrey captured Mirebeau, and in 1142, he took Champtoceaux, but in 1145, a new revolt erupted, this time led by Elias, the count’s own brother, who, with Robert of Sable’s aid, claimed the countship of Maine. Geoffrey captured Elias, forced Robert of Sable to retreat, and brought the other barons back in line. In 1147, he destroyed Doue and Blaison. Lastly, in 1150, he faced resistance from Giraud, lord of Montreuil-Bellay: he besieged the place for a year until it had to give in; then he captured Giraud and only let him go through the intervention of the king of France.

Thus, on the death of Geoffrey the Handsome (7th of September 1151), his son Henry found himself heir to a great empire, strong and consolidated, to which his marriage with Eleanor of Aquitaine (May 1152) further added Aquitaine.

Thus, upon the death of Geoffrey the Handsome (September 7, 1151), his son Henry became the heir to a vast and unified empire, which was further expanded by his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine (May 1152).

At length on the death of King Stephen, Henry was recognised as king of England (19th of December 1154). But then his brother Geoffrey, who had received as appanage the three fortresses of Chinon, Loudun and Mirebeau, tried to seize upon Anjou, on the pretext that, by the will of their father, Geoffrey the Handsome, all the paternal inheritance ought to descend to him, if Henry succeeded in obtaining possession of the maternal inheritance. On hearing of this, Henry, although he had sworn to observe this will, had himself released from his oath by the pope, and hurriedly marched against his brother, from whom in the beginning of 1156 he succeeded in taking Chinon and Mirebeau; and in July he forced Geoffrey to give up even his three fortresses in return for an annual pension. Henceforward Henry succeeded in keeping the countship of Anjou all his life; for though he granted it in 1168 to his son Henry “of the Short Mantle,” when the latter became old enough to govern it, he absolutely refused to allow him to enjoy his power. After Henry II.’s death in 1189 the countship, together with the rest of his dominions, passed to his son Richard I. of England, but on the death of the latter in 1199, Arthur of Brittany (born in 1187) laid claim to the inheritance, which ought, according to him, to have fallen to his father Geoffrey, fourth son of Henry II., in accordance with the custom by which “the son of the eldest brother should succeed to his father’s patrimony.” He therefore set himself up in rivalry with John Lackland, youngest son of Henry II., and supported by Philip Augustus of France, and aided by William des Roches, seneschal of Anjou, he managed to enter Angers (18th of April 1199) and there have himself recognized as count of the three countships of Anjou, Maine and Touraine, for which he did homage to the king of France. King John soon regained the upper hand, for Philip Augustus having deserted Arthur by the treaty of Le Goulet (22nd of May 1200), John made his way into Anjou; and on the 18th of June 1200 was recognized as count at Angers. In 1202 he refused to do homage to Philip Augustus, who, in consequence, confiscated all his continental possessions, including Anjou, which was allotted by the king of France to Arthur. The defeat of the latter, who was taken prisoner at Mirebeau on the ist of August 1202, seemed to ensure John’s success, but he was abandoned by William des Roches, who in 1203 assisted Philip Augustus in subduing the whole of Anjou. A last effort on the part of John to possess himself of it, in 1214, led to the taking of Angers (17th of June), but broke down lamentably at the battle of La Roche-aux-Moines (2nd of July), and the countship was attached to the crown of France.

At last, after King Stephen died, Henry was recognized as the king of England (December 19, 1154). However, his brother Geoffrey, who had received the three fortresses of Chinon, Loudun, and Mirebeau as his share, attempted to take over Anjou, claiming that their father Geoffrey the Handsome's will stated that all their father's inheritance should go to him if Henry managed to acquire the maternal inheritance. When Henry heard this, he had sworn to respect the will, but he got the pope to release him from his oath and quickly marched against his brother. By early 1156, he managed to take Chinon and Mirebeau from Geoffrey; in July, he forced Geoffrey to give up all three fortresses in exchange for an annual pension. From that point on, Henry held onto the countship of Anjou for his entire life; although he granted it to his son Henry "of the Short Mantle" in 1168 when the latter was old enough to rule, he outright refused to let him exercise any power. After Henry II’s death in 1189, the countship, along with the rest of his territories, passed to his son Richard I of England. However, when Richard died in 1199, Arthur of Brittany (born in 1187) claimed the inheritance, arguing that it should have gone to his father Geoffrey, the fourth son of Henry II, according to the tradition that "the son of the eldest brother should inherit his father's estate." He positioned himself against John Lackland, the youngest son of Henry II, and with support from Philip Augustus of France, along with help from William des Roches, the seneschal of Anjou, he managed to capture Angers (April 18, 1199) and have himself recognized as the count of the three counts of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, for which he paid homage to the king of France. King John soon regained control, as Philip Augustus withdrew his support from Arthur by the Treaty of Le Goulet (May 22, 1200), allowing John to enter Anjou; on June 18, 1200, he was recognized as the count in Angers. In 1202, he refused to pay homage to Philip Augustus, who then confiscated all of John's possessions on the continent, including Anjou, which was awarded to Arthur by the king of France. Arthur’s defeat, when he was captured at Mirebeau on August 1, 1202, seemed to guarantee John’s victory, but he was betrayed by William des Roches, who in 1203 helped Philip Augustus conquer all of Anjou. John made one last attempt to reclaim it in 1214, which led to the capture of Angers (June 17), but ultimately failed miserably at the Battle of La Roche-aux-Moines (July 2), and the countship became part of the crown of France.

Shortly afterwards it was separated from it again, when in August 1246 King Louis IX. gave it as an appanage to his son Charles, count of Provence, soon to become king of Naples and Sicily (see Naples). Charles I. of Anjou, engrossed with his other dominions, gave little thought to Anjou, nor did his son Charles II. the Lame, who succeeded him on the 7th of January 1285. On the 16th of August 1290, the latter married his daughter Margaret to Charles of Valois, son of Philip III. the Bold, giving her Anjou and Maine for dowry, in exchange for the kingdoms of Aragon and Valentia and the countship of Barcelona given up by Charles. Charles of Valois at once entered into possession of the countship of Anjou, to which Philip IV. the Fair, in September 1297, attached a peerage of France. On the 16th of December 1325, Charles died, leaving Anjou to his eldest son Philip of Valois, on whose recognition as king of France (Philip VI.) on the 1st of April 1328, the countship of Anjou was again united to the crown. On the 17th of February 1332, Philip VI. bestowed it on his son John the Good, who, when he became king in turn (22nd of August 1350), gave the countship to his second son Louis I., raising it to a duchy in the peerage of France by letters patent of the 25th of October 1360. Louis I., who became in time count of Provence and king of Naples (see Louis I., king of Naples,) died in 1384, and was succeeded by his son Louis II., who devoted most of his energies to his kingdom of Naples, and left the administration of Anjou almost entirely in the hands of his wife, Yolande of Aragon. On his death (29th of April 1417) she took upon herself the guardianship of their young son Louis III., and in her capacity of regent defended the duchy against the English. Louis III., who also succeeded his father as king of Naples, died on the 15th of November 1434, leaving no children. The duchy of Anjou then passed to his cousin René, second son of Louis II. and Yolande of Aragon, and king of Naples and Sicily (see Naples).

Shortly after, it was separated again when, in August 1246, King Louis IX gave it as an appanage to his son Charles, the Count of Provence, who would soon become king of Naples and Sicily (see Naples). Charles I of Anjou, focused on his other territories, paid little attention to Anjou, nor did his son Charles II the Lame, who succeeded him on January 7, 1285. On August 16, 1290, the latter married his daughter Margaret to Charles of Valois, the son of Philip III the Bold, giving her Anjou and Maine as a dowry in exchange for the kingdoms of Aragon and Valentia, as well as the county of Barcelona, which was relinquished by Charles. Charles of Valois immediately took possession of the county of Anjou, which Philip IV the Fair, in September 1297, elevated to a peerage of France. On December 16, 1325, Charles died, leaving Anjou to his eldest son Philip of Valois, whose recognition as king of France (Philip VI) on April 1, 1328, again united the county of Anjou with the crown. On February 17, 1332, Philip VI gave it to his son John the Good, who, when he became king on August 22, 1350, granted the county to his second son Louis I, elevating it to a duchy in the peerage of France by letters patent on October 25, 1360. Louis I, who eventually became Count of Provence and King of Naples (see Louis I, king of Naples), died in 1384 and was succeeded by his son Louis II, who focused most of his efforts on his kingdom of Naples, leaving the administration of Anjou largely to his wife, Yolande of Aragon. Upon his death (April 29, 1417), she took on the guardianship of their young son Louis III and, in her role as regent, defended the duchy against the English. Louis III, who also succeeded his father as king of Naples, died on November 15, 1434, leaving no children. The duchy of Anjou then passed to his cousin René, the second son of Louis II and Yolande of Aragon, and king of Naples and Sicily (see Naples).

Unlike his predecessors, who had rarely stayed long in Anjou, René from 1443 onwards paid long visits to it, and his court at Angers became one of the most brilliant in the kingdom of France. But after the sudden death of his son John in December 1470, Rene, for reasons which are not altogether clear, decided to move his residence to Provence and leave Anjou for good. After making an inventory of all his possessions, he left the duchy in October 1471, taking with him the most valuable of his 58 treasures. On the 22nd of July 1474 he drew up a will by which he divided the succession between his grandson René II. of Lorraine and his nephew Charles II., count of Maine. On hearing this, King Louis XI., who was the son of one of King René’s sisters, seeing that his expectations were thus completely frustrated, seized the duchy of Anjou. He did not keep it very long, but became reconciled to René in 1476 and restored it to him, on condition, probably, that René should bequeath it to him. However that may be, on the death of the latter (10th of July 1480) he again added Anjou to the royal domain.

Unlike his predecessors, who rarely spent much time in Anjou, René began making long visits there from 1443 onward, and his court in Angers became one of the most vibrant in the kingdom of France. However, after the sudden death of his son John in December 1470, René, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, decided to relocate to Provence and leave Anjou for good. After taking inventory of all his possessions, he exited the duchy in October 1471, bringing along the most valuable of his 58 treasures. On July 22, 1474, he drafted a will that split his inheritance between his grandson René II of Lorraine and his nephew Charles II, Count of Maine. Upon hearing this news, King Louis XI, who was the son of one of King René’s sisters, found his expectations completely dashed and seized the duchy of Anjou. He didn't hold it for long, though, as he reconciled with René in 1476 and returned it to him, likely on the condition that René would leave it to him. Regardless, following René's death on July 10, 1480, Anjou was again added to the royal domain.

Later, King Francis I. again gave the duchy as an appanage to his mother, Louise of Savoy, by letters patent of the 4th of February 1515. On her death, in September 1531, the duchy returned into the king’s possession. In 1552 it was given as an appanage by Henry II. to his son Henry of Valois, who, on becoming king in 1574, with the title of Henry III., conceded it to his brother Francis, duke of Alençon, at the treaty of Beaulieu near Loches (6th of May 1576). Francis died on the 10th of June 1584, and the vacant appanage definitively became part of the royal domain.

Later, King Francis I granted the duchy again as an allowance to his mother, Louise of Savoy, through letters patent dated February 4, 1515. After her death in September 1531, the duchy returned to the king's possession. In 1552, Henry II gave it as an allowance to his son Henry of Valois, who, upon becoming king in 1574 under the title Henry III, ceded it to his brother Francis, duke of Alençon, at the Treaty of Beaulieu near Loches (May 6, 1576). Francis passed away on June 10, 1584, and the vacant allowance officially became part of the royal domain.

At first Anjou was included in the gouvernement (or military command) of Orléanais, but in the 17th century was made into a separate one. Saumur, however, and the Saumurois, for which King Henry IV. had in 1589 created an independent military governor-generalship in favour of Duplessis-Mornay, continued till the Revolution to form a separate gouvernement, which included, besides Anjou, portions of Poitou and Mirebalais. Attached to the généralité (administrative circumscription) of Tours, Anjou on the eve of the Revolution comprised five êlections (judicial districts):—Angers, Beaugé, Saumur, Château-Gontier, Montreuil-Bellay and part of the êlections of La Flèche and Richelieu. Financially it formed part of the so-called pays de grande gabelle (see Gabelle), and comprised sixteen special tribunals, or greniers à sel (salt warehouses):—Angers, Beaugé, Beaufort, Bourgueil, Candé, Château-Gontier, Cholet, Craon, La Flèche, Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, Ingrandes, Le Lude, Pouancé, Saint-Remy-la-Varenne, Richelieu, Saumur. From the point of view of purely judicial administration, Anjou was subject to the parlement of Paris; Angers was the seat of a presidial court, of which the jurisdiction comprised the sénéchaussées of Angers, Saumur, Beaugé, Beaufort and the duchy of Richelieu; there were besides presidial courts at Château-Gontier and La Flèche. When the Constituent Assembly, on the 26th of February 1790, decreed the division of France into departments, Anjou and the Saumurois, with the exception of certain territories, formed the department of Maine-et-Loire, as at present constituted.

At first, Anjou was part of the gouvernement (or military command) of Orléanais, but in the 17th century, it became a separate one. However, Saumur and the Saumurois, for which King Henry IV created an independent military governor-generalship in favor of Duplessis-Mornay in 1589, continued to be a separate gouvernement until the Revolution. This area included, in addition to Anjou, parts of Poitou and Mirebalais. Attached to the généralité (administrative district) of Tours, Anjou on the eve of the Revolution consisted of five êlections (judicial districts): Angers, Beaugé, Saumur, Château-Gontier, Montreuil-Bellay, and part of the êlections of La Flèche and Richelieu. Financially, it was part of the so-called pays de grande gabelle (see Gabelle) and included sixteen specialized tribunals, or greniers à sel (salt warehouses): Angers, Beaugé, Beaufort, Bourgueil, Candé, Château-Gontier, Cholet, Craon, La Flèche, Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, Ingrandes, Le Lude, Pouancé, Saint-Remy-la-Varenne, Richelieu, Saumur. From a purely judicial administration perspective, Anjou was under the jurisdiction of the parlement of Paris; Angers housed a presidial court, with jurisdiction over the sénéchaussées of Angers, Saumur, Beaugé, Beaufort, and the duchy of Richelieu; there were also presidial courts in Château-Gontier and La Flèche. When the Constituent Assembly decreed the division of France into departments on February 26, 1790, Anjou and the Saumurois, with the exception of certain areas, formed the department of Maine-et-Loire, as it is now.

Authorities.—(1) Principal Sources: The history of Anjou may be told partly with the aid of the chroniclers of the neighbouring provinces, especially those of Normandy (William of Poitiers, William of Jumièges, Ordericus Vitalis) and of Maine (especially Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium). For the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries especially, there are some important texts dealing entirely with Anjou. The most important is the chronicle called Gesta consulum Andegavorum, of which only a poor edition exists (Chroniques des comtes d’Anjou, published by Marchegay and Salmon, with an introduction by E. Mabille, Paris, 1856-1871, collection of the Société de l’histoire de France). See also with reference to this text Louis Halphen, Êtude sur les chroniques des comtes d’Anjou et des seigneurs d’Amboise (Paris, 1906). The above may be supplemented by some valuable annals published by Louis Halphen, Recueil d’annales angevines et vendómoises (Paris, 1903), (in the series Collection de textes pour servir à l’étude et à l’enseignement de l’histoire). For further details see Auguste Molinier, Les Sources de l’histoire de France (Paris, 1902), ii. 1276-1310, and the book of Louis Halphen mentioned below.

Authorities.—(1) Principal Sources: The history of Anjou can be partly understood through the writings of chroniclers from neighboring provinces, especially those from Normandy (William of Poitiers, William of Jumièges, Ordericus Vitalis) and Maine (notably Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium). For the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries particularly, there are several important texts that focus solely on Anjou. The most significant is the chronicle titled Gesta consulum Andegavorum, of which only a limited edition exists (Chroniques des comtes d’Anjou, published by Marchegay and Salmon, with an introduction by E. Mabille, Paris, 1856-1871, part of the Société de l’histoire de France collection). For additional context on this text, refer to Louis Halphen’s work, Êtude sur les chroniques des comtes d’Anjou et des seigneurs d’Amboise (Paris, 1906). This can be complemented by some valuable annals published by Louis Halphen, Recueil d’annales angevines et vendómoises (Paris, 1903), (in the series Collection de textes pour servir à l’étude et à l’enseignement de l’histoire). For more details, see Auguste Molinier's Les Sources de l’histoire de France (Paris, 1902), ii. 1276-1310, and the book by Louis Halphen mentioned earlier.

(2) Works: The Art de vérifier les dates contains a history of Anjou which is very much out of date, but has not been treated elsewhere as a whole. The 11th century only has been treated in detail by Louis Halphen, in Le Comté d’Anjou au XIe siècle (Paris, 1906), which has a preface with bibliography and an introduction dealing with the history of Anjou in the 10th century. For the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, a good summary will be found in Kate Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings (2 vols., London, 1887). On René of Anjou, there is a book by A. Lecoy de la Marche, Le Roi René (2 vols., Paris, 1875). Lastly, the work of Célestin Port, Dictionnaire historique, géographique et biographique de Maine-et-Loire (3 vols., Paris and Angers, 1874-1878), and its small volume of Préliminaires (including a summary of the history of Anjou), contain, in addition to the biographies of the chief counts of Anjou, a mass of information concerning everything connected with Angevin history.

(2) Works: The Art de vérifier les dates includes a history of Anjou that is quite outdated, but it hasn't been comprehensively covered anywhere else. The 11th century has been thoroughly analyzed by Louis Halphen in Le Comté d’Anjou au XIe siècle (Paris, 1906), which features a preface with bibliography and an introduction that discusses the history of Anjou in the 10th century. For the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries, a solid overview can be found in Kate Norgate's England under the Angevin Kings (2 vols., London, 1887). Regarding René of Anjou, there's a book by A. Lecoy de la Marche titled Le Roi René (2 vols., Paris, 1875). Finally, the work by Célestin Port, Dictionnaire historique, géographique et biographique de Maine-et-Loire (3 vols., Paris and Angers, 1874-1878), along with its short volume of Préliminaires (which includes a summary of Anjou's history), provides extensive information about everything related to Angevin history, including the biographies of the main counts of Anjou.

(L. H.*)

ANKERITE, a member of the mineral group of rhombohedral carbonates. In composition it is closely related to dolomite, but differs from this in having magnesia replaced by varying amounts of ferrous and manganous oxides, the general formula being Ca(Mg, Fe, Mn)(CO3)2. Normal ankerite is Ca2MgFe(CO3)4. The crystallographic and physical characters resemble those of dolomite and chalybite. The angle between the perfect rhombohedral cleavages is 73° 48′, the hardness 3½ to 4, and the specific gravity 2.9 to 3.1; but these will vary slightly with the chemical composition. The colour is white, grey or reddish.

ANKERITE, is a type of rhombohedral carbonate mineral. It's similar in composition to dolomite, but differs because it has magnesia replaced by different amounts of ferrous and manganous oxides, with the general formula being Ca(Mg, Fe, Mn)(CO3)2. The typical form of ankerite is Ca2MgFe(CO3)4. Its crystalline and physical properties are similar to those of dolomite and chalybite. The angle between its perfect rhombohedral cleavages is 73° 48′, with a hardness of 3½ to 4 and a specific gravity of 2.9 to 3.1; though these values can vary slightly based on the chemical composition. The color can be white, grey, or reddish.

Ankerite occurs with chalybite in deposits of iron-ore. It is one of the minerals of the dolomite-chalybite series, to which the terms brown-spar, pearl-spar and bitter-spar are loosely applied. It was first recognized as a distinct species by W. von Haidinger in 1825, and named by him after M.J. Anker of Styria.

Ankerite occurs alongside chalybite in iron ore deposits. It is one of the minerals in the dolomite-chalybite series, which are often referred to as brown-spar, pearl-spar, and bitter-spar. It was first identified as a distinct species by W. von Haidinger in 1825 and was named after M.J. Anker from Styria.

(L. J. S.)

ANKLAM, or Anclam, a town of Germany in the Prussian province of Pomerania, on the Peene, 5 m. from its mouth in the Kleines Haff, and 53 m. N.W. of Stettin, by the railway to Stralsund. Pop. (1900) 14,602. The fortifications of Anklam were dismantled in 1762 and have not since been restored, although the old walls are still standing; formerly, however, it was a town of considerable military importance, which suffered severely during the Thirty Years’ and the Seven Years’ Wars; and this fact, together with the repeated ravages of fire and of the plague, has made its history more eventful than is usually the case with towns of the same size. It does not possess any remarkable buildings, although it contains several, private as well as public, that are of a quaint and picturesque style of architecture. The church of St Mary (12th century) has a modern tower, 335 ft. high. The industries consist of iron-foundries and factories for sugar and soap; and there is a military school. The Peene is navigable up to the town, which has a considerable trade in its own manufactures, as well as in the produce of the surrounding country, while some shipbuilding is carried on in wharves on the river.

ANKLAM, or Anclam, is a town in Germany located in the Prussian province of Pomerania, by the Peene River, 5 miles from its mouth in the Kleines Haff, and 53 miles northwest of Stettin, accessible by railway to Stralsund. The population in 1900 was 14,602. The fortifications of Anklam were taken down in 1762 and haven’t been rebuilt since, though the old walls still stand; it was once a town of significant military importance that suffered greatly during the Thirty Years’ War and the Seven Years’ War. This, along with repeated fires and outbreaks of plague, has made its history more eventful than is usual for towns of its size. It doesn't have any remarkable buildings, but there are several private and public structures with a quaint and picturesque architectural style. The church of St. Mary, which dates back to the 12th century, features a modern tower that rises to 335 feet. The local industries include iron foundries and factories for sugar and soap, and there is a military school as well. The Peene River is navigable up to the town, which has a significant trade in its own products and those from the surrounding area, and some shipbuilding occurs at river wharves.

Anklam, formerly Tanglim, was originally a Slav fortress; it obtained civic rights in 1244 and joined the Hanseatic league. In 1648 it passed to Sweden, but in 1676 was retaken by Frederick William I. of Brandenburg, and after being plundered by the Russians in 1713 was ceded to Prussia by the peace of Stockholm in 1720.

Anklam, previously known as Tanglim, was originally a Slavic fortress. It gained municipal rights in 1244 and became a part of the Hanseatic League. In 1648, it came under Swedish control, but in 1676, Frederick William I of Brandenburg reclaimed it. After being looted by the Russians in 1713, it was ceded to Prussia as part of the Peace of Stockholm in 1720.


ANKLE, or Ancle (a word common, in various forms, to Teutonic languages, probably connected in origin with the Lat. angulus, or Gr. ἀγκύλος, bent), the joint which connects the foot with the leg (see Joints).

ANKLE, or Ankle (a term found in various forms in Teutonic languages, likely related to the Latin angulus or the Greek Curved, meaning bent), is the joint that connects the foot to the leg (see Joints).


ANKOBER, a town in, and at one time capital of, the kingdom of Shoa, Abyssinia, 90 m. N.E. of Adis Ababa, in 9° 34′ N., 39° 54′ E., on a mountain about 8500 ft. above the sea. Ankober was made (c. 1890) by Menelek II. the place of detention of political prisoners. Pop. about 2000.

ANKOBER, is a town that was once the capital of the kingdom of Shoa in Abyssinia, located 90 miles northeast of Adis Ababa, at 9° 34′ N, 39° 54′ E, on a mountain around 8,500 feet above sea level. In about 1890, Menelek II designated Ankober as a place to hold political prisoners. The population is around 2,000.


ANKYLOSIS, or Anchylosis (from Gr. ἀγκύλος, bent, crooked), a stiffness of a joint, the result of injury or disease. The rigidity may be complete or partial and may be due to inflammation of the tendinous or muscular structures outside the joint or of the tissues of the joint itself. When the structures outside the joint are affected, the term “false” ankylosis has been used in contradistinction to “true” ankylosis, in which the disease is within the joint. When inflammation has caused the joint-ends of the bones to be fused together the ankylosis is termed osseous or complete. Excision of a completely ankylosed shoulder or elbow may restore free mobility and usefulness to the limb. “Ankylosis” is also used as an anatomical term, bones being said to ankylose (or anchylose) when, from being originally distinct, they coalesce, or become so joined together that no motion can take place between them.

ANKYLOSIS, or Ankylosis (from Gr. ankylos, bent, crooked), refers to the stiffness of a joint caused by injury or disease. The stiffness can be complete or partial and may result from inflammation of the tendons or muscles surrounding the joint or from issues within the joint itself. When the surrounding structures are affected, it’s called “false” ankylosis, while “true” ankylosis refers to the problems occurring inside the joint. If inflammation leads to the fusion of the bone ends in the joint, it is known as osseous or complete ankylosis. Surgically removing a completely ankylosed shoulder or elbow can help restore movement and function to the limb. The term “ankylosis” also describes an anatomical condition where bones, originally separate, join together so there is no motion between them.


ANKYLOSTOMIASIS, or Anchylostomiasis (also called helminthiasis, “miners’ anaemia,” and in Germany Wurmkrankheit), 59 a disease to which in recent years much attention has been paid, from its prevalence in the mining industry in England, France, Germany, Belgium, North Queensland and elsewhere. This disease (apparently known in Egypt even in very ancient times) caused a great mortality among the negroes in the West Indies towards the end of the 18th century; and through descriptions sent from Brazil and various other tropical and sub-tropical regions, it was subsequently identified, chiefly through the labours of Bilharz and Griesinger in Egypt (1854), as being due to the presence in the intestine of nematoid worms (Ankylostoma duodenalis) from one-third to half an inch long. The symptoms, as first observed among the negroes, were pain in the stomach, capricious appetite, pica (or dirt-eating), obstinate constipation followed by diarrhoea, palpitations, small and unsteady pulse, coldness of the skin, pallor of the skin and mucous membranes, diminution of the secretions, loss of strength and, in cases running a fatal course, dysentery, haemorrhages and dropsies. The parasites, which cling to the intestinal mucous membrane, draw their nourishment from the blood-vessels of their host, and as they are found in hundreds in the body after death, the disorders of digestion, the increasing anaemia and the consequent dropsies and other cachectic symptoms are easily explained. The disease was first known in Europe among the Italian workmen employed on the St Gotthard tunnel. In 1896, though previously unreported in Germany, 107 cases were registered there, and the number rose to 295 in 1900, and 1030 in 1901. In England an outbreak at the Dolcoath mine, Cornwall, in 1902, led to an investigation for the home office by Dr Haldane F.R.S. (see especially the Parliamentary Paper, numbered Cd. 1843), and since then discussions and inquiries have been frequent. A committee of the British Association in 1904 issued a valuable report on the subject. After the Spanish-American War American physicians had also given it their attention, with valuable results; see Stiles (Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin, No. 10, Washington, 1903). The American parasite described by Stiles, and called Uncinaria americana (whence the name Uncinariasis for this disease) differs slightly from the Ankylostoma. The parasites thrive in an environment of dirt, and the main lines of precaution are those dictated by sanitary science. Malefern, santonine, thymol and other anthelmintic remedies are prescribed.

ANKYLOSTOMIASIS, or Hookworm infection (also known as helminthiasis, “miners’ anemia,” and in Germany Wurmkrankheit), 59 is a disease that has gained a lot of attention in recent years due to its prevalence in the mining industry in England, France, Germany, Belgium, North Queensland, and elsewhere. This disease, which seems to have been known in Egypt since ancient times, caused significant mortality among the Black population in the West Indies towards the end of the 18th century. Through descriptions sent from Brazil and various other tropical and subtropical regions, it was later identified, primarily through the work of Bilharz and Griesinger in Egypt (1854), as being caused by the presence of nematoid worms (Ankylostoma duodenalis) that measure between one-third to half an inch long in the intestine. The symptoms, first noted among the Black population, included stomach pain, erratic appetite, pica (eating non-food substances), stubborn constipation followed by diarrhea, palpitations, a weak and intermittent pulse, cold skin, paleness of the skin and mucous membranes, reduced secretions, loss of strength, and in severe cases, dysentery, hemorrhages, and swelling. The parasites attach to the intestinal lining and feed on the host's blood vessels. The evident digestive disorders, increasing anemia, and subsequent swelling and other cachectic symptoms can easily be explained. The disease was first recognized in Europe among Italian workers on the St Gotthard tunnel. In 1896, although previously unreported in Germany, 107 cases were registered there, and the number escalated to 295 in 1900 and 1,030 in 1901. In England, an outbreak at the Dolcoath mine in Cornwall in 1902 prompted an investigation by Dr. Haldane F.R.S. for the home office (see especially the Parliamentary Paper, numbered Cd. 1843), and discussions and inquiries have been ongoing since. A committee from the British Association published a valuable report on the topic in 1904. After the Spanish-American War, American doctors also began focusing on it with useful results; see Stiles (Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin, No. 10, Washington, 1903). The American parasite described by Stiles, named Uncinaria americana (giving rise to the term Uncinariasis for this disease), differs slightly from Ankylostoma. The parasites thrive in dirty environments, and the main prevention measures are those suggested by sanitary science. Malefern, santonine, thymol, and other anthelmintic treatments are recommended.


ANNA, BALDASARRE, a painter who flourished during part of the 16th and 17th centuries. He was born at Venice, probably about 1560, and is said to have been of Flemish descent. The date of his death is uncertain, but he seems to have been alive in 1639. For a number of years he studied under Leonardo Corona, and on the death of that painter completed several works left unfinished by him. His own activity seems to have been confined to the production of pieces for several of the churches and a few private houses in Venice, and the old guide-books and descriptions of the city notice a considerable number of paintings by him. Scarcely any of these, however, have survived.

ANNA, BALDASARRE, was a painter active in the 16th and 17th centuries. He was likely born in Venice around 1560 and is believed to be of Flemish heritage. The exact date of his death is unknown, but he appears to have been alive in 1639. He studied under Leonardo Corona for several years, and after Corona's death, he completed several of his unfinished works. His own work mainly consisted of creating pieces for various churches and a few private homes in Venice, and old guidebooks and descriptions of the city mention a significant number of his paintings. However, very few of these works have survived.


ANNA (Hindustani ana), an Indian penny, the sixteenth part of a rupee. The term belongs to the Mahommedan monetary system (see Rupee). There is no coin of one anna, but there are half-annas of copper and two-anna pieces of silver. The term anna is frequently used to express a fraction. Thus an Anglo-Indian speaks of two annas of dark blood (an octoroon), a four-anna (quarter) crop, an eight-anna (half) gallop.

ANNA (Hindustani ana), an Indian penny, which is one-sixteenth of a rupee. This term is part of the Muslim monetary system (see Rupee). There isn't a one anna coin, but there are half-annas made of copper and two-anna pieces made of silver. The term anna is often used to refer to a fraction. For example, an Anglo-Indian might refer to two annas of dark blood (an octoroon), a four-anna (quarter) crop, or an eight-anna (half) gallop.


ANNA AMALIA (1739-1807), duchess of Saxe-Weimar, daughter of Charles I., duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was born at Wolfenbüttel on the 24th of October 1739, and married Ernest, duke of Saxe-Weimar, 1756. Her husband died in 1758, leaving her regent for their infant son, Charles Augustus. During the protracted minority she administered the affairs of the duchy with the greatest prudence, strengthening its resources and improving its position in spite of the troubles of the Seven Years’ War. She was a patroness of art and literature, and attracted to Weimar many of the most eminent men in Germany. Wieland was appointed tutor to her son; and the names of Herder, Goethe and Schiller shed an undying lustre on her court. In 1775 she retired into private life, her son having attained his majority. In 1788 she set out on a lengthened tour through Italy, accompanied by Goethe. She died on the 10th of April 1807. A memorial of the duchess is included in Goethe’s works under the title Zum Andenken der Furstin Anna-Amalia.

ANNA AMALIA (1739-1807), duchess of Saxe-Weimar, daughter of Charles I, duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was born in Wolfenbüttel on October 24, 1739, and married Ernest, duke of Saxe-Weimar, in 1756. Her husband passed away in 1758, leaving her as regent for their young son, Charles Augustus. During the lengthy period of his minority, she managed the duchy's affairs with great wisdom, strengthening its resources and improving its standing despite the challenges posed by the Seven Years’ War. She supported art and literature, drawing many of Germany's most notable figures to Weimar. Wieland became the tutor to her son, and the names of Herder, Goethe, and Schiller brought lasting fame to her court. In 1775, she withdrew into private life after her son reached adulthood. In 1788, she embarked on an extended trip through Italy, accompanied by Goethe. She passed away on April 10, 1807. A tribute to the duchess can be found in Goethe’s works under the title Zum Andenken der Furstin Anna-Amalia.

See F. Bornhak, Anna Amalia Herzogin von Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (Berlin. 1892).

See F. Bornhak, Anna Amalia Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (Berlin. 1892).


ANNABERG, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony, in the Erzgebirge, 1894 ft. above the sea, 6 m. from the Bohemian frontier, 18½ m. S. by E. from Chemnitz by rail. Pop. (1905) 16,811. It has three Evangelical churches, among them that of St Anne, built 1499-1525, a Roman Catholic church, several public monuments, among them those of Luther, of the famous arithmetician Adam Riese, and of Barbara Uttmann. Annaberg, together with the neighbouring suburb, Buchholz, is the chief seat of the braid and lace-making industry in Germany, introduced here by Barbara Uttmann in 1561, and further developed by Belgian refugees, who, driven from their country by the duke of Alva, settled here in 1590. The mining industry, for which the town was formerly also famous and which embraced tin, silver and cobalt, has now ceased. Annaberg has technical schools for lace-making, commerce and agriculture, in addition to high grade public schools for boys and girls.

ANNABERG, is a town in Germany, located in the kingdom of Saxony, in the Erzgebirge, 1,894 feet above sea level, 6 miles from the Bohemian border, and 18½ miles southeast from Chemnitz by rail. Its population in 1905 was 16,811. The town has three Evangelical churches, including St. Anne's, which was built between 1499 and 1525, a Roman Catholic church, and several public monuments, including those of Luther, the renowned mathematician Adam Riese, and Barbara Uttmann. Annaberg, along with the nearby suburb of Buchholz, is the main center for the braid and lace-making industry in Germany, which was introduced here by Barbara Uttmann in 1561 and further developed by Belgian refugees who settled here in 1590 after fleeing from the duke of Alva. The mining industry, for which the town was once famous and included tin, silver, and cobalt extraction, has now ceased. Annaberg has technical schools for lace-making, commerce, and agriculture, along with high-quality public schools for both boys and girls.


ANNABERGITE, a mineral consisting of a hydrous nickel arsenate, Ni3(AsO4)2 + 8H2O, crystallizing in the monoclinic system and isomorphous with vivianite and erythrite. Crystals are minute and capillary and rarely met with, the mineral occurring usually as soft earthy masses and encrustations. A fine apple-green colour is its characteristic feature. It was long known (since 1758) under the name nickel-ochre; the name annabergite was proposed by H.J. Brooke and W.H. Miller in 1852, from Annaberg in Saxony, one of the localities of the mineral. It occurs with ores of nickel, of which it is a product of alteration. A variety, from Creetown in Kirkcudbrightshire, in which a portion of the nickel is replaced by calcium, has been called dudgeonite, after P. Dudgeon, who found it.

ANNABERGITE, is a mineral that consists of a hydrous nickel arsenate, Ni3(AsO4)2 + 8H2O. It crystallizes in the monoclinic system and is isomorphic with vivianite and erythrite. The crystals are tiny and hair-like and are rarely found; the mineral typically occurs as soft, earthy masses and encrustations. Its distinctive feature is a vibrant apple-green color. It was known for a long time (since 1758) as nickel-ochre; the name annabergite was suggested by H.J. Brooke and W.H. Miller in 1852, named after Annaberg in Saxony, one of the locations where the mineral is found. It occurs alongside nickel ores, as it forms from their alteration. A variety from Creetown in Kirkcudbrightshire, in which some of the nickel is replaced by calcium, has been named dudgeonite, after P. Dudgeon, who discovered it.

(L. J. S.)

ANNA COMNENA, daughter of the emperor Alexius I. Comnenus, the first woman historian, was born on the 1st of December 1083. She was her father’s favourite and was carefully trained in the study of poetry, science and Greek philosophy. But, though learned and studious, she was intriguing and ambitious, and ready to go to any lengths to gratify her longing for power. Having married an accomplished young nobleman, Nicephorus Bryennius, she united with the empress Irene in a vain attempt to prevail upon her father during his last illness to disinherit his son and give the crown to her husband. Still undeterred, she entered into a conspiracy to depose her brother after his accession; and when her husband refused to join in the enterprise, she exclaimed that “nature had mistaken their sexes, for he ought to have been the woman.” The plot being discovered, Anna forfeited her property and fortune, though, by the clemency of her brother, she escaped with her life. Shortly afterwards, she retired into a convent and employed her leisure in writing the Alexiad—a history, in Greek, of her father’s life and reign (1081-1118), supplementing the historical work of her husband. It is rather a family panegyric than a scientific history, in which the affection of the daughter and the vanity of the author stand out prominently. Trifling acts of her father are described at length in exaggerated terms, while little notice is taken of important constitutional matters. A determined opponent of the Latin church and an enthusiastic admirer of the Byzantine empire, Anna Comnena regards the Crusades as a danger both political and religious. Her models are Thucydides, Polybius and Xenophon, and her style exhibits the striving after Atticism characteristic of the period, with the result that the language is highly artificial. Her chronology especially is defective.

ANNA COMNENA, daughter of Emperor Alexius I. Comnenus, the first woman historian, was born on December 1, 1083. She was her father's favorite and was carefully educated in poetry, science, and Greek philosophy. However, despite being knowledgeable and studious, she was ambitious and willing to go to great lengths to fulfill her desire for power. After marrying a skilled young nobleman, Nicephorus Bryennius, she teamed up with Empress Irene in a futile attempt to persuade her father during his final illness to disinherit his son and crown her husband instead. Undeterred, she conspired to overthrow her brother after he became emperor, and when her husband refused to participate, she declared that "nature had mistaken their sexes, for he ought to have been the woman." When the plot was discovered, Anna lost her wealth and property, but thanks to her brother's mercy, she survived. Soon after, she retired to a convent and spent her time writing the Alexiad—a history, in Greek, of her father's life and reign (1081-1118), building on her husband's historical work. It serves more as a family tribute than an objective history, highlighting the daughter's affection and the author's vanity. Minor actions of her father are described in elaborate detail, while significant political issues receive little attention. A staunch opponent of the Latin church and a passionate supporter of the Byzantine Empire, Anna Comnena saw the Crusades as both a political and religious threat. Her influences include Thucydides, Polybius, and Xenophon, and her writing reflects the pursuit of Atticism typical of her time, resulting in a highly artificial style. Her chronology, in particular, is flawed.

Editions in Bonn Corpus Scriptorum Hist. Byz., by J. Schopen and A. Reifferscheid (1839-1878), with Du Cange’s valuable commentary; and Teubner series, by A. Reifferscheid (1884). See also C. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (2nd ed. 1897); C. Neumann, Griechische Geschichtschreiber im 12 Jahrhunderte (1888); E. Oster, Anna Komnena (Rastatt, 1868-1871); Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. 48; Finlay, Hist, of Greece, iii. pp. 53, 128 (1877); P. Adam, Princesses byzantines (1893); Sir Walter Scott, Count Robert of Paris; L. du Sommerard, Anne Comnène ... Agnès de France (1907); C. Diehl, Figures byzantines (1906).

Editions in Bonn Corpus Scriptorum Hist. Byz., by J. Schopen and A. Reifferscheid (1839-1878), featuring Du Cange’s valuable commentary; and Teubner series, edited by A. Reifferscheid (1884). Also see C. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (2nd ed. 1897); C. Neumann, Griechische Geschichtschreiber im 12 Jahrhunderte (1888); E. Oster, Anna Komnena (Rastatt, 1868-1871); Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. 48; Finlay, Hist, of Greece, iii. pp. 53, 128 (1877); P. Adam, Princesses byzantines (1893); Sir Walter Scott, Count Robert of Paris; L. du Sommerard, Anne Comnène ... Agnès de France (1907); C. Diehl, Figures byzantines (1906).


60

60

ANNA LEOPOLDOVNA, sometimes called Anna Carlovna (1718-1746), regent of Russia for a few months during the minority of her son Ivan, was the daughter of Catherine, sister of the empress Anne, and Charles Leopold, duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. In 1739 she married Anton Ulrich (d. 1775), son of Ferdinand Albert, duke of Brunswick, and their son Ivan was adopted in 1740 by the empress and proclaimed heir to the Russian throne. A few days after this proclamation the empress died, leaving directions regarding the succession, and appointing her favourite Ernest Biren, duke of Courland, as regent. Biren, however, had made himself an object of detestation to the Russian people, and Anna had little difficulty in overthrowing his power. She then assumed the regency, and took the title of grand-duchess, but she knew little of the character of the people with whom she had to deal, was utterly ignorant of the approved Russian mode of government, and speedily quarrelled with her principal supporters. In December 1741, Elizabeth, daughter of Peter the Great, who, from her habits, was a favourite with the soldiers, excited the guards to revolt, overcame the slight opposition that was offered, and was proclaimed empress. Ivan was thrown into prison, where he soon afterwards perished. Anna and her husband were banished to a small island in the river Dvina, where on the 18th of March 1746 she died in childbed.

ANNA LEOPOLDOVNA, sometimes known as Anna Karolovna (1718-1746), was the regent of Russia for a few months during her son Ivan's minority. She was the daughter of Catherine, the sister of Empress Anne, and Charles Leopold, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. In 1739, she married Anton Ulrich (d. 1775), the son of Ferdinand Albert, Duke of Brunswick, and their son Ivan was adopted by the empress in 1740 and declared the heir to the Russian throne. Just days after this announcement, the empress died, leaving instructions about the succession and naming her favorite, Ernest Biren, Duke of Courland, as regent. However, Biren had become very unpopular with the Russian people, and Anna easily managed to take him down. She then took over the regency and claimed the title of Grand-Duchess, but she knew little about the people she had to lead, was completely unaware of the accepted Russian way of governance, and quickly fell out with her key supporters. In December 1741, Elizabeth, Peter the Great's daughter, who was liked by the soldiers due to her personality, incited the guards to revolt, easily defeating the minimal resistance they faced, and was declared empress. Ivan was imprisoned, where he soon died. Anna and her husband were exiled to a small island in the Dvina River, where she died in childbirth on March 18, 1746.


ANNALISTS (from Lat. annus, year; hence annales, sc. libri, annual records), the name given to a class of writers on Roman history, the period of whose literary activity lasted from the time of the Second Punic War to that of Sulla. They wrote the history of Rome from the earliest times (in most cases) down to their own days, the events of which were treated in much greater detail. For the earlier period their authorities were state and family records—above all, the annales maximi (or annales pontificum), the official chronicle of Rome, in which the notable occurrences of each year from the foundation of the city were set down by the pontifex maximus. Although these annals were no doubt destroyed at the time of the burning of Rome by the Gauls, they were restored as far as possible and continued until the pontificate of P. Mucius Scaevola, by whom they were finally published in eighty books. Two generations of these annalists have been distinguished—an older and a younger. The older, which extends to 150 B.C., set forth, in bald, unattractive language, without any pretensions to style, but with a certain amount of trustworthiness, the most important events of each successive year. Cicero (De Oratore, ii. 12. 53), comparing these writers with the old Ionic logographers, says that they paid no attention to ornament, and considered the only merits of a writer to be intelligibility and conciseness. Their annals were a mere compilation of facts. The younger generation, in view of the requirements and criticism of a reading public, cultivated the art of composition and rhetorical embellishment. As a general rule the annalists wrote in a spirit of uncritical patriotism, which led them to minimize or gloss over such disasters as the conquest of Rome by Porsena and the compulsory payment of ransom to the Gauls, and to flatter the people by exaggerated accounts of Roman prowess, dressed up in fanciful language. At first they wrote in Greek, partly because a national style was not yet formed, and partly because Greek was the fashionable language amongst the educated, although Latin versions were probably published as well. The first of the annalists, the father of Roman history, as he has been called, was Q. Fabius Pictor (see Fabius Pictor); contemporary with him was L. Cincius Alimentus, who flourished during the Hannibalic war.1 Like Fabius Pictor, he wrote in Greek. He was taken prisoner by Hannibal (Livy xxi. 38), who is said to have given him details of the crossing of the Alps. His work embraced the history of Rome from its foundation down to his own days. With M. Porcius Cato (q.v.) historical composition in Latin began, and a livelier interest was awakened in the history of Rome. Among the principal writers of this class who succeeded Cato, the following may be mentioned. L. Cassius Hemina (about 146), in the fourth book of his Annals, wrote on the Second Punic War. His researches went back to very early times; Pliny (Nat. Hist. xiii. 13 [27]) calls him vetustissimus auctor annalium. L. Calpufnius Piso, surnamed Frugi (see under Piso), wrote seven books of annals, relating the history of the city from its foundation down to his own times. Livy regards him as a less trustworthy authority than Fabius Pictor, and Niebuhr considers him the first to introduce systematic forgeries into Roman history. Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (about 80 B.C.) wrote a history, in at least twenty-three books, which began with the conquest of Rome by the Gauls and went down to the death of Sulla or perhaps later. He was freely used by Livy in part of his work (from the sixth book onwards). A long fragment is preserved in Aulus Gellius (ix. 13), giving an account of the single combat between Manlius Torquatus and the Gaul. His language was antiquated and his style dry, but his work was considered important. Valerius Antias, a younger contemporary of Quadrigarius, wrote the history of Rome from the earliest times, in a voluminous work consisting of seventy-five books. He is notorious for his wilful exaggeration, both in narrative and numerical statements. For instance, he asserts the number of the Sabine virgins to have been exactly 527; again, in a certain year when no Greek or Latin writers mention any important campaign, Antias speaks of a big battle with enormous casualties. Nevertheless, Livy at first made use of him as one of his chief authorities, until he became convinced of his untrustworthiness. C. Licinius Macer (died 66), who has been called the last of the annalists, wrote a voluminous work, which, although he paid great attention to the study of his authorities, was too rhetorical, and exaggerated the achievements of his own family. Having been convicted of extortion, he committed suicide (Cicero, De Legibus, i. 2, Brutus, 67; Plutarch, Cicero, 9).

ANNALISTS (from Lat. annus, year; hence annales, that is, libri, annual records), refers to a group of writers on Roman history whose literary activity spanned from the Second Punic War to the time of Sulla. They chronicled the history of Rome from its earliest days (in most cases) to their own times, with more detailed accounts of contemporary events. For earlier periods, they relied on state and family records—most notably, the annales maximi (or annales pontificum), the official record of Rome that documented significant events each year from the city's founding, recorded by the pontifex maximus. Although these annals were likely destroyed during the Gaulish burning of Rome, efforts were made to restore them, and they continued until the pontificate of P. Mucius Scaevola, who published them in eighty books. Historians generally distinguish two generations among these annalists—an older and a younger group. The older generation, active until 150 BCE, presented important annual events in plain, unattractive language without stylistic flair but with some reliability. Cicero (De Oratore, ii. 12. 53) compared these writers to the old Ionic logographers, noting their lack of ornamentation and that they valued clarity and brevity as a writer's main merits. Their annals were simply a collection of facts. The younger generation, responding to public expectations and critiques, embraced composition and rhetorical flourish. Generally, these annalists wrote with a patriotic bias that often downplayed or glossed over defeats, like Rome's conquest by Porsena and the mandatory ransom to the Gauls, while embellishing accounts of Roman victories in imaginative language. Initially, they wrote in Greek, partly because a national style had yet to form and partly because Greek was the elite language of the educated, although Latin versions likely existed as well. The first of the annalists, often called the father of Roman history, was Q. Fabius Pictor (see Fabius Pictor); his contemporary was L. Cincius Alimentus, who thrived during the Hannibalic war.1 Like Fabius Pictor, he wrote in Greek. He was captured by Hannibal (Livy xxi. 38), who supposedly provided him details about crossing the Alps. His work covered Rome's history from its founding to his own era. With Cato the Elder (q.v.), historical writing in Latin began, igniting a greater interest in Roman history. Among the key writers who followed Cato, several can be highlighted. L. Cassius Hemina (around 146) wrote about the Second Punic War in the fourth book of his Annals. His research reached back to very early times; Pliny (Nat. Hist. xiii. 13 [27]) describes him as vetustissimus auctor annalium. L. Calpurnius Piso, nicknamed Frugi (see under Piso), wrote seven books of annals covering Rome's history from its founding to his own period. Livy viewed him as less reliable than Fabius Pictor, while Niebuhr claimed he was the first to introduce systematic fabrications into Roman history. Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (around 80 B.C.) authored a historical account, in at least twenty-three books, beginning with the Gauls' conquest of Rome and extending to the death of Sulla or possibly later. Livy extensively utilized him in part of his work (from the sixth book onward). A long fragment is preserved in Aulus Gellius (ix. 13), detailing the duel between Manlius Torquatus and the Gaul. Although his language felt dated and his style was dry, his work was considered significant. Valerius Antias, a younger contemporary of Quadrigarius, wrote an extensive history of Rome from its early days in a 75-book series. He is infamous for his intentional exaggerations in both narrative and numerical claims. For example, he claims the number of the Sabine virgins was exactly 527; additionally, when other Greek or Latin writers don't mention important campaigns in a certain year, Antias discusses a major battle with huge losses. Nonetheless, Livy initially regarded him as a primary source until he recognized his lack of reliability. C. Licinius Macer (died 66), known as the last of the annalists, produced a lengthy work that, despite his careful attention to sources, became overly rhetorical and inflated the accomplishments of his own family. After being convicted of extortion, he took his own life (Cicero, De Legibus, i. 2, Brutus, 67; Plutarch, Cicero, 9).

The writers mentioned dealt with Roman history as a whole; some of the annalists, however, confined themselves to shorter periods. Thus, L. Caelius Antipater (about 120) limited himself to the Second Punic War. His work was overloaded with rhetorical embellishment, which he was the first to introduce into Roman history. He was regarded as the most careful writer on the war with Hannibal, and one who did not allow himself to be blinded by partiality in considering the evidence of other writers (Cicero, De Oratore, ii. 12). Livy made great use of him in his third decade. Sempronius Asellio (about 100 B.C.), military tribune of Scipio Africanus at the siege of Numantia, composed Rerum Gestanim Libri in at least fourteen books. As he himself took part in the events he describes, his work was a kind of memoirs. He was the first of his class who endeavoured to trace the causes of events, instead of contenting himself with a bare statement of facts. L. Cornelius Sisenna (119-67), legate of Pompey in the war against the pirates, lost his life in an expedition against Crete. He wrote twenty-three books on the period between the Social War and the dictatorship of Sulla. His work was commended by Sallust (Jugurtha, 95), who, however, blames him for not speaking out sufficiently. Cicero remarks upon his fondness for archaisms (Brutus, 74. 259). Sisenna also translated the tales of Aristides of Miletus, and is supposed by some to have written a ccmmentary on Plautus. The autobiography of Sulla may also be mentioned.

The writers mentioned covered Roman history overall; however, some annalists focused on shorter time frames. For instance, L. Caelius Antipater (around 120) focused solely on the Second Punic War. His work was heavily stylized with rhetorical flourishes, which he was the first to introduce into Roman history. He was considered the most meticulous writer about the war with Hannibal, and he didn’t let bias cloud his judgment when evaluating the evidence from other authors (Cicero, De Oratore, ii. 12). Livy relied on him significantly in his third decade. Sempronius Asellio (around 100 BCE), who served as a military tribune under Scipio Africanus during the siege of Numantia, wrote Rerum Gestarum Libri in at least fourteen volumes. Since he personally experienced the events he described, his work served as a sort of memoir. He was the first in his position to try to identify the causes of events rather than just stating the facts. L. Cornelius Sisenna (119-67), who was Pompey’s legate in the fight against pirates, died on a campaign in Crete. He wrote twenty-three books about the period between the Social War and Sulla’s dictatorship. His work received praise from Sallust (Jugurtha, 95), who, however, criticized him for not being outspoken enough. Cicero noted his penchant for archaic language (Brutus, 74. 259). Sisenna also translated the stories of Aristides of Miletus and is believed by some to have written a commentary on Plautus. The autobiography of Sulla might also be worth mentioning.

See C.W. Nitzsch, Die römische Annalistik (1873); H. Peter, Zur Kritik der Quellen der dlteren romischen Geschichte (1879); L.O. Brocker, Moderne Quellenforscher und antike Geschichtschreiber (1882); fragments in H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (1870, 1906), and Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta (1883); also articles Rome, History (ancient) ad fin., section “Authorities,’” and Livy, where the use made of the annalists by the historian is discussed; Pauly-Wissowa, Realencydopädie, art. “Annales”; the histories of Roman Literature by M. Schanz and Teuffel-Schwabe; Mommsen, Hist. of Rome (Eng. tr.), bk. ii. ch. 9, bk. iii. ch. 14, bk. iv. ch. 13, bk. v. ch. 12; C. Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Studium der alien Geschichte (1895); H. Peter, bibliography of the subject in Bursian’s Jahresbericht, cxxvi. (1906).

See C.W. Nitzsch, The Roman Annalists (1873); H. Peter, On the Critique of the Sources of Early Roman History (1879); L.O. Brocker, Modern Source Researchers and Ancient Historians (1882); fragments in H. Peter, Remaining Texts of Roman Historians (1870, 1906), and Fragments of Roman Historians (1883); also articles Rome, History (ancient) ad fin., section “Authorities,” and Livy, where the use of the annalists by the historian is discussed; Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyclopedia, article “Annales”; the histories of Roman Literature by M. Schanz and Teuffel-Schwabe; Mommsen, History of Rome (English translation), bk. ii. ch. 9, bk. iii. ch. 14, bk. iv. ch. 13, bk. v. ch. 12; C. Wachsmuth, Introduction to the Study of Ancient History (1895); H. Peter, bibliography of the subject in Bursian’s Annual Report, cxxvi. (1906).

(J. H. F.)

1 He is not to be confused with L. Cincius, the author of various political and antiquarian treatises (de Fastis, de Comitiis, de Priscis Verbis), who lived in the Augustan age, to which period Mommsen, considering them a later fabrication, refers the Greek annals of L. Cincius Alimentus.

1 He should not be mixed up with L. Cincius, who wrote several political and historical essays (de Fastis, de Comitiis, de Priscis Verbis) and lived during the Augustan age. Mommsen, believing these were created later, places the Greek records of L. Cincius Alimentus in that same period.


61

61

ANNALS (Annales, from annus, a year), a concise historical record in which events are arranged chronologically, year by year. The chief sources of information in regard to the annals of ancient Rome are two passages in Cicero (De Oratore, ii. 12. 52) and in Servius (ad Aen. i. 373) which have been the subject of much discussion. Cicero states that from the earliest period down to the pontificate of Publius Mucius Scaevola (c. 131 B.C.), it was usual for the pontifex maximus to record on a white tablet (album), which was exhibited in an open place at his house, so that the people might read it, first, the name of the consuls and other magistrates, and then the noteworthy events that had occurred during the year (per singulos dies, as Servius says). These records were called in Cicero’s time the Annales Maximi. After the pontificate of Publius, the practice of compiling annals was carried on by various unofficial writers, of whom Cicero names Cato, Pictor and Piso. The Annales have been generally regarded as the same with the Commentarii Pontificum cited by Livy, but there seems reason to believe that the two were distinct, the Commentarii being fuller and more circumstantial. The nature of the distinction between annals and history is a subject that has received more attention from critics than its intrinsic importance deserves. The basis of discussion is furnished chiefly by the above-quoted passage from Cicero, and by the common division of the work of Tacitus into Annales and Hlstoriae. Aulus Gellius, in the Nodes Alticae (v. 18), quotes the grammarian Verrius Flaccus, to the effect that history, according to its etymology (ἱστορεῖν, inspicere, to inquire in person), is a record of events that have come under the author’s own observation, while annals are a record of the events of earlier times arranged according to years. This view of the distinction seems to be borne out by the division of the work of Tacitus into the Historiae, relating the events of his own time, and the Annales, containing the history of earlier periods. It is more than questionable, however, whether Tacitus himself divided his work under these titles. The probability is, either that he called the whole Annales, or that he used neither designation. (See Tacitus, Cornelius.)

ANNALS (Annales, from annus, meaning a year), is a brief historical record where events are listed chronologically, year by year. The main sources of information about the annals of ancient Rome are two quotes from Cicero (De Oratore, ii. 12. 52) and from Servius (ad Aen. i. 373) that have been widely discussed. Cicero mentions that from the earliest times up to the pontificate of Publius Mucius Scaevola (c. 131 BCE), it was customary for the pontifex maximus to write on a white tablet (album) that was displayed in a public area at his home for people to read. This tablet listed the names of the consuls and other officials, followed by the significant events of that year (per singulos dies, as Servius puts it). These records were known as the Annales Maximi during Cicero’s time. After Publius' pontificate, the practice of creating annals continued with various unofficial writers, including Cato, Pictor, and Piso, as mentioned by Cicero. The Annales have generally been considered the same as the Commentarii Pontificum referenced by Livy, but there is reason to think that they were different, with the Commentarii being more detailed and comprehensive. The distinction between annals and history has drawn more attention from critics than its actual importance warrants. The discussion is primarily based on Cicero's earlier passage and the usual division of Tacitus's work into Annales and Historiae. Aulus Gellius, in the Nodes Alticae (v. 18), cites the grammarian Verrius Flaccus, stating that history, in terms of its etymology (recording, inspicere, meaning to inquire in person), is a record of events observed directly by the author, while annals are a record of past events organized by year. This interpretation of the distinction appears to be supported by Tacitus's division of his work into Historiae, covering his own time, and Annales, detailing earlier periods. However, it is questionable whether Tacitus himself designated his work with these titles. It is likely that he either referred to the entire work as Annales or used neither term. (See Tacitus, Cornelius.)

In the middle ages, when the order of the liturgical feasts was partly determined by the date of Easter, the custom was early established in the Western Church of drawing up tables to indicate that date for a certain number of years or even centuries. These Paschal tables were thin books in which each annual date was separated from the next by a more or less considerable blank space. In these spaces certain monks briefly noted the important events of the year. It was at the end of the 7th century and among the Anglo-Saxons that the compiling of these Annals was first begun. Introduced by missionaries on the continent, they were re-copied, augmented and continued, especially in the kingdom of Austrasia. In the 9th century, during the great movement termed the Carolingian Renaissance, these Annals became the usual form of contemporary history; it suffices to mention the Annales Einhardi, the Annales Laureshamenses (or “of Lorsch”), and the Annales S. Bertini, officially compiled in order to preserve the memory of the more interesting acts of Charlemagne, his ancestors and his successors. Arrived at this stage of development, the Annals now began to lose their primitive character, and henceforward became more and more indistinguishable from the Chronicles.

In the Middle Ages, when the timing of liturgical feasts was partly determined by the date of Easter, the Western Church early on established the practice of creating tables to indicate that date for a certain number of years or even centuries. These Paschal tables were slim books where each annual date was separated by a more or less substantial blank space. In those spaces, certain monks briefly recorded the important events of the year. It was at the end of the 7th century, among the Anglo-Saxons, that the compilation of these Annals first began. Brought over by missionaries on the continent, they were copied, expanded, and continued, especially in the kingdom of Austrasia. In the 9th century, during the great movement known as the Carolingian Renaissance, these Annals became the standard form of contemporary history; notable examples include the Annales Einhardi, the Annales Laureshamenses (or “of Lorsch”), and the Annales S. Bertini, officially compiled to record the more significant actions of Charlemagne, his ancestors, and his successors. At this stage of development, the Annals began to lose their original character, becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the Chronicles.

In modern literature the title annals has been given to a large number of standard works which adhere more or less strictly to the order of years. The best known are the Annales Ecclesiastici, written by Cardinal Baronius as a rejoinder to and refutation of the Historia eccesiastica or “Centuries” of the Protestant theologians of Magdeburg (12 vols., published at Rome from 1788 to 1793; Baronius’s work stops at the year 1197). In the 19th century the annalistic form was once more employed, either to preserve year by year the memory of passing events (Annual Register, Annuaire de la Revue des deux mondes, &c.) or in writing the history of obscure medieval periods (Jahrbücher der deutschen Geschichte, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches, Richter’s Reichsannalen, &c.).

In modern literature, the term "annals" has been used for many standard works that generally follow a chronological order. The most well-known example is the Annales Ecclesiastici, written by Cardinal Baronius as a response to and counter-argument against the Historia ecclesiastica or “Centuries” of the Protestant theologians of Magdeburg (12 volumes, published in Rome from 1788 to 1793; Baronius’s work ends in the year 1197). In the 19th century, the annalistic form was used again, either to document events year by year (Annual Register, Annuaire de la Revue des deux mondes, etc.) or to write about lesser-known medieval periods (Jahrbücher der deutschen Geschichte, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches, Richter’s Reichsannalen, etc.).

(C. B.*)

ANNAM, or Anam, a country of south-eastern Asia, now forming a French protectorate, part of the peninsula of Indo-China. (See Indo-China, French). It is bounded N. by Tongking, E. and S.E. by the China Sea, S.W. by Cochin-China, and W. by Cambodia and Laos. It comprises a sinuous strip of territory measuring between 750 and 800 m. in length, with an approximate area of 52,000 sq. m. The population is estimated at about 6,124,000.

ANNAM, or Anam, a country in southeastern Asia, is currently a French protectorate and part of the Indo-Chinese peninsula. (See Indo-China, French). It is bordered to the north by Tonkin, to the east and southeast by the China Sea, to the southwest by Cochin-China, and to the west by Cambodia and Laos. It consists of a winding strip of land that stretches between 750 and 800 miles in length, covering an area of about 52,000 square miles. The population is estimated to be around 6,124,000.

The country consists chiefly of a range of plateaus and wooded mountains, running north and south and declining on the coast to a narrow band of plain varying between 12 and 50 m. in breadth. The mountains are cut transversely by short narrow valleys, through which run rivers, most of which are dry in summer and torrential in winter. The Song-Ma and the Song-Ca in the north, and the Song-Ba, Don-Nai and Se-Bang-Khan in the south, are alone of any size. The chief harbour is that afforded by the bay of Tourane at the centre of the coast-line. South of this point the coast curves outwards and is broken by peninsulas and indentations; to the north it is concave and bordered in many places by dunes and lagoons.

The country mainly consists of a series of plateaus and forested mountains running north and south, which gradually slope down to a narrow strip of flat land along the coast, ranging from 12 to 50 meters wide. The mountains are interrupted by short, narrow valleys through which rivers flow, most of which are dry in the summer and raging in the winter. The Song-Ma and the Song-Ca in the north, along with the Song-Ba, Don-Nai, and Se-Bang-Khan in the south, are the only significant rivers. The primary harbor is provided by the bay of Tourane, located at the center of the coastline. South of this point, the coast extends outward and features peninsulas and coves; to the north, it curves inward and is lined in many areas by sand dunes and lagoons.

Climate.—In Annam the rainy season begins during September and lasts for three or four months, corresponding with the north-east monsoon and also with a period of typhoons. During the rains the temperature varies from 59 degrees or even lower to 75 degrees F. June, July and August are the hottest months, the thermometer often reaching 85 degrees or 90 degrees, though the heat of the day is to some degree compensated by the freshness of the nights. The south-west monsoon which brings rain in Cochin-China coincides with the dry season in Annam, the reason probably being that the mountains and lofty plateaus separating the two countries retain the precipitation.

Climate.—In Annam, the rainy season starts in September and lasts for three to four months, coinciding with the northeast monsoon and a period of typhoons. During this time, temperatures range from 59 degrees to 75 degrees Fahrenheit. June, July, and August are the hottest months, with temperatures often reaching 85 to 90 degrees, although the heat of the day is somewhat offset by cooler nights. The southwest monsoon, which brings rain to Cochin-China, coincides with the dry season in Annam, likely because the mountains and high plateaus between the two regions block the rainfall.

Ethnography.—The Annamese, or, to use the native term, the Giao-chi, are the predominant people not only in Annam but in the lowland and cultivated parts of Tongking and in Cochin-China and southern Cambodia. According to their own annals and traditions they once inhabited southern China, a theory which is confirmed by many of their habits and physical characteristics; the race has, however, been modified by crossings with the Chams and other of the previous inhabitants of Indo-China.

Ethnography.—The Annamese, or as they call themselves, the Giao-chi, are the main population not just in Annam but also in the lowland and agricultural areas of Tonkin, as well as in Cochinchina and southern Cambodia. According to their own history and traditions, they originally lived in southern China, a theory backed up by many of their behaviors and physical traits; however, their race has been influenced by intermixing with the Chams and other earlier inhabitants of Indochina.

The Annamese is the worst-built and ugliest of all the Indo-Chinese who belong to the Mongolian race. He is scarcely of middle height and is shorter and less vigorous than his neighbours. His complexion is tawny, darker than that of the Chinese, but clearer than that of the Cambodian; his hair is black, coarse and long; his skin is thick; his forehead low; his skull slightly depressed at the top, but well developed at the sides. His face is flat, with highly protruding cheek-bones, and is lozenge-shaped or eurygnathous to a degree that is nowhere exceeded. His nose is not only the flattest, but also the smallest among the Indo-Chinese; his eyes are rarely oblique; his mouth is large and his lips thick; his teeth are blackened and his gums destroyed by the constant use of the betel-nut, the areca-nut and lime. His neck is short, his shoulders slope greatly, his body is thick-set and wanting in suppleness. Another peculiarity is a separation of the big toe from the rest, greater than is found in any other people, and sufficiently general and well marked to serve as an ethnographic test. The Annamese of Cochin-China are weaker and smaller than those of Tongking, probably as a result of living amid marshy rice-fields. The Annamese of both sexes wear wide trousers, a long, usually black tunic with narrow sleeves and a dark-coloured turban, or in the case of the lower classes, a wide straw hat; they either go bare-foot or wear sandals or Chinese boots. The typical Annamese dwelling is open to the gaze of the passer-by during the day; at night a sort of partition of bamboo is let down. The roof is supported on wooden pillars and walls are provided only at the sides. The house consists principally of one large room opening on the front verandah and containing the altar of the family’s ancestors, a table in the centre and couches placed against the wall. The chief elements of the native diet are rice, fish and poultry; vegetables and pork are also eaten. The family is the base of the social system in Annam and is ruled by its head, who is also priest and judge. 62 Polygamy is permitted but rarely practised, and the wife enjoys a position of some freedom.

The Annamese are the worst-built and least attractive among all the Indo-Chinese people from the Mongolian race. They are barely of average height, shorter and less sturdy than their neighbors. Their skin tone is tawny, darker than that of the Chinese but clearer than that of the Cambodian; their hair is long, coarse, and black; their skin is thick. They have a low forehead and a skull that is slightly sunken at the top but well-developed at the sides. Their faces are flat, with prominent cheekbones, and are shaped like a diamond or very broad. Their noses are not only the flattest but also the smallest among the Indo-Chinese; their eyes are rarely slanted; their mouths are large with thick lips; their teeth are often stained, and their gums damaged from the constant chewing of betel nut, areca nut, and lime. They have short necks, sloping shoulders, and stocky bodies without much flexibility. A peculiar trait is the noticeable separation of the big toe from the others, more pronounced than in any other people, and distinct enough to serve as an ethnic marker. The Annamese of Cochin-China are generally weaker and smaller than those from Tongking, likely due to living in marshy rice fields. Both men and women typically wear loose trousers, a long black tunic with narrow sleeves, and a dark turban, while those from the lower classes might wear a wide straw hat; they either walk barefoot or wear sandals or Chinese-style boots. The typical Annamese house is open for anyone passing by during the day, with a bamboo partition lowered at night. The roof is held up by wooden pillars, and walls only cover the sides. The house usually consists of one large room that opens onto the front veranda, containing an altar for family ancestors, a central table, and couches against the walls. The main staples of their diet are rice, fish, and poultry, along with some vegetables and pork. The family is the foundation of the social structure in Annam and is led by a head who also acts as priest and judge. 62 Polygamy is allowed but is rarely practiced, and the wife holds a certain degree of freedom.

Though fond of ease the Annamese are more industrious than the neighbouring peoples. Theatrical and musical entertainments are popular among them. They show much outward respect for superiors and parents, but they are insincere and incapable of deep emotion. They cherish great love of their native soil and native village and cannot remain long from home. A proneness to gambling and opium-smoking, and a tinge of vanity and deceitfulness, are their less estimable traits. On the whole they are mild and easy-going and even apathetic, but the facility with which they learn is remarkable. Like their neighbours the Cambodians and the Chinese, the Annamese have a great respect for the dead, and ancestor worship constitutes the national religion. The learned hold the doctrine of Confucius, and Buddhism, alloyed with much popular superstition, has some influence. Like the Chinese the Annamese bury their dead.

Though they enjoy comfort, the Annamese are more hardworking than those in neighboring areas. They love theatrical and musical performances. They show a lot of outward respect for those in higher positions and for their parents, but their feelings can be insincere and they struggle with deep emotions. They have a strong attachment to their homeland and village, and they can't stay away from home for too long. Some of their less admirable traits include a tendency toward gambling and opium smoking, along with a bit of vanity and deceit. Overall, they are gentle, easygoing, and even somewhat indifferent, but they have an impressive ability to learn. Like their neighbors, the Cambodians and the Chinese, the Annamese greatly respect the deceased, and ancestor worship is central to their spiritual life. The educated follow Confucian teachings, while Buddhism, mixed with popular superstitions, holds some influence. Just like the Chinese, the Annamese bury their dead.

Among the savage tribes of the interior there is scarcely any idea of God and their superstitious practices can scarcely be considered as the expression of a definite religious idea. Roman Catholics number about 420,000. In the midst of the Annamese live Cambodians and immigrant Chinese, the latter associated together according to the districts from which they come and carrying on nearly all the commerce of the country. In the forests and mountains dwell tribes of savages, chiefly of Indonesian origin, classed by the Annamese under the name Moïs or “savages.” Some of these tribes show traces of Malay ancestry. Of greater historical interest are the Chams, who are to be found for the most part in southern Annam and in Cambodia, and who, judging from the numerous remains found there, appear to have been the masters of the coast region of Cochin-China and Annam till they succumbed before the pressure of the Khmers of Cambodia and the Annamese. They are taller, more muscular, and more supple than the Annamese. Their language is derived from Malay, and while some of the Chams are Mussulmans, the dominant religion is Brahmanism, and more especially the worship of Siva. Their women have a high reputation for virtue, which, combined with the general bright and honest character of the whole people, differentiates them from the surrounding nations.

Among the indigenous tribes of the interior, there is hardly any concept of God, and their superstitious practices barely reflect a clear religious belief. The Roman Catholic population is about 420,000. Living among the Annamese are Cambodians and immigrant Chinese, who group together based on their regions of origin and manage almost all the commerce in the country. In the forests and mountains, tribes of indigenous people, mainly of Indonesian descent, are classified by the Annamese as Moïs or “savages.” Some of these tribes exhibit traces of Malay ancestry. Of greater historical significance are the Chams, who mostly live in southern Annam and Cambodia. Based on the numerous artifacts found there, they seem to have been the rulers of the coastal regions of Cochin-China and Annam until they fell under the influence of the Khmers of Cambodia and the Annamese. They are taller, stronger, and more agile than the Annamese. Their language is derived from Malay, and while some Chams are Muslims, the prevailing religion is Brahmanism, particularly the worship of Siva. Their women are well-regarded for their virtue, which, along with the generally bright and honest nature of the entire people, sets them apart from neighboring nations.

Evidently derived from the Chinese, of which it appears to be a very ancient dialect, the Annamese language is composed of monosyllables, of slightly varied articulation, expressing different ideas according to the tone in which they are pronounced. It is quite impossible to connect with our musical system the utterance of the sounds of which the Chinese and Annamese languages are composed. What is understood by a “tone” in this language is distinguished in reality, not by the number of sonorous vibrations which belong to it, but rather by a use of the vocal apparatus special to each. Thus, the sense will to a native be completely changed according as the sound is the result of an aspiration or of a simple utterance of the voice. Thence the difficulty of substituting our phonetic alphabet for the ideographic characters of the Chinese, as well as for the ideophonetic writing partly borrowed by the Annamese from the letters of the celestial empire. To the Jesuit missionaries is due the introduction of an ingenious though very complicated system, which has caused remarkable progress to be made in the employment of phonetic characters. By means of six accents, one bar and a crotchet it is possible to note with sufficient precision the indications of tone without which the Annamese words have no sense for the natives.

Clearly derived from Chinese, which seems to be a very ancient dialect, the Annamese language is made up of monosyllables with slightly different pronunciations that convey distinct meanings depending on the tone used. It's impossible to align the sounds of Chinese and Annamese with our musical system. In this language, what is meant by a "tone" is defined not by the number of sound vibrations, but by a unique use of the vocal apparatus for each tone. Therefore, the meaning can completely change for a native speaker based on whether the sound is aspirated or simply voiced. This creates challenges in replacing the ideographic characters of Chinese with our phonetic alphabet, as well as the ideophonetic writing that the Annamese partly borrowed from the characters of the celestial empire. The Jesuit missionaries introduced a clever but very complicated system that has significantly advanced the use of phonetic characters. Using six accents, one bar, and a note, it's possible to accurately indicate tones, which are essential for the meanings of Annamese words to native speakers.

Agriculture and other Industries.—The cultivation of rice, which is grown mainly in the small deltas along the coast and in some districts gives two crops annually, and fishing, together with fish-salting and the preparation of nuoc-mam, a sauce made from decaying fish, constitute the chief industries of Annam.

Agriculture and other Industries.—The growing of rice, primarily found in the small deltas along the coast and in certain regions, produces two harvests each year. Additionally, fishing, along with fish preservation and the preparation of nuoc-mam, a sauce made from fermented fish, are the main industries in Annam.

Silk spinning and weaving are carried on on antiquated lines, and silkworms are reared in a desultory fashion. Besides rice, the products of the country include tea, tobacco, cotton, cinnamon, precious woods and rubber; coffee, pepper, sugar-canes and jute are cultivated to a minor extent. The exports (total value in 1905 £237,010) comprise tea, raw silk and small quantities of cotton, rice and sugar-cane. The imports (£284,824 in 1905) include rice, iron goods, flour, wine, opium and cotton goods. There are coal-mines at Nong-Son, near Tourane, and gold, silver, lead, iron and other metals occur in the mountains. Trade, which is in the hands of the Chinese, is for the most part carried on by sea, the chief ports being Tourane and Qui-Nhon, which are open to European commerce.

Silk production and weaving are still done in an old-fashioned way, and silkworms are raised in a casual manner. Besides rice, the country produces tea, tobacco, cotton, cinnamon, valuable woods, and rubber; coffee, pepper, sugarcane, and jute are grown to a lesser degree. The exports (total value in 1905 was £237,010) include tea, raw silk, and small amounts of cotton, rice, and sugarcane. The imports (£284,824 in 1905) consist of rice, iron products, flour, wine, opium, and cotton goods. There are coal mines at Nong-Son, near Tourane, and gold, silver, lead, iron, and other metals can be found in the mountains. Trade, which is mostly controlled by the Chinese, primarily takes place by sea, with Tourane and Qui-Nhon being the main ports open to European commerce.

Administration.—Annam is ruled in theory by its emperor, assisted by the “comat” or secret council, composed of the heads of the six ministerial departments of the interior, finance, war, ritual, justice and public works, who are nominated by himself. The resident superior, stationed at Hué, is the representative of France and the virtual ruler of the country. He presides over a council (Conseil de Protectorat) composed of the chiefs of the French services in Annam, together with two members of the “comat”; this body deliberates on questions of taxation affecting the budget of Annam and on local public works. A native governor (tong-doc or tuan-phu), assisted by a native staff, administers each of the provinces into which the country is divided, and native officials of lower rank govern the areas into which these provinces are subdivided. The governors take their orders from the imperial government, but they are under the eye of French residents. Native officials are appointed by the court, but the resident superior has power to annul an appointment. The mandarinate or official class is recruited from all ranks of the people by competitive examination. In the province of Tourane, a French tribunal alone exercises jurisdiction, but it administers native law where natives are concerned. Outside this territory the native tribunals survive. The Annamese village is self-governing. It has its council of notables, forming a sort of oligarchy which, through the medium of a mayor and two subordinates, directs the interior affairs of the community—policing, recruiting, the assignment and collection of taxes, &c.—and has judicial power in less important suits and crimes. More serious cases come within the purview of the an-sat, a judicial auxiliary of the governor. An assembly of notables from villages grouped together in a canton chooses a cantonal representative, who is the mouthpiece of the people and the intermediary between the government and its subjects. The direct taxes, which go to the local budget of Annam, consist primarily of a poll-tax levied on all males over eighteen and below sixty years of age, and of a land-tax levied according to the quality and the produce of the holding.

Administration.—Annam is officially ruled by its emperor, who is assisted by the “comat” or secret council, made up of the heads of six ministerial departments: interior, finance, war, ritual, justice, and public works, all of whom are appointed by him. The resident superior, stationed in Hué, represents France and acts as the de facto ruler of the country. He leads a council (Conseil de Protectorat) consisting of the heads of the French services in Annam, along with two members from the “comat”; this group discusses tax issues affecting Annam's budget and local public works. A native governor (tong-doc or tuan-phu), supported by a local staff, manages each province into which the country is divided, while native officials of lower rank govern subdivisions within these provinces. Governors receive their directives from the imperial government but are monitored by French residents. Native officials are appointed by the court, but the resident superior can overturn these appointments. The mandarinate or official class is selected from all societal levels through competitive exams. In the province of Tourane, only a French court has jurisdiction, but it applies native law in cases involving locals. Outside this area, native courts continue to function. The Annamese village is self-governing, with a council of prominent citizens creating a sort of oligarchy that, through a mayor and two assistants, manages community affairs—policing, recruitment, tax assignment and collection, etc.—and has the authority to handle minor legal matters. More serious cases are dealt with by the an-sat, a judicial aide to the governor. A group of notable individuals from several villages within a canton elects a cantonal representative, who acts as the voice of the people and the link between the government and its citizens. The direct taxes that fund Annam's local budget mainly consist of a poll tax imposed on all males aged eighteen to sixty and a land tax based on the quality and output of the landholding.

The following table summarizes the local budget of Annam for the years 1899 and 1904:—

The following table summarizes the local budget of Annam for the years 1899 and 1904:—

Receipts. Expenditure.
1899 £203,082 (direct taxes, £171,160) £175,117
1904 £247,435 (direct taxes, £219,841) £232,480

In 1904 the sum allocated to the expenses of the court, the royal family and the native administration, the members of which are paid by the crown, was £85,000, the chief remaining heads of expenditure being the government house and residencies (£39,709), the native guard (£32,609) and public works (£24,898).

In 1904, the budget for the court, the royal family, and the native administration, whose members are funded by the crown, was £85,000. The main expenses were for the government house and residencies (£39,709), the native guard (£32,609), and public works (£24,898).

Education is available to every person in the community. The primary school, in which the pupils learn only Chinese writing and the precepts of Confucius, stands at the base of this system. Next above this is the school of the district capital, where a half-yearly examination takes place, by means of which are selected those eligible for the course of higher education given at the capital of the province in a school under the direction of a doc-hoc, or inspector of studies. Finally a great triennial competition decides the elections. The candidate whose work is notified as très bien is admitted to the examinations at Hué, which qualify for the title of doctor and the holding of administrative offices. The education of a mandarin includes local history, cognizance of the administrative rites, customs, laws and prescriptions of the country, the ethics of Confucius, the rules 63 of good breeding, the ceremonial of official and social life, and the practical acquirements necessary to the conduct of public or private business. Annamese learning goes no farther. It includes no scientific idea, no knowledge of the natural sciences, and neglects even the most rudimentary instruction conveyed in a European education. The complications of Chinese writing greatly hamper education. The Annamese mandarin must be acquainted with Chinese, since he writes in Chinese characters. But the character being ideographic, the words which express them are dissimilar in the two languages, and official text is read in Chinese by a Chinese, in Annamese by an Annamese.

Education is accessible to everyone in the community. The primary school, where students learn only Chinese writing and the teachings of Confucius, is the foundation of this system. Above that is the district capital school, which conducts a biannual examination to select students eligible for higher education offered at the provincial capital in a school led by a doc-hoc, or study inspector. Lastly, a major competition held every three years determines the candidates. Those whose work is marked as très bien are allowed to take the exams in Hué, which qualify them for the title of doctor and enable them to hold administrative positions. A mandarin's education includes local history, knowledge of administrative rites, customs, laws, and regulations of the country, the ethics of Confucius, principles of good manners, ceremonial practices in official and social life, and the practical skills needed to manage public or private business. Annamese education does not go beyond this. It lacks scientific concepts, knowledge of natural sciences, and even the most basic education provided in a European context. The complexities of Chinese writing significantly hinder education. The Annamese mandarin must know Chinese, as he writes using Chinese characters. However, since the characters are ideographic, the words that represent them differ between the two languages, and official texts are read in Chinese by a Chinese person and in Annamese by an Annamese person.

The chief towns of Annam are Hué (pop. about 42,000), seat both of the French and native governments, Tourane (pop. about 4000), Phan-Thiet (pop. about 20,000) in the extreme south, Qui-Nhon, and Fai-Fo, a commercial centre to the south of Tourane. A road following the coast from Cochin-China to Tongking, and known as the “Mandarin road,” passes through or near the chief towns of the provinces and forms the chief artery of communication in the country apart from the railways (see Indo-China, French).

The main cities of Annam are Hué (population around 42,000), which is home to both the French and local governments, Tourane (population about 4,000), Phan-Thiet (population around 20,000) in the far south, Qui-Nhon, and Fai-Fo, a commercial hub south of Tourane. A coastal road running from Cochin-China to Tongking, known as the “Mandarin road,” passes through or near the main cities of the provinces and serves as the primary route of communication in the country aside from the railways (see Indo-China, French).

History.—The ancient tribe of the Giao-chi, who dwelt on the confines of S. China, and in what is now Tongking and northern Annam, are regarded by the Annamese as their ancestors, and tradition ascribes to their first rulers descent from the Chinese imperial family. These sovereigns were succeeded by another dynasty, under which, at the end of the 3rd century B.C., the Chinese invaded the country, and eventually established there a supremacy destined to last, with little intermission, till the 10th century A.D. In 968 Dinh-Bo-Lanh succeeded in ousting the Chinese and founded an independent dynasty of Dinh. Till this period the greater part of Annam had been occupied by the Chams, a nation of Hindu civilization, which has left many monuments to testify to its greatness, but the encroachment of the Annamese during the next six centuries at last left to it only a small territory in the south of the country. Three lines of sovereigns followed that of Dinh, under the last of which, about 1407, Annam again fell under the Chinese yoke. In 1428 an Annamese general Le-Loi succeeded in freeing the country once more, and founded a dynasty which lasted till the end of the 18th century. During the greater part of this period, however, the titular sovereigns were mere puppets, the reality of power being in the hands of the family of Trinh in Tongking and that of Nguyen in southern Annam, which in 1568 became a separate principality under the name of Cochin-China. Towards the end of the 18th century a rebellion overthrew the Nguyen, but one of its members, Gia-long, by the aid of a French force, in 1801 acquired sway over the whole of Annam, Tongking and Cochin-China. This force was procured for him by Pigneau de Béhaine, bishop of Adran, who saw in the political condition of Annam a means of establishing French influence in Indo-China and counterbalancing the English power in India. Before this, in 1787, Gia-long had concluded a treaty with Louis XVI., whereby in return for a promise of aid he ceded Tourane and Pulo-Condore to the French. That treaty marks the beginning of French influence in Indo-China.

History.—The ancient Giao-chi tribe, who lived on the borders of southern China and in what is now Tonkin and northern Vietnam, are considered by the Vietnamese to be their ancestors, and tradition claims their first rulers were descended from the Chinese imperial family. These rulers were followed by another dynasty, under which, by the end of the 3rd century B.C., the Chinese invaded the region and eventually established a dominance that lasted, with few interruptions, until the 10th century A.D. In 968, Dinh-Bo-Lanh managed to drive out the Chinese and founded an independent Dinh dynasty. Until that time, most of Vietnam had been occupied by the Chams, a civilization of Hindu culture, which has left many monuments to demonstrate its greatness, but the expansion of the Vietnamese over the next six centuries ultimately reduced their territory to a small area in the south. Three lines of rulers followed the Dinh dynasty, and under the last of these, around 1407, Vietnam once again fell under Chinese control. In 1428, a Vietnamese general named Le-Loi successfully liberated the country and established a dynasty that lasted until the end of the 18th century. However, during most of this time, the nominal rulers were little more than figureheads, with real power held by the Trinh family in Tonkin and the Nguyen family in southern Vietnam, which became a separate principality called Cochin-China in 1568. Towards the end of the 18th century, a rebellion toppled the Nguyen, but one of its members, Gia-long, with the help of a French force, in 1801 took control over all of Vietnam, Tonkin, and Cochin-China. This force was arranged for him by Pigneau de Béhaine, bishop of Adran, who saw the political situation in Vietnam as a way to establish French influence in Indochina and counter British power in India. Before this, in 1787, Gia-long had signed a treaty with Louis XVI, in which he ceded Tourane and Pulo-Condore to the French in exchange for a promise of support. That treaty marks the beginning of French influence in Indochina.

See also Legrand de la Liraye, Notes historiques sur la nation annamite (Paris, 1866?); C. Gosselin, L’Empire d’Annam (Paris, 1904); E. Sombsthay, Cours de législation et d’administration annamites (Paris, 1898).

See also Legrand de la Liraye, Historical Notes on the Annamite Nation (Paris, 1866?); C. Gosselin, The Empire of Annam (Paris, 1904); E. Sombsthay, Course on Annamite Legislation and Administration (Paris, 1898).


ANNAN, a royal, municipal and police burgh of Dumfriesshire, Scotland, on the Annan, nearly 2 m. from its mouth, 15 m. from Dumfries by the Glasgow & South-Western railway. It has a station also on the Caledonian railway company’s branch line from Kirtlebridge to Brayton (Cumberland), which crosses the Solway Firth at Seafield by a viaduct, 113 m. long, constructed of iron pillars girded together by poles, driven through the sand and gravel into the underlying bed of sandstone. Annan is a well-built town, red sandstone being the material mainly used. Among its public buildings is the excellent academy of which Thomas Carlyle was a pupil. The river Annan is crossed by a stone bridge of three arches dating from 1824, and by a railway bridge. The Harbour Trust, constituted in 1897, improved the shipping accommodation, and vessels of 300 tons approach close to the town. The principal industries include cotton and rope manufactures, bacon-curing, distilling, tanning, shipbuilding, sandstone quarrying, nursery-gardening and salmon-fishing. Large marine engineering works are in the vicinity. Annan is a burgh of considerable antiquity. Roman remains exist in the neighbourhood, and the Bruces, lords of Annandale, the Baliols, and the Douglases were more or less closely associated with it. During the period of the Border lawlessness the inhabitants suffered repeatedly at the hands of moss-troopers and through the feuds of rival families, in addition to the losses caused by the English and Scots wars. Edward Irving was a native of the town. With Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, Lochmaben and Sanquhar, Annan unites in sending one meniber to parliament. Annan Hill commands a beautiful prospect. Population (1901) 5805.

ANNAN, is a royal, municipal, and police burgh in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, located on the Annan River, nearly 2 miles from its mouth and 15 miles from Dumfries by the Glasgow & South-Western railway. It also has a station on the Caledonian railway company's branch line from Kirtlebridge to Brayton (Cumberland), which crosses the Solway Firth at Seafield via a viaduct that is 113 miles long, made of iron pillars connected by poles, driven through the sand and gravel into the underlying sandstone. Annan is a well-constructed town, primarily built with red sandstone. One of its public buildings is the excellent academy where Thomas Carlyle was a student. The river Annan is spanned by a stone bridge with three arches, built in 1824, in addition to a railway bridge. The Harbour Trust, established in 1897, improved shipping facilities, allowing vessels of up to 300 tons to come close to the town. The main industries in the area include cotton and rope manufacturing, bacon-curing, distilling, tanning, shipbuilding, sandstone quarrying, nursery gardening, and salmon fishing. There are large marine engineering works nearby. Annan has significant historical roots, with Roman remains found in the area, and was historically associated with the Bruces, lords of Annandale, the Baliols, and the Douglases. During the time of Border lawlessness, the townspeople suffered frequent attacks from moss-troopers and through the feuds of rival families, in addition to damages from the English and Scots wars. Edward Irving was born in this town. Along with Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, Lochmaben, and Sanquhar, Annan collectively sends one member to parliament. Annan Hill offers a stunning view. Population (1901) 5,805.


ANNA PERENNA, an old Roman deity of the circle or “ring” of the year, as the name (per annum) clearly indicates. Her festival fell on the full moon of the first month (March 15), and was held at the grove of the goddess at the first milestone on the Via Flaminia. It was much frequented by the city plebs, and Ovid describes vividly the revelry and licentiousness of the occasion (Fasti. iii. 523 foll.). From Macrobius we learn (Sat. i. 12. 6) that sacrifice was made to her “ut annare perannareque commode liccat,” i.e. that the circle of the year may be completed happily. This is all we know for certain about the goddess and her cult; but the name naturally suggested myth-making, and Anna became a figure in stories which may be read in Ovid (l.c.) and in Silius Italicus (8.50 foll.). The coarse myth told by Ovid, in which Anna plays a trick on Mars when in love with Minerva, is probably an old Italian folk-tale, poetically applied to the persons of these deities when they became partially anthropomorphized under Greek influence.

ANNA PERENNA, is an old Roman goddess associated with the circle or "ring" of the year, as her name (per annum) suggests. Her festival took place on the full moon of the first month (March 15) at the goddess's grove by the first milestone on the Via Flaminia. It attracted a lot of the city's plebs, and Ovid vividly describes the partying and wild behavior of the event (Fasti. iii. 523 foll.). From Macrobius, we learn (Sat. i. 12. 6) that sacrifices were made to her "ut annare perannareque commode liccat," meaning that the cycle of the year may be completed joyfully. This is all we definitely know about the goddess and her worship; however, her name naturally led to myth-making, and Anna became a character in stories found in Ovid (l.c.) and Silius Italicus (8.50 foll.). The crude myth recounted by Ovid, where Anna tricks Mars while in love with Minerva, is likely an ancient Italian folk tale, poetically linked to these deities as they took on human-like qualities under Greek influence.

(W. W. F.*)

ANNAPOLIS, a city and seaport of Maryland, U.S.A., the capital of the state, the county seat of Anne Arundel county, and the seat of the United States Naval Academy; situated on the Severn river about 2 m. from its entrance into Chesapeake Bay, 26 m. S. by E. from Baltimore and about the same distance E. by N. from Washington. Pop. (1890) 7604; (1900) 8525, of whom 3002 were negroes; (1910 census) 8609. Annapolis is served by the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis (electric) and the Maryland Electric railways, and by the Baltimore & Annapolis steamship line. On an elevation near the centre of the city stands the state house (the corner stone of which was laid in 1772), with its lofty white dome (200 ft.) and pillared portico. Close by are the state treasury building, erected late in the 17th century for the House of Delegates; Saint Anne’s Protestant Episcopal church, in later colonial days a state church, a statue of Roger B. Taney (by W.H. Rinehart), and a statue of Baron Johann de Kalb. There are a number of residences of 18th century architecture, and the names of several of the streets—such as King George’s, Prince George’s, Hanover, and Duke of Gloucester—recall the colonial days. The United States Naval Academy was founded here in 1845. Annapolis is the seat of Saint John’s College, a non-sectarian institution supported in part by the state; it was opened in 1789 as the successor of King William’s School, which was founded by an act of the Maryland legislature in 1696 and was opened in 1701. Its principal building, McDowell Hall, was originally intended for a governor’s mansion; although £4000 current money was appropriated for its erection in 1742, it was not completed until after the War of Independence. In 1907 the college became the school of arts and sciences of the university of Maryland.

ANNAPOLIS, is a city and seaport in Maryland, U.S.A. It's the state capital, the county seat of Anne Arundel County, and the home of the United States Naval Academy. Located on the Severn River about 2 miles from its entrance into Chesapeake Bay, it's 26 miles south-east of Baltimore and roughly the same distance east-north-east of Washington. The population was 7,604 in 1890; 8,525 in 1900, with 3,002 being Black; and 8,609 according to the 1910 census. Annapolis is served by the Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis electric railway and the Maryland Electric railways, as well as the Baltimore & Annapolis steamship line. Near the center of the city, there's an elevation where the state house sits (the cornerstone was laid in 1772), featuring a tall white dome (200 ft.) and a pillared portico. Close by are the state treasury building, which was built in the late 17th century for the House of Delegates; Saint Anne’s Protestant Episcopal Church, which served as a state church in colonial times; a statue of Roger B. Taney (by W.H. Rinehart); and a statue of Baron Johann de Kalb. Several residences showcase 18th-century architecture, and some street names—like King George’s, Prince George’s, Hanover, and Duke of Gloucester—remind us of colonial history. The United States Naval Academy was established here in 1845. Annapolis is also home to Saint John’s College, a non-sectarian institution partly supported by the state; it opened in 1789 as the successor to King William’s School, which was founded by a Maryland legislative act in 1696 and began in 1701. Its main building, McDowell Hall, was originally supposed to be a governor’s mansion; although £4,000 was allocated for its construction in 1742, it wasn't finished until after the War of Independence. In 1907, the college became the school of arts and sciences of the University of Maryland.

Annapolis, at first called Providence, was settled in 1649 by Puritan exiles from Virginia. Later it bore in succession the names of Town at Proctor’s, Town at the Severn, Anne Arundel Town, and finally in 1694, Annapolis, in honour of Princess Anne, who at the time was heir to the throne of Great Britain. In 1694 also, soon after the overthrow of the Catholic government of the lord proprietor, it was made the seat of the new government as well as a port of entry, and it has since remained the capital of Maryland; but it was not until 1708 that it was incorporated as a city. From the middle of the 18th century until the War of 64 Independence, Annapolis was noted for its wealthy and cultivated society. The Maryland Gazette, which became an important weekly journal, was founded by Jonas Green in 1745; in 1769 a theatre was opened; during this period also the commerce was considerable, but declined rapidly after Baltimore, in 1780, was made a port of entry, and now oyster-packing is the city’s only important industry. Congress was in session in the state house here from the 26th of November 1783 to the 3rd of June 1784, and it was here on the 23rd of December 1783 that General Washington resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. In 1786 a convention, to which delegates from all the states of the Union were invited, was called to meet in Annapolis to consider measures for the better regulation of commerce (see Alexandria, Va.); but delegates came from only five states (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, and Delaware), and the convention—known afterward as the “Annapolis Convention,”—without proceeding to the business for which it had met, passed a resolution calling for another convention to meet at Philadelphia in the following year to amend the articles of confederation; by this Philadelphia convention the present Constitution of the United States was framed.

Annapolis, originally named Providence, was established in 1649 by Puritan exiles from Virginia. It later went through several name changes, including Town at Proctor’s, Town at the Severn, and Anne Arundel Town, before finally becoming Annapolis in 1694, in honor of Princess Anne, who was then the heir to the British throne. Also in 1694, shortly after the Catholic government of the lord proprietor was overthrown, it was designated as the seat of the new government and a port of entry, and it has remained the capital of Maryland since then; however, it wasn't incorporated as a city until 1708. From the mid-18th century until the War of Independence, Annapolis was known for its wealthy and cultured society. The Maryland Gazette, which became a significant weekly publication, was founded by Jonas Green in 1745; a theater opened in 1769; during this time, trade was considerable, but it declined rapidly after Baltimore became a port of entry in 1780, leaving oyster-packing as the city’s only major industry. Congress met in the state house here from November 26, 1783, to June 3, 1784, and it was on December 23, 1783, that General Washington resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. In 1786, a convention was called to meet in Annapolis to discuss better regulation of commerce, inviting delegates from all the states; however, only five states (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, and Delaware) sent delegates, and the convention—later known as the “Annapolis Convention”—did not conduct the business it was meant to, but instead passed a resolution calling for another convention to be held in Philadelphia the following year to amend the articles of confederation; this Philadelphia convention ultimately framed the current Constitution of the United States.

See D. Ridgely, Annals of Annapolis from 1649 until the War of 1812 (Baltimore, 1841); S.A. Shafer, “Annapolis, Ye Ancient City,” in L.P. Powell’s Historic Towns of the Southern States (New York, 1900); and W. Eddis, Letters from America (London, 1792).

See D. Ridgely, Annals of Annapolis from 1649 until the War of 1812 (Baltimore, 1841); S.A. Shafer, “Annapolis, The Ancient City,” in L.P. Powell’s Historic Towns of the Southern States (New York, 1900); and W. Eddis, Letters from America (London, 1792).


ANNAPOLIS, a town of Nova Scotia, capital of Annapolis county and up to 1750 of the entire peninsula of Nova Scotia; situated on an arm of the Bay of Fundy, at the mouth of the Annapolis river, 95 m. W. of Halifax; and the terminus of the Windsor & Annapolis railway. Pop. (1901) 1019. It is one of the oldest settlements in North America, having been founded in 1604 by the French, who called it Port Royal. It was captured by the British in 1710, and ceded to them by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, when the name was changed in honour of Queen Anne. It possesses a good harbour, and the beauty of the surrounding country makes it a favourite summer resort. The town is surrounded by apple orchards and in May miles of blossoming trees make a beautiful sight. The fruit, which is excellent in quality, is the principal export of the region.

ANNAPOLIS, is a town in Nova Scotia, the capital of Annapolis County, and until 1750, the capital of the entire Nova Scotia peninsula. It is located on an arm of the Bay of Fundy, at the mouth of the Annapolis River, 95 miles west of Halifax, and is the endpoint of the Windsor & Annapolis railway. The population in 1901 was 1,019. This is one of the oldest settlements in North America, founded in 1604 by the French, who named it Port Royal. It was captured by the British in 1710 and ceded to them by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, at which point the name was changed in honor of Queen Anne. Annapolis has a good harbor, and the beauty of the surrounding area makes it a popular summer destination. The town is surrounded by apple orchards, and in May, the miles of blooming trees create a stunning sight. The high-quality fruit is the main export of the region.


ANN ARBOR, a city and the county-seat of Washtenaw county, Michigan, U.S.A., on the Huron river, about 38 m. W. of Detroit. Pop. (1890) 9431; (1900) 14,509, of whom 2329 were foreign-born; (1910) 14,817. It is served by the Michigan Central and the Ann Arbor railways, and by an electric line running from Detroit to Jackson and connecting with various other lines. Ann Arbor is best known as the seat of the university of Michigan, opened in 1837. The city has many attractive residences, and the residential districts, especially in the east and south-east parts of the city, command picturesque views of the Huron valley. Ann Arbor is situated in a productive agricultural and fruit-growing region. The river provides good water-power, and among the manufactures are agricultural implements, carriages, furniture (including sectional book-cases), pianos and organs, pottery and flour. In 1824 Ann Arbor was settled, laid out as a town, chosen for the county-seat, and named in honour of Mrs Ann Allen and Mrs Ann Rumsey, the wives of two of the founders. It was incorporated as a village in 1833, and was first chartered as a city in 1851.

ANN ARBOR, is a city and the county seat of Washtenaw County, Michigan, U.S.A., located on the Huron River, about 38 miles west of Detroit. The population was 9,431 in 1890; 14,509 in 1900, which included 2,329 foreign-born residents; and 14,817 in 1910. It is served by the Michigan Central and Ann Arbor railways, as well as an electric line running from Detroit to Jackson that connects with various other lines. Ann Arbor is best known for being home to the University of Michigan, which opened in 1837. The city features many attractive homes, and the residential areas, particularly in the eastern and southeastern parts of the city, offer picturesque views of the Huron Valley. Ann Arbor is located in a fertile agricultural and fruit-growing area. The river provides good water power, and the manufacturing sector includes agricultural tools, carriages, furniture (including sectional bookcases), pianos and organs, pottery, and flour. Ann Arbor was settled in 1824, laid out as a town, designated as the county seat, and named in honor of Mrs. Ann Allen and Mrs. Ann Rumsey, the wives of two of the founders. It was incorporated as a village in 1833 and was first chartered as a city in 1851.


ANNATES (Lat. annatae, from annus, “year”), also known as “first-fruits” (Lat. primitiae). in the strictest sense of the word, the whole of the first year’s profits of a spiritual benefice which, in all countries of the Roman obedience, were formerly paid into the papal treasury. This custom was only of gradual growth. The jus deportuum, annalia or annatae, was originally the right of the bishop to claim the first year’s profits of the living from a newly inducted incumbent, of which the first mention is found under Pope Honorius (d. 1227), but which had its origin in a custom, dating from the 6th century, by which those ordained to ecclesiastical offices paid a fee or tax to the ordaining bishop. The earliest records show the annata to have been, sometimes a privilege conceded to the bishop for a term of years, sometimes a right based on immemorial precedent. In course of time the popes, under stress of financial crises, claimed the privilege for themselves, though at first only temporarily. Thus, in 1305, Clement V. claimed the first-fruits of all vacant benefices in England, and in 1319 John XXII. those of all Christendom vacated within the next two years. In those cases the rights of the bishops were frankly usurped by the Holy See, now regarded as the ultimate source of the episcopal jurisdiction; the more usual custom was for the pope to claim the first-fruits only of those benefices of which he had reserved the patronage to himself. It was from these claims that the papal annates, in the strict sense, in course of time developed.

ANNATES (Latin annatae, from annus, “year”), also known as “first-fruits” (Latin primitiae), refers to the total profits from the first year of a spiritual benefice, which, in all countries under Roman obedience, were initially paid into the papal treasury. This practice grew gradually over time. The jus deportuum, annalia or annatae was originally the bishop's right to receive the first year's profits from a newly appointed member, with the earliest reference found under Pope Honorius (d. 1227). Its origins trace back to a 6th-century custom where those ordained to church positions paid a fee or tax to the bishop who ordained them. Early records indicate that the annata was sometimes a privilege granted to the bishop for a certain number of years and sometimes a right based on long-standing tradition. Over time, amid financial pressures, popes claimed this privilege for themselves, initially on a temporary basis. For instance, in 1305, Clement V claimed the first-fruits of all vacant benefices in England, and in 1319 John XXII claimed those of all Christendom that became vacant within the following two years. In those instances, the bishops' rights were openly taken over by the Holy See, which was then viewed as the ultimate authority for episcopal jurisdiction; typically, the pope would only claim the first-fruits of benefices for which he had reserved patronage. These claims eventually led to the development of papal annates in the strict sense.

These annates may be divided broadly into three classes, though the chief features are common to all: (1) the servitia communia or servitia Camerae Papae, i.e. the payment into the papal treasury by every abbot and bishop, on his induction, of one year’s revenue of his new benefice. The servitia communia are traceable to the oblatio paid to the pope when consecrating bishops as metropolitan or patriarch. When, in the middle of the 13th century, the consecration of bishops became established as the sole right of the pope, the oblations of all bishops of the West were received by him and, by the close of the 14th century, these became fixed at one year’s revenue.1 A small additional payment, as a kind of notarial fee was added (servitia minuta). (2) The jus deportuum, fructus medii temporis, or annalia, i.e. the annates due to the bishop, but in the case of “reserved” benefices paid by him to the Holy See. (3) The quindennia, i.e. annates payable, under a bull of Paul II. (1469), by benefices attached to a corporation, every fifteen years and not at every presentation.

These annates can be broadly categorized into three types, although the main features are similar for all: (1) the servitia communia or servitia Camerae Papae, which refers to the payment made to the papal treasury by every abbot and bishop upon taking office, amounting to one year's income from their new benefice. The servitia communia trace back to the oblatio paid to the pope when bishops were consecrated as metropolitan or patriarch. When the pope established the exclusive right to consecrate bishops in the mid-13th century, he received the offerings from all bishops in the West, and by the end of the 14th century, these payments were fixed at one year's revenue. A small extra payment, functioning as a notarial fee, was added (servitia minuta). (2) The jus deportuum, fructus medii temporis, or annalia, which are the annates owed to the bishop, but in cases of “reserved” benefices, paid by him to the Holy See. (3) The quindennia, which are the annates payable every fifteen years under a bull issued by Paul II in 1469, applicable to benefices associated with a corporation, instead of at every appointment.

The system of annates was at no time worked with absolute uniformity and completeness throughout the various parts of the church owning obedience to the Holy See, and it was never willingly submitted to by the clergy. Disagreements and disputes were continual, and the easy expedient of rewarding the officials of the Curia and increasing the papal revenue by “reserving” more and more benefices was met by repeated protests, such as that of the bishops and barons of England (the chief sufferers), headed by Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln, at the council of Lyons in 1245.2 The subject, indeed, frequently became one of national interest, on account of the alarming amount of specie which was thus drained away, and hence numerous enactments exist in regard to it by the various national governments. In England the collection and payment of annates to the pope was prohibited in 1531 by statute. At that time the sum amounted to about 3000 pounds a year. In 1534 the annates were, along with the supremacy over the church in England, bestowed on the crown; but in February 1704 they were appropriated by Queen Anne to the assistance of the poorer clergy, and thus form what has since been known as “Queen Anne’s Bounty” (q.v.). The amount to be paid was originally regulated by a valuation made under the direction of Pope Innocent IV. by Walter, bishop of Norwich, in 1254, later by one instituted under commission from Nicholas III. in 1292, which in turn was superseded in 1535 by the valuation, made by commissioners appointed by Henry VIII., known as the King’s Books, which was confirmed on the accession of Elizabeth and is still that by which the clergy are rated. In France, in spite of royal edicts—like those of Charles VI., Charles VII., Louis XI, and Henry II.—and even denunciations of the Sorbonne, at least the custom of paying the servitia communia held its ground till the famous decree of the 4th of August during the Revolution of 1789. In Germany it was decided by the concordat of Constance, in 1418, that bishoprics and abbacies should pay the servitia according to the valuation of the Roman chancery in two half-yearly instalments. Those reserved benefices only were to pay the annalia which were rated above twenty-four gold florins; and as none were so rated, whatever their annual value may have been, the annalia fell into disuse. A 65 similar convenient fiction also led to their practical abrogation in France, Spain and Belgium. The council of Basel (1431-1443) wished to abolish the servitia, but the concordat of Vienna (1448) confirmed the Constance decision, which, in spite of the efforts of the congress of Ems (1786) to alter it, still remains nominally in force. As a matter of fact, however, the revolution caused by the secularization of the ecclesiastical states in 1803 practically put an end to the system, and the servitia have either been commuted via gratiae to a moderate fixed sum under particular concordats, or are the subject of separate negotiation with each bishop on his appointment. In Prussia, where the bishops receive salaries as state officials, the payment is made by the government.

The system of annates was never applied consistently or completely across different parts of the church that recognized the authority of the Holy See, and it was never willingly accepted by the clergy. There were constant disagreements and disputes, and the simple tactic of rewarding the officials of the Curia and boosting papal income by “reserving” more benefices was met with repeated protests, especially from the bishops and barons of England, led by Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln, at the council of Lyons in 1245.2 The issue often became a matter of national concern due to the significant amount of money that was drained away, which led various national governments to enact numerous regulations about it. In England, a law prohibited the collection and payment of annates to the pope in 1531. At that time, the total was about £3,000 a year. By 1534, the annates, along with the authority over the church in England, were transferred to the crown; however, in February 1704, Queen Anne designated them to assist poorer clergy, which became known as “Queen Anne’s Bounty” (q.v.). The amount to be paid was initially set by a valuation made under Pope Innocent IV's direction by Walter, the bishop of Norwich, in 1254, later reassessed under a commission from Nicholas III in 1292, and then updated in 1535 by commissioners appointed by Henry VIII, known as the King’s Books, which was confirmed upon Elizabeth’s accession and remains the basis for how clergy are rated today. In France, despite royal decrees from Charles VI, Charles VII, Louis XI, and Henry II, and even condemnations from the Sorbonne, the practice of paying the servitia communia persisted until the famous decree of August 4 during the Revolution of 1789. In Germany, the concordat of Constance in 1418 decided that bishoprics and abbeys would pay the servitia based on the valuation from the Roman chancery in two half-yearly payments. Only reserved benefices that were rated above twenty-four gold florins were required to pay the annalia, and since none were rated that high, the annalia became obsolete. A similar convenient tactic also led to their effective cancellation in France, Spain, and Belgium. The council of Basel (1431-1443) aimed to abolish the servitia, but the concordat of Vienna (1448) upheld the Constance decision, which, despite the efforts of the congress of Ems (1786) to change it, still nominally remains in effect. However, the revolution brought on by the secularization of ecclesiastical states in 1803 effectively ended the system, and the servitia have either been converted via gratiae into a fixed moderate amount under specific concordats or are negotiated separately with each bishop upon his appointment. In Prussia, where bishops receive salaries as government employees, the payment is handled by the government.

In Scotland annat or ann is half a year’s stipend allowed by the Act 1672, c. 13, to the executors of a minister of the Church of Scotland above what was due to him at the time of his death. This is neither assignable by the clergyman during his life, nor can it be seized by his creditors.

In Scotland, annat or ann is half a year’s salary granted by the Act of 1672, c. 13, to the executors of a minister of the Church of Scotland, in addition to what was owed to him at the time of his death. This cannot be assigned by the clergyman while he is alive, nor can it be taken by his creditors.


1 For cases see du Cange, Glossarium, s. Servitium Camerae Papae; J.C.L. Gieseler, Eccles. Hist., vol. iii. div. iii., notes to p. 181, &c. (Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1853).

1 For examples, check du Cange, Glossarium, s. Servitium Camerae Papae; J.C.L. Gieseler, Eccles. Hist., vol. iii. div. iii., notes to p. 181, &c. (Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1853).

2 Durandus (Guillaume Durand), in his de modo generalis concilii celebrandi, represents contemporary clerical hostile opinion and attacks the corruptions of the officials of the Curia.

2 Durandus (Guillaume Durand), in his de modo generalis concilii celebrandi, reflects the current critical views of clergy and criticizes the corruption of the Curia officials.


ANNE (1665-1714), queen of Great Britain and Ireland, second daughter of James, duke of York, afterwards James II., and of Anne Hyde, daughter of the ist earl of Clarendon, was born on the 6th of February 1665. She suffered as a child from an affection of the eyes, and was sent to France for medical treatment, residing with her grandmother, Henrietta Maria, and on the latter’s death with her aunt, the duchess of Orleans, and returning to England in 1670. She was brought up, together with her sister Mary, by the direction of Charles II., as a strict Protestant, and as a child she made the friendship of Sarah Jennings (afterwards duchess of Marlborough), thus beginning life under the two influences which were to prove the most powerful in her future career. In 1678 she accompanied Mary of Modena to Holland, and in 1679 joined her parents abroad and afterwards in Scotland. On the 28th of July 1683 she married Prince George of Denmark, brother of King Christian V., an unpopular union because of the French proclivities of the bridegroom’s country, but one of great domestic happiness, the prince and princess being conformable in temper and both preferring retirement and quiet to life in the great world. Sarah Churchill became Anne’s lady of the bedchamber, and, by the latter’s desire to mark their mutual intimacy and affection, all deference due to her rank was abandoned and the two ladies called each other Mrs Morley and Mrs Freeman.

ANNE (1665-1714), queen of Great Britain and Ireland, was the second daughter of James, duke of York (who later became James II), and Anne Hyde, the daughter of the 1st earl of Clarendon. She was born on February 6, 1665. As a child, she suffered from eye problems and was sent to France for treatment, living with her grandmother, Henrietta Maria, and after her grandmother's death, with her aunt, the duchess of Orleans, before returning to England in 1670. She was raised alongside her sister Mary under the guidance of Charles II, as a strict Protestant, and as a child, she became friends with Sarah Jennings (who later became the duchess of Marlborough), starting her life under the two influences that would greatly shape her future. In 1678, she traveled to Holland with Mary of Modena, and in 1679, she joined her parents abroad and later in Scotland. On July 28, 1683, she married Prince George of Denmark, the brother of King Christian V. This marriage was unpopular due to the pro-French leanings of her husband's country, but it brought her great domestic happiness, as both the prince and princess preferred a quiet life away from the public eye. Sarah Churchill became Anne's lady of the bedchamber, and to show their close friendship, they abandoned the formalities due to rank and called each other Mrs. Morley and Mrs. Freeman.

On the 6th of February 1685 James became king of England. In 1687 a project of settling the crown on the princess, to the exclusion of Mary, on the condition of Anne’s embracing Roman Catholicism, was rendered futile by her pronounced attachment to the Church of England, and beyond sending her books and papers James appears to have made no attempt to coerce his daughter into a change of faith,1 and to have treated her with kindness, while the birth of his son on the 20th of June 1688 made the religion of his daughters a matter of less political importance. Anne was not present on the occasion, having gone to Bath, and this gave rise to a belief that the child was spurious; but it is most probable that James’s desire to exclude all Protestants from affairs of state was the real cause. “I shall never now be satisfied,” Anne wrote to Mary, “whether the child be true or false. It may be it is our brother, but God only knows ... one cannot help having a thousand fears and melancholy thoughts, but whatever changes may happen you shall ever find me firm to my religion and faithfully yours.”2 In later years, however, she had no doubt that the Old Pretender was her brother. During the events immediately preceding the Revolution Anne kept in seclusion. Her ultimate conduct was probably influenced by the Churchills; and though forbidden by James, to pay Mary a projected visit in the spring of 1688, she corresponded with her, and was no doubt aware of William’s plans. Her position was now a very critical and painful one. She refused to show any sympathy with the king after William had landed in November, and wrote, with the advice of the Churchills, to the prince, declaring her approval of his action.3 Churchill abandoned the king on the 24th, Prince George on the 25th, and when James returned to London on the 26th he found that Anne and her lady-in-waiting had during the previous night followed their husbands’ examples. Escaping from Whitehall by a back staircase they put themselves under the care of the bishop of London, spent one night in his house, and subsequently arrived on the 1st of December at Nottingham, where the princess first made herself known and appointed a council. Thence she passed through Leicester, Coventry and Warwick, finally entering Oxford, where she met Prince George, in triumph, escorted by a large company. Like Mary, she was reproached for showing no concern at the news of the king’s flight, but her justification was that “she never loved to do anything that looked like an affected constraint.” She returned to London on the 19th of December, when she was at once visited by William. Subsequently the Declaration of Rights settled the succession of the crown upon her after William and Mary and their children.

On February 6, 1685, James became king of England. In 1687, a plan to pass the crown to the princess, excluding Mary, on the condition that Anne would convert to Roman Catholicism, failed due to her strong loyalty to the Church of England. Besides sending her books and papers, James didn't seem to pressure his daughter to change her faith and treated her kindly. The birth of his son on June 20, 1688, made the religious status of his daughters less significant politically. Anne wasn't there for the event since she had gone to Bath, leading to rumors that the child wasn't legitimate. However, it’s likely that James's wish to keep Protestants out of political power was the real reason for the rumors. “I will never be sure,” Anne wrote to Mary, “if the child is real or not. It could be our brother, but only God knows... It’s hard not to have a thousand worries and gloomy thoughts, but whatever happens, you can always count on my loyalty to my faith and to you.” In later years, though, she became certain that the Old Pretender was indeed her brother. During the events leading up to the Revolution, Anne stayed hidden away. The Churchills probably influenced her actions; despite James forbidding her to visit Mary in the spring of 1688, she kept in touch and was likely aware of William's plans. Her situation was very tense and difficult. After William landed in November, she refused to show support for the king and, on the advice of the Churchills, wrote to the prince expressing her support for his actions. Churchill abandoned the king on the 24th, Prince George on the 25th, and when James returned to London on the 26th, he discovered that Anne and her lady-in-waiting had, during the previous night, followed in their husbands’ footsteps. They escaped from Whitehall using a back staircase, sought refuge with the bishop of London, spent a night at his house, and then arrived in Nottingham on December 1, where the princess introduced herself and formed a council. From there, she traveled through Leicester, Coventry, and Warwick, finally reaching Oxford, where she encountered Prince George, who was triumphantly accompanied by a large group. Like Mary, she faced criticism for not caring about the news of the king’s escape, but she justified it by saying “she never liked to act as if she was being forced.” She went back to London on December 19, and William visited her immediately. Later, the Declaration of Rights confirmed her place in the line of succession after William and Mary and their children.

Meanwhile Anne had suffered a series of maternal disappointments. Between 1684 and 1688 she had miscarried four times and given birth to two children who died infants. On the 24th of July 1689, however, the birth, of a son, William, created duke of Gloucester, who survived his infancy, gave hopes that heirs to the throne under the Bill of Rights might be forthcoming. But Anne’s happiness was soon troubled by quarrels with the king and queen. According to the duchess of Marlborough the two sisters, who had lived hitherto while apart on extremely affectionate terms, found no enjoyment in each other’s society. Mary talked too much for Anne’s comfort, and Anne too little for Mary’s satisfaction. But money appears to have been the first and real cause of ill-feeling. The granting away by William of the private estate of James, amounting to 22,000 pounds a year, to which Anne had some claim, was made a grievance, and a factious motion brought forward in the House to increase her civil list pension of 30,000 pounds, which she enjoyed in addition to 20,000 pounds under her marriage settlement, greatly displeased William and Mary, who regarded it as a plot to make Anne independent and the chief of a separate interest in the state, while their resentment was increased by the refusal of Anne to restrain the action of her friends, and by its success. The Marlboroughs had been active in the affair and had benefited by it, the countess (as she then was) receiving a pension of 1000 pounds, and their conduct was noticed at court. The promised Garter was withheld from Marlborough, and the incensed “Mrs Morley” in her letters to “Mrs Freeman” styled the king “Caliban” or the “Dutch Monster.” At the close of 1691 Anne had declared her approval of the naval expedition in favour of her father, and expressed grief at its failure.4 According to the doubtful Life of James, she wrote to him on the 1st of December a “most penitential and dutiful” letter, and henceforward kept up with him a “fair correspondence.”5 The same year the breach between the royal sisters was made final by the dismissal of Marlborough, justly suspected of Jacobite intrigues, from all his appointments. Anne took the part of her favourites with great zeal against the court, though in all probability unaware of Marlborough’s treason; and on the dismissal of the countess from her household by the king and queen she refused to part with her, and retired with Lady Marlborough to the duke of Somerset’s residence at Sion House. Anne was now in disgrace. She was deprived of her guard of honour, and Prince George, on entering Kensington Palace, received no salute, though the drums beat loudly on his departure.6 Instructions were given that the court expected no one to pay his respects, and no attention in the provinces was to be shown to their rank. In May, Marlborough was arrested on a charge of high treason which subsequently broke down, and Anne persisted in regarding his disgrace as a personal injury to herself. In August 1693, however, 66 the two sisters were temporarily reconciled, and on the occasion of Mary’s last illness and death Anne showed an affectionate consideration.

Meanwhile, Anne had gone through a series of painful disappointments as a mother. Between 1684 and 1688, she suffered four miscarriages and gave birth to two infants who both died. However, on July 24, 1689, she had a son, William, who was made the Duke of Gloucester and survived infancy, raising hopes for potential heirs to the throne under the Bill of Rights. But Anne’s happiness was soon overshadowed by conflicts with the king and queen. According to the Duchess of Marlborough, the two sisters, who had previously enjoyed a very close relationship, no longer found joy in each other's company. Mary talked too much for Anne’s liking, while Anne was too quiet for Mary’s taste. However, it appears that money was the main source of their grievances. William's decision to give away James’s private estate, which was worth £22,000 a year and to which Anne had some claim, became a point of contention. A motion was brought up in the House to increase her civil list pension of £30,000, which she received in addition to £20,000 from her marriage settlement. This greatly angered William and Mary, who saw it as a scheme to make Anne independent and the leader of a rival faction in the state. Their resentment grew because Anne would not control her friends, and the motion was successful. The Marlboroughs were involved in the situation and gained from it, with the countess (as she was then) receiving a £1,000 pension, which caught attention at court. The promised Garter was withheld from Marlborough, and the offended “Mrs. Morley” referred to the king as “Caliban” or the “Dutch Monster” in her letters to “Mrs. Freeman.” By the end of 1691, Anne had expressed her approval of the naval expedition in favor of her father and felt sorrow over its failure. According to the questionable Life of James, she wrote him a “most penitential and dutiful” letter on December 1 and kept up a “fair correspondence” with him afterward. That same year, the rift between the royal sisters was finalized by Marlborough's removal from all his positions, as he was justly suspected of Jacobite intrigues. Anne passionately defended her favorites against the court, likely unaware of Marlborough’s treachery. After the king and queen dismissed the countess from her household, Anne refused to let her go and moved in with Lady Marlborough to the Duke of Somerset's home at Sion House. Anne was now out of favor. She lost her honor guard, and Prince George was not saluted upon entering Kensington Palace, although drums were played loudly as he left. Instructions were issued that court members were not expected to pay their respects, and no attention was to be given to their rank in the provinces. In May, Marlborough was arrested on charges of high treason, which later fell apart, and Anne continued to view his disgrace as a personal affront. However, in August 1693, the two sisters reconciled temporarily, and during Mary’s final illness and death, Anne demonstrated her affection and concern.

The death of Mary weakened William’s position and made it necessary to cultivate good relations with the princess. She was now treated with every honour and civility, and finally established with her own court at St James’s Palace. At the same time William kept her in the background and refrained from appointing her regent during his absence. In March 1695 Marlborough was allowed to kiss the king’s hands, and subsequently was made the duke of Gloucester’s governor and restored to his employments. In return Anne gave her support to William’s government, though about this time, in 1696—according to James, in consequence of the near prospect of the throne— she wrote to her father asking for his leave to wear the crown at William’s death, and promising its restoration at a convenient opportunity.7 The unfounded rumour that William contemplated settling the succession after his death on James’s son, provided he were educated a Protestant in England, may possibly have alarmed her.8 Meanwhile, since the birth of the duke of Gloucester, the princess had experienced six more miscarriages, and had given birth to two children who only survived a few hours, and the last maternal hope flickered out on the death of the young prince on the 29th of July 1700. Henceforth Anne signs herself in her letters to Lady Marlborough as “your poor unfortunate” as well as “faithful Morley.” In default of her own issue, Anne’s personal choice would probably have inclined at this time to her own family at St Germains, but the necessity of maintaining the Protestant succession caused the enactment of the Act of Settlement in 1701, and the substitution of the Hanoverian branch. She wore mourning for her father in 1701, and before his death James is said to have written to his daughter asking for her protection for his family; but the recognition of his son by Louis XIV. as king of England effectually prevented any good offices to which her feelings might have inclined her.

The death of Mary weakened William’s position and made it necessary to maintain good relations with the princess. She was now treated with all due honor and respect, and eventually set up her own court at St James’s Palace. At the same time, William kept her in the background and refrained from making her regent during his absence. In March 1695, Marlborough was allowed to kiss the king’s hands, and was later appointed as the duke of Gloucester’s governor and restored to his positions. In return, Anne supported William’s government, although around this time, in 1696—according to James, due to the looming possibility of the throne—she wrote to her father asking for permission to wear the crown upon William’s death, while promising to restore it when the time was right.7 The unfounded rumor that William was considering settling the succession after his death on James’s son, provided he was educated as a Protestant in England, may have unsettled her.8 Meanwhile, since the birth of the duke of Gloucester, the princess had suffered six more miscarriages and had given birth to two children who only lived for a few hours. Her last hope as a mother faded with the death of the young prince on July 29, 1700. From then on, Anne referred to herself in her letters to Lady Marlborough as “your poor unfortunate” as well as “faithful Morley.” In the absence of her own children, Anne’s personal preference at this time would likely have leaned towards her own family at St Germains, but the need to maintain the Protestant succession resulted in the enactment of the Act of Settlement in 1701, which established the Hanoverian branch. She wore mourning for her father in 1701, and before his death, James reportedly wrote to his daughter asking for her protection for his family; however, the recognition of his son by Louis XIV. as king of England effectively prevented any good efforts to which her feelings might have inclined her.

On the 8th of March 1702 Anne became, by King William’s death, queen of Great Britain, being crowned on the 23rd of April. Her reign was destined to be one of the most brilliant in the annals of England. Splendid military triumphs crushed the hereditary national foe. The Act of Union with Scotland constituted one of the strongest foundations of the future empire. Art and literature found a fresh renascence.

On March 8, 1702, Anne became queen of Great Britain after King William's death, and she was crowned on April 23. Her reign turned out to be one of the most remarkable in England's history. Great military victories defeated the long-standing national enemy. The Act of Union with Scotland laid one of the strongest foundations for the future empire. Art and literature experienced a new revival.

In her first speech to parliament, like George III. afterwards, Anne declared her “heart to be entirely English,” words which were resented by some as a reflection on the late king. A ministry, mostly Tory, with Godolphin at its head, was established. She obtained a grant of 700,000 pounds a year, and hastened to bestow a pension of 100,000 pounds on her husband, whom she created generalissimo of her forces and lord high admiral, while Marlborough obtained the Garter, with the captain-generalship and other prizes, including a dukedom, and the duchess was made mistress of the robes with the control of the privy purse. The queen showed from the first a strong interest in church matters, and declared her intention to keep church appointments in her own hands. She detested equally Roman Catholics and dissenters, showed a strong leaning towards the high-church party, and gave zealous support to the bill forbidding occasional conformity. In 1704 she announced to the Commons her intention of granting to the church the crown revenues, amounting to about 16,000 pounds or 17,000 pounds a year, from tenths and first-fruits (paid originally by the clergy to the pope, but appropriated by the crown in 1534), for the increase of poor livings; her gift, under the name of “Queen Anne’s Bounty,” still remaining as a testimony of her piety. This devotion to the church, the strongest of all motives in Anne’s conduct, dictated her hesitating attitude towards the two great parties in the state. The Tories had for this reason her personal preference, while the Whigs, who included her powerful favourites the Marlboroughs, identified their interests with the war and its glorious successes, the queen slowly and unwillingly, but inevitably, gravitating towards the latter.

In her first speech to Parliament, just like George III did later, Anne declared her “heart to be entirely English,” a statement that some saw as a slight against the late king. A mostly Tory administration was set up, led by Godolphin. She secured an annual grant of £700,000 and quickly gave her husband a pension of £100,000, appointing him generalissimo of her forces and lord high admiral. Meanwhile, Marlborough received the Garter, the position of captain-general, among other honors, including a dukedom, while the duchess was made mistress of the robes and managed the privy purse. From the start, the queen showed a strong interest in church affairs and announced her intention to keep church appointments under her control. She disliked both Roman Catholics and dissenters, leaned heavily toward the high-church party, and vigorously supported the bill that prohibited occasional conformity. In 1704, she informed the Commons of her plan to grant the church the crown revenues, which amounted to about £16,000 or £17,000 a year from tenths and first-fruits (initially paid by the clergy to the pope but taken over by the crown in 1534), to help bolster poor livings; her contribution, known as “Queen Anne’s Bounty,” still stands as a testament to her piety. This commitment to the church, which was the strongest motive behind Anne’s actions, influenced her tentative stance toward the two major political parties. For this reason, she personally preferred the Tories, while the Whigs, who included her powerful favorites the Marlboroughs, tied their interests to the war and its glorious achievements, causing the queen to gradually and reluctantly lean toward them.

In December, the archduke Charles visited Anne at Windsor and was welcomed as the king of Spain. In 1704 Anne acquiesced in the resignation of Lord Nottingham, the leader of the high Tory party. In the same year the great victory of Blenheim further consolidated the power of the Whigs and increased the influence of Marlborough, upon whom Anne now conferred the manor of Woodstock. Nevertheless, she declared in November to the duchess that whenever things leaned towards the Whigs, “I shall think the church is beginning to be in danger.” Next year she supported the election of the Whig speaker, John Smith, but long resisted the influence and claims of the Junto, as the Whig leaders, Somers, Halifax, Orford, Wharton and Sunderland, were named. In October she was obliged to appoint Cowper, a Whig, lord chancellor, with all the ecclesiastical patronage belonging to the office. Marlborough’s successive victories, and especially the factious conduct of the Tories, who in November 1705 moved in parliament that the electress Sophia should be invited to England, drove Anne farther to the side of the Whigs. But she opposed for some time the inclusion in the government of Sunderland, whom she especially disliked, only consenting at Marlborough’s intercession in December 1706, when various other offices and rewards were bestowed upon Whigs, and Nottingham with other Tories was removed from the council. She yielded, after a struggle, also to the appointment of Whigs to bishoprics, the most mortifying submission of all. In 1708 she was forced to dismiss Harley, who, with the aid of Mrs Masham, had been intriguing against the government and projecting the creation of a third party. Abigail Hill, Mrs Masham, a cousin of the duchess of Marlborough, had been introduced by the latter as a poor relation into Anne’s service, while still princess of Denmark. The queen found relief in the quiet and respectful demeanour of her attendant, and gradually came to prefer her society to that of the termagant and tempestuous duchess. Abigail, however, soon ventured to talk “business,” and in the summer of 1707 the duchess discovered to her indignation that her protégée had already undermined her influence with the queen and had become the medium of Harley’s intrigue. The strength of the Whigs at this time and the necessities of the war caused the retirement of Harley, but he remained Anne’s secret adviser and supporter against the faction, urging upon her “the dangers to the crown as well as to the church and monarchy itself from their counsels and actions,”9 while the duchess never regained her former influence. The inclusion in the cabinet of Somers, whom she especially disliked as the hostile critic of Prince George’s admiralty administration, was the subject of another prolonged struggle, ending again in the queen’s submission after a futile appeal to Marlborough in October 1708, to which she brought herself only to avoid a motion from the Whigs for the removal of the prince, then actually on his deathbed. His death on the 28th of October was felt deeply by the queen, and opened the way for the inclusion of more Whigs. But no reconciliation with the duchess took place, and in 1709 a further dispute led to an angry correspondence, the queen finally informing the duchess of the termination of their friendship, and the latter drawing up a long narrative of her services, which she forwarded to Anne together with suitable passages on the subject of friendship and charity transcribed from the Prayer Book, the Whole Duty of Man and from Jeremy Taylor.10 Next year Anne’s desire to give a regiment to Hill, Mrs Masham’s brother, led to another ineffectual attempt in retaliation to displace the new favourite, and the queen showed her antagonism to the Whig administration on the occasion of the prosecution of Sacheverell. She was present at his trial and was publicly acclaimed by the mob as his supporter, while the Tory divine was consoled immediately on the expiration of his sentence with the living of St Andrew’s, Holborn. Subsequently the duchess, in a final interview which she had forced upon the queen, found her tears and reproaches 67 unavailing. In her anger she had told the queen she wished for no answer, and she was now met by a stony and exasperating silence, broken only by the words constantly repeated, “You desired no answer and you shall have none.”

In December, Archduke Charles visited Anne at Windsor and was received as the King of Spain. In 1704, Anne agreed to the resignation of Lord Nottingham, the leader of the high Tory party. That same year, the significant victory at Blenheim further strengthened the power of the Whigs and increased Marlborough's influence, to whom Anne now granted the manor of Woodstock. However, she told the duchess in November that whenever things started to favor the Whigs, “I will think the church is starting to be in danger.” The following year, she supported the election of the Whig Speaker, John Smith, but resisted the influence and demands of the Junto, which referred to the Whig leaders: Somers, Halifax, Orford, Wharton, and Sunderland. In October, she had to appoint Cowper, a Whig, as Lord Chancellor, along with all the ecclesiastical patronage that came with the role. Marlborough’s continued victories, and especially the divisive actions of the Tories, who in November 1705 proposed in parliament that Electress Sophia should be invited to England, pushed Anne further towards the Whigs. Still, she opposed for a time the inclusion of Sunderland in the government, whom she particularly disliked, only agreeing at Marlborough’s request in December 1706, when several other posts and rewards were given to Whigs, and Nottingham and other Tories were removed from the council. After some struggle, she also yielded to the appointment of Whigs to bishoprics, which was the most humiliating submission of all. In 1708, she had to dismiss Harley, who, with the help of Mrs. Masham, had been plotting against the government and planning the formation of a third party. Abigail Hill, Mrs. Masham, a cousin of the Duchess of Marlborough, had been introduced by her as a poor relation into Anne’s service while she was still Princess of Denmark. The queen appreciated the calm and respectful demeanor of her attendant and gradually preferred her company over that of the quarrelsome and tempestuous duchess. However, Abigail soon began discussing “business,” and in the summer of 1707, the duchess discovered to her anger that her protégé had already undermined her influence with the queen and become the channel for Harley’s schemes. The strength of the Whigs at that time and the demands of the war led to Harley's retirement, but he remained Anne’s secret advisor and supporter against the faction, warning her about “the dangers to the crown, as well as to the church and monarchy itself from their counsels and actions,” while the duchess never regained her previous influence. The inclusion of Somers in the cabinet, whom she particularly disliked as the critical voice against Prince George’s admiralty administration, sparked another prolonged struggle, ending once again in the queen’s submission after a futile appeal to Marlborough in October 1708; she did this only to avoid a motion from the Whigs for the removal of the prince, who was then on his deathbed. His death on October 28th deeply affected the queen and opened the way for including more Whigs. But there was no reconciliation with the duchess, and in 1709, a further dispute led to an angry exchange of letters, with the queen ultimately informing the duchess that their friendship was over. The duchess then drafted a lengthy account of her services, which she sent to Anne along with suitable passages about friendship and charity taken from the Prayer Book, the Whole Duty of Man, and Jeremy Taylor. The next year, Anne’s wish to give a regiment to Hill, Mrs. Masham’s brother, resulted in another failed attempt to remove the new favorite, and the queen showed her opposition towards the Whig administration during the prosecution of Sacheverell. She attended his trial and was publicly hailed by the crowd as his supporter, while the Tory cleric was comforted right after his sentence with the living of St. Andrew’s, Holborn. Later, in a final meeting that she forced upon the queen, the duchess found her tears and accusations ineffective. In her anger, she had told the queen that she wanted no reply, and now she was met with a cold and frustrating silence, broken only by the repeated phrase, “You desired no answer, and you shall have none.”

The fall of the Whigs, now no longer necessary on account of the successful issue of the war, to accomplish which Harley had long been preparing and intriguing, followed; and their attempt to prolong hostilities from party motives failed. A friend of Harley, the duke of Shrewsbury, was first appointed to office, and subsequently the great body of the Whigs were displaced by Tories, Harley being made chancellor of the exchequer and Henry St John secretary of state. The queen was rejoiced at being freed from what she called a long captivity, and the new parliament was returned with a Tory majority. On the 17th of January 1711, in spite of Marlborough’s efforts to ward off the blow, the duchess was compelled to give up her key of office. The queen was now able once more to indulge in her favourite patronage of the church, and by her influence an act was passed in 1712 for building fifty new churches in London. Later, in 1714, she approved of the Schism Bill. She gave strong support to Harley, now earl of Oxford and lord treasurer, in the intrigues and negotiations for peace. Owing to the alliance between the Tory Lord Nottingham and the Whigs, on the condition of the support by the latter of the bill against occasional conformity passed in December 1711, the defeated Whigs maintained a majority in the Lords, who declared against any peace which left Spain to the Bourbons. To break down this opposition Marlborough was dismissed on the 31st from all his employments, while the House of Lords was “swamped” by Anne’s creation of twelve peers,11 including Mrs Masham’s husband. The queen’s conduct was generally approved, for the nation was now violently adverse to the Whigs and war party; and the peace of Utrecht was finally signed on the 31st of March 1713, and proclaimed on the 5th of May in London.

The fall of the Whigs happened because they were no longer needed after the successful outcome of the war, which Harley had been preparing for and plotting about for a long time. Their attempt to keep the conflict going for party reasons failed. Harley's ally, the Duke of Shrewsbury, was appointed to a position first, and then most of the Whigs were replaced by Tories, with Harley becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer and Henry St John as Secretary of State. The queen was happy to feel free from what she called a long captivity, and the new parliament had a Tory majority. On January 17, 1711, despite Marlborough’s efforts to prevent it, the duchess had to surrender her office key. The queen was now able to support the church again, and through her influence, an act was passed in 1712 to build fifty new churches in London. Later, in 1714, she approved the Schism Bill. She strongly backed Harley, now Earl of Oxford and Lord Treasurer, in the negotiations for peace. Due to the alliance between the Tory Lord Nottingham and the Whigs, which depended on the latter’s support for the bill against occasional conformity passed in December 1711, the defeated Whigs still held a majority in the Lords, who opposed any peace agreement that left Spain to the Bourbons. To dismantle this opposition, Marlborough was dismissed from all his positions on the 31st, while the House of Lords was “swamped” by Anne creating twelve new peers, including Mrs. Masham’s husband. The queen's actions were generally supported, as the nation was now strongly against the Whigs and the war party; the peace of Utrecht was finally signed on March 31, 1713, and announced on May 5 in London.

As the queen’s reign drew to its close, rumours were rife on the great subject of the succession to the throne. Various Jacobite appointments excited suspicion. Both Oxford and Bolingbroke were in communication with the Pretender’s party, and on the 27th of July Oxford, who had gradually lost influence and quarrelled with Bolingbroke, resigned, leaving the supreme power in the hands of the latter. Anne herself had a natural feeling for her brother, and had shown great solicitude concerning his treatment when a price had been set on his head at the time of the Scottish expedition in 1708. On the 3rd of March 1714 James wrote to Anne, Oxford and Bolingbroke, urging the necessity of taking steps to secure his succession, and promising, on the condition of his recognition, to make no further attempts against the queen’s government; and in April a report was circulated in Holland that Anne had secretly determined to associate James with her in the government. The wish expressed by the Whigs, that a member of the electoral family should be invited to England, had already aroused the queen’s indignation in 1708; and now, in 1714, a writ of summons for the electoral prince as duke of Cambridge having been obtained, Anne forbade the Hanoverian envoy, Baron Schütz, her presence, and declared all who supported the project her enemies; while to a memorial on the same subject from the electress Sophia and her grandson in May, Anne replied in an angry letter, which is said to have caused the death of the electress on the 5th of June, requesting them not to trouble the peace of her realm or diminish her authority.

As the queen's reign was coming to an end, rumors were spreading about who would succeed to the throne. Various Jacobite appointments raised suspicion. Both Oxford and Bolingbroke were in touch with the Pretender’s party, and on July 27th, Oxford, who had been losing influence and had a falling out with Bolingbroke, resigned, leaving the top position to Bolingbroke. Anne had a natural affection for her brother and had shown deep concern for his treatment when a bounty was placed on his head during the Scottish campaign in 1708. On March 3, 1714, James wrote to Anne, Oxford, and Bolingbroke, stressing the necessity of steps to secure his succession and promising that, if recognized, he would not make any further attempts against the queen’s government. In April, a report circulated in Holland that Anne had secretly decided to associate James in the government. The Whigs’ desire to invite a member of the electoral family to England had already angered the queen in 1708; and now, in 1714, after a writ of summons had been issued for the electoral prince as duke of Cambridge, Anne banned the Hanoverian envoy, Baron Schütz, from seeing her and declared that anyone who supported the plan was her enemy. When she received a memorial on the same topic from electress Sophia and her grandson in May, Anne replied with an angry letter, which is said to have contributed to the electress’s death on June 5th, asking them not to disturb the peace of her realm or undermine her authority.

These demonstrations, however, were the outcome not of any returning partiality for her own family, but of her intense dislike, in which she resembled Queen Elizabeth, of any “successor,” “it being a thing I cannot bear to have any successor here though but for a week”; and in spite of some appearances to the contrary, it is certain that religion and political wisdom kept Anne firm to the Protestant succession.12 She had maintained a friendly correspondence with the court of Hanover since 1705, and in 1706 had bestowed the Garter on the electoral prince and created him duke of Cambridge; while the Regency Act provided for the declaration of the legal heir to the crown by the council immediately on the queen’s death, and a further enactment naturalized the electress and her issue. In 1708, on the occasion of the Scottish expedition, notwithstanding her solicitude for his safety, she had styled James in her speech closing the session of parliament as “a popish pretender bred up in the principles of the most arbitrary government.” The duchess of Marlborough stated in 1713 that all the time she had known “that thing” (as she now called the queen), “she had never heard her speak a favourable word of him.”13 No answer appears to have been sent to James’s letter in 1714; on the contrary, a proclamation was issued (June 23) for his apprehension in case of his arrival in England. On the 27th of April Anne gave a solemn assurance of her fidelity to the Hanoverian succession to Sir William Dawes, archbishop of York; in June she sent Lord Clarendon to Hanover to satisfy the elector.

These demonstrations were not a sign of her returning favoritism for her own family, but rather stemmed from her strong dislike—similar to Queen Elizabeth—of any “successor.” “I can’t stand the idea of having any successor here, even just for a week.” Despite some contradictory appearances, it’s clear that religion and political wisdom kept Anne committed to the Protestant succession.12 She had kept up a friendly correspondence with the court of Hanover since 1705, and in 1706, she awarded the Garter to the electoral prince and made him the duke of Cambridge. The Regency Act stated that the legal heir to the crown would be declared by the council immediately after the queen’s death, and a separate law naturalized the electress and her descendants. In 1708, during the Scottish expedition, despite her concerns for his safety, she referred to James in her speech closing the parliamentary session as “a popish pretender raised in the principles of the most arbitrary government.” The duchess of Marlborough mentioned in 1713 that throughout her time knowing “that thing” (as she now referred to the queen), “she had never heard her say anything good about him.”13 No response seems to have been sent to James’s letter in 1714; instead, a proclamation was issued (June 23) for his arrest if he came to England. On April 27, Anne gave a formal promise of her allegiance to the Hanoverian succession to Sir William Dawes, archbishop of York; in June, she sent Lord Clarendon to Hanover to assure the elector.

The sudden illness and death of the queen now frustrated any schemes which Bolingbroke, or others might have been contemplating. On the 27th, the day of Oxford’s resignation, the discussions concerning his successor detained the council sitting in the queen’s presence till two o’clock in the morning, and on retiring Anne was instantly seized with fatal illness. Her adherence to William in 1688 had been a principal cause of the success of the Revolution, and now the final act of her life was to secure the Revolution settlement and the Protestant succession. During a last moment of returning consciousness, and by the advice of the whole council, who had been joined on their own initiative by the Whig dukes Argyll and Somerset, she placed the lord treasurer’s staff in the hands of the Whig duke of Shrewsbury, and measures were immediately taken for assuring the succession of the elector. Her death took place on the 1st of August, and the security felt by the public, and perhaps the sense of perils escaped by the termination of the queen’s life, were shown by a considerable rise in the national stocks. She was buried on the south side of Henry VII.’s chapel in Westminster Abbey, in the same tomb as her husband and children. The elector of Hanover, George Louis, son of the electress Sophia (daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of James I.), peacefully succeeded to the throne as George I. (q.v.).

The queen's sudden illness and death threw a wrench into any plans that Bolingbroke or others might have been considering. On the 27th, the day Oxford resigned, discussions about his successor kept the council in session in the queen’s presence until two o’clock in the morning. After they adjourned, Anne was immediately struck by a deadly illness. Her support for William in 1688 had been a key factor in the Revolution's success, and now, the last act of her life was to secure the Revolution settlement and the Protestant succession. In a final moment of clarity, advised by the entire council, which had been joined by the Whig dukes Argyll and Somerset, she handed the lord treasurer’s staff to the Whig duke of Shrewsbury, and steps were quickly taken to ensure the elector's succession. She passed away on August 1st, and the public's relief, along with perhaps a sense of danger averted by the end of the queen’s life, was reflected in a significant rise in national stocks. She was buried on the south side of Henry VII’s chapel in Westminster Abbey, in the same tomb as her husband and children. The elector of Hanover, George Louis, son of the electress Sophia (daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of James I), peacefully ascended to the throne as George I. (q.v.)

According to her physician Arbuthnot, Anne’s life was shortened by the “scene of contention among her servants. I believe sleep was never more welcome to a weary traveller than death was to her.” By character and temperament unfitted to stand alone, her life had been unhappy and tragical from its isolation. Separated in early years from her parents and sister, her one great friendship had proved only baneful and ensnaring. Marriage had only brought a mournful series of infant funerals. Constant ill-health and suffering had darkened her career. The claims of family attachment, of religion, of duty, of patriotism and of interest, had dragged her in opposite directions, and her whole life had been a prey to jealousies and factions which closed around her at her accession to the throne, and surged to their height when she lay on her deathbed. The modern theory of the relations between the sovereign and the parties, by which the former identifies himself with the faction for the time in power while maintaining his detachment from all, had not then been invented; and Anne, like her Hanoverian successors, maintained the struggle, though without success, to rule independently finding support in Harley. During the first year of her reign she made known that she was “resolved not to follow the example of her predecessor in making use of a few of her subjects to oppress the rest. She will be queen of all her subjects, and would have all the parties and distinctions of former reigns ended and buried in hers.”14 Her motive for getting rid of the Whigs was not any real dislike of their administration, but the wish to escape from the domination of the party,15 and on the advent 68 to power of the Tories she carefully left some Whigs in their employments, with the aim of breaking up the party system and acting upon what was called “a moderate scheme.” She attended debates in the Lords and endeavoured to influence votes. Her struggles to free herself from the influence of factions only involved her deeper; she was always under the domination of some person or some party, and she could not rise above them and show herself the leader of the nation like Elizabeth.

According to her doctor Arbuthnot, Anne’s life was cut short by the “arguments among her servants. I believe sleep was never more welcome to a tired traveler than death was to her.” By nature and temperament unfit to be alone, her life had been unhappy and tragic due to its isolation. Separated in her early years from her parents and sister, her one significant friendship turned out to be harmful and trapping. Marriage only led to a sad series of infant deaths. Continuous poor health and suffering darkened her life. The demands of family loyalty, religion, duty, patriotism, and personal interest pulled her in different directions, and her entire life was prey to jealousies and factions that surrounded her when she became queen, reaching their peak while she lay on her deathbed. The modern idea of the relationship between the sovereign and political parties, where the monarch aligns with the ruling faction while remaining detached from all, had not been established; and Anne, like her Hanoverian successors, struggled, though unsuccessfully, to rule independently, finding some support in Harley. During her first year as queen, she stated that she was “determined not to follow her predecessor's example of using a few subjects to oppress the rest. She wants to be queen of all her subjects and would like to see all the parties and distinctions of previous reigns ended and buried in hers.” Her desire to get rid of the Whigs wasn’t based on any real dislike of their government, but rather the wish to break free from the party's control, and when the Tories came to power, she intentionally kept some Whigs in their jobs to help dismantle the party system and promote what was known as “a moderate scheme.” She participated in debates in the Lords and tried to sway votes. Her efforts to free herself from factional influence only pulled her deeper in; she was always under the control of some person or party, and she couldn’t rise above them to present herself as the leader of the nation like Elizabeth.

Anne was a women of small ability, of dull mind, and of that kind of obstinacy which accompanies weakness of character. According to the duchess she had “a certain knack of sticking to what had been dictated to her to a degree often very disagreeable, and without the least sign of understanding or judgment.”16 “I desire you would not have so ill an opinion of me,” Anne writes to Oxford, “as to think when I have determined anything in my mind I will alter it.”17 Burnet considered that “she laid down the splendour of a court too much,” which was “as it were abandoned.” She dined alone after her husband’s death, but it was reported by no means abstemiously, the royal family being characterized in the lines:—

Anne was a woman of limited ability and dull mind, with a stubbornness that often comes from a weak character. According to the duchess, she had “a certain knack for sticking to what had been told to her in a way that was often very annoying, and without the slightest hint of understanding or judgment.”16 “I hope you don’t think so poorly of me,” Anne writes to Oxford, “as to believe that when I’ve made a decision, I will change it.”17 Burnet believed that “she gave up the splendor of the court too easily,” which was “as if she had abandoned it.” She ate alone after her husband’s death, but it was reported that she did not do so in a restrained manner, with the royal family being characterized in the lines:—

“King William thinks all.

"King William thinks everything."

Queen Mary talks all,

Queen Mary shares everything,

Prince George drinks all,

Prince George drinks everything,

And Princess Anne eats all.”18

And Princess Anne eats everything.”__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

She took no interest in the art, the drama or the literature of her day. But she possessed the homely virtues; she was deeply religious, attached to the Church of England and concerned for the efficiency of the ministry. One of the first acts of her reign was a proclamation against vice, and Lord Chesterfield regretted the strict morality of her court. Instances abound of her kindness and consideration for others. Her moderation towards the Jacobites in Scotland, after the Pretender’s expedition in 1708, was much praised by Saint Simon. She showed great forbearance and generosity towards the duchess of Marlborough in the face of unexampled provocation, and her character was unduly disparaged by the latter, who with her violent and coarse nature could not understand the queen’s self-restraint in sorrow, and describes her as “very hard” and as “not apt to cry.” According to her small ability she served the state well, and was zealous and conscientious in the fulfilment of public duties, in which may be included touching for the king’s evil, which she revived. Marlborough testifies to her energy in finding money for the war. She surrendered 10,000 pounds a year for public purposes, and in 1706 she presented 30,000 pounds to the officers and soldiers who had lost their horses. Her contemporaries almost unanimously record her excellence and womanly virtues; and by Dean Swift, no mild critic, she is invariably spoken of with respect, and named in his will as of “ever glorious, immortal and truly pious memory, the real nursing-mother of her kingdoms.” She deserves her appellation of “Good Queen Anne,” and notwithstanding her failings must be included among the chief authors and upholders of the great Revolution settlement. Her person was described by Spanheim, the Prussian ambassador, as handsome though inclining to stoutness, with black hair, blue eyes and good features, and of grave aspect.

She didn't care much for the art, drama, or literature of her time. However, she had the simple virtues; she was deeply religious, devoted to the Church of England, and concerned about the effectiveness of the ministry. One of the first things she did as queen was issue a proclamation against vice, and Lord Chesterfield lamented the strict morality of her court. There are many examples of her kindness and thoughtfulness toward others. Her leniency towards the Jacobites in Scotland after the Pretender’s expedition in 1708 was praised by Saint Simon. She showed remarkable patience and generosity toward the Duchess of Marlborough despite extreme provocation, and her character was unfairly criticized by the latter, who, with her harsh and coarse nature, couldn’t grasp the queen’s self-control in sorrow, describing her as “very hard” and “not apt to cry.” She served the state well within her limited abilities and was dedicated and conscientious in carrying out public duties, which included touching for the king’s evil, a practice she revived. Marlborough testified to her determination in securing funding for the war. She contributed £10,000 a year for public purposes, and in 1706, she donated £30,000 to the officers and soldiers who had lost their horses. Her contemporaries almost unanimously acknowledged her excellence and womanly virtues; even Dean Swift, no soft critic, consistently spoke of her with respect and mentioned her in his will as “ever glorious, immortal, and truly pious memory, the real nursing-mother of her kingdoms.” She rightly earned the title “Good Queen Anne,” and despite her shortcomings, she should be recognized as one of the main authors and supporters of the great Revolution settlement. Her appearance was described by Spanheim, the Prussian ambassador, as attractive but tending toward stoutness, with black hair, blue eyes, and good features, and a serious demeanor.

Anne’s husband, Prince George (1653-1708), was the second son of Frederick III., king of Denmark. Before marrying Anne he had been a candidate for the throne of Poland. He was created earl of Kendal and duke of Cumberland in 1689. Some censure, which was directed against the prince in his capacity as lord high admiral, was terminated by his death. In religion George remained a Lutheran, and in general his qualities tended to make him a good husband rather than a soldier or a statesman.

Anne’s husband, Prince George (1653-1708), was the second son of Frederick III, king of Denmark. Before marrying Anne, he had been a candidate for the throne of Poland. He was made the earl of Kendal and duke of Cumberland in 1689. Some criticism aimed at him in his role as lord high admiral ended with his death. In terms of religion, George stayed a Lutheran, and overall, his traits made him a better husband than a soldier or a statesman.

Bibliography.—Dict. of Nat. Biography (Dr A.W. Ward); A. Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England (1852), somewhat uncritical; an excellent account written by Spanheim for the king of Prussia, printed in the Eng. Hist. Rev. ii. 757; histories of Stanhope, Lecky, Ranke, Macaulay, Boyes, Burnet, Wyon, and Somerville; F.E. Morris, The Age of Anne (London, 1877); Correspondence and Diary of Lord Clarendon (1828); Hatton Correspondence (Camden Soc., 1878); Evelyn’s Diary; Sir J. Dalrymple’s Memoirs (1790); N. Luttrell’s Brief Hist. Relation (1857); Wentworth Papers (1883); W. Coxe, Mem. of the Duke of Marlborough (1847); Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough (1742); Ralph, The other Side of the Question (1742); Private Correspondence of Sarah Duchess of Marlborough (1838); A. T, Thomson, Mem. of the Duchess and the Court of Queen Anne (1839); J.S. Clarke’s Life of James II. (1816); J. Macpherson’s Original Papers (1775); Swift’s Some Considerations upon the Consequences from the Death of the Queen, An Inquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen’s last Ministry, Hist. of the Four Last Years of Queen Anne, and Journals and Letters; The Lockhart Papers (1817), i.; F. Salomon, Geschichte des letzten Ministeriums Konigin Annas (1894); Marchmont Papers, iii. (1831); W. Sichel Life of Bolingbroke (1901-1902); Mem. of Thomas Earl of Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club, 1890); Eng. Hist. Rev. i. 470, 756, viii. 740; Royal Hut. Soc. Trans. N.S. xiv. 69; Col. of State Papers; Treasury; Hist. MSS. Comm. Series, MSS. of Duke of Portland, including the Harley Papers, Duke of Buccleugh at Montagu House, Lord Kenyan, Marq. of Bath at Longleat; Various Collections, ii. 146, Duke Of Rutland at Belvoir, 7th Rep. app., and H.M. the King (Stuart Papers, i.); Stowe MSS. in Brit. Museum; Sir J. Mackintosh’s Transcripts, Add. MSS. in Brit. Museum, 34, 487-526; Edinburgh Rev., October 1835, p. 1; Notes and Queries, vii. ser. iii. 178, viii. ser. i. 72, xii. 368, ix, ser. iv. 282, xi, 254; C. Hodgson, An Account of the Augmentation of Small Livings by the Bounty of Queen Anne (1845); Observations of the Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty (1867); Somers Tracts, xii. xiii. (1814-1815); H. Paul, Queen Anne (London, 1907).

References.—Dict. of Nat. Biography (Dr A.W. Ward); A. Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England (1852), somewhat uncritical; a great account written by Spanheim for the King of Prussia, printed in the Eng. Hist. Rev. ii. 757; histories by Stanhope, Lecky, Ranke, Macaulay, Boyes, Burnet, Wyon, and Somerville; F.E. Morris, The Age of Anne (London, 1877); Correspondence and Diary of Lord Clarendon (1828); Hatton Correspondence (Camden Soc., 1878); Evelyn’s Diary; Sir J. Dalrymple’s Memoirs (1790); N. Luttrell’s Brief Hist. Relation (1857); Wentworth Papers (1883); W. Coxe, Mem. of the Duke of Marlborough (1847); Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough (1742); Ralph, The other Side of the Question (1742); Private Correspondence of Sarah Duchess of Marlborough (1838); A.T. Thomson, Mem. of the Duchess and the Court of Queen Anne (1839); J.S. Clarke’s Life of James II. (1816); J. Macpherson’s Original Papers (1775); Swift’s Some Considerations upon the Consequences from the Death of the Queen, An Inquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen’s last Ministry, Hist. of the Four Last Years of Queen Anne, and Journals and Letters; The Lockhart Papers (1817), i.; F. Salomon, Geschichte des letzten Ministeriums Konigin Annas (1894); Marchmont Papers, iii. (1831); W. Sichel Life of Bolingbroke (1901-1902); Mem. of Thomas Earl of Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club, 1890); Eng. Hist. Rev. i. 470, 756, viii. 740; Royal Hut. Soc. Trans. N.S. xiv. 69; Col. of State Papers; Treasury; Hist. MSS. Comm. Series, MSS. of Duke of Portland, including the Harley Papers, Duke of Buccleugh at Montagu House, Lord Kenyan, Marq. of Bath at Longleat; Various Collections, ii. 146, Duke Of Rutland at Belvoir, 7th Rep. app., and H.M. the King (Stuart Papers, i.); Stowe MSS. in Brit. Museum; Sir J. Mackintosh’s Transcripts, Add. MSS. in Brit. Museum, 34, 487-526; Edinburgh Rev., October 1835, p. 1; Notes and Queries, vii. ser. iii. 178, viii. ser. i. 72, xii. 368, ix, ser. iv. 282, xi, 254; C. Hodgson, An Account of the Augmentation of Small Livings by the Bounty of Queen Anne (1845); Observations of the Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty (1867); Somers Tracts, xii. xiii. (1814-1815); H. Paul, Queen Anne (London, 1907).

(P. C. Y.)

1 See also Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Duke of Rutland at Belvoir, ii. 109.

1 See also Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Duke of Rutland at Belvoir, ii. 109.

2 Dalrymple’s Memoirs, ii. 175.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Dalrymple’s Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 175.

3 Dalrymple’s Memoirs, ii. 249.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Dalrymple’s Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 249.

4 Lord Ailesbury’s Memoirs, 293.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Lord Ailesbury’s Memoirs, 293.

5 Macpherson i. 241; Clarke’s Life of James II., ii. 476. The letter, which is only printed in fragments, is not in Anne’s style, and if genuine was probably dictated by the Churchills.

5 Macpherson i. 241; Clarke’s Life of James II., ii. 476. The letter, which only appears in parts, doesn't match Anne's usual style, and if it's authentic, it was likely dictated by the Churchills.

6 Luttrell ii. 366, 376.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Luttrell ii. 366, 376.

7 Macpherson i. 257; Clarke’s James II., ii. 559. See also Shrewsbury’s anonymous correbpondent in Hist. MSS. Comm. Ser.; MSS. Duke of Buccleugh at Montagu House, ii. 169.

7 Macpherson i. 257; Clarke’s James II., ii. 559. See also Shrewsbury’s anonymous correspondent in Hist. MSS. Comm. Ser.; MSS. Duke of Buccleugh at Montagu House, ii. 169.

8 Macaulay iv. 799 note

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Macaulay iv. 799 note

9 Swift’s Mem. on the Change of the Ministry.

9 Swift’s Memoir on the Change of the Ministry.

10 Conduct of the Duchess of Marlborough, p. 225.

10 Behavior of the Duchess of Marlborough, p. 225.

11 For their names see Hume and Smollett’s Hist. (Hughes, 1854) viil. 110.

11 For their names, see Hume and Smollett’s Hist. (Hughes, 1854) viil. 110.

12 See also Hist. MSS. Comm. Ser. Rep. vii. App. 246b.

12 See also Hist. MSS. Comm. Ser. Rep. vii. App. 246b.

13 Ibid. Portland MSS. v. 338.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ibid. Portland MSS. vol. 338.

14 Sir J. Leveson-Gower to Lord Rutland, Hist. MSS. Comm., Duke of Rutland’s MSS. ii. 173.

14 Sir J. Leveson-Gower to Lord Rutland, Hist. MSS. Comm., Duke of Rutland’s MSS. ii. 173.

15 See Bolingbroke’s Letter to Sir W. Wyndham.

15 See Bolingbroke’s Letter to Sir W. Wyndham.

16 Private Correspondence, ii. 120.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Private Correspondence, 2. 120.

17 Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Marq. of Bath at Longleat, i. 237.

17 Hist. MSS. Comm., MSS. of Marq. of Bath at Longleat, i. 237.

18 Notes and Queries, xi. 254.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Notes and Queries, vol. xi, p. 254.


ANNE (1693-1740), empress of Russia, second daughter of Tsar Ivan V., Peter the Great’s imbecile brother, and Praskovia Saltuikova. Her girlhood was passed at Ismailovo near Moscow, with her mother, an ignorant, bigoted tsaritsa of the old school, who neglected and even hated her daughters. Peter acted as a second father to the Ivanovs, as Praskovia and her family were called. In 1710 he married Anne to Frederick William, duke of Courland, who died of surfeit on his journey home from St Petersburg. The reluctant young widow was ordered to proceed on her way to Mittau to take over the government of Courland, with the Russian resident, Count Peter Bestuzhev, as her adviser. He was subsequently her lover, till supplanted by Biren (q.v.). Anne’s residence at Mittau was embittered by the utter inadequacy of her revenue, which she keenly felt. It was therefore with joy that she at once accepted the Russian crown, as the next heir, after the death of Peter II. (January 30, 1730), when it was offered to her by the members of the supreme privy council, even going so far as to subscribe previously nine articles which would have reduced her from an absolute to a very limited monarch. On the 26th of February she made her public entry into Moscow under strict surveillance. On the 8th of March a coup d’état, engineered by a party of her personal friends, overthrew the supreme privy council and she was hailed as autocrat. Her government, on the whole, was prudent, beneficial and even glorious; but it was undoubtedly severe and became at last universally unpopular. This was due in the main to the outrageous insolence of her all-powerful favourite Biren, who hated the Russian nobility and trampled upon them mercilessly. Fortunately, Biren was sufficiently prudent not to meddle with foreign affairs or with the army, and these departments in the able hands of two other foreigners, who thoroughly identified themselves with Russia, Andrei Osterman (q.v.) and Burkhardt Münnich (q.v.) did great things in the reign of Anne. The chief political events of the period were the War of the Polish Succession and the second1 Crimean War. The former was caused by the reappearance of Stanislaus Leszczynski as a candidate for the Polish throne after the death of Augustus II. (February 1, 1733). The interests of Russia would not permit her to recognize a candidate dependent directly on France and indirectly upon Sweden and Turkey, all three powers being at that time opposed to Russia’s “system.” She accordingly united with Austria to support the candidature of the late king’s son, Augustus of Saxony. So far as Russia was concerned, the War of the Polish Succession was quickly over. Much more important was the Crimean War of 1736-39. This war marks the beginning of that systematic struggle on the part of Russia to recover her natural and legitimate southern boundaries. It lasted 69 four years and a half, and cost her a hundred thousand men and millions of roubles; and though invariably successful, she had to be content with the acquisition of a single city (Azov) with a small district at the mouth of the Don. Yet more had been gained than was immediately apparent. In the first place, this was the only war hitherto waged by Russia against Turkey which had not ended in crushing disaster. Münnich had at least dissipated the illusion of Ottoman invincibility, and taught the Russian soldier that 100,000 janissaries and spahis were no match, in a fair field, for half that number of grenadiers and hussars. In the second place the Tatar hordes had been well nigh exterminated. In the third place Russia’s signal and unexpected successes in the Steppe had immensely increased her prestige on the continent. “This court begins to have a great deal to say in the affairs of Europe,” remarked the English minister, Sir Claudius Rondeau, a year later.

ANNE (1693-1740), empress of Russia, was the second daughter of Tsar Ivan V., Peter the Great’s incompetent brother, and Praskovia Saltuikova. She spent her childhood at Ismailovo near Moscow, living with her mother, an ignorant and bigoted tsaritsa of the old school, who neglected and even despised her daughters. Peter acted like a second father to the Ivanovs, as Praskovia and her family were known. In 1710, he married Anne to Frederick William, duke of Courland, who died from an overindulgence on his way back from St. Petersburg. The unwilling young widow was ordered to continue to Mittau to take over the government of Courland, with the Russian resident, Count Peter Bestuzhev, as her adviser. He later became her lover until he was replaced by Biren (q.v.). Anne’s time at Mittau was marred by her insufficient income, which she deeply felt. Thus, she was thrilled to accept the Russian crown as the next heir after the death of Peter II. (January 30, 1730), when it was offered to her by the members of the supreme privy council, even agreeing to nine articles that would limit her power significantly. On February 26, she made her public entrance into Moscow under strict surveillance. On March 8, a coup d’état, orchestrated by a group of her personal friends, overthrew the supreme privy council, and she was proclaimed autocrat. Overall, her government was wise, beneficial, and even admirable; however, it became notably harsh and increasingly unpopular. This was mainly due to the outrageous arrogance of her all-powerful favorite Biren, who despised the Russian nobility and treated them ruthlessly. Fortunately, Biren was cautious enough not to interfere with foreign affairs or the military, and these areas, managed by two other foreigners who fully integrated into Russia, Andrei Osterman (q.v.) and Burkhardt Münnich (q.v.), achieved great successes during Anne’s reign. The key political events of this time included the War of the Polish Succession and the second Crimean War. The former arose from the reappearance of Stanislaus Leszczynski as a candidate for the Polish throne after the death of Augustus II. (February 1, 1733). Russia’s interests wouldn’t allow her to support a candidate who was directly reliant on France and indirectly on Sweden and Turkey, all three being opposed to Russia’s agenda at the time. Therefore, she allied with Austria to back the late king’s son, Augustus of Saxony. From Russia’s perspective, the War of the Polish Succession ended quickly. The Crimean War of 1736-39 was much more significant. This war marked the beginning of a systematic effort by Russia to reclaim her natural and rightful southern borders. It lasted four and a half years, costing her a hundred thousand men and millions of roubles; even though she was consistently successful, she had to settle for the acquisition of only one city (Azov) and a small region at the mouth of the Don. Nonetheless, more was gained than initially visible. Firstly, this was the only war fought by Russia against Turkey that didn’t end in a catastrophic defeat. Münnich dispelled the myth of Ottoman invincibility and showed the Russian soldier that 100,000 janissaries and spahis were no match for half that number of grenadiers and hussars in open battle. Secondly, the Tatar hordes were nearly exterminated. Thirdly, Russia’s remarkable and unexpected victories in the Steppe significantly boosted her prestige in Europe. “This court is starting to have a lot to say in European affairs,” remarked the English minister, Sir Claudius Rondeau, a year later.

The last days of Anne were absorbed by the endeavour to strengthen the position of the heir to the throne, the baby cesarevich Ivan, afterwards Ivan VI., the son of the empress’s niece, Anna Leopoldovna, against the superior claims of her cousin the cesarevna Elizabeth. The empress herself died three months later (28th of October 1740). Her last act was to appoint Biren regent during the infancy of her great-nephew.

The final days of Anne were consumed with the effort to secure the position of the heir to the throne, baby cesarevich Ivan, later known as Ivan VI, who was the son of the empress’s niece, Anna Leopoldovna, against the stronger claims of her cousin, cesarevna Elizabeth. The empress passed away three months later (October 28, 1740). Her last act was to appoint Biren as regent during the childhood of her great-nephew.

Anne was a grim, sullen woman, frankly sensual, but as well-meaning as ignorance and vindictiveness would allow her to be. But she had much natural good sense, was a true friend and, in her more cheerful moments, an amiable companion. Lady Rondeau’s portrait of the empress shows her to the best advantage. She is described as a large woman, towering above all the cavaliers of her court, but very well shaped for her size, easy and graceful in her person, of a majestic bearing, but with an awfulness in her countenance which revolted those who disliked her.

Anne was a grim, sullen woman, honestly sensual, but as well-meaning as ignorance and vindictiveness would allow. However, she had a lot of natural good sense, was a true friend, and in her happier moments, an enjoyable companion. Lady Rondeau’s portrait of the empress captures her at her best. She is portrayed as a large woman, towering over all the courtiers, but well-shaped for her size, easy and graceful in her movements, with a majestic presence, yet an intimidating look that put off those who disliked her.

See R. Nisbet Bain, The Pupils of Peter the Great (London, 1897); Letters from a lady who resided some years in Russia (i.e. Lady Rondeau) (London, 1775); Christoph Hermann Manstein, Mémoires sur la Russie (Amsterdam, 1771; English edition, London, 1856); Gerhard Anton von Haiem, Lebensschreibung des Feldm. B.C. Grafen von Münnich (Oldenburg, 1803); Claudius Rondeau, Diplomatic Despatches from Russia, 1728-1739 (St Petersburg, 1889-1892).

See R. Nisbet Bain, The Pupils of Peter the Great (London, 1897); Letters from a lady who resided some years in Russia (i.e. Lady Rondeau) (London, 1775); Christoph Hermann Manstein, Mémoires sur la Russie (Amsterdam, 1771; English edition, London, 1856); Gerhard Anton von Haiem, Lebensschreibung des Feldm. B.C. Grafen von Münnich (Oldenburg, 1803); Claudius Rondeau, Diplomatic Despatches from Russia, 1728-1739 (St Petersburg, 1889-1892).

(R. N. B.)

1 Vasily Golitsuin’s expedition under the regency of Sophia was the first Crimean War (1687-89).

1 Vasily Golitsuin’s expedition during Sophia’s regency was the first Crimean War (1687-89).


ANNE OF BRITTANY (1477-1514), daughter of Francis II., duke of Brittany, and Marguerite de Foix. She was scarcely twelve years old when she succeeded her father as duchess on the 9th of September 1488. Charles VIII. aimed at establishing his authority over her; Alain d’Albret wished to marry her; Jean de Rohan claimed the duchy; and her guardian, the marshal de Rieux, was soon in open revolt against his sovereign. In 1489 the French army invaded Brittany. In order to protect her independence, Anne concluded an alliance with Maximilian of Austria, and soon married him by proxy (December 1489). But Maximilian was incapable of defending her, and in 1491 the young duchess found herself compelled to treat with Charles VIII. and to marry him. The two sovereigns made a reciprocal arrangement as to their rights and pretensions to the crown of Brittany, but in the event of Charles predeceasing her, Anne undertook to marry the heir to the throne. Nevertheless, in 1492, after the conspiracy of Jean de Rohan, who had endeavoured to hand over the duchy to the king of England, Charles VIII. confirmed the privileges of Brittany, and in particular guaranteed to the Bretons the right of paying only those taxes to which the assembly of estates consented, After the death of Charles VIII. in 1498, without any children, Anne exercised the sovereignty in Brittany, and in January 1499 she married Louis XII., who had just repudiated Joan of France. The marriage contract was ostensibly directed in favour of the independence of Brittany, for it declared that Brittany should revert to the second son or to the eldest daughter of the two sovereigns, and, failing issue, to the natural heirs of the duchess. Until her death Anne occupied herself personally with the administration of the duchy. In 1504 she caused the treaty of Blois to be concluded, which assured the hand of her daughter, Claude of France, to Charles of Austria (the future emperor, Charles V.), and promised him the possession of Brittany, Burgundy and the county of Blois. But this unpopular treaty was broken, and the queen had to consent to the betrothal of Claude to Francis of Angoulême, who in 1515 became king of France as Francis I. Thus the definitive reunion of Brittany and France was prepared.

ANNE OF BRITTANY (1477-1514), daughter of Francis II, duke of Brittany, and Marguerite de Foix. She was just twelve years old when she became duchess after her father's death on September 9, 1488. Charles VIII wanted to assert his control over her; Alain d’Albret sought to marry her; Jean de Rohan claimed the duchy; and her guardian, Marshal de Rieux, soon rebelled against his ruler. In 1489, the French army invaded Brittany. To safeguard her independence, Anne formed an alliance with Maximilian of Austria and married him by proxy in December 1489. However, Maximilian couldn't protect her, and in 1491, the young duchess had no choice but to negotiate with Charles VIII and marry him. The two rulers made a mutual agreement regarding their claims to the crown of Brittany, but if Charles passed away before her, Anne promised to marry the heir to the throne. Despite this, in 1492, after Jean de Rohan's conspiracy to hand the duchy over to the King of England, Charles VIII affirmed Brittany's privileges, especially guaranteeing Bretons the right to pay only those taxes approved by the assembly of estates. After Charles VIII's death in 1498, without any children, Anne took over the sovereignty in Brittany, and in January 1499, she married Louis XII, who had just divorced Joan of France. The marriage contract was supposedly aimed at preserving Brittany's independence, stating that it would go to the second son or the eldest daughter of the two sovereigns, and if there were no issue, to the natural heirs of the duchess. Until her death, Anne personally managed the administration of the duchy. In 1504, she arranged the treaty of Blois, which promised her daughter, Claude of France, to Charles of Austria (the future Emperor Charles V) and assured him the ownership of Brittany, Burgundy, and the county of Blois. However, this unpopular treaty fell apart, and the queen had to agree to Claude's engagement to Francis of Angoulême, who became King Francis I of France in 1515. This set the stage for the final unification of Brittany and France.

See A. de la Borderie, Choix de documents inédits sur le règne de la duchesse Anne en Bretagne (Rennes, 1866 and 1902)—extracts from the Mémoires de la Société Archéologique du département d’Ille-et-Vilaine, vols. iv. and vi. (1866 and 1868); Leroux de Lincy, Vie de la reine Anne de Bretagne (1860-1861); A. Dupuy, La Reunion de la Bretagne à la France (1880); A. de la Borderie, La Bretagne aux derniers siècles du may en âge (1893), and La Bretagne aux temps modernes (1894).

See A. de la Borderie, Selection of Unpublished Documents on the Reign of Duchess Anne in Brittany (Rennes, 1866 and 1902)—extracts from the Memoirs of the Archaeological Society of the Department of Ille-et-Vilaine, vols. iv. and vi. (1866 and 1868); Leroux de Lincy, Life of Queen Anne of Brittany (1860-1861); A. Dupuy, The Reunion of Brittany to France (1880); A. de la Borderie, Brittany in the Last Centuries of the Middle Ages (1893), and Brittany in Modern Times (1894).

(H. Se.)

ANNE OF CLEVES (1515-1557), fourth wife of Henry VIII., king of England, daughter of John, duke of Cleves, and Mary, only daughter of William, duke of Juliers, was born on the 22nd of September 1515. Her father was the leader of the German Protestants, and the princess, after the death of Jane Seymour, was regarded by Cromwell as a suitable wife for Henry VIII. She had been brought up in a narrow retirement, could speak no language but her own, had no looks, no accomplishments and no dowry, her only recommendations being her proficiency in needlework, and her meek and gentle temper. Nevertheless her picture, painted by Holbein by the king’s command (now in the Louvre, a modern copy at Windsor), pleased Henry and the marriage was arranged, the treaty being signed on the 24th of September 1539. The princess landed at Deal on the 27th of December; Henry met her at Rochester on the 1st of January 1540, and was so much abashed at her appearance as to forget to present the gift he had brought for her, but nevertheless controlled himself sufficiently to treat her with courtesy. The next day he expressed openly his dissatisfaction at her looks; “she was no better than a Flanders mare.” The attempt to prove a pre-contract with the son of the duke of Lorraine broke down, and Henry was forced to resign himself to the sacrifice. On the wedding morning, however, the 6th of January 1540, he declared that no earthly thing would have induced him to marry her but the fear of driving the duke of Cleves into the arms of the emperor. Shortly afterwards Henry had reason to regret the policy which had identified him so closely with the German Protestantism, and denied reconciliation with the emperor. Cromwell’s fall was the result, and the chief obstacle to the repudiation of his wife being thus removed, Henry declared the marriage had not been and could not be consummated; and did not scruple to cast doubts on his wife’s honour. On the 9th of July the marriage was declared null and void by convocation, and an act of parliament to the same effect was passed immediately. Henry soon afterwards married Catherine Howard. On first hearing of the king’s intentions, Anne swooned away, but on recovering, while declaring her case a very hard and sorrowful one from the great love which she bore to the king, acquiesced quietly in the arrangements made for her by Henry, by which she received lands to the value of £4000 a year, renounced the title of queen for that of the king’s sister, and undertook not to leave the kingdom. In a letter to her brother, drawn up by Gardiner by the king’s direction, she acknowledged the unreality of the marriage and the king’s kindness and generosity. Anne spent the rest of her life happily in England at Richmond or Bletchingley, occasionally visiting the court, and being described as joyous as ever, and wearing new dresses every day! An attempt to procure her reinstalment on the disgrace of Catherine Howard failed, and there was no foundation for the report that she had given birth to a child of which Henry was the reputed father. She was present at the marriage of Henry with Catherine Parr and at the coronation of Mary. She died on the 28th of July 1557 at Chelsea, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

ANNE OF CLEVES (1515-1557), fourth wife of Henry VIII, king of England, was born on September 22, 1515. She was the daughter of John, Duke of Cleves, and Mary, the only daughter of William, Duke of Juliers. Her father led the German Protestants, and after Jane Seymour's death, Cromwell saw Anne as a suitable bride for Henry VIII. She grew up in a secluded environment, spoke only her native language, and lacked beauty, skills, and a dowry. Her only notable traits were her talent in needlework and her gentle nature. Despite this, her portrait, painted by Holbein at the king’s request (now in the Louvre, with a modern copy at Windsor), impressed Henry, and the marriage was arranged, with the treaty signed on September 24, 1539. Anne arrived in Deal on December 27; Henry met her in Rochester on January 1, 1540, and was so taken aback by her appearance that he forgot to give her the gift he had brought, yet managed to treat her courteously. The following day, he openly expressed his disappointment in her looks, comparing her to a “Flanders mare.” Attempts to prove a prior engagement with the Duke of Lorraine's son failed, and Henry resigned himself to the marriage. However, on the wedding morning, January 6, 1540, he stated that nothing would have made him marry her except the fear of pushing the Duke of Cleves to ally with the emperor. Soon after, Henry regretted his close ties to German Protestantism, which hindered reconciliation with the emperor. Cromwell’s downfall followed, and with the main obstacle to annulling the marriage removed, Henry claimed the marriage was never valid and couldn’t be consummated; he even raised questions about Anne’s honor. On July 9, the marriage was declared null and void by convocation, and an act of parliament affirming this was passed immediately. Henry then married Catherine Howard. When Anne first learned of the king’s plans, she fainted, but upon recovering, expressed her sorrow at the situation due to her love for the king and quietly accepted Henry's arrangements for her, which provided her with lands worth £4,000 a year, the title of the king's sister instead of queen, and an agreement not to leave the kingdom. In a letter to her brother, prepared by Gardiner at the king’s request, she acknowledged the marriage's lack of substance and Henry’s kindness and generosity. Anne spent the rest of her life happily in England, residing in Richmond or Bletchingley, occasionally visiting the court, described as joyful and wearing new dresses every day! An attempt to reinstate her after Catherine Howard’s disgrace failed, and there was no truth to the rumors that she had given birth to Henry's child. She attended Henry’s marriage to Catherine Parr and Mary’s coronation. She passed away on July 28, 1557, in Chelsea and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

See Lives of the Queens of England, by A. Strickland, iii. (1851); The Wives of Henry VIII., by M. Hume (1905); Henry VIII., by A.F. Pollard (1905); Four Original Documents relating to the Marriage of Henry VIII. to Anne of Cleves, ed. by E. and G. Goldsmid (1886); for the pseudo Anne of Cleves see Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, i. 467.

See Lives of the Queens of England, by A. Strickland, iii. (1851); The Wives of Henry VIII, by M. Hume (1905); Henry VIII, by A.F. Pollard (1905); Four Original Documents Relating to the Marriage of Henry VIII to Anne of Cleves, ed. by E. and G. Goldsmid (1886); for the fake Anne of Cleves, see Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, i. 467.

(P. C. Y.)

ANNE OF DENMARK (1574-1619), queen of James I. of England and VI. of Scotland, daughter of King Frederick II. of Denmark and Norway and of Sophia, daughter of Ulric III., duke of Mecklenburg, was born on the 12th of December 1574. On the 20th of August 1589, in spite of Queen Elizabeth’s opposition, 70 she was married by proxy to King James, without dower, the alliance, however, settling definitely the Scottish claims to the Orkney and Shetland Islands. Her voyage to Scotland was interrupted by a violent storm—for the raising of which several Danish and Scottish witches were burned or executed—which drove her on the coast of Norway, whither the impatient James came to meet her, the marriage taking place at Opslo (now Christiania) on the 23rd of November. The royal couple, after visiting Denmark, arrived in Scotland in May 1590. The position of queen consort to a Scottish king was a difficult and perilous one, and Anne was attacked in connexion with various scandals and deeds of violence, her share in which, however, is supported by no evidence. The birth of an heir to the throne (Prince Henry) in 1504 strengthened her position and influence; but the young prince, much to her indignation, was immediately withdrawn from her care and entrusted to the keeping of the earl and countess of Mar at Stirling Castle; in 1595 James gave a written command, forbidding them in case of his death to give up the prince to the queen till he reached the age of eighteen. The king’s intention was, no doubt, to secure himself and the prince against the unruly nobles, though the queen’s Roman Catholic tendencies were probably another reason for his decision. Brought up a Lutheran, and fond of pleasure, she had shown no liking for Scottish Calvinism, and soon incurred rebukes on account of her religion, “vanity,” absence from church, “night waking and balling.” She had become secretly inclined to Roman Catholicism, and attended mass with the king’s connivance. On the death of Queen Elizabeth, on the 24th of March 1603, James preceded her to London. Anne took advantage of his absence to demand possession of the prince, and, on the “flat refusal” of the countess of Mar, fell into a passion, the violence of which occasioned a miscarriage and endangered her life. In June she followed the king to England (after distributing all her effects in Edinburgh among her ladies) with the prince and the coffin containing the body of her dead infant, and reached Windsor on the 2nd of July, where amidst other forms of good fortune she entered into the possession of Queen Elizabeth’s 6000 dresses.

ANNE OF DENMARK (1574-1619), queen of James I of England and VI of Scotland, was born on December 12, 1574, to King Frederick II of Denmark and Norway and Sophia, daughter of Ulric III, duke of Mecklenburg. On August 20, 1589, despite Queen Elizabeth’s opposition, 70 she was married by proxy to King James without a dowry. However, this alliance secured the Scottish claims to the Orkney and Shetland Islands. Her journey to Scotland was disrupted by a fierce storm—which led to several Danish and Scottish witches being burned or executed—that forced her to land on the coast of Norway. The eager James met her there, and the marriage took place in Opslo (now Christiania) on November 23. After visiting Denmark, the royal couple arrived in Scotland in May 1590. Being queen consort to a Scottish king was challenging and dangerous, and Anne faced accusations related to various scandals and acts of violence, although there’s no evidence supporting her involvement. The birth of an heir to the throne (Prince Henry) in 1504 enhanced her status and influence; however, much to her dismay, the young prince was quickly taken from her care and placed under the supervision of the earl and countess of Mar at Stirling Castle. In 1595, James issued a written order prohibiting them from returning the prince to the queen until he turned eighteen in the event of his death. The king likely aimed to protect himself and the prince from the rebellious nobles, although Anne’s Roman Catholic beliefs may have influenced his decision. Raised a Lutheran and enjoying a life of pleasure, she didn’t embrace Scottish Calvinism and quickly faced criticism for her religion, “vanity,” absence from church, and “night waking and balling.” She had secretly leaned toward Roman Catholicism and attended mass with the king's approval. After Queen Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603, James went to London ahead of her. Anne took the opportunity of his absence to demand custody of the prince. When the countess of Mar flatly refused, she became so upset that it caused her to miscarry and threatened her life. In June, she followed the king to England (after distributing her belongings in Edinburgh among her ladies), along with the prince and the coffin containing her deceased infant, arriving in Windsor on July 2, where, among other fortunes, she inherited Queen Elizabeth’s 6,000 dresses.

On the 24th of July Anne was crowned with the king, when her refusal to take the sacrament according to the Anglican use created some sensation. She communicated on one occasion subsequently and attended Anglican service occasionally; but she received consecrated objects from Pope Clement VIII., continued to hear mass, and, according to Galluzzi, supported the schemes for the conversion of the prince of Wales and of England, and for the prince’s marriage with a Roman Catholic princess, which collapsed on his death in 1612. She was claimed as a convert by the Jesuits.1 Nevertheless on her deathbed, when she was attended by the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London, she used expressions which were construed as a declaration of Protestantism. Notwithstanding religious differences she lived in great harmony and affection with the king, latterly, however, residing mostly apart. She helped to raise Buckingham to power in the place of Somerset, maintained friendly relations with him, and approved of his guidance and control of the king. In spite of her birth and family she was at first favourably inclined to Spain, disapproved of her daughter Elizabeth’s marriage with the elector palatine, and supported the Spanish marriages for her sons, but subsequently veered round towards France. She used all her influence in favour of the unfortunate Raleigh, answering his petition to her for protection with a personal letter of appeal to Buckingham to save his life. “She carrieth no sway in state matters,” however, it was said of her in 1605, “and, praeter rem uxoriam, hath no great reach in other affairs.” “She does not mix herself up in affairs, though the king tells her anything she chooses to ask, and loves and esteems her.”2 Her interest in state matters was only occasional, and secondary to the pre-occupations of court festivities, masks, progresses, dresses, jewels, which she much enjoyed; the court being, says Wilson—whose severity cannot entirely suppress his admiration—“a continued maskarado, where she and her ladies, like so many nymphs or Nereides, appeared ... to the ravishment of the beholders,” and “made the night more glorious than the day.” Occasionally she even joined in the king’s sports, though here her only recorded exploit was her accidental shooting of James’s “most principal and special hound,” Jewel. Her extravagant expenditure, returned by Salisbury in 1605 at more than £50,000 and by Chamberlain at her death at more than £84,000, was unfavourably contrasted with the economy of Queen Elizabeth; in spite of large allowances and grants of estates which included Oatlands, Greenwich House and Nonsuch, it greatly exceeded her income, her debts in 1616 being reckoned at nearly £10,000, while her jewelry and her plate were valued at her death at nearly half a million. Anne died after a long illness on the 2nd of March 1619, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. She was generally regretted. The severe Wilson, while rebuking her gaieties, allows that she was “a good woman,” and that her character would stand the most prying investigation. She was intelligent and tactful, a faithful wife, a devoted mother and a staunch friend. Besides several children who died in infancy she had Henry, prince of Wales, who died in 1612, Charles, afterwards King Charles I., and Elizabeth, electress palatine and queen of Bohemia.

On July 24th, Anne was crowned alongside the king, and her refusal to take the sacrament according to the Anglican tradition caused quite a stir. She did take communion on one occasion later on and attended Anglican services occasionally; however, she received consecrated items from Pope Clement VIII, continued to attend mass, and, according to Galluzzi, backed plans for the conversion of the Prince of Wales and England, as well as for the prince’s marriage to a Roman Catholic princess, which fell apart after his death in 1612. The Jesuits claimed her as a convert. Nevertheless, on her deathbed, while attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, she used words interpreted as a statement of Protestantism. Despite their religious differences, she lived in great harmony and affection with the king, although later on, she mostly resided apart. She helped raise Buckingham to power in place of Somerset, maintained friendly relations with him, and supported his influence over the king. Despite her background and family, she was initially supportive of Spain, disapproved of her daughter Elizabeth's marriage to the elector palatine, and endorsed Spanish marriages for her sons, but eventually shifted her support towards France. She used all her influence to help the unfortunate Raleigh, responding to his plea for protection with a personal letter to Buckingham asking him to save his life. “She has no real influence in state matters,” it was said of her in 1605, “and, besides her role as a wife, she has no significant impact on other issues.” “She does not involve herself in affairs, though the king shares anything she wants to ask, and he loves and values her.” Her interest in state matters was only occasional and secondary to the court's festivities, masks, progressions, dresses, and jewels, which she greatly enjoyed; the court was, as Wilson put it—whose severity cannot entirely hide his admiration—“a continuous masquerade, where she and her ladies, like so many nymphs or Nereides, appeared ... to the delight of the spectators,” and “made the night more glorious than the day.” Occasionally, she even participated in the king’s sports, although her only recorded incident was accidentally shooting James’s “most important and special hound,” Jewel. Her excessive spending, reported by Salisbury in 1605 to be over £50,000 and by Chamberlain at her death to be more than £84,000, was unfavorably compared to Queen Elizabeth's frugality; despite large allowances and grants of estates including Oatlands, Greenwich House, and Nonsuch, it greatly exceeded her income, with her debts in 1616 estimated at nearly £10,000, while her jewelry and plate were valued at her death at nearly half a million. Anne passed away after a long illness on March 2, 1619, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. She was generally mourned. The strict Wilson, while criticizing her frivolities, acknowledged that she was “a good woman,” and that her character would withstand the closest scrutiny. She was intelligent and tactful, a loyal wife, a devoted mother, and a steadfast friend. Besides several children who died in infancy, she had Henry, Prince of Wales, who died in 1612, Charles, who later became King Charles I, and Elizabeth, electress palatine and queen of Bohemia.

Bibliography.—See Dr A.W. Ward’s article in the Dict, of Nat. Biography, with authorities; Lives of the Queens of England, by A. Strickland (1844), vii.; “Life and Reign of King James I.,” by A. Wilson, in History of England (1706); Istoria del Granducato di Toscana, by R. Galluzzi (1781), lib. vi. cap. ii.; Cal. of State Papers—Domestic and Venetian; Hist. MSS. Comm. Series, MSS, of Marq. of Salisbury, iii. 420, 438, 454, ix. 54; Harleian MSS. 5176, art. 22, 293, art. 106. Also see bibliography to the article on James I.

References.—See Dr. A.W. Ward’s article in the Dictionary of National Biography, with sources; Lives of the Queens of England by A. Strickland (1844), vii.; “Life and Reign of King James I.,” by A. Wilson, in History of England (1706); Istoria del Granducato di Toscana by R. Galluzzi (1781), book vi, chapter ii; Calendar of State Papers—Domestic and Venetian; Historical Manuscripts Commission Series, Manuscripts of the Marquess of Salisbury, iii. 420, 438, 454, ix. 54; Harleian Manuscripts 5176, article 22, 293, article 106. Also see bibliography for the article on James I.

(P. C. Y.)

1 Fasti S. J., by P. Joannis Drews (pub. 1723), p. 160.

1 Fasti S. J., by P. Joannis Drews (pub. 1723), p. 160.

2 Cal. of St. Pap.—Venetian, x. 513.

2 Cal. of St. Pap.—Venetian, x. 513.


ANNE OF FRANCE (1460-1522), dame de Beaujeu, was the eldest daughter of Louis XI. and Charlotte of Savoy. Louis XI. betrothed her at first to Nicholas of Anjou, and afterwards offered her hand successively to Charles the Bold, to the duke of Brittany, and even to his own brother, Charles of France. Finally she married Pierre de Beaujeu, a younger brother of the duke of Bourbon. Before his death Louis XI. entrusted to Pierre de Beaujeu and Anne the entire charge of his son, Charles VIII., a lad of thirteen; and from 1483 to 1492 the Beaujeus exercised a virtual regency. Anne was a true daughter of Louis XI. Energetic, obstinate, cunning and unscrupulous, she inherited, too, her father’s avarice and rapacity. Although they made some concessions, the Beaujeus succeeded in maintaining the results of the previous reign, and in triumphing over the feudal intrigues and coalitions, as was seen from the meeting of the estates general in 1484, and the results of the “Mad War” (1485) and the war with Brittany (1488); and in spite of the efforts of Maximilian of Austria they concluded the marriage of Charles VIII. and Anne, duchess of Brittany (1491). But a short time afterwards the king disengaged himself completely from their tutelage, to the great detriment of the kingdom. In 1488 Pierre de Beaujeu had succeeded to the Bourbonnais, the last great fief of France. He died in 1503, but Anne survived him twenty years. From her establishments at Moulins and Chantelle in the Bourbonnais she continued henceforth vigorously to defend the Bourbon cause against the royal family. Anne’s only daughter, Suzanne, had married in 1505 her cousin, Charles of Bourbon, count of Montpensier, the future constable; and the question of the succession of Suzanne, who died in 1521, was the determining factor of the treason of the constable de Bourbon (1523). Anne had died some months before, on the 14th of November 1522.

ANNE OF FRANCE (1460-1522), lady of Beaujeu, was the eldest daughter of Louis XI and Charlotte of Savoy. Louis XI first betrothed her to Nicholas of Anjou and then successively proposed her hand to Charles the Bold, the Duke of Brittany, and even to his own brother, Charles of France. Ultimately, she married Pierre de Beaujeu, a younger brother of the Duke of Bourbon. Before his death, Louis XI entrusted Pierre de Beaujeu and Anne with the care of his son, Charles VIII, who was just thirteen at the time; from 1483 to 1492, the Beaujeus effectively acted as regents. Anne was a true daughter of Louis XI—energetic, stubborn, clever, and ruthless, she also inherited her father's greed and insatiable ambition. Although they made some compromises, the Beaujeus managed to preserve the outcomes of the previous reign and overcame various feudal schemes and alliances, as evident from the meeting of the Estates General in 1484, the fallout of the "Mad War" (1485), and the conflict with Brittany (1488); despite Maximilian of Austria's efforts, they arranged the marriage between Charles VIII and Anne, Duchess of Brittany (1491). However, shortly after, the king completely freed himself from their control, which harmed the kingdom significantly. In 1488, Pierre de Beaujeu took over the Bourbonnais, the last major fief in France. He passed away in 1503, but Anne lived for another twenty years. From her residences in Moulins and Chantelle in Bourbonnais, she continued to vigorously support the Bourbon cause against the royal family. Anne's only daughter, Suzanne, married her cousin, Charles of Bourbon, Count of Montpensier, the future Constable, in 1505; the succession issue of Suzanne, who died in 1521, played a crucial role in the treason of Constable de Bourbon (1523). Anne had passed away a few months earlier, on November 14, 1522.

See P. Pelicier, Essai sur le gouvernement de la Dame de Beaujeu (Chartres, 1882).

See P. Pelicier, Essay on the Governance of Dame de Beaujeu (Chartres, 1882).

(J. I.)

ANNEALING, HARDENING AND TEMPERING. Annealing (from the prefix an, and the old English aélan, to burn or bake; the meaning has probably also been modified from the French nieler, to enamel black on gold or silver, from the med. Lat. nigellare, to make black; cf. niello) is a process of treating a metal or alloy by heat with the object of imparting to it a certain condition of ductility, extensibility, or a certain grade of softness or hardness, with all that is involved in and follows from those 71 conditions. The effect may be mechanical only, or a chemical change may take place also. Sometimes the causes are obvious, in other cases they are more or less obscure. But of the actual facts, and the immense importance of this operation as well as of the related ones of tempering and hardening in shop processes, there is no question.

Annealing, hardening, and tempering. Annealing (from the prefix an, and the old English aélan, to burn or bake; the meaning has probably also been influenced by the French nieler, to enamel black on gold or silver, from the medieval Latin nigellare, to make black; cf. niello) is a process of treating a metal or alloy with heat to give it a certain level of ductility, extensibility, or a specific degree of softness or hardness, along with everything that comes with those conditions. The effects can be mechanical only, or there can be a chemical change as well. Sometimes the causes are clear, while in other cases they are somewhat unclear. However, there is no doubt about the actual facts or the immense importance of this process, as well as the related processes of tempering and hardening in manufacturing. 71

When the treatment is of a mechanical character only, there can be no reasonable doubt that the common belief is correct, namely, that the metallic crystals or fibres undergo a molecular rearrangement of some kind. When it is of a chemical character, the process is one of cementation, due to the occlusion of gases in the molecules of the metals.

When the treatment is purely mechanical, there’s no doubt that the common belief is accurate: the metallic crystals or fibers experience some kind of molecular rearrangement. When it’s chemical, the process involves cementation, caused by gases being trapped in the molecules of the metals.

Numerous examples of annealing due to molecular rearrangement might be selected from the extensive range of workshop operations. The following are a few only:—when a boiler-maker bends the edges of a plate of steel or iron by hammer blows (flanging), he does so in successive stages (heats), at each of which the plate has to be reheated, with inevitable cooling down during the time work is being done upon it. The result is that the plate becomes brittle over the parts which have been subjected to this treatment; and this brittleness is not uniformly distributed, but is localized, and is a source of weakness, inducing a liability to crack. If, however, the plate when finished is raised to a full red heat, and allowed to cool down away from access of cool air, as in a furnace, or underneath wood ashes, it resumes its old ductility. The plate has been annealed, and is as safe as it was before it was flanged. Again, when a sheet of thin metal is forced to assume a shape very widely different from its original plane aspect, as by hammering, or by drawing out in a press—a cartridge case being a familiar example—it is necessary to anneal it several times during the progress of the operation. Without such annealing it would never arrive at the final stage desired, but would become torn asunder by the extension of its metallic fibres. Cutting tools are made of steel having sufficient carbon to afford capacity for hardening. Before the process is performed, the condition in which the carbon is present renders the steel so hard and tough as to render the preliminary turning or shaping necessary in many cases (e.g. in milling cutters) a tedious operation. To lessen this labour, the steel is first annealed. In this case it is brought to a low red heat, and allowed to cool away from the air. It can then be machined with comparative ease and be subsequently hardened or tempered. When a metallic structure has endured long service a state of fatigue results. Annealing is, where practicable, resorted to in order to restore the original strength. A familiar illustration is that of chains which are specially liable to succumb to constant overstrain if continued for only a year or two. This is so well known that the practice is regularly adopted of annealing the chains at regular intervals. They are put into a clear hot furnace and raised to a low red heat, continued for a few hours, and then allowed to cool down in the furnace after the withdrawal of the source of heat. Before the annealing the fracture of a link would be more crystalline than afterwards.

Numerous examples of annealing due to molecular rearrangement can be taken from the wide range of workshop operations. Here are just a few: When a boiler-maker bends the edges of a steel or iron plate by hammering (flanging), they do this in successive stages (heats), each requiring the plate to be reheated, which inevitably cools it down during the work. As a result, the plate becomes brittle in the areas subjected to this process; this brittleness isn’t spread evenly but is localized, creating a weak point that can lead to cracks. However, if the finished plate is brought to a full red heat and allowed to cool away from cool air, such as in a furnace or under wood ashes, it regains its original ductility. The plate has been annealed and is as safe as it was before flanging. Similarly, when a thin metal sheet is forced into a shape very different from its original flat form, such as through hammering or pressing—like a cartridge case—it must be annealed several times throughout the process. Without this annealing, it would never reach the desired final shape and would tear apart due to the stretching of its metal fibers. Cutting tools are made of steel with enough carbon to allow for hardening. Before hardening, the carbon makes the steel so hard and tough that preliminary turning or shaping, particularly in milling cutters, becomes a tedious job. To make this easier, the steel is first annealed. In this case, it's heated to a low red temperature and allowed to cool away from the air. Once annealed, it can be machined much more easily before being hardened or tempered. When a metal structure has been in use for a long time, it experiences a state of fatigue. Annealing is used, when possible, to restore its original strength. A common example is chains, which are especially susceptible to constant overstrain if used for just a year or two. This is so well-known that it is standard practice to anneal chains at regular intervals. They are placed in a hot furnace and heated to a low red temperature for a few hours, then allowed to cool in the furnace after the heat source is removed. Before annealing, the fracture of a link would appear more crystalline than after.

In these examples, and others of which these are typical, two conditions are essential, one being the grade of temperature, the other the cooling. The temperature must never be so high as to cause the metal to become overheated, with risk of burning, nor so low as to prevent the penetration of the substance with a good volume of heat. It must also be continued for sufficient time. More than this cannot be said. Each particular piece of work requires its own treatment and period, and nothing but experience of similar work will help the craftsman. The cooling must always be gradual, such as that which results from removing the source of heat, as by drawing a furnace fire, or covering with non-conducting substances.

In these examples, and others like them, two key conditions are essential: the temperature level and the cooling process. The temperature should never be so high that it overheats the metal, risking burning, nor so low that it prevents the material from absorbing enough heat. It also needs to be maintained for a sufficient duration. Beyond this, not much more can be said. Each specific piece of work requires its own treatment and time, and only experience with similar work can guide the craftsman. The cooling process must always be gradual, achieved by removing the heat source, like pulling out a furnace fire, or covering it with insulating materials.

The chemical kind of annealing is specifically that employed in the manufacture of malleable cast iron. In this process, castings are made of white iron,—a brittle quality which has its carbon wholly in the combined state. These castings, when subjected to heat for a period of ten days or a fortnight, in closed boxes, in the presence of substances containing oxygen, become highly ductile. This change is due to the absorption of the carbon by the oxygen in the cementing material, a comparatively pure soft iron being left behind. The result is that the originally hard, brittle castings after this treatment may be cut with a knife, and be bent double and twisted into spirals without fracturing.

The chemical type of annealing is specifically used in the production of malleable cast iron. In this process, castings are made from white iron—a brittle material that has all its carbon in a combined state. When these castings are heated for about ten days to two weeks in closed boxes, along with substances containing oxygen, they become very ductile. This transformation happens because the carbon is absorbed by the oxygen in the cementing material, leaving behind a relatively pure soft iron. As a result, the originally hard, brittle castings can be cut with a knife and bent double or twisted into spirals without breaking.

The distinction between hardening and tempering is one of degree only, and both are of an opposite character to annealing. Hardening, in the shop sense, signifies the making of a piece of steel about as hard as it can be made—“glass hard”—while tempering indicates some stage in an infinite range between the fully hardened and the annealed or softened condition. As a matter of convenience only, hardening is usually a stage in the work of tempering. It is easier to harden first, and “let down” to the temper required, than to secure the exact heat for tempering by raising the material to it. This is partly due to the long established practice of estimating temperature by colour tints; but this is being rapidly invaded by new methods in which the temper heat is obtained in furnaces provided with pyrometers, by means of which exact heat regulation is readily secured, and in which the heating up is done gradually. Such furnaces are used for hardening balls for bearings, cams, small toothed wheels and similar work, as well as for tempering springs, milling cutters and other kinds of cutting tools. But for the cutting tools having single edges, as used in engineers’ shops, the colour test is still generally retained.

The difference between hardening and tempering is just a matter of degree, and both are opposed to annealing. Hardening, in practical terms, means making a piece of steel as hard as possible—“glass hard”—while tempering refers to any point along an endless range between fully hardened and softened. For convenience, hardening is typically a step before tempering. It’s easier to harden first and then “let down” to the required temper than to hit the exact temperature for tempering by heating the material directly. This is partly because people traditionally estimate temperature by color, but newer methods are quickly changing this, using furnaces with pyrometers that allow for precise heat control and gradual heating. Such furnaces are used to harden balls for bearings, cams, small gears, and similar items, as well as to temper springs, milling cutters, and other cutting tools. However, for cutting tools with single edges, like those used in engineering shops, the color test is still commonly used.

In the practice of hardening and tempering tools by colour, experience is the only safe guide. Colour tints vary with degrees of light; steels of different brands require different treatment in regard to temperature and quenching; and steels even of identical chemical composition do not always behave alike when tempered. Every fresh brand of steel has, therefore, to be treated at first in a tentative and experimental fashion in order to secure the best possible results. The larger the masses of steel, and the greater the disparity in dimensions of adjacent parts, the greater is the risk of cracking and distortion. Excessive length and the presence of keen angles increase the difficulties of hardening. The following points have to be observed in the work of hardening and tempering.

In the process of hardening and tempering tools by color, experience is the only reliable guide. Color shades change with light conditions; different brands of steel need different treatments in terms of temperature and quenching; and even steels with the same chemical makeup can respond differently when tempered. Therefore, each new brand of steel must initially be treated in a tentative and experimental way to achieve the best possible outcomes. The larger the pieces of steel and the greater the difference in the size of nearby parts, the higher the risk of cracking and distortion. Excessive length and sharp angles make hardening even more challenging. The following points need to be considered when hardening and tempering.

A grade of steel must be selected of suitable quality for the purpose for which it has to be used. There are a number of such grades, ranging from about 1½ to ½% content of carbon, and each having its special utility. Overheating must be avoided, as that burns the steel and injures or ruins it. A safe rule is never to heat any grade of steel to a temperature higher than that at which experience proves it will take the temper required. Heating must be regular and thorough throughout, and must therefore be slowly done when dealing with thick masses. Contact with sulphurous fuel must be avoided. Baths of molten alloys of lead and tin are used when very exact temperatures are required, and when articles have thick and thin parts adjacent. But the gas furnaces have the same advantages in a more handy form. Quenching is done in water, oil, or in various hardening mixtures, and sometimes in solids. Rain water is the principal hardening agent, but various saline compounds are often added to intensify its action. Water that has been long in use is preferred to fresh. Water is generally used cold, but in many cases it is warmed to about 80° F., as for milling cutters and taps, warmed water being less liable to crack the cutters than cold. Oil is preferred to water for small springs, for guns and for many cutters. Mercury hardens most intensely, because it does not evaporate, and so does lead or wax for the same reason; water evaporates, and in the spheroidal state, as steam, leaves contact with the steel. This is the reason why long and large objects are moved vertically about in the water during quenching, to bring them into contact with fresh cold water.

A suitable grade of steel must be chosen based on the specific purpose it will serve. There are several grades available, with carbon content ranging from about 1½% to ½%, each with its own particular use. Overheating should be avoided, as it can burn and damage the steel. A good rule of thumb is to never heat any grade of steel to a temperature higher than what experience shows will achieve the desired hardness. The heating process should be consistent and thorough, requiring a slow approach when dealing with thick pieces. It’s important to keep the steel away from sulfur-containing fuels. Molten baths of lead and tin are used when precise temperatures are critical, especially for items with varying thicknesses. However, gas furnaces offer similar benefits in a more convenient setup. Quenching is done in water, oil, or various hardening mixtures, and sometimes in solids. Rainwater is the main hardening agent, but different saline compounds are usually added to enhance its effectiveness. Used water is preferred over fresh water. Generally, water is used cold, but for some applications like milling cutters and taps, it is heated to about 80°F, as warm water reduces the risk of cracking the tools compared to cold water. Oil is usually favored over water for small springs, firearms, and many types of cutters. Mercury provides the most intense hardening because it doesn’t evaporate, and lead or wax has similar properties. Water evaporates, and in its gaseous form as steam, it loses contact with the steel. This is why long and large objects are often moved around vertically in the water during quenching to ensure they maintain contact with fresh, cold water.

There is a good deal of mystery affected by many of the hardeners, who are very particular about the composition of their baths, various oils and salts being used in an infinity of combinations. Many of these are the result of long and successful experience, some are of the nature of “fads.” A change of bath may involve injury to the steel. The most difficult articles to 72 harden are springs, milling cutters, taps, reamers. It would be easy to give scores of hardening compositions.

There’s a lot of mystery surrounding many of the hardeners, who are very specific about the makeup of their baths, using various oils and salts in countless combinations. Many of these come from extensive and successful experience, while some are just trends. Changing baths could damage the steel. The hardest items to harden are springs, milling cutters, taps, and reamers. It would be easy to list dozens of hardening compositions.

Hardening is performed the more efficiently the more rapidly the quenching is done. In the case of thick objects, however, especially milling cutters, there is risk of cracking, due to the difference of temperature on the outside and in the central body of metal. Rapid hardening is impracticable in such objects. This is the cause of the distortion of long taps and reamers, and of their cracking, and explains why their teeth are often protected with soft soap and other substances.

Hardening works best when the quenching happens quickly. However, with thicker items, especially milling cutters, there's a risk of cracking because of the temperature differences between the outer surface and the center of the metal. Quick hardening isn't feasible for these types of objects. This is why long taps and reamers often get distorted or crack, and it's the reason their teeth are frequently protected with soft soap and other materials.

The presence of the body of heat in a tool is taken advantage of in the work of tempering. The tool, say a chisel, is dipped, a length of 2 in. or more being thus hardened and blackened. It is then removed, and a small area rubbed rapidly with a bit of grindstone, observations being made of the changing tints which gradually appear as the heat is communicated from the hot shank to the cooled end. The heat becomes equalized, and at the same time the approximate temperature for quenching for temper is estimated by the appearance of a certain tint; at that instant the article is plunged and allowed to remain until quite cold. For every different class of tool a different tint is required.

The heat in a tool is utilized during the tempering process. Take a chisel, for example; it’s dipped in a way that hardens and darkens a length of 2 inches or more. Then, it’s taken out, and a small area is quickly rubbed with a grindstone while observing the changing colors that gradually appear as the heat transfers from the hot part to the cooler end. The heat balances out, and at the same time, the right temperature for tempering is estimated by the color that appears; at that moment, the tool is immersed and left to cool completely. Each type of tool requires a different color for proper tempering.

“Blazing off” is a particular method of hardening applied to small springs. The springs are heated and plunged in oils, fats, or tallow, which is burned off previous to cooling in air, or in the ashes of the forge, or in oil, or water usually. They are hardened, reheated and tempered, and the tempering by blazing off is repeated for heavy springs. The practice varies almost infinitely with dimensions, quality of steel, and purpose to which the springs have to be applied.

“Blazing off” is a specific technique for hardening small springs. The springs are heated and then dipped in oils, fats, or tallow, which is burned off before cooling in air, or in forge ashes, or in oil, or usually in water. They are then hardened, reheated, and tempered, and the blazing off process is repeated for heavier springs. The practice varies widely depending on the size, quality of steel, and the intended use of the springs.

The range of temper for most cutting tools lies between a pale straw or yellow, and a light purple or plum colour. The corresponding range of temperatures is about 430° F. to 530° F., respectively. “Spring temper” is higher, from dark purple to blue, or 550° F. to 630° F. In many fine tools the range of temperature possible between good and poor results lies within from 5° to 10° F.

The temper of most cutting tools typically varies from a light straw or yellow to a light purple or plum color. The temperature range associated with this is roughly 430° F. to 530° F. “Spring temper” is higher, ranging from dark purple to blue, or 550° F. to 630° F. For many high-quality tools, the temperature difference that can lead to good versus poor results is only between 5° to 10° F.

There is another kind of hardening which is of a superficial character only—“case hardening.” It is employed in cases where toughness has to be combined with durability of surface. It is a cementation process, practised on wrought iron and mild steel, and applied to the link motions of engines, to many pins and studs, eyes of levers, &c. The articles are hermetically luted in an iron box, packed with nitrogenous and saline substances such as potash, bone dust, leather cuttings, and salt. The box is placed in a furnace, and allowed to remain for periods of from twelve to thirty-six hours, during which period the surface of the metal, to a depth of 132 to 116 in., is penetrated by the cementing materials, and converted into steel. The work is then thrown into water and quenched.

There is another type of hardening that is only superficial—“case hardening.” It’s used when toughness needs to be combined with surface durability. This is a cementation process applied to wrought iron and mild steel, used for the link motions of engines, many pins and studs, lever eyes, etc. The items are tightly sealed in an iron box filled with nitrogenous and salty materials like potash, bone dust, leather scraps, and salt. The box is placed in a furnace and left for twelve to thirty-six hours, during which the surface of the metal, to a depth of 1/32 to 1/16 in., is penetrated by the cementing materials and turned into steel. The work is then plunged into water and quenched.

Fig. 1.—Automatic Oil Muffle Furnace.

A muffle furnace, employed for annealing, hardening and tempering is shown in fig. 1; the heat being obtained by means of petroleum, which is contained in the tank A, and is kept under pressure by pumping at intervals with the wooden handle, so that when the valve B is opened the oil is vaporized by passing through a heating coil at the furnace entrance, and when ignited burns fiercely as a gas flame. This passes into the furnace through the two holes, C, C, and plays under and up around the muffle D, standing on a fireclay slab. The doorway is closed by two fireclay blocks at E. A temperature of over 2000° F. can be obtained in furnaces of this class, and the heat is of course under perfect control.

A muffle furnace, used for annealing, hardening, and tempering, is shown in fig. 1. The heat is produced using petroleum stored in tank A, which is kept under pressure by pumping with the wooden handle at intervals. When valve B is opened, the oil vaporizes as it passes through a heating coil at the furnace entrance, and when ignited, it burns intensely as a gas flame. This flame enters the furnace through the two openings, C, C, and circulates under and around the muffle D, which sits on a fireclay slab. The doorway is sealed with two fireclay blocks at E. Furnaces of this type can reach temperatures exceeding 2000° F., and the heat can be controlled precisely.

Fig. 2.—Reverbatory Furnace.

A reverberatory type of gas furnace, shown in fig. 2, differs from the oil furnace in having the flames brought down through the roof, by pipes A, A, A, playing on work laid on the fireclay slab B, thence passing under this and out through the elbow-pipe C. The hinged doors, D, give a full opening to the interior of the furnace. It will be noticed in both these furnaces (by Messrs Fletcher, Russell & Co., Ltd.) that the iron casing is a mere shell, enclosing very thick firebrick linings, to retain the heat effectively.

A reverberatory gas furnace, shown in fig. 2, is different from the oil furnace because it brings the flames down through the roof via pipes A, A, A, which heat the work placed on the fireclay slab B. The flames then pass underneath this slab and exit through the elbow-pipe C. The hinged doors, D, provide full access to the inside of the furnace. It can be observed in both these furnaces (by Messrs Fletcher, Russell & Co., Ltd.) that the iron casing is just a shell, enclosing very thick firebrick linings to effectively retain the heat.

(J. G. H.)

ANNECY, the chief town of the department of Haute Savoie in France. Pop. (1906) 10,763. It is situated at a height of 1470 ft., at the northern end of the lake of Annecy, and is 25 m. by rail N.E. of Aix les Bains. The surrounding country presents many scenes of beauty. The town itself is a pleasant residence, and contains a 16th century cathedral church, an 18th century bishop’s palace, a 14th-16th century castle (formerly the residence of the counts of the Genevois), and the reconstructed convent of the Visitation, wherein now reposes the body of St François de Sales (born at the castle of Sales, close by, in 1567; died at Lyons in 1622), who held the see from 1602 to 1622. There is also a public library, with 20,000 volumes, and various scientific collections, and a public garden, with a statue of the chemist Berthollet (1748-1822), who was born not far off. The bishop’s see of Geneva was transferred hither in 1535, after the Reformation, but suppressed in 1801, though revived in 1822. There are factories of linen and cotton goods, and of felt hats, paper mills, and a celebrated bell foundry at Annecy le Vieux. This last-named place existed in Roman times. Annecy itself was in the 10th century the capital of the counts of the Genevois, from whom it passed in 1401 to the counts of Savoy, and became French in 1860 on the annexation of Savoy.

ANNECY, is the main town of the Haute Savoie department in France. The population in 1906 was 10,763. It sits at an elevation of 1,470 feet, at the northern end of Lake Annecy, and is 25 miles by train northeast of Aix les Bains. The surrounding area is filled with beautiful scenery. The town itself is a lovely place to live and features a 16th-century cathedral, an 18th-century bishop's palace, a castle from the 14th to 16th century (which was once the residence of the counts of Genevois), and a reconstructed convent of the Visitation, where the body of St. François de Sales now rests (born at the nearby castle of Sales in 1567; died in Lyons in 1622), who served as bishop from 1602 to 1622. There is also a public library with 20,000 volumes, various scientific collections, and a public garden that includes a statue of the chemist Berthollet (1748-1822), who was born nearby. The bishop's see of Geneva was moved here in 1535 after the Reformation but was suppressed in 1801 and revived in 1822. The town has factories producing linen and cotton goods, felt hats, paper mills, and a famous bell foundry in Annecy le Vieux. This area existed during Roman times. Annecy was the capital of the counts of Genevois in the 10th century, passed to the counts of Savoy in 1401, and became French in 1860 with the annexation of Savoy.

The Lake of Annecy is about 9 m. in length by 2 m. in breadth, its surface being 1465 ft. above the level of the sea. It discharges its waters, by means of the Thioux canal, into the Fier, a tributary of the Rhone.

The Lake Annecy is approximately 9 meters long and 2 meters wide, with its surface sitting 1,465 feet above sea level. It drains its waters through the Thioux canal into the Fier, a tributary of the Rhone.

(W. A. B. C.)

ANNELIDA, a name derived from J.B.P. Lamarck’s term Annélides, now used to denote a major phylum or division of coelomate invertebrate animals. Annelids are segmented worms, and differ from the Arthropoda (q.v.), which they closely resemble in many respects, by the possession of a portion of the coelom traversed by the alimentary canal. In the latter respect, and in the fact that they frequently develop by a metamorphosis, they approach the Mollusca (q.v.), but they differ from that group notably in the occurrence of metameric segmentation affecting many of the systems of organs. The body-wall is highly muscular and, except in a few probably specialized cases, possesses chitinous spines, the setae, which are secreted by the ectoderm and are embedded in pits of the skin. They possess a modified anterior end, frequently with special sense organs, forming a head, a segmented nervous system, consisting of a pair of anterior, dorsally-placed ganglia, a ring surrounding the 73 alimentary canal, and a double ventral ganglionated chain, a definite vascular system, an excretory system consisting of nephridia, and paired generative organs formed from the coelomic epithelium. They are divided as follows: (1) Haplodrili (q.v.) or Archiannelida; (2) Chaetopoda (q.v.); (3) Myzostomida (q.v.), probably degenerate Polychaeta; (4) Hirudinea (see Chaetopoda and Leech); (5) Echiuroidea (q.v.).

ANNELIDA, a name taken from J.B.P. Lamarck’s term Annélides, now used to refer to a major phylum or division of coelomate invertebrate animals. Annelids are segmented worms, and they differ from Arthropoda (q.v.), with which they share many similarities, by having a part of the coelom that is crossed by the digestive tract. In this way, and because they often develop through metamorphosis, they are similar to Mollusca (q.v.), but they stand out from that group mainly due to metameric segmentation affecting many of their organ systems. Their body wall is very muscular and, except in a few possibly specialized cases, has chitinous spines, or setae, which are secreted by the ectoderm and embedded in skin pits. They have a modified front end, often with unique sense organs, forming a head, a segmented nervous system that includes a pair of anterior, dorsal ganglia, a ring around the 73 digestive canal, and a double ventral chain of ganglia, a distinct vascular system, an excretory system made up of nephridia, and paired reproductive organs developed from the coelomic epithelium. They are classified as follows: (1) Haplodrili (q.v.) or Archiannelida; (2) Chaetopoda (q.v.); (3) Myzostomida (q.v.), likely degenerate Polychaeta; (4) Hirudinea (see Chaetopoda and Leech); (5) Echiuroidea (q.v.).

(P. C. M.)

ANNET, PETER (1693-1769), English deist, is said to have been born at Liverpool. A schoolmaster by profession, he became prominent owing to his attacks on orthodox theologians, and his membership of a semi-theological debating society, the Robin Hood Society, which met at the “Robin Hood and Little John” in Butcher Row. To him has been attributed a work called A History of the Man after God’s own Heart (1761), intended to show that George II. was insulted by a current comparison with David. The book is said to have inspired Voltaire’s Saul. It is also attributed to one John Noorthouck (Noorthook). In 1763 he was condemned for blasphemous libel in his paper called the Free Enquirer (nine numbers only). After his release he kept a small school in Lambeth, one of his pupils being James Stephen (1758-1832), who became master in Chancery. Annet died on the 18th of January 1769. He stands between the earlier philosophic deists and the later propagandists of Paine’s school, and “seems to have been the first freethought lecturer” (J.M. Robertson); his essays (A Collection of the Tracts of a certain Free Enquirer, 1739-1745) are forcible but lack refinement. He invented a system of shorthand (2nd ed., with a copy of verses by Joseph Priestley).

ANNET, PETER (1693-1769), an English deist, is believed to have been born in Liverpool. He worked as a schoolmaster but gained attention for his criticisms of traditional theologians and for being a member of a semi-theological debating group called the Robin Hood Society, which met at the “Robin Hood and Little John” in Butcher Row. He is credited with a work titled A History of the Man after God’s own Heart (1761), which aimed to argue that George II was disrespected by being compared to David. This book is said to have inspired Voltaire’s Saul. It is also attributed to someone named John Noorthouck (Noorthook). In 1763, he was found guilty of blasphemous libel for his publication called the Free Enquirer (which had only nine issues). After his release, he ran a small school in Lambeth, with one of his students being James Stephen (1758-1832), who later became a master in Chancery. Annet passed away on January 18, 1769. He represents a link between the earlier philosophical deists and the later advocates of Paine’s ideology, and “seems to have been the first freethought lecturer” (J.M. Robertson); his essays (A Collection of the Tracts of a certain Free Enquirer, 1739-1745) are impactful but lack polish. He also created a shorthand system (2nd ed., with a piece of poetry by Joseph Priestley).


ANNEXATION (Lat. ad, to, and nexus, joining), in international law, the act by which a state adds territory to its dominions; the term is also used generally as a synonym for acquisition. The assumption of a protectorate over another state, or of a sphere of influence, is not strictly annexation, the latter implying the complete displacement in the annexed territory of the government or state by which it was previously ruled. Annexation may be the consequence of a voluntary cession from one state to another, or of conversion from a protectorate or sphere of influence, or of mere occupation in uncivilized regions, or of conquest. The cession of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany by France, although brought about by the war of 1870, was for the purposes of international law a voluntary cession. Under the treaty of the 17th of December 1885, between the French republic and the queen of Madagascar, a French protectorate was established over this island. In 1896 this protectorate was converted by France into an annexation, and Madagascar then became “French territory.” The formal annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria (Oct. 5, 1908) was an unauthorized conversion of an “occupation” authorized by the Treaty of Berlin (1878), which had, however, for years operated as a de facto annexation. A recent case of conquest was that effected by the South African War of 1899-1902, in which the Transvaal republic and the Orange Free State were extinguished, first de facto by occupation of the whole of their territory, and then de jure by terms of surrender entered into by the Boer generals acting as a government.

ANNEXATION (Lat. ad, to, and nexus, joining), in international law, is when a state adds territory to its control; the term is also commonly used to mean acquisition. Taking on a protectorate over another state or claiming a sphere of influence isn't exactly annexation, since annexation implies that the previous government's authority in the area is completely replaced. Annexation can result from a state voluntarily giving up land, transitioning from a protectorate or sphere of influence, simply occupying uncivilized areas, or through conquest. The transfer of Alsace-Lorraine from France to Germany, although caused by the war of 1870, is considered a voluntary cession in terms of international law. Under the treaty dated December 17, 1885, between the French Republic and the Queen of Madagascar, a French protectorate was set up over the island. In 1896, France turned this protectorate into an annexation, making Madagascar part of “French territory.” The formal annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria on October 5, 1908, was an unauthorized change from an “occupation” permitted by the Treaty of Berlin (1878), which had operated as a de facto annexation for many years. A recent case of conquest occurred during the South African War of 1899-1902, where the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State were first effectively dissolved through occupation, and then legally through surrender agreements made by the Boer generals acting as their government.

By annexation, as between civilized peoples, the annexing state takes over the whole succession with the rights and obligations attaching to the ceded territory, subject only to any modifying conditions contained in the treaty of cession. These, however, are binding only as between the parties to them. In the case of the annexation of the territories of the Transvaal republic and Orange Free State, a rather complicated situation arose out of the facts, on the one hand, that the ceding states closed their own existence and left no recourse to third parties against the previous ruling authority, and, on the other, that, having no means owing to the de facto British occupation, of raising money by taxation, the dispossessed governments raised money by selling certain securities, more especially a large holding of shares in the South African Railway Company, to neutral purchasers. The British government repudiated these sales as having been made by a government which the British government had already displaced. The question of at what point, in a war of conquest, the state succession becomes operative is one of great delicacy. As early as the 6th of January 1900, the high commissioner at Cape Town issued a proclamation giving notice that H.M. government would “not recognize as valid or effectual” any conveyance, transfer or transmission of any property made by the government of the Transvaal republic or Orange Free State subsequently to the 10th of October 1899, the date of the commencement of the war. A proclamation forbidding transactions with a state which might still be capable of maintaining its independence could obviously bind only those subject to the authority of the state issuing it. Like paper blockades (see Blockade) and fictitious occupations of territory, such premature proclamations are viewed by international jurists as not being jure gentium. The proclamation was succeeded, on the 9th of March 1900, by another of the high commissioner at Cape Town, reiterating the notice, but confining it to “lands, railways, mines or mining rights.” And on the 1st of September 1900 Lord Roberts proclaimed at Pretoria the annexation of the territories of the Transvaal republic to the British dominions. That the war continued for nearly two years after this proclamation shows how fictitious the claim of annexation was. The difficulty which arose out of the transfer of the South African Railway shares held by the Transvaal government was satisfactorily terminated by the purchase by the British government of the total capital of the company from the different groups of shareholders (see on this case, Sir Thomas Barclay, Law Quarterly Review, July 1905; and Professor Westlake, in the same Review, October 1905).

By annexation, when it comes to civilized nations, the annexing state takes over all rights and obligations attached to the territory that’s been ceded, only subject to any changes specified in the cession treaty. However, these are binding only between the parties involved. In the case of the annexation of the territories of the Transvaal republic and Orange Free State, a complex situation arose due to the fact that the ceding states ended their existence and left no option for third parties to pursue claims against the prior ruling authority. Additionally, since they were unable to raise money through taxation due to the de facto British occupation, the ousted governments funded themselves by selling certain securities, particularly a large amount of shares in the South African Railway Company, to neutral buyers. The British government rejected these sales as they were made by a government that had already been ousted. The question of when, during a war of conquest, state succession becomes effective is quite sensitive. As early as January 6, 1900, the high commissioner in Cape Town issued a proclamation stating that H.M. government would “not recognize as valid or effectual” any transfer or conveyance of property made by the government of the Transvaal republic or Orange Free State after October 10, 1899, the date the war began. A proclamation banning transactions with a state that might still be able to maintain its independence obviously only binds those under the authority of the state issuing it. Like paper blockades (see Blockade) and imaginary occupations of territory, such early proclamations are considered by international jurists to not be jure gentium. The proclamation was followed on March 9, 1900, by another from the high commissioner in Cape Town, reiterating the notice but limiting it to “lands, railways, mines or mining rights.” Then on September 1, 1900, Lord Roberts announced in Pretoria the annexation of the territories of the Transvaal republic to British dominions. The fact that the war continued for nearly two years after this proclamation indicates how unrealistic the claim of annexation was. The issues arising from the transfer of the South African Railway shares owned by the Transvaal government were ultimately resolved when the British government bought the entire capital of the company from the various shareholders (see on this case, Sir Thomas Barclay, Law Quarterly Review, July 1905; and Professor Westlake, in the same Review, October 1905).

In a judgment of the judicial committee of the privy council in 1899 (Coote v. Sprigg, A.C. 572), Lord Chancellor Halsbury made an important distinction as regards the obligations of state succession. The case in question was a claim of title against the crown, represented by the government of Cape Colony. It was made by persons holding a concession of certain rights in eastern Pondoland from a native chief. Before the grantees had taken up their grant by acts of possession, Pondoland was annexed to Cape Colony. The colonial government refused to recognize the grant on different grounds, the chief of them being that the concession conferred no legal rights before the annexation and therefore could confer none afterwards, a sufficiently good ground in itself. The judicial committee, however, rested its decision chiefly on the allegation that the acquisition of the territory was an act of state and that “no municipal court had authority to enforce such an obligation” as the duty of the new government to respect existing titles. “It is no answer,” said Lord Halsbury, “to say that by the ordinary principles of international law private property is respected by the sovereign which accepts the cession and assumes the duties and legal obligations of the former sovereign with respect to such private property within the ceded territory. All that can be meant by such a proposition is that according to the well-understood rules of international law a change of sovereignty by cession ought not to affect private property, but no municipal tribunal has authority to enforce such an obligation. And if there is either an express or a well-understood bargain between the ceding potentate and the government to which the cession is made that private property shall be respected, that is only a bargain which can be enforced by sovereign against sovereign in the ordinary course of diplomatic pressure.” In an editorial note on this case the Law Quarterly Review of Jan. 1900 (p. 1), dissenting from the view of the judicial committee that “no municipal tribunal has authority to enforce such an obligation,” the writer observes that “we can read this only as meant to lay down that, on the annexation of territory even by peaceable cession, there is a total abeyance of justice until the will of the annexing power is expressly made known; and that, although the will of that power is commonly to respect existing private rights, there is no rule or presumption to that effect of which any court must or indeed can take notice.” So construed the doctrine is not only contrary to international law, but according to so authoritative an exponent of the common law as Sir F. Pollock, there is no warrant for it in English common law.

In a ruling by the judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1899 (Coote v. Sprigg, A.C. 572), Lord Chancellor Halsbury made a key distinction regarding the responsibilities of state succession. The case involved a title claim against the crown, represented by the government of Cape Colony, made by individuals holding a concession of certain rights in eastern Pondoland from a native chief. Before the grantees could take possession of their grant, Pondoland was annexed to Cape Colony. The colonial government denied recognition of the grant for several reasons, primarily arguing that the concession provided no legal rights before the annexation, and therefore could not confer any afterward, which was a valid argument on its own. However, the judicial committee based its decision mainly on the assertion that the acquisition of the territory was an act of state and that “no municipal court had authority to enforce such an obligation” as the new government’s duty to honor existing titles. “It is not a valid argument,” said Lord Halsbury, “to claim that by the usual principles of international law, private property is respected by the sovereign that accepts the cession and takes on the responsibilities and legal obligations of the previous sovereign regarding such private property in the ceded territory. All that this proposition suggests is that under the well-known rules of international law, a change of sovereignty through cession should not impact private property, but no municipal tribunal has the power to enforce such an obligation. If there is either an explicit or a generally understood agreement between the ceding ruler and the government receiving the cession that private property will be respected, that is merely an agreement that can only be enforced by one sovereign against another in the usual course of diplomatic pressure.” In an editorial note on this case in the Law Quarterly Review from January 1900 (p. 1), which disagreed with the judicial committee’s view that “no municipal tribunal has authority to enforce such an obligation,” the writer states, “we can interpret this only as indicating that with the annexation of territory, even through peaceful cession, there is a complete suspension of justice until the intentions of the annexing power are clearly communicated; and that, while that power typically intends to respect existing private rights, there is no rule or presumption to that effect that any court must or can recognize.” If interpreted this way, the doctrine not only contradicts international law, but according to a well-respected figure in common law, Sir F. Pollock, there is no basis for it in English common law.

An interesting point of American constitutional law has arisen out of the cession of the Philippines to the United States, through the fact that the federal constitution does not lend itself to the 74 exercise by the federal congress of unlimited powers, such as are vested in the British parliament. The sole authority for the powers of the federal congress is a written constitution with defined powers. Anything done in excess of those powers is null and void. The Supreme Court of the United States, on the other hand, has declared that, by the constitution, a government is ordained and established “for the United States of America” and not for countries outside their limits (Ross’s Case, 140 U.S. 453, 464), and that no such power to legislate for annexed territories as that vested in the British crown in council is enjoyed by the president of the United States (Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692). Every detail connected with the administration of the territories acquired from Spain under the treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898) has given rise to minute discussion.

An interesting point of American constitutional law has come up regarding the transfer of the Philippines to the United States, highlighting that the federal constitution doesn’t allow the federal congress unlimited powers like those held by the British parliament. The only authority for the federal congress’s powers is a written constitution with specified powers. Anything done beyond those powers is null and void. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that, according to the constitution, a government is established “for the United States of America” and not for territories outside its borders (Ross’s Case, 140 U.S. 453, 464). It also determined that the president of the United States doesn’t have the same power to legislate for annexed territories as the British crown in council does (Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692). Every detail related to the administration of the territories acquired from Spain through the Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898) has led to extensive discussion.

See Carman F. Randolph, Law and Policy of Annexation (New York and London, 1901); Charles Henry Butler, Treaty-making Power of the United States (New York, 1902), vol. i. p. 79 et seq.

See Carman F. Randolph, Law and Policy of Annexation (New York and London, 1901); Charles Henry Butler, Treaty-making Power of the United States (New York, 1902), vol. i. p. 79 et seq.

(T. Ba.)

ANNICERIS, a Greek philosopher of the Cyrenaic school. There is no certain information as to his date, but from the statement that he was a disciple of Paraebates it seems likely that he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. A follower of Aristippus, he denied that pleasure is the general end of human life. To each separate action there is a particular end, namely the pleasure which actually results from it. Secondly, pleasure is not merely the negation of pain, inasmuch as death ends all pain and yet cannot be regarded as pleasure. There is, however, an absolute pleasure in certain virtues such as belong to the love of country, parents and friends. In these relations a man will have pleasure, even though it may result in painful and even fatal consequences. Friendship is not merely for the satisfaction of our needs, but is in itself a source of pleasure. He maintains further, in opposition to most of the Cyrenaic school, that wisdom or prudence alone is an insufficient guarantee against error. The wise man is he who has acquired a habit of wise action; human wisdom is liable to lapses at any moment. Diogenes Laertius says that Anniceris ransomed Plato from Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, for twenty minas. If we are right in placing Anniceris in the latter half of the 4th century, it is clear that the reference here is to an earlier Anniceris, who, according to Aelian, was a celebrated charioteer.

ANNICERIS, was a Greek philosopher from the Cyrenaic school. There's no exact information about when he lived, but since he was a student of Paraebates, it seems likely he was around during the time of Alexander the Great. A disciple of Aristippus, he argued that pleasure isn't the overall goal of human life. Instead, every specific action has its own end, which is the pleasure that comes from it. Additionally, pleasure isn't just the absence of pain; for instance, death may eliminate all pain but isn't considered pleasure. However, there is a fundamental pleasure found in certain virtues, like those connected to love for one’s country, parents, and friends. In these relationships, a person can find pleasure, even if it leads to painful or fatal outcomes. Friendship serves not just to meet our needs but is a source of joy in itself. He also argues, contrary to most of the Cyrenaic school, that wisdom or prudence alone isn't enough to prevent mistakes. A wise person is someone who has developed a habit of making wise choices; human wisdom can fail at any time. Diogenes Laertius mentions that Anniceris paid twenty minas to rescue Plato from Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse. If we’re correct in placing Anniceris in the latter half of the 4th century, it’s clear that the mention here refers to an earlier Anniceris, who, according to Aelian, was a famous charioteer.


ANNING, MARY (1799-1847), English fossil-collector, the daughter of Richard Anning, a cabinet-maker, was born at Lyme Regis in May 1799. Her father was one of the earliest collectors and dealers in fossils, obtained chiefly from the Lower Lias in that famous locality. When but a child in 1811 she discovered the first specimen of Ichthyosaurus which was brought into scientific notice; in 1821 she found remains of a new saurian, the Plesiosaurus and in 1828 she procured, for the first time in England, remains of a pterodactyl (Dimorphodon). She died on the 9th of March 1847.

ANNING, MARY (1799-1847), English fossil collector, the daughter of Richard Anning, a cabinetmaker, was born in Lyme Regis in May 1799. Her father was one of the earliest collectors and dealers in fossils, primarily sourced from the Lower Lias in that renowned area. As a child in 1811, she discovered the first specimen of Ichthyosaurus that gained scientific attention; in 1821, she found remains of a new dinosaur, the Plesiosaurus, and in 1828, she obtained, for the first time in England, remains of a pterodactyl (Dimorphodon). She passed away on March 9, 1847.


ANNISTON, a city and the county seat of Calhoun county, Alabama, U.S.A., in the north-eastern part of the state, about 63 m. E. by N. of Birmingham. Pop. (1890) 9998; (1900), 9695, of whom 3669 were of negro descent; (1910 census) 12,794. Anniston is served by the Southern, the Seaboard Air Line, and the Louisville & Nashville railways. The city is situated on the slope of Blue Mountain, a chain of the Blue Ridge, and is a health resort. It is the seat of the Noble Institute (for girls), established in 1886 by Samuel Noble (1834-1888), a wealthy iron-founder, and of the Alabama Presbyterian College for Men (1905). There are vast quantities of iron ore in the vicinity of the city, the Coosa coal-fields being only 25 m. distant. Anniston is an important manufacturing city, the principal industries being the manufacture of iron, steel and cotton. In 1905 the city’s factory products were valued at $2,525,455. An iron furnace was established on the site of Anniston during the Civil War, but it was destroyed by the federal troops in 1865; and in 1872 it was rebuilt on a much larger scale. The city was founded in 1872 as a private enterprise, by the Woodstock Iron Company, organized by Samuel Noble and Gen. Daniel Tyler (1799-1882); but it was not opened for general settlement until twelve years later. It was chartered as a city in 1879.

ANNISTON, is a city and the county seat of Calhoun County, Alabama, U.S.A., located in the northeastern part of the state, about 63 miles east-northeast of Birmingham. Population (1890) 9,998; (1900) 9,695, of whom 3,669 were of African descent; (1910 census) 12,794. Anniston is served by the Southern, the Seaboard Air Line, and the Louisville & Nashville railways. The city is situated on the slope of Blue Mountain, a part of the Blue Ridge range, and is a health resort. It is home to the Noble Institute (for girls), established in 1886 by Samuel Noble (1834-1888), a wealthy iron founder, as well as the Alabama Presbyterian College for Men (1905). There are vast amounts of iron ore in the area, with the Coosa coal fields just 25 miles away. Anniston is an important manufacturing city, with the main industries being the production of iron, steel, and cotton. In 1905, the city’s factory products were valued at $2,525,455. An iron furnace was built on the site of Anniston during the Civil War, but it was destroyed by federal troops in 1865; it was then rebuilt on a much larger scale in 1872. The city was founded in 1872 as a private venture by the Woodstock Iron Company, organized by Samuel Noble and Gen. Daniel Tyler (1799-1882), but it wasn't opened for general settlement until twelve years later. It was chartered as a city in 1879.


ANNO, or Hanno, SAINT (c. 1010-1075), archbishop of Cologne, belonged to a Swabian family, and was educated at Bamberg. He became confessor to the emperor Henry III., who appointed him archbishop of Cologne in 1056. He took a prominent part in the government of Germany during the minority of King Henry IV., and was the leader of the party which in 1062 seized the person of Henry, and deprived his mother, the empress Agnes, of power. For a short time Anno exercised the chief authority in the kingdom, but he was soon obliged to share this with Adalbert, archbishop of Bremen, retaining for himself the supervision of Henry’s education and the title of magister. The office of chancellor of the kingdom of Italy was at this period regarded as an appanage of the archbishopric of Cologne, and this was probably the reason why Anno had a considerable share in settling the papal dispute in 1064. He declared Alexander II. to be the rightful pope at a synod held at Mantua in May 1064, and took other steps to secure his recognition. Returning to Germany, he found the chief power in the hands of Adalbert, and as he was disliked by the young king, he left the court but returned and regained some of his former influence when Adalbert fell from power in 1066. He succeeded in putting down a rising against his authority in Cologne in 1074, and it was reported he had allied himself with William the Conqueror, king of England, against the emperor. Having cleared himself of this charge, Anno took no further part in public business, and died at Cologne on the 4th of December 1075. He was buried in the monastery of Siegburg and was canonized in 1183 by Pope Lucius III. He was a founder of monasteries and a builder of churches, advocated clerical celibacy and was a strict disciplinarian. He was a man of great energy and ability, whose action in recognizing Alexander II. was of the utmost consequence for Henry IV. and for Germany.

ANNO or Hanno, SAINT (c. 1010-1075), archbishop of Cologne, came from a Swabian family and was educated in Bamberg. He became the spiritual advisor to Emperor Henry III., who appointed him archbishop of Cologne in 1056. Anno played a significant role in the governance of Germany during the minority of King Henry IV. and led a faction that captured Henry in 1062, removing his mother, Empress Agnes, from power. For a brief time, Anno held the main authority in the kingdom but was soon forced to share it with Adalbert, archbishop of Bremen, while keeping oversight of Henry's education and the title of magister. At this time, the chancellorship of the kingdom of Italy was seen as a perk of the archbishopric of Cologne, likely explaining Anno's significant involvement in resolving the papal dispute in 1064. He declared Alexander II. the legitimate pope at a synod in Mantua in May 1064 and took further steps to ensure his recognition. Upon returning to Germany, he found that most power lay with Adalbert, and since he was not favored by the young king, he left the court but returned to regain some of his influence when Adalbert lost power in 1066. In 1074, he successfully quashed a rebellion against his authority in Cologne, and it was rumored that he had allied with William the Conqueror, king of England, against the emperor. After clearing himself of this accusation, Anno withdrew from public affairs and died in Cologne on December 4, 1075. He was buried in the monastery of Siegburg and was canonized in 1183 by Pope Lucius III. He founded monasteries and built churches, promoted clerical celibacy, and was a strict disciplinarian. An energetic and capable man, his decision to recognize Alexander II. had significant implications for Henry IV. and for Germany.

There is a Vita Annonis, written about 1100, by a monk of Siegburg, but this is of slight value. It appears in the Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptores, Bd. xi. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892). There is an “Epistola ad monachos Malmundarienses” by Anno in the Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, Bd. xiv. (Hanover, 1876 seq.). See also the Annolied, or Incerti poetae Teutonici rhythmus de S. Annone, written about 1180, and edited by J. Kehrein (Frankfort, 1865); Th. Lindner, Anno II. der Heilige, Erzbischof von Koln (Leipzig, 1869).

There is a Vita Annonis, written around 1100 by a monk from Siegburg, but it holds little value. It can be found in the Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptores, Bd. xi. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892). There's also an “Epistola ad monachos Malmundarienses” by Anno in the Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, Bd. xiv. (Hanover, 1876 seq.). Additionally, see the Annolied, or Incerti poetae Teutonici rhythmus de S. Annone, written around 1180 and edited by J. Kehrein (Frankfort, 1865); Th. Lindner, Anno II. der Heilige, Erzbischof von Koln (Leipzig, 1869).


ANNOBON, or Anno Bom, an island in the Gulf of Guinea, in 1° 24′ S. and 5° 35′ E., belonging to Spain. It is 110 m. S.W. of St Thomas. Its length is about 4 m., its breadth 2, and its area 6¾ sq. m. Rising in some parts nearly 3000 ft. above the sea, it presents a succession of beautiful valleys and steep mountains, covered with rich woods and luxuriant vegetation. The inhabitants, some 3000 in number, are negroes and profess belief in the Roman Catholic faith. The chief town and residence of the governor is called St Antony (San Antonio de Praia). The roadstead is tolerably safe, and passing vessels take advantage of it in order to obtain water and fresh provisions, of which Annobon contains an abundant supply. The island was discovered by the Portuguese on the 1st of January 1473, from which circumstance it received its name (= New Year). Annobon, together with Fernando Po, was ceded to Spain by the Portuguese in 1778. The islanders revolted against their new masters and a state of anarchy ensued, leading, it is averred, to an arrangement by which the island was administered by a body of five natives, each of whom held the office of governor during the period that elapsed till ten ships touched at the island. In the latter part of the 19th century the authority of Spain was re-established.

ANNOBON, or Year Five, is an island in the Gulf of Guinea, located at 1° 24′ S. and 5° 35′ E., that belongs to Spain. It is 110 miles southwest of St. Thomas. The island is about 4 miles long, 2 miles wide, and covers an area of 6¾ square miles. In some areas, it rises nearly 3000 feet above sea level, showcasing a series of stunning valleys and steep mountains, all covered with lush forests and vibrant vegetation. The population, around 3000 people, are of African descent and primarily practice Roman Catholicism. The main town, which is also the governor's residence, is called St. Antony (San Antonio de Praia). The harbor is relatively safe, and passing ships often stop here to replenish their water and fresh food supplies, both of which Annobon has in abundance. The island was discovered by the Portuguese on January 1, 1473, which is the origin of its name (meaning New Year). Annobon, along with Fernando Po, was ceded to Spain by the Portuguese in 1778. The inhabitants rebelled against their new rulers, resulting in a period of chaos, which allegedly led to an agreement where the island was governed by a group of five locals, each taking turns as governor until ten ships visited the island. In the latter part of the 19th century, Spanish authority was restored.


ANNONA (from Lat. annus, year), in Roman mythology, the personification of the produce of the year. She is represented in works of art, often together with Ceres, with a cornucopia (horn of plenty) in her arm, and a ship’s prow in the background, indicating the transport of grain over the sea. She frequently occurs on coins of the empire, standing between a modius (corn-measure) and the prow of a galley, with ears of corn in one hand and a cornucopia in the other; sometimes she holds a rudder or an anchor. The Latin word itself has various meanings: (1) the produce of the year’s harvest; (2) all means of 75 subsistence, especially grain stored in the public granaries for provisioning the city; (3) the market-price of commodities, especially corn; (4) a direct tax in kind, levied in republican times in several provinces, chiefly employed in imperial times for distribution amongst officials and the support of the soldiery.

ANNONA (from Latin annus, meaning year), in Roman mythology, represents the yield of the year. She is often depicted in art alongside Ceres, holding a cornucopia (horn of plenty) in one arm, with a ship’s prow in the background, symbolizing the transport of grain across the sea. She commonly appears on coins from the empire, situated between a modius (a measure for grain) and the prow of a ship, with ears of corn in one hand and a cornucopia in the other; sometimes she also carries a rudder or an anchor. The Latin term itself has several meanings: (1) the produce of the year’s harvest; (2) all means of subsistence, particularly grain stored in public granaries for feeding the city; (3) the market price of goods, especially grain; (4) a type of tax in kind, imposed during republican times in various provinces, primarily used in imperial times for distribution among officials and to support the military.

In order to ensure a supply of corn sufficient to enable it to be sold at a very low price, it was procured in large quantities from Umbria, Etruria and Sicily. Almost down to the times of the empire, the care of the corn-supply formed part of the aedile’s duties, although in 440 B.C. (if the statement in Livy iv. 12, 13 is correct, which is doubtful) the senate appointed a special officer, called praefectus annonae, with greatly extended powers. As a consequence of the second Punic War, Roman agriculture was at a standstill; accordingly, recourse was had to Sicily and Sardinia (the first two Roman provinces) in order to keep up the supply of corn; a tax of one-tenth was imposed on it, and its export to any country except Italy forbidden. The price at which the corn was sold was always moderate; the corn law of Gracchus (123 B.C.) made it absurdly low, and Clodius (58 B.C.) bestowed it gratuitously. The number of the recipients of this free gift grew so enormously, that both Caesar and Augustus were obliged to reduce it. From the time of Augustus to the end of the empire the number of those who were entitled to receive a monthly allowance of corn on presenting a ticket was 200,000. In the 3rd century, bread formed the dole. A praefectus annonae was appointed by Augustus to superintend the corn-supply; he was assisted by a large staff in Rome and the provinces, and had jurisdiction in all matters connected with the corn-market. The office lasted till the latest times of the empire.

To ensure a constant supply of corn that could be sold at very low prices, large quantities were sourced from Umbria, Etruria, and Sicily. Up until the time of the empire, managing the corn supply was part of the aedile’s responsibilities, although in 440 B.C. (if Livy iv. 12, 13 is accurate, which is questionable), the senate appointed a special officer called the praefectus annonae, who had significantly expanded powers. After the second Punic War, Roman agriculture came to a halt; therefore, Sicily and Sardinia (the first two Roman provinces) were relied upon to maintain the corn supply. A tax of one-tenth was levied on it, and its export to any country other than Italy was prohibited. The price of corn was consistently kept low; the corn law of Gracchus (123 B.C.) set it to an absurdly low rate, and Clodius (58 B.C.) provided it for free. The number of people receiving this free corn increased so much that both Caesar and Augustus had to reduce it. From Augustus's reign until the end of the empire, around 200,000 people were entitled to receive a monthly corn allowance by presenting a ticket. In the 3rd century, bread replaced corn in the dole. Augustus appointed a praefectus annonae to oversee the corn supply; he was supported by a large staff in Rome and the provinces and had authority over all matters related to the corn market. This office remained until the latest times of the empire.


ANNONAY, a town of south-eastern France, in the north of the department of Ardèche, 50 m. S. of Lyons by the Paris-Lyons railway. Pop. (1906) 15,403. Annonay is built on the hill overlooking the meeting of the deep gorges of the Déôme and the Cance, the waters of which supply power to the factories of the town. By means of a dam across the Ternay, an affluent of the Déôme, to the north-west of the town, a reservoir is provided, in which an additional supply of water, for both industrial and domestic purposes, is stored. At Annonay there is an obelisk in honour of the brothers Montgolfier, inventors of the balloon, who were natives of the place. A tribunal of commerce, a board of trade-arbitrators, a branch of the Bank of France, and chambers of commerce and of arts and manufactures are among the public institutions. Annonay is the principal industrial centre of its department, the chief manufactures being those of leather, especially for gloves, paper, silk and silk goods, and flour. Chemical manures, glue, gelatine, brushes, chocolate and candles are also produced.

ANNONAY, is a town in southeastern France, located north of the Ardèche department, 50 miles south of Lyons along the Paris-Lyons railway. The population was 15,403 in 1906. Annonay is situated on a hill that overlooks the convergence of the deep gorges of the Déôme and the Cance, which provide water power for the town's factories. A dam on the Ternay, a tributary of the Déôme to the northwest of the town, creates a reservoir that stores extra water for industrial and domestic use. Annonay features an obelisk honoring the Montgolfier brothers, the inventors of the balloon, who were born here. The town is home to a commercial court, a board of trade arbitrators, a branch of the Bank of France, and chambers of commerce and arts and manufacturing. Annonay serves as the main industrial center of its department, with major industries including leather production, particularly gloves, paper, silk and silk products, and flour. It also produces chemical fertilizers, glue, gelatin, brushes, chocolate, and candles.


ANNOY (like the French ennui, a word traced by etymologists to a Lat. phrase, in odio esse, to be “in hatred” or hateful of someone), to vex or affect with irritation. In the sense of “nuisance,” the noun “annoyance,” apart from its obvious meaning, is found in the English “Jury of Annoyance” appointed by an act of 1754 to report upon obstructions in the highways.

ANNOY (similar to the French ennui, a word that etymologists trace back to the Latin phrase in odio esse, meaning to be “in hatred” or annoyed with someone), means to irritate or disturb someone. In the context of “nuisance,” the noun “annoyance,” besides its clear meaning, is also found in the term “Jury of Annoyance” established by a law in 1754 to address blockages on the highways.


ANNUITY (from Lat. annus, a year), a periodical payment, made annually, or at more frequent intervals, either for a fixed term of years, or during the continuance of a given life, or a combination of lives. In technical language an annuity is said to be payable for an assigned status, this being a general word chosen in preference to such words as “time,” “term” or “period,” because it may include more readily either a term of years certain, or a life or combination of lives. The magnitude of the annuity is the sum to be paid (and received) in the course of each year. Thus, if £100 is to be received each year by a person, he is said to have “an annuity of £100.” If the payments are made half-yearly, it is sometimes said that he has “a half-yearly annuity of £100”; but to avoid ambiguity, it is more commonly said he has an annuity of £100, payable by half-yearly instalments. The former expression, if clearly understood, is preferable on account of its brevity. So we may have quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily annuities, when the annuity is payable by quarterly, monthly, weekly or daily instalments. An annuity is considered as accruing during each instant of the status for which it is enjoyed, although it is only payable at fixed intervals. If the enjoyment of an annuity is postponed until after the lapse of a certain number of years, the annuity is said to be deferred. If an annuity, instead of being payable at the end of each year, half-year, &c., is payable in advance, it is called an annuity-due.

ANNUITY (from Latin annus, meaning year) is a regular payment made yearly or more frequently, either for a specific number of years, for the duration of a specified life, or a combination of lives. In technical terms, an annuity is described as payable for a designated status. This term is preferred over “time,” “term,” or “period” because it can easily encompass a definite number of years or a life or combination of lives. The amount of the annuity is the sum to be paid (and received) each year. For example, if a person is set to receive £100 each year, they have “an annuity of £100.” If payments are made twice a year, it's sometimes referred to as “a half-yearly annuity of £100,” but to avoid confusion, it is more often stated that they have an annuity of £100, payable in half-yearly installments. The shorter expression is preferable if it's clearly understood. Similar terms apply for quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily annuities when payments are made in those intervals. An annuity is viewed as accruing at every moment of the time for which it is received, even though payments only occur at fixed intervals. If the start of receiving an annuity is delayed until after a certain number of years, it is called a deferred annuity. If an annuity is payable at the beginning of each year, half-year, etc., instead of at the end, it is known as an annuity-due.

If an annuity is payable for a term of years independent of any contingency, it is called an annuity certain; if it is to continue for ever, it is called a perpetuity; and if in the latter case it is not to commence until after a term of years, it is called a deferred perpetuity. An annuity depending on the continuance of an assigned life or lives, is sometimes called a life annuity; but more commonly the simple term “annuity” is understood to mean a life annuity, unless the contrary is stated. A life annuity, to cease in any event after a certain term of years, is called a temporary annuity. The holder of an annuity is called an annuitant, and the person on whose life the annuity depends is called the nominee.

If an annuity is paid out over a specific number of years without any conditions, it is called an annuity certain; if it continues indefinitely, it's known as a perpetuity; and if it won't start until after a set number of years, it's referred to as a deferred perpetuity. An annuity that relies on the life or lives of certain individuals is sometimes called a life annuity; however, the term "annuity" usually refers to a life annuity unless stated otherwise. A life annuity that will end after a specific number of years is called a temporary annuity. The person receiving the annuity is known as an annuitant, and the individual whose life the annuity is based on is called the nominee.

If not otherwise stated, it is always understood that an annuity is payable yearly, and that the annual payment (or rent, as it is sometimes called) is £1. It is, however, customary to consider the annual payment to be, not £1, but simply 1, the reader supplying whatever monetary unit he pleases, whether pound, dollar, franc, Thaler, &c.

If not stated otherwise, it's always assumed that an annuity is paid yearly and that the annual payment (or rent, as it’s sometimes called) is £1. However, it's common to view the annual payment as just 1, with the reader providing whatever currency they prefer, whether it’s pounds, dollars, francs, thalers, etc.

The annuity is the totality of the payments to be made (and received), and is so understood by all writers on the subject; but some have also used the word to denote an individual payment (or rent), speaking, for instance, of the first or second year’s annuity,—a practice which is calculated to introduce confusion and should therefore be carefully avoided.

The annuity is the total amount of payments to be made (and received), and everyone who writes on the topic understands it this way; however, some have also used the term to refer to a single payment (or rent), mentioning, for example, the first or second year’s annuity—this practice is likely to cause confusion and should be avoided.

Instances of perpetuities are the dividends upon the public stocks in England, France and some other countries. Thus, although it is usual to speak of £100 consols, the reality is the yearly dividend which the government pays by quarterly instalments. The practice of the French in this, as in many other matters, is more logical. In speaking of their public funds (rentes) they do not mention the ideal capital sum, but speak of the annuity or annual payment that is received by the public creditor. Other instances of perpetuities are the incomes derived from the debenture stocks of railway companies, also the feu-duties commonly payable on house property in Scotland. The number of years’ purchase which the perpetual annuities granted by a government or a railway company realize in the open market, forms a very simple test of the credit of the various governments or railways.

Instances of perpetuities are the dividends from public stocks in England, France, and some other countries. So, even though we typically refer to £100 consols, the reality is the yearly dividend that the government pays in quarterly installments. The French approach to this, as in many other areas, is more straightforward. When discussing their public funds (rentes), they don’t mention the theoretical capital sum but talk about the annuity or annual payment that public creditors receive. Other examples of perpetuities include the incomes from the debenture stocks of railway companies and the feu-duties usually paid on house property in Scotland. The number of years’ purchase that the perpetual annuities granted by a government or a railway company achieve in the open market provides a very simple way to assess the creditworthiness of the different governments or railways.

Terminable Annuities are employed in the system of British public finance as a means of reducing the National Debt (q.v.). This result is attained by substituting for a perpetual annual charge (or one lasting until the capital which it represents can be paid off en bloc), an annual charge of a larger amount, but lasting for a short term. The latter is so calculated as to pay off, during its existence, the capital which it replaces, with interest at an assumed or agreed rate, and under specified conditions. The practical effect of the substitution of a terminable annuity for an obligation of longer currency is to bind the present generation of citizens to increase its own obligations in the present and near future in order to diminish those of its successors. This end might be attained in other ways; for instance, by setting aside out of revenue a fixed annual sum for the purchase and cancellation of debt (Pitt’s method, in intention), or by fixing the annual debt charge at a figure sufficient to provide a margin for reduction of the principal of the debt beyond the amount required for interest (Sir Stafford Northcote’s method), or by providing an annual surplus of revenue over expenditure (the “Old Sinking Fund”), available for the same purpose. All these methods have been tried in the course of British financial history, and the second and third of them are still employed; but on the whole the method of terminable annuities has been the one preferred by chancellors of the exchequer and by parliament.

Terminable Annuities are used in the British public finance system as a way to reduce the National Debt (q.v.). This is achieved by replacing a perpetual annual payment (or one that will last until the capital it represents can be paid off en bloc) with a larger annual payment that lasts for a shorter time. The latter is designed to pay off, during its duration, the capital it replaces, along with interest at a set or agreed-upon rate, under specific conditions. The practical effect of substituting a terminable annuity for a long-term obligation is to require the current generation of citizens to take on more obligations now and in the near future to lessen those of future generations. This goal could be accomplished in other ways; for example, by reserving a fixed annual amount from revenue to buy and cancel debt (Pitt’s method, as intended), or by setting the annual debt charge at a level that gives enough room to reduce the principal of the debt beyond what is needed for interest (Sir Stafford Northcote’s method), or by ensuring an annual revenue surplus over expenditures (the “Old Sinking Fund”), which would be available for the same goal. All these methods have been tried throughout British financial history, and the second and third are still in use; however, generally, the method of terminable annuities has been the preferred choice by chancellors of the exchequer and parliament.

Terminable annuities, as employed by the British government, fall under two heads:—(a) Those issued to, or held by private 76 persons; (b) those held by government departments or by funds under government control. The important difference between these two classes is that an annuity under (a), once created, cannot be modified except with the holder’s consent, i.e. is practically unalterable without a breach of public faith; whereas an annuity under (b) can, if necessary, be altered by interdepartmental arrangement under the authority of parliament. Thus annuities of class (a) fulfil most perfectly the object of the system as explained above; while those of class (b) have the advantage that in times of emergency their operation can be suspended without any inconvenience or breach of faith, with the result that the resources of government can on such occasions be materially increased, apart from any additional taxation. For this purpose it is only necessary to retain as a charge on the income of the year a sum equal to the (smaller) perpetual charge which was originally replaced by the (larger) terminable charge, whereupon the difference between the two amounts is temporarily released, while ultimately the increased charge is extended for a period equal to that for which it is suspended. Annuities of class (a) were first instituted in 1808, but are at present mainly regulated by an act of 1829. They may be granted either for a specified life, or two lives, or for an arbitrary term of years; and the consideration for them may take the form either of cash or of government stock, the latter being cancelled when the annuity is set up. Annuities (b) held by government departments date from 1863. They have been created in exchange for permanent debt surrendered for cancellation, the principal operations having been effected in 1863, 1867, 1870, 1874, 1883 and 1899. Annuities of this class do not affect the public at all, except of course in their effect on the market for government securities. They are merely financial operations between the government, in its capacity as the banker of savings banks and other funds, and itself, in the capacity of custodian of the national finances. Savings bank depositors are not concerned with the manner in which government invests their money, their rights being confined to the receipt of interest and the repayment of deposits upon specified conditions. The case is, however, different as regards forty millions of consols (included in the above figures), belonging to suitors in chancery, which were cancelled and replaced by a terminable annuity in 1883. As the liability to the suitors in that case was for a specified amount of stock, special arrangements were made to ensure the ultimate replacement of the precise amount of stock cancelled.

Terminable annuities, as used by the British government, fall into two categories: (a) those issued to, or held by private individuals; (b) those held by government departments or funds managed by the government. The key difference between these two categories is that an annuity under (a), once established, cannot be changed without the holder’s consent, meaning it’s essentially unchangeable without violating public trust; whereas an annuity under (b) can be adjusted, if necessary, through interdepartmental agreements authorized by parliament. Therefore, annuities of class (a) serve the purpose of the system as explained above most effectively, while those of class (b) have the benefit that during emergencies, their operation can be paused without any issues or breach of trust, allowing the government to significantly boost its resources during such times, aside from any extra taxation. For this purpose, it’s only necessary to keep a charge on the year’s income equal to the (smaller) perpetual charge that was initially replaced by the (larger) terminable charge, resulting in the difference between the two amounts being temporarily released, while ultimately the increased charge is extended for a duration equal to that of its suspension. Annuities of class (a) were first established in 1808, but are now primarily governed by an act from 1829. They can be granted for a specific life, two lives, or for a set number of years; and the consideration for them can be either cash or government stock, with the latter being canceled when the annuity is set up. Annuities (b) held by government departments have been around since 1863. They were created in exchange for permanent debt that was surrendered for cancellation, with the main transactions occurring in 1863, 1867, 1870, 1874, 1883, and 1899. Annuities of this class do not impact the public at all, except in how they affect the market for government securities. They are simply financial transactions between the government, acting as the banker for savings banks and other funds, and itself, as the custodian of the national finances. Savings bank depositors are not concerned with how the government invests their money; their rights are limited to receiving interest and getting back their deposits under specific conditions. However, the situation is different regarding forty million consols (included in the figures above), which belonged to litigants in chancery, and were canceled and replaced with a terminable annuity in 1883. Since the obligation to the litigants in that case was for a specific amount of stock, special arrangements were made to ensure the ultimate replacement of the exact amount of stock that was canceled.

Annuity Calculations.—The mathematical theory of life annuities is based upon a knowledge of the rate of mortality among mankind in general, or among the particular class of persons on whose lives the annuities depend. It involves a mathematical treatment too complicated to be dealt with fully in this place, and in practice it has been reduced to the form of tables, which vary in different places, but which are easily accessible. The history of the subject may, however, be sketched. Abraham Demoivre, in his Annuities on Lives, propounded a very simple law of mortality which is to the effect that, out of 86 children born alive, 1 will die every year until the last dies between the ages of 85 and 86. This law agreed sufficiently well at the middle ages of life with the mortality deduced from the best observations of his time; but, as observations became more exact, the approximation was found to be not sufficiently close. This was particularly the case when it was desired to obtain the value of joint life, contingent or other complicated benefits. Therefore Demoivre’s law is entirely devoid of practical utility. No simple formula has yet been discovered that will represent the rate of mortality with sufficient accuracy.

Annuity Calculations.—The mathematical theory of life annuities is based on understanding the mortality rate among people in general or among the specific group of individuals whose lives the annuities are tied to. It involves a mathematical treatment that is too complex to cover fully here, and in practice, it has been simplified into tables, which differ in various locations but are readily available. However, the history of the subject can be summarized. Abraham Demoivre, in his Annuities on Lives, proposed a straightforward law of mortality stating that out of 86 children born alive, 1 will die each year until the last dies between the ages of 85 and 86. This law matched reasonably well with the mortality rates deduced from the best observations of his time, but as observations became more precise, the approximation was found to be insufficiently accurate. This was especially true when trying to determine the value of joint life or other complex benefits. Therefore, Demoivre’s law is entirely impractical. No simple formula has yet been found that accurately represents the rate of mortality.

The rate of mortality at each age is, therefore, in practice usually determined by a series of figures deduced from observation; and the value of an annuity at any age is found from these numbers by means of a series of arithmetical calculations. The mortality table here given is an example of modern use.

The mortality rate at each age is usually figured out based on a set of numbers gathered from observations; the value of an annuity at any age is calculated from these figures using various arithmetic methods. The mortality table provided here is an example of contemporary usage.

The first writer who is known to have attempted to obtain, on correct mathematical principles, the value of a life annuity, was Jan De Witt, grand pensionary of Holland and West Friesland. Our knowledge of his writings on the subject is derived from two papers contributed by Frederick Hendriks to the Assurance Magazine, vol. ii. p. 222, and vol. in. p. 93. The former of these contains a translation of De Witt’s report upon the value of life annuities, which was prepared in consequence of the resolution passed by the states-general, on the 25th of April 1671, to negotiate funds by life annuities, and which was distributed to the members on the 30th of July 1671. The latter contains the translation of a number of letters addressed by De Witt to Burgomaster Johan Hudde, bearing dates from September 1670 to October 1671. The existence of De Witt’s report was well known among his contemporaries, and Hendriks collected a number of extracts from various authors referring to it; but the report is not contained in any collection of his works extant, and had been entirely lost for 180 years, until Hendriks discovered it among the state archives of Holland in company with the letters to Hudde. It is a document of extreme interest, and (notwithstanding some inaccuracies in the reasoning) of very great merit, more especially considering that it was the very first document on the subject that was ever written.

The first writer known to have tried to calculate the value of a life annuity based on correct mathematical principles was Jan De Witt, the grand pensionary of Holland and West Friesland. Our understanding of his writings on this topic comes from two papers by Frederick Hendriks published in the Assurance Magazine, vol. ii, p. 222, and vol. iii, p. 93. The first paper includes a translation of De Witt’s report on the value of life annuities, which was created after the states-general passed a resolution on April 25, 1671, to negotiate funds through life annuities. This report was shared with members on July 30, 1671. The second paper features translations of several letters De Witt wrote to Burgomaster Johan Hudde, dated from September 1670 to October 1671. De Witt’s report was well-known among his contemporaries, and Hendriks gathered various excerpts from different authors referencing it. However, the report wasn't included in any collection of his existing works and was completely lost for 180 years until Hendriks found it among the state archives of Holland, along with the letters to Hudde. It is a highly interesting document and, despite some inaccuracies in its reasoning, holds significant value, especially since it was the very first document ever written on the topic.

Table of Mortality—Hm, Healthy Lives—Male.

Mortality Table—Hm, Healthy Lives—Male.

Number Living and Dying at each Age, out of 10,000 entering at Age 10.

Number of people living and dying at each age, out of 10,000 entering at age 10.

Age. Living. Dying. Age. Living. Dying.
10 10,000 79 54 6791 129
11 9,921 0 55 6662 153
12 9,921 40 56 6509 150
13 9,881 35 57 6359 152
14 9,846 40 58 6207 156
15 9,806 22 59 6051 153
16 9,784 0 60 5898 184
17 9,784 41 61 5714 186
18 9,743 59 62 5528 191
19 9,684 68 63 5337 200
20 9,616 56 64 5137 206
21 9,560 67 65 4931 215
22 9,493 59 66 4716 220
23 9,434 73 67 4496 220
24 9,361 64 68 4276 237
25 9,297 48 69 4039 246
26 9,249 64 70 3793 213
27 9,185 60 71 3580 222
28 9,125 71 72 3358 268
29 9,054 67 73 3090 243
30 8,987 74 74 2847 300
31 8,913 65 75 2547 241
32 8,848 74 76 2306 245
33 8,774 73 77 2061 224
34 8,701 76 78 1837 226
35 8,625 71 79 1611 219
36 8,554 75 80 1392 196
37 8,479 81 81 1196 191
38 8,398 87 82 1005 173
39 8,311 88 83 832 172
40 8,223 81 84 660 119
41 8,142 85 85 541 117
42 8,057 87 86 424 92
43 7,970 84 87 332 72
44 7,886 93 88 260 74
45 7,793 97 89 186 36
46 7,696 96 90 150 34
47 7,600 107 91 116 36
48 7,493 106 92 80 36
49 7,387 113 93 44 29
50 7,274 120 94 15 0
51 7,154 124 95 15 5
52 7,030 120 96 10 10
53 6,910 119      

It appears that it had long been the practice in Holland for life annuities to be granted to nominees of any age, in the constant proportion of double the rate of interest allowed on stock; that is to say, if the towns were borrowing money at 6%, they would be willing to grant a life annuity at 12%, and so on. De Witt states that “annuities have been sold, even in the present century, first at six years’ purchase, then at seven and eight; and that the majority of all life annuities now current at the country’s expense were obtained at nine years’ purchase”; but that the price had been increased in the course of a few years from eleven years’ purchase to twelve, and from twelve to 77 fourteen. He also states that the rate of interest had been successively reduced from 6¼ to 5%, and then to 4%. The principal object of his report is to prove that, taking interest at 4%, a life annuity was worth at least sixteen years’ purchase; and, in fact, that an annuitant purchasing an annuity for the life of a young and healthy nominee at sixteen years’ purchase, made an excellent bargain. It may be mentioned that he argues that it is more to the advantage, both of the country and of the private investor, that the public loans should be raised by way of grant of life annuities rather than perpetual annuities. It appears conclusively from De Witt’s correspondence with Hudde, that the rate of mortality assumed as the basis of his calculations was deduced from careful examination of the mortality that had actually prevailed among the nominees on whose lives annuities had been granted in former years. De Witt appears to have come to the conclusion that the probability of death is the same in any half-year from the age of 3 to 53 inclusive; that in the next ten years, from 53 to 63, the probability is greater in the ratio of 3 to 2; that in the next ten years, from 63 to 73, it is greater in the ratio of 2 to 1; and in the next seven years, from 73 to 80, it is greater in the ratio of 3 to 1; and he places the limit of human life at 80. If a mortality table of the usual form is deduced from these suppositions, out of 212 persons alive at the age of 3, 2 will die every year up to 53, 3 in each of the ten years from 53 to 63, 4 in each of the next ten years from 63 to 73, and 6 in each of the next seven years from 73 to 80, when all will be dead.

It seems that in Holland, it has long been common for life annuities to be offered to individuals of any age, at a consistent rate of double the interest allowed on stocks; meaning if towns were borrowing money at 6%, they would grant a life annuity at 12%, and so forth. De Witt notes that “annuities have been sold, even in this century, first at six years’ purchase, then at seven and eight; and that most life annuities currently funded by the government were obtained at nine years’ purchase”; but that the price had risen over a few years from eleven years’ purchase to twelve, and from twelve to fourteen. He also points out that the interest rate had been gradually lowered from 6¼ to 5%, and then to 4%. The main purpose of his report is to show that, at a 4% interest rate, a life annuity was worth at least sixteen years’ purchase; and, in fact, that someone buying an annuity for the life of a young and healthy person at sixteen years’ purchase made a great deal. He argues that it is more beneficial for both the country and private investors for public loans to be raised through life annuities instead of perpetual annuities. It is clearly illustrated in De Witt’s correspondence with Hudde that the mortality rate he used for his calculations was based on careful analysis of the mortality rates among the nominees whose lives had previously been granted annuities. De Witt seems to conclude that the probability of death is the same for any half-year from ages 3 to 53; that in the next decade, from 53 to 63, the probability increases in a ratio of 3 to 2; in the following decade, from 63 to 73, it rises in a 2 to 1 ratio; and in the subsequent seven years, from 73 to 80, it increases in a 3 to 1 ratio; and he sets the limit of human life at 80. If a typical mortality table is created from these assumptions, out of 212 people alive at age 3, 2 will die each year until age 53, 3 will die each year in the following ten years from 53 to 63, 4 will die in each of the next ten years from 63 to 73, and 6 will die each year in the following seven years from 73 to 80, at which point all will be deceased.

De Witt calculates the value of an annuity in the following way. Assume that annuities on 10,000 lives each ten years of age, which satisfy the Hm mortality table, have been purchased. Of these nominees 79 will die before attaining the age of 11, and no annuity payment will be made in respect of them; none will die between the ages of 11 and 12, so that annuities will be paid for one year on 9921 lives; 40 attain the age of 12 and die before 13, so that two payments will be made with respect to these lives. Reasoning in this way we see that the annuities on 35 of the nominees will be payable for three years; on 40 for four years, and so on. Proceeding thus to the end of the table, 15 nominees attain the age of 95, 5 of whom die before the age of 96, so that 85 payments will be paid in respect of these 5 lives. Of the survivors all die before attaining the age of 97, so that the annuities on these lives will be payable for 86 years. Having previously calculated a table of the values of annuities certain for every number of years up to 86, the value of all the annuities on the 10,000 nominees will be found by taking 40 times the value of an annuity for 2 years, 35 times the value of an annuity for 3 years, and so on—the last term being the value of 10 annuities for 86 years—and adding them together; and the value of an annuity on one of the nominees will then be found by dividing by 10,000. Before leaving the subject of De Witt, we may mention that we find in the correspondence a distinct suggestion of the law of mortality that bears the name of Demoivre. In De Witt’s letter, dated the 27th of October 1671 (Ass. Mag. vol. iii. p. 107), he speaks of a “provisional hypothesis” suggested by Hudde, that out of 80 young lives (who, from the context, may be taken as of the age 6) about 1 dies annually. In strictness, therefore, the law in question might be more correctly termed Hudde’s than Demoivre’s.

De Witt calculates the value of an annuity like this: Imagine that annuities have been bought for 10,000 people, each 10 years old, based on the Hm mortality table. Out of these people, 79 will die before reaching age 11, which means no annuity payment will be made for them. No one will die between ages 11 and 12, so annuities will be paid for one year for 9,921 lives; 40 will reach age 12 and die before age 13, resulting in two payments for those lives. By reasoning this way, we see that annuities for 35 of the nominees will be paid for three years, for 40 for four years, and so on. Continuing this process through the entire table, 15 nominees will reach age 95, with 5 dying before age 96, so 85 payments will be made for these 5 lives. All the survivors will die before reaching age 97, meaning the annuities for these lives will be paid for 86 years. After preparing a table of the values of certain annuities for every number of years up to 86, the total value of all the annuities for the 10,000 nominees can be calculated by taking 40 times the value of an annuity for 2 years, 35 times the value of an annuity for 3 years, and so forth—the last part being the value of 10 annuities for 86 years—and summing them all up. To find the value of an annuity for one nominee, simply divide the total by 10,000. Before we wrap up on De Witt, it’s worth noting that in his correspondence, there’s a clear hint at the law of mortality known as Demoivre's. In De Witt’s letter dated October 27, 1671 (Ass. Mag. vol. iii. p. 107), he mentions a “provisional hypothesis” proposed by Hudde, stating that out of 80 young lives (which can be assumed to be around age 6), about 1 dies each year. Therefore, technically, this law might be more correctly called Hudde’s rather than Demoivre’s.

De Witt’s report being thus of the nature of an unpublished state paper, although it contributed to its author’s reputation, did not contribute to advance the exact knowledge of the subject; and the author to whom the credit must be given of first showing how to calculate the value of an annuity on correct principles is Edmund Halley. He gave the first approximately correct mortality table (deduced from the records of the numbers of deaths and baptisms in the city of Breslau), and showed how it might be employed to calculate the value of an annuity on the life of a nominee of any age (see Phil. Trans. 1693; Ass. Mag. vol. xviii.).

De Witt’s report, being an unpublished state document, helped the author’s reputation but didn’t advance the precise understanding of the topic. The credit for first demonstrating how to correctly calculate the value of an annuity goes to Edmund Halley. He provided the first approximately accurate mortality table, based on the records of deaths and baptisms in the city of Breslau, and showed how it could be used to calculate the value of an annuity for a nominee of any age (see Phil. Trans. 1693; Ass. Mag. vol. xviii.).

Previously to Halley’s time, and apparently for many years subsequently, all dealings with life annuities were based upon mere conjectural estimates. The earliest known reference to any estimate of the value of life annuities rose out of the requirements of the Falcidian law, which (40 B.C.) was adopted in the Roman empire, and which declared that a testator should not give more than three-fourths of his property in legacies, so that at least one-fourth must go to his legal representatives. It is easy to see how it would occasionally become necessary, while this law was in force, to value life annuities charged upon a testator’s estate. Aemilius Macer (A.D. 230) states that the method which had been in common use at that time was as follows:—From the earliest age until 30 take 30 years’ purchase, and for each age after 30 deduct 1 year. It is obvious that no consideration of compound interest can have entered into this estimate; and it is easy to see that it is equivalent to assuming that all persons who attain the age of 30 will certainly live to the age of 60, and then certainly die. Compared with this estimate, that which was propounded by the praetorian prefect Ulpian was a great improvement. His table is as follows:—

Before Halley’s time, and apparently for many years after, all dealings with life annuities were based on mere guesses. The earliest known reference to any estimate of the value of life annuities came from the requirements of the Falcidian law, which (40 B.C.) was adopted in the Roman Empire and stated that a testator could not give more than three-fourths of their property in legacies, ensuring at least one-fourth would go to their legal heirs. It’s easy to see how it would sometimes be necessary, while this law was in effect, to value life annuities charged against a testator’s estate. Aemilius Macer (A.D. 230) noted that the method commonly used at that time was as follows:—From birth until 30, take 30 years’ purchase, and for each age after 30, deduct 1 year. It’s clear that this estimate did not consider compound interest, and it essentially assumed that everyone who reached the age of 30 would definitely live to 60, and then would definitely die. In comparison, the estimate proposed by the praetorian prefect Ulpian was a significant improvement. His table is as follows:—

Age. Years’
Purchase.
Age. Years’
Purchase.
Birth to 20 30 45 to 46 14
20 ” 25 28 46 ” 47 13
25 ” 30 25 47 ” 48 12
30 ” 35 22 48 ” 49 11
35 ” 40 20 49 ” 50 10
40 ” 41 19 50 ” 55  9
41 ” 42 18 55 ” 60  7
42 ” 43 17 60 and upwards  5
43 ” 44 16    
44 ” 45 15    

Here also we have no reason to suppose that the element of interest was taken into consideration; and the assumption, that between the ages of 40 and 50 each addition of a year to the nominee’s age diminishes the value of the annuity by one year’s purchase, is equivalent to assuming that there is no probability of the nominee dying between the ages of 40 and 50. Considered, however, simply as a table of the average duration of life, the values are fairly accurate. At all events, no more correct estimate appears to have been arrived at until the close of the 17th century.

Here too, we have no reason to believe that the element of interest was considered; and the assumption that for someone aged 40 to 50, each additional year reduces the value of the annuity by one year's worth is like saying there's no chance of the person dying between the ages of 40 and 50. However, if we just view it as a table showing the average life expectancy, the values are fairly accurate. In any case, it seems that a more accurate estimate wasn't reached until the end of the 17th century.

The mathematics of annuities has been very fully treated in Demoivre’s Treatise on Annuities (1725); Simpson’s Doctrine of Annuities and Reversions (1742); P. Gray, Tables and Formulae; Baily’s Doctrine of Life Annuities; there are also innumerable compilations of Valuation Tables and Interest Tables, by means of which the value of an annuity at any age and any rate of interest may be found. See also the article Interest, and especially that on Insurance.

The math behind annuities has been thoroughly explored in Demoivre’s Treatise on Annuities (1725); Simpson’s Doctrine of Annuities and Reversions (1742); P. Gray, Tables and Formulae; Baily’s Doctrine of Life Annuities; there are also countless compilations of Valuation Tables and Interest Tables, which allow you to find the value of an annuity at any age and any interest rate. See also the article Interest, and particularly the one on Insurance.

Commutation tables, aptly so named in 1840 by Augustus De Morgan (see his paper “On the Calculation of Single Life Contingencies,” Assurance Magazine, xii. 328), show the proportion in which a benefit due at one age ought to be changed, so as to retain the same value and be due at another age. The earliest known specimen of a commutation table is contained in William Dale’s Introduction to the Study of the Doctrine of Annuities, published in 1772. A full account of this work is given by F. Hendriks in the second number of the Assurance Magazine, pp. 15-17. William Morgan’s Treatise on Assurances, 1779, also contains a commutation table. Morgan gives the table as furnishing a convenient means of checking the correctness of the values of annuities found by the ordinary process. It may be assumed that he was aware that the table might be used for the direct calculation of annuities; but he appears to have been ignorant of its other uses.

Commutation tables, aptly named in 1840 by Augustus De Morgan (see his paper “On the Calculation of Single Life Contingencies,” Assurance Magazine, xii. 328), show the ratio in which a benefit payable at one age should be adjusted to maintain the same value when it's payable at another age. The earliest known example of a commutation table is found in William Dale’s Introduction to the Study of the Doctrine of Annuities, published in 1772. A detailed account of this work is provided by F. Hendriks in the second issue of the Assurance Magazine, pp. 15-17. William Morgan’s Treatise on Assurances, published in 1779, also includes a commutation table. Morgan presents the table as a useful tool for verifying the accuracy of annuity values calculated by the standard method. It can be inferred that he realized the table could be used for the direct calculation of annuities, but he seems to have been unaware of its additional applications.

The first author who fully developed the powers of the table was John Nicholas Tetens, a native of Schleswig, who in 1785, while professor of philosophy and mathematics at Kiel, published in the German language an Introduction to the Calculation of Life Annuities and Assurances. This work appears to have been quite unknown in England until F. Hendriks gave, in the first number of the Assurance Magazine, pp. 1-20 (Sept. 1850), an account of it, with a translation of the passages describing the construction and use of the commutation table, and a sketch 78 of the author’s life and writings, to which we refer the reader who desires fuller information. It may be mentioned here that Tetens also gave only a specimen table, apparently not imagining that persons using his work would find it extremely useful to have a series of commutation tables, calculated and printed ready for use.

The first author to fully develop the concept of the table was John Nicholas Tetens, from Schleswig. In 1785, while he was a professor of philosophy and mathematics at Kiel, he published an Introduction to the Calculation of Life Annuities and Assurances in German. This work seems to have been largely unknown in England until F. Hendriks discussed it in the first issue of the Assurance Magazine, pp. 1-20 (Sept. 1850), providing a summary along with translations of sections that detail how to construct and use the commutation table, as well as a brief overview of the author's life and works, which we recommend to readers looking for more information. It's worth noting that Tetens only provided a sample table, probably not realizing that people using his work would find it incredibly helpful to have a complete set of commutation tables that were ready to use.

The use of the commutation table was independently developed in England-apparently between the years 1788 and 1811— by George Barrett, of Petworth, Sussex, who was the son of a yeoman farmer, and was himself a village schoolmaster, and afterwards farm steward or bailiff. It has been usual to consider Barrett as the originator in England of the method of calculating the values of annuities by means of a commutation table, and this method is accordingly sometimes called Barrett’s method. (It is also called the commutation method and the columnar method.) Barrett’s method of calculating annuities was explained by him to Francis Baily in the year 1811, and was first made known to the world in a paper written by the latter and read before the Royal Society in 1812.

The commutation table was independently developed in England—apparently between 1788 and 1811—by George Barrett from Petworth, Sussex. He was the son of a yeoman farmer, and he worked as a village schoolmaster and later as a farm steward or bailiff. It's commonly understood that Barrett was the first in England to introduce the method of calculating annuity values using a commutation table, which is sometimes referred to as Barrett’s method. (It’s also known as the commutation method and the columnar method.) Barrett explained his method for calculating annuities to Francis Baily in 1811, and it was first introduced to the public in a paper by Baily that was presented to the Royal Society in 1812.

By what has been universally considered an unfortunate error of judgment, this paper was not recommended by the council of the Royal Society to be printed, but it was given by Baily as an appendix to the second issue (in 1813) of his work on life annuities and assurances. Barrett had calculated extensive tables, and with Baily’s aid attempted to get them published by subscription, but without success; and the only printed tables calculated according to his manner, besides the specimen tables given by Baily, are the tables contained in Babbage’s Comparative View of the various Institutions for the Assurance of Lives, 1826.

By what has been widely seen as a regrettable mistake, this paper wasn’t recommended by the council of the Royal Society for publication. However, Baily included it as an appendix to the second issue (in 1813) of his work on life annuities and insurance. Barrett had calculated extensive tables and, with Baily’s help, tried to get them published through subscriptions, but failed. The only printed tables calculated in his style, besides the example tables provided by Baily, are the ones found in Babbage’s Comparative View of the various Institutions for the Assurance of Lives, 1826.

In the year 1825 Griffith Davies published his Tables of Life Contingencies, a work which contains, among others, two tables, which are confessedly derived from Baily’s explanation of Barrett’s tables.

In 1825, Griffith Davies published his Tables of Life Contingencies, a work that includes, among other things, two tables that are clearly based on Baily’s explanation of Barrett’s tables.

Those who desire to pursue the subject further can refer to the appendix to Baily’s Life Annuities and Assurances, De Morgan’s paper “On the Calculation of Single Life Contingencies,” Assurance Magazine, xii. 348-349; Gray’s Tables and Formulae chap. viii.; the preface to Davies’s Treatise on Annuities; also Hendriks’s papers in the Assurance Magazine, No. 1, p. 1, and No. 2, p. 12; and in particular De Morgan’s “Account of a Correspondence between Mr George Barrett and Mr Francis Baily,” in the Assurance Magazine, vol. iv. p. 185.

Those who want to explore the topic further can check out the appendix to Baily’s Life Annuities and Assurances, De Morgan’s paper “On the Calculation of Single Life Contingencies,” Assurance Magazine, xii. 348-349; Gray’s Tables and Formulae chap. viii.; the preface to Davies’s Treatise on Annuities; also Hendriks’s papers in the Assurance Magazine, No. 1, p. 1, and No. 2, p. 12; and especially De Morgan’s “Account of a Correspondence between Mr. George Barrett and Mr. Francis Baily,” in the Assurance Magazine, vol. iv. p. 185.

The principal commutation tables published in England are contained in the following works:—David Jones, Value of Annuities and Reversionary Payments, issued in parts by the Useful Knowledge Society, completed in 1843; Jenkin Jones, New Rate of Mortality, 1843; G. Davies, Treatise on Annuities, 1825 (issued 1855); David Chisholm, Commutation Tables, 1858; Nelson’s Contributions to Vital Statistics, 1857; Jardine Henry, Government Life Annuity Commutation Tables, 1866 and 1873; Institute of Actuaries Life Tables, 1872; R.P. Hardy, Valuation Tables, 1873; and Dr William Farr’s contributions to the sixth (1844), twelfth (1849), and twentieth (1857) Reports of the Registrar General in England (English Tables, I. 2), and to the English Life Table, 1864.

The main commutation tables published in England are found in the following works:—David Jones, Value of Annuities and Reversionary Payments, released in parts by the Useful Knowledge Society, completed in 1843; Jenkin Jones, New Rate of Mortality, 1843; G. Davies, Treatise on Annuities, 1825 (published 1855); David Chisholm, Commutation Tables, 1858; Nelson’s Contributions to Vital Statistics, 1857; Jardine Henry, Government Life Annuity Commutation Tables, 1866 and 1873; Institute of Actuaries Life Tables, 1872; R.P. Hardy, Valuation Tables, 1873; and Dr. William Farr’s contributions to the sixth (1844), twelfth (1849), and twentieth (1857) Reports of the Registrar General in England (English Tables, I. 2), and to the English Life Table, 1864.

The theory of annuities may be further studied in the discussions in the English Journal of the Institute of Actuaries. The institute was founded in the year 1848, the first sessional meeting being held in January 1849. Its establishment has contributed in various ways to promote the study of the theory of life contingencies. Among these may be specified the following:—Before it was formed, students of the subject worked for the most part alone, and without any concert; and when any person had made an improvement in the theory, it had little chance of becoming publicly known unless he wrote a formal treatise on the whole subject. But the formation of the institute led to much greater interchange of opinion among actuaries, and afforded them a ready means of making known to their professional associates any improvements, real or supposed, that they thought they had made. Again, the discussions which follow the reading of papers before the institute have often served, first, to bring out into bold relief differences of opinion that were previously unsuspected, and afterwards to soften down those differences,—to correct extreme opinions in every direction, and to bring about a greater agreement of opinion on many important subjects. In no way, probably, have the objects of the institute been so effectually advanced as by the publication of its Journal. The first number of this work, which was originally called the Assurance Magazine, appeared in September 1850, and it has been continued quarterly down to the present time. It was originated by the public spirit of two well-known actuaries (Mr Charles Jellicoe and Mr Samuel Brown), and was adopted as the organ of the Institute of Actuaries in the year 1852, and called the Assurance Magazine and Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, Mr Jellicoe continuing to be the editor,—a post he held until the year 1867, when he was succeeded by Mr T.B. Sprague (who contributed to the 9th edition of this Encyclopaedia an elaborate article on “Annuities,” on which the above account is based). The name was again changed in 1866, the words “Assurance Magazine” being dropped; but in the following year it was considered desirable to resume these, for the purpose of showing the continuity of the publication, and it is now called the Journal of the Institute of Actuaries and Assurance Magazine. This work contains not only the papers read before the institute (to which have been appended of late years short abstracts of the discussions on them), and many original papers which were unsuitable for reading, together with correspondence, but also reprints of many papers published elsewhere, which from various causes had become difficult of access to the ordinary reader, among which may be specified various papers which originally appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, the Philosophical Magazine, the Mechanics’ Magazine, and the Companion to the Almanac; also translations of various papers from the French, German, and Danish. Among the useful objects which the continuous publication of the Journal of the institute has served, we may specify in particular two:—that any supposed improvement in the theory was effectually submitted to the criticisms of the whole actuarial profession, and its real value speedily discovered; and that any real improvement, whether great or small, being placed on record, successive writers have been able, one after the other, to take it up and develop it, each commencing where the previous one had left off.

The theory of annuities can be explored further in the English Journal of the Institute of Actuaries. The institute was established in 1848, with its first session meeting in January 1849. Its founding has significantly encouraged the study of life contingencies theory. Notably, before it was created, students of the topic often worked independently and without collaboration, and any individual who made a theoretical advancement had little chance of it becoming widely recognized unless they wrote a comprehensive treatise on the subject. However, the formation of the institute fostered much greater exchange of ideas among actuaries and provided them with an easy way to share any improvements, whether real or imagined, with their colleagues. Moreover, the discussions that follow the reading of papers at the institute have often highlighted previously unrecognized differences of opinion and later helped to ease those differences—correcting extreme views on all sides and leading to greater consensus on many key issues. Perhaps the institute’s goals have been most effectively advanced through the publication of its Journal. The first issue of this publication, initially called the Assurance Magazine, was released in September 1850 and has continued to be published quarterly ever since. It was initiated by the initiative of two prominent actuaries, Mr. Charles Jellicoe and Mr. Samuel Brown, and was adopted as the official publication of the Institute of Actuaries in 1852, with the name changed to Assurance Magazine and Journal of the Institute of Actuaries, with Mr. Jellicoe serving as editor until 1867, when he was succeeded by Mr. T.B. Sprague (who contributed to the 9th edition of this Encyclopedia an extensive article on “Annuities,” which this account is based on). The name was changed again in 1866, dropping "Assurance Magazine," but the following year it was decided to reinstate it to maintain continuity of the publication, and it is now titled Journal of the Institute of Actuaries and Assurance Magazine. This work includes not only the papers presented to the institute (which have recently included brief summaries of discussions on them) and many original papers that were unsuitable for presentation, along with correspondence, but also reprints of various papers published elsewhere that had become hard to access for the average reader, including papers that originally appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, the Philosophical Magazine, the Mechanics’ Magazine, and the Companion to the Almanac; as well as translations of various papers from French, German, and Danish. Among the valuable benefits of the ongoing publication of the Journal of the institute, we can highlight two in particular: that any supposed improvement in the theory was effectively subjected to the scrutiny of the entire actuarial profession, revealing its true value quickly; and that any real improvement, whether significant or minor, got recorded, allowing successive writers to pick up where the previous one left off.


ANNULAR, ANNULATE, &c. (Lat. annulus, a ring), ringed. “Annulate” is used in botany and zoology in connexion with certain plants, worms, &c. (see Annelida), either marked with rings or composed of ring-like segments. The word “annulated” is also used in, heraldry and architecture. An annulated cross is one with the points ending in an “annulet” (an heraldic ring, supposed to be taken from a coat of mail), while the annulet in architecture is a small fillet round a column, which encircles the lower part of the Doric capital immediately above the neck or trachelium. The word “annulus” (for “ring”) is itself used technically in geometry, astronomy, &c., and the adjective “annular” corresponds. An annular space is that between an inner and outer ring. The annular finger is the ring finger. An annular eclipse is an eclipse of the sun in which the visible part of the latter completely encircles the dark body of the moon; for this to happen, the centres of the sun and moon, and the point on the earth where the observer is situated, must be collinear. Certain nebulae having the form of a ring are also called “annular.”

ANNULAR, ANNULATE, &c. (Lat. annulus, a ring), ringed. “Annulate” is used in botany and zoology in connection with certain plants, worms, &c. (see Annelida), either marked with rings or made up of ring-like segments. The term “annulated” is also used in heraldry and architecture. An annulated cross has points that end in an “annulet” (a heraldic ring, believed to be derived from a coat of mail), while in architecture, an annulet is a small band around a column, which wraps around the lower part of the Doric capital just above the neck or trachelium. The word “annulus” (for “ring”) is also technically used in geometry, astronomy, &c., and the adjective “annular” corresponds. An annular space is the area between an inner and outer ring. The annular finger is the ring finger. An annular eclipse is a solar eclipse where the visible part of the sun completely surrounds the dark silhouette of the moon; for this to occur, the centers of the sun and moon, along with the point on Earth where the observer is located, must be in a straight line. Certain nebulae that have a ring shape are also referred to as “annular.”


ANNUNCIATION, the announcement made by the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary of the incarnation of Christ (Luke i, 26-38). The Feast of the Annunciation in the Christian Church is celebrated on the 25th of March. The first authentic allusions to it are in a canon, of the council of Toledo (656), and another of the council of Constantinople “in Trullo” (692), forbidding the celebration of all festivals in Lent, excepting the Lord’s day and the Feast of the Annunciation. An earlier origin has been claimed for it on the ground that it is mentioned in sermons of Athanasius and of Gregory Thaumaturgus, but both of these documents are now admitted to be spurious. A synod held at Worcester, England (1240), forbade all servile work on this feast day. See further Lady Day.

ANNOUNCEMENT, the announcement made by the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary regarding the incarnation of Christ (Luke i, 26-38). The Feast of the Annunciation in the Christian Church is celebrated on March 25th. The earliest genuine references to it can be found in a canon from the council of Toledo (656) and another from the council of Constantinople “in Trullo” (692), which prohibited the celebration of any festivals during Lent, except for the Lord’s Day and the Feast of the Annunciation. An earlier origin has been claimed based on mentions in sermons by Athanasius and Gregory Thaumaturgus, but both documents are now considered to be inauthentic. A synod held in Worcester, England (1240), prohibited all manual work on this feast day. See further Lady Day.


ANNUNZIO, GABRIELE D’ (1863-  ), Italian novelist and poet, of Dalmatian extraction, was born at Pescara (Abruzzi) in 1863. The first years of his youth were spent in the freedom of the open fields; at sixteen he was sent to school in Tuscany. While still at school he published a small volume of verses called Primo Vere (1879), in which, side by side with some almost brutal imitations of Lorenzo Stecchetti, the then fashionable poet of Postuma, were some translations from the Latin, distinguished by such agile grace that Giuseppe Chiarini on reading them brought the unknown youth before the public in an enthusiastic article. The young poet then went to Rome, where he was received as one of their own by the Cronaca Bizantina group (see Carducci). Here he published Canto Nuovo (1882), Terra Vergine (1882), L’ Intermezzo di Rime (1883), Il Libro delle Vergini (1884), and the greater part of the short stories that were afterwards collected under the general title of San Pantaleone (1886). In Canto Nuovo we have admirable poems full of pulsating youth and the promise of power, some descriptive 79 of the sea and some of the Abruzzi landscape, commented on and completed in prose by Terra Vergine, the latter a collection of short stories dealing in radiant language with the peasant life of the author’s native province. With the Intermezzo di Rime we have the beginning of d’Annunzio’s second and characteristic manner. His conception of style was new, and he chose to express all the most subtle vibrations of voluptuous life. Both style and contents began to startle his critics; some who had greeted him as an enfant prodige—Chiarini amongst others—rejected him as a perverter of public morals, whilst others hailed him as one bringing a current of fresh air and the impulse of a new vitality into the somewhat prim, lifeless work hitherto produced.

ANNUNZIO, GABRIELE D’ (1863-  ), Italian novelist and poet of Dalmatian descent, was born in Pescara (Abruzzi) in 1863. He spent his early years enjoying the freedom of the open fields; at sixteen, he was sent to school in Tuscany. While still in school, he published a small collection of poems called Primo Vere (1879), which featured some almost harsh imitations of Lorenzo Stecchetti, the popular poet of Postuma, alongside translations from Latin noted for their lively grace. Giuseppe Chiarini, after reading them, introduced the young poet to the public in an enthusiastic article. The young poet then moved to Rome, where he was welcomed by the Cronaca Bizantina group (see Carducci). Here, he published Canto Nuovo (1882), Terra Vergine (1882), L’ Intermezzo di Rime (1883), Il Libro delle Vergini (1884), and most of the short stories later compiled under the title San Pantaleone (1886). In Canto Nuovo, there are remarkable poems full of vibrant youth and the promise of power, with some describing the sea and others capturing the Abruzzi landscape, complemented in prose by Terra Vergine, a collection of short stories that beautifully depicts the peasant life of the author's home province. With Intermezzo di Rime, we see the start of d'Annunzio's second and distinctive style. His approach to writing was innovative, aiming to express all the delicate nuances of sensory life. Both his style and content began to shock his critics; some who had previously embraced him as an enfant prodige—including Chiarini—now dismissed him as a corrupter of public morals, while others celebrated him for injecting a breath of fresh air and a spark of new energy into the previously stiff and uninspired literary scene.

Meanwhile the Review of Angelo Sommaruga perished in the midst of scandal, and his group of young authors found itself dispersed. Some entered the teaching career and were lost to literature, others threw themselves into journalism. Gabriele d’Annunzio took this latter course, and joined the staff of the Tribuna. For this paper, under the pseudonym of “Duca Minimo,” he did some of his most brilliant work, and the articles he wrote during that period of originality and exuberance would well repay being collected. To this period of greater maturity and deeper culture belongs Il Libro d’ Isotta (1886), a love poem, in which for the first time he drew inspiration adapted to modern sentiments and passions from the rich colours of the Renaissance. Il Libro d’ Isotta is interesting also, because in it we find most of the germs of his future work, just as in Intermezzo melico and in certain ballads and sonnets we find descriptions and emotions which later went to form the aesthetic contents of Il Piacere, Il Trionfo della Morte, and Elegie Romane (1892).

Meanwhile, the Review of Angelo Sommaruga faded away amid scandal, and his group of young writers found themselves scattered. Some pursued teaching careers and drifted away from literature, while others dove into journalism. Gabriele d’Annunzio chose the latter path and joined the staff of the Tribuna. For this paper, under the pseudonym “Duca Minimo,” he did some of his most outstanding work, and the articles he wrote during this time of creativity and enthusiasm would be well worth collecting. During this period of greater maturity and deeper culture, he produced Il Libro d’Isotta (1886), a love poem in which he first drew inspiration tailored to modern feelings and passions from the vibrant colors of the Renaissance. Il Libro d’Isotta is also notable because it contains many elements of his later work, just as Intermezzo melico and certain ballads and sonnets include descriptions and emotions that later contributed to the aesthetic themes of Il Piacere, Il Trionfo della Morte, and Elegie Romane (1892).

D’ Annunzio’s first novel Il Piacere (1889)—translated into English as The Child of Pleasure—was followed in 1891 by L’ Innocente (The Intruder), and in 1892 by Giovanni Episcopo. These three novels created a profound impression. L’ Innocente, admirably translated into French by Georges Herelle, brought its author the notice and applause of foreign critics. His next work, Il Trionfo della Morte (The Triumph of Death) (1894), was followed at a short distance by La Vergini della Roccio (1896) and Il Fuoco (1900), which in its descriptions of Venice is perhaps the most ardent glorification of a city existing in any language.

D’Annunzio’s first novel Il Piacere (1889)—translated into English as The Child of Pleasure—was followed in 1891 by L’ Innocente (The Intruder), and in 1892 by Giovanni Episcopo. These three novels made a strong impact. L’ Innocente, beautifully translated into French by Georges Herelle, earned its author recognition and praise from foreign critics. His next work, Il Trionfo della Morte (The Triumph of Death) (1894), was soon followed by La Vergini della Roccio (1896) and Il Fuoco (1900), which, in its depictions of Venice, is perhaps the most passionate celebration of a city found in any language.

D’ Annunzio’s poetic work of this period, in most respects his finest, is represented by Il Poema Paradisiaco (1893), the Odi Navali (1893), a superb attempt at civic poetry, and Laudi (1900).

D’Annunzio’s poetry from this time, which is mostly his best, includes Il Poema Paradisiaco (1893), the Odi Navali (1893), an excellent example of civic poetry, and Laudi (1900).

A later phase of d’ Annunzio’s work is his dramatic production, represented by Il Sogno di un mattino di primavera (1897), a lyrical fantasia in one act; his Cilia Morta (1898), written for Sarah Bernhardt, which is certainly among the most daring and original of modern tragedies, and the only one which by its unity, persistent purpose, and sense of fate seems to continue in a measure the traditions of the Greek theatre. In 1898 he wrote his Sogno di un Pomeriggio d’ Autunno and La Gioconda; in the succeeding year La Gloria, an attempt at contemporary political tragedy which met with no success, probably through the audacity of the personal and political allusions in some of its scenes; and then Francesca da Rimini (1901), a perfect reconstruction of medieval atmosphere and emotion, magnificent in style, and declared by one of the most authoritative Italian critics—Edoardo Boutet—to be the first real although not perfect tragedy which has ever been given to the Italian theatre.

A later stage of d’Annunzio’s work is his dramatic production, showcased by Il Sogno di un mattino di primavera (1897), a lyrical fantasy in one act; his Cilia Morta (1898), written for Sarah Bernhardt, which is definitely among the most bold and original modern tragedies, and the only one that, due to its unity, clear purpose, and sense of fate, seems to somewhat carry on the traditions of Greek theatre. In 1898, he wrote Sogno di un Pomeriggio d’Autunno and La Gioconda; in the following year, La Gloria, an attempt at contemporary political tragedy that did not succeed, likely due to the boldness of the personal and political references in some of its scenes; and then Francesca da Rimini (1901), a perfect recreation of medieval atmosphere and emotion, magnificent in style, and declared by one of the most respected Italian critics—Edoardo Boutet—to be the first real although not perfect tragedy ever presented to the Italian theatre.

The work of d’ Annunzio, although by many of the younger generation injudiciously and extravagantly admired, is almost the most important literary work given to Italy since the days when the great classics welded her varying dialects into a fixed language. The psychological inspiration of his novels has come to him from many sources—French, Russian, Scandinavian, German—and in much of his earlier work there is little fundamental originality. His creative power is intense and searching, but narrow and personal; his heroes and heroines are little more than one same type monotonously facing a different problem at a different phase of life. But the faultlessness of his style and the wealth of his language have been approached by none of his contemporaries, whom his genius has somewhat paralysed. In his later work, when he begins drawing his inspiration from the traditions of bygone Italy in her glorious centuries, a current of real life seems to run through the veins of his personages. And the lasting merit of d’Annunzio, his real value to the literature of his country, consists precisely in that he opened up the closed mine of its former life as a source of inspiration for the present and of hope for the future, and created a language, neither pompous nor vulgar, drawn from every source and district suited to the requirements of modern thought, yet absolutely classical, borrowed from none, and, independently of the thought it may be used to express, a thing of intrinsic beauty. As his sight became clearer and his purpose strengthened, as exaggerations, affectations, and moods dropped away from his conceptions, his work became more and more typical Latin work, upheld by the ideal of an Italian Renaissance.

The work of d’Annunzio, while often excessively and uncritically admired by many in the younger generation, is one of the most significant literary contributions to Italy since the time when the great classics unified the various dialects into a standard language. The psychological inspiration for his novels comes from many influences—French, Russian, Scandinavian, German—and much of his earlier work lacks fundamental originality. His creative power is intense and probing, but also narrow and personal; his heroes and heroines are often just variations of the same type, monotonously facing different problems at various stages of life. However, no one among his contemporaries has matched the perfection of his style or the richness of his language, which his genius has somewhat stifled. In his later work, as he starts drawing inspiration from the traditions of past Italy during its glorious centuries, a current of real life seems to pulse through his characters. The lasting merit of d’Annunzio, and his true value to his country’s literature, lies in his ability to unlock the closed mine of its past as a source of inspiration for the present and hope for the future, creating a language that is neither grandiose nor crude, but crafted from various sources suitable to modern thought, yet entirely classical. This language is unique and beautiful in its own right, regardless of the ideas it conveys. As his vision sharpened and his purpose intensified, and as he shed exaggeration, pretension, and moodiness from his ideas, his work became increasingly representative of Latin literature, grounded in the ideals of an Italian Renaissance.


ANOA, the native name of the small wild buffalo of Celebes, Bos (Bubalus) depressicornis, which stands but little over a yard at the shoulder, and is the most diminutive of all wild cattle. It is nearly allied to the larger Asiatic buffaloes, showing the same reversal of the direction of the hair on the back. The horns are peculiar for their upright direction and comparative straightness, although they have the same triangular section as in other buffaloes. White spots are sometimes present below the eyes, and there may be white markings on the legs and back; and the absence or presence of these white markings may be indicative of distinct races. The horns of the cows are very small. The nearest allies of the anoa appear to be certain extinct buffaloes, of which the remains are found in the Siwalik Hills of northern India. In habits the animal appears to resemble the Indian buffalo.

ANOA, is the native name for the small wild buffalo of Celebes, Bos (Bubalus) depressicornis, which stands just over a yard tall at the shoulder and is the smallest of all wild cattle. It's closely related to the larger Asiatic buffaloes, showing the same unique direction of the hair on its back. The horns are notable for being upright and relatively straight, though they share the triangular shape found in other buffaloes. There are sometimes white spots under the eyes, and white markings may appear on the legs and back; the presence or absence of these white markings could indicate different races. The horns on the females are very small. The anoa's closest relatives seem to be certain extinct buffaloes, whose remains have been discovered in the Siwalik Hills of northern India. In terms of behavior, this animal appears to be similar to the Indian buffalo.


ANODYNE (from Gr. ἀν-, privative, and ὀδύνη, pain), a cause which relieves pain. The term is commonly applied to medicines which lessen the sensibility of the brain or nervous system, such as morphia, &c.

ANODYNE (from Gr. ἀν-, meaning "without," and anguish, meaning "pain"), is something that relieves pain. The term is usually used to refer to medications that reduce sensitivity in the brain or nervous system, like morphine, etc.


ANOINTING, or greasing with oil, fat, or melted butter, a process employed ritually in all religions and among all races, civilized or savage, partly as a mode of ridding persons and things of dangerous influences and diseases, especially of the demons (Persian drug, Greek κῆρες, Armenian dev) which are or cause those diseases; and partly as a means of introducing into things and persons a sacramental or divine influence, a holy emanation, spirit or power. The riddance of an evil influence is often synonymous with the introduction of the good principle, and therefore it is best to consider first the use of anointing in consecrations.

ANOINTING, refers to the act of applying oil, fat, or melted butter, a ritual practice found in every religion and among all cultures, whether civilized or primitive. This process is partly used to remove harmful influences and illnesses, especially from demons (Persian drug, Greek kēres, Armenian dev) that are responsible for those ailments; and partly for bringing a sacred or divine presence, a holy essence, spirit, or power into people and objects. The act of getting rid of an evil influence often goes hand in hand with inviting in a good one, which is why it's best to first look at how anointing is used in consecrations.

The Australian natives believed that the virtues of one killed could be transferred to survivors if the latter rubbed themselves with his caul-fat. So the Arabs of East Africa anoint themselves with lion’s fat in order to gain courage and inspire the animals with awe of themselves. Such rites are often associated with the actual eating of the victim whose virtues are coveted. Human fat is a powerful charm all over the world; for, as R. Smith points out, after the blood the fat was peculiarly the vehicle and seat of life. This is why fat of a victim was smeared on a sacred stone, not only in acts of homage paid to it, but in the actual consecration thereof. In such cases the influence of the god, communicated to the victim, passed with the unguent into the stone. But the divinity could by anointing be transferred into men no less than into stones; and from immemorial antiquity, among the Jews as among other races, kings were anointed or greased, doubtless with the fat of the victims which, like the blood, was too holy to be eaten by the common votaries.

The Australian natives believed that the qualities of a person who was killed could be passed on to survivors if they rubbed themselves with his caul-fat. Similarly, the Arabs of East Africa use lion’s fat to gain courage and instill fear in the animals. These rituals often involve actually consuming the victim whose qualities are sought after. Human fat is considered a powerful charm globally; as R. Smith notes, after blood, fat was particularly seen as the essence of life. This is why a victim's fat was applied to a sacred stone, both as a form of respect and during its consecration. In such cases, the influence of the deity, communicated to the victim, transferred through the fat into the stone. However, the divine presence could also be imparted to people just as much as to stones; and historically, among the Jews and other cultures, kings were anointed or greased, likely with fat from victims, which, like blood, was deemed too sacred to be consumed by ordinary worshippers.

Butter made from the milk of the cow, the most sacred of animals, is used for anointing in the Hindu religion. A newly-built house is smeared with it, so are demoniacs, care being taken to smear the latter downwards from head to foot.

Butter made from cow's milk, the most sacred animal, is used for anointing in the Hindu religion. A newly built house is coated with it, as are possessed individuals, with special care taken to apply it from head to toe.

In the Christian religion, especially where animal sacrifices, together with the cult of totem or holy animals, have been given up, it is usual to hallow the oil used in ritual anointings with 80 special prayers and exorcisms; oil from the lamps lit before the altar has a peculiar virtue of its own, perhaps because it can be burned to give light, and disappears to heaven in doing so. In any case oil has ever been regarded as the aptest symbol and vehicle of the holy and illuminating spirit. For this reason the catechumens are anointed with holy oil both before and after baptism; the one act (of eastern origin) assists the expulsion of the evil spirits, the other (of western origin), taken in conjunction with imposition of hands, conveys the spirit and retains it in the person of the baptized. In the postbaptismal anointing the oil was applied to the organs of sense, to the head, heart, and midriff. Such ritual use of oil as a σφραγίς or seal may have been suggested in old religions by the practice of keeping wine fresh in jars and amphorae by pouring on a top layer of oil; for the spoiling of wine was attributed to the action of demons of corruption, against whom many ancient formulae of aversion or exorcism still exist.

In Christianity, especially where animal sacrifices and the worship of totem or sacred animals have been abandoned, it’s common to sanctify the oil used in ritual anointings with special prayers and exorcisms. Oil from the lamps lit before the altar has its own special significance, perhaps because it can be burned to provide light, and in doing so, it ascends to heaven. Oil has always been seen as the most fitting symbol and medium of the holy and enlightening spirit. This is why catechumens are anointed with holy oil both before and after baptism; the first act (originating from the East) helps drive away evil spirits, while the second act (originating from the West), done along with the laying on of hands, conveys the spirit and keeps it within the baptized person. In the post-baptismal anointing, oil was applied to the senses, as well as the head, heart, and abdomen. The ritual use of oil as a seal or seal may have been inspired by ancient practices of preserving wine in jars and amphorae by adding a layer of oil on top; because the spoiling of wine was thought to be caused by evil spirits of decay, many old formulas for banishing these spirits still exist.

The holy oil, chrism, or μύρον, as the Easterns call it, was prepared and consecrated on Maundy Thursday, and in the Gelasian sacramentary the formula used runs thus: “Send forth, O Lord, we beseech thee, thy Holy Spirit the Paraclete from heaven into this fatness of oil, which thou hast deigned to bring forth out of the green wood for the refreshing of mind and body; and through thy holy benediction may it be for all who anoint with it, taste it, touch it, a safeguard of mind and body, of soul and spirit, for the expulsion of all pains, of every infirmity, of every sickness of mind and body. For with the same thou hast anointed priests, kings, and prophets and martyrs with this thy chrism, perfected by thee, O Lord, blessed, abiding within our bowels in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The holy oil, chrism, or myrrh, as referred to by the Eastern Church, was prepared and consecrated on Maundy Thursday. In the Gelasian sacramentary, the formula used is as follows: “Send forth, O Lord, we ask you, your Holy Spirit the Paraclete from heaven into this rich oil, which you have chosen to bring forth from the green wood for the refreshing of mind and body; and through your holy blessing, may it serve as a safeguard for all who anoint with it, taste it, or touch it, for the protection of mind and body, soul and spirit, to drive away all pain, every weakness, and all sickness of mind and body. For with it, you have anointed priests, kings, prophets, and martyrs with this chrism, perfected by you, O Lord, blessed, and dwelling within us in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In various churches the dead are anointed with holy oil, to guard them against the vampires or ghouls which ever threaten to take possession of dead bodies and live in them. In the Armenian church, as formerly in many Greek churches, a cross is not holy until the Spirit has been formally led into it by means of prayer and anointing with holy oil. A new church is anointed at its four corners, and also the altar round which it is built; similarly tombs, church gongs, and all other instruments and utensils dedicated to cultual uses. In churches of the Greek rite a little of the old year’s chrism is left in the jar to communicate its sanctity to that of the new.

In various churches, the dead are anointed with holy oil to protect them from vampires or ghouls that threaten to take over dead bodies and inhabit them. In the Armenian church, as was the case in many Greek churches in the past, a cross is not considered holy until the Spirit has been formally invited into it through prayer and anointing with holy oil. A new church is anointed at its four corners, as well as the altar around which it is built; similarly, tombs, church bells, and all other items and tools used for religious purposes are also anointed. In churches of the Greek rite, a bit of last year's chrism is left in the jar to pass on its sanctity to the new.

(F. C. C.)

ANOMALY (from Gr. ἀνωμαλία, unevenness, derived from ἀν-, privative, and ὁμαλός, even), a deviation from the common rule. In astronomy the word denotes the angular distance of a body from the pericentre of the orbit in which it is moving. Let AB be the major axis of the orbit, B the pericentre, F the focus or centre of motion, P the position of the body. The anomaly is then the angle BFP which the radius vector makes with the major axis. This is the actual or true anomaly. Mean anomaly is the anomaly which the body would have if it moved from the pericentre around F with a uniform angular motion such that its revolution would be completed in its actual time (see Orbit). Eccentric anomaly is defined thus:— Draw the circumscribing circle of the elliptic orbit around the centre C of the orbit. Drop the perpendicular RPQ through P, the position of the planet, upon the major axis. Join CR; the angle CRQ is then the eccentric anomaly.

ANOMALY (from Gr. anomaly, unevenness, derived from ἀν-, privative, and smooth, even), refers to a deviation from the usual rule. In astronomy, it describes the angular distance of a body from the pericentre of its orbit. Let AB represent the major axis of the orbit, B as the pericentre, F as the focus or center of motion, and P as the position of the body. The anomaly is the angle BFP, which the radius vector makes with the major axis. This is the actual or true anomaly. The mean anomaly is the anomaly that the body would have if it moved from the pericentre around F with a uniform angular motion, completing its revolution in the same time as its actual orbital period (see Orbit). The eccentric anomaly is defined as follows: Draw the circumscribing circle around the elliptic orbit with the center at C. Drop a perpendicular RPQ from P, the position of the planet, to the major axis. Connect CR; the angle CRQ is then the eccentric anomaly.

In the ancient astronomy the anomaly was taken as the angular distance of the planet from the point of the farthest recession from the earth.

In ancient astronomy, the anomaly was defined as the angular distance of a planet from the point of its furthest distance from the Earth.

Kepler’s Problem, namely, that of finding the co-ordinates of a planet at a given time, which is equivalent—given the mean anomaly—to that of determining the true anomaly, was solved approximately by Kepler, and more completely by Wallis, Newton and others.

Kepler’s Problem, which involves finding a planet's coordinates at a specific time, and is equivalent—given the mean anomaly—to determining the true anomaly, was partially solved by Kepler and more thoroughly by Wallis, Newton, and others.

The anomalistic revolution of a planet or other heavenly body is the revolution between two consecutive passages through the pericentre. Starting from the pericentre, it is completed on the return to the pericentre. If the pericentre is fixed, this is an actual revolution; but if it moves the anomalistic revolution is greater or less than a complete circumference.

The anomalistic revolution of a planet or another celestial body is the revolution between two consecutive passes through the pericenter. Starting from the pericenter, it finishes when it returns to the pericenter. If the pericenter is fixed, this is a true revolution; but if it moves, the anomalistic revolution is either greater or less than a full circle.

An Anomalistic year is the time (365 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes, 48 seconds) in which the earth (and similarly for any other planet) passes from perihelion to perihelion, or from any given value of the anomaly to the same again. Owing to the precession of the equinoxes it is longer than a tropical or sidereal year by 25 minutes and 2.3 seconds. An Anomalistic month is the time in which the moon passes from perigee to perigee, &c.

An Anomalistic year is the time (365 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes, 48 seconds) it takes for the earth (and similarly for any other planet) to move from perihelion to perihelion, or from any specific value of the anomaly back to the same point. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, it is longer than a tropical or sidereal year by 25 minutes and 2.3 seconds. An Anomalistic month is the time it takes for the moon to go from perigee to perigee, etc.

For the mathematics of Kepler’s problem see E.W. Brown, Lunar Theory (Cambridge 1896), or the work of Watson or of Bauschinger on Theoretical Astronomy.

For the math related to Kepler’s problem, check out E.W. Brown, Lunar Theory (Cambridge 1896), or the research by Watson or Bauschinger on Theoretical Astronomy.


ANORTHITE, an important mineral of the felspar group, being one of the end members of the plagioclase (q.v.) series. It is a calcium and aluminium silicate, CaAl2Si2O3, and crystallizes in the anorthic system. Like all the felspars, it possesses two cleavages, one perfect and the other less so, here inclined to one another at an angle of 85° 50′. The colour is white, greyish or reddish, and the crystals are transparent to translucent. The hardness is 6-6½, and the specific gravity 2·75.

ANORTHITE, an important mineral in the feldspar group, is one of the end members of the plagioclase series (q.v.). It is a calcium and aluminum silicate, CaAl2Si2O3, and forms crystals in the anorthic system. Like all feldspars, it has two types of cleavage, one perfect and the other less pronounced, which intersect at an angle of 85° 50′. The color can be white, grayish, or reddish, and the crystals range from transparent to translucent. Its hardness is between 6 and 6½, and its specific gravity is 2.75.

Anorthite is an essential constituent of many basic igneous rocks, such as gabbro and basalt, also of some meteoric stones. The best developed crystals are those which accompany mica, augite, sanidine, &c., in the ejected blocks of metamorphosed limestone from Monte Somma, the ancient portion of Mount Vesuvius; these are perfectly colourless and transparent, and are bounded by numerous brilliant faces. Distinctly developed crystals are also met with in the basalts of Japan, but are usually rare at other localities.

Anorthite is a key component of many basic igneous rocks, like gabbro and basalt, as well as some meteorites. The best-formed crystals are those found alongside mica, augite, sanidine, etc., in the ejected blocks of metamorphosed limestone from Monte Somma, the old part of Mount Vesuvius; these are completely colorless and transparent, with many shiny faces. Well-formed crystals are also found in the basalts of Japan, but they are generally rare in other locations.

The name anorthite was given to the Vesuvian mineral by G. Rose in 1823, on account of its anorthic crystallization. The species had, however, been earlier described by the comte de Bournon under the name indianite, this name being applied to a greyish or reddish granular mineral forming the matrix of corundum from the Carnatic in India. Several unimportant varieties have been distinguished.

The name anorthite was given to the Vesuvian mineral by G. Rose in 1823, due to its anorthic crystallization. However, the species had been described earlier by Comte de Bournon under the name indianite, which was applied to a grayish or reddish granular mineral that makes up the matrix of corundum from the Carnatic region in India. Several minor varieties have been identified.

(L. J. S.)

ANQUETIL, LOUIS PIERRE (1723-1808), French historian, was born in Paris, on the 21st of February 1723. He entered the congregation of Sainte-Geneviève, where he took holy orders and became professor of theology and literature. Later, he became director of the seminary at Reims, where he wrote his Histoire civile et politique de Reims (3 vols., 1756-1757), perhaps his best work. He was then director of the college of Senlis, where he composed his Esprit de la Ligue ou histoire politique des troubles de la Fronde pendant le XVIe et le XVIIe siècles (1767). During the Reign of Terror he was imprisoned at St Lazare; there he began his Précis de l’histoire universelle, afterwards published in nine volumes. On the establishment of the national institute he was elected a member of the second group (moral and political sciences), and was soon afterwards employed in the office of the ministry of foreign affairs, profiting by his experience to write his Motifs des guerres et des traités de paix sous Louis XIV., Louis XV, et Louis XVI. He is said to have been asked by Napoleon to write his Histoire de France (14 vols., 1805), a mediocre compilation at second or third hand, with the assistance of de Mézeray and of Paul François Velly (1709-1759). This work, nevertheless, passed through numerous editions, and by it his name is remembered. He died on the 6th of September 1808.

ANQUETIL, LOUIS PIERRE (1723-1808), French historian, was born in Paris on February 21, 1723. He joined the Sainte-Geneviève congregation, where he was ordained and became a professor of theology and literature. Later, he became director of the seminary in Reims, where he wrote his Histoire civile et politique de Reims (3 vols., 1756-1757), which is considered his best work. He then served as the director of the college in Senlis, where he wrote Esprit de la Ligue ou histoire politique des troubles de la Fronde pendant le XVIe et le XVIIe siècles (1767). During the Reign of Terror, he was imprisoned at St Lazare; it was there that he started his Précis de l’histoire universelle, later published in nine volumes. When the national institute was established, he was elected as a member of the second group (moral and political sciences) and soon began working in the foreign affairs ministry, using his experience to write Motifs des guerres et des traités de paix sous Louis XIV., Louis XV, et Louis XVI. It’s said that Napoleon requested him to write Histoire de France (14 vols., 1805), a mediocre compilation based on second or third-hand sources, with the help of de Mézeray and Paul François Velly (1709-1759). Despite its quality, this work went through numerous editions, and it is how his name is remembered. He died on September 6, 1808.


ANQUETIL, DUPERRON, ABRAHAM HYACINTHE (1731-1805), French orientalist, brother of Louis Pierre Anquetil, the historian, was born in Paris on the 7th of December 1731. He was educated for the priesthood in Paris and Utrecht, but his taste for Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, and other languages of the East 81 developed into a passion, and he discontinued his theological course to devote himself entirely to them. His diligent attendance at the Royal Library attracted the attention of the keeper of the manuscripts, the Abbé Sallier, whose influence procured for him a small salary as student of the oriental languages. He had lighted on some fragments of the Vendidad Sade, and formed the project of a voyage to India to discover the works of Zoroaster. With this end in view he enlisted as a private soldier, on the 2nd of November 1754, in the Indian expedition which was about to start from the port of L’Orient. His friends procured his discharge, and he was granted a free passage, a seat at the captain’s table, and a salary, the amount of which was to be fixed by the governor of the French settlement in India. After a passage of six months, Anquetil landed, on the 10th of August 1755, at Pondicherry. Here he remained a short time to master modern Persian, and then hastened to Chandernagore to acquire Sanskrit. Just then war was declared between France and England; Chandernagore was taken, and Anquetil returned to Pondicherry by land. He found one of his brothers at Pondicherry, and embarked with him for Surat; but, with a view of exploring the country, he landed at Mahé and proceeded on foot. At Surat he succeeded, by perseverance and address in his intercourse with the native priests, in acquiring a sufficient knowledge of the Zend and Pahlavi languages to translate the liturgy called the Vendidad Sade and some other works. Thence he proposed going to Benares, to study the language, antiquities, and sacred laws of the Hindus; but the capture of Pondicherry obliged him to quit India. Returning to Europe in an English vessel, he spent some time in London and Oxford, and then set out for France. He arrived in Paris on the 14th of March 1762 in possession of one hundred and eighty oriental manuscripts, besides other curiosities. The Abbé Barthélemy procured for him a pension, with the appointment of interpreter of oriental languages at the Royal Library. In 1763 he was elected an associate of the Academy of Inscriptions, and began to arrange for the publication of the materials he had collected during his eastern travels. In 1771 he published his Zend-Avesta (3 vols.), containing collections from the sacred writings of the fire-worshippers, a life of Zoroaster, and fragments of works ascribed to him. In 1778 he published at Amsterdam his Législation orientate, in which he endeavoured to prove that the nature of oriental despotism had been greatly misrepresented. His Recherches historiques et géographiques sur l’Inde appeared in 1786, and formed part of Thieffenthaler’s Geography of India. The Revolution seems to have greatly affected him. During that period he abandoned society, and lived in voluntary poverty on a few pence a day. In 1798 he published L’Inde en rapport avec l’Europe (Hamburg, 2 vols.), which contained much invective against the English, and numerous misrepresentations. In 1802-1804 he published a Latin translation (2 vols.) from the Persian of the Oupnek’hat or Upanishada. It is a curious mixture of Latin, Greek, Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit. He died in Paris on the 17th of January 1805.

ANQUETIL, DUPERRON, ABRAHAM HYACINTHE (1731-1805), French orientalist and brother of historian Louis Pierre Anquetil, was born in Paris on December 7, 1731. He was initially trained for the priesthood in Paris and Utrecht, but his interest in Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, and other Eastern languages turned into a strong passion, leading him to abandon his theological studies to focus entirely on these languages. His frequent visits to the Royal Library caught the attention of the manuscript keeper, Abbé Sallier, who helped him secure a small salary as a student of oriental languages. He discovered some fragments of the Vendidad Sade and planned a trip to India to find the works of Zoroaster. To achieve this goal, he enlisted as a private soldier on November 2, 1754, in the Indian expedition set to depart from the port of L’Orient. His friends arranged for his discharge, and he received free passage, a seat at the captain’s table, and a salary to be determined by the governor of the French settlement in India. After a six-month journey, Anquetil arrived in Pondicherry on August 10, 1755. He stayed there briefly to learn modern Persian before heading to Chandernagore to study Sanskrit. At that time, war broke out between France and England; Chandernagore was captured, and Anquetil returned to Pondicherry on foot. There, he met one of his brothers and boarded a ship for Surat, but to explore the area, he disembarked at Mahé and traveled on foot. In Surat, through determination and skillful interaction with local priests, he gained enough knowledge of Zend and Pahlavi to translate the liturgy known as the Vendidad Sade along with other works. He then intended to go to Benares to study the language, antiquities, and sacred laws of Hindus, but the fall of Pondicherry forced him to leave India. Returning to Europe on an English vessel, he spent some time in London and Oxford before heading back to France. He arrived in Paris on March 14, 1762, with one hundred eighty oriental manuscripts and other curiosities. Abbé Barthélemy helped him obtain a pension and a position as an interpreter of oriental languages at the Royal Library. In 1763, he was elected an associate of the Academy of Inscriptions and began preparing to publish the materials he gathered during his travels. In 1771, he published his Zend-Avesta (3 vols.), which included collections from the sacred texts of fire-worshippers, a biography of Zoroaster, and fragments attributed to him. In 1778, he published Législation orientate in Amsterdam, where he argued that the nature of oriental despotism was widely misunderstood. His Recherches historiques et géographiques sur l’Inde came out in 1786 and was part of Thieffenthaler’s Geography of India. The Revolution had a profound impact on him; during that time, he withdrew from society and lived in voluntary poverty, surviving on just a few pennies a day. In 1798, he published L’Inde en rapport avec l’Europe (Hamburg, 2 vols.), which contained much criticism of the English and numerous inaccuracies. Between 1802 and 1804, he published a Latin translation (2 vols.) from the Persian of the Oupnek’hat or Upanishada. This work was a curious blend of Latin, Greek, Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit. He died in Paris on January 17, 1805.

See Biographie universelle; Sir William Jones, Works (vol. x., 1807); and the Miscellanies of the Philobiblon Society (vol. iii., 1856-1857). For a list of his scattered writings see Quérard, La France littéraire.

See Biographie universelle; Sir William Jones, Works (vol. x., 1807); and the Miscellanies of the Philobiblon Society (vol. iii., 1856-1857). For a list of his scattered writings, see Quérard, La France littéraire.


ANSA (from Lat. ansa, a handle), in astronomy, one of the apparent ends of the rings of Saturn as seen in perspective from the earth: so-called because, in the earlier telescopes, they looked like handles projecting from the planet. In anatomy the word is applied to nervous structures which resemble loops. In archaeology it is used for the engraved and ornamented handle of a vase, which has often survived when the vase itself, being less durable, has disappeared.

ANSA (from Lat. ansa, a handle), in astronomy, one of the apparent ends of the rings of Saturn as viewed from Earth: named so because in earlier telescopes, they appeared like handles sticking out from the planet. In anatomy, the term refers to nerve structures that look like loops. In archaeology, it describes the carved and decorated handle of a vase, which has often remained intact even when the vase itself has decayed.


ANSBACH, or Anspach, originally Onolzbach, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the Rezat, 27 m. by rail S.W. of Nuremberg, and 90 m. N. of Munich. Pop. (1900) 17,555. It contains a palace, once the residence of the margraves of Anspach, with fine gardens, several churches, the finest of which are those dedicated to St John, containing the vault of the former margraves, and St Gumbert; a gymnasium; a picture gallery; a municipal museum and a special technical school. Ansbach possesses monuments to the poets August, Count von Platen-Hallermund, and Johann Peter Uz, who were born here, and to Kaspar Hauser, who died here. The chief manufactures are machinery, toys, woollen, cotton, and half-silk stuffs, embroideries, earthenware, tobacco, cutlery and playing cards. There is considerable trade in grain, wool and flax. In 1791 the last margrave of Anspach sold his principality to Frederick William II., king of Prussia; it was transferred by Napoleon to Bavaria in 1806, an act which was confirmed by the congress of Vienna in 1815.

ANSBACH, or Anspach, originally Onolzbach, is a town in Germany, located in the kingdom of Bavaria, on the Rezat River, 27 miles southwest of Nuremberg and 90 miles north of Munich. As of 1900, its population was 17,555. The town features a palace that was once the residence of the margraves of Anspach, set in beautiful gardens, along with several churches, the most notable being those dedicated to St. John, which houses the tomb of the former margraves, and St. Gumbert. It also has a gymnasium, an art gallery, a municipal museum, and a specialized technical school. Ansbach honors the poets August, Count von Platen-Hallermund, and Johann Peter Uz, who were born here, as well as Kaspar Hauser, who died here. Key industries include manufacturing machinery, toys, wool, cotton, and half-silk fabrics, as well as embroideries, pottery, tobacco, cutlery, and playing cards. There is significant trade in grain, wool, and flax. In 1791, the last margrave of Anspach sold his principality to Frederick William II, king of Prussia; Napoleon transferred it to Bavaria in 1806, a decision that was confirmed by the Congress of Vienna in 1815.


ANSDELL, RICHARD (1815-1885), English painter, was born in Liverpool, and first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1840. He was a painter of genre, chiefly animal and sporting pictures, and he became very popular, being elected A.R.A. in 1861 and R.A. in 1870. His “Stag at Bay” (1846), “The Combat” (1847), and “Battle of the Standard” (1848), represent his best work, in which he showed himself a notable follower of Landseer.

ANSDELL, RICHARD (1815-1885), an English painter, was born in Liverpool and first showed his work at the Royal Academy in 1840. He specialized in genre painting, mostly focusing on animals and sporting scenes, and gained a lot of popularity, becoming an A.R.A. in 1861 and an R.A. in 1870. His notable pieces, “Stag at Bay” (1846), “The Combat” (1847), and “Battle of the Standard” (1848), showcase his talent and reveal him as a significant follower of Landseer.


ANSELM (c. 1033-1109), archbishop of Canterbury, was born at Aosta in Piedmont. His family was accounted noble, and was possessed of considerable property. Gundulph, his father, was by birth a Lombard, and seems to have been a man of harsh and violent temper; his mother, Ermenberga, was a prudent and virtuous woman, from whose careful religious training the young Anselm derived much benefit. At the age of fifteen he desired to enter a convent, but he could not obtain his father’s consent. Disappointment brought on an illness, on his recovery from which he seems for a time to have given up his studies, and to have plunged into the gay life of the world. During this time his mother died, and his father’s harshness became unbearable. He left home, and with only one attendant crossed the Alps, and wandered through Burgundy and France. Attracted by the fame of his countryman, Lanfranc, then prior of Bec, he entered Normandy, and, after spending some time at Avranches, settled at the monastery of Bec. There, at the age of twenty-seven, he became a monk; three years later, when Lanfranc was promoted to the abbacy of Caen, he was elected prior. This office he held for fifteen years, and then, in 1078, on the death of Herlwin, the warrior monk who had founded the monastery, he was made abbot. Under his rule Bec became the first seat of learning in Europe, a result due not more to his intellectual powers than to the great moral influence of his noble character and kindly discipline. It was during these quiet years at Bec that Anselm wrote his first philosophical and religious works, the dialogues on Truth and Freewill, and the two celebrated treatises, the Monologion and Proslogion.

ANSELM (c. 1033-1109), the archbishop of Canterbury, was born in Aosta, Piedmont. His family was considered noble and owned significant property. His father, Gundulph, was originally a Lombard and seemed to have a harsh and violent temperament; his mother, Ermenberga, was a wise and virtuous woman, whose careful religious guidance greatly benefited young Anselm. At fifteen, he wanted to join a convent, but he couldn't get his father's approval. Disappointment led to an illness, and after recovering, he seems to have temporarily abandoned his studies and immersed himself in a lively social life. During this time, his mother passed away, and his father's severity became unbearable. He left home, and with just one companion, crossed the Alps, traveling through Burgundy and France. Drawn by the reputation of his fellow countryman, Lanfranc, who was then prior of Bec, he entered Normandy, spending some time in Avranches before settling at the monastery of Bec. At the age of twenty-seven, he became a monk; three years later, when Lanfranc was promoted to the abbacy of Caen, he was elected prior. He held this position for fifteen years, and then in 1078, following the death of Herlwin, the warrior monk who had founded the monastery, he became abbot. Under his leadership, Bec emerged as the leading center of learning in Europe, a feat attributed not just to his intellectual abilities but also to the significant moral influence of his noble character and compassionate discipline. It was during these peaceful years at Bec that Anselm wrote his first philosophical and religious works, including the dialogues on Truth and Freewill and the two renowned treatises, the Monologion and Proslogion.

Meanwhile the convent had been growing in wealth, as well as in reputation, and had acquired considerable property in England, which it became the duty of Anselm occasionally to visit. By his mildness of temper and unswerving rectitude, he so endeared himself to the English that he was looked upon and desired as the natural successor to Lanfranc, then archbishop of Canterbury. But on the death of that great man, the ruling sovereign, William Rufus, seized the possessions and revenues of the see, and made no new appointment. About four years after, in 1092, on the invitation of Hugh, earl of Chester, Anselm with some reluctance, for he feared to be made archbishop, crossed to England. He was detained by business for nearly four months, and when about to return, was refused permission by the king. In the following year William fell ill, and thought his death was at hand. Eager to make atonement for his sin with regard to the archbishopric, he nominated Anselm to the vacant see, and after a great struggle compelled him to accept the pastoral staff of office. After obtaining dispensation from his duties in Normandy, Anselm was consecrated in 1093. He demanded of the king, as the conditions of his retaining office, that he should give up all the possessions of the see, accept his spiritual counsel, and acknowledge Urban as pope in opposition to the anti-pope, Clement. He only obtained a partial consent to the first of these, and the last involved him in a serious difficulty with the king. It was a rule of the church that the consecration of metropolitans could not be completed without their receiving 82 the pallium from the hands of the pope. Anselm, accordingly, insisted that he must proceed to Rome to receive the pall. But William would not permit this; he had not acknowledged Urban, and he maintained his right to prevent any pope being acknowledged by an English subject without his permission. A great council of churchmen and nobles, held to settle the matter, advised Anselm to submit to the king, but failed to overcome his mild and patient firmness. The matter was postponed, and William meanwhile privately sent messengers to Rome, who acknowledged Urban and prevailed on him to send a legate to the king bearing the archiepiscopal pall. A partial reconciliation was then effected, and the matter of the pall was compromised. It was not given by the king, but was laid on the altar at Canterbury, whence Anselm took it.

Meanwhile, the convent had been gaining wealth and reputation, and had acquired substantial property in England, which Anselm was occasionally required to visit. His gentle demeanor and unwavering integrity endeared him to the English, leading them to see him as the natural successor to Lanfranc, who was then the archbishop of Canterbury. However, upon the passing of that esteemed man, the ruling king, William Rufus, seized the possessions and income of the archbishopric and made no new appointment. About four years later, in 1092, Anselm reluctantly crossed to England at the invitation of Hugh, earl of Chester, as he feared being named archbishop. He was occupied with business for nearly four months, and when he was about to return, the king denied him permission to leave. The following year, William fell ill and believed he was close to death. In an effort to atone for his wrongs concerning the archbishopric, he nominated Anselm to the vacant position and, after significant resistance, forced him to accept the pastoral staff of office. After obtaining a dispensation from his duties in Normandy, Anselm was consecrated in 1093. He insisted to the king that as a condition for retaining his position, he must relinquish all the archbishopric's possessions, accept his spiritual advice, and recognize Urban as pope in opposition to the anti-pope, Clement. He only received partial agreement on the first condition, and the last led to serious conflict with the king. It was a church rule that the consecration of metropolitans could not be finalized without receiving the pallium from the pope. Therefore, Anselm insisted that he needed to go to Rome to receive it. But William would not allow this; he had not recognized Urban and claimed the right to prevent any pope from being acknowledged by an English subject without his consent. A major council of churchmen and nobles convened to resolve the issue advised Anselm to comply with the king, but they could not sway his patient determination. The matter was deferred, and meanwhile, William secretly sent messengers to Rome, who acknowledged Urban and successfully persuaded him to send a legate to the king with the archiepiscopal pall. A partial reconciliation was then achieved, and the issue of the pall was settled. It was not given directly by the king but was placed on the altar at Canterbury, from where Anselm took it.

Little more than a year after, fresh trouble arose with the king, and Anselm resolved to proceed to Rome and seek the counsel of his spiritual father. With great difficulty he obtained a reluctant permission to leave, and in October 1097 he set out for Rome. William immediately seized on the revenues of the see, and retained them to his death. Anselm was received with high honour by Urban, and at a great council held at Bari, he was put forward to defend the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost against the representatives of the Greek Church. But Urban was too politic to embroil himself with the king of England, and Anselm found that he could obtain no substantial result. He withdrew from Rome, and spent some time at the little village of Schiavi, where he finished his treatise on the atonement, Cur Deus homo, and then retired to Lyons.

Little more than a year later, new issues arose with the king, and Anselm decided to go to Rome to seek advice from his spiritual leader. After much difficulty, he got a reluctant permission to leave, and in October 1097, he set out for Rome. William immediately took control of the church's income and kept it until his death. Anselm was welcomed with great honor by Urban, and at a major council held at Bari, he was asked to defend the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost against representatives of the Greek Church. However, Urban was too shrewd to get involved in a conflict with the king of England, and Anselm realized he couldn't achieve any significant outcomes. He left Rome and spent some time in the small village of Schiavi, where he completed his treatise on the atonement, Cur Deus homo, and then moved to Lyons.

In 1100 William was killed, and Henry, his successor, at once recalled Anselm. But Henry demanded that he should again receive from him in person investiture in his office of archbishop, thus making the dignity entirely dependent on the royal authority. Now, the papal rule in the matter was plain; all homage and lay investiture were strictly prohibited. Anselm represented this to the king; but Henry would not relinquish a privilege possessed by his predecessors, and proposed that the matter should be laid before the Holy See. The answer of the pope reaffirmed the law as to investiture. A second embassy was sent, with a similar result. Henry, however, remained firm, and at last, in 1103, Anselm and an envoy from the king set out for Rome. The pope, Paschal, reaffirmed strongly the rule of investiture, and passed sentence of excommunication against all who had infringed the law, except Henry. Practically this left matters as they were, and Anselm, who had received a message forbidding him to return to England unless on the king’s terms, withdrew to Lyons, where he waited to see if Paschal would not take stronger measures. At last, in 1105, he resolved himself to excommunicate Henry. His intention was made known to the king through his sister, and it seriously alarmed him, for it was a critical period in his affairs. A meeting was arranged, and a reconciliation between them effected. In 1106 Anselm crossed to England, with power from the pope to remove the sentence of excommunication from the illegally invested churchmen. In 1107 the long dispute as to investiture was finally ended by the king resigning his formal rights. The remaining two years of Anselm’s life were spent in the duties of his archbishopric. He died on the 21st of April 1109. He was canonized in 1494 by Alexander VI.

In 1100, William was killed, and Henry, his successor, immediately called Anselm back. However, Henry insisted that Anselm come to him in person to receive his investiture as archbishop, making the position totally dependent on the king's authority. The papal stance was clear: all homage and lay investiture were strictly prohibited. Anselm explained this to the king, but Henry refused to give up a privilege held by his predecessors and suggested that the issue be taken to the Holy See. The pope's response confirmed the law concerning investiture. A second delegation was sent, with the same outcome. Still, Henry stood firm, and finally, in 1103, Anselm and a representative from the king headed to Rome. Pope Paschal strongly reaffirmed the rule on investiture and pronounced excommunication for anyone who broke the law, except for Henry. Essentially, this meant things stayed the same, and Anselm, who received a message forbidding his return to England unless on the king's terms, retreated to Lyons, waiting to see if Paschal would take more decisive action. In 1105, he ultimately decided to excommunicate Henry. His plan was communicated to the king through his sister, causing serious concern for him, as it was a critical time in his reign. A meeting was arranged, leading to a reconciliation between them. In 1106, Anselm returned to England with permission from the pope to lift the excommunication from the unlawfully invested churchmen. In 1107, the long-standing dispute over investiture was finally resolved when the king relinquished his formal rights. Anselm spent the last two years of his life fulfilling the responsibilities of his archbishopric. He died on April 21, 1109, and was canonized in 1494 by Alexander VI.

Anselm may, with some justice, be considered the first scholastic philosopher and theologian. His only great predecessor, Scotus Erigena, had more of the speculative and mystical element than is consistent with a schoolman; but in Anselm are found that recognition of the relation of reason to revealed truth, and that attempt to elaborate a rational system of faith, which form the special characteristics of scholastic thought. His constant endeavour is to render the contents of the Christian consciousness clear to reason, and to develop the intelligible truths interwoven with the Christian belief. The necessary preliminary for this is the possession of the Christian consciousness. “He who does not believe will not experience; and he who has not experienced will not understand.” That faith must precede knowledge is reiterated by him. ”Negue enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam.” (“Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this too I believe, that unless I first believe, I shall not understand.”) But after the faith is held fast, the attempt must be made to demonstrate by reason the truth of what we believe. It is wrong not to do so. ”Negligentiae mihi esse videtur, si, postquam confirmati sumus in fide, non studemus quod credimus, intelligere.” (“I hold it to be a failure in duty if after we have become steadfast in the faith we do not strive to understand what we believe.”) To such an extent does he carry this demand for rational explanation that, at times, it seems as if he claimed for unassisted intelligence the power of penetrating even to the mysteries of the Christian faith. On the whole, however, the qualified statement is his real view; merely rational proofs are always, he affirms, to be tested by Scripture. (Cur Deus homo, i. 2 and 38; De Fide Trin. 2.)

Anselm can justifiably be seen as the first scholastic philosopher and theologian. His only significant predecessor, Scotus Erigena, leaned more towards the speculative and mystical, which is less fitting for a schoolman; however, Anselm embodies that recognition of the connection between reason and revealed truth, along with the effort to create a rational framework for faith, which are defining features of scholastic thought. His ongoing goal is to make the contents of Christian consciousness understandable to reason and to uncover the intelligible truths woven into Christian belief. A necessary first step for this is having the Christian consciousness. “Those who do not believe will not experience; and those who have not experienced will not understand.” He emphasizes that faith must come before knowledge. ”Negue enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam.” (“Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this too I believe, that unless I first believe, I shall not understand.”) Once faith is firmly held, there must be an effort to demonstrate, through reason, the truth of what we believe. Failing to do so is wrong. ”Negligentiae mihi esse videtur, si, postquam confirmati sumus in fide, non studemus quod credimus, intelligere.” (“I hold it to be a failure in duty if after we have become steadfast in the faith we do not strive to understand what we believe.”) He pushes this demand for rational explanation to the point where it sometimes seems like he believes unaided intelligence can even grasp the mysteries of the Christian faith. Overall, though, his actual stance is more measured; he asserts that merely rational proofs should always be examined against Scripture. (Cur Deus homo, i. 2 and 38; De Fide Trin. 2.)

The groundwork of his theory of knowledge is contained in the tract De Veritate, in which, from the consideration of truth as in knowledge, in willing, and in things, he rises to the affirmation of an absolute truth, in which all other truth participates. This absolute truth is God himself, who is therefore the ultimate ground or principle both of things and of thought. The notion of God comes thus into the foreground of the system; before all things it is necessary that it should be made clear to reason, that it should be demonstrated to have real existence. This demonstration is the substance of the Monologion and Proslogion. In the first of these the proof rests on the ordinary grounds of realism, and coincides to some extent with the earlier theory of Augustine, though it is carried out with singular boldness and fulness. Things, he says, are called good in a variety of ways and degrees; this would be impossible if there were not some absolute standard, some good in itself, in which all relative goods participate. Similarly with such predicates as great, just; they involve a certain greatness and justice. The very existence of things is impossible without some one Being, by whom they are. This absolute Being, this goodness, justice, greatness, is God. Anselm was not thoroughly satisfied with this reasoning; it started from a posteriori grounds, and contained several converging lines of proof. He desired to have some one short demonstration. Such a demonstration he presented in the Proslogion; it is his celebrated ontological proof. God is that being than whom none greater can be conceived. Now, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived existed only in the intellect, it would not be the absolutely greatest, for we could add to it existence in reality. It follows, then, that the being than whom nothing greater can be conceived, i.e. God, necessarily has real existence. This reasoning, in which Anselm partially anticipated the Cartesian philosophers, has rarely seemed satisfactory. It was opposed at the time by the monk Gaunilo, in his Liber pro Insipiente, on the ground that we cannot pass from idea to reality. The same criticism is made by several of the later schoolmen, among others by Aquinas, and is in substance what Kant advances against all ontological proof. Anselm replied to the objections of Gaunilo in his Liber Apologeticus. The existence of God being thus held proved, he proceeds to state the rational grounds of the Christian doctrines of creation and of the Trinity. With reference to this last, he says we cannot know God from himself, but only after the analogy of his creatures; and the special analogy used is the self-consciousness of man, its peculiar double nature, with the necessary elements, memory and intelligence, representing the relation of the Father to the Son. The mutual love of these two, proceeding from the relation they hold to one another, symbolizes the Holy Spirit. The further theological doctrines of man, original sin, free will, are developed, partly in the Monologion, partly in other mixed treatises. Finally, in his greatest work, Cur Deus homo, he undertakes to make plain, even to infidels, the rational necessity of the Christian mystery of the atonement. The theory rests on three positions: that satisfaction is necessary on account of God’s honour and justice; that such satisfaction can be given only by the peculiar personality 83 of the God-man; that such satisfaction is really given by the voluntary death of this infinitely valuable person. The demonstration is, in brief, this. All the actions of men are due to the furtherance of God’s glory; if, then, there be sin, i.e. if God’s honour be wounded, man of himself can give no satisfaction. But the justice of God demands satisfaction; and as an insult to infinite honour is in itself infinite, the satisfaction must be infinite, i.e. it must outweigh all that is not God. Such a penalty can only be paid by God himself, and, as a penalty for man, must be paid under the form of man. Satisfaction is only possible through the God-man. Now this God-man, as sinless, is exempt from the punishment of sin; His passion is therefore voluntary, not given as due. The merit of it is therefore infinite; God’s justice is thus appeased, and His mercy may extend to man. This theory has exercised immense influence on the form of church doctrine. It is certainly an advance on the older patristic theory, in so far as it substitutes for a contest between God and Satan, a contest between the goodness and justice of God; but it puts the whole relation on a merely legal footing, gives it no ethical bearing, and neglects altogether the consciousness of the individual to be redeemed. In this respect it contrasts unfavourably with the later theory of Abelard.

The foundation of his theory of knowledge is found in the tract De Veritate, where he explores truth in relation to knowledge, will, and things, leading to the affirmation of an absolute truth that encompasses all other truths. This absolute truth is God himself, who serves as the ultimate foundation or principle of both existence and thought. The concept of God thus becomes central to the system; it is crucial for reason to clearly understand and demonstrate that God has real existence. This demonstration is the essence of the Monologion and Proslogion. In the first, the proof relies on standard realism and has some overlap with Augustine's earlier theory, but is executed with remarkable boldness and completeness. He notes that things are deemed good in various ways and degrees; this would be impossible without some absolute standard or inherent good in which all relative goods participate. The same applies to terms like great and just; they imply a certain greatness and justice. The mere existence of things is untenable without a single Being that gives them existence. This absolute Being, this goodness, justice, and greatness, is God. Anselm wasn't entirely satisfied with this reasoning; it began from a posteriori grounds and included several converging proofs. He sought a single, concise demonstration, which he presented in the Proslogion; this is his famous ontological proof. God is the being than whom nothing greater can be conceived. Now, if that being existed only in the mind, it wouldn’t be the greatest, since we could add existence in reality to it. Thus, the being than whom nothing greater can be conceived, namely God, must have real existence. This reasoning, which Anselm partially foreshadowed in later Cartesian philosophy, has rarely been deemed adequate. It was challenged at the time by the monk Gaunilo in his Liber pro Insipiente, who argued that we cannot transition from idea to existence. This same criticism is made by several later theologians, including Aquinas, and reflects what Kant later argues against all ontological proofs. Anselm responded to Gaunilo's objections in his Liber Apologeticus. With God's existence thus regarded as proven, he outlines the rational basis for the Christian doctrines of creation and the Trinity. Regarding the latter, he states that we cannot know God in His essence, but only through the analogy of His creations; the specific analogy he uses is the self-awareness of humanity, with its unique dual nature, where memory and intelligence represent the relationship between the Father and the Son. The mutual love between these two, stemming from their relationship to one another, symbolizes the Holy Spirit. The further theological concepts of humanity, original sin, and free will are elaborated upon, partially in the Monologion and partly in other mixed writings. Finally, in his most significant work, Cur Deus homo, he aims to clarify, even to non-believers, the rational necessity of the Christian mystery of atonement. The theory is based on three points: that satisfaction is required due to God's honor and justice; that this satisfaction can only be provided by the unique identity of the God-man; and that such satisfaction is indeed delivered through the voluntary death of this infinitely valuable individual. In summary, all human actions are intended to promote God’s glory; if there is sin, meaning if God’s honor is harmed, humanity cannot offer any satisfaction on its own. However, God's justice demands satisfaction, and since an offense against infinite honor is itself infinite, satisfaction must also be infinite, meaning it must outweigh everything that isn't God. Only God can pay such a penalty, and since it must be for humanity, it must be made as a man. Satisfaction is achievable only through the God-man. Now, this God-man, being sinless, is not subject to the punishment of sin; thus, His suffering is voluntary and not a result of obligation. The merit of this act is infinite; consequently, God's justice is appeased, allowing His mercy to encompass humanity. This theory has had a profound impact on church doctrine. It certainly represents a progression from the earlier patristic viewpoint, as it replaces a conflict between God and Satan with a conflict between God’s goodness and justice; however, it frames the entire relationship on a purely legal basis, lacking any ethical implications, and entirely disregards the individual’s consciousness in need of redemption. In this regard, it stands in contrast to Abelard's later theory.

Anselm’s speculations did not receive, in the middle ages, the respect and attention justly their due. This was probably due to their unsystematic character, for they are generally tracts or dialogues on detached questions, not elaborate treatises like the great works of Albert, Aquinas, and Erigena. They have, however, a freshness and philosophical vigour, which more than makes up for their want of system, and which raises them far above the level of most scholastic writings.

Anselm's ideas didn't get the respect and attention they deserved in the Middle Ages. This was likely because they were not very systematic; they are mostly just essays or dialogues on specific topics, not detailed works like those of Albert, Aquinas, and Erigena. However, they possess a freshness and philosophical energy that more than compensates for their lack of structure, elevating them well above most scholastic writings.

Bibliography.—The main sources for the history of St Anselm and his times are Eadmer’s Vita Anselmi and his Historia Novorum, edited by M. Rule in Rolls Series (London, 1884); the best modern work is by Père Ragey, Histoire de Saint Anselme (Paris, 1890), and Saint Anselme professeur (Paris, 1890). Other appreciations are by A. Mohler, Anselm Erzbischof von Canterbury (Regensburg, 1839; Eng. trans. by H. Rymer, London, 1842); F.R. Hasse, Anselm von Canterbury (2 vols., Leipzig, 1842-1853); C. de Rémusat, S. Anseime de Cantorbéry (Paris, 1853, new ed. 1868); R.W. Church, St Anselm, first published in Sunday Library (London, 1870; often reprinted); Martin Rule, Life and Times of St Anselm (London, 1883).

References.—The main sources for the history of St Anselm and his times are Eadmer’s Vita Anselmi and his Historia Novorum, edited by M. Rule in Rolls Series (London, 1884); the best modern work is by Père Ragey, Histoire de Saint Anselme (Paris, 1890), and Saint Anselme professeur (Paris, 1890). Other notable works are by A. Mohler, Anselm Erzbischof von Canterbury (Regensburg, 1839; Eng. trans. by H. Rymer, London, 1842); F.R. Hasse, Anselm von Canterbury (2 vols., Leipzig, 1842-1853); C. de Rémusat, S. Anseime de Cantorbéry (Paris, 1853, new ed. 1868); R.W. Church, St Anselm, first published in Sunday Library (London, 1870; often reprinted); Martin Rule, Life and Times of St Anselm (London, 1883).

Works: The best edition of St Anselm’s complete works is that of Dom Gerberon (Paris, 1675); reprinted with many notes in 1712; incorporated by J. Migne in his Patrologia Latina, tomi clviii.-clix. (Paris. 1853-1854). Migne’s reprint contains many errors. The Cur Deus homo may be best studied in the editions published by D. Nutt (London, 1885) and by Griffith (1898). The Mariale, or poems in honour of the Blessed Virgin, has been carefully edited by P. Ragey (Tournai, 1885); the Monologion and Proslogion, by C.E. Ubaghs (Louvain, 1854; Eng. trans. by S.N. Deane, Chicago, 1903); the Meditationes, many of which are wrongly attributed to Anselm, have been frequently reprinted, and were included in Methuen’s Library of Devotion (London, 1903).

Works: The best edition of St. Anselm’s complete works is the one by Dom Gerberon (Paris, 1675); it was reprinted with many notes in 1712 and included by J. Migne in his Patrologia Latina, volumes clviii.-clix. (Paris, 1853-1854). Migne’s reprint has many errors. The Cur Deus Homo is best studied in the editions published by D. Nutt (London, 1885) and Griffith (1898). The Mariale, or poems in honor of the Blessed Virgin, has been carefully edited by P. Ragey (Tournai, 1885); the Monologion and Proslogion were done by C.E. Ubaghs (Louvain, 1854; English translation by S.N. Deane, Chicago, 1903); the Meditationes, many of which are incorrectly attributed to Anselm, have been frequently reprinted and were included in Methuen’s Library of Devotion (London, 1903).

The best criticism of Anselm’s philosophical works is by J.M. Rigg (London, 1896), and Domet de Verges (Grands Philosophes series, Paris, 1901). For a complete bibliography, see A. Vacant’s Dictionnaire de théologie.

The best critique of Anselm’s philosophical works is by J.M. Rigg (London, 1896), and Domet de Verges (Grands Philosophes series, Paris, 1901). For a full bibliography, check out A. Vacant’s Dictionnaire de théologie.


ANSELM, of Laon (d. 1117), French theologian, was born of very humble parents at Laon before the middle of the 11th century. He is said to have studied under St Anselm at Bec. About 1076 he taught with great success at Paris, where, as the associate of William of Champeaux, he upheld the realistic side of the scholastic controversy. Later he removed to his native place, where his school for theology and exegetics rapidly became the most famous in Europe. He died in 1117. His greatest work, an interlinear gloss on the Scriptures, was one of the great authorities of the middle ages. It has been frequently reprinted. Other commentaries apparently by him have been ascribed to various writers, principally to the great Anselm. A list of them, with notice of Anselm’s life, is contained in the Histoire littéraire de la France, x. 170-189.

ANSELM, of Laon (d. 1117), a French theologian, was born to very humble parents in Laon before the middle of the 11th century. He is believed to have studied under St. Anselm at Bec. Around 1076, he taught successfully in Paris, where, alongside William of Champeaux, he supported the realistic side of the scholastic debate. Later, he returned to his hometown, where his school for theology and exegetics quickly became the most renowned in Europe. He passed away in 1117. His greatest work, an interlinear gloss on the Scriptures, was one of the authoritative texts of the Middle Ages and has been reprinted many times. Other commentaries that are apparently his have been attributed to various authors, mainly to the great Anselm. A list of these works, along with a notice of Anselm's life, can be found in the Histoire littéraire de la France, x. 170-189.

The works are collected in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome 162; some unpublished Sententiae were edited by G. Lefèvre (Milan, 1894), on which see Hauréau in the Journal des savants for 1895.

The works are collected in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, volume 162; some unpublished Sententiae were edited by G. Lefèvre (Milan, 1894), see Hauréau in the Journal des savants for 1895.


ANSELME (Father Anselme of the Virgin Mary) (1625-1694), French genealogist, was born in Paris in 1625. As a layman his name was Pierre Guibours. He entered the order of the barefooted Augustinians on the 31st of March 1644, and it was in their monastery (called the Couvent des Petits Pères, near the church of Notre-Dame des Victoires) that he died, on the 17th of January 1694. He devoted his entire life to genealogical studies. In 1663 he published Le Palais de l’honneur, which besides giving the genealogy of the houses of Lorraine and Savoy, is a complete treatise on heraldry, and in 1664 Le Palais de la gloire, dealing with the genealogy of various illustrious French and European families. These books made friends for him, the most intimate among whom, Honoré Caille, seigneur du Fourny (1630-1713), persuaded him to publish his Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de France, et des grands officiers de la couronne (1674, 2 vols. 4); after Father Anselme’s death, Honoré Caille collected his papers, and brought out a new edition of this highly important work in 1712. The task was taken up and continued by two other friars of the Couvent des Petits Pères, Father Ange de Sainte-Rosalie (François Raffard, 1655-1726), and Father Simplicien (Paul Lucas, 1683-1759), who published the first and second volumes of the third edition in 1726. This edition consists of nine volumes folio; it is a genealogical and chronological history of the royal house of France, of the peers, of the great officers of the crown and of the king’s household, and of the ancient barons of the kingdom. The notes were generally compiled from original documents, references to which are usually given, so that they remain useful to the present day. The work of Father Anselme, his collaborators and successors, is even more important for the history of France than is Dugdale’s Baronage of England for the history of England.

ANSELME (Father Anselme of the Virgin Mary) (1625-1694), French genealogist, was born in Paris in 1625. As a layman, he was named Pierre Guibours. He joined the order of the barefooted Augustinians on March 31, 1644, and died in their monastery (known as the Couvent des Petits Pères, near the church of Notre-Dame des Victoires) on January 17, 1694. He dedicated his entire life to genealogical research. In 1663, he published Le Palais de l’honneur, which not only provided the genealogy of the houses of Lorraine and Savoy but also served as a comprehensive treatise on heraldry. In 1664, he published Le Palais de la gloire, which focused on the genealogy of various notable French and European families. These books earned him many friends, including Honoré Caille, seigneur du Fourny (1630-1713), who convinced him to publish his Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de France, et des grands officiers de la couronne (1674, 2 vols. 4); after Father Anselme’s death, Honoré Caille collected his papers and released a new edition of this significant work in 1712. The project was then taken over and continued by two other friars from the Couvent des Petits Pères, Father Ange de Sainte-Rosalie (François Raffard, 1655-1726) and Father Simplicien (Paul Lucas, 1683-1759), who published the first and second volumes of the third edition in 1726. This edition consists of nine folio volumes and is a genealogical and chronological history of the royal house of France, the peers, the great officers of the crown, and the king’s household, as well as the ancient barons of the kingdom. The notes were primarily compiled from original documents, with references typically provided, ensuring they remain useful to this day. The work of Father Anselme, along with his collaborators and successors, is even more significant for the history of France than Dugdale’s Baronage of England is for the history of England.

(C. B.*)

ANSON, GEORGE ANSON, Baron (1697-1762), British admiral, was born on the 23rd of April 1697. He was the son of William Anson of Shugborough in Staffordshire, and his wife Isabella Carrier, who was the sister-in-law of Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, a relationship which proved very useful to the future admiral. George Anson entered the navy in February 1712, and by rapid steps became lieutenant in 1716, commander in 1722, and post-captain in 1724. In this rank he served twice on the North American station as captain of the “Scarborough” and the “Squirrel” from 1724 to 1730 and from 1733 to 1735. In 1737 he was appointed to the “Centurion,” 60, on the eve of war with Spain, and when hostilities had begun he was chosen to command as commodore the squadron which was sent to attack her possessions in South America in 1740. The original scheme was ambitious, and was not carried out. Anson’s squadron, which sailed later than had been intended, and was very ill-fitted, consisted of six ships, which were reduced by successive disasters to his flagship the “Centurion.” The lateness of the season forced him to round Cape Horn in very stormy weather, and the navigating instruments of the time did not allow of exact observation. Two of his vessels failed to round the Horn, another, the “Wager,” was wrecked in the Golfo de Pañas on the coast of Chile. By the time Anson reached the island of Juan Fernandez in June 1741, his six ships had been reduced to three, while the strength of his crews had fallen from 961 to 335. In the absence of any effective Spanish force on the coast he was able to harass the enemy, and to capture the town of Paita on the 13th-15th of November 1741. The steady diminution of his crew by sickness, and the worn-out state of his remaining consorts, compelled him at last to collect all the survivors in the “Centurion.” He rested at the island of Tinian, and then made his way to Macao in November 1742. After considerable difficulties with the Chinese, he sailed again with his one remaining vessel to cruise for one of the richly laden galleons which conducted the trade between Mexico and the Philippines. The indomitable perseverance he had shown during one of the most arduous voyages in the history of sea adventure was rewarded by the capture of an immensely rich prize, the “Nuestra Señora de Covadonga,” which was met off Cape Espiritu Santo on the 20th of June 1743. Anson took his prize back to Macao, sold her cargo to the Chinese, keeping the specie, and sailed for England, which he reached by the Cape of Good Hope on the 15th of June 1744. The prize-money earned by the capture of the galleon had made him a rich man for life, and under the influence of irritation caused by the 84 refusal of the admiralty to confirm a captain’s commission he had given to one of his officers, Anson refused the rank of rear-admiral, and was prepared to leave the service. His fame would stand nearly as high as it does if he had done so, but he would be a far less important figure in the history of the navy. By the world at large he is known as the commander of the voyage of circumnavigation, in which success was won by indomitable perseverance, unshaken firmness, and infinite resource. But he was also the severe and capable administrator who during years of hard work at the admiralty did more than any other to raise the navy from the state of corruption and indiscipline into which it had fallen during the first half of the eighteenth century. Great anger had been caused in the country by the condition of the fleet as revealed in the first part of the war with France and Spain, between 1739 and 1747. The need for reform was strongly felt, and the politicians of the day were conscious that it would not be safe to neglect the popular demand for it. In 1745 the duke of Bedford, the new first lord, invited Anson to join the admiralty with the rank of rear-admiral of the white. As subordinate under the duke, or Lord Sandwich, and as first lord himself, Anson was at the admiralty with one short break from 1745 till his death in 1762. His chiefs in the earlier years left him to take the initiative in all measures of reform, and supported him in their own interest. After 1751 he was himself first lord, except for a short time in 1756 and 1757. At his suggestion, or with his advice, the naval administration was thoroughly overhauled. The dockyards were brought into far better order, and though corruption was not banished, it was much reduced. The navy board was compelled to render accounts, a duty it had long neglected. A system of regulating promotion to flag rank, which has been in the main followed ever since, was introduced. The Navy Discipline Act was revised in 1749, and remained unaltered till 1865. Courts martial were put on a sound footing. Inspections of the fleet and the dockyards were established, and the corps of Marines was created in 1755. The progressive improvement which raised the navy to the high state of efficiency it attained in later years dates from Anson’s presence at the admiralty. In 1747 he, without ceasing to be a member of the board, commanded the Channel fleet which on the 3rd of May scattered a large French convoy bound to the East, and West Indies, in an action off Cape Finisterre. Several men-of-war and armed French Indiamen were taken, but the overwhelming superiority of Anson’s fleet (fourteen men-of-war, to six men-of-war and four Indiamen) in the number and weight of ships deprives the action of any strong claim to be considered remarkable. In society Anson seems to have been cold and taciturn. The sneers of Horace Walpole, and the savage attack of Smollett in The Adventures of an Atom, are animated by personal or political spite. Yet they would not have accused him of defects from which he was notoriously free. In political life he may sometimes have given too ready assent to the wishes of powerful politicians. He married the daughter of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke on the 27th of April 1748. There were no children of the marriage. His title of Baron Anson of Soberton was given him in 1747, but became extinct on his death. The title of Viscount Anson was, however, created in 1806 in favour of his great-nephew, the grandson of his sister Janetta and Mr Sambrook Adams, whose father had assumed the name and arms of Anson. The earldom of Lichfield was conferred on the family in the next generation. A fine portrait of the admiral by Reynolds is in the possession of the earl of Lichfield, and there are copies in the National Portrait Gallery and at Greenwich. Anson’s promotions in flag rank were: rear-admiral in 1745, vice-admiral in 1746, and admiral in 1748. In 1749 he became vice-admiral of Great Britain, and in 1761 admiral of the fleet. He died on the 6th of June 1762.

ANSON, GEORGE ANSON, Baron (1697-1762), British admiral, was born on April 23, 1697. He was the son of William Anson of Shugborough in Staffordshire and Isabella Carrier, who was the sister-in-law of Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, a connection that proved very useful to the future admiral. George Anson joined the navy in February 1712, quickly rising to lieutenant in 1716, commander in 1722, and post-captain in 1724. As a captain, he served twice on the North American station, in command of the “Scarborough” and the “Squirrel” from 1724 to 1730 and from 1733 to 1735. In 1737, he was assigned to the “Centurion,” 60, just before the war with Spain began, and once hostilities started, he was chosen to command the squadron sent to attack Spanish possessions in South America in 1740. The original plan was ambitious, but it wasn’t fully executed. Anson’s squadron, which left later than intended and was poorly equipped, started with six ships but was reduced to his flagship, the “Centurion,” due to various disasters. The late season forced him to round Cape Horn in very stormy weather, and the navigational instruments of that time did not allow for accurate observations. Two of his ships could not round the Horn, and another, the “Wager,” was wrecked on the coast of Chile in the Golfo de Pañas. By the time Anson reached Juan Fernandez Island in June 1741, his fleet had shrunk from six ships to three, and his crew had diminished from 961 to 335. With no effective Spanish forces on the coast, he was able to disrupt the enemy and capture the town of Paita from November 13-15, 1741. The ongoing losses in his crew due to illness and the poor condition of his remaining ships forced him to consolidate all survivors on the “Centurion.” He rested at Tinian Island before making his way to Macao in November 1742. After facing significant challenges with the Chinese, he set sail again with his last vessel to hunt for one of the gold-filled galleons that traded between Mexico and the Philippines. His relentless perseverance during one of the most challenging voyages in maritime history was rewarded with the capture of a tremendously wealthy prize, the “Nuestra Señora de Covadonga,” encountered off Cape Espiritu Santo on June 20, 1743. Anson returned his prize to Macao, sold the cargo to the Chinese while keeping the precious metal, and sailed for England, reaching it via the Cape of Good Hope on June 15, 1744. The prize money from capturing the galleon made him wealthy for life, and due to his frustration over the admiralty's refusal to confirm a captain’s commission he had given to one of his officers, Anson declined the title of rear-admiral and considered leaving the service. His reputation would remain high had he done so, but he would have been a much less significant figure in naval history. Widely recognized as the commander of the circumnavigation voyage, his success was attributed to relentless perseverance, unwavering determination, and resourcefulness. However, he was also a strict and capable administrator who, during years of hard work at the admiralty, did more than anyone else to elevate the navy from the corruption and disarray it had fallen into during the early 18th century. The state of the fleet had incited great anger among the public, especially following the first part of the war with France and Spain from 1739 to 1747. There was a strong push for reform, and politicians of that time recognized it was essential to address the popular demand for change. In 1745, the Duke of Bedford, the new first lord, invited Anson to join the admiralty as rear-admiral of the white. Serving under the Duke or Lord Sandwich, as well as being the first lord himself, Anson remained at the admiralty with only a brief break from 1745 until his death in 1762. His superiors in the earlier years allowed him to take the lead in all reform measures and supported him for their own benefit. After 1751, he became the first lord, except for a brief time in 1756 and 1757. With his guidance, the naval administration underwent a complete overhaul. The dockyards were significantly improved, and while corruption persisted, it was greatly reduced. The navy board was required to submit accounts, a responsibility it had long neglected. A system was introduced to regulate promotions to flag rank, which has largely remained in place ever since. The Navy Discipline Act was revised in 1749 and stayed unchanged until 1865. Courts martial were established properly, fleet inspections and dockyard assessments were put in place, and the Marine Corps was formed in 1755. The progressive advancements that improved the navy to a high level of efficiency were initiated during Anson’s tenure at the admiralty. In 1747, without losing his position on the board, he commanded the Channel fleet, which on May 3 scattered a large French convoy headed to the East and West Indies in an engagement off Cape Finisterre. Several French ships and armed Indiamen were captured, but the overwhelming numerical superiority of Anson’s fleet (fourteen men-of-war versus six men-of-war and four Indiamen) means the battle lacks strong claims to historical significance. In social circles, Anson appeared cold and reserved. The mocking remarks of Horace Walpole and the harsh critique from Smollett in The Adventures of an Atom stem from personal or political animosity. However, they could not accuse him of flaws he was famously free of. In politics, he might have too readily agreed with influential politicians. He married the daughter of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke on April 27, 1748, and they had no children. He was awarded the title of Baron Anson of Soberton in 1747, but it became extinct upon his death. However, the title of Viscount Anson was created in 1806 for his great-nephew, the grandson of his sister Janetta and Mr. Sambrook Adams, whose father had adopted the name and arms of Anson. The earldom of Lichfield was granted to the family in the next generation. A beautiful portrait of the admiral by Reynolds is held by the Earl of Lichfield, with copies in the National Portrait Gallery and at Greenwich. Anson’s promotions in flag rank included: rear-admiral in 1745, vice-admiral in 1746, and admiral in 1748. He became vice-admiral of Great Britain in 1749 and admiral of the fleet in 1761. He died on June 6, 1762.

A life of Lord Anson, inaccurate in some details but valuable and interesting, was published by Sir John Barrow in 1839. The standard account of his voyage round the world is that by his chaplain Richard Walter, 1748, often reprinted. A share in the work has been claimed on dubious grounds for Benjamin Robins, the mathematician. Another and much inferior account was published in 1745 by Pascoe Thomas, the schoolmaster of the “Centurion.”

A biography of Lord Anson, which is not entirely accurate in some details but is still valuable and interesting, was published by Sir John Barrow in 1839. The definitive account of his journey around the world is by his chaplain Richard Walter, published in 1748, and it has been reprinted many times. Some have claimed, on shaky evidence, that mathematician Benjamin Robins contributed to the work. An inferior version was published in 1745 by Pascoe Thomas, the schoolmaster of the “Centurion.”

(D. H.)

ANSON, SIR WILLIAM REYNELL, Bart. (1843-  ), English jurist, was born on the 14th of November 1843, at Walberton, Sussex, son of the second baronet. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, he took a first class in the final classical schools in 1866, and was elected to a fellowship of All Souls in the following year. In 1869 he was called to the bar, and went the home circuit until 1873, when he succeeded to the baronetcy. In 1874 he became Vinerian reader in English law at Oxford, a post which he held until he became, in 1881, warden of All Souls College. He identified himself both with local and university interests; he became an alderman of the city of Oxford in 1892, chairman of quarter sessions for the county in 1894, was vice-chancellor of the university in 1898-1899, and chancellor of the diocese of Oxford in 1899. In that year he was returned, without opposition, as M.P. for the university in the Liberal Unionist interest, and consequently resigned the vice-chancellorship. In parliament he preserved an active interest in education, being a member of the newly created consultative committee of the Board of Education in 1900, and in 1902 he became parliamentary secretary. He took an active part in the foundation of a school of law at Oxford, and his volumes on The Principles of the English Law of Contract, (1884, 11th ed. 1906), and on The Law and Custom of the Constitution in two parts, “The Parliament” and “The Crown” (1886-1892. 3rd ed. 1907, pt. i. vol. ii.), are standard works.

ANSON, SIR WILLIAM REYNELL, Bart. (1843-  ), English jurist, was born on November 14, 1843, in Walberton, Sussex, the son of the second baronet. He was educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, where he earned a first-class degree in the final classical schools in 1866 and was elected to a fellowship at All Souls the following year. In 1869, he was called to the bar and practiced on the home circuit until 1873, when he inherited the baronetcy. In 1874, he became the Vinerian reader in English law at Oxford, a position he held until he became warden of All Souls College in 1881. He engaged with both local and university interests; he became an alderman of the city of Oxford in 1892, chairman of quarter sessions for the county in 1894, served as vice-chancellor of the university from 1898 to 1899, and became chancellor of the diocese of Oxford in 1899. That year, he was elected unopposed as M.P. for the university as a Liberal Unionist, prompting his resignation as vice-chancellor. In parliament, he remained actively involved in education, becoming a member of the newly established consultative committee of the Board of Education in 1900, and in 1902 he became parliamentary secretary. He played a significant role in establishing a school of law at Oxford, and his books on The Principles of the English Law of Contract (1884, 11th ed. 1906) and The Law and Custom of the Constitution in two parts, “The Parliament” and “The Crown” (1886-1892, 3rd ed. 1907, pt. i. vol. ii.) are regarded as standard works.


ANSONIA, a city of New Haven county, Connecticut, U.S.A., coextensive with the township of the same name, on the Naugatuck river, immediately N. of Derby and about 12 m. N.W. of New Haven. It is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway, and by interurban electric lines running N., S. and E. Pop. (1900) 12,681, of whom 4296 were foreign born; (1910 census) 13,152. Land area about 5.4 sq. m. The city has extensive manufactures of heavy machinery, electric supplies, brass and copper products and silk goods. In 1905 the capital invested in manufacturing was $7,625,864, and the value of the products was $19,132,455. Ansonia, Derby and Shelton form one of the most important industrial communities in the state. The city, settled in 1840 and named in honour of the merchant and philanthropist, Anson Green Phelps (1781-1853), was originally a part of the township of Derby; it was chartered as a borough in 1864 and as a city in 1893, when the township of Ansonia, which had been incorporated in 1889, and the city were consolidated.

ANSONIA, is a city in New Haven County, Connecticut, U.S.A., and is the same as the township with the same name, located on the Naugatuck River, just north of Derby and about 12 miles northwest of New Haven. It is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railway, as well as by interurban electric lines running north, south, and east. The population was 12,681 in 1900, with 4,296 foreign-born residents; the 1910 census recorded 13,152. The land area is about 5.4 square miles. The city has a strong manufacturing sector that produces heavy machinery, electrical supplies, brass and copper products, and silk goods. In 1905, the capital invested in manufacturing was $7,625,864, and the value of the products was $19,132,455. Ansonia, Derby, and Shelton make up one of the most significant industrial areas in the state. The city was settled in 1840 and named after the merchant and philanthropist Anson Green Phelps (1781-1853). It was originally part of Derby township; it was chartered as a borough in 1864 and as a city in 1893, when the township of Ansonia, which had been incorporated in 1889, and the city were combined.


ANSTED, DAVID THOMAS (1814-1880), English geologist, was born in London on the 5th of February 1814. He was educated at Jesus College, Cambridge, and after taking his degree of M.A. in 1839 was elected to a fellowship of the college. Inspired by the teachings of Adam Sedgwick, his attention was given to geology, and in 1840 he was elected professor of geology in King’s College, London, a post which he held until 1853. Meanwhile he became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1844, and from that date until 1847 he was vice-secretary of the Geological Society and edited its Quarterly Journal. The practical side of geology now came to occupy his chief attention, and he visited various parts of Europe and the British Islands as a consulting geologist and mining engineer. He was also in 1868 and for many years examiner in physical geography to the science and art department. He died at Melton near Woodbridge, on the 13th of May 1880.

ANSTED, DAVID THOMAS (1814-1880), English geologist, was born in London on February 5, 1814. He studied at Jesus College, Cambridge, and after earning his M.A. degree in 1839, he was elected to a fellowship at the college. Inspired by Adam Sedgwick's teachings, he focused on geology and was appointed professor of geology at King’s College, London in 1840, a position he held until 1853. In 1844, he became a fellow of the Royal Society, and from that time until 1847, he served as vice-secretary of the Geological Society and edited its Quarterly Journal. He then concentrated more on the practical side of geology, visiting various regions in Europe and the British Isles as a consulting geologist and mining engineer. He also served as an examiner in physical geography for the science and art department starting in 1868 and continued for many years. He passed away in Melton near Woodbridge on May 13, 1880.

Publications.—Geology, Introductory, Descriptive and Practical (2 vols., 1844); The Ionian Islands (1863); The Applications of Geology to the Arts and Manufactures (1865); Physical Geography (1867); Water and Water Supply (Surface Water) (1878); and The Channel Islands (with R.G. Latham) (1862).

Publications.—Geology, Introductory, Descriptive and Practical (2 vols., 1844); The Ionian Islands (1863); The Applications of Geology to the Arts and Manufactures (1865); Physical Geography (1867); Water and Water Supply (Surface Water) (1878); and The Channel Islands (with R.G. Latham) (1862).


ANSTEY, CHRISTOPHER (1724-1805), English poet, was the son of the rector of Brinkley, Cambridgeshire, where he was born on the 31st of October 1724. He was educated at Eton and King’s College, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself for his Latin verses. He became a fellow of his college (1745); but the degree of M.A. was withheld from him, owing to the offence caused by a speech made by him beginning: “Doctores sine doctrina, magistri artium sine artibus, et baccalaurei baculo potius quam lauro digni.” In 1754 he succeeded to the family 85 estates and left Cambridge; and two years later he married the daughter of Felix Calvert of Albury Hall, Herts. For some time Anstey published nothing of any note, though he cultivated letters as well as his estates. Some visits to Bath, however, where later, in 1770, he made his permanent home, resulted in 1766 in his famous rhymed letters, The New Bath Guide or Memoirs of the B ... r ... d [Blunderhead] Family ..., which had immediate success, and was enthusiastically praised for its original kind of humour by Walpole and Gray. The Election Ball, in Poetical Letters from Mr Inkle at Bath to his Wife at Gloucester (1776) sustained the reputation won by the Guide. Anstey’s other productions in verse and prose are now forgotten. He died on the 3rd of August 1805. His Poetical Works were collected in 1808 (2 vols.) by the author’s son John (d. 1819), himself author of The Pleader’s Guide (1796), in the same vein with the New Bath Guide.

ANSTEY, CHRISTOPHER (1724-1805), an English poet, was the son of the rector of Brinkley, Cambridgeshire, where he was born on October 31, 1724. He was educated at Eton and King’s College, Cambridge, where he stood out for his Latin poetry. He became a fellow of his college in 1745, but he was denied the M.A. degree due to a speech he gave that started: “Doctors without knowledge, masters of arts without skills, and bachelors more deserving of a stick than a laurel.” In 1754, he inherited the family estates and left Cambridge; two years later, he married the daughter of Felix Calvert of Albury Hall, Herts. For a while, Anstey published nothing significant, though he engaged in literary pursuits alongside managing his estates. Some visits to Bath, where he ultimately settled in 1770, led to the publication of his famous rhymed letters in 1766, The New Bath Guide or Memoirs of the B ... r ... d [Blunderhead] Family, which was an immediate success and praised for its unique humor by Walpole and Gray. The Election Ball, in Poetical Letters from Mr. Inkle at Bath to his Wife at Gloucester (1776) upheld the reputation made by the Guide. Anstey’s other works in verse and prose are now forgotten. He died on August 3, 1805. His Poetical Works were compiled in 1808 (2 vols.) by his son John (d. 1819), who also wrote The Pleader’s Guide (1796), similar in style to the New Bath Guide.


ANSTRUTHER (locally pronounced Anster), a seaport of Fifeshire, Scotland. It comprises the royal and police burghs of Anstruther Easter (pop. 1190), Anstruther Wester (501) and Kilrenny (2542), and lies 9 m. S.S.E. of St Andrews, having a station on the North British railway company’s branch line from Thornton Junction to St Andrews. The chief industries include coast and deep-sea fisheries, shipbuilding, tanning, the making of cod-liver oil and fish-curing. The harbour was completed in 1877 at a cost of £80,000. The two Anstruthers are divided only by a small stream called Dreel Burn. James Melville (1556-1614), nephew of the more celebrated reformer, Andrew Melville, who was minister of Kilrenny, has given in his Diary a graphic account of the arrival at Anstruther of a weatherbound ship of the Armada, and the tradition of the intermixture of Spanish and Fifeshire blood still prevails in the district. Anstruther fair supplied William Tennant (1784-1848), who was born and buried in the town, with the subject of his poem of “Anster Fair.” Sir James Lumsden, a soldier of fortune under Gustavus Adolphus, who distinguished himself in the Thirty Years’ War, was born in the parish of Kilrenny about 1598. David Martin (1737-1798), the painter and engraver; Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), the great divine; and John Goodsir (1814-1867), the anatomist, were natives of Anstruther. Little more than a mile to the west lies the royal and police burgh of Pittenweem (Gaelic, “the hollow of the cave”), a quaint old fishing town (pop. 1863), with the remains of a priory. About 2 m. still farther westwards is the fishing town of St Monans or Abercromby (pop. 1898), with a fine old Gothic church, picturesquely perched on the rocky shore. These fisher towns on the eastern and south-eastern coasts of Fifeshire furnish artists with endless subjects. Archibald Constable (1774-1827), Sir Walter Scott’s publisher, was born in the parish of Carnbee, about 3 m. to the north of Pittenweem. The two Anstruthers, Kilrenny and Pittenweem unite with St Andrews, Cupar and Crail, in sending one member to parliament.

ANSTRUTHER (locally pronounced Anster) is a seaport in Fife, Scotland. It includes the royal and police burghs of Anstruther Easter (population 1,190), Anstruther Wester (501), and Kilrenny (2,542), and is located 9 miles south-southeast of St Andrews, with a station on the North British Railway’s branch line from Thornton Junction to St Andrews. The main industries are coast and deep-sea fishing, shipbuilding, tanning, cod-liver oil production, and fish-curing. The harbor was finished in 1877 at a cost of £80,000. The two Anstruthers are separated only by a small stream called Dreel Burn. James Melville (1556-1614), the nephew of the more famous reformer Andrew Melville, who was the minister of Kilrenny, provides a vivid account in his Diary of a weatherbound ship from the Armada arriving in Anstruther, and the tradition of Spanish and Fifeshire blood mixing still exists in the area. Anstruther fair inspired William Tennant (1784-1848), who was born and buried in the town, to write his poem “Anster Fair.” Sir James Lumsden, a soldier of fortune under Gustavus Adolphus who made a name for himself in the Thirty Years’ War, was born in the parish of Kilrenny around 1598. David Martin (1737-1798), the painter and engraver; Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a prominent theologian; and John Goodsir (1814-1867), the anatomist, were all born in Anstruther. Just over a mile to the west is the royal and police burgh of Pittenweem (Gaelic for “the hollow of the cave”), a charming old fishing town (population 1,863) with remnants of a priory. About 2 miles further west is the fishing town of St Monans or Abercromby (population 1,898), known for its beautiful old Gothic church, which is dramatically situated on the rocky shore. These fishing towns on the eastern and southeastern coasts of Fife provide endless inspiration for artists. Archibald Constable (1774-1827), Sir Walter Scott’s publisher, was born in the parish of Carnbee, about 3 miles north of Pittenweem. The two Anstruthers, Kilrenny, and Pittenweem join St Andrews, Cupar, and Crail to elect one member to Parliament.


ANSWER (derived from and, against, and the same root as swear), originally a solemn assertion in opposition to some one or something, and thus generally any counter-statement or defence, a reply to a question or objection, or a correct solution of a problem. In English law, the “answer” in pleadings was, previous to the Judicature Acts 1873-1875, the statement of defence, especially as regards the facts and not the law. Its place is now taken by a “statement of defence.” “Answer” is the term still applied in divorce proceedings to the reply of the respondent (see Pleading). The famous Latin Responsa Prudentum (“answers of the learned”) were the accumulated views of many successive generations of Roman lawyers, a body of legal opinion which gradually became authoritative. In music an “answer” is the technical name in counterpoint for the repetition by one part or instrument of a theme proposed by another.

ANSWER (derived from and, against, and the same root as swear), originally referred to a formal statement made in opposition to someone or something. It generally means any counter-statement or defense, a response to a question or objection, or a correct solution to a problem. In English law, the “answer” in pleadings used to refer to the statement of defense, especially regarding the facts rather than the law, prior to the Judicature Acts of 1873-1875. It has now been replaced by a “statement of defense.” “Answer” is still the term used in divorce cases for the response of the respondent (see Pleading). The well-known Latin phrase Responsa Prudentum (“answers of the learned”) represents the collected opinions of many generations of Roman lawyers, which gradually became an authoritative body of legal opinion. In music, an “answer” is the technical term in counterpoint for the repetition by one part or instrument of a theme introduced by another.


ANT (O. Eng. aémete, from Teutonic a, privative, and maitan, cut or bite off, i.e. “the biter off”; aémete in Middle English became differentiated in dialect use to amete, then amte, and so ant, and also to emete, whence the synonym “emmet,” now only used provincially, “ant” being the general literary form). The fact that the name of the ant has come down in English from a thousand years ago shows that this class of insects impressed the old inhabitants of England as they impressed the Hebrews and Greeks. The social instincts and industrious habits of ants have always made them favourite objects of study, and a vast amount of literature has accumulated on the subject of their structure and their modes of life.

ANT (Old English aémete, from Teutonic a, meaning "not" or "without," and maitan, meaning to cut or bite off, i.e. “the biter off”; aémete in Middle English evolved through various dialects into amete, then amte, and finally ant, and also transformed into emete, leading to the synonym "emmet," which is now mainly used in certain regions, while “ant” remains the standard literary term). The fact that the name for the ant has been used in English for over a thousand years shows that these insects left a strong impression on the early inhabitants of England, much like they did on the Hebrews and Greeks. The social behavior and hard-working nature of ants have always made them popular subjects for study, resulting in a significant amount of literature focused on their structure and lifestyles.

Characters.—An ant is easily recognized both by the casual observer and by the student of insects. Ants form a distinct and natural family (Formicidae) of the great order Hymenoptera, to which bees, wasps and sawflies also belong. The insects of this order have mandibles adapted for biting, and two pairs of membranous wings are usually present; the first abdominal segment (propodeum) becomes closely associated with the fore-body (thorax), of which it appears to form a part. In all ants the second (apparently the first) abdominal segment is very markedly constricted at its front and hind edges, so that it forms a “node” at the base of the hind-body (fig. 1), and in many ants the third abdominal segment is similarly “nodular” in form (fig. 3, b, c). It is this peculiar “waist” that catches the eye of the observer, and makes the insects so easy of recognition. Another conspicuous and well-known feature of ants is the wingless condition of the “workers,” as the specialized females, with undeveloped ovaries, which form the largest proportion of the population of ant-communities, are called. Such “workers” are essential to the formation of a social community of Hymenoptera, and their wingless condition among the ants shows that their specialization has been carried further in this family than among the wasps and bees. Further, while among wasps and bees we find some solitary and some social genera, the ants as a family are social, though some aberrant species are dependent on the workers of other ants. It is interesting and suggestive that in a few families of digging Hymenoptera (such as the Mutillidae), allied to the ants, the females are wingless. The perfect female or “queen” ants (figs. 1, 1, 3, a) often cast their wings (fig. 3, b) after the nuptial flight; in a few species the females, and in still fewer the males, never develop wings. (For the so-called “white ants,” which belong to an order far removed from the Hymenoptera, see Termite.)

Characters.—An ant is easily recognized by both casual observers and insect enthusiasts. Ants belong to a distinct and natural family (Formicidae) within the larger order Hymenoptera, which also includes bees, wasps, and sawflies. Insects in this order have mandibles suited for biting, and they usually have two pairs of membranous wings; the first abdominal segment (propodeum) is closely linked to the thorax, appearing to be a part of it. In all ants, the second abdominal segment (which looks like the first) is clearly constricted at both the front and back edges, forming a "node" at the base of the hind-body (fig. 1), and in many ants, the third abdominal segment also has a "nodular" shape (fig. 3, b, c). This unique "waist" is what catches the eye of observers, making it easy to identify the insects. Another noticeable feature of ants is that the "workers"—the specialized females with underdeveloped ovaries that make up the majority of the ant population—are wingless. These "workers" are vital for creating a social community among Hymenoptera, and their wingless state in ants indicates that their specialization has progressed further in this family compared to wasps and bees. Additionally, while there are solitary and social genera among wasps and bees, ants as a whole are social, although some unusual species rely on the workers of other ants. It's noteworthy that in a few families of digging Hymenoptera (like the Mutillidae), which are related to ants, the females are also wingless. The perfect female or "queen" ants (figs. 1, 1, 3, a) often shed their wings (fig. 3, b) after their mating flight; in a few species, the females, and in even fewer, the males, never grow wings. (For the so-called "white ants," which are from a different order than the Hymenoptera, see Termite.)

Fig. 1.—Wood Ant (Formica rufa). 1, Queen; 2, male; 3, worker.

Structure.—The head of an ant carries a pair of elbowed feelers, each consisting of a minute basal and an elongate second segment, forming the stalk or “scape,” while from eight to eleven short segments make up the terminal “flagellum.” These segments are abundantly supplied with elongate tooth-like projections connected with nerve-endings probably olfactory in function. The brain is well developed and its “mushroom-bodies” are exceptionally large. The mandibles, which are frequently used for carrying various objects, are situated well to the outside of the maxillae, so that they can be opened and shut without interfering with the latter. The peculiar form and arrangement of the anterior abdominal segments have already been described. The fourth abdominal segment is often very large, and forms the greater part of the hind-body; this segment is markedly constricted at its basal (forward) end, where it is embraced by the small third segment. In many of those ants whose third abdominal segment forms a second “node,” the basal dorsal region of the fourth segment is traversed by a large number of very fine transverse striations; over these the sharp hinder edge of the third segment can be scraped to and fro, and the result is a stridulating organ which gives rise to a note of very high pitch. For the appreciation of the sounds made by these stridulators, the ants are furnished with delicate organs of hearing (chordotonal organs) in the head, in the three thoracic and two of the abdominal segments and in the shins of the legs.

Structure.—The head of an ant has a pair of bent feelers, each made up of a tiny base and a long second segment, which forms the stalk or “scape.” From eight to eleven short segments create the end part called the “flagellum.” These segments are filled with long, tooth-like projections linked to nerve endings that are likely used for smell. The brain is well-developed, and its “mushroom-bodies” are notably large. The mandibles, which are often used to carry different objects, are positioned well outside the maxillae, allowing them to open and close without obstructing the latter. The unusual shape and arrangement of the front abdominal segments have already been detailed. The fourth abdominal segment is often quite large and makes up most of the hind body; this segment is noticeably constricted at its front end, where it is held by the small third segment. In many ants where the third abdominal segment acts as a second “node,” the base of the fourth segment has numerous very fine cross stripes; the sharp edge of the third segment can scrape over these, creating a stridulating organ that produces a very high-pitched sound. To perceive the sounds made by these stridulators, ants are equipped with sensitive hearing organs (chordotonal organs) in their heads, as well as in the three thoracic segments, two abdominal segments, and their leg shins.

86

86

The hinder abdominal segments and the stings of the queens and workers resemble those of other stinging Hymenoptera. But there are several subfamilies of ants whose females have the lancets of the sting useless for piercing, although the poison-glands are functional, their secretion being ejected by the insect, when occasion may arise, from the greatly enlarged reservoir, the reduced sting acting as a squirt.

The back abdominal segments and the stings of the queens and workers look like those of other stinging Hymenoptera. However, there are several subfamilies of ants where the females have stings that aren't effective for piercing, even though the poison glands work fine. When the situation calls for it, the insect can release the secretion from a greatly enlarged reservoir, with the reduced sting functioning like a squirt.

Nests.—The nests of different kinds of ants are constructed in very different situations; many species (Lasius, for example) make underground nests; galleries and chambers being hollowed out in the soil, and opening by small holes on the surface, or protected above by a large stone. The wood ant (Formica rufa, fig. 1) piles up a heap of leaves, twigs and other vegetable refuse, so arranged as to form an orderly series of galleries, though the structure appears at first sight a chaotic heap. Species of Camponotus and many other ants tunnel in wood. In tropical countries ants sometimes make their nests in the hollow thorns of trees or on leaves; species with this habit are believed to make a return to the tree for the shelter that it affords by protecting it from the ravages of other insects, including their own leaf-cutting relations.

Nests.—Different types of ants build their nests in a variety of locations. Many species, like Lasius, create underground nests, digging out galleries and chambers in the soil that connect to small openings on the surface, sometimes covered by a large stone. The wood ant (Formica rufa, fig. 1) gathers a pile of leaves, twigs, and other plant debris, organized into a neat layout of galleries, even though it looks like a messy heap at first. Species of Camponotus and many other ants dig tunnels in wood. In tropical regions, ants sometimes build their nests in the hollow thorns of trees or on leaves. It’s believed that these species give back to the tree for the shelter it provides by protecting it from other insects, including their own leaf-cutting relatives.

Early Stages.—The larvae of ants (fig. 3, e) are legless and helpless maggots with very small heads (fig. 3, f), into whose mouths the requisite food has to be forced by the assiduous “nurse” workers. The maggots are tended by these nurses with the greatest care, and carried to those parts of the nest most favourable for their health and growth. When fully grown, the maggot spins an oval silken cocoon within which it pupates (fig. 3, g). These cocoons, which may often be seen carried between the mandibles of the workers, are the “ants’ eggs” prized as food for fish and pheasants. The workers of a Ceylonese ant (Oecophylla smaragdina) are stated by D. Sharp to hold the maggots between their mandibles and induce them to spin together the leaves of trees from which they form their shelters, as the adult ants have no silk-producing organs.

Early Stages.—Ant larvae (fig. 3, e) are legless and helpless, looking like tiny maggots with very small heads (fig. 3, f), and they rely on diligent “nurse” workers to feed them. These nurse ants care for the maggots meticulously, moving them to the areas of the nest that are best for their health and growth. Once fully developed, the maggot spins an oval silk cocoon and pupates inside it (fig. 3, g). These cocoons, often seen being carried by the workers in their mandibles, are the “ants’ eggs” that are sought after as food for fish and pheasants. According to D. Sharp, the workers of a Ceylonese ant (Oecophylla smaragdina) hold the maggots between their mandibles and encourage them to weave together tree leaves to make their shelters, since adult ants don’t have silk-producing organs.

Origin of Societies.—Ant-colonies are founded either by a single female or by several in association. The foundress of the nest lays eggs and at first feeds and rears the larvae, the earliest of which develop into workers. C. Janet observed that in a nest of Lasius alienus, established by a single female, the first workers emerged from their cocoons on the 102nd day. These workers then take on themselves the labour of the colony, some collecting food, which they transfer to their comrades within the nest whose duty is to tend and feed the larvae. The foundress-queen is now waited on by the workers, who supply her with food and spare her all cares of work, so that henceforth she may devote her whole energies to egg-laying. The population of the colony increases fast, and a well-grown nest contains several “queens” and males, besides a large number of workers. One of the most interesting features of ant-societies is the dimorphism or polymorphism that may often be seen among the workers, the same species being represented by two or more forms. Thus the British “wood ant” (Formica rufa) has a smaller and a larger race of workers (“minor” and “major” forms), while in Ponera we find a blind race of workers and another race provided with eyes, and in Atta, Eciton and other genera, four or five forms of workers are produced, the largest of which, with huge heads and elongate trenchant mandibles, are known as the “soldier” caste. The development of such diversely-formed insects as the offspring of the unmodified females which show none of their peculiarities raises many points of difficulty for students in heredity. It is thought that the differences are, in part at least, due to differences in the nature of the food supplied to larvae, which are apparently all alike. But the ovaries of worker ants are in some cases sufficiently developed for the production of eggs, which may give rise parthenogenetically to male, queen or worker offspring.

Origin of Societies.—Ant colonies are started either by a single female or by several females working together. The founder of the nest lays eggs and initially feeds and raises the larvae, the first of which grow into workers. C. Janet noted that in a nest of Lasius alienus, founded by a single female, the first workers emerged from their cocoons on the 102nd day. These workers then take on the tasks of the colony, some gathering food, which they share with others in the nest whose job is to care for and feed the larvae. The founding queen is now taken care of by the workers, who provide her with food and relieve her from all tasks, allowing her to focus entirely on laying eggs. The colony's population grows rapidly, and a well-established nest can have several “queens” and males, along with a large number of workers. One of the most fascinating aspects of ant societies is the dimorphism or polymorphism often seen among the workers, where the same species can have two or more forms. For instance, the British “wood ant” (Formica rufa) has both smaller and larger worker races (“minor” and “major” forms), while in Ponera there are blind workers and others with eyes, and in Atta, Eciton, and other genera, four or five forms of workers are produced, the largest of which, with large heads and elongated sharp mandibles, are referred to as the “soldier” caste. The emergence of such differently-shaped insects from unmodified females that don't display these traits poses many challenges for scientists studying heredity. It is believed that some of these differences are at least partly due to variations in the food provided to the larvae, which appear identical. However, the ovaries of worker ants can sometimes be sufficiently developed to produce eggs, which can develop parthenogenetically into male, queen, or worker offspring.

Food.—Different kinds of ants vary greatly in the substances which they use for food. Honey forms the staple nourishment of many ants, some of the workers seeking nectar from flowers, working it up into honey within their stomachs and regurgitating it so as to feed their comrades within the nest, who, in their turn, pass it on to the grubs. A curious specialization of certain workers in connexion with the transference of honey has been demonstrated by H.C. McCook in the American genus Myrmecocystus, and by later observers in Australian and African species of Plagiolepis and allied genera. The workers in question remain within the nest, suspended by their feet, and serve as living honey-pots for the colony, becoming so distended by the supplies of honey poured into their mouths by their foraging comrades that their abdomens become sub-globular, the pale intersegmental membrane being tightly stretched between the widely-separated dark sclerites. The “nurse” workers in the nest can then draw their supplies from these “honey-pots.” Very many ants live by preying upon various insects, such as the British “red ants” with well-developed stings (Myrmica rubra), and the notorious “driver ants” of Africa and America, the old-world species of which belong to Dorylus and allied genera, and the new-world species to Eciton (fig. 2, 2, 3). In these ants the difference between the large, heavy, winged males and females, and the small, long-legged, active workers, is so great, that various forms of the same species have been often referred to distinct genera; in Eciton, for example, the female has a single petiolate abdominal segment, the worker two. The workers of these ants range over the country in large armies, killing and carrying off all the insects and spiders that they find and sometimes attacking vertebrates. They have been known to enter human dwellings, removing all the verminous insects contained therein. These driver ants shelter in temporary nests made in hollow trees or similar situations, where the insects may be seen, according to T. Belt, “clustered together in a dense mass like a great swarm of bees hanging from the roof.”

Food.—Different types of ants significantly differ in what they eat. Honey is the main food source for many ants; some workers gather nectar from flowers, transform it into honey in their stomachs, and then regurgitate it to feed their fellow ants in the nest, who then pass it on to the larvae. A fascinating specialization among certain workers related to honey transfer has been shown by H.C. McCook in the American genus Myrmecocystus, and later by observers in Australian and African species of Plagiolepis and similar genera. These workers stay in the nest, hanging by their feet, and act as living honey pots for the colony, becoming so swollen from the honey offered by their foraging teammates that their abdomens become almost round, with the pale membranes between their dark segments stretched tight. The “nurse” workers in the nest then take their food from these “honey pots.” Many ants survive by preying on various insects, such as the British red ants with well-developed stings (Myrmica rubra), and the infamous driver ants of Africa and America, with old-world species belonging to Dorylus and similar genera, while new-world species belong to Eciton (fig. 2, 2, 3). In these ants, the difference between the large, heavy winged males and females and the small, active, long-legged workers is so pronounced that different forms of the same species have often been categorized as distinct genera; for instance, in Eciton, the female has a single stalk-like abdominal segment, while the worker has two. The workers of these ants travel in large groups, killing and taking all the insects and spiders they encounter and sometimes attacking vertebrates. They have been known to invade human homes, removing all the pest insects found inside. These driver ants build temporary nests in hollow trees or similar locations, where they can be seen, according to T. Belt, “clustered together in a dense mass like a huge swarm of bees hanging from the ceiling.”

Fig. 2.—Leaf-cutting and Foraging Ants. 1. Atta cephalus; 2. Eciton drepanophora; 3. Eciton erratica.

The harvesting habits of certain ants have long been known, the subterranean store-houses of Mediterranean species of Aphaenogaster having been described by J.T. Moggridge and A. Forel, and the complex industries of the Texan Pogonomyrmex barbatus by H.C. McCook and W.M. Wheeler. The colonies of Aphaenogaster occupy nests extending over an area of fifty to a hundred square yards several feet below the surface of the ground. Into these underground chambers the ants carry seeds of grasses and other plants of which they accumulate large stores. The species of Pogonomyrmex strip the husks from the seeds and carry them out of the nest, making a refuse heap near the entrance. The seeds are harvested from various grasses, especially from Aristida oligantha, a species known as “ant rice,” which often grows in quantity close to the site selected for the nest, but the statement that the ants deliberately sow this grass is an error, due, according to Wheeler, to the sprouting of germinating seeds which the ants have turned out of their store-chambers.

The harvesting habits of certain ants have been known for a long time, with the underground storage areas of Mediterranean species of Aphaenogaster described by J.T. Moggridge and A. Forel, and the complex behaviors of the Texan Pogonomyrmex barbatus detailed by H.C. McCook and W.M. Wheeler. The colonies of Aphaenogaster have nests that spread over an area of fifty to a hundred square yards several feet below ground. The ants carry seeds of grasses and other plants into these underground chambers, where they build up large stores. The Pogonomyrmex species remove the husks from the seeds and take them out of the nest, creating a trash pile near the entrance. They collect seeds from various grasses, especially Aristida oligantha, known as "ant rice," which often grows in abundance near the chosen nest site. However, the claim that the ants intentionally plant this grass is a misconception, stemming from the germinating seeds that the ants have removed from their storage chambers, according to Wheeler.

Perhaps no ants have such remarkable habits as those of the genus Atta,—the leaf-cutting ants of tropical America (fig. 2, 1). There are several forms of worker in these species, some with enormous heads, which remain in the underground nests, while their smaller comrades scour the country in search of suitable trees, which they ascend, biting off small circular pieces from the leaves, and carrying them off to the nests. Their labour often results in the complete defoliation of the tree. The tracks along which the ants carry the leaves to their nests are often in part subterranean. H.C. McCook describes an almost straight tunnel, nearly 450 ft. long, made by Atta fervens.

Perhaps no ants have such impressive habits as those of the genus Atta, the leaf-cutting ants found in tropical America (fig. 2, 1). There are different types of workers in these species, some with huge heads that stay in the underground nests, while their smaller teammates wander around looking for suitable trees. They climb these trees, bite off small circular pieces of the leaves, and carry them back to the nests. Their efforts often lead to the complete loss of leaves on the trees. The paths the ants take to transport the leaves to their nests are sometimes partially underground. H.C. McCook describes a nearly straight tunnel, almost 450 ft. long, made by Atta fervens.

Within the nest, the leaves are cut into very minute fragments and gathered into small spherical heaps forming a spongy mass, which—according to the researches of A. Möller—serves as the substratum for a special fungus (Rozites gongylophora), the staple food of the ants. The insects cultivate their fungus, weeding out 87 mould and bacterial growths, and causing the appearance, on the surface of their “mushroom garden,” of numerous small white bodies formed by swollen ends of the fungus hyphae. When the fungus is grown elsewhere than in the ants’ nest it produces gonidia instead of the white masses on which the ants feed, hence it seems that these masses are indeed produced as the result of some unknown cultural process. Other genera of South American ants—Apterostigma and Cyphomyrmex—make similar fungal cultivations, but they use wood, grain or dung as the substratum instead of leaf fragments. Each kind of ant is so addicted to its own particular fungal food that it refuses disdainfully, even when hungry, the produce of an alien nest.

Within the nest, the leaves are cut into tiny pieces and gathered into small round piles, creating a spongy mass that—according to A. Möller’s research—serves as the base for a specific fungus (Rozites gongylophora), which is the main food source for the ants. The insects cultivate their fungus by removing mold and bacterial growths, leading to the appearance of many small white bodies on the surface of their “mushroom garden,” formed by the swollen ends of the fungus hyphae. When the fungus grows outside the ants’ nest, it produces gonidia instead of the white masses that the ants eat, suggesting that these masses are a result of an unknown cultural process. Other types of South American ants—Apterostigma and Cyphomyrmex—create similar fungal farms, but they use wood, grains, or dung as the base instead of leaf fragments. Each type of ant is so used to its specific fungal food that it stubbornly refuses, even when hungry, to eat anything from another nest.

Guests of Ants.—Many ants feed largely and some almost entirely on the saccharine secretions of other insects, the best known of which are the Aphides (plant-lice or “green-fly”). This consideration leads us to one of the most remarkable and fascinating features of ant-communities—the presence in the nests of insects and other small arthropods, which are tended and cared for by the ants as their “guests,” rendering to the ants in return the sweet food which they desire. The relation between ants and aphids has often been compared to that between men and milch cattle. Sir J. Lubbock (Lord Avebury) states that the common British yellow ants (Lasius flavus) collect flocks of root-feeding aphids in their underground nests, protect them, build earthen shelters over them, and take the greatest care of their eggs. Other ants, such as the British black garden species (L. niger), go after the aphids that frequent the shoots of plants. Many species of aphid migrate from one plant to another at certain stages in their life-cycle when their numbers have very largely increased, and F.M. Webster has observed ants, foreseeing this emigration, to carry aphids from apple trees to grasses. It has been shown by M. Büsgen that the sweet secretion (honey-dew) of the aphids is not derived, as generally believed, from the paired cornicles on the fifth abdominal segment, but from the intestine, whence it exudes in drops and is swallowed by the ants.

Guests of Ants.—Many ants primarily eat, and some almost entirely rely on, the sugary secretions from other insects, the most well-known being aphids (plant-lice or "green-fly"). This brings us to one of the most fascinating aspects of ant communities—the presence of insects and other small arthropods in their nests, which the ants tend to and care for as their "guests," providing the ants with the sweet food they crave in return. The relationship between ants and aphids is often compared to that between humans and dairy cattle. Sir J. Lubbock (Lord Avebury) notes that the common British yellow ants (Lasius flavus) gather groups of root-feeding aphids in their underground nests, protect them, create earthen shelters over them, and take great care of their eggs. Other ants, like the British black garden species (L. niger), pursue the aphids that live on plant shoots. Many species of aphids migrate from one plant to another at certain stages of their life cycle when their populations have significantly increased, and F.M. Webster has seen ants anticipating this migration, carrying aphids from apple trees to grasses. M. Büsgen has demonstrated that the sweet secretion (honey-dew) from aphids does not come from the paired cornicles on the fifth abdominal segment, as commonly thought, but from the intestine, where it oozes out in drops and is consumed by the ants.

Besides the aphids, other insects, such as scale insects (Coccidae), caterpillars of blue butterflies (Lycaenidae), and numerous beetles, furnish the ants with nutrient secretions. The number of species of beetles that inhabit ants’ nests is almost incredibly large, and most of these are never found elsewhere, being blind, helpless and dependent on the ants’ care for protection and food; these beetles belong for the most part to the families Pselaphidae, Paussidae and Staphylinidae. Spring-tails and bristle-tails (order Aptera) of several species also frequent ants’ nests. While some of these “guest” insects produce secretions that furnish the ants with food, some seem to be useless inmates of the nest, obtaining food from the ants and giving nothing in return. Others again play the part of thieves in the ant society; C. Janet observed a small bristle-tail (Lepismima) to lurk beneath the heads of two Lasius workers, while one passed food to the other, in order to steal the drop of nourishment and to make off with it. The same naturalist describes the association with Lasius of small mites (Antennophorus) which are carried about by the worker ants, one of which may have a mite beneath her mouth, and another on either side of her abdomen. On patting their carrier or some passing ant, the mites are supplied with food, no service being rendered by them in return for the ants’ care. Perhaps the ants derive from these seemingly useless guests the same satisfaction as we obtain by keeping pet animals. Recent advance in our knowledge of the guests and associates of ants is due principally to E. Wasmann, who has compiled a list of nearly 1500 species of insects, arachnids and crustaceans, inhabiting ants’ nests. The warmth, shelter and abundant food in the nests, due both to the fresh supplies brought in by the ants and to the large amount of waste matter that accumulates, must prove strongly attractive to the various “guests.” Some of the inmates of ants’ nests are here for the purpose of preying upon the ants or their larvae, so that we find all kinds of relations between the owners of the nests and their companions, from mutual benefit to active hostility.

Besides aphids, other insects like scale insects (Coccidae), blue butterfly caterpillars (Lycaenidae), and many beetles provide ants with nutrient secretions. The variety of beetle species living in ant nests is almost unimaginable, and most of these are never found anywhere else. They are blind, helpless, and rely on the ants for protection and food; these beetles mainly belong to the families Pselaphidae, Paussidae, and Staphylinidae. Springtails and bristletails (order Aptera) of various species also frequent ant nests. While some of these “guest” insects produce secretions that feed the ants, others seem to be freeloaders, taking food from the ants without giving anything back. Some even act like thieves in ant society; C. Janet observed a small bristletail (Lepismima) lurking under the heads of two Lasius workers while one was passing food to the other in order to steal the drop of nourishment. The same naturalist describes small mites (Antennophorus) associated with Lasius, which are carried around by worker ants—one may have a mite beneath her mouth, and another on either side of her abdomen. By patting their carrier or an ant passing by, the mites get food, providing no service in return for the ants’ care. Perhaps the ants get from these seemingly useless guests the same satisfaction we get from keeping pets. Recent advancements in our understanding of the guests and associates of ants are mainly thanks to E. Wasmann, who has compiled a list of nearly 1500 species of insects, arachnids, and crustaceans living in ant nests. The warmth, shelter, and abundance of food in the nests—supplied by the ants and the waste that accumulates—must be very attractive to these various “guests.” Some of the inhabitants of ant nests are there to prey on the ants or their larvae, so we find all kinds of relationships between the nest owners and their companions, ranging from mutual benefit to active hostility.

Among these associations or guests other species of ants are not wanting. For example, a minute species (Solenopsis fugax) lives in a compound nest with various species of Formica, forming narrow galleries which open into the larger galleries of its host. The Solenopsis can make its way into the territory of the Formica to steal the larvae which serve it as food, but the Formica is too large to pursue the thief when it returns to its own galleries.

Among these associations or guests, there are other ant species present. For instance, a small species (Solenopsis fugax) lives in a shared nest with various species of Formica, creating narrow tunnels that connect to the larger tunnels of its host. The Solenopsis can enter the territory of the Formica to steal larvae for food, but the Formica is too large to chase the thief when it scurries back to its own tunnels.

Slaves.—Several species of ants are found in association with another species which stands to them in the relation of slave to master. Formica sanguinea is a well-known European slave-making ant that inhabits England; its workers raid the nests of F. fusca and other species, and carry off to their own nests pupae from which workers are developed that live contentedly as slaves of their captors. F. sanguinea can live either with or without slaves, but another European ant (Polyergus rufescens) is so dependent on its slaves—various species of Formica—that its workers are themselves unable to feed the larvae. The remarkable genus Anergates has no workers, and its wingless males and females are served by communities of Tetramorium cespitum (fig. 3).

Slaves.—Several species of ants are found living alongside another species that acts as their master. Formica sanguinea is a well-known European slave-making ant that lives in England; its workers raid the nests of F. fusca and other species, stealing pupae to bring back to their own nests, which develop into workers that live as slaves to their captors. F. sanguinea can survive with or without slaves, but another European ant (Polyergus rufescens) is so reliant on its slaves—various species of Formica—that its workers cannot even feed their own larvae. The remarkable genus Anergates has no workers, and its wingless males and females depend on communities of Tetramorium cespitum (fig. 3).

Fig. 3.—Ant, Tetramorium cespitum (Linn.), a, Female; b, female after loss of wings; c, male; d, worker; e, larva; g, pupa; f, head of larva more highly magnified. After Marlatt, Bull. 4 (n.s.) Div. Ent. U.S. Dept. Agriculture.

Senses and Intelligence of Ants.—That ants possess highly developed senses and the power of communicating with one another has long been known to students of their habits; the researches of P. Huber and Sir J. Lubbock (Lord Avebury) on these subjects are familiar to all naturalists. The insects are guided by light, being very sensitive to ultra-violet rays, and also by scent and hearing. Recent experiments by A.M. Fielde show that an ant follows her own old track by a scent exercised by the tenth segment of the feeler, recognizes other inmates of her nest by a sense of smell resident in the eleventh segment, is guided to the eggs, maggots and pupae, which she has to tend, by sensation through the eighth and ninth segments, and appreciates the general smell of the nest itself by means of organs in the twelfth segment. Lubbock’s experiments of inducing ants to seek objects that had been removed show that they are guided by scent rather than by sight, and that any disturbance of their surroundings often causes great uncertainty in their actions. Ants invite one another to work, or ask for food from 88 one another, by means of pats with the feelers; and they respond to the solicitations of their guest—beetles or mites, who ask for food by patting the ants with their feet. In all probability the actions of ants are for the most part instinctive or reflex, and some observers, such as A. Bethe, deny them all claim to psychical qualities. But it seems impossible to doubt that in many cases ants behave in a manner that must be considered intelligent, that they can learn by experience and that they possess memory. Lubbock goes so far as to conclude the account of his experiments with the remark that “It is difficult altogether to deny them the gift of reason ... their mental powers differ from those of men, not so much in kind as in degree.” Wasmann considers that ants are neither miniature human beings nor mere reflex automata, and most students of their habits will probably accept this intermediate position as the most satisfactory. C.L. Morgan sums up a discussion on Lubbock’s experiments in which the ants failed to utilize particles of earth for bridge-making, with the suggestive remark that “What these valuable experiments seem to show is that the ant, probably the most intelligent of all insects, has no claim to be regarded as a rational being.” Nevertheless, ants can teach “rational beings” many valuable lessons.

Senses and Intelligence of Ants.—It's well-known among researchers that ants have highly developed senses and can communicate with each other. The work of P. Huber and Sir J. Lubbock (Lord Avebury) on this topic is familiar to all naturalists. These insects navigate using light, as they are very sensitive to ultraviolet rays, as well as through scent and sound. Recent tests by A.M. Fielde reveal that an ant can follow her own trail using a scent detected by the tenth segment of her antenna, recognize other ants in her colony through the sense of smell in the eleventh segment, locate the eggs, larvae, and pupae she cares for through sensations in the eighth and ninth segments, and identify the general smell of the nest using organs in the twelfth segment. Lubbock's experiments on having ants seek out removed objects demonstrate that they rely more on scent than sight, and any changes in their surroundings can cause significant confusion in their behavior. Ants invite each other to work or request food from one another through touches with their antennae; in return, they respond to the requests of visiting beetles or mites that ask for food by patting them with their feet. Likely, most of their actions are instinctive or reflexive, and some observers, like A. Bethe, argue they lack any psychological attributes. However, it's hard to deny that ants often act in ways that suggest intelligence, demonstrating they can learn from experience and have memory. Lubbock even concludes his experiments by stating that "It is difficult altogether to deny them the gift of reason ... their mental powers differ from those of men, not so much in kind as in degree." Wasmann believes that ants are neither tiny humans nor just reflex-driven machines, and most researchers likely agree with this moderate viewpoint. C.L. Morgan summarizes a discussion about Lubbock’s experiments where ants did not use soil particles to make bridges with the thought-provoking observation that “What these valuable experiments seem to show is that the ant, probably the most intelligent of all insects, has no claim to be regarded as a rational being.” Still, ants have a lot to teach "rational beings."

Bibliography.—The literature on ants is so vast that it is only possible to refer the reader to a few of the most important works on the family. Pierre Huber’s Traité des moeurs des fourmis indigènes (Genève, 1810) is the most famous of the older memoirs. H.W. Bates, A Naturalist on the Amazons; T. Belt, A Naturalist in Nicaragua; H.C. McCook, Agricultural Ant of Texas (Philadelphia, 1880); and A. Moller’s paper in Botan. Mitt, aus den Tropen, (1893), contain classical observations on American species. Sir J. Lubbock’s (Lord Avebury) Ants, Bees and Wasps (London 1882), dealing with British and European species, has been followed by numerous important papers by A. Forel and C. Emery in various Swiss and German periodicals, and especially by C. Janet in his Êtudes sur les fourmis, les guêpes et les abeilles (Paris, &c., 1893-1904). Forel (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xlvii., 1893, Journ. Bomnay N.H. Soc. 1900-1903, and Biologia Cent. Americana) and Emery (Zool. Jahrb. Syst. viii., 1896) have written on the classification of the Formicidae. Among recent American writers on habit may be mentioned W.M. Wheeler (American Naturalist, 1900-1902) and A.M. Fielde (Proc. Acad. Sci. Philadelphia, 1901); E. Wasmann (Kritisches Verzeichniss der myrmecophilen und termitophilen Arthropoden, Berlin, 1894, and 3me Congrès Intern. Zool. 1895) is the great authority on ant-guests and associates. D. Sharp’s general account of ants in the Cambridge Nat. Hist. (vol. vi., 1898) is excellent. For discussions on intelligence see A. Bethe, Journ. f. d. ges. Physiol. lxx. (1898); Wasmann, Die psychischen Fahigkeiten der Ameisen (Stuttgart, 1899); C. Ll. Morgan, Animal Behaviour (London, 1900.)

References.—The literature on ants is so extensive that we can only mention a few key works on the family. Pierre Huber’s Traité des moeurs des fourmis indigènes (Geneva, 1810) is the most well-known of the earlier studies. H.W. Bates, A Naturalist on the Amazons; T. Belt, A Naturalist in Nicaragua; H.C. McCook, Agricultural Ant of Texas (Philadelphia, 1880); and A. Moller’s article in Botan. Mitt, aus den Tropen (1893) include classic observations on American species. Sir J. Lubbock’s (Lord Avebury) Ants, Bees and Wasps (London 1882), which addresses British and European species, has been followed by many important papers by A. Forel and C. Emery in various Swiss and German journals, especially C. Janet’s Êtudes sur les fourmis, les guêpes et les abeilles (Paris, etc., 1893-1904). Forel (Ann. Soc. Ent. Belg. xlvii., 1893, Journ. Bombay N.H. Soc. 1900-1903, and Biologia Cent. Americana) and Emery (Zool. Jahrb. Syst. viii., 1896) have explored the classification of Formicidae. Among recent American authors on behavior are W.M. Wheeler (American Naturalist, 1900-1902) and A.M. Fielde (Proc. Acad. Sci. Philadelphia, 1901); E. Wasmann (Kritisches Verzeichniss der myrmecophilen und termitophilen Arthropoden, Berlin, 1894, and 3me Congrès Intern. Zool. 1895) is the leading authority on ant guests and associates. D. Sharp’s comprehensive overview of ants in the Cambridge Nat. Hist. (vol. vi., 1898) is excellent. For discussions on intelligence, see A. Bethe, Journ. f. d. ges. Physiol. lxx. (1898); Wasmann, Die psychischen Fahigkeiten der Ameisen (Stuttgart, 1899); C. Ll. Morgan, Animal Behaviour (London, 1900).

(G. H. C.)

ANTAE (a Lat. plural word, possibly from ante, before), an architectural term given to slightly projecting pilaster strips which terminate the winged walls of the naos of a Greek temple. They owe their origin to the vertical posts of timber employed in the primitive palaces or temples of Greece, as at Tiryns and in the Heraeum at Olympia, to carry the roof timbers, as no reliance could be placed on the walls built with unburnt brick or in rubble masonry with clay mortar. When between these winged walls there are columns to carry the architrave, so as to form a porch, the latter is said to be in-antis. (See Temple.)

ANTAE (a Latin plural word, possibly from ante, meaning before), is an architectural term for slightly projecting pilaster strips that mark the ends of the winged walls of the naos in a Greek temple. They were originally inspired by the vertical wooden posts used in the early palaces or temples of Greece, like those at Tiryns and the Heraeum at Olympia, which supported the roof timbers since the walls made from unburnt brick or rubble masonry with clay mortar were not reliable. When columns are placed between these winged walls to support the architrave and create a porch, this design is referred to as in-antis. (See Temple.)


ANTAEUS, in Greek mythology, a giant of Libya, the son of Poseidon and Gaea. He compelled all strangers passing through the country to wrestle with him, and as, when thrown, he derived fresh strength from each successive contact with his mother earth, he proved invincible. With the skulls of those whom he had slain he built a temple to his father. Heracles, in combat with him, discovered the source of his strength, and lifting him up from the earth crushed him to death (Apollodorus ii. 5; Hyginus, Fab. 31). The struggle between Antaeus and Heracles is a favourite subject in ancient sculpture.

ANTAEUS, in Greek mythology, was a giant from Libya, the son of Poseidon and Gaea. He forced all travelers passing through his land to wrestle with him, and since he regained strength from each time he touched the ground, he was unbeatable. He used the skulls of those he had killed to build a temple for his father. Heracles, during their fight, figured out the secret to his strength and lifted him off the ground, ultimately crushing him to death (Apollodorus ii. 5; Hyginus, Fab. 31). The battle between Antaeus and Heracles is a popular theme in ancient sculpture.


ANTALCIDAS, Spartan soldier and diplomatist. In 393 (or 392 B.C.) he was sent to Tiribazus, satrap of Sardis, to undermine the friendly relations then existing between Athens and Persia by offering to recognize Persian claims to the whole of Asia Minor. The Athenians sent an embassy under Conon to counteract his efforts. Tiribazus, who was favourable to Sparta, threw Conon into prison, but Artaxerxes II. (Mnemon) disapproved and recalled his satrap. In 388 Antalcidas, then commander of the Spartan fleet, accompanied Tiribazus to the Persian court, and secured the active assistance of Persia against Athens. The success of his naval operations in the neighbourhood of the Hellespont was such that Athens was glad to accept terms of peace (the “Peace of Antalcidas”), by which (1) the whole of Asia Minor, with the islands of Clazomenae and Cyprus, was recognized as subject to Persia, (2) all other Greek cities—so far as they were not under Persian rule—were to be independent, except Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros, which were to belong, as formerly, to the Athenians. The terms were announced to the Greek envoys at Sardis in the winter 387-386, and were finally accepted by Sparta in 386. Antalcidas continued in favour with Artaxerxes, until the annihilation of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra diminished his influence. A final mission to Persia, probably in 367, was a failure, and Antalcidas, deeply chagrined and fearful of the consequences, is said to have starved himself to death. (See Sparta.)

ANTALCIDAS, Spartan soldier and diplomat. In 393 (or 392 BCE), he was sent to Tiribazus, the satrap of Sardis, to disrupt the friendly relations between Athens and Persia by offering to recognize Persian claims over all of Asia Minor. The Athenians sent an embassy led by Conon to counter his efforts. Tiribazus, who supported Sparta, imprisoned Conon, but Artaxerxes II. (Mnemon) disapproved of this and recalled his satrap. In 388, Antalcidas, now commander of the Spartan fleet, accompanied Tiribazus to the Persian court and secured Persia's active support against Athens. His naval operations near the Hellespont were so successful that Athens was eager to accept peace terms (the “Peace of Antalcidas”), which stipulated that (1) all of Asia Minor, along with the islands of Clazomenae and Cyprus, would be recognized as under Persian control, (2) all other Greek cities—if they weren't under Persian rule—would be independent, except for Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, which would remain, as before, with the Athenians. The terms were presented to the Greek envoys in Sardis during the winter of 387-386 and were finally accepted by Sparta in 386. Antalcidas continued to be favored by Artaxerxes until the loss of Spartan dominance at Leuctra reduced his influence. A final mission to Persia, likely in 367, failed, and Antalcidas, feeling deeply disappointed and worried about the repercussions, is said to have starved himself to death. (See Sparta.)


ANTANÀNARÌVO, i.e. “town of a thousand” (Fr. spelling Tananarive), the capital of Madagascar, situated centrally as regards the length of the island, but only about 90 m. distant from the eastern coast, in 18° 55′ S., 47° 30′ E. It is 135 m. W.S.W. of Tamatave, the principal seaport of the island, with which it is connected by railway, and for about 60 m. along the coast lagoons, a service of small steamers. The city occupies a commanding position, being chiefly built on the summit and slopes of a long and narrow rocky ridge, which extends north and south for about 2½ m., dividing to the north in a Y-shape, and rising at its highest point to 690 ft. above the extensive rice plain to the west, which is itself 4060 ft. above sea-level. For long only the principal village of the Hova chiefs, Antananarivo advanced in importance as those chiefs made themselves sovereigns of the greater part of Madagascar, until it became a town of some 80,000 inhabitants. Until 1869 all buildings within the city proper were of wood or rush, but even then it possessed several timber palaces of considerable size, the largest being 120 ft. high. These crown the summit of the central portion of the ridge; and the largest palace, with its lofty roof and towers, is the most conspicuous object from every point of view. Since the introduction of stone and brick, the whole city has been rebuilt and now contains numerous structures of some architectural pretension, the royal palaces, the houses formerly belonging to the prime minister and nobles, the French residency, the Anglican and Roman Catholic cathedrals, several stone churches, as well as others of brick, colleges, schools, hospitals, courts of justice and other government buildings, and hundreds of good dwelling-houses. Since the French conquest in 1895 good roads have been constructed throughout the city, broad flights of steps connect places too steep for the formation of carriage roads, and the central space, called Andohalo, has become a handsome place, with walks and terraces, flower-beds and trees. A small park has been laid out near the residency, and the planting of trees and the formation of gardens in various parts of the city give it a bright and attractive appearance. Water is obtained from springs at the foot of the hill, but it is proposed to bring an abundant supply from the river Ikopa, which skirts the capital to the south and west. The population, including that of the suburbs, is 69,000 (1907). The city is guarded by two forts built on hills to the east and south-west respectively. Including an Anglican and a Roman Catholic cathedral, there are about fifty churches in the city and its suburbs, as well as a Mahommedan mosque.

ANTANÀNARÌVO, i.e. “town of a thousand” (Fr. spelling Tananarive), is the capital of Madagascar, located centrally in relation to the length of the island, but only about 90 miles from the eastern coast, at 18° 55′ S., 47° 30′ E. It is 135 miles W.S.W. of Tamatave, the main seaport of the island, which it connects to by railway, and along about 60 miles of coastal lagoons serviced by small steamboats. The city is situated on a prominent position, mainly built on the top and slopes of a long, narrow rocky ridge that extends north and south for about 2½ miles, branching into a Y-shape to the north, and reaching its highest point at 690 feet above the vast rice plain to the west, which itself is 4060 feet above sea level. Initially just the main village of the Hova chiefs, Antananarivo gained significance as these chiefs established control over most of Madagascar, growing into a town with around 80,000 residents. Until 1869, all buildings in the city were made of wood or rush, but even then it had several large timber palaces, the tallest being 120 feet high. These palaces are located at the top of the central section of the ridge, and the largest palace, with its tall roof and towers, is the most prominent landmark seen from every viewpoint. Since the introduction of stone and brick, the entire city has been rebuilt and now features numerous structures of notable architecture, including royal palaces, the former residences of the prime minister and nobles, the French residency, Anglican and Roman Catholic cathedrals, several stone and brick churches, colleges, schools, hospitals, courts of justice, and various government buildings, along with hundreds of well-built homes. Following the French takeover in 1895, good roads have been built throughout the city, wide staircases connect areas that are too steep for roads, and the central area, called Andohalo, has been transformed into an attractive space with walkways, terraces, flower beds, and trees. A small park has also been created near the residency, and the planting of trees and gardens in different parts of the city gives it a bright and inviting look. Water is sourced from springs at the base of the hill, but there are plans to bring a plentiful supply from the Ikopa River, which borders the capital to the south and west. The population, including the suburbs, is 69,000 (1907). The city is protected by two forts situated on hills to the east and southwest. There are about fifty churches in the city and its suburbs, including an Anglican and a Roman Catholic cathedral, along with a Muslim mosque.

(J. Si.*)

‘ANTARA IBN SHADDĀD, Arabian poet and warrior of the 6th century, was famous both for his poetry and his adventurous life. His chief poem is contained in the Mo‘allakât. The account of his life forms the basis of a long and extravagant romance. His father Shaddād was a soldier, his mother Zabūba a negro slave. Neglected at first, he soon claimed attention and respect for himself, and by his remarkable personal qualities and courage in battle he gained his freedom and the acknowledgment of his father. He took part in the great war between the related tribes of Abs and Dhubyān, which began over a contest of horses and was named after them the war of Dāhis and Ghabrā. 89 He died in a fight against the tribe of Ṭai. His poems, which are chiefly concerned with fighting or with his love for Abla, are published in W. Ahlwardt’s The Diwans of the six ancient Arabic Poets (London, 1870); they have also been published separately at Beirût (1888). As regards their genuineness, cf. W. Ahlwardt’s Bemerkungen uber die Aechtheit der alten arabichen Gedichte (Greifswald, 1872), pp. 50 ff. The Romance of ‘Antar (Sîrat ‘Antar ibn Shaddād) is a work which was long handed down by oral tradition only, has grown to immense proportions and has been published in 32 vols. at Cairo, 1307 (A.D. 1889), and in 10 vols. at Beirût, 1871. It was partly translated by Terrick Hamilton under the title ‘Antar, a Bedoueen Romance (4 vols., London, 1820).

‘ANTARA IBN SHADDĀD, was a 6th-century Arabian poet and warrior known for both his poetry and adventurous life. His main poem is found in the Mo‘allakât. His life story serves as the basis for a long and dramatic romance. His father, Shaddād, was a soldier, and his mother, Zabūba, was a Black slave. Initially overlooked, he soon earned attention and respect through his impressive personal traits and bravery in battle, gaining his freedom and recognition from his father. He participated in the significant war between the related tribes of Abs and Dhubyān, which started over a horse race and was called the war of Dāhis and Ghabrā. 89 He died fighting against the Ṭai tribe. His poems, mostly about battles or his love for Abla, are published in W. Ahlwardt’s The Diwans of the six ancient Arabic Poets (London, 1870); they’ve also been published separately in Beirût (1888). For information on their authenticity, see W. Ahlwardt’s Bemerkungen uber die Aechtheit der alten arabichen Gedichte (Greifswald, 1872), pp. 50 ff. The Romance of ‘Antar (Sîrat ‘Antar ibn Shaddād) is a work that was passed down through oral tradition and has grown immensely, published in 32 volumes in Cairo, 1307 (CE 1889), and in 10 volumes in Beirût, 1871. It was partially translated by Terrick Hamilton as ‘Antar, a Bedoueen Romance (4 vols., London, 1820).

For an account of the poet and his works see H. Thorbeckes, Antarah, ein vorislamischer Dichter (Leipzig, 1867), and cf. the Book of Songs (see Abulfaraj), vol. vii. pp. 148-153.

For more information about the poet and his works, see H. Thorbeckes, Antarah, ein vorislamischer Dichter (Leipzig, 1867), and check out the Book of Songs (see Abulfaraj), vol. vii. pp. 148-153.

(G. W. T.)

ANTARCTIC (Gr. ἀντί, opposite, and ἄρκτος, the Bear, the northern constellation of Ursa Major), the epithet applied to the region (including both the ocean and the lands) round the South Pole. The Antarctic circle is drawn at 66° 30′ S., but polar conditions of climate, &c., extend considerably north of the area thus enclosed. (See Polar Regions.)

ANTARCTIC (From Greek αντί, meaning opposite, and bear, referring to the Bear, the northern constellation of Ursa Major), this term describes the area (which includes both the ocean and land) around the South Pole. The Antarctic Circle is defined at 66° 30′ S, but polar climate and conditions extend well beyond this boundary. (See Polar Regions.)


ANTEATER, a term applied to several mammals, but (zoologically at any rate) specially indicating the tropical American anteaters of the family Myrmecophagidae (see Edentata). The typical and largest representative of the group is the great anteater or ant-bear (Myrmecophaga jubata), an animal measuring 4 ft. in length without the tail, and 2 ft. in height at the shoulder. Its prevailing colour is grey, with a broad black band, bordered with white, commencing on the chest, and passing obliquely over the shoulder, diminishing gradually in breadth as it approaches the loins, where it ends in a point. It is extensively distributed in the tropical parts of South and Central America, frequenting low swampy savannas, along the banks of rivers, and the depths of the humid forests, but is nowhere abundant. Its food consists mainly of termites, to obtain which it opens their nests with its powerful sharp anterior claws, and as the insects swarm to the damaged part of their dwelling, it draws them into its mouth by means of its long, flexible, rapidly moving tongue covered with glutinous saliva. The great anteater is terrestrial in habits, not burrowing underground like armadillos. Though generally an inoffensive animal, when attacked it can defend itself vigorously and effectively with its sabre-like anterior claws. The female produces a single young at a birth. The tamandua anteaters, as typified by Tamandua (or Uroleptes) tetradactyla, are much smaller than the great anteater, and differ essentially from it in their habits, being mainly arboreal. They inhabit the dense primeval forests of South and Central America. The usual colour is yellowish-white, with a broad black lateral band, covering nearly the whole of the side of the body.

ANTEATER, a term used for several mammals, but zoologically referring specifically to the tropical American anteaters from the family Myrmecophagidae (see Edentata). The typical and largest representative of this group is the great anteater or ant-bear (Myrmecophaga jubata), which measures about 4 ft. long without the tail and stands 2 ft. tall at the shoulder. Its main color is gray, featuring a broad black stripe edged in white that starts on the chest, runs diagonally over the shoulder, and narrows as it approaches the lower back, ending in a point. It is found extensively in the tropical regions of South and Central America, inhabiting low, swampy grasslands, riverbanks, and humid forests, but it's not abundant anywhere. Its diet mainly consists of termites, which it extracts from their nests using its strong, sharp front claws. As the insects swarm to the damaged area, the anteater uses its long, flexible tongue, which is covered in sticky saliva, to draw them into its mouth. The great anteater is mainly terrestrial and does not burrow underground like armadillos. Although usually harmless, it can defend itself strongly and effectively with its saber-like front claws when threatened. The female usually gives birth to a single offspring. The tamandua anteaters, represented by Tamandua (or Uroleptes) tetradactyla, are much smaller than the great anteater and have different habits, being mainly arboreal. They live in the dense, ancient forests of South and Central America. Their typical color is yellowish-white with a broad black band along the side, covering almost the entire body.

The little or two-toed anteater (Cyclopes or Cycloturus didactylus) is a native of the hottest parts of South and Central America, and about the size of a rat, of a general yellowish colour, and exclusively arboreal in its habits. The name scaly anteater is applied to the pangolin (q.v.); the banded anteater (Myrmecobius fasciatus) is a marsupial, and the spiny anteater (Echidna) is one of the monotremes (see Marsupialia and Monotremata).

The little or two-toed anteater (Cyclopes or Cycloturus didactylus) is found in the hottest regions of South and Central America, about the size of a rat, generally yellowish in color, and lives exclusively in trees. The term "scaly anteater" refers to the pangolin (q.v.); the banded anteater (Myrmecobius fasciatus) is a marsupial, and the spiny anteater (Echidna) is one of the monotremes (see Marsupialia and Monotremata).


ANTE-CHAPEL, the term given to that portion of a chapel which lies on the western side of the choir screen. In some of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge the ante-chapel is carried north and south across the west end of the chapel, constituting a western transept or narthex. This model, based on Merton College chapel (13th century), of which only chancel and transept were built though a nave was projected, was followed at Wadham, New and Magdalen Colleges, Oxford, in the new chapel of St John’s College, Cambridge, and in Eton College. In Jesus College, Cambridge, the transept and a short nave constitute the ante-chapel; in Clare College an octagonal vestibule serves the same purpose; and in Christ’s, Trinity and King’s Colleges, Cambridge, the ante-chapel is a portion of the main chapel, divided off from the chancel by the choir screen.

ANTE-CHAPEL, refers to the part of a chapel located on the western side of the choir screen. In some of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, the ante-chapel extends north and south across the west end of the chapel, forming a western transept or narthex. This design, inspired by Merton College chapel (13th century), which only constructed the chancel and transept despite plans for a nave, was replicated at Wadham, New and Magdalen Colleges in Oxford, in the new chapel of St John’s College in Cambridge, and at Eton College. In Jesus College, Cambridge, the transept and a short nave make up the ante-chapel; at Clare College, an octagonal vestibule serves the same function; and in Christ’s, Trinity, and King’s Colleges in Cambridge, the ante-chapel is part of the main chapel, separated from the chancel by the choir screen.


ANTE-CHOIR, the term given to the space enclosed in a church between the outer gate or railing of the rood screen and the door of the screen; sometimes there is only one rail, gate or door, but in Westminster Abbey it is equal in depth to one bay of the nave. The ante-choir is also called the “fore choir.”

ANTE-CHOIR, the term used to describe the area in a church located between the outer gate or railing of the rood screen and the door of the screen; sometimes there’s just one rail, gate, or door, but in Westminster Abbey, it has the same depth as one bay of the nave. The ante-choir is also known as the “fore choir.”


ANTE-FIXAE (from Lat. antefigere, to fasten before), the vertical blocks which terminate the covering tiles of the roof of a Greek temple; as spaced they take the place of the cymatium and form a cresting along the sides of the temple. The face of the ante-fixae was richly carved with the anthemion (q.v.) ornament.

ANTE-FIXAE (from Lat. antefigere, to fasten before), the vertical blocks that finish off the roof tiles of a Greek temple; when arranged, they replace the cymatium and create a decorative edge along the sides of the temple. The front of the ante-fixae was elaborately carved with the anthemion (q.v.) design.


ANTELOPE, a zoological name which, so far as can be determined, appears to trace its origin, through the Latin, to Pantholops, the old Coptic, and Antholops, the late Greek name of the fabled unicorn. Its adoption by the languages of Europe cannot apparently be traced farther back than the 4th century of our era, at which date it was employed to designate an imaginary animal living on the banks of the Euphrates. By the earlier English naturalists, and afterwards by Buffon, it was, however, applied to the Indian blackbuck, which is thus entitled to rank as the antelope. It follows that the subfamily typified by this species, in which are included the gazelles, is the one to which alone the term antelopes should be applied if it were employed in a restricted and definable sense.

ANTELOPE, is a zoological term that, as far as we can tell, traces its roots through Latin back to Pantholops, the ancient Coptic term, and Antholops, the later Greek name for the mythical unicorn. Its use in European languages seems to date back to the 4th century AD, when it referred to a fictional creature said to inhabit the banks of the Euphrates River. Earlier English naturalists, and later Buffon, used the term to refer to the Indian blackbuck, which is therefore recognized as the antelope. This means that the subfamily represented by this species, which includes gazelles, should be the only group referred to as antelopes when the term is used in a more limited and specific way.

Although most people have a general vague idea of what constitutes an “antelope,” yet the group of animals thus designated is one that does not admit of accurate limitations or definition. Some, for instance, may consider that the chamois and the so-called white goat of the Rocky Mountains are entitled to be included in the group; but this is not the view held by the authors of the Book of Antelopes referred to below; and, as a matter of fact, the term is only a vague designation for a number of more or less distinct groups of hollow-horned ruminants which do not come under the designation of cattle, sheep or goats; and in reality there ought to be a distinct English group-name for each subfamily into which “antelopes” are subdivided.

Although most people have a general, vague idea of what an "antelope" is, the group of animals associated with that term doesn't have precise boundaries or a clear definition. Some might think that the chamois and the so-called white goat of the Rocky Mountains should be included in this group; however, that’s not the perspective of the authors of the Book of Antelopes mentioned below. In fact, the term is just a broad label for several more or less distinct groups of hollow-horned ruminants that don't fall under the categories of cattle, sheep, or goats. There should actually be a specific English name for each subfamily into which "antelopes" are divided.

The great majority of antelopes, exclusive of the doubtful chamois group (which, however, will be included in the present article), are African, although the gazelles are to a considerable extent an Asiatic group. They include ruminants varying in size from a hare to an ox; and comprise about 150 species, although this number is subject to considerable variation according to personal views as to the limitations of species and races. No true antelopes are American, the prongbuck (Antilocapra), which is commonly called “antelope” in the United States, representing a distinct group; while, as already mentioned, the Rocky Mountain or white goat stands on the borderland between antelopes and goats.

The vast majority of antelopes, excluding the somewhat questionable chamois group (which will be included in this article), are found in Africa, although gazelles are largely an Asian group. They are ruminants that range in size from a hare to an ox, and there are about 150 species, though this number can vary significantly based on differing opinions about what defines a species or race. There are no true antelopes in America; the pronghorn (Antilocapra), commonly referred to as "antelope" in the United States, belongs to a distinct group. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the Rocky Mountain or white goat exists on the border between antelopes and goats.

Fig. 1.—Female Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus).

The first group, or Tragelaphinae, is represented by the African elands (Taurotragus), bongo (Boöcercus), kudus (Strepsiceros) and bushbucks or harnessed antelopes (Tragelaphus), and the Indian nilgai (Boselaphus). Except in the bongo and elands, horns are present only in the males, and these are angulated and generally spirally twisted, and without rings. The muzzle is naked, small glands are present on the face below the eyes, and the tail is comparatively long. The colours are often brilliant; white spots and stripes being prevalent. The harnessed antelopes, or bushbucks, are closely allied to the kudus, from which they chiefly differ by the spiral formed by the horns generally having fewer turns. They include some of the most brilliantly coloured of all antelopes; the ornamentation taking the form of vertical white lines and rows of spots. Usually the sexes differ in colour. Whereas most of the species have hoofs of normal shape, in some, such as the nakong, or situtunga (Tragelaphus spekei), these are greatly elongated, in order to be suited for walking in soft mud, and these have accordingly been separated as Limnotragus. The last-named species spends most of its time in water, where it may be observed not infrequently among the reeds with all but its head and horns submerged. The true or smaller bushbucks, represented by the widely spread Tragelaphus scriptus, with several local races (fig. 1) are sometimes separated as Sylvicapra, 90 leaving the genus Tragelaphus to be represented by the larger T. angasi and its relatives. The genus Strepsiceros is represented by the true or great kudu (S. capensis or S. strepsiceros), fig. 2, ranging from the Cape to Somaliland, and the smaller S. imberbis of North-East Africa, which has no throat-fringe. The large and brightly coloured bongo (Boöcercus euryceros) of the equatorial forest-districts serves in some respects to connect the bushbucks with the elands, having horns in both sexes, and a tufted tail, but a brilliant orange coat with vertical white stripes. Still larger are the elands, of which the typical Taurotragus oryx of the Cape is uniformly sandy-coloured, although stripes appear in the more northern T. o. livingstonei, while the black-necked eland (T. derbianus) of Senegambia and the Bahr-el-Ghazal district is a larger and more brilliantly coloured animal. The small horns and bluish-grey colour of the adult bulls serve to distinguish the Indian nilgai (q.v.), Boselaphus tragocamdus, from the other members of the subfamily.

The first group, or Tragelaphinae, includes the African elands (Taurotragus), bongo (Boöcercus), kudus (Strepsiceros), and bushbucks or harnessed antelopes (Tragelaphus), along with the Indian nilgai (Boselaphus). Except for the bongo and elands, only males have horns, which are angled and typically spiral without rings. They have a bare muzzle, small glands on their faces below their eyes, and relatively long tails. Their colors are often vibrant, with white spots and stripes being common. The harnessed antelopes, or bushbucks, are closely related to the kudus, primarily differing in that the spiral shape of their horns usually has fewer twists. They include some of the most colorful antelopes, decorated with vertical white lines and spots. Usually, males and females differ in color. While most species have normal-shaped hooves, some, like the nakong or situtunga (Tragelaphus spekei), have greatly elongated hooves that help them walk in soft mud, leading to their classification as Limnotragus. This species spends a lot of time in water, often seen among reeds with just its head and horns above the surface. The true or smaller bushbucks, like the widespread Tragelaphus scriptus with several local varieties (fig. 1), are sometimes classified as Sylvicapra, leaving the genus Tragelaphus represented by the larger T. angasi and its relatives. The genus Strepsiceros consists of the true or great kudu (S. capensis or S. strepsiceros, fig. 2), found from the Cape to Somaliland, and the smaller S. imberbis of North-East Africa, which lacks a throat fringe. The large and brightly colored bongo (Boöcercus euryceros) from the equatorial forest areas connects the bushbucks with the elands, having horns in both sexes and a tufted tail, along with a vibrant orange coat featuring vertical white stripes. Even larger are the elands, with the typical Taurotragus oryx from the Cape being uniformly sandy-colored, though stripes appear in the more northern T. o. livingstonei, while the black-necked eland (T. derbianus) from Senegambia and the Bahr-el-Ghazal area is larger and more vividly colored. The adult bulls of the Indian nilgai (q.v., Boselaphus tragocamdus) are distinguished by their small horns and bluish-grey color, setting them apart from other members of the subfamily.

Fig. 2.—Male Kudu (Strepsicero capensis).

The second group, which is mainly African, but also represented in Syria, is that of the Hippotraginae, typified by the sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) and roan antelope (H. equinus), but also including the oryxes (Oryx) and addax. These are for the most part large antelopes, with long cylindrical horns, which are present in both sexes, hairy muzzles, no face-glands, long tufted tails and tall thick molars of the ox-type. In Hippotragus the stout and thickly ringed horns rise vertically from a ridge above the eyes at an obtuse angle to the plane of the lower part of the face, and then sweep backwards in a bold curve; while there are tufts of long white hairs near the eyes. The sable antelope is a southern species in which both sexes are black or blackish when adult, while the lighter-coloured and larger roan antelope has a much wider distribution. The South African blauwbok (H. leucophaeus) is extinct. In the addax (Addax nasomaculatus), which is a distinct species common to North Africa and Syria, the ringed horns form an open spiral ascending in the plane of the face, and there is long, shaggy, dark hair on the fore-quarters in winter. The various species of oryx differ from Hippotragus by the absence of the white eye-tufts, and by the horns sloping backwards in the plane of the face. In the South African gemsbuck (Oryx gazella), fig. 3, the East African beisa or true oryx (O. beisa), and the white Arabian (O. beatrix) the horns are straight, but in the North African white oryx or algazel (O. leucoryx or O. algazal) they are scimitar-shaped, the colour of this species being white and pale chestnut (see Addax, Oryx, and Sable Antelope).

The second group, which is mainly African but also found in Syria, is the Hippotraginae, represented by the sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) and roan antelope (H. equinus), and also includes the oryxes (Oryx) and addax. Most of these are large antelopes with long cylindrical horns present in both males and females, hairy muzzles, no face glands, long tufted tails, and tall thick molars similar to those of cattle. In Hippotragus, the stout, thickly ringed horns rise vertically from a ridge above the eyes at an obtuse angle to the plane of the lower face and then sweep back in a bold curve, with tufts of long white hair near the eyes. The sable antelope is a southern species where both sexes are black or blackish when adult, while the lighter-colored and larger roan antelope is distributed much more widely. The South African blauwbok (H. leucophaeus) is extinct. In the addax (Addax nasomaculatus), a distinct species found in North Africa and Syria, the ringed horns form an open spiral that rises in the plane of the face, and there is long, shaggy dark hair on the forequarters in winter. The different species of oryx differ from Hippotragus by lacking the white eye tufts and having horns that slope backward in the plane of the face. In the South African gemsbok (Oryx gazella), the East African beisa or true oryx (O. beisa), and the white Arabian (O. beatrix), the horns are straight. However, in the North African white oryx or algazel (O. leucoryx or O. algazal), the horns are scimitar-shaped, and this species is characterized by its white and pale chestnut color (see Addax, Oryx, and Sable Antelope).

The third subfamily is the Antilopinae, the members of which have a much wider geographical range than either of the foregoing groups. The subfamily is characterized by the narrow crowns of the molars, which are similar to those of sheep, and the hairy muzzle. Generally there are face-glands below the eyes; and the tail is moderate or short. Pits are present in the forehead of the skull, and the horns are ringed for part of their length, with a compressed base, their form being often lyrate, but sometimes spiral. Lateral hoofs are generally present.

The third subfamily is the Antilopinae, which has a much broader geographical range than the previous two groups. This subfamily is identified by the narrow crowns of the molars, which resemble those of sheep, and by their hairy muzzles. Typically, there are scent glands below the eyes, and the tail is either moderate or short. There are pits on the forehead of the skull, and the horns are sometimes ringed for part of their length, have a compressed base, and are often lyre-shaped, but can occasionally be spiral. The lateral hooves are usually present.

Fig. 3.—Gemsbuck, or Cape Oryx (Oryx gazella).

Gazelles (Gazella), which form by far the largest genus of the subfamily, are inhabitants of open and frequently more or less desert districts. They are mostly of a sandy colour, with dark and light markings on the face, and often a dark band on the flanks. The horns are more or less lyrate, and generally developed in both sexes; there are frequently brushes of hair on the knees. Gazelles may be divided into groups. The one to which the North African G. dorcas belongs is characterized by the presence of lyrate or sub-lyrate horns in both sexes, and by the white of the buttocks not extending on to the haunches. Nearly allied is the group including the Indian G. bennetti and the Arabian G. arabica, in which the horns have a somewhat S-shaped curvature in profile. In the group represented by the African G. granti, G. thomsoni, G. mohr, &c., the white of the buttocks often sends a prolongation on to the flanks, the horns are long and the size is large. Lastly, the Central Asian G. gutturosa, G. subgutturosa and G. picticaudata form a group in which the females are hornless and the face-markings inconspicuous or wanting.

Gazelles (Gazella), which are by far the largest genus in the subfamily, live in open and often somewhat desert areas. They usually have a sandy color, with dark and light patterns on their faces, and often a dark band on their sides. Their horns are more or less lyre-shaped and typically found in both males and females; they often have tufts of hair on their knees. Gazelles can be grouped together. One group, which includes the North African G. dorcas, is defined by the presence of lyre-shaped or sub-lyre-shaped horns in both sexes and by the white on their buttocks not extending onto their hips. Closely related is the group that includes the Indian G. bennetti and the Arabian G. arabica, in which the horns have a slightly S-shaped curve in profile. In the group represented by the African G. granti, G. thomsoni, G. mohr, etc., the white on the buttocks often extends onto the sides, the horns are long, and they are generally large in size. Finally, the Central Asian G. gutturosa, G. subgutturosa, and G. picticaudata form a group where females are hornless and the facial markings are either subtle or absent.

The South African springbuck (Antidorcas euchore) is nearly related to the gazelles, from which it is distinguished by the presence on the middle line of the loins of an evertible pouch, lined with long white hairs capable of erection. It has also one premolar tooth less in the lower jaw. Formerly these beautiful antelopes existed in countless numbers on the plains of South Africa, and were in the habit of migrating in droves which completely filled entire valleys. Now they are comparatively rare.

The South African springbuck (Antidorcas euchore) is closely related to gazelles, distinguished by an extendable pouch along the middle of its back, lined with long white hairs that can stand up. It also has one less premolar tooth in its lower jaw. In the past, these beautiful antelopes were found in huge numbers on the plains of South Africa, often migrating in massive herds that filled entire valleys. Now, they are relatively rare.

The dibatag or Clarke’s gazelle (Ammodorcas clarkei), of Somaliland, forms a kind of connecting link between the true gazelles and the gerenuk, this being especially shown in the skull. The face has the ordinary gazelle-markings; but the rather short horns—which are wanting in the female—have a peculiar upward and forward curvature, unlike that obtaining in the gazelles 91 and somewhat resembling that of the reedbuck. The neck is longer and more slender than in ordinary gazelles, and the tail is likewise relatively long. Although local, these animals are fairly common in the interior of Somaliland, where they are known by the name of dibatag. In running, the head and neck are thrown backwards, while the tail is turned forwards over the back.

The dibatag or Clarke’s gazelle (Ammodorcas clarkei), found in Somaliland, serves as a link between true gazelles and the gerenuk, particularly evident in its skull structure. The face has the typical gazelle markings, but the relatively short horns—absent in females—have a distinct upward and forward curve, different from that of other gazelles 91 and somewhat similar to that of the reedbuck. Its neck is longer and thinner than in regular gazelles, and the tail is also relatively long. While they are localized, these animals are quite common in central Somaliland, where they are referred to as dibatag. When they run, their head and neck are pulled back, while the tail arches over their back.

The East African gerenuk (q.v.), or Waller’s gazelle (Lithocranius walleri), of which two races have been named, is a very remarkable ruminant, distinguished not only by its exceedingly elongated neck and limbs, but also by the peculiar hooked form of the very massive horns of the bucks, the dense structure and straight profile of the skull, and the extreme slenderness of the lower jaw.

The East African gerenuk (q.v.), or Waller’s gazelle (Lithocranius walleri), which has two recognized subspecies, is a unique ruminant. It's notable for its unusually long neck and legs, as well as the distinctive hooked shape of the large horns found on the males, the solid structure and straight outline of the skull, and the very slender lower jaw.

A still more aberrant gazelle is a small North-East African species known as the beira (Dorcatragus melanotis), with very short horns, large hoofs and a general appearance recalling that of some of the members of the subfamily Neotraginae, although in other respects gazelle-like. The blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra or A. bezoartica) of India, a species taking its name from the deep black coat assumed by the adult bucks, and easily recognized by the graceful, spirally twisted horns ornamenting the heads of that sex, is now the sole representative of the genus Antilope, formerly taken to embrace the whole of the true antelopes. Large face-glands are characteristic of the species, which inhabits the open plains of India in large herds. They leap high in the air, like the springbuck, when on the move.

A more unusual gazelle is a small North-East African species known as the beira (Dorcatragus melanotis), featuring very short horns, large hooves, and an overall look that resembles some members of the subfamily Neotraginae, although it still has a gazelle-like appearance. The blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra or A. bezoartica) from India, named after the deep black coat that adult males develop, is easily recognized by the elegant, spirally twisted horns on the males' heads. It is now the only representative of the genus Antilope, which was once thought to include all true antelopes. Large facial glands are typical for this species, which lives in large herds on the open plains of India. When they move, they leap high into the air, similar to springboks.

With the palla (q.v.), or impala (Aepyceros melampus), we reach an exclusively African genus, characterized by the lyrate horns of the bucks, the absence of lateral hoofs, and the presence of a pair of glands with black tufts of hair on the hind-feet.

With the palla (q.v.), or impala (Aepyceros melampus), we arrive at a genus that is entirely African, noted for the graceful, curved horns of the males, the lack of side hooves, and the existence of a pair of glands with black tufts of hair on the back feet.

The sheep-like saiga (q.v.), Saiga tatarica, of the Kirghiz steppes stands apart from all other antelopes by its curiously puffed and trunk-like nose, which can be wrinkled up when the animal is feeding and has the nostrils opening downwards. More or less nearly related to the saiga is the chiru (q.v.), Pantholops hodgsoni of Tibet, characterized by the long upright black horns of the bucks, and the less convex nose, in which the nostrils open anteriorly instead of downwards.

The sheep-like saiga (q.v.), Saiga tatarica, found in the Kirghiz steppes, is unique among antelopes due to its oddly puffed and trunk-like nose, which can be wrinkled up while the animal is feeding, with nostrils that open downwards. Closely related to the saiga is the chiru (q.v.), Pantholops hodgsoni, native to Tibet, recognized by the long, upright black horns of the males and its less curved nose, where the nostrils open forward instead of downward.

The Neotraginae (or Nanotraginae) form an exclusively African group of small-sized antelopes divided into several, for the most part nearly related, genera. Almost the only characters they possess in common are the short and spike-like horns of the bucks, which are ringed at the base, with smooth tips, and the large size of the face-gland, which opens by a circular aperture. Neotragus is represented by the pigmy royal antelope (N. pygmaeus) of Guinea; Hylarnus includes one species from Cameroon and a second from the Semliki forest; while Nesotragus comprises the East African suni antelopes, N. moschatus and N. livingstonianus. All three might, however, well be included in Neotragus. The royal antelope is the smallest of the Bovidae.

The Neotraginae (or Nanotraginae) is a group of small antelopes found only in Africa, divided into several mostly closely related genera. The main features they share are the short, spike-like horns of the males, which have rings at the base and smooth tips, and the large size of the face gland, which opens through a circular hole. Neotragus includes the pygmy royal antelope (N. pygmaeus) from Guinea; Hylarnus has one species from Cameroon and another from the Semliki forest; while Nesotragus consists of the East African suni antelopes, N. moschatus and N. livingstonianus. All three could potentially be classified under Neotragus. The royal antelope is the smallest member of the Bovidae family.

The steinbok (Rhaphiceros campestris) and the grysbok (R. melanotis) are the best-known representatives of a group characterized by the vertical direction of the horns and the small gland-pit in the skull; lateral hoofs being absent in the first-named and present in the second. A bare gland-patch behind the ear serves to distinguish the oribis or ourebis, as typified by Oribia montana of the Cape; lateral hoofs being present and the face-pit large.

The steinbok (Rhaphiceros campestris) and the grysbok (R. melanotis) are the most well-known members of a group defined by their horns that point vertically and the small gland-pit in the skull; the first one lacks lateral hoofs while the second has them. A bare gland-patch behind the ear helps identify the oribis or ourebis, exemplified by Oribia montana from the Cape; this one has lateral hoofs and a large face-pit.

From all the preceding the tiny dik-diks (Madoqua) of North-East Africa differ by their hairy noses, expanded in some species into short trunks; while the widely spread klipspringer (q.v.), Oreotragus saltator, with its several local races, is unfailingly distinguishable by its rounded blunt hoofs and thick, brittle, golden-flecked hair.

From everything mentioned earlier, the small dik-diks (Madoqua) of North-East Africa are different because they have hairy noses, which in some species have developed into short trunks. Meanwhile, the common klipspringer (q.v.), Oreotragus saltator, with its various local subspecies, can always be identified by its rounded, blunt hooves and its thick, brittle, golden-flecked fur.

In some respects connecting the last group with the Cervicaprinae is the rhebok, or vaal-rhebok (Pelea capreolus), a grey antelope of the size of a roebuck, with small upright horns in the bucks recalling those of the last group, and small lateral hoofs, but no face-glands. In size and several structural features it approximates to the more typical Cervicaprinae, as represented by the reedbuck (Cervicapra), and the waterbucks and kobs (Cobus or Kobus), all of which are likewise African. These are medium-sized or large antelopes with naked muzzles, narrow sheep-like upper molars, fairly long tails, rudimentary or no face-glands, and pits in the frontal bones of the skull. Reedbuck (q.v.), or rietbok (Cervicapra), are foxy-red antelopes ranging in size from a fallow-deer to a roe, with thick bushy tails, forwardly curving black horns, and a bare patch of glandular skin behind each ear. They keep to open country near water. The waterbuck (q.v.), Cobus, on the other hand, actually seek refuge from pursuit in the water. They have heavily fringed necks, tufted tails, long lyrate horns in the bucks (fig. 4) but no glandular ear-patches. The true waterbuck (C. ellipsiprymnus), and the defassa or sing-sing (C. defassa), are the two largest species, equal in size to red deer, and grey or reddish in colour. Of the smaller forms or kobs, C. maria and C. leucotis of the swamps of the White Nile are characterized by the black coats of the adult bucks; the West African C. cob, and its East African representative C. thomasi, are wholly red antelopes of the size of roedeer; the lichi or lechwe (C. lichi) is characterized by its long horns, black fore-legs and superior size; while the puku (C. vardoni), which is also a swamp-loving species from South-Central Africa, differs from the three preceding species by the fore-legs being uniformly foxy.

In some ways, the last group connects with the rhebok, or vaal-rhebok (Pelea capreolus), a grey antelope about the size of a roebuck, featuring small upright horns in the males that resemble those of the last group, along with small side hooves but no facial glands. It is similar in size and several structural characteristics to the more typical Cervicaprinae, represented by the reedbuck (Cervicapra), and the waterbucks and kobs (Cobus or Kobus), all of which are also from Africa. These are medium to large antelopes with bare muzzles, narrow, sheep-like upper molars, fairly long tails, minimal or no facial glands, and pits in the frontal bones of the skull. Reedbuck (q.v.), or rietbok (Cervicapra), are foxy-red antelopes varying in size from a fallow deer to a roe, with thick bushy tails, forward-curving black horns, and bare patches of glandular skin behind each ear. They prefer open country near water. The waterbuck (q.v.), Cobus, on the other hand, actually take refuge in water when pursued. They have heavily fringed necks, tufted tails, and long lyrate horns in the males (fig. 4), but no glandular ear patches. The true waterbuck (C. ellipsiprymnus) and the defassa or sing-sing (C. defassa) are the two largest species, comparable in size to red deer, and are grey or reddish in color. Of the smaller forms or kobs, C. maria and C. leucotis from the swamps of the White Nile are noted for the black coats of the adult males; the West African C. cob and its East African counterpart C. thomasi are entirely red antelopes the size of roedeer; the lichi or lechwe (C. lichi) is recognized by its long horns and black fore-legs, along with its larger size; while the puku (C. vardoni), another swamp-loving species from South-Central Africa, is different from the three previous species by having uniformly foxy fore-legs.

Fig. 4.—Waterbuck (Cobus ellipsiprymnus).

The duikers, or duikerboks (Cephalophus), of Africa, which range in size from a large hare to a fallow-deer, typify the subfamily Cephalophinae, characterized by the spike-like horns of the bucks, the elongated aperture of the face-glands, the naked muzzle, the relatively short tail, and the square-crowned upper molars; lateral hoofs being present. In the duikers themselves the single pair of horns is set in the midst of a tuft of long hairs, and the face-gland opens in a long naked line on the side of the face above the muzzle. The group is represented in India by the chousingha or four-horned antelope (Tetraceros quadricornis), generally distinguished by the feature from which it takes its name (see Duiker).

The duikers, or duikerboks (Cephalophus), found in Africa, vary in size from a large hare to a fallow deer. They belong to the subfamily Cephalophinae, which is recognized for the spike-like horns of the males, the elongated openings of the facial glands, the bare muzzle, the relatively short tail, and the square-shaped upper molars; there are lateral hooves present. In the duikers, the single pair of horns is surrounded by a tuft of long hair, and the facial gland has a long bare line on the side of the face above the muzzle. This group is represented in India by the chousingha or four-horned antelope (Tetraceros quadricornis), usually distinguished by the characteristic that gives it its name (see Duiker).

The last section of the true antelopes is the Bubalinae, represented by the hartebeest (q.v.), Bubalis, blesbok and sassaby (Damaliscus), and the gnu (q.v.) or wildebeest (Connochaetes, also called Catoblepas), all being African with the exception of one or two hartebeests which range into Syria. All these are large and generally more or less uniformly coloured antelopes with horns in both sexes, long and more or less hairy tails, high withers, small face-glands, naked muzzles, tall, narrow upper molars, and the absence of pits in the frontal bones. The long face, high crest for the horns, which are ringed, lyrate and more or less strongly angulated, and the moderately long tail, are the distinctive features of the hartebeests. They are large red 92 antelopes (fig. 5), often with black markings on the face and limbs. In Damaliscus, which includes, among many other species, the blesbok and bontebok (D. albifrons and D. pygargus) and the sassaby or bastard hartebeest (D. lunatus), the face is shorter, and the horns straighter and set on a less elevated crest. The colour, too, of these antelopes tends in many cases to purple, with white markings. From the hartebeest the gnus (fig. 6) differ by their smooth and outwardly or downwardly directed horns, broad bristly muzzles, heavy manes and long horse-like tails. There are two chief types, the white-tailed gnu or black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnu) of South Africa, now nearly extinct (fig. 6), and the brindled gnu, or blue wildebeest (C. taurinus), which, with some local variation, has a large range in South and East Africa.

The last group of true antelopes is the Bubalinae, which includes the hartebeest (q.v.), Bubalis, blesbok, and sassaby (Damaliscus), as well as the gnu (q.v.) or wildebeest (Connochaetes, also known as Catoblepas). All of these are found in Africa, except for a few hartebeests that range into Syria. These are all large, generally uniformly colored antelopes with horns on both sexes, long and somewhat hairy tails, high withers, small face glands, bare muzzles, tall, narrow upper molars, and they lack pits in the frontal bones. The hartebeests are characterized by their long faces, high crest for the horns—which are ringed, lyre-shaped, and typically angled—and moderately long tails. They are large red antelopes (fig. 5), often marked with black on their faces and legs. In Damaliscus, which includes various species such as the blesbok and bontebok (D. albifrons and D. pygargus) and the sassaby or bastard hartebeest (D. lunatus), the face is shorter, and the horns are straighter and not as high. The color of these antelopes often leans towards purple with white markings. The gnus (fig. 6) differ from hartebeests by having smooth, outward or downward-facing horns, broad bristly muzzles, heavy manes, and long horse-like tails. There are two main types: the white-tailed gnu or black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnu) from South Africa, which is now nearly extinct (fig. 6), and the brindled gnu, or blue wildebeest (C. taurinus), which has a wide range in South and East Africa, with some local variations.

Fig. 5.—Cape Hartebeest (Bubalis cama).
Fig. 6.—White-tailed Gnu, or Black Wildebeest (Connochaetes gnu).

In concluding this survey of living antelopes, reference may be made to the subfamily Rupicaprinae (typified by the European chamois), the members of which, as already stated, are in some respects intermediate between antelopes and goats. They are all small or medium-sized mountain ruminants, for the most part European and Asiatic, but with one North American representative. They are heavily built ruminants, with horns of nearly equal size in both sexes, short tapering tails, large hoofs, narrow goat-like upper molars, and usually small face-glands. The horns are generally rather small, upright, ringed at the base, and more or less curved backwards, but in the takin they are gnu-like. The group is represented by the European chamois or gemse (Rupicapra tragus or R. rupicapra), broadly distinguished by its well-known hook-like horns, and the Asiatic gorals (Urotragus) and serows (Nemorhaedus), which are represented by numerous species ranging from Tibet, the Himalaya, and China, to the Malay Peninsula and islands, being in the two latter areas the sole representatives of both antelopes and goats. In the structure of its horns the North American white Rocky Mountain goat (Oreamnus) is very like a serow, from which it differs by its extremely short cannon-bones. In the latter respect this ruminant resembles the takin (Budorcas) of Tibet, which, as already mentioned, has horns recalling those of the white-tailed gnu. Possibly the Arctic musk-ox (Ovibos) may be connected with the takin by means of certain extinct ruminants, such as the North American Pleistocene Euceratherium and the European Pliocene Criotherium (see Chamois, Goral, Serow, Rocky Mountain Goat and Takin).

In wrapping up this overview of living antelopes, we can mention the subfamily Rupicaprinae (which includes the European chamois). As noted earlier, its members are somewhat between antelopes and goats. They are all small to medium-sized mountain-dwelling animals, mostly found in Europe and Asia, with one species in North America. They have sturdy bodies, horns that are similar in size for both males and females, short tapering tails, large hooves, narrow molars similar to goats, and usually small facial glands. The horns are typically small, upright, ringed at the base, and curve backward to some degree, though in the takin, they resemble those of a gnu. The group includes the European chamois or gemse (Rupicapra tragus or R. rupicapra), easily recognized by its distinctive hook-like horns, and the Asiatic gorals (Urotragus) and serows (Nemorhaedus), which have many species found from Tibet and the Himalayas to China and the Malay Peninsula and islands, where they are the only representatives of both antelopes and goats. The North American white Rocky Mountain goat (Oreamnus) has horns that resemble those of a serow, but it differs in having very short cannon bones. In this characteristic, it is similar to the takin (Budorcas) from Tibet, which, as previously mentioned, has horns similar to those of the white-tailed gnu. It's possible that the Arctic musk-ox (Ovibos) is related to the takin through certain extinct ruminants, like the North American Pleistocene Euceratherium and the European Pliocene Criotherium (see Chamois, Goral, Serow, Rocky Mountain Goat and Takin).

Extinct Antelopes.—Only a few lines can be devoted to extinct antelopes, the earliest of which apparently date from the European Miocene. An antelope from the Lower Pliocene of Northern India known as Bubalis, or Damaliscus, palaeindicus indicates the occurrence of the hartebeest group in that country. Cobus also occurs in the same formation, as does likewise Hippotragus. Palaeoryx from the corresponding horizon in Greece and Samos is to some extent intermediate between Hippotragus and Oryx. Gazelles are common in the Miocene and Pliocene of both Europe and Asia. Elands and kudus appear to have been represented in India during the Pliocene; the European Palaeoreas of the same age seems to be intermediate between the two, while Protragelaphus is evidently another European representative of the group. Helicophora is another spiral-horned European Pliocene antelope, but of somewhat doubtful affinity; the same being the case with the large Criotherium of the Samos Pliocene, in which the short horns are curiously twisted. As already stated, there is a possibility of this latter ruminant being allied both to the takin and the musk-ox. Palaeotragus and Tragoceros, of the Lower Pliocene of Greece, at one time regarded as antelopes, are now known to be ancestors of the okapi.

Extinct Antelopes.—We can only dedicate a few lines to extinct antelopes, the earliest of which seem to date back to the European Miocene. An antelope from the Lower Pliocene of Northern India known as Bubalis, or Damaliscus, palaeindicus, indicates that the hartebeest group existed in that region. Cobus is also found in the same formation, as well as Hippotragus. Palaeoryx from the corresponding layer in Greece and Samos is somewhat intermediate between Hippotragus and Oryx. Gazelles are common in the Miocene and Pliocene of both Europe and Asia. Elands and kudus seem to have been present in India during the Pliocene; the European Palaeoreas from the same period appears to be an intermediate form between the two, while Protragelaphus is clearly another European representative of the group. Helicophora is another spiral-horned European Pliocene antelope, though its classification is somewhat uncertain; the same goes for the large Criotherium from the Samos Pliocene, which has intriguingly twisted short horns. As mentioned earlier, there is a possibility that this latter ruminant is related to both the takin and the musk-ox. Palaeotragus and Tragoceros from the Lower Pliocene of Greece, once considered antelopes, are now recognized as ancestors of the okapi.

For antelopes in general, see P.L. Sclater and O. Thomas, The Book of Antelopes (4 vols., London, 1894-1900).

For information on antelopes in general, check out P.L. Sclater and O. Thomas, The Book of Antelopes (4 vols., London, 1894-1900).

(R. L.*)

ANTEMNAE (Lat. ante amnem, sc. Anienem; Varro, Ling. Lat. v. 28), an ancient village of Latium, situated on the W. of the Via Salaria, 2 m. N. of Rome, where the Anio falls into the Tiber. It is said to have been conquered by Romulus after the rape of the Sabine women, and to have assisted the Tarquins. Certainly it soon lost its independence, and in Strabo’s time was a mere village. The site is one of great strength, and is now occupied by a fort, in the construction of which traces of the outer walls and of huts, and several wells and a cistern, all belonging to the primitive village, were discovered, and also the remains of a villa of the end of the Republic.

ANTENNAE (Lat. ante amnem, sc. Anienem; Varro, Ling. Lat. v. 28), an ancient village in Latium, located to the west of the Via Salaria, 2 miles north of Rome, where the Anio river meets the Tiber. It’s said that Romulus conquered it after the abduction of the Sabine women, and it supported the Tarquins. Clearly, it lost its independence soon after, and by the time of Strabo, it had become just a small village. The location is very defensible and is now home to a fort, where remnants of the outer walls, huts, several wells, and a cistern from the original village were found, as well as the remains of a villa from the late Republic.

See T. Ashby in Papers of the British School at Rome, iii. 14.

See T. Ashby in Papers of the British School at Rome, iii. 14.


ANTENOR, an Athenian sculptor, of the latter part of the 6th century B.C. He was the author of the group of the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton, set up by the Athenians on the expulsion of the Peisistratidae, and carried away to Persia by Xerxes. A basis with the signature of Antenor, son of Eumares, has been shown to belong to one of the dedicated female figures of archaic style which have been found on the Acropolis of Athens.

ANTENOR, was an Athenian sculptor from the later part of the 6th century BCE He created the statue group of the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton, which the Athenians erected after expelling the Peisistratidae, but it was taken to Persia by Xerxes. A base with the signature of Antenor, son of Eumares, has been identified as belonging to one of the dedicated female figures in an archaic style found on the Acropolis of Athens.

See Greek Art; and E.A. Gardner’s Handbook of Greek Sculpture, i. p. 182.

See Greek Art; and E.A. Gardner’s Handbook of Greek Sculpture, i. p. 182.


ANTENOR, in Greek legend, one of the wisest of the Trojan elders and counsellors. He advised his fellow-townsmen to send Helen back to her husband, and showed himself not unfriendly to the Greeks and an advocate of peace. In the later story, according to Dares and Dictys, he was said to have treacherously opened the gates of Troy to the enemy; in return for which, at the general sack of the city, his house, distinguished by a panther’s skin at the door, was spared by the victors. Afterwards, 93 according to various versions of the legend, he either rebuilt a city on the site of Troy, or settled at Cyrene, or became the founder of Patavium.

ANTENOR, in Greek legend, was one of the wisest elders and advisors of Troy. He urged his fellow citizens to return Helen to her husband and showed goodwill towards the Greeks, promoting peace. In later accounts, as told by Dares and Dictys, he was said to have betrayed his city by secretly opening the gates of Troy to the enemy; as a result, during the city's downfall, his house, marked by a panther’s skin at the entrance, was spared by the conquerors. Later on, 93 according to different versions of the story, he either rebuilt a city where Troy once stood, settled in Cyrene, or became the founder of Patavium.

Homer, Iliad, iii. 148, vii. 347; Horace, Epp. i. 2. 9; Livy i. 1; Pindar, Pythia, v. 83; Virgil, Aen. i. 242.

Homer, Iliad, iii. 148, vii. 347; Horace, Epp. i. 2. 9; Livy i. 1; Pindar, Pythia, v. 83; Virgil, Aen. i. 242.


ANTEQUERA (the ancient Anticaria), a town of southern Spain, in the province of Málaga; on the Bobadilla-Granada railway. Pop. (1900) 31,609. Antequera overlooks the fertile valley bounded on the S. by the Sierra de los Torcales, and on the N. by the river Guadalhorce. It occupies a commanding position, while the remains of its walls, and of a fine Moorish castle on a rock that overhangs the town, show how admirably its natural defences were supplemented by art. Besides several interesting churches and palaces, it contains a fine arch, erected in 1595 in honour of Philip II., and partly constructed of inscribed Roman masonry. In the eastern suburbs there is one of the largest grave-mounds in Spain, said to be of prehistoric date, and with subterranean chambers excavated to a depth of 65 ft. The Peña de los Enamorados, or “Lovers’ Peak,” is a conspicuous crag which owes its name to the romantic legend adapted by Robert Southey (1774-1843) in his Laila and Manuel. Woollen fabrics are manufactured, and the sugar industry established in 1890 employs several thousand hands; but the majority of the inhabitants are occupied by the trade in grain, fruit, wine and oil. Marble is quarried; and at El Torcal, 6 m. south, there is a very curious labyrinth of red marble rocks. Antequera was captured from the Moors in 1410, and became until 1492 one of the most important outposts of the Christian power in Spain.

ANTEQUERA (the ancient Anticaria), a town in southern Spain, located in the province of Málaga; on the Bobadilla-Granada railway. Population (1900) was 31,609. Antequera overlooks the fertile valley, with the Sierra de los Torcales to the south and the Guadalhorce River to the north. It has a commanding position, and the remains of its walls and a beautiful Moorish castle on a rock that towers above the town demonstrate how well its natural defenses were enhanced by human construction. In addition to several interesting churches and palaces, there is a grand arch built in 1595 in honor of Philip II, partially made from engraved Roman stonework. In the eastern suburbs, there is one of the largest burial mounds in Spain, thought to be prehistoric, featuring underground chambers dug to a depth of 65 feet. The Peña de los Enamorados, or “Lovers’ Peak,” is a prominent rock formation named after a romantic legend adapted by Robert Southey (1774-1843) in his Laila and Manuel. Woolen fabrics are produced, and the sugar industry, established in 1890, employs several thousand workers; however, most residents are engaged in the trade of grain, fruit, wine, and oil. Marble is quarried, and at El Torcal, 6 miles to the south, there is a fascinating labyrinth of red marble rocks. Antequera was taken from the Moors in 1410 and remained one of the most significant outposts of Christian power in Spain until 1492.

See C. Fernandez, Historia de Antequera, desde su fondacion (Malaga, 1842).

See C. Fernandez, Historia de Antequera, desde su fundación (Malaga, 1842).


ANTEROS, pope for some weeks at the end of the year 235. He died on the 3rd of January 236. His original epitaph was discovered in the Catacombs.

ANTEROS, was pope for a few weeks at the end of 235. He passed away on January 3, 236. His original epitaph was found in the Catacombs.


ANTHELION (late Gr. ἀνθήλιος, opposite the sun), the luminous ring or halo sometimes seen in Alpine or polar regions surrounding the shadow of the head of an observer cast upon a bank of cloud or mist. The halo diminishes in brightness from the centre outwards, and is probably due to the diffraction of light. Under favourable conditions four concentric rings may be seen round the shadow of the observer’s head, the outermost, which seldom appears, having an angular radius of 40°.

ANTHELION (from late Greek sunflower, meaning opposite the sun), is the bright ring or halo that sometimes appears in Alpine or polar regions around the shadow of an observer's head when cast on a cloud or mist. The brightness of the halo fades from the center outward and is likely caused by the diffraction of light. In ideal conditions, four concentric rings can be seen around the observer's head, with the outermost ring, which rarely appears, having an angular radius of 40°.


ANTHEM, derived from the Gr. ἀντίφωνα, through the Saxon antefn, a word which originally had the same meaning as antiphony (q.v.). It is now, however, generally restricted to a form of church music, particularly in the service of the Church of England, in which it is appointed by the rubrics to follow the third collect at both morning and evening prayer, “in choirs and places where they sing.” It is just as usual in this place to have an ordinary hymn as an anthem, which is a more elaborate composition than the congregational hymns. Several anthems are included in the English coronation service. The words are selected from Holy Scripture or in some cases from the Liturgy, and the music is generally more elaborate and varied than that of psalm or hymn tunes. Anthems may be written for solo voices only, for the full choir, or for both, and according to this distinction are called respectively Verse, Full, and Full with Verse. Though the anthem of the Church of England is analogous to the motet of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches, both being written for a trained choir and not for the congregation, it is as a musical form essentially English in its origin and development. The English school of musicians has from the first devoted its chief attention to this form, and scarcely a composer of any note can be named who has not written several good anthems. Tallis, Tye, Byrd, and Farrant in the 16th century; Orlando Gibbons, Blow, and Purcell in the 17th, and Croft, Boyce, James Kent, James Nares, Benjamin Cooke, and Samuel Arnold in the 18th were famous composers of anthems, and in more recent times the names are too numerous to mention.

ANTHEM, comes from the Greek word antiphons, through the Saxon antefn, a term that originally meant the same as antiphony (q.v.). Today, however, it is mostly used to describe a type of church music, especially in the Church of England, where it is designated by the guidelines to follow the third collect during both morning and evening prayer, “in choirs and places where they sing.” It’s common in these settings to have a regular hymn instead of an anthem, which is a more intricate composition than congregational hymns. Many anthems are included in the English coronation service. The texts are drawn from the Holy Scripture or, in some cases, from the Liturgy, and the music is usually more complex and diverse than that of psalm or hymn tunes. Anthems can be composed for solo voices only, for the full choir, or for both, and based on this distinction, they are referred to as Verse, Full, and Full with Verse. While the anthem of the Church of England is similar to the motet of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches, both written for trained choirs rather than the congregation, its musical form is fundamentally English in its origins and development. The English school of musicians has always focused on this form, and hardly any notable composer can be named who hasn’t created several good anthems. Tallis, Tye, Byrd, and Farrant in the 16th century; Orlando Gibbons, Blow, and Purcell in the 17th; and Croft, Boyce, James Kent, James Nares, Benjamin Cooke, and Samuel Arnold in the 18th were well-known composers of anthems, and in more recent times, the list of names is too long to mention.


ANTHEMION (from the Gr. ἀνθέμιον, a flower), the conventional design of flower or leaf forms which was largely employed by the Greeks to decorate (1) the fronts of ante-fixae, (2) the upper portion of the stele or vertical tombstones, (3) the necking of the Ionic columns of the Erechtheum and its continuation as a decorative frieze on the walls of the same, and (4) the cymatium of a cornice. Though generally known as the honeysuckle ornament, from its resemblance to that flower, its origin will be found in the flower of the acanthus plant.

ANTHEMION (from the Greek flower, meaning flower), is the traditional design of floral or leaf patterns that the Greeks commonly used to decorate (1) the fronts of antefixes, (2) the top part of stelae or upright tombstones, (3) the necking of the Ionic columns of the Erechtheum and its continuation as a decorative frieze on its walls, and (4) the cymatium of a cornice. Although it's usually called the honeysuckle ornament because of its resemblance to that flower, its true origin is found in the flower of the acanthus plant.


ANTHEMIUS, Greek mathematician and architect, who produced, under the patronage of Justinian (A.D. 532), the original and daring plans for the church of St Sophia in Constantinople, which strikingly displayed at once his knowledge and his ignorance. He was one of five brothers—the sons of Stephanus, a physician of Tralles—who were all more or less eminent in their respective departments. Dioscorus followed his father’s profession in his native place; Alexander became at Rome one of the most celebrated medical men of his time; Olympius was deeply versed in Roman jurisprudence; and Metrodorus was one of the distinguished grammarians of the great Eastern capital. It is related of Anthemius that, having a quarrel with his next-door neighbour Zeno, he annoyed him in two ways. First, he made a number of leathern tubes the ends of which he contrived to fix among the joists and flooring of a fine upper-room in which Zeno entertained his friends, and then subjected it to a miniature earthquake by sending steam through the tubes. Secondly, he simulated thunder and lightning, the latter by flashing in Zeno’s eyes an intolerable light from a slightly hollowed mirror. Certain it is that he wrote a treatise on burning-glasses. A fragment of this was published under the title Περὶ παραδόξων μηχανημάτων by L. Dupuy in 1777, and also appeared in 1786 in the forty-second volume of the Hist. de l’Acad. des Inscr.; A. Westermann gave a revised edition of it in his Παραδοξογράφοι (Scriptores rerum mirabilium Graeci), 1839. In the course of constructions for surfaces to reflect to one and the same point (1) all rays in whatever direction passing through another point, (2) a set of parallel rays, Anthemius assumes a property of an ellipse not found in Apollonius (the equality of the angles subtended at a focus by two tangents drawn from a point), and (having given the focus and a double ordinate) he uses the focus and directrix to obtain any number of points on a parabola—the first instance on record of the practical use of the directrix.

ANTHEMIUS, Greek mathematician and architect, who created, under the patronage of Justinian (CE 532), the original and bold designs for the church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, which vividly revealed both his knowledge and his shortcomings. He was one of five brothers—the sons of Stephanus, a physician from Tralles—who were all notable in their own fields. Dioscorus continued in his father's profession in their hometown; Alexander became one of the most renowned medical practitioners in Rome during his time; Olympius was well-versed in Roman law; and Metrodorus was one of the prominent grammarians of the great Eastern capital. It's said that Anthemius, after having a disagreement with his neighbor Zeno, played tricks on him in two ways. First, he created several leather tubes, which he managed to install among the beams and flooring of a beautiful upper room where Zeno hosted his friends, and then he caused a minor earthquake by sending steam through the tubes. Secondly, he faked thunder and lightning by using a slightly hollowed mirror to flash a blinding light into Zeno's eyes. It is certain that he wrote a treatise on burning-glasses. A fragment of this was published under the title About strange devices by L. Dupuy in 1777, and it was also included in 1786 in the forty-second volume of the Hist. de l’Acad. des Inscr. A. Westermann provided a revised edition of it in his Paradox writers (Scriptores rerum mirabilium Graeci), 1839. In his work on surfaces that reflect all rays passing through a particular point (1) in any direction, and (2) parallel rays, Anthemius identifies a property of an ellipse that Apollonius did not recognize (the equality of the angles formed at a focus by two tangents drawn from a point), and, having given the focus and a double ordinate, he employs the focus and directrix to determine any number of points on a parabola—the first recorded instance of the practical use of the directrix.

On Anthemius generally, see Procopius, De Aedific. i. 1; Agathias, Hist. v. 6-9; Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, cap. xl.

On Anthemius generally, see Procopius, De Aedific. i. 1; Agathias, Hist. v. 6-9; Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, cap. xl.

(T. L. H.)

ANTHESTERIA, one of the four Athenian festivals in honour of Dionysus, held annually for three days (11th-13th) in the month of Anthesterion (February-March). The object of the festival was to celebrate the maturing of the wine stored at the previous vintage, and the beginning of spring. On the first day, called Pithoigia (opening of the casks), libations were offered from the newly opened casks to the god of wine, all the household, including servants and slaves, joining in the festivities. The rooms and the drinking vessels in them were adorned with spring flowers, as were also the children over three years of age. The second day, named Choës (feast of beakers), was a time of merrymaking. The people dressed themselves gaily, some in the disguise of the mythical personages in the suite of Dionysus, and paid a round of visits to their acquaintances. Drinking clubs met to drink off matches, the winner being he who drained his cup most rapidly. Others poured libations on the tombs of deceased relatives. On the part of the state this day was the occasion of a peculiarly solemn and secret ceremony in one of the sanctuaries of Dionysus in the Lenaeum, which for the rest of the year was closed. The basilissa (or basilinna), wife of the archon basileus for the time, went through a ceremony of marriage to the wine god, in which she was assisted by fourteen Athenian matrons, called geraerae, chosen by the basileus and sworn to secrecy. The days on which the Pithoigia and Choës were celebrated were both regarded as ἀποφράδες (nefasti) and μιαραί (“defiled”), necessitating expiatory libations; on them the souls of the dead came up from the underworld and walked abroad; people chewed leaves of whitethorn and besmeared their doors with tar to protect themselves from evil. But at least in private circles the festive character of the ceremonies predominated. The third day was named Chytri (feast of pots, from χύτρος, a pot), a festival of the dead. Cooked pulse was offered to Hermes, in his capacity of a 94 god of the lower world, and to the souls of the dead. Although no performances were allowed at the theatre, a sort of rehearsal took place, at which the players for the ensuing dramatic festival were selected.

ANTHESTERIA, is one of the four Athenian festivals honoring Dionysus, celebrated annually for three days (11th-13th) in the month of Anthesterion (February-March). The purpose of the festival was to celebrate the maturing of the wine stored from the last harvest and the start of spring. On the first day, called Pithoigia (opening of the casks), offerings were made from the newly opened casks to the god of wine, with the entire household, including servants and slaves, participating in the celebrations. The rooms and drinking vessels were decorated with spring flowers, and children over three years old were also adorned. The second day, named Choës (feast of beakers), was a time for merriment. People dressed festively, some disguising themselves as mythical figures from Dionysus's entourage, and visited friends and neighbors. Drinking clubs gathered to compete in drinking contests, with the winner being the one who finished their drink the fastest. Others poured libations on the graves of their deceased relatives. On this day, the state held a particularly solemn and secret ceremony in one of the sanctuaries of Dionysus in the Lenaeum, which was closed for the rest of the year. The basilissa (or basilinna), the wife of the archon basileus, went through a marriage ceremony to the wine god, assisted by fourteen Athenian matrons called geraerae, chosen by the basileus and sworn to secrecy. Both the Pithoigia and Choës days were considered unfortunate (nefasti) and μιαραί (“defiled”), requiring expiatory libations; during these days, the souls of the dead were believed to rise from the underworld and roam the earth; people chewed whitethorn leaves and smeared their doors with tar for protection against evil. However, at least in private circles, the festive aspect of the ceremonies was dominant. The third day was called Chytri (feast of pots, from χύτρος, a pot), a festival for the dead. Cooked pulses were offered to Hermes, as the god of the underworld, and to the souls of the dead. Even though no performances were allowed at the theater, a sort of rehearsal took place to select the actors for the upcoming dramatic festival.

The name Anthesteria, according to the account of it given above, is usually connected with ἄνθος (“flower,” or the “bloom” of the grape), but A.W. Verrall (Journal of Hellenic Studies, xx., 1900, p. 115) explains it as a feast of “revocation” (from ἀναθέσσασθαι, to “pray back” or “up”), at which the ghosts of the dead were recalled to the land of the living (cp. the Roman mundus patet). J.E. Harrison (ibid. 100, 109, and Prolegomena), regarding the Anthesteria as primarily a festival of all souls, the object of which was the expulsion of ancestral ghosts by means of placation, explains πιθοιγία as the feast of the opening of the graves (πίθος meaning a large urn used for burial purposes), χόες as the day of libations, and χύτροι as the day of the grave-holes (not “pots,” which is χύτροι), in point of time really anterior to the πιθοιγία. E. Rohde and M.P. Nilsson, however, take the χύτροι to mean “water vessels,” and connect the ceremony with the Hydrophoria, a libation festival to propitiate the dead who had perished in the flood of Deucalion.

The name Anthesteria, as explained above, is usually linked to flower (“flower” or the “bloom” of the grape), but A.W. Verrall (Journal of Hellenic Studies, xx., 1900, p. 115) describes it as a feast of “revocation” (from ἀναθέσσασθαι, to “pray back” or “up”), where the spirits of the dead were called back to the land of the living (cp. the Roman mundus patet). J.E. Harrison (ibid. 100, 109, and Prolegomena) sees the Anthesteria mainly as a festival for all souls, aimed at casting out ancestral spirits through appeasement. He interprets πιθοιγία as the feast of opening the graves (πίθος meaning a large urn used for burials), χοές as the day for libations, and hytras as the day for the grave-holes (not “pots,” which is χύτροι), which actually comes before πιθοιγία. E. Rohde and M.P. Nilsson, on the other hand, interpret χύτροι to mean “water vessels,” connecting the ceremony to the Hydrophoria, a libation festival to appease the dead who died in the flood of Deucalion.

See F. Hiller von Gartringen in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie (s.v.); J. Girard in Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités (s.v. “Dionysia”); and F.A. Voigt in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie (s.v. “Dionysos”); J.E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903); M.P. Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis Atticis (1900) and Griechische Feste (1906); G.F. Schömann, Griechische Alterthümer, ii. (ed. J.H. Lipsius, 1902), p. 516; A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (1898); E. Rohde, Psyche (4th ed., 1907), p. 237.

See F. Hiller von Gartringen in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie (s.v.); J. Girard in Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités (s.v. “Dionysia”); and F.A. Voigt in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie (s.v. “Dionysos”); J.E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903); M.P. Nilsson, Studia de Dionysiis Atticis (1900) and Griechische Feste (1906); G.F. Schömann, Griechische Alterthümer, ii. (ed. J.H. Lipsius, 1902), p. 516; A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (1898); E. Rohde, Psyche (4th ed., 1907), p. 237.


ANTHIM THE IBERIAN, a notable figure in the ecclesiastical history of Rumania. A Georgian by birth, he came to Rumania early in the second half of the 17th century, as a simple monk. He became bishop of Râmnicu in 1705, and in 1708 archbishop of Walachia. Taking a leading part in the political movements of the time, he came into conflict with the newly appointed Greek hospodars, and was exiled to Rumelia. But on his crossing the Danube in 1716 he was thrown into the water and drowned, as it is alleged, at the instigation of the prince of Walachia. He was a man of great talents and spoke and wrote many Oriental and European languages. Though a foreigner, he soon acquired a thorough knowledge of Rumanian, and was instrumental in helping to introduce that language into the church as its official language. He was a master printer and an artist of the first order. He cut the wood blocks for the books which he printed in Tirgovishtea, Râmnicu, Snagov and Bucharest. He was also the first to introduce Oriental founts of type into Rumania, and he printed there the first Arabic missal for the Christians of the East (Râmnicu, 1702). He also trained Georgians in the art of printing, and cut the type with which under his pupil Mihail Ishtvanovitch they printed the first Georgian Gospels (Tiflis, 1709). A man of great oratorical power, Anthim delivered a series of sermons (Didahii), and some of his pastoral letters are models of style and of language as well as of exact and beautiful printing. He also completed a whole corpus of lectionaries, missals, gospels, &c.

ANTHIM THE IBERIAN, a significant figure in the church history of Romania. Born in Georgia, he arrived in Romania in the early to mid-17th century as a humble monk. He became the bishop of Râmnicu in 1705 and the archbishop of Walachia in 1708. He played a crucial role in the political movements of his time, which led to conflicts with the newly appointed Greek hospodars, resulting in his exile to Rumelia. However, when he attempted to cross the Danube in 1716, he was allegedly thrown into the water and drowned on the orders of the prince of Walachia. Anthim was exceptionally talented and was fluent in multiple Oriental and European languages. Despite being a foreigner, he quickly became proficient in Romanian and was key in making it the official language of the church. He was a skilled printer and a talented artist. He carved the woodblocks for the books printed in Tirgovishtea, Râmnicu, Snagov, and Bucharest. He was also the first to bring Oriental typefaces to Romania and printed the first Arabic missal for Eastern Christians (Râmnicu, 1702). He trained Georgians in printing techniques, and under his guidance, his student Mihail Ishtvanovitch printed the first Georgian Gospels (Tiflis, 1709). Anthim was known for his impressive oratory skills, delivering a series of sermons (Didahii), and some of his pastoral letters are exemplary in style and language, as well as in quality printing. He also completed an entire corpus of lectionaries, missals, gospels, etc.

See M. Gaster, Chrestomathie roumaine (1881), and “Gesch. d. rumänischen Litteratur,” in Grober, Grundriss d. rom. Philologie, vol. ii. (1899); and E. Picot, Notice sur Anthim d’Ivir (Paris, 1886).

See M. Gaster, Chrestomathie roumaine (1881), and “Gesch. d. rumänischen Litteratur,” in Grober, Grundriss d. rom. Philologie, vol. ii. (1899); and E. Picot, Notice sur Anthim d’Ivir (Paris, 1886).

(M. G.)

ANTHOLOGY. The term “anthology,” literally denoting a garland or collection of flowers, is figuratively applied to any selection of literary beauties, and especially to that great body of fugitive poetry, comprehending about 4500 pieces, by upwards of 300 writers, which is commonly known as the Greek Anthology.

ANTHOLOGY. The word “anthology,” which originally means a bouquet or collection of flowers, is now used to refer to any collection of literary works, particularly to the vast collection of short poems, totaling around 4500 pieces by more than 300 authors, commonly known as the Greek Anthology.

Literary History of the Greek Anthology.—The art of occasional poetry had been cultivated in Greece from an early period,—less, however, as the vehicle of personal feeling, than as the recognized commemoration of remarkable individuals or events, on sepulchral monuments and votive offerings: Such compositions were termed epigrams, i.e. inscriptions. The modern use of the word is a departure from the original sense, which simply indicated that the composition was intended to be engraved or inscribed. Such a composition must necessarily be brief, and the restraints attendant upon its publication concurred with the simplicity of Greek taste in prescribing conciseness of expression, pregnancy of meaning, purity of diction and singleness of thought, as the indispensable conditions of excellence in the epigrammatic style. The term was soon extended to any piece by which these conditions were fulfilled. The transition from the monumental to the purely literary character of the epigram was favoured by the exhaustion of more lofty forms of poetry, the general increase, from the general diffusion of culture, of accomplished writers and tasteful readers, but, above all, by the changed political circumstances of the times, which induced many who would otherwise have engaged in public affairs to addict themselves to literary pursuits. These causes came into full operation during the Alexandrian era, in which we find every description of epigrammatic composition perfectly developed. About 60 B.C., the sophist and poet, Meleager of Gadara, undertook to combine the choicest effusions of his predecessors into a single body of fugitive poetry. Collections of monumental inscriptions, or of poems on particular subjects, had previously been formed by Polemon Periegetes and others; but Meleager first gave the principle a comprehensive application. His selection, compiled from forty-six of his predecessors, and including numerous contributions of his own, was entitled The Garland (Στέφανος); and in an introductory poem each poet is compared to some flower, fancifully deemed appropriate to his genius. The arrangement of his collection was alphabetical, according to the initial letter of each epigram.

Literary History of the Greek Anthology.—The art of occasional poetry was practiced in Greece from an early time, not so much as a way to express personal feelings, but more as a formal way to honor notable individuals or events on tombstones and in memorial offerings. These writings were known as epigrams, i.e. inscriptions. The current meaning of the word differs from its original definition, which simply indicated that the piece was meant to be engraved or inscribed. Such a piece had to be brief, and the constraints of its presentation, combined with the straightforward nature of Greek taste, called for concise expression, impactful meaning, clear language, and a single focus as essential qualities of excellence in the epigrammatic style. The term quickly came to refer to any work meeting these criteria. The shift from monumental inscriptions to purely literary epigrams was encouraged by the decline of more elevated forms of poetry, the widespread increase in educated writers and discerning readers, and above all, the changing political landscape, which led many who might have participated in public life to turn to literary endeavors. These factors became fully active during the Alexandrian period, during which we see a complete development of all types of epigrammatic writing. Around 60 BCE, the sophist and poet Meleager of Gadara sought to compile the best works of his predecessors into a single collection of transitory poetry. Prior to this, collections of memorial inscriptions or poems on specific topics had been created by Polemon Periegetes and others; but Meleager was the first to apply the concept on a broader scale. His selection, drawn from forty-six earlier poets and featuring many of his contributions, was titled The Garland (Στέφανος); and in an introductory poem, each poet is likened to a flower deemed fitting for their style. His collection was organized alphabetically, based on the first letter of each epigram.

In the age of the emperor Tiberius (or Trajan, according to others) the work of Meleager was continued by another epigrammatist, Philippus of Thessalonica, who first employed the term anthology. His collection, which included the compositions of thirteen writers subsequent to Meleager, was also arranged alphabetically, and contained an introductory poem. It was of inferior quality to Meleager’s. Somewhat later, under Hadrian, another supplement was formed by the sophist Diogenianus of Heracleia (2nd century A.D.), and Strato of Sardis compiled his elegant but tainted Μοῦσα Παιδική (Musa Puerilis) from his productions and those of earlier writers. No further collection from various sources is recorded until the time of Justinian, when epigrammatic writing, especially of an amatory character, experienced a great revival at the hands of Agathias of Myrina, the historian, Paulus Silentiarius, and their circle. Their ingenious but mannered productions were collected by Agathias into a new anthology, entitled The Circle (Κύκλος); it was the first to be divided into books, and arranged with reference to the subjects of the pieces.

During the reign of Emperor Tiberius (or Trajan, according to some), the work of Meleager was continued by another poet, Philippus of Thessalonica, who was the first to use the term anthology. His collection included works from thirteen writers after Meleager, was organized alphabetically, and featured an introductory poem. However, it was not as high-quality as Meleager's. Later, under Hadrian, another collection was created by the sophist Diogenianus of Heracleia (2nd century A.D.), while Strato of Sardis compiled his elegant yet flawed piece, Kids' Muse (Musa Puerilis), from his own works and those of earlier poets. No further collections from various sources were recorded until Justinian's time, when epigrammatic writing, particularly romantic ones, saw a significant revival thanks to Agathias of Myrina, the historian, Paulus Silentiarius, and their group. Their clever but affected works were gathered by Agathias into a new anthology called The Circle (Cycle); it was the first to be divided into books and organized by subject matter.

These and other collections made during the middle ages are now lost. The partial incorporation of them into a single body, classified according to the contents in 15 books, was the work of a certain Constantinus Cephalas, whose name alone is preserved in the single MS. of his compilation extant, but who probably lived during the temporary revival of letters under Constantine Porphyrogenitus, at the beginning of the 10th century. He appears to have merely made excerpts from the existing anthologies, with the addition of selections from Lucillius, Palladas, and other epigrammatists, whose compositions had been published separately. His arrangement, to which we shall have to recur, is founded on a principle of classification, and nearly corresponds to that adopted by Agathias. His principle of selection is unknown; it is only certain that while he omitted much that he should have retained, he has preserved much that would otherwise have perished. The extent of our obligations may be ascertained by a comparison between his anthology and that of the next editor, the monk Maximus Planudes (A.D. 1320), who has not merely grievously mutilated the anthology of Cephalas by omissions, but has disfigured it by interpolating verses of his own. We are, however, indebted to him for the preservation of the epigrams on works of art, which seem to have been accidentally omitted from our only transcript of Cephalas.

These and other collections made during the Middle Ages are now lost. A partial compilation of them into a single body, organized into 15 books, was created by a certain Constantinus Cephalas, whose name is the only one found in the surviving manuscript of his work. He likely lived during the brief revival of learning under Constantine Porphyrogenitus at the beginning of the 10th century. It seems he only made excerpts from the existing anthologies, adding selections from Lucillius, Palladas, and other epigram writers whose works had been published separately. His arrangement, which we will revisit, is based on a classification principle that closely resembles the one used by Agathias. His criteria for selection are unknown; however, it's clear that while he left out a lot that should have been included, he preserved a significant amount that would have otherwise been lost. We can measure how much we owe him by comparing his anthology to that of the next editor, the monk Maximus Planudes (A.D. 1320), who not only severely cut down Cephalas's anthology by leaving out portions but also distorted it by including his own verses. Still, we are grateful to him for keeping the epigrams on works of art, which seem to have been accidentally omitted from our only copy of Cephalas.

The Planudean (in seven books) was the only recension of the anthology known at the revival of classical literature, and was first published at Florence, by Janus Lascaris, in 1494. It long continued 95 to be the only accessible collection, for although the Palatine MS., the sole extant copy of the anthology of Cephalas, was discovered in the Palatine library at Heidelberg, and copied by Saumaise (Salmasius) in 1606, it was not published until 1776, when it was included in Brunck’s Analecta Veterum Poetarum Graecorum. The MS. itself had frequently changed its quarters. In 1623, having been taken in the sack of Heidelberg in the Thirty Years’ War, it was sent with the rest of the Palatine Library to Rome as a present from Maximilian I. of Bavaria to Gregory XV., who had it divided into two parts, the first of which was by far the larger; thence it was taken to Paris in 1797. In 1816 it went back to Heidelberg, but in an incomplete state, the second part remaining at Paris. It is now represented at Heidelberg by a photographic facsimile. Brunck’s edition was superseded by the standard one of Friedrich Jacobs (1794-1814, 13 vols.), the text of which was reprinted in a more convenient form in 1813-1817, and occupies three pocket volumes in the Tauchnitz series of the classics. The best edition for general purposes is perhaps that of Dubner in Didot’s Bibliotheca (1864-1872), which contains the Palatine Anthology, the epigrams of the Planudean Anthology not comprised in the former, an appendix of pieces derived from other sources, copious notes selected from all quarters, a literal Latin prose translation by Boissonade, Bothe, and Lapaume and the metrical Latin versions of Hugo Grotius. A third volume, edited by E. Cougny, was published in 1890. The best edition of the Planudean Anthology is the splendid one by van Bosch and van Lennep (1795-1822). There is also a complete edition of the text by Stadlmuller in the Teubner series.

The Planudean (in seven books) was the only version of the anthology known during the revival of classical literature and was first published in Florence by Janus Lascaris in 1494. It remained the only available collection for a long time, since the Palatine manuscript, the only surviving copy of Cephalas's anthology, was discovered in the Palatine library at Heidelberg and copied by Saumaise (Salmasius) in 1606, but it wasn't published until 1776 when it was included in Brunck’s Analecta Veterum Poetarum Graecorum. The manuscript itself had frequently changed locations. In 1623, after being taken during the sack of Heidelberg in the Thirty Years’ War, it was sent along with the rest of the Palatine Library to Rome as a gift from Maximilian I of Bavaria to Gregory XV, who then split it into two parts, the first being significantly larger; from there, it was taken to Paris in 1797. In 1816, it returned to Heidelberg, but was incomplete, with the second part remaining in Paris. It is now represented in Heidelberg by a photographic facsimile. Brunck’s edition was eventually replaced by Friedrich Jacobs's standard edition (1794-1814, 13 vols.), which was reprinted in a more convenient format between 1813 and 1817 and appears in three pocket volumes in the Tauchnitz series of classics. The best edition for general use may be that of Dubner in Didot’s Bibliotheca (1864-1872), which includes the Palatine Anthology, the epigrams from the Planudean Anthology not covered in the former, an appendix of pieces from other sources, extensive notes from various references, a literal Latin prose translation by Boissonade, Bothe, and Lapaume, and the metrical Latin versions by Hugo Grotius. A third volume edited by E. Cougny was published in 1890. The finest edition of the Planudean Anthology is the exceptional one by van Bosch and van Lennep (1795-1822). There is also a complete text edition by Stadlmuller in the Teubner series.

Arrangement.—The Palatine MS., the archetype of the present text, was transcribed by different persons at different times, and the actual arrangement of the collection does not correspond with that signalized in the index. It is as follows: Book 1. Christian epigrams; 2. Christodorus’s description of certain statues; 3. Inscriptions in the temple at Cyzicus; 4. The prefaces of Meleager, Philippus, and Agathias to their respective collections; 5. Amatory epigrams; 6. Votive inscriptions; 7. Epitaphs; 8. The epigrams of Gregory of Nazianzus; 9. Rhetorical and illustrative epigrams; 10. Ethical pieces; 11. Humorous and convivial; 12. Strata’s Musa Puerilis; 13. Metrical curiosities; 14. Puzzles, enigmas, oracles; 15. Miscellanies. The epigrams on works of art, as already stated, are missing from the Codex Palatinus, and must be sought in an appendix of epigrams only occurring in the Planudean Anthology. The epigrams hitherto recovered from ancient monuments and similar sources form appendices in the second and third volumes of Dübner’s edition.

Arrangement.—The Palatine manuscript, which is the original source of the current text, was copied by different people at various times, and the actual order of the collection doesn’t match what’s listed in the index. Here’s the breakdown: Book 1. Christian epigrams; 2. Christodorus’s description of certain statues; 3. Inscriptions in the temple at Cyzicus; 4. The prefaces of Meleager, Philippus, and Agathias to their respective collections; 5. Amatory epigrams; 6. Votive inscriptions; 7. Epitaphs; 8. The epigrams of Gregory of Nazianzus; 9. Rhetorical and illustrative epigrams; 10. Ethical pieces; 11. Humorous and convivial; 12. Strata’s Musa Puerilis; 13. Metrical curiosities; 14. Puzzles, enigmas, oracles; 15. Miscellanies. The epigrams about art, as mentioned earlier, are missing from the Codex Palatinus and can be found in an appendix of epigrams that only appear in the Planudean Anthology. The epigrams that have been recovered from ancient monuments and other similar sources are included as appendices in the second and third volumes of Dübner’s edition.

Style and Value.—One of the principal claims of the Anthology to attention is derived from its continuity, its existence as a living and growing body of poetry throughout all the vicissitudes of Greek civilization. More ambitious descriptions of composition speedily ran their course, and having attained their complete development became extinct or at best lingered only in feeble or conventional imitations. The humbler strains of the epigrammatic muse, on the other hand, remained ever fresh and animated, ever in intimate union with the spirit of the generation that gave them birth. To peruse the entire collection, accordingly, is as it were to assist at the disinterment of an ancient city, where generation has succeeded generation on the same site, and each stratum of soil enshrines the vestiges of a distinct epoch, but where all epochs, nevertheless, combine to constitute an organic whole, and the transition from one to the other is hardly perceptible. Four stages may be indicated:—1. The Hellenic proper, of which Simonides of Ceos (c. 556-469 B.C.), the author of most of the sepulchral inscriptions on those who fell in the Persian wars, is the characteristic representative. This is characterized by a simple dignity of phrase, which to a modern taste almost verges upon baldness, by a crystalline transparency of diction, and by an absolute fidelity to the original conception of the epigram. Nearly all the pieces of this era are actual bona fide inscriptions or addresses to real personages, whether living or deceased; narratives, literary exercises, and sports of fancy are exceedingly rare. 2. The epigram received a great development in its second or Alexandrian era, when its range was so extended as to include anecdote, satire, and amorous longing; when epitaphs and votive inscriptions were composed on imaginary persons and things, and men of taste successfully attempted the same subjects in mutual emulation, or sat down to compose verses as displays of their ingenuity. The result was a great gain in richness of style and general interest, counterbalanced by a falling off in purity of diction and sincerity of treatment. The modification—a perfectly legitimate one, the resources of the old style being exhausted—had its real source in the transformation of political life, but may be said to commence with and to find its best representative in the playful and elegant Leonidas of Tarentum, a contemporary of Pyrrhus, and to close with Antipater of Sidon, about 140 B.C. (or later). It should be noticed, however, that Callimachus, one of the most distinguished of the Alexandrian poets, affects the sternest simplicity in his epigrams, and copies the austerity of Simonides with as much success as an imitator can expect. 3. By a slight additional modification in the same direction, the Alexandrian passes into what, for the sake of preserving the parallelism with eras of Greek prose literature, we may call the Roman style, although the peculiarities of its principal representative are decidedly Oriental. Meleager of Gadara was a Syrian; his taste was less severe, and his temperament more fervent than those of his Greek predecessors; his pieces are usually erotic, and their glowing imagery sometimes reminds us of the Song of Solomon. The luxuriance of his fancy occasionally betrays him into far-fetched conceits, and the lavishness of his epithets is only redeemed by their exquisite felicity. Yet his effusions are manifestly the offspring of genuine feeling, and his epitaph on himself indicates a great advance on the exclusiveness of antique Greek patriotism, and is perhaps the first clear enunciation of the spirit of universal humanity characteristic of the later Stoic philosophy. His gaiety and licentiousness are imitated and exaggerated by his somewhat later contemporary, the Epicurean Philodemus, perhaps the liveliest of all the epigrammatists; his fancy reappears with diminished brilliancy in Philodemus’s contemporary, Zonas, in Crinagoras, who wrote under Augustus, and in Marcus Argentarius, of uncertain date; his peculiar gorgeousness of colouring remains entirely his own. At a later period of the empire another genre, hitherto comparatively in abeyance, was developed, the satirical. Lucillius, who flourished under Nero, and Lucian, more renowned in other fields of literature, display a remarkable talent for shrewd, caustic epigram, frequently embodying moral reflexions of great cogency, often lashing vice and folly with signal effect, but not seldom indulging in mere trivialities, or deformed by scoffs at personal blemishes. This style of composition is not properly Greek, but Roman; it answers to the modern definition of epigram, and has hence attained a celebrity in excess of its deserts. It is remarkable, however, as an almost solitary example of direct Latin influence on Greek literature. The same style obtains with Palladas, an Alexandrian grammarian of the 4th century, the last of the strictly classical epigrammatists, and the first to be guilty of downright bad taste. His better pieces, however, are characterized by an austere ethical impressiveness, and his literary position is very interesting as that of an indignant but despairing opponent of Christianity. 4. The fourth or Byzantine style of epigrammatic composition was cultivated by the beaux-esprits of the court of Justinian. To a great extent this is merely imitative, but the circumstances of the period operated so as to produce a species of originality. The peculiarly ornate and recherché diction of Agathias and his compeers is not a merit in itself, but, applied for the first time, it has the effect of revivifying an old form, and many of their new locutions are actual enrichments of the language. The writers, moreover, were men of genuine poetical feeling, ingenious in invention, and capable of expressing emotion with energy and liveliness; the colouring of their pieces is sometimes highly dramatic.

Style and Value.—One of the main reasons why the Anthology deserves attention is its continuity, serving as a living and evolving collection of poetry throughout the many changes in Greek civilization. More ambitious compositions quickly ran their course, reaching their peak and then fading away, or at best surviving only in weak or conventional imitations. In contrast, the simpler forms of epigrammatic poetry remained vibrant and lively, always closely connected to the spirit of the generation that created them. Thus, reading the entire collection is akin to witnessing the excavation of an ancient city, where one generation has followed another at the same location, and each layer of soil holds traces of a distinct period, yet all periods together form a cohesive whole, with transitions between them barely noticeable. Four stages can be identified:—1. The Hellenic period, represented by Simonides of Ceos (c. 556-469 B.C.), who wrote most of the tomb inscriptions for those who died in the Persian wars. This era is marked by a straightforward, dignified language that to modern readers might seem almost too plain, a crystal-clear diction, and an unwavering adherence to the original concept of the epigram. Nearly all the pieces from this time are genuine bona fide inscriptions or addresses to real individuals, whether living or dead; narratives, literary exercises, and playful fancies are extremely rare. 2. The epigram underwent significant development in its second or Alexandrian period, where its scope expanded to include anecdotes, satire, and romantic longing; during this time, epitaphs and votive inscriptions were created for imaginary people and things, and writers of taste began competing in composing verses as displays of their creativity. This led to a wealth of stylistic richness and overall interest, though it came at the cost of purity of language and sincerity of treatment. This shift—entirely legitimate as the resources of the old style were exhausted—stemmed from changes in political life, but arguably began with and found its finest representative in the playful and elegant Leonidas of Tarentum, a contemporary of Pyrrhus, and concluded with Antipater of Sidon, around 140 BCE (or later). Nonetheless, it's worth noting that Callimachus, one of the most notable Alexandrian poets, embraced a strict simplicity in his epigrams, successfully emulating the sternness of Simonides. 3. With a slight shift in the same direction, the Alexandrian style transitions into what we might call the Roman style, to maintain consistency with the eras of Greek prose literature, although its main representative exhibits distinctly Oriental traits. Meleager of Gadara was a Syrian; his taste was less austere, and his temperament warmer than that of his Greek predecessors; his works are typically romantic, and their vivid imagery sometimes brings to mind the Song of Solomon. The richness of his imagination occasionally leads to elaborate conceits, and the abundance of his descriptors is only justified by their exquisite effectiveness. Yet his creations unmistakably spring from genuine emotion, and his self-written epitaph suggests a significant move away from the exclusive patriotism of ancient Greece, possibly marking the first clear expression of the spirit of universal humanity typical of later Stoic philosophy. His joyousness and moral looseness are imitated and amplified by his somewhat later contemporary, the Epicurean Philodemus, arguably the most vibrant of all epigrammatists; his imagination appears with less brilliance in his contemporary, Zonas, in Crinagoras, who wrote under Augustus, and in Marcus Argentarius, whose date is uncertain; his unique luxuriousness in imagery remains entirely his own. In a subsequent period of the empire, another genre, previously somewhat dormant, emerged: the satirical. Lucillius, active under Nero, and Lucian, more famous in other literary fields, demonstrate a notable skill for sharp, witty epigram, often conveying moral insights of considerable strength, frequently attacking vice and foolishness with great impact, but also sometimes indulging in triviality or making fun of personal flaws. This style of writing is not truly Greek but Roman; it aligns with the modern definition of epigram, and thus has gained fame disproportionate to its worth. It’s noteworthy as an almost unique example of direct Latin influence on Greek literature. Palladas, a 4th-century Alexandrian grammarian, writes in a similar style, being the last of the strictly classical epigrammatists and the first to exhibit outright bad taste. However, his better works reflect a stern ethical impressiveness, and his literary position is particularly interesting as that of an indignant yet despairing critic of Christianity. 4. The fourth or Byzantine style of epigrammatic composition was cultivated by the beaux-esprits at the court of Justinian. To a large extent, this is simply imitative, but the conditions of the time led to a kind of originality. The ornate and recherché language of Agathias and his peers isn't a merit in itself, but when applied for the first time, it revives an old form, and many of their new expressions genuinely enrich the language. Furthermore, these writers were individuals with true poetic sensitivity, inventive in their creations, and capable of expressing emotion with vigor and liveliness; the tone of their pieces is sometimes strikingly dramatic.

It would be hard to exaggerate the substantial value of the Anthology, whether as a storehouse of facts bearing on antique manners, customs and ideas, or as one among the influences which have contributed to mould the literature of the modern world. The multitudinous votive inscriptions, serious and sportive, connote the phases of Greek religious sentiment, from pious awe to irreverent familiarity and sarcastic scepticism; the moral tone of the nation at various periods is mirrored with corresponding fidelity; the sepulchral inscriptions admit us into 96 the inmost sanctuary of family affection, and reveal a depth and tenderness of feeling beyond the province of the historian to depict, which we should not have surmised even from the dramatists; the general tendency of the collection is to display antiquity on its most human side, and to mitigate those contrasts with the modern world which more ambitious modes of composition force into relief. The constant reference to the details of private life renders the Anthology an inexhaustible treasury for the student of archaeology; art, industry and costume receive their fullest illustration from its pages. Its influence on European literatures will be appreciated in proportion to the inquirer’s knowledge of each. The further his researches extend, the greater will be his astonishment at the extent to which the Anthology has been laid under contribution for thoughts which have become household words in all cultivated languages, and at the beneficial effect of the imitation of its brevity, simplicity, and absolute verbal accuracy upon the undisciplined luxuriance of modern genius.

It’s hard to overstate the significant value of the Anthology, whether as a resource of facts related to ancient customs, practices, and ideas, or as one of the influences that have shaped modern literature. The numerous votive inscriptions, both serious and playful, reflect the range of Greek religious sentiment, from deep reverence to casual familiarity and sarcastic skepticism; the moral tone of the nation at different times is accurately reflected; the tomb inscriptions provide insight into the core of family love, revealing a depth of feeling that even historians might miss, which we wouldn’t have guessed from the playwrights. The collection generally aims to show ancient times in a more human light, softening the contrasts with the modern world that more ambitious styles of writing tend to highlight. The frequent references to private life make the Anthology an endless treasure for archaeology students; art, industry, and fashion receive their most comprehensive representation from its text. Its impact on European literatures will be appreciated in relation to the inquirer's knowledge of each. The more extensive their research gets, the more they will be amazed by how much the Anthology has influenced phrases that are now common in all educated languages, and by the positive effect its brevity, simplicity, and precise wording have had on the often uncontrolled creativity of modern expression.

Translations, Imitations, &c.—The best versions of the Anthology ever made are the Latin renderings of select epigrams by Hugo Grotius. They have not been printed separately, but will be found in Bosch and Lennep’s edition of the Planudean Anthology, in the Didot edition, and in Dr Wellesley’s Anthologia Polyglotta. The number of more or less professed imitations in modern languages is infinite, that of actual translations less considerable. French and Italian, indeed, are ill adapted to this purpose, from their incapacity of approximating to the form of the original, and their poets have usually contented themselves with paraphrases or imitations, often exceedingly felicitous. F.D. Dehèque’s French prose translation, however (1863), is most excellent and valuable. The German language alone admits of the preservation of the original metre—a circumstance advantageous to the German translators, Herder and Jacobs, who have not, however, compensated the loss inevitably consequent upon a change of idiom by any added beauties of their own. Though unfitted to reproduce the precise form, the English language, from its superior terseness, is better adapted to preserve the spirit of the original than the German; and the comparative ill success of many English translators must be chiefly attributed to the extremely low standard of fidelity and brevity observed by them. Bland, Merivale, and their associates (1806-1813), are often intolerably diffuse and feeble, from want, not of ability, but of taking pains. Archdeacon Wrangham’s too rare versions are much more spirited; and John Sterling’s translations of the inscriptions of Simonides deserve high praise. Professor Wilson (Blackwood’s Magazine, 1833-1835) collected and commented upon the labours of these and other translators, with his accustomed critical insight and exuberant geniality, but damaged his essay by burdening it with the indifferent attempts of William Hay. In 1849 Dr Wellesley, principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford, published his Anthologia Polyglotta, a most valuable collection of the best translations and imitations in all languages, with the original text. In this appeared some admirable versions by Goldwin Smith and Dean Merivale, which, with the other English renderings extant at the time, will be found accompanying the literal prose translation of the Public School Selections, executed by the Rev. George Burges for Bohn’s Classical Library (1854). This is a useful volume, but the editor’s notes are worthless. In 1864 Major R.G. Macgregor published an almost complete translation of the Anthology, a work whose stupendous industry and fidelity almost redeem the general mediocrity of the execution. Idylls and Epigrams, by R. Garnett (1869, reprinted 1892 in the Cameo series), includes about 140 translations or imitations, with some original compositions in the same style. Recent translations (selections) are: J.W. Mackail, Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology (with text, introduction, notes, and prose translation), 1890, revised 1906, a most charming volume; Graham R. Tomson (Mrs Marriott Watson), Selections from the Greek Anthology (1889); W.H.D. Rouse, Echo of Greek Song (1899); L.C. Perry, From the Garden of Hellas (New York, 1891); W.R. Paton, Love Epigrams (1898). An agreeable little volume on the Anthology, by Lord Neaves, is one of Collins’s series of Ancient Classics for Modern Readers. The earl of Cromer, with all the cares of Egyptian administration upon him, found time to translate and publish an elegant volume of selections (1903). Two critical contributions to the subject should be noticed, the Rev. James Davies’s essay on Epigrams in the Quarterly Review (vol. cxvii.), especially valuable for its lucid illustration of the distinction between Greek and Latin epigram; and the brilliant disquisition in J.A. Symonds’s Studies of the Greek Poets (1873; 3rd ed., 1893).

Translations, Imitations, &c.—The best versions of the Anthology ever made are the Latin translations of select epigrams by Hugo Grotius. They haven't been printed separately but can be found in Bosch and Lennep’s edition of the Planudean Anthology, the Didot edition, and in Dr. Wellesley’s Anthologia Polyglotta. The number of more or less acknowledged imitations in modern languages is infinite, while the number of actual translations is less significant. French and Italian, in particular, aren't well-suited for this purpose because they can't quite match the form of the original, and their poets have generally settled for paraphrases or imitations, which are often quite successful. However, F.D. Dehèque’s French prose translation from 1863 is excellent and valuable. The German language is the only one that allows for the preservation of the original meter—a benefit for the German translators, Herder and Jacobs, who haven't managed to make up for the loss that inevitably comes with a language change by adding any of their own enhancements. While not fit to reproduce the exact form, English, due to its concise nature, is better suited to maintain the spirit of the original than German; and the relatively poor performance of many English translators can mostly be attributed to the very low standard of fidelity and brevity they follow. Bland, Merivale, and their partners (1806-1813) are often unbearably wordy and weak, not from lack of ability but from a lack of effort. Archdeacon Wrangham’s too-scarce versions are much more lively, and John Sterling’s translations of Simonides’ inscriptions deserve high praise. Professor Wilson (Blackwood’s Magazine, 1833-1835) gathered and commented on the efforts of these and other translators with his usual critical insight and cheerful spirit, but weakened his essay by including the mediocre attempts of William Hay. In 1849, Dr. Wellesley, principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford, published his Anthologia Polyglotta, a highly valuable collection of the best translations and imitations in all languages, alongside the original text. This included some excellent versions by Goldwin Smith and Dean Merivale, which, along with the other English translations available at that time, will be found accompanying the literal prose translation of the Public School Selections, done by the Rev. George Burges for Bohn’s Classical Library (1854). This is a handy volume, but the editor’s notes are useless. In 1864, Major R.G. Macgregor published an almost complete translation of the Anthology, a work whose incredible effort and accuracy come close to redeeming the general mediocrity of its execution. Idylls and Epigrams, by R. Garnett (1869, reprinted in 1892 in the Cameo series), includes about 140 translations or imitations, along with some original pieces in the same style. Recent translations (selections) include: J.W. Mackail, Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology (with text, introduction, notes, and prose translation), 1890, revised 1906, a wonderfully charming volume; Graham R. Tomson (Mrs. Marriott Watson), Selections from the Greek Anthology (1889); W.H.D. Rouse, Echo of Greek Song (1899); L.C. Perry, From the Garden of Hellas (New York, 1891); W.R. Paton, Love Epigrams (1898). A pleasant little volume on the Anthology by Lord Neaves is part of Collins’s series of Ancient Classics for Modern Readers. The Earl of Cromer, despite all the responsibilities of Egyptian administration, managed to translate and publish a beautiful volume of selections (1903). Two critical contributions to the subject are worth mentioning: the Rev. James Davies’s essay on Epigrams in the Quarterly Review (vol. cxvii.), especially useful for its clear explanation of the distinction between Greek and Latin epigram; and the brilliant discussion in J.A. Symonds’s Studies of the Greek Poets (1873; 3rd ed., 1893).

Latin Anthology.—The Latin Anthology is the appellation bestowed upon a collection of fugitive Latin verse, from the age of Ennius to about A.D. 1000, formed by Peter Burmann the Younger. Nothing corresponding to the Greek anthology is known to have existed among the Romans, though professional epigrammatists like Martial published their volumes on their own account, and detached sayings were excerpted from authors like Ennius and Publius Syrus, while the Priapeïa were probably but one among many collections on special subjects. The first general collection of scattered pieces made by a modern scholar was Scaliger’s Catalecta veterum Poetarum (1573), succeeded by the more ample one of Pithoeus, Epigrammata et Poemata e Codicibus et Lapidibus collecta (1590). Numerous additions, principally from inscriptions, continued to be made, and in 1759-1773 Burmann digested the whole into his Anthologia veterum Latinorum Epigrammatum et Poematum. This, occasionally reprinted, was the standard edition until 1869, when Alexander Riese commenced a new and more critical recension, from which many pieces improperly inserted by Burmann are rejected, and his classified arrangement is discarded for one according to the sources whence the poems have been derived. The first volume contains those found in MSS., in the order of the importance of these documents; those furnished by inscriptions following. The first volume (in two parts) appeared in 1869-1870, a second edition of the first part in 1894, and the second volume, Carmina Epigraphica (in two parts), in 1895-1897, edited by F. Bücheler. An Anthologiae Latinae Supplementa, in the same series, followed. Having been formed by scholars actuated by no aesthetic principles of selection, but solely intent on preserving everything they could find, the Latin anthology is much more heterogeneous than the Greek, and unspeakably inferior. The really beautiful poems of Petronius and Apuleius are more properly inserted in the collected editions of their writings, and more than half the remainder consists of the frigid conceits of pedantic professional exercises of grammarians of a very late period of the empire, relieved by an occasional gem, such as the apostrophe of the dying Hadrian to his spirit, or the epithalamium of Gallienus. The collection is also, for the most part, too recent in date, and too exclusively literary in character, to add much to our knowledge of classical antiquity. The epitaphs are interesting, but the genuineness of many of them is very questionable.

Latin Anthology.—The Latin Anthology is the name given to a collection of scattered Latin verses, from the time of Ennius to around CE 1000, compiled by Peter Burmann the Younger. There isn’t anything similar to the Greek anthology known to have existed among the Romans, although professional epigram writers like Martial published their own books, and excerpts were taken from authors like Ennius and Publius Syrus. The Priapeïa was likely just one of many collections on specific topics. The first general collection of various pieces made by a modern scholar was Scaliger’s Catalecta veterum Poetarum (1573), followed by a more comprehensive one from Pithoeus, Epigrammata et Poemata e Codicibus et Lapidibus collecta (1590). Numerous additions, mostly from inscriptions, were continually made, and between 1759-1773, Burmann compiled everything into his Anthologia veterum Latinorum Epigrammatum et Poematum. This edition was reprinted occasionally and remained the standard until 1869 when Alexander Riese started a new and more critical version, from which many pieces wrongly included by Burmann were removed. His classified arrangement was changed for one based on the sources of the poems. The first volume includes those found in manuscripts, ordered by the significance of these documents, followed by those from inscriptions. The first volume (in two parts) was released in 1869-1870, with a second edition of the first part in 1894, and the second volume, Carmina Epigraphica (in two parts), in 1895-1897, edited by F. Bücheler. An Anthologiae Latinae Supplementa in the same series was published afterward. Created by scholars who lacked aesthetic selection principles and focused solely on preserving everything they could find, the Latin anthology is much more varied than the Greek and is significantly inferior. The truly beautiful poems of Petronius and Apuleius are better placed in the complete editions of their works, and more than half of the rest consists of the dry, pedantic exercises of grammarians from a much later period in the empire, with an occasional gem, such as the address of the dying Hadrian to his spirit, or the wedding poem for Gallienus. The collection is also mostly too recent and too focused on literary content to enhance our understanding of classical antiquity significantly. The epitaphs are interesting, but the authenticity of many is highly questionable.

(R. G.)

ANTHON, CHARLES (1797-1867), American classical scholar, was born in New York city on the 19th of November 1797. After graduating with honours at Columbia College in 1815, he began the study of law, and in 1819 was admitted to the bar, but never practised. In 1820 he was appointed assistant professor of Greek and Latin in his old college, full professor ten years later, and at the same time headmaster of the grammar school attached to the college, which post he held until 1864. He died at New York on the 29th of July 1867. He produced for use in colleges and schools a large number of classical works, which enjoyed great popularity, although his editions of classical authors were by no means in favour with schoolmasters, owing to the large amount of assistance, especially translations, contained in the notes.

ANTHON, CHARLES (1797-1867), American classical scholar, was born in New York City on November 19, 1797. After graduating with honors from Columbia College in 1815, he started studying law and was admitted to the bar in 1819, though he never practiced. In 1820, he was appointed assistant professor of Greek and Latin at his alma mater, becoming a full professor ten years later. He also served as the headmaster of the grammar school affiliated with the college, a position he held until 1864. He passed away in New York on July 29, 1867. He created many classical works for use in colleges and schools, which were quite popular, although his editions of classical authors were not favored by schoolmasters because of the extensive assistance, particularly translations, included in the notes.


ANTHONY, SAINT, the first Christian monk, was born in Egypt about 250. At the age of twenty he began to practise an ascetical life in the neighbourhood of his native place, and after fifteen years of this life he withdrew into solitude to a mountain by the Nile, called Pispir, now Der el Memun, opposite Arsinoë in the Fayum. Here he lived strictly enclosed in an old fort for twenty years. At last in the early years of the 4th century he emerged from his retreat and set himself to organize the monastic life of the crowds of monks who had followed him and taken up their abode in the caves around him. After a time, again in pursuit of more complete solitude, he withdrew to the mountain by the Red Sea, where now stands the monastery that bears his name (Der Mar Antonios). Here he died about the middle of the 4th century. His Life states that on two occasions he went to Alexandria, to strengthen the Christians in the Diocletian persecution and to preach against Arianism. Anthony is recognized as the first Christian monk and the first organizer and father of Christian monachism (see Monasticism). Certain letters and sermons are attributed to him, but their authenticity is more than doubtful. The monastic rule which bears his name was not written by him, but was compiled out of these writings 97 and out of discourses and utterances put into his mouth in the Life and the Apophthegmata Patrum. According to this rule live a number of Coptic Syrian and Armenian monks to this day. The chief source of information about St Anthony is the Life, attributed to St Athanasius. This attribution, as also the historical character of the book, and even the very existence of St Anthony, were questioned and denied by the sceptical criticism of thirty years ago; but such doubts are no longer entertained by critical scholars.

ANTHONY, SAINT, the first Christian monk, was born in Egypt around 250. At the age of twenty, he started living an ascetic life near his hometown, and after fifteen years of this lifestyle, he sought solitude on a mountain by the Nile, called Pispir, now known as Der el Memun, across from Arsinoë in the Fayum. He lived strictly confined in an old fort there for twenty years. Eventually, in the early years of the 4th century, he emerged from his retreat to organize the monastic life of the many monks who had followed him and settled in the caves around him. After some time, seeking even more solitude, he moved to a mountain by the Red Sea, where the monastery named after him (Der Mar Antonios) now stands. He died around the middle of the 4th century. His Life states that he visited Alexandria on two occasions to support Christians during the Diocletian persecution and to preach against Arianism. Anthony is recognized as the first Christian monk and the pioneer of Christian monasticism (see Monasticism). Some letters and sermons are attributed to him, but their authenticity is highly questionable. The monastic rule associated with his name was not authored by him but was compiled from these writings and from discourses and sayings attributed to him in the Life and the Apophthegmata Patrum. According to this rule, many Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian monks continue to live today. The primary source of information about St. Anthony is the Life, which is credited to St. Athanasius. This attribution, as well as the historical validity of the book and even the existence of St. Anthony, were questioned by the skeptical criticism of thirty years ago; however, such doubts are no longer held by critical scholars.

The Greek Vita is among the works of St Athanasius; the almost contemporary Latin translation is among Rosweyd’s Vitae Patrum (Migne, Patrol. Lat. lxxiii.); an English translation is in the Athanasius volume of the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Library.” Accounts of St Anthony are given by Card. Newman, Church of the Fathers (Historical Sketches) and Alban Butler, Lives of the Saints (Jan. 17). Discussions of the historical and critical questions raised will be found in E.C. Butler’s Lausiac History of Palladius (1898, 1904), Part I. pp. 197, 215-228; Part II. pp. ix.-xii.

The Greek Vita is one of the works of St. Athanasius; the nearly contemporary Latin translation is included in Rosweyd’s Vitae Patrum (Migne, Patrol. Lat. lxxiii.); an English translation can be found in the Athanasius volume of the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Library.” Accounts of St. Anthony are provided by Card. Newman in Church of the Fathers (Historical Sketches) and Alban Butler in Lives of the Saints (Jan. 17). Discussions on the historical and critical questions raised can be found in E.C. Butler’s Lausiac History of Palladius (1898, 1904), Part I. pp. 197, 215-228; Part II. pp. ix.-xii.

(E. C. B.)

ANTHONY OF PADUA, SAINT (1195-1231), the most celebrated of the followers of Saint Francis of Assisi, was born at Lisbon on the 15th of August 1195. In his fifteenth year he entered the Augustinian order, and subsequently joined the Franciscans in 1220. He wished to devote himself to missionary labours in North Africa, but the ship in which he sailed was cast by a storm on the coast of Sicily, whence he made his way to Italy. He taught theology at Bologna, Toulouse, Montpellier and Padua, and won a great reputation as a preacher throughout Italy. He was the leader of the rigorous party in the Franciscan order against the mitigations introduced by the general Elias. His death took place at the convent of Ara Coeli, near Padua, on the 13th of June 1231. He was canonized by Gregory IX. in the following year, and his festival is kept on the 13th of June. He is regarded as the patron saint of Padua and of Portugal, and is appealed to by devout clients for finding lost objects. The meagre accounts of his life which we possess have been supplemented by numerous popular legends, which represent him as a continuous worker of miracles, and describe his marvellous eloquence by pictures of fishes leaping out of the water to hear him. There are many confraternities established in his honour throughout Christendom, and the number of “pious” biographies devoted to him would fill many volumes.

SAINT ANTHONY OF PADUA (1195-1231), the most famous follower of Saint Francis of Assisi, was born in Lisbon on August 15, 1195. At fifteen, he joined the Augustinian order and later became a Franciscan in 1220. He wanted to dedicate his life to missionary work in North Africa, but the ship he was on was caught in a storm and ended up on the coast of Sicily, from where he traveled to Italy. He taught theology in Bologna, Toulouse, Montpellier, and Padua, gaining a great reputation as a preacher across Italy. He led the strict faction within the Franciscan order against the relaxed regulations introduced by General Elias. He died at the Ara Coeli convent near Padua on June 13, 1231. He was canonized by Gregory IX in the following year, and his feast day is celebrated on June 13. He is considered the patron saint of Padua and Portugal and is often called upon by faithful people seeking lost items. The limited accounts of his life we have are enriched by various popular legends that depict him as a constant miracle worker and illustrate his remarkable eloquence with stories of fish leaping from the water to listen to him. Many confraternities have been established in his honor throughout the Christian world, and the number of "pious" biographies about him would fill many volumes.

The most trustworthy modern works are by A. Lepître, St Antoine de Padoue (Paris, 1902, in Les Saints series: good bibliography; Eng. trans. by Edith Guest, London, 1902), and by Léopold de Chérancé, St Antoine de Padoue (Paris, 1895; Eng. trans., London, 1896). His works, consisting of sermons and a mystical commentary on the Bible, were published in an appendix to those of St Francis, in the Annales Minorum of Luke Wadding (Antwerp, 1623), and are also reproduced by Horoy, Medii aevi bibliotheca patristica (1880, vi. pp. 555 et sqq.); see art. “Antonius von Padua” in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopadie.

The most reliable modern works are by A. Lepître, St Antoine de Padoue (Paris, 1902, in Les Saints series: has a good bibliography; Eng. trans. by Edith Guest, London, 1902), and by Léopold de Chérancé, St Antoine de Padoue (Paris, 1895; Eng. trans., London, 1896). His works, which include sermons and a mystical commentary on the Bible, were published in an appendix to those of St Francis, in the Annales Minorum of Luke Wadding (Antwerp, 1623), and are also included by Horoy, Medii aevi bibliotheca patristica (1880, vol. pp. 555 et sqq.); see article “Antonius von Padua” in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopadie.


ANTHONY, SUSAN BROWNELL (1820-1906), American reformer, was born at Adams, Massachusetts, on the 15th of February 1820, the daughter of Quakers. Soon after her birth, her family moved to the state of New York, and after 1845 she lived in Rochester. She received her early education in a school maintained by her father for his own and neighbours’ children, and from the time she was seventeen until she was thirty-two she taught in various schools. In the decade preceding the outbreak of the Civil War she took a prominent part in the anti-slavery and temperance movements in New York, organizing in 1852 the first woman’s state temperance society in America, and in 1856 becoming the agent for New York state of the American Anti-slavery Society. After 1854 she devoted herself almost exclusively to the agitation for woman’s rights, and became recognized as one of the ablest and most zealous advocates, both as a public speaker and as a writer, of the complete legal equality of the two sexes. From 1868 to 1870 she was the proprietor of a weekly paper, The Revolution, published in New York, edited by Mrs Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and having for its motto, “The true republic—men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.” She was vice-president-at-large of the National Woman’s Suffrage Association from the date of its organization in 1869 until 1892, when she became president. For casting a vote in the presidential election of 1872, as, she asserted, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution entitled her to do, she was arrested and fined $100, but she never paid the fine. In collaboration with Mrs Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs Matilda Joslyn Gage, and Mrs Ida Husted Harper, she published The History of Woman Suffrage (4 vols., New York, 1884-1887). She died at Rochester, New York, on the 13th of March 1906.

ANTHONY, SUSAN BROWNELL (1820-1906), American reformer, was born in Adams, Massachusetts, on February 15, 1820, to a Quaker family. Soon after she was born, her family moved to New York, and after 1845 she lived in Rochester. She got her early education in a school run by her father for his own and neighboring children, and from the time she was seventeen until she was thirty-two, she taught in various schools. In the decade before the Civil War, she played a significant role in the anti-slavery and temperance movements in New York, organizing the first women's state temperance society in America in 1852, and becoming the New York state agent for the American Anti-slavery Society in 1856. After 1854, she focused almost exclusively on advocating for women’s rights and became known as one of the most skilled and passionate supporters of full legal equality for the sexes, both as a public speaker and a writer. From 1868 to 1870, she owned a weekly newspaper, The Revolution, published in New York and edited by Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, which had the motto, “The true republic—men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.” She served as vice-president-at-large of the National Woman’s Suffrage Association from its founding in 1869 until 1892, when she became president. For casting a vote in the presidential election of 1872, which she argued the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution allowed her to do, she was arrested and fined $100, although she never paid the fine. Along with Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, and Mrs. Ida Husted Harper, she published The History of Woman Suffrage (4 vols., New York, 1884-1887). She passed away in Rochester, New York, on March 13, 1906.

See Mrs Ida Husted Harper’s Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony (3 vols., Indianapolis, 1898-1908).

See Mrs. Ida Husted Harper’s Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony (3 vols., Indianapolis, 1898-1908).


ANTHOZOA (i.e. “flower-animals”), the zoological name for a class of marine polyps forming “coral” (q.v.). Although corals have been familiar objects since the days of antiquity, and the variety known as the precious red coral has been for a long time an article of commerce in the Mediterranean, it was only in the 18th century that their true nature and structure came to be understood. By the ancients and the earlier naturalists of the Christian era they were regarded either as petrifactions or as plants, and many supposed that they occupied a position midway between minerals and plants. The discovery of the animal nature of red coral is due to J.A. de Peyssonel, a native of Marseilles, who obtained living specimens from the coral fishers on the coast of Barbary and kept them alive in aquaria. He was thus able to see that the so-called “flowers of coral” were in fact nothing else than minute polyps resembling sea-anemones. His discovery, made in 1727, was rejected by the Academy of Sciences of France, but eventually found acceptance at the hands of the Royal Society of London, and was published by that body in 1751. The structure and classification of polyps, however, were at that time very imperfectly understood, and it was fully a century before the true anatomical characters and systematic position of corals were placed on a secure basis.

ANTHOZOA (i.e. "flower-animals"), the scientific name for a class of marine polyps that create "coral" (q.v.). While corals have been known since ancient times, and the variety called precious red coral has long been traded in the Mediterranean, it wasn't until the 18th century that their true nature and structure were understood. Ancient peoples and early naturalists of the Christian era thought of them as either fossils or plants, with many believing they were somewhere between minerals and plants. The discovery that red coral is an animal is credited to J.A. de Peyssonel, a native of Marseilles, who obtained living specimens from coral fishermen along the Barbary coast and kept them alive in aquariums. He was able to observe that what were called "flowers of coral" were actually tiny polyps similar to sea anemones. His discovery in 1727 was initially dismissed by the Academy of Sciences of France but was eventually accepted by the Royal Society of London, who published his findings in 1751. However, the structure and classification of polyps were not well understood at the time, and it wasn’t until a century later that the true anatomical features and systematic classification of corals were established.

The hard calcareous substance to which the name coral is applied is the supporting skeleton of certain members of the Anthozoa, one of the classes of the phylum Coelentera. The most familiar Anthozoan is the common sea-anemone, Actinia equina, L., and it will serve, although it does not form a skeleton or corallum, as a good example of the structure of a typical Anthozoan polyp or zooid. The individual animal or zooid of Actinia equina has the form of a column fixed by one extremity, called the base, to a rock or other object, and bearing at the opposite extremity a crown of tentacles. The tentacles surround an area known as the peristome, in the middle of which there is an elongated mouth-opening surrounded by tumid lips. The mouth does not open directly into the general cavity of the body, as is the case in a hydrozoan polyp, but into a short tube called the stomodaeum, which in its turn opens below into the general body-cavity or coelenteron. In Actinia and its allies, and most generally, though not invariably, in Anthozoa, the stomodaeum is not circular, but is compressed from side to side so as to be oval or slit-like in transverse section. At each end of the oval there is a groove lined by specially long vibratile cilia. These grooves are known as the sulcus and sulculus, and will be more particularly described hereafter. The elongation of the mouth and stomodaeum confer a bilateral symmetry on the body of the zooid, which is extended to other organs of the body. In Actinia, as in all Anthozoan zooids, the coelenteron is not a simple cavity, as in a Hydroid, but is divided by a number of radial folds or curtains of soft tissue into a corresponding number of radial chambers. These radial folds are known as mesenteries, and their position and relations may be understood by reference to figs. 1 and 2. Each mesentery is attached by its upper margin to the peristome, by its outer margin to the body-wall, and by its lower margin to the basal disk. A certain number of mesenteries, known as complete mesenteries, are attached by the upper parts of their internal margins to the stomodaeum, but below this level their edges hang in the coelenteron. Other mesenteries, called incomplete, are not attached to the stomodaeum, and their internal margins are free from the peristome to the basal disk. The lower part of the free edge of every mesentery, whether complete or incomplete, is thrown into numerous puckers or folds, and is furnished with a glandular thickening known as a mesenterial filament. The reproductive 98 organs or gonads are borne on the mesenteries, the germinal cells being derived from the inner layer or endoderm.

The hard, chalky material known as coral is the supporting skeleton of certain members of the Anthozoa, which is one of the classes under the phylum Coelentera. The most well-known Anthozoan is the common sea anemone, Actinia equina, L., and it serves as a good example of the typical structure of an Anthozoan polyp or zooid, even though it doesn’t form a skeleton or corallum. The individual animal or zooid of Actinia equina looks like a column attached at one end, called the base, to a rock or another object, and at the opposite end has a crown of tentacles. These tentacles surround an area called the peristome, which has an elongated mouth opening surrounded by swollen lips. The mouth doesn’t open directly into the general body cavity like in a hydrozoan polyp; instead, it opens into a short tube called the stomodaeum, which then opens below into the general body cavity or coelenteron. In Actinia and its relatives, and in most, although not all, Anthozoans, the stomodaeum is not circular; it’s compressed from the sides, making it oval or slit-like in cross-section. At both ends of the oval, there’s a groove lined with specially long, moving cilia. These grooves are called the sulcus and sulculus, which will be described in more detail later. The elongation of the mouth and stomodaeum gives the zooid's body bilateral symmetry, which extends to other organs as well. In Actinia, as in all Anthozoan zooids, the coelenteron is not a simple cavity like in a Hydroid; it’s divided by several radial folds or curtains of soft tissue into multiple radial chambers. These radial folds are known as mesenteries, and you can understand their positions and relationships by referring to figs. 1 and 2. Each mesentery is connected by its upper margin to the peristome, by its outer margin to the body wall, and by its lower margin to the basal disk. A certain number of mesenteries, called complete mesenteries, are attached at the upper parts of their inner margins to the stomodaeum, but below that level, their edges hang freely in the coelenteron. Other mesenteries, called incomplete, are not attached to the stomodaeum, and their inner margins are free from the peristome to the basal disk. The lower part of the free edge of every mesentery, whether complete or incomplete, has numerous puckers or folds and is equipped with a glandular thickening known as a mesenterial filament. The reproductive organs, or gonads, are located on the mesenteries, and the germinal cells come from the inner layer or endoderm. 98

Fig. 1. Diagrammatic longitudinal section of an Anthozoan zooid.

m, Mesentery.

Mesentery.

t, Tentacles.

t, Tentacles.

st, Stomodaeum.

Stomodaeum.

sc, Sulcus.

sc, Groove.

r, Rotteken’s muscle.

r, Rotteken's strength.

s, Stoma.

s, Stoma.

lm, Longitudinal muscle.

lm, Longitudinal muscle.

d, Diagonal Muscle.

d, Diagonal Muscle.

go, Gonads.

go, Testicles.

Fig. 2.—1, Portion of epithelium from the tentacle of an Actinian, showing three supporting cells and one sense cell (sc); 2, a cnidoblast with enclosed nematocyst from the same specimen; 3 and 4 two forms of gland cell from the stomodaeum; 5a, 5b, epithelio-muscular cells from the tentacle in different states of contraction; 5c, an epithelio-muscular cell from the endoderm, containing a symbiotic zooxanthella; 6, a ganglion cell from the ectoderm of the peristome. (After O. and R. Hertwig.)

In common with all Coelenterate animals, the walls of the columnar body and also the tentacles and peristome of Actinia are composed of three layers of tissue. The external layer, or ectoderm, is made up of cells, and contains also muscular and nervous elements. The preponderating elements of the ectodermic layer are elongated columnar cells, each containing a nucleus, and bearing cilia at their free extremities. Packed in among these are gland cells, sense cells, and cnidoblasts. The last-named are specially numerous on the tentacles and on some other regions of the body, and produce the well-known “thread cells,” or nematocysts, so characteristic of the Coelentera. The inner layer or endoderm is also a cellular layer, and is chiefly made up of columnar cells, each bearing a cilium at its free extremity and terminating internally in a long muscular fibre. Such cells, made up of epithelial and muscular components, are known as epithelio-muscular or myo-epithelial cells. In Actinians the epithelio-muscular cells of the endoderm are crowded with yellow spherical bodies, which are unicellular plants or Algae, living symbiotically in the tissues of the zooid. The endoderm contains in addition gland cells and nervous elements. The middle layer or mesogloea is not originally a cellular layer, but a gelatinoid structureless substance, secreted by the two cellular layers. In the course of development, however, cells from the ectoderm and endoderm may migrate into it. In Actinia equina the mesogloea consists of fine fibres imbedded in a homogeneous matrix, and between the fibres are minute branched or spindle-shaped cells. For further details of the structure of Actinians, the reader should consult the work of O. and R. Hertwig.

In common with all Coelenterate animals, the walls of the cylindrical body and the tentacles and mouth area of Actinia are made up of three tissue layers. The outer layer, or ectoderm, consists of cells and also includes muscular and nervous elements. The main components of the ectoderm are long columnar cells, each containing a nucleus and having cilia at their free ends. Interspersed among these are gland cells, sense cells, and cnidoblasts. The cnidoblasts are particularly abundant on the tentacles and some other parts of the body, producing the well-known "stinging cells," or nematocysts, which are characteristic of the Coelentera. The inner layer, or endoderm, is also made of cells and is primarily composed of columnar cells, each with a cilium at its free end and ending internally in a long muscular fiber. These cells, which have both epithelial and muscular components, are referred to as epithelio-muscular or myo-epithelial cells. In Actinians, the epithelio-muscular cells of the endoderm are filled with yellow spherical bodies, which are unicellular plants or algae, living symbiotically within the tissues of the zooid. The endoderm also includes gland cells and nervous elements. The middle layer, or mesogloea, is not originally a cellular layer but a gelatinous, structureless substance secreted by the two cellular layers. However, during development, cells from the ectoderm and endoderm may migrate into it. In Actinia equina, the mesogloea contains fine fibers embedded in a uniform matrix, and between the fibers are tiny branched or spindle-shaped cells. For more details on the structure of Actinians, the reader should refer to the work of O. and R. Hertwig.

The Anthozoa are divisible into two sub-classes, sharply marked off from one another by definite anatomical characters. These are the Alcyonaria and the Zoantharia. To the first-named belong the precious red coral and its allies, the sea-fans or Gorgoniae, to the second belong the white or Madreporarian corals.

The Anthozoa are divided into two subclasses, which are clearly distinguished by specific anatomical features. These are the Alcyonaria and the Zoanthids. The first includes valuable red coral and its relatives, like sea fans or Gorgoniae, while the second includes white or Madreporarian corals.

Fig. 3.—An expanded Alcyonarian zooid, showing the mouth surrounded by eight pinnate tentacles. st, Stomodaeum in the the centre of the transparent body; m, mesenteries; asm, asulcar mesenteries; B, spicules, enlarged.
Fig. 4.—Transverse section of an Alcyonarian zooid mm, Mesenteries; mb, muscle banners; sc, sulcus; st, stomodaeum.

Alcyonaria.—In this sub-class the zooid has very constant anatomical characters, differing in some important respects from the Actinian zooid, which has been taken as a type. There is only one ciliated groove, the sulcus, in the stomodaeum. There are always eight tentacles, which are hollow and fringed on their sides, with hollow projections or pinnae; and always eight mesenteries, all of which are complete, i.e. inserted on the stomodaeum. The mesenteries are provided with well-developed longitudinal retractor muscles, supported on longitudinal folds or plaits of the mesogloea, so that in cross-section they have a branched appearance. These muscle-banners, as they are called, have a highly characteristic arrangement; they are all situated on those faces of the mesenteries which look towards the sulcus. (fig. 4). Each mesentery has a filament; but two of them, namely, the pair farthest from the sulcus, are longer than the rest, and have a different form of filament. It has been shown that these asulcar filaments are derived from the ectoderm, the remainder from the endoderm. The only exceptions to this structure are found in the arrested or modified zooids, which occur in many of the colonial Alcyonaria. In these the tentacles are stunted or suppressed and the mesenteries are ill-developed, but the sulcus is unusually large and has long cilia. Such modified zooids are called siphonozooids, their function being to drive currents of fluid through the canal-systems of the colonies to which they belong. With very few exceptions a calcareous skeleton is present in all Alcyonaria; it usually consists of spicules of carbonate of lime, each spicule being formed within an ectodermic cell (fig. 3, B). Most commonly the spicule-forming cells pass out of the ectoderm and are imbedded in the mesogloea, where they may remain separate from one another or may be fused together to form a strong mass. In addition to the spicular skeleton an organic horny skeleton is frequently present, either in the form of a horny external investment (Cornularia), or an internal axis (Gorgonia), or it may form a matrix in which spicules are imbedded (Keroeides, Meistodes).

Alcyonaria.—In this sub-class, the zooid has very consistent anatomical features, differing in some key ways from the Actinian zooid, which serves as a standard. There is only one ciliated groove, the sulcus, in the stomodaeum. There are always eight tentacles, which are hollow and fringed on their sides, with hollow projections or pinnae; and there are also always eight mesenteries, all of which are complete, i.e. attached to the stomodaeum. The mesenteries have well-developed longitudinal retractor muscles, supported by longitudinal folds or plaits of the mesogloea, giving them a branched appearance in cross-section. These muscle-banners, as they are termed, have a distinctly characteristic arrangement; they are all located on the faces of the mesenteries that face the sulcus. (fig. 4). Each mesentery has a filament; however, two of them, specifically, the pair furthest from the sulcus, are longer than the others and have a different filament shape. It has been shown that these asulcar filaments are derived from the ectoderm, while the others come from the endoderm. The only exceptions to this structure are found in the arrested or modified zooids, which appear in many colonial Alcyonaria. In these, the tentacles are stunted or suppressed, and the mesenteries are poorly developed, but the sulcus is unusually large and has long cilia. Such modified zooids are called siphonozooids, and their role is to push fluid currents through the canal systems of their respective colonies. With very few exceptions, a calcareous skeleton is present in all Alcyonaria; it usually consists of spicules made of calcium carbonate, each spicule formed within an ectodermic cell (fig. 3, B). More commonly, the spicule-forming cells exit the ectoderm and become embedded in the mesogloea, where they may remain separate or fuse together to form a strong mass. Alongside the spicular skeleton, an organic horny skeleton is often present, either as a horny external covering (Cornularia), an internal axis (Gorgonia), or it may create a matrix in which spicules are embedded (Keroeides, Meistodes).

Nearly all the Alcyonaria are colonial. Four solitary species have been described, viz. Haimea funebris and H. hyalina, Hartea elegans, and Monoxenia Darwinii; but it is doubtful whether these are not the young forms of colonies. For the present the solitary forms may be placed in a grade, Protal-cyonacea, and the colonial forms may be grouped in another grade, Synalcyonacea. Every Alcyonarian colony is developed by budding from a single parent zooid. The buds are not direct outgrowths of the body-wall, but are formed on the courses of hollow out growths of the base or body-wall, called solenia. These form a more or less complicated canal system, lined by endoderm, and communicating with the cavities of the zooids. The most simple form of budding is found in the genus Cornularia, in which the mother zooid gives off from its base one or more simple radiciform outgrowths. Each outgrowth contains a single tube or solenium, and at a longer or shorter distance from the mother zooid a daughter zooid is formed as a bud. This gives off new outgrowths, and these, branching and anastomosing with one another, may form a network, adhering to stones, corals, or other objects, from which 99 zooids arise at intervals. In Clavularia and its allies each outgrowth contains several solenia, and the outgrowths may take the form of flat expansions, composed of a number of solenial tubes felted together to form a lamellar surface of attachment. Such outgrowths are called stolons, and a stolon may be simple, i.e. contain only one solenium, as in Cornularia, or may be complex and built up of many solenia, as in Clavularia. Further complications arise when the lower walls of the mother zooid become thickened and interpenetrated with solenia, from which buds are developed, so that lobose, tufted, or branched colonies are formed. The chief orders of the Synalcyonacea are founded upon the different architectural features of colonies produced by different modes of budding. We recognize six orders—the Stolonifera, Alcyonacea, Pseudaxonia, Axifera, Stelechotokea, and Cornothecalia.

Nearly all Alcyonaria are colonial. Four solitary species have been identified: Haimea funebris, H. hyalina, Hartea elegans, and Monoxenia Darwinii; however, it's uncertain if these aren't just the juvenile forms of colonies. For now, the solitary forms can be classified in a category called Protalcyonacea, while the colonial forms can be grouped in another category called Synalcyonacea. Each Alcyonarian colony develops by budding from a single parent zooid. The buds don't grow directly out of the body wall; instead, they form on hollow extensions of the base or body wall, referred to as solenia. These create a somewhat complex canal system lined with endoderm, connecting to the cavities of the zooids. The simplest form of budding is seen in the genus Cornularia, where the mother zooid produces one or more simple root-like outgrowths from its base. Each outgrowth has a single tube or solenium, and at a certain distance from the mother zooid, a daughter zooid forms as a bud. This bud can give rise to new outgrowths, which may branch and interconnect, forming a network that adheres to stones, corals, or other objects, from which 99 zooids appear at intervals. In Clavularia and related species, each outgrowth contains several solenia, and these outgrowths can develop into flat extensions made up of multiple solenial tubes fused together to create a lamellar surface for attachment. Such outgrowths are called stolons, and a stolon can be simple, containing only one solenium like in Cornularia, or complex and made up of many solenia as seen in Clavularia. Further complexities arise when the lower walls of the mother zooid thicken and become perforated with solenia, leading to the development of buds, which results in lobed, tufted, or branched colonies. The main orders of the Synalcyonacea are based on the different architectural characteristics of colonies formed by various budding methods. We recognize six orders: Stolonifera, Alcyonacea, Pseudaxonia, Axifera, Stelechotokea, and Cornothecalia.

Fig. 5.

A. Skeleton of a young colony of Tubipora purpurea. st, Stolon; p, platform.

A. Skeleton of a young colony of Tubipora purpurea. st, Stolon; p, platform.

B. Diagrammatic longitudinal section of a corallite, showing two platforms, p and cup-shaped tabulae, t. (After S.J. Hickson.)

B. Diagrammatic longitudinal section of a corallite, showing two platforms, p and cup-shaped tabulae, t. (After S.J. Hickson.)

Fig. 6.—Portion of a colony of Coralinum rubrum, showing expanded and contracted zooids. In the lower part of the figure the cortex has been cut away to show the axis, ax, and the longitudinal canals, lc, surrounding it.

In the order Stolonirera the zooids spring at intervals from branching or lamellar stolons, and are usually free from one another, except at their bases, but in some cases horizontal solenia arising at various heights from the body-wall may place the more distal portions of the zooids in communication with one another. In the genus Tubipora these horizontal solenia unite to form a series of horizontal platforms (fig. 5). The order comprises the families Cornulamdae, Syringopordae, Tubipondae, and Favositidae. In the first-named, the zooids are united only by their bases and the skeleton consists of loose spicules. In the Tubipondae the spicules of the proximal part of the body-wall are fused together to form a firm tube, the corallite, into which the distal part of the zooid can be retracted. The corallites are connected at intervals by horizontal platforms containing solenia, and at the level of each platform the cavity of the corallite is divided by a transverse calcareous partition, either flat or cup-shaped, called a tabula. Formerly all corals in which tabulae are present were classed together as Tabulata, but Tubipora is an undoubted Alcyonarian with a lamellar stolon, and the structure of the fossil genus Syringopora, which has vertical corallites united by horizontal solenia, clearly shows its affinity to Tubipora. The Favositidae, a fossil family from the Silurian and Devonian, have a massive corallum composed of numerous polygonal corallites closely packed together. The cavities of adjacent corallites communicate by means of numerous perforations, which appear to represent solenia, and numerous transverse tabulae are also present. In Favosites hemisphaerica a number of radial spines, projecting into the cavity of the corallite, give it the appearance of a madreporarian coral.

In the order Stolonera, zooids emerge at intervals from branching or plate-like stolons, and they are usually separate from each other, except at their bases. However, in some instances, horizontal solenia that arise at different heights from the body wall can connect the outer parts of the zooids. In the genus Tubipora, these horizontal solenia come together to create a series of horizontal platforms (fig. 5). The order includes the families Cornulamdae, Syringopordae, Tubipondae, and Favositidae. In the first family, the zooids are only connected at their bases and the skeleton is made up of loose spicules. In the Tubipondae, the spicules in the proximal region of the body wall are fused to form a solid tube, called the corallite, into which the distal part of the zooid can retract. The corallites are linked at intervals by horizontal platforms that contain solenia, and at each platform level, the cavity of the corallite is divided by a flat or cup-shaped calcareous partition called a tabula. Previously, all corals with tabulae were classified together as Tabulata, but Tubipora is definitely an Alcyonarian with a lamellar stolon, and the structure of the fossil genus Syringopora, which has vertical corallites connected by horizontal solenia, clearly indicates its relationship to Tubipora. The Favositidae, a fossil family from the Silurian and Devonian periods, have a large corallum made up of many polygonal corallites that are tightly packed together. The cavities of adjacent corallites link through numerous perforations that seem to represent solenia, and many transverse tabulae are also present. In Favosites hemisphaerica, several radial spines extending into the corallite's cavity give it the look of a madreporarian coral.

In the order Alcyonacea the colony consists of bunches of elongate cylindrical zooids, whose proximal portions are united by solenia and compacted, by fusion of their own walls and those of the solenia, into a fleshy mass called the coenenchyma. Thus the coenenchyma forms a stem, sometimes branched, from the surface of which the free portions of the zooids project. The skeleton of the Alcyonacea consists of separate calcareous spicules, which are often, especially in the Nephthyidae, so abundant and so closely interlocked as to form a tolerably firm and hard armour. The order comprises the families Xeniidae, Alcyonidae and Nephthyidae. Alcyonium digitatum, a pink digitate form popularly known as “dead men’s fingers,” is common in 10-20 fathoms of water off the English coasts.

In the order Alcyonacea, the colony consists of clusters of elongated cylindrical zooids, whose proximal parts are connected by solenia and fused together, forming a fleshy mass called the coenenchyma. This coenenchyma serves as a stem, sometimes branched, from which the free parts of the zooids extend outward. The skeleton of the Alcyonacea is made up of individual calcareous spicules, which are often, particularly in the Nephthyidae family, so numerous and tightly interlocked that they create a fairly solid and hard casing. The order includes the families Xeniidae, Alcyonidae, and Nephthyidae. Alcyonium digitatum, a pink finger-like species commonly referred to as "dead men’s fingers," is frequently found in 10-20 fathoms of water off the English coasts.

Fig. 7.—The sea-fan (Gorgonia cavolinii).
Fig. 8.

A. Colony of Pennatula phosphorea from the metarachidial aspect. p, The peduncle.

A. Colony of Pennatula phosphorea from the metarachidial side. p, The stalk.

B. Section of the rachis bearing a single pinna, a, Axis; b, metarachidial; c, prorachidial; d, pararachidial stem canals.

B. Section of the rachis holding a single pinna, a, Axis; b, metarachidial; c, prorachidial; d, pararachidial stem canals.

In the order Pseudaxonia the colonies are upright and branched, consisting of a number of short zooids whose proximal ends are imbedded in a coenenchyma containing numerous ramifying solenia and spicules. The coenenchyma is further differentiated into a medullary portion and a cortex. The latter contains the proximal moieties of the zooids and numerous but separate spicules. The medullary portion is densely crowded with spicules of different shape from those in the cortex, and in some forms the spicules are cemented together to form a hard supporting axis. There are four families of Pseudaxonia—the Briareidae, Sclerogorgidae, Melitodidae, and Corallidae. In the first-named the medulla is penetrated by solenia and forms an indistinct axis; in the remainder the medulla is devoid of solenia, and in the Melitodidae and Corallidae it forms a dense axis, which in the Melitodidae consists of alternate calcareous and horny joints. The precious red coral of commerce, Corallium rubrum (fig. 6), a member of the family Corallidae, is found at depths varying from 15 to 120 fathoms the Mediterranean Sea, chiefly on the African coast. It owes its commercial value to the beauty of its hard red calcareous axis which in life is covered by a cortex in which the proximal moieties of the zooids are imbedded. Corallium rubrum has been the subject of a beautifully-illustrated memoir by de Lacaze-Duthiers, which should be consulted for details of anatomy.

In the order Pseudaxonia, the colonies are upright and branched, made up of several short zooids whose proximal ends are embedded in a coenenchyma filled with many branching solenia and spicules. The coenenchyma is further divided into a medullary part and a cortex. The cortex holds the proximal ends of the zooids and numerous separate spicules. The medullary part is densely packed with spicules of different shapes than those in the cortex, and in some species, the spicules are cemented together to create a sturdy supporting axis. There are four families of Pseudaxonia—the Briareidae, Sclerogorgidae, Melitodidae, and Corallidae. In the first family, the medulla is penetrated by solenia and forms an unclear axis; in the others, the medulla lacks solenia, and in the Melitodidae and Corallidae, it forms a dense axis, which in the Melitodidae consists of alternating calcareous and horny joints. The valuable red coral used in commerce, Corallium rubrum (fig. 6), which belongs to the family Corallidae, is found at depths ranging from 15 to 120 fathoms in the Mediterranean Sea, mainly off the African coast. Its commercial value comes from the beauty of its hard red calcareous axis, which in life is covered by a cortex in which the proximal ends of the zooids are embedded. Corallium rubrum has been the subject of a beautifully illustrated memoir by de Lacaze-Duthiers, which should be referenced for more details on its anatomy.

The Axifera comprise those corals that have a horny or calcified axis, which in position corresponds to the axis of the Pscudaxonia, but, unlike it, is never formed of fused spicules; the most familiar example is the pink sea-fan, Gorgonia cavolinii, which is found in abundance in 10-25 fathoms of water off the English coasts (fig. 7). In this order the axis is formed as an ingrowth of the ectoderm of the base of the mother zooid of the colony, the cavity of the ingrowth being filled by a horny substance secreted by the ectoderm. In Gorgonia the axis remains horny throughout life, but in many forms it is further strengthened by a deposit of calcareous matter In the family Isidinae the axis consists of alternate segments of horny and calcareous substance, the latter being amorphous. The order contains six families—the Dasygorgidae, Isidae, Primnoidae, Muriceidae, Plexauridae, and Gorgoniaae.

The Axifera includes corals that have a horny or calcified axis, which is aligned with the axis of the Pscudaxonia. However, unlike Pscudaxonia, it is never made up of fused spicules. The most well-known example is the pink sea-fan, Gorgonia cavolinii, commonly found in 10-25 fathoms of water off the English coasts (fig. 7). In this order, the axis forms as a growth of the ectoderm at the base of the mother zooid of the colony, with the space in the growth filled by a horny substance secreted by the ectoderm. In Gorgonia, the axis stays horny throughout its life, but in many forms, it is further strengthened by a deposit of calcareous matter. In the family Isidinae, the axis is made up of alternating segments of horny and calcareous substance, with the latter being amorphous. This order contains six families: Dasygorgidae, Isidae, Primnoidae, Muriceidae, Plexauridae, and Gorgoniaae.

In the order Stelechotokea the colony consists of a stem formed by a greatly-elongated mother zooid, and the daughter zooids are borne as lateral buds on the stem. In the section Asiphonacea the colonies are upright and branched, springing from membranous or ramifying stolons. They resemble and are closely allied to certain families of the Cornulariidae, differing from them only in mode of budding and in the dispostion of the daughter zooids round a central, much-elongated mother zooid. The section contains two families, the Telestidae and the Coelogorgidae. The second section comprises the Pennatulacea or sea-pens, which are remarkable from the fact that the colony is not fixed by the base to a rock or other 100 object, but is imbedded in sand or mud by the proximal portion of the stem known as the peduncle. In the typical genus, Pennatula (fig. 8), the colony looks like a feather having a stem divisible into an upper moiety or rachis, bearing lateral central leaflets (pinnae), and a lower peduncle, which is sterile and imbedded in sand or mud. The stem represents a greatly enlarged and elongated mother zooid. It is divided longitudinally by a partition separating a so-called “ventral” or prorachidial canal from a so-called “dorsal” or metarachidial canal. A rod-like supporting axis of peculiar texture is developed in the longitudinal partition, and a longitudinal canal is hollowed out on either side of the axis in the substance of the longitudinal partition, so that there are four stem-canals in all. The prorachidial and metarachidial aspects of the rachis are sterile, but the sides or pararachides bear numerous daughter zooids of two kinds—(1) fully-formed autozooids, (2) small stunted siphonozooids. The pinnae are formed by the elongated autozooids, whose proximal portions are fused together to form a leaf-like expansion, from the upper edge of which the distal extremities of the zooids project. The siphonozooids are very numerous and lie between the bases at the pinnae on the pararachides; they extend also on the prorachidial and metarachidial surfaces. The calcareous skeleton of the Pennatulacea consists of scattered spicules, but in one species, Protocaulon molle, spicules are absent. Although of great interest the Pennatulacea do not form an enduring skeleton or “coral,” and need not be considered in detail in this place.

In the order Stelechotokea, the colony consists of a stem formed by an elongated mother zooid, and the daughter zooids grow as lateral buds on the stem. In the section Asiphonacea, the colonies are upright and branched, arising from membranous or branching stolons. They look similar and are closely related to certain families of the Cornulariidae, differing only in their budding method and the arrangement of the daughter zooids around a central, elongated mother zooid. This section has two families, Telestidae and Coelogorgidae. The second section includes the Pennatulacea, or sea-pens, which are unique because the colony isn’t attached at the base to a rock or other object but is embedded in sand or mud by the proximal part of the stem called the peduncle. In the typical genus, Pennatula (fig. 8), the colony resembles a feather with a stem divided into an upper part or rachis that has lateral central leaflets (pinnae) and a lower peduncle that is sterile and buried in sand or mud. The stem represents a significantly enlarged and elongated mother zooid. It is split lengthwise by a partition that separates a so-called “ventral” or prorachidial canal from a so-called “dorsal” or metarachidial canal. A rod-like supporting axis of unique texture develops in the longitudinal partition, with a longitudinal canal hollowed out on either side of the axis within the partition, resulting in four stem-canals in total. The prorachidial and metarachidial aspects of the rachis are sterile, but the sides or pararachides contain numerous daughter zooids of two types—(1) fully-formed autozooids and (2) small stunted siphonozooids. The pinnae are formed by the elongated autozooids, whose proximal parts fuse together to create a leaf-like extension from which the zooid tips project. The siphonozooids are very numerous and are located between the bases at the pinnae on the pararachides; they also extend over the prorachidial and metarachidial surfaces. The calcareous skeleton of the Pennatulacea has scattered spicules, but in one species, Protocaulon molle, spicules are absent. Although the Pennatulacea are fascinating, they do not form a lasting skeleton or “coral,” so they won’t be discussed in detail here.

Fig. 9.

A, Portion of the surface of a colony of Heliopora coerulea magnified, showing two calices and the surrounding coenenchymal tubes.

A portion of the surface of a colony of Heliopora coerulea magnified, showing two calices and the surrounding coenenchymal tubes.

B, Single zooid with the adjacent soft tissues as seen after removal of the skeleton by decalcification. Z1, the distal, and Z2, the proximal or intracalicular portion of the zooid; ec, ectoderm; ct, coenenchymal tubes; sp, superficial network of solenia.

B, Single zooid with the nearby soft tissues visible after the skeleton was removed through decalcification. Z1 is the distal part, and Z2 is the proximal or intracalicular section of the zooid; ec stands for ectoderm; ct represents coenenchymal tubes; sp is the superficial network of solenia.

The order Coenothecalia is represented by a single living species, Heliopora coerulea, which differs from all recent Alcyonaria in the fact that its skeleton is not composed of spicules, but is formed as a secretion from a layer of cells called calicoblasts, which originate from the ectoderm. The corallum of Heliopora is of a blue colour, and has the form of broad, upright, lobed, or digitate masses flattened from side to side. The surfaces are pitted all over with perforations of two kinds, viz. larger star-shaped cavities, called calices, in which the zooids are lodged, and very numerous smaller round or polygonal apertures, which in life contain as many short unbranched tubes, known as the coenenchymal tubes (fig. 9, A). The walls of the calices and coenenchymal tubes are formed of flat plates of calcite, which are so disposed that the walls of one tube enter into the composition of the walls of adjacent tubes, and the walls of the calices are formed by the walls of adjacent coenenchymal tubes. Thus the architecture of the Helioporid colony differs entirely from such forms as Tubipora or Favosites, in which each corallite has its own distinct and proper wall. The cavities both of the calices and coenenchymal tubes of Heliopora are closed below by horizontal partitions or tabulae, hence the genus was formerly included in the group Tabulata, and was supposed to belong to the madreporarian corals, both because of its lamellar skeleton, which resembles that of a Madrepore, and because each calicle has from twelve to fifteen radial partitions or septa projecting into its cavity. The structure of the zooid of Heliopora, however, is that of a typical Alcyonarian, and the septa have only a resemblance to, but no real homology with, the similarly named structures in madreporarian corals. Heliopora coerulea is found between tide-marks on the shore platforms of coral islands. The order was more abundantly represented in Palaeozoic times by the Heliolitidae from the Upper and Lower Silurian and the Devonian, and by the Thecidae from the Wenlock limestone. In Heliolites porosus the colonies had the form of spheroidal masses; the calices were furnished with twelve pseudosepta, and the coenenchymal tubes were more or less regularly hexagonal.

The order Coenothecalia includes just one living species, Heliopora coerulea, which sets itself apart from all current Alcyonaria because its skeleton isn't made of spicules but is instead created through a secretion from a layer of cells called calicoblasts that come from the ectoderm. The corallum of Heliopora is blue and has broad, upright, lobed, or finger-like shapes that are flattened from side to side. The surfaces are covered in pits with two types of openings: larger star-shaped cavities called calices, where the zooids reside, and many smaller round or polygonal holes that contain short unbranched tubes known as coenenchymal tubes (fig. 9, A). The walls of the calices and coenenchymal tubes are made of flat plates of calcite, arranged so that the walls of one tube contribute to the walls of adjacent tubes, and the walls of the calices are formed by the walls of nearby coenenchymal tubes. This means the structure of the Helioporid colony is completely different from forms like Tubipora or Favosites, where each corallite has its own distinct wall. The cavities of the calices and coenenchymal tubes of Heliopora are closed below by horizontal partitions, or tabulae, which is why the genus was historically placed in the group Tabulata and thought to belong to madreporarian corals due to its lamellar skeleton resembling that of a Madrepore, along with the fact that each calicle has twelve to fifteen radial partitions, or septa, extending into it. However, the structure of the zooid in Heliopora is typical of Alcyonarians, and the septa only resemble but do not actually correspond to the similarly named structures found in madreporarian corals. Heliopora coerulea can be found between tide marks on the shore platforms of coral islands. This order was more prevalent in Palaeozoic times, represented by the Heliolitidae from the Upper and Lower Silurian and the Devonian, and by the Thecidae from the Wenlock limestone. In Heliolites porosus, the colonies took on the shape of spherical masses; the calices were equipped with twelve pseudosepta, and the coenenchymal tubes were generally hexagonal.

Fig. 10.

A, Edwardsia claparedii (after A. Andres). Cap, capitulum; sc, scapus; ph, physa.

A, Edwardsia claparedii (after A. Andres). Cap, capitulum; sc, scapus; ph, physa.

B, Transverse section of the same, showing the arrangement of the mesenteries, s, Sulcus; sl, sulculus.

B, Transverse section of the same, showing the arrangement of the mesenteries, s, Sulcus; sl, sulculus.

C, Transverse section of Halcampa. d, d, Directive mesenteries; st, stomodaeum.

C, Transverse section of Halcampa. d, d, Directive mesenteries; st, stomodaeum.

Zoantharia.—In this sub-class the arrangement of the mesenteries is subject to a great deal of variation, but all the types hitherto observed may be referred to a common plan, illustrated by the living genus Edwardsia (fig. 10, A, B). This is a small solitary Zoantharian which lives embedded in sand. Its body is divisible into three portions, an upper capitulum bearing the mouth and tentacles, a median scapus covered by a friable cuticle, and a terminal physa which is rounded. Both capitulum and physa can be retracted within the scapus. There are from sixteen to thirty-two simple tentacles, but only eight mesenteries, all of which are complete. The stomodaeum is compressed laterally, and is furnished with two longitudinal grooves, a sulcus and a sulculus. The arrangement of the muscle-banners on the mesenteries is characteristic. On six of the mesenteries the muscle-banners have the same position as in the Alcyonaria, namely, on the sulcar faces; but in the two remaining mesenteries, namely, those which are attached on either side of the sulcus, the muscle-banners are on the opposite or sulcular faces. It is not known whether all the eight mesenteries of Edwardsia are developed simultaneously or not, but in the youngest form which has been studied all the eight mesenteries were present, but only two of them, namely the sulco-laterals, bore mesenterial filaments, and so it is presumed that they are the first pair to be developed. In the common sea-anemone, Actinia equina (which has already been quoted as a type of Anthozoan structure), the mesenteries are numerous and are arranged in cycles. The mesenteries of the first cycle are complete (i.e. are attached to the stomodaeum), are twelve in number, and arranged in couples, distinguishable by the position of the muscle-banners. In the four couples of mesenteries which are attached to the sides of the elongated stomodaeum the muscle-banners of each couple are turned towards one another, but in the sulcar and sulcular couples, known as the directive mesenteries, the muscle-banners are on the outer faces of the mesenteries, and so are turned away from one another (see fig. 10, C). The space enclosed between two mesenteries of the same couple is called an entocoele; the space enclosed between two mesenteries of adjacent couples is called an exocoele. The second cycle of mesenteries consists of six couples, each formed in an exocoele of the primary cycle, and in each couple the muscle-banners are vis-à-vis. The third cycle comprises twelve couples, each formed in an exocoele between the primary and secondary couples and so on, it being a general rule (subject, however, to exceptions) that new mesenterial couples are always formed in the exocoeles, and not in the entocoeles.

Zoantharians.—In this sub-class, the arrangement of the mesenteries varies significantly, but all the types observed so far follow a common pattern, as shown by the living genus Edwardsia (fig. 10, A, B). This is a small, solitary Zoantharian that lives buried in sand. Its body is divided into three parts: an upper capitulum that has the mouth and tentacles, a middle scapus covered by a fragile cuticle, and a rounded terminal physa. Both the capitulum and physa can retract into the scapus. There are between sixteen and thirty-two simple tentacles, but only eight complete mesenteries. The stomodaeum is laterally compressed and has two longitudinal grooves, a sulcus and a sulculus. The arrangement of muscle-banners on the mesenteries is distinctive. On six of the mesenteries, the muscle-banners are positioned like those in the Alcyonaria, specifically on the sulcar faces; however, on the two remaining mesenteries, which are attached on either side of the sulcus, the muscle-banners are on the opposite or sulcular faces. It is uncertain whether all eight mesenteries of Edwardsia develop at the same time, but in the youngest specimen studied, all eight mesenteries were present, although only two of them, the sulco-laterals, had mesenterial filaments, suggesting that they are the first to develop. In the common sea-anemone, Actinia equina (previously mentioned as an example of Anthozoan structure), the mesenteries are numerous and arranged in cycles. The mesenteries of the first cycle are complete (i.e., attached to the stomodaeum), numbering twelve, and arranged in pairs, distinguishable by the positions of the muscle-banners. In the four pairs of mesenteries attached to the sides of the extended stomodaeum, the muscle-banners of each pair face each other, while in the sulcar and sulcular pairs, known as directive mesenteries, the muscle-banners are on the outer faces and turned away from each other (see fig. 10, C). The space between two mesenteries of the same pair is called an entocoele; the space between two mesenteries of adjacent pairs is called an exocoele. The second cycle of mesenteries consists of six pairs, each formed in an exocoele of the primary cycle, with each pair having muscle-banners that are vis-à-vis. The third cycle contains twelve pairs, each formed in an exocoele between the primary and secondary pairs, and this pattern continues, with the general rule (though with some exceptions) being that new mesenterial pairs always form in the exocoeles, not in the entocoeles.

Fig. 11.—A, Diagram showing the sequence of mesenterial development in an Actinian. B, Diagrammatic transverse section of Gonactinia prolifera.

Fig. 11.—A, Diagram showing how the mesenteries develop in an Actinian. B, Diagrammatic cross-section of Gonactinia prolifera.

While the mesenterial couples belonging to the second and each successive cycle are formed simultaneously, those of the first cycle 101 are formed in successive pairs, each member of a pair being placed on opposite sides of the stomodaeum. Hence the arrangement in six couples is a secondary and not a primary feature. In most Actinians the mesenteries appear in the following order:—At the time when the stomodaeum is formed, a single pair of mesenteries, marked I, I in the diagram (fig. 11, A), makes its appearance, dividing the coelenteric cavity into a smaller sulcar and a large sulcular chamber. The muscle-banners of this pair are placed on the sulcar faces of the mesenteries. Next, a pair of mesenteries, marked II, II in the diagram, is developed in the sulcular chamber, its muscle-banners facing the same way as those of I, I. The third pair is formed in the sulcar chamber, in close connexion with the sulcus, and in this case the muscle-banners are on the sulcular faces. The fourth pair, having its muscle-banners on the sulcar faces, is developed at the opposite extremity of the stomodaeum in close connexion with the sulculus. There are now eight mesenteries present, having exactly the same arrangement as in Edwardsia. A pause in the development follows, during which no new mesenteries are formed, and then the six-rayed symmetry characteristic of a normal Actinian zooid is completed by the formation of the mesenteries V, V in the lateral chambers, and VI, VI in the sulco-lateral chambers, their muscle-banners being so disposed that they form couples respectively with II, II and I, I. In Actinia equina the Edwardsia stage is arrived at somewhat differently. The mesenteries second in order of formation form the sulcular directives, those fourth in order of formation form with the fifth the sulculo-lateral couples of the adult.

While the mesenterial pairs from the second and subsequent cycles form at the same time, those from the first cycle 101 are created in pairs, with each member positioned on opposite sides of the stomodaeum. Therefore, the arrangement in six pairs is a secondary feature, not a primary one. In most Actinians, the mesenteries appear in this order: At the time when the stomodaeum forms, a single pair of mesenteries, marked I, I in the diagram (fig. 11, A), appears, dividing the coelenteric cavity into a smaller sulcar and a larger sulcular chamber. The muscle bands of this pair are located on the sulcar sides of the mesenteries. Next, a pair of mesenteries, marked II, II in the diagram, develops in the sulcular chamber, with its muscle bands facing the same direction as those of I, I. The third pair forms in the sulcar chamber, closely connected to the sulcus, and in this instance, the muscle bands are on the sulcular sides. The fourth pair, with muscle bands on the sulcar sides, develops at the opposite end of the stomodaeum, closely connected to the sulculus. Now there are eight mesenteries present, arranged exactly as in Edwardsia. A pause in development follows, during which no new mesenteries form, and then the six-rayed symmetry typical of a normal Actinian zooid is completed by the formation of mesenteries V, V in the lateral chambers, and VI, VI in the sulco-lateral chambers, with their muscle bands arranged to form pairs respectively with II, II and I, I. In Actinia equina, the Edwardsia stage is reached somewhat differently. The mesenteries that are the second to form serve as the sulcular directives, while those that are the fourth to form create the sulculo-lateral pairs of the adult together with the fifth pair.

Fig. 12.

A, Zoanthid colony, showing the expanded zooids.

A Zoanthid colony, showing the expanded zooids.

B, Diagram showing the arrangement of mesenteries in a young Zoanthid.

B, Diagram showing the layout of mesenteries in a young Zoanthid.

C, Diagram showing the arrangement of mesenteries in an adult Zoanthid. 1, 2, 3, 4, Edwardsian mesenteries.

C, Diagram showing the arrangement of mesenteries in an adult Zoanthid. 1, 2, 3, 4, Edwardsian mesenteries.

As far as the anatomy of the zooid is concerned, the majority of the stony or madreporarian corals agree exactly with the soft-bodied Actinians, such as Actinia equina, both in the number and arrangement of the adult mesenteries and in the order of development of the first cycle. The few exceptions will be dealt with later, but it may be stated here that even in these the first cycle of six couples of mesenteries is always formed, and in all the cases which have been examined the course of development described above is followed. There are, however, several groups of Zoantharia in which the mesenterial arrangement of the adult differs widely from that just described. But it is possible to refer all these cases with more or less certainty to the Edwardsian type.

As for the anatomy of the zooid, most stony or madreporarian corals are similar to soft-bodied Actinians, like Actinia equina, in both the number and arrangement of adult mesenteries and in the order of development of the first cycle. We'll discuss the few exceptions later, but it's worth noting that even in those cases, the first cycle of six pairs of mesenteries is always formed, and in all instances examined, the developmental pattern described above is followed. However, there are several groups of Zoantharia where the mesenterial arrangement of the adult differs significantly from what has been described. Nonetheless, it’s possible to link all these cases with varying degrees of certainty to the Edwardsian type.

The order Zoanthidea comprises a number of soft-bodied Zoantharians generally encrusted with sand. Externally they resemble ordinary sea-anemones, but there is only one ciliated groove, the sulcus, in the stomodaeum, and the mesenteries are arranged on a peculiar pattern. The first twelve mesenteries are disposed in couples, and do not differ from those of Actinia except in size. The mesenterial pairs I, II and III are attached to the stomodaeum, and are called macromesenteries (fig. 12, B), but IV, V and VI are much shorter, and are called micromesenteries. The subsequent development is peculiar to the group. New mesenteries are formed only in the sulco-lateral exocoeles. They are formed in couples, each couple consisting of a macromesentery and a micromesentery, disposed so that the former is nearest to the sulcar directives. The derivation of the Zoanthidea from an Edwardsia form is sufficiently obvious.

The order Zoanthids includes several soft-bodied Zoantharians that are typically covered in sand. They look like regular sea anemones on the outside, but they have only one ciliated groove, called the sulcus, in their stomach area, and their mesenteries are arranged in a unique pattern. The first twelve mesenteries are paired together and are similar to those of Actinia, except for their size. The mesenterial pairs I, II, and III are connected to the stomach and are referred to as macromesenteries (fig. 12, B), while IV, V, and VI are much shorter and are called micromesenteries. The way new mesenteries develop is unique to this group. New mesenteries form only in the sulco-lateral exocoeles, in pairs, with each pair made up of one macromesentery and one micromesentery, arranged so that the macromesentery is closest to the sulcar directives. It's quite clear that the Zoanthidea originated from an Edwardsia form.

The order Cerianthidea comprises a few soft-bodied Zoantharians with rounded aboral extremities pierced by pores. They have two circlets of tentacles, a labial and a marginal, and there is only one ciliated groove in the stomodaeum, which appears to be the sulculus. The mesenteries are numerous, and the longitudinal muscles, though distinguishable, are so feebly developed that there are no muscle-banners. The larval forms of the type genus Cerianthus float freely in the sea, and were once considered to belong to a separate genus, Arachnactis. In this larva four pairs of mesenteries having the typical Edwardsian arrangement are developed, but the fifth and sixth pairs, instead of forming couples with the first and second, arise in the sulcar chamber, the fifth pair inside the fourth, and the sixth pair inside the fifth. New mesenteries are continually added in the sulcar chamber, the seventh pair within the sixth, the eighth pair within the seventh, and so on (fig. 13). In the Cerianthidea, as in the Zoanthidea, much as the adult arrangement of mesenteries differs from that of Actinia, the derivation from an Edwardsia stock is obvious.

The order Cerianthid includes a few soft-bodied Zoantharians with rounded ends that have pores. They feature two rings of tentacles, one labial and one marginal, and there's just one ciliated groove in the stomodaeum, which seems to be the sulculus. There are many mesenteries, and although the longitudinal muscles can be identified, they are so weakly developed that there are no muscle bands. The larval forms of the main genus Cerianthus float freely in the ocean and were previously thought to belong to a different genus, Arachnactis. In this larva, four pairs of mesenteries develop with the standard Edwardsian arrangement, but the fifth and sixth pairs don’t pair with the first and second. Instead, they form in the sulcar chamber, with the fifth pair inside the fourth and the sixth pair inside the fifth. New mesenteries are continuously added in the sulcar chamber, with the seventh pair inside the sixth, the eighth pair inside the seventh, and so forth (fig. 13). In the Cerianthidea, just like in the Zoanthidea, while the adult arrangement of mesenteries is different from that of Actinia, the evolution from an Edwardsia ancestor is clear.

Fig. 13.

A, Cerianthus solitarius (after A. Andres).

A, Cerianthus solitarius (by A. Andres).

B, Transverse section of the stomodaeum, showing the sulculus, sl, and the arrangement of the mesenteries.

B, Cross-section of the stomodaeum, showing the sulculus, sl, and the layout of the mesenteries.

C, Oral aspect of Arachnactis brachiolata, the larva of Cerianthus, with seven tentacles.

C, Oral aspect of Arachnactis brachiolata, the larva of Cerianthus, with seven tentacles.

D, Transverse section of an older larva. The numerals indicate the order of development of the mesenteries.

D, Cross-section of an older larva. The numbers show the sequence of development of the mesenteries.

The order Antipathidea is a well-defined group whose affinities are more obscure. The type form, Antipathes dichotoma (fig. 14), forms arborescent colonies consisting of numerous zooids arranged in a single series along one surface of a branched horny axis. Each zooid has six tentacles; the stomodaeum is elongate, but the sulcus and sulculus are very feebly represented. There are ten mesenteries in which the musculature is so little developed as to be almost indistinguishable. The sulcar and sulcular pairs of mesenteries are short, the sulco-lateral and sulculo-lateral pairs are a little longer, but the two transverse are very large and are the only mesenteries which bear gonads. As the development of the Antipathidea is unknown, it is impossible to say what is the sequence of the mesenterial development, but in Leiopathes glaberrima, a genus with twelve mesenteries, there are distinct indications of an Edwardsia stage.

The order Antipathy is a clearly defined group, although its relationships are less clear. The typical species, Antipathes dichotoma (fig. 14), forms tree-like colonies made up of many zooids arranged in a single line along one side of a branched, horny structure. Each zooid has six tentacles; the mouth is elongated, but the groove and its opposite are weakly defined. There are ten mesenteries, whose muscle structure is so poorly developed that it's almost undetectable. The pairs of mesenteries on the grooves are short, the sulco-lateral pairs are slightly longer, but the two transverse pairs are quite large and are the only mesenteries with gonads. Since the development of the Antipathidea is not known, we can't determine the order of mesenterial development, but in Leiopathes glaberrima, a genus with twelve mesenteries, there are clear signs of an Edwardsia stage.

Fig. 14.

A, Portion of a colony of Antipathes dichotoma.

A portion of a colony of Antipathes dichotoma.

B, Single zooid and axis of the same magnified. m, Mouth; mf mesenterial filament; ax, axis.

B, Single zooid and axis of the same magnified. m, Mouth; mf mesenterial filament; ax, axis.

C, Transverse section through the oral cone of Antipathella minor, st, Stomodaeum; ov, ovary.

C, Cross-section of the oral cone of Antipathella minor, st, Stomodaeum; ov, ovary.

There are, in addition to these groups, several genera of Actinians whose mesenterial arrangement differs from the normal type. Of 102 these perhaps the most interesting is Gonactinia prolifera (fig. 11, B), with eight macromesenteries arranged on the Edwardsian plan. Two pairs of micromesenteries form couples with the first and second Edwardsian pairs, and in addition there is a couple of micromesenteries in each of the sulculo-lateral exocoeles. Only the first and second pairs of Edwardsian macromesenteries are fertile, i.e. bear gonads.

There are, besides these groups, several types of Actinians whose mesenterial arrangement is different from the usual one. Of these, perhaps the most interesting is Gonactinia prolifera (fig. 11, B), which has eight macromesenteries organized in the Edwardsian way. Two pairs of micromesenteries are paired with the first and second Edwardsian pairs, and there's also a pair of micromesenteries in each of the sulculo-lateral exocoeles. Only the first and second pairs of Edwardsian macromesenteries produce gametes, i.e. they have gonads.

The remaining forms, the Actiniidea, are divisible into the Malacactiniae, or soft-bodied sea-anemones, which have already been described sufficiently in the course of this article, and the Scleractiniae (= Madreporaria) or true corals.

The remaining types, the Sea anemones, can be divided into the Malacactiniae, or soft-bodied sea anemones, which have already been described in detail earlier in this article, and the Scleractiniae (= Madreporaria), or true corals.

Fig. 15.—Corallum of Caryophyllia; semi-diagrammatic. th, Theca; c, costae; sp, septa; p, palus; col, columella.

All recent corals, as has already been said, conform so closely to the anatomy of normal Actinians that they cannot be classified apart from them, except that they are distinguished by the possession of a calcareous skeleton. This skeleton is largely composed of a number of radiating plates or septa, and it differs both in origin and structure from the calcareous skeleton of all Alcyonaria except Heliopora. It is formed, not from fused spicules, but as a secretion of a special layer of cells derived from the basal ectoderm, and known as calicoblasts. The skeleton or corallum of a typical solitary coral—the common Devonshire cup-coral Caryophyllia smithii (fig. 15) is a good example—exhibits the followings parts:—(1) The basal plate, between the zooid and the surface of attachment. (2) The septa, radial plates of calcite reaching from the periphery nearly or quite to the centre of the coral-cup or calicle. (3) The theca or wall, which in many corals is not an independent structure, but is formed by the conjoined thickened peripheral ends of the septa. (4) The columella, a structure which occupies the centre of the calicle, and may arise from the basal plate, when it is called essential, or may be formed by union of trabecular offsets of the septa, when it is called unessential. (5) The costae, longitudinal ribs or rows of spines on the outer surface of the theca. True costae always correspond to the septa, and are in fact the peripheral edges of the latter. (6) Epitheca, an offset of the basal plate which surrounds the base of the theca in a ring-like manner, and in some corals may take the place of a true theca. (7) Pali, spinous or blade-like upgrowths from the bottom of the calicle, which project between the inner edges of certain septa and the columella. In addition to these parts the following structures may exist in corals:— Dissepiments are oblique calcareous partitions, stretching from septum to septum, and closing the interseptal chambers below. The whole system of dissepiments in any given calicle is often called endotheca. Synapticulae are calcareous bars uniting adjacent septa. Tabulae are stout horizontal partitions traversing the centre of the calicle and dividing it into as many superimposed chambers. The septa in recent corals always bear a definite relation to the mesenteries, being found either in every entocoele or in every entocoele and exocoele. Hence in corals in which there is only a single cycle of mesenteries the septa are correspondingly few in number; where several cycles of mesenteries are present the septa are correspondingly numerous. In some cases—e.g. in some species of Madrepora—only two septa are fully developed, the remainder being very feebly represented.

All recent corals, as previously mentioned, are so similar in structure to normal sea anemones that they can't be classified separately, except they have a calcareous skeleton. This skeleton primarily consists of several radiating plates or septa, and it differs in both origin and structure from the calcareous skeleton of all Alcyonaria except Heliopora. It forms not from fused spicules but as a secretion from a specific layer of cells derived from the basal ectoderm, known as calicoblasts. The skeleton or corallum of a typical solitary coral—the common Devonshire cup-coral Caryophyllia smithii (fig. 15) is a good example—contains the following parts: (1) The basal plate, located between the zooid and the surface of attachment. (2) The septa, which are radial plates of calcite that extend from the edge nearly or completely to the center of the coral cup or calicle. (3) The theca or wall, which in many corals is not a separate structure but formed by the thickened peripheral ends of the septa coming together. (4) The columella, a structure in the center of the calicle, which can arise from the basal plate (called essential) or can form from joined trabecular offsets of the septa (called unessential). (5) The costae, which are longitudinal ribs or rows of spines on the outer surface of the theca that always correspond to the septa, essentially forming the outer edges of the latter. (6) Epitheca, an offset of the basal plate surrounding the base of the theca in a ring-like shape, which in some corals may replace a true theca. (7) Pali, spiny or blade-like projections from the bottom of the calicle that extend between the inner edges of certain septa and the columella. Besides these main parts, corals may have the following structures: Dissepiments are slanted calcareous partitions that stretch from septum to septum, closing off the interseptal chambers beneath. The entire system of dissepiments in any given calicle is often referred to as endotheca. Synapticulae are calcareous bars that connect adjacent septa. Tabulae are thick horizontal partitions that run through the center of the calicle, dividing it into several stacked chambers. The septa in recent corals always relate specifically to the mesenteries, appearing in either every entocoele or in every entocoele and exocoele. Therefore, in corals with only one cycle of mesenteries, the number of septa is correspondingly limited; where multiple cycles of mesenteries are present, the septa are more numerous. In some cases—e.g. in certain species of Madrepora—only two septa are fully developed, with the others being very minimally represented.

Fig. 16.—Tangential section of a larva of Astroides calicularis which has fixed itself on a piece of cork. ec, Ectoderm; en, endoderm; mg, mesogloea; m, m, mesenteries; s, septum; b, basal plate formed of ellipsoids of carbonate of lime secreted by the basal ectoderm; ep, epitheca. (After von Koch.)

Though the corallum appears to live within the zooid, it is morphologically external to it, as is best shown by its developmental history. The larvae of corals are free swimming ciliated forms known as planulae, and they do not acquire a corallum until they fix themselves. A ring-shaped plate of calcite, secreted by the ectoderm, is then formed, lying between the embryo and the surface of attachment. As the mesenteries are formed, the endoderm of the basal disk lying above the basal plate is raised up in the form of radiating folds. There may be six of these folds, one in each entocoele of the primary cycle of mesenteries, or there may be twelve, one in each exocoele and entocoele. The ectoderm beneath each fold becomes detached from the surface of the basal plate, and both it and the mesogloea are folded conformably with the endoderm. The cells forming the limbs of the ectodermic folds secrete nodules of calcite, and these, fusing together, give rise to six (or twelve) vertical radial plates or septa. As growth proceeds new septa are formed simultaneously with the new couples of secondary mesenteries. In some corals, in which all the septa are entocoelic, each new system is embraced by a mesenteric couple; in others, in which the septa are both entocoelic and exocoelic, three septa are formed in every chamber between two primary mesenterial couples, one in the entocoele of the newly formed mesenterial couple of the secondary cycle, and one in each exocoele between a primary and a secondary couple. These latter are in turn embraced by the couples of the tertiary cycle of mesenteries, and new septa are formed in the exocoeles on either side of them, and so forth.

Though the coral structure seems to live within the zooid, it is actually outside of it in terms of its form, as evidenced by its developmental process. Coral larvae are free-swimming, ciliated forms called planulae, and they don't develop a coral structure until they attach themselves. A ring-shaped plate of calcite is then created, secreted by the ectoderm, lying between the embryo and the surface where it attaches. As the mesenteries develop, the endoderm of the base disk above the basal plate rises up into radiating folds. There can be six of these folds, one in each entocoele of the primary set of mesenteries, or there can be twelve, one in each exocoele and entocoele. The ectoderm under each fold separates from the basal plate, and both the ectoderm and the mesogloea are folded in line with the endoderm. The cells making up the arms of the ectodermic folds secrete calcite nodules, which fuse together to form six (or twelve) vertical radial plates or septa. As growth continues, new septa are created alongside new pairs of secondary mesenteries. In some corals, where all the septa are entocoelic, each new system is surrounded by a pair of mesenteries; in others, where there are both entocoelic and exocoelic septa, three septa are formed in each chamber between two primary mesenterial pairs: one in the entocoele of the new secondary mesenterial pair and one in each exocoele between a primary and a secondary pair. These are then surrounded by the pairs of the tertiary set of mesenteries, and new septa are formed in the exocoeles on either side of them, and so on.

Fig. 17.—Transverse section through a zooid of Cladocora. The corallum shaded with dots, the mesogloea represented by a thick line. Thirty-two septa are present, six in the entocoeles of the primary cycle of mesenteries, I; six in the entocoeles of the secondary cycle of mesenteries, II; four in the entocoeles of the tertiary cycle of mesenteries, III, only four pairs of the latter being developed; and sixteen in the entocoeles between the mesenterial pairs. D, D, Directive mesenteries; st, stomodaeum. (After Duerden.)

Fig. 17.—Transverse section through a zooid of Cladocora. The corallum is shaded with dots, and the mesogloea is shown by a thick line. There are thirty-two septa present: six in the entocoeles of the primary cycle of mesenteries, I; six in the entocoeles of the secondary cycle of mesenteries, II; four in the entocoeles of the tertiary cycle of mesenteries, III, with only four pairs of the latter developed; and sixteen in the entocoeles between the mesenterial pairs. D, D, Directive mesenteries; st, stomodaeum. (After Duerden.)

It is evident from an inspection of figs. 16 and 17 that every 103 septum is covered by a fold of endoderm, mesogloea, and ectoderm, and is in fact pushed into the cavity of the zooid from without. The zooid then is, as it were, moulded upon the corallum. When fully extended, the upper part of the zooid projects for some distance out of the calicle, and its wall is reflected for some distance over the lip of the latter, forming a fold of soft tissue extending to a greater or less distance over the theca, and containing in most cases a cavity continuous over the lip of the calicle with the coelenteron. This fold of tissue is known as the edge-zone In some corals the septa are solid imperforate plates of calcite, and their peripheral ends are either firmly welded together, or are united by interstitial pieces so as to form imperforate theca. In others the peripheral ends of the septa are united only by bars or trabeculae, so that the theca is perforate, and in many such perforate corals the septa themselves are pierced by numerous perforations. In the former, which have been called aporose corals, the only communication between the cavity of the edge-zone and the general cavity of the zooid is by way of the lip of the calicle; in the latter, or perforate corals, the theca is permeated by numerous branching and anastomosing canals lined by endoderm, which place the cavity of the edge-zone in communication with the general cavity of the zooid.

It's clear from looking at figs. 16 and 17 that every 103 septum is covered by a fold of endoderm, mesogloea, and ectoderm, and is actually pushed into the zooid's cavity from the outside. The zooid is shaped by the corallum. When fully extended, the upper part of the zooid extends out of the calicle and its wall folds over the lip of the calicle, creating a fold of soft tissue that stretches a varying distance over the theca and usually contains a cavity that connects over the lip of the calicle with the coelenteron. This fold of tissue is known as the edge-zone. In some corals, the septa are solid, impermeable plates of calcite, with their outer ends either tightly fused together or connected by interstitial pieces, forming an impermeable theca. In other cases, the outer ends of the septa are joined only by bars or trabeculae, resulting in a permeable theca, and many of these perforate corals have septa that are itself filled with numerous holes. In the former, called aporose corals, the only link between the edge-zone and the general cavity of the zooid is through the lip of the calicle; in the latter, or perforate corals, the theca is filled with various branching and interconnected canals lined by endoderm, which connect the edge-zone cavity with the overall cavity of the zooid.

Fig. 18.

A, Schematic longitudinal section through a zooid and bud of Stylophora digitata. In A, B, and C the thick black lines represent the soft tissues; the corallum is dotted. s, Stomodaeum; c, c, coenosarc; col, columella, T tabulae.

A, Schematic longitudinal section through a zooid and bud of Stylophora digitata. In A, B, and C, the thick black lines represent the soft tissues; the corallum is dotted. s, Stomodaeum; c, c, coenosarc; col, columella, T tabulae.

B, Similar section through a single zooid and bud of Astroides calicularis.

B, Similar section through a single zooid and bud of Astroides calicularis.

C, Similar section through three corallites of Lophohelia prolifera. ez, Edge-zone.

C, Similar section through three corallites of Lophohelia prolifera. ez, Edge-zone.

D, Diagram illustrating the process of budding by unequal division.

D, Diagram illustrating the process of budding through uneven division.

E, Section through a dividing calicle of Mussa, showing the union of two septa in the plane of division and the origin of new septa at right angles to them.

E, Section through a dividing calicle of Mussa, showing the connection of two septa in the division plane and the creation of new septa at right angles to them.

(C original; the rest after von Koch.)

(C original; the rest after von Koch.)

A large number of corals, both aporose and perforate, are colonial. The colonies are produced by either budding or division. In the former case the young daughter zooid, with its corallum, arises wholly outside the cavity of the parent zooid, and the component parts of the young corallum, septa, theca, columella, &c., are formed anew in every individual produced. In division a vertical constriction divides a zooid into two equal or unequal parts, and the several parts of the two corals thus produced are severally derived from the corresponding parts of the dividing corallum. In colonial corals a bud is always formed from the edge-zone, and this bud develops into a new zooid with its corallum. The cavity of the bud in an aporose coral (fig. 18, A, C) does not communicate directly with that of the parent form, but through the medium of the edge-zone. As growth proceeds, and parent and bud become separated farther from one another, the edge-zone forms a sheet of soft tissue, bridging over the space between the two, and resting upon projecting spines of the corallum. This sheet of tissue is called the coenosarc. Its lower surface is clothed with a layer of calicoblasts which continue to secrete carbonate of lime, giving rise to a secondary deposit which more or less fills up the spaces between the individual coralla, and is distinguished as coenenchyme. This coenenchyme may be scanty, or may be so abundant that the individual corallites produced by budding seem to be immersed in it. Budding takes place in an analogous manner in perforate corals (fig. 18, B), but the presence of the canal system in the perforate theca leads to a modification of the process. Buds arise from the edge-zone which already communicate with the cavity of the zooid by the canals. As the buds develop the canal system becomes much extended, and calcareous tissue is deposited between the network of canals, the confluent edge-zones of mother zooid and bud forming a coenosarc. As the process continues a number of calicles are formed, imbedded in a spongy tissue in which the canals ramify, and it is impossible to say where the theca of one corallite ends and that of another begins. In the formation of colonies by division a constriction at right angles to the long axis of the mouth involves first the mouth, then the peristome, and finally the calyx itself, so that the previously single corallite becomes divided into two (fig. 18, E). After division the corallites continue to grow upwards, and their zooids may remain united by a bridge of soft tissue or coenosarc. But in some cases, as they grow farther apart, this continuity is broken, each corallite has its own edge-zone, and internal continuity is also broken by the formation of dissepiments within each calicle, all organic connexion between the two zooids being eventually lost. Massive meandrine corals are produced by continual repetition of a process of incomplete division, involving the mouth and to some extent the peristome: the calyx, however, does not divide, but elongates to form a characteristic meandrine channel containing several zooid mouths.

A large number of corals, both non-perforated and perforated, are colonial. The colonies are formed through either budding or division. In the case of budding, the new daughter zooid, along with its corallum, develops entirely outside the cavity of the parent zooid, and the individual parts of the young corallum, such as septa, theca, columella, etc., are created anew in each individual produced. In division, a vertical constriction splits a zooid into two equal or unequal parts, with the various sections of the two corals derived from corresponding parts of the dividing corallum. In colonial corals, a bud is always created from the edge zone, which then develops into a new zooid with its corallum. The cavity of the bud in a non-perforated coral (fig. 18, A, C) doesn't connect directly with that of the parent form, but through the edge zone. As growth continues, and the parent and bud move farther apart, the edge zone forms a soft tissue sheet that spans the space between them, resting on the projecting spines of the corallum. This tissue sheet is called the coenosarc. Its underside is covered with a layer of calicoblasts that keep secreting calcium carbonate, leading to a secondary deposit that fills in the gaps between individual coralla, known as coenenchyme. This coenenchyme can be sparse or so abundant that the individual corallites produced by budding seem to be submerged in it. Budding occurs similarly in perforated corals (fig. 18, B), but the presence of the canal system in the perforated theca modifies the process. Buds arise from the edge zone, which already connects with the cavity of the zooid through the canals. As the buds grow, the canal system expands significantly, and calcareous tissue is deposited between the canal network, with the confluent edge zones of the mother zooid and bud forming a coenosarc. As this process continues, numerous calicles are formed, embedded in a spongy tissue where the canals branch off, making it difficult to determine where one corallite’s theca ends and another begins. When colonies form through division, a constriction that goes across the mouth begins with the mouth, then the peristome, and finally the calyx itself, resulting in the previously single corallite being split into two (fig. 18, E). After the division, the corallites continue to grow upwards, and their zooids may stay connected by a bridge of soft tissue or coenosarc. However, in some cases, as they continue to grow apart, this connection is lost, with each corallite having its own edge zone, and internal continuity is disrupted by the formation of dissepiments within each calicle, leading to the eventual loss of all organic connection between the two zooids. Massive meandrine corals are formed by the repeated process of incomplete division, affecting the mouth and to some extent the peristome: however, the calyx does not divide but elongates to create a characteristic meandrine channel containing several zooid mouths.

Corals have been divided into Aporosa and Perforata, according as the theca and septa are compact and solid, or are perforated by pores containing canals lined by endoderm. The division is in many respects convenient for descriptive purposes, but recent researches show that it does not accurately represent the relationships of the different families. Various attempts have been made to classify corals according to the arrangement of the septa, the characters of the theca, the microscopic structure of the corallum, and the anatomy of the soft parts. The last-named method has proved little more than that there is a remarkable similarity between the zooids of all recent corals, the differences which have been brought to light being for the most part secondary and valueless for classificatory purposes. On the other hand, the study of the anatomy and development of the zooids has thrown much light upon the manner in which the corallum is formed, and it is now possible to infer the structure of the soft parts from a microscopical examination of the septa, theca, &c., with the result that unexpected relationships have been shown to exist between corals previously supposed to stand far apart. This has been particularly the case with the group of Palaeozoic corals formerly classed together as Rugosa. In many of these so-called rugose forms the septa have a characteristic arrangement, differing from that of recent corals chiefly in the fact that they show a tetrameral instead of a hexameral symmetry. Thus in the family Stauridae there are four chief septa whose inner ends unite in the middle of the calicle to form a false columella, and in the Zaphrentidae there are many instances of an arrangement, such as that depicted in fig. 19, which represents the septal arrangement of Streptelasma corniculum from the lower Silurian. In this coral the calicle is divided into quadrants by four principal septa, the main septum, counter septum, and two alar septa. The remaining septa are so disposed that in the quadrants abutting on the chief septum they converge towards that septum, whilst in the other quadrants they converge towards the alar septa. The secondary septa show a regular gradation in size, and, assuming that the smallest were the most recently formed, it will be noticed that in the chief quadrants the youngest septa lie nearest to the main septum; 104 in the other quadrants the youngest septa lie nearest to the alar septa. This arrangement, however, is by no means characteristic even of the Zaphrentidae, and in the family Cyathophyllidae most of the genera exhibit a radial symmetry in which no trace of the bilateral arrangement described above is recognizable, and indeed in the genus Cyathophyllum itself a radial arrangement is the rule. The connexion between the Cyathophyllidae and modern Astraeidae is shown by Moseleya latistellata, a living reef-building coral from Torres Strait. The general structure of this coral leaves no doubt that it is closely allied to the Astraeidae, but in the young calicles a tetrameral symmetry is indicated by the presence of four large septa placed at right angles to one another. Again, in the family Amphiastraeidae there is commonly a single septum much larger than the rest, and it has been shown that in the young calicles, e.g. of Thecidiosmilia, two septa, corresponding to the main- and counter-septa of Streptelasma, are first formed, then two alar septa, and afterwards the remaining septa, the latter taking on a generally radial arrangement, though the original bilaterality is marked by the preponderance of the main septum. As the microscopic character of the corallum of these extinct forms agrees with that of recent corals, it may be assumed that the anatomy of the soft parts also was similar, and the tetrameral arrangement, when present, may obviously be referred to a stage when only the first two pairs of Edwardsian mesenteries were present and septa were formed in the intervals between them.

Corals are categorized into Aporosa and Perforata, based on whether the theca and septa are solid and compact or have pores containing canals lined by endoderm. This classification is useful for descriptions, but recent studies reveal it doesn't accurately depict the relationships among different families. Various efforts have been made to classify corals based on the arrangement of the septa, the characteristics of the theca, the microscopic structure of the corallum, and the anatomy of the soft parts. The latter approach has mostly shown that there's a striking similarity among the zooids of all modern corals, with most discovered differences being secondary and not useful for classification. However, the study of the anatomy and development of the zooids has shed light on how the corallum forms, allowing for inferences about the structure of the soft parts from a microscopic examination of the septa, theca, etc., leading to unexpected relationships being revealed between corals that were previously thought to be unrelated. This is especially true for the group of Palaeozoic corals that were once grouped as Rugosa. In many of these so-called rugose forms, the septa have a distinctive arrangement, differing from recent corals mainly by having a tetrameral instead of a hexameral symmetry. In the family Stauridae, there are four main septa whose inner ends converge in the middle of the calicle to create a false columella, and in the Zaphrentidae, there are many examples of an arrangement like that shown in fig. 19, depicting the septal structure of Streptelasma corniculum from the lower Silurian. In this coral, the calicle is divided into quadrants by four primary septa: the main septum, counter septum, and two alar septa. The other septa are arranged so that in the quadrants adjacent to the main septum, they converge toward it, while in the remaining quadrants, they converge toward the alar septa. The secondary septa show a regular size gradient, and assuming the smallest are the most recently created, it's noted that in the primary quadrants, the youngest septa are closest to the main septum; in the other quadrants, the youngest septa are nearest to the alar septa. However, this arrangement is not particularly indicative, even for the Zaphrentidae, and in the family Cyathophyllidae, most genera display a radial symmetry where the bilateral arrangement described earlier is not recognizable; in fact, a radial arrangement is the standard for the genus Cyathophyllum. The connection between the Cyathophyllidae and modern Astraeidae is illustrated by Moseleya latistellata, a living reef-building coral from Torres Strait. The general structure of this coral clearly indicates a close relationship with the Astraeidae, but in the young calicles, a tetrameral symmetry is shown by four large septa arranged at right angles to each other. Additionally, in the family Amphiastraeidae, there's usually one septum much larger than the others, and it's been shown that in the young calicles, such as those of Thecidiosmilia, two septa, corresponding to the main and counter-septa of Streptelasma, are formed first, followed by two alar septa, and then the remaining septa, which generally take on a radial arrangement, though the original bilateral symmetry is marked by the dominance of the main septum. Since the microscopic characteristics of these extinct forms’ corallum align with those of recent corals, it can be assumed that the anatomy of the soft parts was also similar, and the tetrameral arrangement, when present, likely refers to a stage when only the first two pairs of Edwardsian mesenteries were formed and septa developed in the spaces between them.

Fig. 19.—Diagram of the arrangement of the septa in a Zaphrentid coral. m, Main septum; c, counter septum; t, t, alar septa.

Space forbids a discussion of the proposals to classify corals after the minute structure of their coralla, but it will suffice to say that it has been shown that the septa of all corals are built up of a number of curved bars called trabeculae, each of which is composed of a number of nodes. In many secondary corals (Cyclolites, Thamnastraea) the trabeculae are so far separate that the individual bars are easily recognizable, and each looks something like a bamboo owing to the thickening of the two ends of each node. The trabeculae are united together by these thickened internodes, and the result is a fenestrated septum, which in older septa may become solid and aporose by continual deposit of calcite in the fenestrae. Each node of a trabecula may be simple, i.e. have only one centre of calcification, or may be compound. The septa of modern perforate corals are shown to have a structure nearly identical with that of the secondary forms, but the trabeculae and their nodes are only apparent on microscopical examination. The aporose corals, too, have a practically identical structure, their compactness being due to the union of the trabeculae throughout their entire lengths instead of at intervals, as in the Perforata. Further, the trabeculae may be evenly spaced throughout the septum, or may be grouped together, and this feature is probably of value in estimating the affinities of corals. (For an account of coral formations see Coral-Reefs.)

Space doesn’t allow for a discussion of the proposals to classify corals based on the tiny structure of their skeletons, but it’s enough to say that it has been demonstrated that the septa of all corals are made up of several curved bars called trabeculae, each of which consists of several nodes. In many secondary corals (Cyclolites, Thamnastraea), the trabeculae are spaced far enough apart that the individual bars are easily recognizable, and each resembles bamboo due to the thickening at both ends of each node. The trabeculae are connected by these thickened internodes, resulting in a perforated septum, which in older septa may become solid and porous due to the continuous deposit of calcite in the openings. Each node of a trabecula can be simple, i.e. have just one calcification center, or it can be compound. The septa of modern perforate corals show a structure nearly identical to that of the secondary forms, but the trabeculae and their nodes are only visible under a microscope. The porous corals also have a virtually identical structure, with their density resulting from the trabeculae being joined throughout their entire lengths instead of at intervals, as seen in the Perforata. Additionally, the trabeculae can be evenly spaced throughout the septum or clustered together, and this characteristic may be useful in assessing coral relationships. (For an account of coral formations see Coral-Reefs.)

In the present state of our knowledge the Zoantharia in which a primary cycle of six couples of mesenteries is (or may be inferred to be) completed by the addition of two pairs to the eight Edwardsian mesenteries, and succeeding cycles are formed in the exocoeles of the pre-existing mesenterial cycles, may be classed in an order Actiniidea, and this may be divided into the suborders Malacactiniae, comprising the soft-bodied Actinians, such as Actinia, Sagartia, Bunodes, &c., and the Scleractiniae, comprising the corals. The Scleractiniae may best be divided into groups of families which appear to be most closely related to one another, but it should not be forgotten that there is great reason to believe that many if not most of the extinct corals must have differed from modern Actiniidea in mesenterial characters, and may have only possessed Edwardsian mesenteries, or even have possessed only four mesenteries, in this respect showing close affinities to the Stauromedusae. Moreover, there are some modern corals in which the secondary cycle of mesenteries departs from the Actinian plan. For example, J.E. Duerden has shown that in Porites the ordinary zooids possess only six couples of mesenteries arranged on the Actinian plan. But some zooids grow to a larger size and develop a number of additional mesenteries, which arise either in the sulcar or the sulcular entocoele, much in the same manner as in Cerianthus. Bearing this in mind, the following arrangement may be taken to represent the most recent knowledge of coral structure:—

In our current understanding, the Zoantharia, where a primary cycle of six pairs of mesenteries is (or can be assumed to be) completed by adding two pairs to the eight Edwardsian mesenteries, and where subsequent cycles form in the exocoeles of the already existing mesenterial cycles, can be classified under the order Sea anemones. This can be further divided into the suborders Malacactiniae, which includes soft-bodied Actinians like Actinia, Sagartia, Bunodes, etc., and the Scleractiniae, which includes corals. The Scleractiniae can best be grouped into families that appear to be most closely related to each other. However, it's important to remember that there is significant reason to believe that many, if not most, of the extinct corals likely differed from modern Actiniidea in mesenterial characteristics and may have only had Edwardsian mesenteries or even just four mesenteries, showing similarities to the Stauromedusae. Additionally, some modern corals exhibit a secondary cycle of mesenteries that deviates from the Actinian structure. For instance, J.E. Duerden has demonstrated that in Porites, the typical zooids have only six pairs of mesenteries arranged according to the Actinian plan. However, some zooids grow larger and develop more mesenteries, which arise either in the sulcar or the sulcular entocoele, similar to what happens in Cerianthus. Keeping this in mind, the following arrangement can be regarded as the latest knowledge of coral structure:—

Group A.

Group A.

Family I. Zaphrentidae.—Solitary Palaeozoic corals with an epithecal wall. Septa numerous, arranged pinnately with regard to four principal septa. Tabulae present. One or more pits or fossulae present in the calicle. Typical genera—Zaphrentis, Raf. Amplexus, M. Edw. and H. Streptelasma, Hall. Omphyma, Raf.

Family I. Zaphrentidae.—These are solitary Palaeozoic corals that have an outer wall. There are many septa, arranged in a feather-like pattern with respect to four main septa. Tabulae are present. One or more pits or fossulae can be found in the calicle. Typical genera include Zaphrentis, Raf. Amplexus, M. Edw. and H. Streptelasma, Hall. Omphyma, Raf.

Family 2. Turbinolidae.—Solitary, rarely colonial corals, with radially arranged septa and without tabulae. Typical genera— Flabellum, Lesson. Turbinolia, M. Edw. and H. Caryophyllia, Lamarck. Sphenotrochus, Moseley, &c.

Family 2. Turbinolidae.—These are solitary corals that are rarely found in colonies. They have septa arranged in a radial pattern and lack tabulae. Typical genera include Flabellum, Lesson; Turbinolia, M. Edw. and H.; Caryophyllia, Lamarck; and Sphenotrochus, Moseley, etc.

Family 3. Amphiastraeidae.—Mainly colonial, rarely solitary corals, with radial septa, but bilateral arrangement indicated by persistence of a main septum. Typical genera—Amphiastraea, Étallon. Thecidiosmilia.

Family 3. Amphiastraeidae.—Primarily colonial corals, though they can sometimes be solitary, featuring radial septa, but showing a bilateral arrangement due to the continued presence of a main septum. Typical genera—Amphiastraea, Étallon. Thecidiosmilia.

Family 4. Stylinidae.—Colonial corals allied to the Amphiastraeidae, but with radially symmetrical septa arranged in cycles. Typical genera—Stylina, Lamarck (Jurassic). Convexastraea, D’Orb. (Jurassic). Isastraea, M. Edw. and H.(Jurassic). Ogilvie refers the modern genus Galaxea to this family.

Family 4. Stylinidae.—Colonial corals related to the Amphiastraeidae, but with radially symmetrical septa organized in cycles. Typical genera—Stylina, Lamarck (Jurassic). Convexastraea, D’Orb. (Jurassic). Isastraea, M. Edw. and H. (Jurassic). Ogilvie associates the modern genus Galaxea with this family.

Group B.

Group B.

Family 5. Oculinidae.—Branching or massive aporose corals, the calices projecting above the level of a compact coenenchyme formed from the coenosarc which covers the exterior of the corallum. Typical genera—Lophohelia, M. Edw. and H. Oculina, M. Edw. and H.

Family 5. Oculinidae.—Branching or massive porous corals, with the calices extending above the surface of a dense coenenchyme made up of the coenosarc that covers the outside of the corallum. Typical genera—Lophohelia, M. Edw. and H. Oculina, M. Edw. and H.

Family 6. Pocilloporidae.—Colonial branching aporose corals, with small calices sunk in the coenenchyme. Tabulae present, and two larger septa, an axial and abaxial, are always present, with traces of ten smaller septa. Typical genera—Pocillopora, Lamarck. Seriatopora, Lamarck.

Family 6. Pocilloporidae.—Colonial branching corals without pores, featuring small cups set into the tissue. Tabulae are present, along with two larger septa, one axial and one abaxial, always found with traces of ten smaller septa. Typical genera—Pocillopora, Lamarck. Seriatopora, Lamarck.

Family 7. Madreporidae.—Colonial branching or palmate perforate corals, with abundant trabecular coenenchyme. Theca porous; septa compact and reduced in number. Typical genera— Madrepora, Linn. Turbinaria, Oken. Montipora, Quoy and G.

Family 7. Madreporid family.—Colonial branching or fan-shaped perforated corals, featuring abundant trabecular coenenchyme. Theca is porous; septa are compact and fewer in number. Typical genera—Madrepora, Linn. Turbinaria, Oken. Montipora, Quoy and G.

Family 8. Poritidae.—Incrusting or massive colonial perforate corals; calices usually in contact by their edges, sometimes disjunct and immersed in coenenchyme. Theca and septa perforate. Typical genera—Porites, M. Edw. and H. Goniopora, Quoy and G. Rhodaraea, M. Edw. and H.

Family 8. Porites.—These are colonial corals that can be crusty or massive and have perforated structures. Their calices usually touch at the edges, sometimes they are separated and embedded in a coenenchyme. Both theca and septa are perforated. Typical genera include Porites, M. Edw. and H. Goniopora, Quoy and G. Rhodaraea, M. Edw. and H.

Group C.

Group C.

Family 9. Cyathophyllidae.—Solitary and colonial aporose corals. Tabulae and vesicular endotheca present. Septa numerous, generally radial, seldom pinnate. Typical genera—Cyathophyllum, Goldfuss (Devonian and Carboniferous). Moseleya, Quelch (recent).

Family 9. Cyathophyllidae.—Solitary and colonial porous corals. Tabulae and vesicular endotheca are present. Septa are numerous, usually radial, and rarely pinnate. Typical genera—Cyathophyllum, Goldfuss (Devonian and Carboniferous). Moseleya, Quelch (recent).

Family 10. Astraeidae.—Aporpse, mainly colonial corals, massive, branching, or maeandroid. Septa radial; dissepiments present; an epitheca surrounds the base of massive or maeandroid forms, but only surrounds individual corallites in simple or branching forms. Typical genera—Goniastraea, M. Edw. and H. Heliastraea, M. Edw. and H. Maeandrina, Lam. Coeloria, M. Edw. and H. Favia, Oken.

Family 10. Astraeidae. —Aporpse, primarily colonial corals, massive, branching, or maze-like. The septa are radial; dissepiments are present; an epitheca surrounds the base of massive or maze-like forms, but only surrounds individual corallites in simple or branching forms. Typical genera—Goniastraea, M. Edw. and H. Heliastraea, M. Edw. and H. Maeandrina, Lam. Coeloria, M. Edw. and H. Favia, Oken.

Family 11. Fungidae.—Solitary and colonial corals, with numerous radial septa united by synapticulae. Typical genera— Lophoseris, M. Edw. and H. Thamnastraea, Le Sauvage. Leptophyllia, Reuss (Jurassic and Cretaceous). Fungia, Dana. Siderastraea, Blainv.

Family 11. Fungi.—These are solitary and colonial corals that have many radial septa connected by synapticulae. Typical genera include—Lophoseris, M. Edw. and H. Thamnastraea, Le Sauvage. Leptophyllia, Reuss (Jurassic and Cretaceous). Fungia, Dana. Siderastraea, Blainv.

Group D.

Group D.

Family 12. Eupsammidae.—Solitary or colonial perforate corals, branching, massive, or encrusting. Septa radial; the primary septa usually compact, the remainder perforate. Theca perforate. Synapticula present in some genera. Typical genera—Stephanophyllia, Michelin. Eupsammia, M. Edw. and H. Astroides, Blainv. Rhodopsammia, M. Edw. and H. Dendrophyllia, M. Edw. and H.

Family 12. Eupsammidae.—These are either solitary or colonial corals with perforations, featuring branching, massive, or encrusting shapes. The septa are radial; the primary septa are usually compact, while the rest are perforated. The theca is perforated as well. Synapticula can be found in some genera. Typical genera include Stephanophyllia, Michelin, Eupsammia, M. Edw. and H., Astroides, Blainv., Rhodopsammia, M. Edw. and H., and Dendrophyllia, M. Edw. and H.

Group E.

Group E.

Family 13. Cystiphyllidae.—Solitary corals with rudimentary septa, and the calicle filled with vesicular endotheca. Genera—Cystiphyllum, 105 Lonsdale (Silurian and Devonian). Goniophyllum, M. Edw. and H. (In this Silurian genus the calyx is provided with a movable operculum, consisting of four paired triangular pieces, the bases of each being attached to the sides of the calyx, and their apices meeting in the middle when the operculum is closed). Calcecla, Lam. (In this Devonian genus there is a single semicircular operculum furnished with a stout median septum and numerous feebly developed secondary septa. The calyx is triangular in section, pointed below, and the operculum is attached to it by hinge-like teeth.)

Family 13. Cystiphyllidae.—These are solitary corals with basic septa, and the calicle is filled with a spongy endotheca. Genera—Cystiphyllum, 105 Lonsdale (from the Silurian and Devonian periods). Goniophyllum, M. Edw. and H. (In this Silurian genus, the calyx has a movable operculum made up of four paired triangular pieces, with the bases of each attached to the sides of the calyx, and their tips meeting in the center when the operculum is closed). Calcecla, Lam. (In this Devonian genus, there's a single semicircular operculum equipped with a strong central septum and several weakly developed secondary septa. The calyx has a triangular shape at the base, tapering down, and the operculum is connected to it by hinge-like teeth.)

Authorities.—The following list contains only the names of the more important and more general works on the structure and classification of corals and on coral reefs. For a fuller bibliography the works marked with an asterisk should be consulted: * A. Andres, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, ix. (1884); H.M. Bernard, “Catalogue of Madreporarian Corals” in Brit. Museum, ii. (1896), iii. (1897); * G.C. Bourne, “Anthozoa,” in E. Ray Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology, vol. ii. (London, 1900); G. Brook, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, xxxii. (1899) (Antipatharia); “Cat. Madrep. Corals,” Brit. Museum, i. (1893); D.C. Danielssen, “Report Norwegian North Atlantic Exploring Expedition,” Zoology, xix. (1890); J.E. Duerden, “Some Results on the Morphology and Development of Recent and Fossil Corals,” Rep. Brit. Association, 1903, pp. 684-685; “The Morphology of the Madreporaria,” Biol. Bullet, vii. pp. 79-104; P.M. Duncan, Journ. Linnean Soc. xviii. (1885); P.H. Gosse, Actinologia britannica (London, 1860); O. and R. Hertwig, Die Actinien (Jena, 1879); R. Hertwig, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, vi. (1882) and xxvi. (1888); * C.B. Klunzinger, Die Korallthiere des Rothen Meeres (Berlin, 1877); * G. von Koch, Fauna und Flora des Golfes van Neapel, xv. (1887); Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, ii. (1882) and xii. (1897); Palaeontographica, xxix. (1883); (also many papers in the Morphol. Jahrbuch from 1878 to 1898); F. Koby, “Polypiers jurassiques de la Suisse,” Mem. Soc. Palaeont. Suisse, vii.-xvi. (1880-1889); A. von Kölliker, “Die Pennatuliden,” Abh. d. Senck. Naturf. Gesell. vii.; * “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, i. Pennatulidae (1880); Koren and Danielssen, Norske Nordhaus Exped., Alcyonida (1887); H. de Lacaze-Duthiers, Hist. nat. du corail (Paris, 1864); H. Milne-Edwards and J. Haime, Hist. nat. des coralliaires (Paris, 1857); H.N. Moseley, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, ii. (1881); H.A. Nicholson, Palaeozoic Tabulate Corals (Edinburgh, 1879); M.M. Ogilvie, Phil. Transactions, clxxxvii. (1896); E. Pratz, Palaeontographica, xxix. (1882); J.J. Quelch, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, xvi. (1886); * P.S. Wright and Th. Studer, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, xxxi. (1889).

Authorities.—The following list includes only the names of the most important and general works on the structure and classification of corals and coral reefs. For a more comprehensive bibliography, please refer to the works marked with an asterisk: * A. Andres, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, ix. (1884); H.M. Bernard, “Catalogue of Madreporarian Corals” in Brit. Museum, ii. (1896), iii. (1897); * G.C. Bourne, “Anthozoa,” in E. Ray Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology, vol. ii. (London, 1900); G. Brook, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, xxxii. (1899) (Antipatharia); “Cat. Madrepor. Corals,” Brit. Museum, i. (1893); D.C. Danielssen, “Report Norwegian North Atlantic Exploring Expedition,” Zoology, xix. (1890); J.E. Duerden, “Some Results on the Morphology and Development of Recent and Fossil Corals,” Rep. Brit. Association, 1903, pp. 684-685; “The Morphology of the Madreporaria,” Biol. Bullet, vii. pp. 79-104; P.M. Duncan, Journ. Linnean Soc. xviii. (1885); P.H. Gosse, Actinologia britannica (London, 1860); O. and R. Hertwig, Die Actinien (Jena, 1879); R. Hertwig, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, vi. (1882) and xxvi. (1888); * C.B. Klunzinger, Die Korallthiere des Rothen Meeres (Berlin, 1877); * G. von Koch, Fauna und Flora des Golfes van Neapel, xv. (1887); Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel, ii. (1882) and xii. (1897); Palaeontographica, xxix. (1883); (also many papers in the Morphol. Jahrbuch from 1878 to 1898); F. Koby, “Polypiers jurassiques de la Suisse,” Mem. Soc. Palaeont. Suisse, vii.-xvi. (1880-1889); A. von Kölliker, “Die Pennatuliden,” Abh. d. Senck. Naturf. Gesell. vii.; * “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, i. Pennatulidae (1880); Koren and Danielssen, Norske Nordhaus Exped., Alcyonida (1887); H. de Lacaze-Duthiers, Hist. nat. du corail (Paris, 1864); H. Milne-Edwards and J. Haime, Hist. nat. des coralliaires (Paris, 1857); H.N. Moseley, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, ii. (1881); H.A. Nicholson, Palaeozoic Tabulate Corals (Edinburgh, 1879); M.M. Ogilvie, Phil. Transactions, clxxxvii. (1896); E. Pratz, Palaeontographica, xxix. (1882); J.J. Quelch, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, xvi. (1886); * P.S. Wright and Th. Studer, “Challenger Reports,” Zoology, xxxi. (1889).

(G. C. B.)

ANTHRACENE (from the Greek ἄνθραξ, coal), C14H10, a hydrocarbon obtained from the fraction of the coal-tar distillate boiling between 270° and 400° C. This high boiling fraction is allowed to stand for some days, when it partially solidifies. It is then separated in a centrifugal machine, the low melting-point impurities are removed by means of hot water, and the residue is finally hot-pressed. The crude anthracene cake is purified by treatment with the higher pyridine bases, the operation being carried out in large steam-jacketed boilers. The whole mass dissolves on heating, and the anthracene crystallizes out on cooling. The crystallized anthracene is then removed by a centrifugal separator and the process of solution in the pyridine bases is repeated. Finally the anthracene is purified by sublimation.

ANTHRACENE (from the Greek charcoal, coal), C14H10, is a hydrocarbon obtained from the portion of the coal-tar distillate that boils between 270° and 400° C. This high-boiling fraction is allowed to sit for several days, causing it to partially solidify. It is then separated using a centrifugal machine, and the low melting-point impurities are removed with hot water. The remaining residue is finally hot-pressed. The raw anthracene cake is purified by treating it with higher pyridine bases in large steam-jacketed boilers. The entire mass dissolves when heated, and the anthracene crystallizes out as it cools. The crystallized anthracene is then separated by a centrifugal separator, and the process of dissolving in the pyridine bases is repeated. Finally, the anthracene is purified through sublimation.

Many synthetical processes for the preparation of anthracene and its derivatives are known. It is formed by the condensation of acetylene tetrabromide with benzene in the presence of aluminium chloride:—

Many synthetic methods for making anthracene and its derivatives are known. It is produced by combining acetylene tetrabromide with benzene in the presence of aluminum chloride:—

and similarly from methylene dibromide and benzene, and also when benzyl chloride is heated with aluminium chloride to 200° C. By condensing ortho-brombenzyl bromide with sodium, C.L. Jackson and J.F. White (Ber., 1879, 12, p. 1965) obtained dihydro-anthracene

and similarly from methylene dibromide and benzene, and also when benzyl chloride is heated with aluminum chloride to 200° C. By condensing ortho-bromobenzyl bromide with sodium, C.L. Jackson and J.F. White (Ber., 1879, 12, p. 1965) obtained dihydro-anthracene

Anthracene has also been obtained by heating ortho-tolylphenyl ketone with zinc dust

Anthracene has also been produced by heating ortho-tolylphenyl ketone with zinc dust.

Anthracene crystallizes in colourless monoclinic tables which show a fine blue fluorescence. It melts at 213° C. and boils at 351° C. It is insoluble in water, sparingly soluble in alcohol and ether, but readily soluble in hot benzene. It unites with picric acid to form a picrate, C14H10·C6H2(NO2)3·OH, which crystallizes in needles, melting at 138° C. On exposure to sunlight a solution of anthracene in benzene or xylene deposits para-anthracene (C14H10)2, which melts at 244° C. and passes back into the ordinary form. Chlorine and bromine form both addition and substitution products with anthracene; the addition product, anthracene dichloride, C14H10Cl2, being formed when chlorine is passed into a cold solution of anthracene in carbon bisulphide. On treatment with potash, it forms the substitution product, monochlor-anthracene, C14H9Cl. Nitro-anthracenes are not as yet known. The mono-oxyanthracenes (anthrols), C14H9OH or (α) and (β) resemble the phenols, whilst (γ) (anthranol) is a reduction product of anthraquinone. β-anthrol and anthranol give the corresponding amino compounds (anthramines) when heated with ammonia.

Anthracene crystallizes in colorless monoclinic plates that exhibit a subtle blue fluorescence. It melts at 213° C and boils at 351° C. It is insoluble in water, slightly soluble in alcohol and ether, but easily dissolves in hot benzene. It reacts with picric acid to form a picrate, C14H10·C6H2(NO2)3·OH, which crystallizes into needles melting at 138° C. When a solution of anthracene in benzene or xylene is exposed to sunlight, it deposits para-anthracene (C14H10)2, which melts at 244° C and reverts to the regular form. Chlorine and bromine can create both addition and substitution products with anthracene; the addition product, anthracene dichloride, C14H10Cl2, is formed when chlorine is passed into a cold solution of anthracene in carbon disulfide. When treated with potash, it yields the substitution product, monochlor-anthracene, C14H9Cl. Nitro-anthracenes are not yet known. The mono-oxyanthracenes (anthrols), C14H9OH or (α) and (β) resemble phenols, while (γ) (anthranol) is a reduction product of anthraquinone. β-anthrol and anthranol yield the corresponding amino compounds (anthramines) when heated with ammonia.

Numerous sulphonic acids of anthracene are known, a monosulphonic acid being obtained with dilute sulphuric acid, whilst concentrated sulphuric acid produces mixtures of the anthracene disulphonic acids. By the action of sodium amalgam on an alcoholic solution of anthracene, an anthracene dihydride, C14H12, is obtained, whilst by the use of stronger reducing agents, such as hydriodic acid and amorphous phosphorus, hydrides of composition C14H16 and C14H24 are produced.

Numerous sulfonic acids of anthracene are known, with a monosulfonic acid being formed using dilute sulfuric acid, while concentrated sulfuric acid creates mixtures of anthracene disulfonic acids. By treating an alcoholic solution of anthracene with sodium amalgam, an anthracene dihydride, C14H12, is produced; however, stronger reducing agents like hydriodic acid and amorphous phosphorus yield hydrides with compositions of C14H16 and C14H24.

Methyl and phenyl anthracenes are known; phenyl anthranol (phthalidin) being somewhat closely related to the phenolphthaleins (q.v.). Oxidizing agents convert anthracene into anthraquinone (q.v.); the production of this substance by oxidizing anthracene in glacial acetic acid solution, with chromic acid, is the usual method employed for the estimation of anthracene.

Methyl and phenyl anthracenes are known; phenyl anthranol (phthalidin) is somewhat closely related to the phenolphthaleins (see above). Oxidizing agents turn anthracene into anthraquinone (see above); the usual method for estimating anthracene involves oxidizing it in a glacial acetic acid solution with chromic acid.


ANTHRACITE (Gr. ἄνθραξ, coal), a term applied to those varieties of coal which do not give off tarry or other hydrocarbon vapours when heated below their point of ignition; or, in other words, which burn with a smokeless and nearly non-luminous flame. Other terms having the same meaning are, “stone coal” (not to be confounded with the German Steinkohle) or “blind coal” in Scotland, and “Kilkenny coal” in Ireland. The imperfect anthracite of north Devon, which however is only used as a pigment, is known as culm, the same term being used in geological classification to distinguish the strata in which it is found, and similar strata in the Rhenish hill countries which are known as the Culm Measures. In America, culm is used as an equivalent for waste or slack in anthracite mining.

ANTHRACITE (Gr. charcoal, coal) refers to types of coal that don’t release tarry or other hydrocarbon vapors when heated below their ignition point; in other words, they burn with a smokeless and almost non-luminous flame. Other terms with the same meaning include “stone coal” (not to be confused with the German Steinkohle), “blind coal” in Scotland, and “Kilkenny coal” in Ireland. The low-quality anthracite from north Devon, which is only used as a pigment, is known as culm, and this same term is used in geological classification to identify the layers where it is found, as well as similar layers in the Rhenish hill countries referred to as the Culm Measures. In America, culm is used to mean waste or slack in anthracite mining.

Physically, anthracite differs from ordinary bituminous coal by its greater hardness, higher density, 1.3-1.4, and lustre, the latter being often semi-metallic with a somewhat brownish reflection. It is also free from included soft or fibrous notches and does not soil the fingers when rubbed. Structurally it shows some alteration by the development of secondary divisional planes and fissures so that the original stratification lines are not always easily seen. The thermal conductivity is also higher, a lump of anthracite feeling perceptibly colder when held in the warm hand than a similar lump of bituminous coal at the same temperature. The chemical composition of some typical anthracites is given in the article Coal.

Physically, anthracite stands out from regular bituminous coal due to its increased hardness, higher density of 1.3-1.4, and shine, which often has a semi-metallic appearance with a slightly brownish reflection. It's also free from soft or fibrous inclusions and doesn't leave marks on your fingers when rubbed. Structurally, it shows some changes with the formation of secondary divisions and cracks, making the original layers less visible. Its thermal conductivity is also higher, as a piece of anthracite feels noticeably colder when held in a warm hand compared to a similar piece of bituminous coal at the same temperature. The chemical composition of some typical anthracites is detailed in the article Coal.

Anthracite may be considered to be a transition stage between ordinary bituminous coal and graphite, produced by the more or less complete elimination of the volatile constituents of the former; and it is found most abundantly in areas that have been subjected to considerable earth-movements, such as the flanks of great mountain ranges. The largest and most important anthracite region, that of the north-eastern portion of the Pennsylvania coal-field, is a good example of this; the highly contorted strata of the Appalachian region produce anthracite exclusively, while in the western portion of the same basin on the Ohio and its tributaries, where the strata are undisturbed, free-burning and coking coals, rich in volatile matter, prevail. In the same way the anthracite region of South Wales is confined to the contorted portion west of Swansea and Llanelly, the 106 central and eastern portions producing steam, coking and house coals.

Anthracite can be seen as a transitional stage between regular bituminous coal and graphite, formed by largely removing the volatile components of the former. It's mostly found in areas that have experienced significant geological activity, like the sides of major mountain ranges. A prime example of this is the largest and most crucial anthracite region located in the northeastern part of the Pennsylvania coalfield; the highly twisted layers of the Appalachian region produce anthracite exclusively, while in the western part of the same basin surrounding the Ohio River and its tributaries, the layers remain undisturbed, leading to the prevalence of free-burning and coking coals that are rich in volatile matter. Similarly, the anthracite region in South Wales is limited to the twisted area west of Swansea and Llanelly, with the central and eastern sections yielding steam, coking, and household coals.

Anthracites of newer, tertiary or cretaceous age, are found in the Crow’s Nest part of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, and at various points in the Andes in Peru.

Anthracites from the newer Tertiary or Cretaceous periods are found in the Crow’s Nest area of the Rocky Mountains in Canada and at various locations in the Andes in Peru.

The principal use of anthracite is as a smokeless fuel. In the eastern United States, it is largely employed as domestic fuel, usually in close stoves or furnaces, as well as for steam purposes, since, unlike that from South Wales, it does not decrepitate when heated, or at least not to the same extent. For proper use, however, it is necessary that the fuel should be supplied in pieces as nearly uniform in size as possible, a condition that has led to the development of the breaker which is so characteristic a feature in American anthracite mining (see Coal). The large coal as raised from the mine is passed through breakers with toothed rolls to reduce the lumps to smaller pieces, which are separated into different sizes by a system of graduated sieves, placed in descending order. Each size can be perfectly well burnt alone on an appropriate grate, if kept free from larger or smaller admixtures. The common American classification is as follows:—

The main use of anthracite is as a smokeless fuel. In the eastern United States, it's mainly used as home heating fuel, typically in stoves or furnaces, and for steam production, since unlike the coal from South Wales, it doesn’t break apart when heated, or at least not as much. For it to be used correctly, the fuel needs to be supplied in pieces that are as uniform in size as possible, which has led to the development of the breaker, a key feature of American anthracite mining (see Coal). The large coal extracted from the mine goes through breakers with toothed rolls to reduce the lumps into smaller pieces, which are then sorted into different sizes using a system of graduated sieves arranged in descending order. Each size can be burned effectively on the right grate if not mixed with larger or smaller pieces. The common American classification is as follows:—

Lump, steamboat, egg and stove coals, the latter in two or three sizes, all three being above 1½ in. size on round-hole screens.

Lump, steamboat, egg, and stove coal, with the latter in two or three sizes, all three being over 1½ inches in size on round-hole screens.

Chestnut below 1½ inch above 78 inch.
Pea  ”  78  ”  ”  916  ”
Buckwheat  ”  916  ”  ”  38  ”
Rice  ”  38  ”  ”  316  ”
Barley  ”  316  ”  ”  332  ”

From the pea size downwards the principal use is for steam purposes. In South Wales a less elaborate classification is adopted; but great care is exercised in hand-picking and cleaning the coal from included particles of pyrites in the higher qualities known as best malting coals, which are used for kiln-drying malt and hops.

From pea size downward, the main use is for steam purposes. In South Wales, a simpler classification is used, but a lot of care is taken in hand-picking and cleaning the coal of any pyrites particles in the higher grades known as the best malting coals, which are used for kiln-drying malt and hops.

Formerly, anthracite was largely used, both in America and South Wales, as blast-furnace fuel for iron smelting, but for this purpose it has been largely superseded by coke in the former country and entirely in the latter. An important application has, however, been developed in the extended use of internal combustion motors driven by the so-called “mixed,” “poor,” “semi-water” or “Dowson gas” produced by the gasification of anthracite with air and a small proportion of steam. This is probably the most economical method of obtaining power known; with an engine as small as 15 horse-power the expenditure of fuel is at the rate of only 1 ℔ per horse-power hour, and with larger engines it is proportionately less. Large quantities of anthracite for power purposes are now exported from South Wales to France, Switzerland and parts of Germany.

Previously, anthracite was mainly used in America and South Wales as fuel for blast furnaces in iron smelting, but it has mostly been replaced by coke in the former and completely in the latter. However, an important application has emerged in the increased use of internal combustion engines powered by the so-called “mixed,” “poor,” “semi-water,” or “Dowson gas,” which is produced by gasifying anthracite with air and a small amount of steam. This is likely the most economical way to generate power known; with an engine as small as 15 horsepower, the fuel consumption is only 1 pound per horsepower hour, and with larger engines, it's proportionately less. Large amounts of anthracite for power generation are now exported from South Wales to France, Switzerland, and parts of Germany.

(H. B.)

ANTHRACOTHERIUM (“coal-animal,” so called from the fact of the remains first described having been obtained from the Tertiary lignite-beds of Europe), a genus of extinct artiodactyle ungulate mammals, characterized by having 44 teeth, with five semi-crescentic cusps on the crowns of the upper molars. In many respects, especially the form of the lower jaw, Anthracotherium, which is of Oligocene and Miocene age in Europe, and typifies the family Anthracotheriidae, is allied to the hippopotamus, of which it is probably an ancestral form. The European A. magnum was as large as the last-mentioned animal, but there were several smaller species and the genus also occurs in Egypt, India and North America. (See Artiodactyla.)

ANTHRACOTHERIUM (“coal-animal,” named because the first discovered remains came from the Tertiary lignite beds of Europe) is a genus of extinct artiodactyl ungulate mammals. It is characterized by having 44 teeth, with five semi-crescent shaped cusps on the crowns of the upper molars. In many ways, especially in the shape of the lower jaw, Anthracotherium, which dates back to the Oligocene and Miocene eras in Europe and represents the Anthracotheriidae family, is related to the hippopotamus, of which it is likely an ancestor. The European A. magnum was as large as the modern hippopotamus, but there were several smaller species, and this genus is also found in Egypt, India, and North America. (See Artiodactyla.)


ANTHRAQUINONE, C14H8O2, an important derivative of anthracene, first prepared in 1834 by A. Laurent. It is prepared commercially from anthracene by stirring a sludge of anthracene and water in horizontal cylinders with a mixture of sodium bichromate and caustic soda. This suspension is then run through a conical mill in order to remove all grit, the cones of the mill fitting so tightly that water cannot pass through unless the mill is running; the speed of the mill when working is about 3000 revolutions per minute. After this treatment, the mixture is run into lead-lined vats and treated with sulphuric acid, steam is blown through the mixture in order to bring it to the boil, and the anthracene is rapidly oxidized to anthraquinone. When the oxidation is complete, the anthraquinone is separated in a filter press, washed and heated to 120° C. with commercial oil of vitriol, using about 2½ parts of vitriol to 1 of anthraquinone. It is then removed to lead-lined tanks and again washed with water and dried; the product obtained contains about 95% of anthraquinone. It may be purified by sublimation. Various synthetic processes have been used for the preparation of anthraquinone. A. Behr and W.A. v. Dorp (Ber., 1874, 7, p. 578) obtained orthobenzoyl benzoic acid by heating phthalic anhydride with benzene in the presence of aluminium chloride. This compound on heating with phosphoric anhydride loses water and yields anthraquinone,

ANTHRAQUINONE, C14H8O2, an important derivative of anthracene, was first made in 1834 by A. Laurent. It's produced commercially from anthracene by mixing a sludge of anthracene and water in horizontal cylinders with a mix of sodium bichromate and caustic soda. This mixture is then processed through a conical mill to eliminate any grit; the cones of the mill fit so tightly that water can’t pass through unless the mill is running, which operates at about 3000 revolutions per minute. After this, the mixture is transferred to lead-lined vats and treated with sulfuric acid. Steam is injected to bring the mixture to a boil, allowing the anthracene to quickly oxidize into anthraquinone. Once the oxidation is finished, the anthraquinone is filtered out, washed, and heated to 120° C. with commercial oil of vitriol, using roughly 2½ parts of vitriol for every part of anthraquinone. Afterward, it's moved to lead-lined tanks for another wash with water and drying; the resulting product has about 95% anthraquinone content. It can be further purified through sublimation. Various synthetic methods have been developed for creating anthraquinone. A. Behr and W.A. v. Dorp (Ber., 1874, 7, p. 578) produced orthobenzoyl benzoic acid by heating phthalic anhydride with benzene in the presence of aluminum chloride. This compound, when heated with phosphoric anhydride, loses water and yields anthraquinone.

It may be prepared in a similar manner by heating phthalyl chloride with benzene in the presence of aluminium chloride. Dioxy- and tetraoxy-anthraquinones are obtained when meta-oxy- and dimeta-dioxy-benzoic acids are heated with concentrated sulphuric acid.

It can be made in a similar way by heating phthalyl chloride with benzene along with aluminum chloride. Dioxy- and tetraoxy-anthraquinones are produced when meta-oxy- and dimeta-dioxy-benzoic acids are heated with concentrated sulfuric acid.

Anthraquinone crystallizes in yellow needles or prisms, which melt at 277° C. It is soluble in hot benzene, sublimes easily, and is very stable towards oxidizing agents. On the other hand, it is readily attacked by reducing agents. With zinc dust in presence of caustic soda it yields the secondary alcohol oxan-thranol, C6H4 : CO·CHOH : C6H4, with tin and hydrochloric acid, the phenolic compound anthranol, C6H4 : CO·C(OH) : C6H4; and with hydriodic acid at 150° C. or on distillation with zinc dust, the hydrocarbon anthracene, C14H10. When fused with caustic potash, it gives benzoic acid. It behaves more as a ketone than as a quinone, since with hydroxylamine it yields an oxime, and on reduction with zinc dust and caustic soda it yields a secondary alcohol, whilst it cannot be reduced by means of sulphurous acid. Various sulphonic acids of anthraquinone are known, as well as oxy-derivatives, for the preparation and properties of which see Alizarin.

Anthraquinone crystallizes as yellow needles or prisms that melt at 277° C. It dissolves in hot benzene, sublimes easily, and is very stable against oxidizing agents. However, it is easily affected by reducing agents. When reacted with zinc dust in the presence of caustic soda, it produces the secondary alcohol oxan-thranol, C6H4 : CO·CHOH : C6H4; with tin and hydrochloric acid, it yields the phenolic compound anthranol, C6H4 : CO·C(OH) : C6H4; and when treated with hydriodic acid at 150° C. or distilled with zinc dust, it produces the hydrocarbon anthracene, C14H10. When fused with caustic potash, it gives benzoic acid. It acts more like a ketone than a quinone, as it forms an oxime with hydroxylamine, and when reduced with zinc dust and caustic soda, it produces a secondary alcohol, while it can't be reduced using sulphurous acid. Several sulphonic acids of anthraquinone and its oxy-derivatives are known; see Alizarin for their preparation and properties.


ANTHRAX (the Greek for “coal,” or “carbuncle,” so called by the ancients because they regarded it as burning like coal; cf. the French equivalent charbon; also known as fièvre charbonneuse, Milzbrand, splenic fever, and malignant pustule), an acute, specific, infectious, virulent disease, caused by the Bacillus anthracis, in animals, chiefly cattle, sheep and horses, and frequently occurring in workers in the wool or hair, as well as in those handling the hides or carcases, of beasts which have been affected.

ANTHRAX (the Greek term for “coal” or “carbuncle,” named by the ancients because they believed it burned like coal; cf. the French equivalent charbon; also known as fièvre charbonneuse, Milzbrand, splenic fever, and malignant pustule), is an acute, specific, infectious, and virulent disease caused by the Bacillus anthracis. It primarily affects animals, especially cattle, sheep, and horses, and often occurs in people who work with wool or hair, as well as those who handle the hides or carcasses of infected animals.

Animals.—As affecting wild as well as domesticated animals and man, anthrax has been widely diffused in one or more of its forms, over the surface of the globe. It at times decimates the reindeer herds in Lapland and the Polar regions, and is only too well known in the tropics and in temperate latitudes. It has been observed and described in Russia, Siberia, Central Asia, China, Cochin-China, Egypt, West Indies, Peru, Paraguay, Brazil, Mexico, and other parts of North and South America, in Australia, and on different parts of the African continent, while for other European countries the writings which have been published with regard to its nature, its peculiar characteristics, and the injury it inflicts are innumerable. Countries in which are extensive marshes, or the subsoil of which is tenacious or impermeable, are usually those most frequently and seriously visited. Thus there have been regions notorious for its prevalence, such as the marshes of Sologne, Dombes and Bresse in France; certain parts of Germany, Hungary and Poland; in Spain the half-submerged valleys and the maritime coasts of Catalonia, as well as the Romagna and other marshy districts of Italy; while it is epizootic, and even panzootic, in the swampy regions of Esthonia, Livonia, Courland, and especially of Siberia, where it is known as the Sibirskaja jaswa (Siberian boil-plague). The records of anthrax go back to a very ancient date. It is supposed to be the murrain of Exodus. Classical writers allude to anthrax as if it were the only cattle disease worthy of mention (see Virgil, Georg. iii.). It figures largely in the history of the early and middle ages as a devastating pestilence attacking animals, and through them mankind; the oldest Anglo-Saxon manuscripts contain many fantastic recipes, leechdoms, 107 charms and incantations for the prevention or cure of the “blacan blezene” (black blain) and the relief of the “elfshot” creatures. In the 18th and 19th centuries it sometimes spread like an epizootic over the whole of Europe, from Siberia to France. It was in this malady that disease-producing germs (bacteria) were first discovered, in 1840, by Pollender of Wipperfürth, and, independently, by veterinary surgeon Brauell of Dorpat, and their real character afterwards verified by C.J. Davaine (1812-1882) of Alfort in 1863; and it was in their experiments with this disease that Toussaint, Pasteur and J.B. Chauveau first showed how to make the morbific poison its own antidote. (See Vivisection.)

Animals.—Anthrax affects both wild and domesticated animals as well as humans and has spread widely in various forms around the world. At times, it has devastated reindeer populations in Lapland and the Polar regions, and it's well-known in tropical and temperate climates. Cases have been recorded in Russia, Siberia, Central Asia, China, Cochin-China, Egypt, the West Indies, Peru, Paraguay, Brazil, Mexico, and various parts of North and South America, as well as Australia and different areas of Africa. Countless writings have been published about its nature, characteristics, and the harm it causes across Europe. Countries with extensive marshes or compact, impermeable subsoil tend to experience the most severe outbreaks. Regions notorious for its prevalence include the marshes of Sologne, Dombes, and Bresse in France; certain areas in Germany, Hungary, and Poland; in Spain, the partially submerged valleys and coastal marshes of Catalonia, as well as Romagna and other marshy areas in Italy; while it is epizootic, and even panzootic, in the swampy regions of Esthonia, Livonia, Courland, and especially Siberia, where it is referred to as the Sibirskaja jaswa (Siberian boil-plague). Records of anthrax date back to ancient times, and it’s believed to be the murrain mentioned in Exodus. Classical authors mentioned anthrax as if it were the only cattle disease worth discussing (see Virgil, Georg. iii.). It played a significant role in the history of the early and middle ages as a devastating plague affecting animals and, through them, humans; the oldest Anglo-Saxon manuscripts contain numerous bizarre recipes, remedies, charms, and incantations to prevent or treat the “blacan blezene” (black blain) and to help “elfshot” creatures. In the 18th and 19th centuries, it sometimes spread like an epizootic across all of Europe, from Siberia to France. This disease was where disease-causing germs (bacteria) were first discovered in 1840 by Pollender of Wipperfürth and independently by veterinary surgeon Brauell of Dorpat; their true nature was later confirmed by C.J. Davaine (1812-1882) of Alfort in 1863. It was through experiments with this disease that Toussaint, Pasteur, and J.B. Chauveau first demonstrated how to make the harmful toxin act as its own antidote. (See Vivisection.)

The symptoms vary with the species of animal, the mode of infection, and the seat of the primary lesion, internal or external. In all its forms anthrax is an inoculable disease, transmission being surely and promptly effected by this means, and it may be conveyed to nearly all animals by inoculation of a wound of the skin or through the digestive organs. Cattle, sheep and horses nearly always owe their infection to spores or bacilli ingested with their food or water, and pigs usually contract the disease by eating the flesh of animals dead of anthrax.

The symptoms differ depending on the animal species, how the infection occurs, and whether the main lesion is internal or external. In all its forms, anthrax is a disease that can be spread through inoculation; this method is effective and quick. It can be transmitted to almost all animals by inoculating a wound in the skin or through their digestive systems. Cattle, sheep, and horses usually get infected by ingesting spores or bacilli through their food or water, while pigs typically catch the disease by eating the meat of animals that died from anthrax.

Internal anthrax, of cattle and sheep, exhibits no premonitory symptoms that can be relied on. Generally the first indication of an outbreak is the sudden death of one or more of the herd or flock. Animals which do not die at once may be noticed to stagger and tremble; the breathing becomes hurried and the pulse very rapid, while the heart beats violently; the internal temperature of the body is high, 104° to 106° F.; blood oozes from the nose, mouth and anus, the visible mucous membranes are dusky or almost black. The animal becomes weak and listless, the temperature falls and death supervenes in a few hours, being immediately preceded by delirium, convulsions or coma. While death is usually rapid or sudden when the malady is general, constituting what is designated splenic apoplexy, internal anthrax in cattle is not invariably fatal. In some cases the animal rallies from a first attack and gradually recovers.

Internal anthrax in cattle and sheep doesn’t show any reliable early symptoms. Usually, the first sign of an outbreak is the sudden death of one or more animals in the herd or flock. Animals that don’t die right away may start to stagger and tremble; their breathing becomes rapid, and their pulse races, while their heart beats violently. The body temperature is high, between 104° to 106° F.; blood seeps from the nose, mouth, and anus, and the visible mucous membranes appear dusky or nearly black. The animal becomes weak and lethargic, the temperature drops, and death occurs within a few hours, often preceded by delirium, convulsions, or coma. While death is usually quick or unexpected when the disease is widespread, internal anthrax in cattle isn’t always fatal. In some cases, the animal can recover after an initial attack.

In the external or localized form, marked by the formation of carbuncles before general infection takes place, death may not occur for several days. The carbuncles may appear in any part of the body, being preceded or accompanied by fever. They are developed in the subcutaneous connective tissue where this is loose and plentiful, in the interstices of the muscles, lymphatic glands, in the mucous membranes of the mouth and tongue (glossanthrax of cattle), pharynx and larynx (anthrax angina of horses and pigs), and the rectum. They begin as small circumscribed swellings which are warm, slightly painful and oedematous. In from two to eight hours they attain a considerable size, are cold, painless and gangrenous, and when they are incised a quantity of a blood-stained gelatinous exudate escapes. When the swellings have attained certain proportions symptoms of general infection appear, and, running their course with great rapidity, cause death in a few hours. Anthrax of the horse usually begins as an affection of the throat or bowel. In the former there is rapid obstructive oedema of the mucous membrane of the pharynx and larynx with swelling of the throat and neck, fever, salivation, difficulty in swallowing, noisy breathing, frothy discharge from the nose and threatening suffocation. General invasion soon ensues, and the horse may die in from four to sixteen hours. The intestinal form is marked by high temperature, great prostration, small thready pulse, tumultuous action of the heart, laboured breathing and symptoms of abdominal pain with straining and diarrhoea. When moved the horse staggers and trembles. Profuse sweating, a falling temperature and cyanotic mucous membranes indicate the approach of a fatal termination.

In the localized form, where carbuncles develop before a general infection occurs, death might not happen for several days. The carbuncles can show up anywhere on the body and are often preceded or accompanied by fever. They form in the loose subcutaneous connective tissue, within muscle interstices, lymph nodes, and the mucous membranes of the mouth and tongue (known as glossanthrax in cattle), as well as in the pharynx and larynx (referred to as anthrax angina in horses and pigs), and the rectum. They start as small, localized swellings that are warm, slightly painful, and swollen. Within two to eight hours, they grow significantly, becoming cold, painless, and gangrenous, and when cut open, a blood-stained, gelatinous fluid oozes out. Once the swellings reach a certain size, symptoms of a general infection emerge, progressing rapidly and potentially leading to death in just a few hours. In horses, anthrax generally begins as an issue in the throat or intestines. In the throat, there's quick obstructive swelling of the mucous membranes in the pharynx and larynx, leading to swelling in the throat and neck, fever, excessive salivation, trouble swallowing, noisy breathing, frothy discharge from the nose, and the risk of suffocation. A general infection follows swiftly, and the horse can die within four to sixteen hours. The intestinal form is characterized by a high fever, extreme weakness, a weak, rapid pulse, chaotic heartbeats, labored breathing, and signs of abdominal pain, including straining and diarrhea. When moved, the horse may stagger and tremble. Heavy sweating, a dropping temperature, and bluish mucous membranes signal an impending fatal outcome.

In splenic fever or splenic apoplexy, the most marked alterations observed after death are—the effects of rapid decomposition, evidenced by the foul odour, disengagement of gas beneath the skin and in the tissues and cavities of the body, yellow or yellowish-red gelatinous exudation into and between the muscles, effusion of citron or rust-coloured fluid in various cavities, extravasations of blood and local congestions throughout the body, the blood in the vessels generally being very dark and tar-like. The most notable feature, however, in the majority of cases is the enormous enlargement of the spleen, which is engorged with blood to such an extent that it often ruptures, while its tissue is changed into a violet or black fluid mass.

In splenic fever or splenic apoplexy, the most significant changes seen after death include the effects of quick decomposition, shown by a foul smell, gas buildup under the skin and in the body's tissues and cavities, yellow or yellowish-red gelatinous fluid seeping into and between the muscles, and the presence of citron or rust-colored fluid in various spaces. There are also blood leaks and localized swelling throughout the body, with the blood in the vessels usually appearing very dark and tar-like. However, the standout feature in most cases is the massive enlargement of the spleen, which becomes so engorged with blood that it often bursts, while its tissue transforms into a violet or black liquid mass.

The bacillus of anthrax, under certain conditions, retains its vitality for a long time, and rapidly grows when it finds a suitable field in which to develop, its mode of multiplication being by scission and the formation of spores, and depending, to a great extent at least, on the presence of oxygen. The morbid action of the bacillus is indeed said to be due to its affinity for oxygen; by depriving the red corpuscles of the blood of that most essential gas, it renders the vital fluid unfit to sustain life. Albert Hoffa and others assert that the fatal lesions are produced by the poisonous action of the toxins formed by the bacilli and not by the blocking up of the minute blood-vessels, or the abstraction of oxygen from the blood by the bacilli.

The anthrax bacillus can survive for a long time under certain conditions and quickly grows when it finds a suitable environment. It multiplies by splitting and forming spores, largely relying on the presence of oxygen. The harmful effects of the bacillus are said to be caused by its attraction to oxygen; by depriving the red blood cells of this essential gas, it makes the vital fluid incapable of sustaining life. Albert Hoffa and others claim that the deadly damage is caused by the toxic effects of the toxins produced by the bacilli, rather than by blocking the tiny blood vessels or removing oxygen from the blood.

It was by the cultivation of this micro-organism, or attenuation of the virus, that Pasteur was enabled to produce a prophylactic remedy for anthrax. His discovery was first made with regard to the cholera of fowls, a most destructive disorder which annually carries off great numbers of poultry. Pasteur produced his inoculation material by the cultivation of the bacilli at a temperature of 42° C. in oxygen. Two vaccines are required. The first or weak vaccine is obtained by incubating a bouillon culture for twenty-four days at 42° C., and the second or less attenuated vaccine by incubating a bouillon culture, at the same temperature, for twelve days. Pasteur’s method of protective inoculation comprises two inoculations with an interval of twelve days between them. Immunity, established in about fifteen days after the injection of the second vaccine, lasts from nine months to a year.

It was through the cultivation of this micro-organism, or the weakening of the virus, that Pasteur was able to create a preventive treatment for anthrax. He first made this discovery in relation to chicken cholera, a highly destructive disease that annually wipes out a large number of poultry. Pasteur developed his inoculation material by growing the bacilli at a temperature of 42° C. in oxygen. Two vaccines are needed. The first, or weak vaccine, is made by incubating a broth culture for twenty-four days at 42° C., and the second, or less weakened vaccine, is made by incubating a broth culture, at the same temperature, for twelve days. Pasteur’s method of protective inoculation involves two shots with a twelve-day gap in between. Immunity, which develops around fifteen days after the second vaccine is given, lasts for about nine months to a year.

Toussaint had, previous to Pasteur, attenuated the virus of anthrax by the action of heat; and Chauveau subsequently corroborated by numerous experiments the value of Toussaint’s method, demonstrating that, according to the degree of heat to which the virus is subjected, so is its inocuousness when transferred to a healthy creature. In outbreaks of anthrax on farms where many animals are exposed to infection immediate temporary protection can be conferred by the injection of anthrax serum.

Toussaint had, before Pasteur, weakened the anthrax virus using heat; and Chauveau later confirmed the effectiveness of Toussaint’s method through numerous experiments, showing that the safety of the virus when given to a healthy animal depends on the level of heat it has been exposed to. In cases of anthrax outbreaks on farms where many animals are at risk of infection, immediate temporary protection can be provided by injecting anthrax serum.

Human Beings.—For many years cases of sudden death had been observed to occur from time to time among healthy men engaged in woollen manufactories, particularly in the work of sorting or combing wool. In some instances death appeared to be due to the direct inoculation of some poisonous material into the body, for a form of malignant pustule was observed upon the skin; but, on the other hand, in not a few cases without any external manifestation, symptoms of blood-poisoning, often proving rapidly fatal, suggested the probability of other channels for the introduction of the disease. In 1880 the occurrence of several such cases among woolsorters at Bradford, reported by Dr J.H. Bell of that town, led to an official inquiry in England by the Local Government Board, and an elaborate investigation into the pathology of what was then called “woolsorters’ disease” was at the same time conducted at the Brown Institution, London, by Professor W.S. Greenfield. Among the results of this inquiry it was ascertained: (1) that the disease appeared to be identical with that occurring among sheep and cattle; (2) that in the blood and tissues of the body was found in abundance, as in the disease in animals, the Bacillus anthracis, and (3) that the skins, hair, wool, &c., of animals dying of anthrax retain this infecting organism, which, under certain conditions, finds ready access to the bodies of the workers.

Human Beings.—For many years, there have been occasional reports of sudden deaths among healthy men working in wool manufacturing, especially in tasks like sorting or combing wool. In some cases, death seemed to result from the direct entry of a toxic substance into the body, evidenced by the appearance of malignant pustules on the skin; however, in several instances without any visible signs, symptoms of blood poisoning that often led to rapid fatalities indicated that there might be other ways for the disease to enter the body. In 1880, a number of such cases among woolsorters in Bradford, reported by Dr. J.H. Bell from that area, prompted an official investigation in England by the Local Government Board, as well as a detailed study of what was then called “woolsorters’ disease” simultaneously conducted at the Brown Institution in London by Professor W.S. Greenfield. Among the findings of this investigation, it was determined: (1) that the disease was the same as that found in sheep and cattle; (2) that the Bacillus anthracis was found in large quantities in the blood and tissues, similar to the disease in animals; and (3) that the skins, hair, wool, etc., of animals that died from anthrax carry this infectious organism, which, under certain conditions, easily enters the bodies of the workers.

Two well-marked forms of this disease in man are recognized, “external anthrax” and “internal anthrax.” In external anthrax the infecting agent is accidentally inoculated into some portion of skin, the seat of a slight abrasion, often the hand, arm or face. A minute swelling soon appears at the part, and develops into a vesicle containing serum or bloody matter, and varying in size, but seldom larger than a shilling. This vesicle speedily bursts and leaves an ulcerated or sloughing 108 surface, round about which are numerous smaller vesicles which undergo similar changes, and the whole affected part becomes hard and tender, while the surrounding surface participates in the inflammatory action, and the neighbouring lymphatic glands are also inflamed. This condition, termed “malignant pustule,” is frequently accompanied with severe constitutional disturbance, in the form of fever, delirium, perspirations, together with great prostration and a tendency to death from septicaemia, although on the other hand recovery is not uncommon. It was repeatedly found that the matter taken from the vesicle during the progress of the disease, as well as the blood in the body after death, contained the Bacillus anthracis, and when inoculated into small animals produced rapid death, with all the symptoms and post-mortem appearances characteristic of che disease as known to affect them.

Two distinct forms of this disease in humans are recognized: “external anthrax” and “internal anthrax.” In external anthrax, the infectious agent is accidentally introduced into a small cut or abrasion on the skin, often on the hand, arm, or face. A tiny swelling quickly appears in the affected area, developing into a blister filled with clear or bloody fluid, typically no larger than a shilling. This blister rapidly ruptures, leaving an ulcerated or deteriorating surface, surrounded by several smaller blisters that undergo similar changes. The entire affected region becomes hard and tender, and the surrounding skin also shows signs of inflammation, with nearby lymph nodes becoming inflamed as well. This condition, called “malignant pustule,” often comes with significant systemic symptoms like fever, delirium, sweating, extreme weakness, and a risk of death from septicemia, though recovery is also fairly common. It was repeatedly observed that material taken from the blister during the illness, as well as blood from the body after death, contained the Bacillus anthracis, and when this was injected into small animals, it caused rapid death, along with all the symptoms and post-mortem findings typical of the disease as seen in them.

In internal anthrax there is no visible local manifestation of the disease, and the spores or bacilli appear to gain access to the system from the air charged with them, as in rooms where the contaminated wool or hair is unpacked, or again during the process of sorting. The symptoms usually observed are those of rapid physical prostration, with a small pulse, somewhat lowered temperature (rarely fever), and quickened breathing. Examination of the chest reveals inflammation of the lungs and pleura. In some cases death takes place by collapse in less than one day, while in others the fatal issue is postponed for three or four days, and is preceded by symptoms of blood-poisoning, including rigors, perspirations, extreme exhaustion, &c. In some cases of internal anthrax the symptoms are more intestinal than pulmonary, and consist in severe exhausting diarrhoea, with vomiting and rapid sinking. Recovery from the internal variety, although not unknown, is more rare than from the external, and its most striking phenomena are its sudden onset in the midst of apparent health, the rapid development of physical prostration, and its tendency to a fatal termination despite treatment. The post-mortem appearances in internal anthrax are such as are usually observed in septicaemia, but in addition evidence of extensive inflammation of the lungs, pleura and bronchial glands has in most cases been met with. The blood and other fluids and the diseased tissues are found loaded with the Bacillus anthracis.

In internal anthrax, there are no visible local signs of the disease, and the spores or bacteria seem to enter the body from the air that carries them, like in rooms where contaminated wool or hair is unpacked or during sorting. The typical symptoms are rapid physical weakness, a weak pulse, a slightly lowered temperature (rarely fever), and quickened breathing. A chest examination shows inflammation of the lungs and pleura. In some cases, death occurs from collapse in less than a day, while in others, it happens after three or four days, preceded by symptoms of blood poisoning, including chills, sweating, extreme exhaustion, etc. In some instances of internal anthrax, the symptoms are more related to the intestines than the lungs, resulting in severe exhausting diarrhea, vomiting, and rapid decline. Recovery from the internal type, although possible, is rarer than from the external type, and its most notable features are its sudden onset when a person seems healthy, the quick progression of physical weakness, and its tendency to end fatally despite treatment. The post-mortem findings in internal anthrax are typically those seen in septicemia, but additionally, there is evidence of widespread inflammation of the lungs, pleura, and bronchial glands in most cases. The blood, other fluids, and affected tissues are found to be loaded with the Bacillus anthracis.

Treatment in this disease appears to be of but little avail, except as regards the external form, where the malignant pustule may be excised or dealt with early by strong caustics to destroy the affected textures. For the relief of the general constitutional symptoms, quinine, stimulants and strong nourishment appear to be the only available means. An anti-anthrax serum has also been tried. As preventive measures in woollen manufactories, the disinfection of suspicious material, or the wetting of it before handling, is recommended as lessening the risk to the workers.

Treatment for this disease seems to have limited effectiveness, mainly concerning the visible symptoms, where the malignant pustule can be removed or treated early with strong caustics to eliminate the damaged tissue. To relieve the overall systemic symptoms, quinine, stimulants, and strong nutrition seem to be the only effective options. An anti-anthrax serum has also been experimented with. For preventive measures in woolen factories, disinfecting suspicious materials or wetting them before handling is suggested to reduce the risk to workers.

(J. Mac.)

ANTHROPOID APES, or Manlike Apes, the name given to the family of the Simiidae, because, of all the ape-world, they most closely resemble man. This family includes four kinds, the gibbons of S.E. Asia, the orangs of Borneo and Sumatra, the gorillas of W. Equatorial Africa, and the chimpanzees of W. and Central Equatorial Africa. Each of these apes resembles man most in some one physical characteristic: the gibbons in the formation of the teeth, the orangs in the brain-structure, the gorillas in size, and the chimpanzees in the sigmoid flexure of the spine. In general structure they all closely resemble human beings, as in the absence of tails; in their semi-erect position (resting on finger-tips or knuckles); in the shape of vertebral column, sternum and pelvis; in the adaptation of the arms for turning the palm uppermost at will; in the possession of a long vermiform appendix to the short caecum of the intestine; in the size of the cerebral hemispheres and the complexity of their convolutions. They differ in certain respects, as in the proportion of the limbs, in the bony development of the eyebrow ridges, and in the opposable great toe, which fits the foot to be a climbing and grasping organ.

ANTHROPOD APES, or Male Apes, is the term used for the family of Simiidae, because they resemble humans the most among all the apes. This family includes four types: the gibbons of Southeast Asia, the orangutans of Borneo and Sumatra, the gorillas of West Equatorial Africa, and the chimpanzees of West and Central Equatorial Africa. Each of these apes shares a strong resemblance to humans in one specific physical feature: gibbons in their teeth structure, orangutans in their brain anatomy, gorillas in their size, and chimpanzees in the shape of their spine. Overall, they all closely resemble humans in their general structure, including the lack of tails; their semi-upright posture (supported by fingertips or knuckles); the shape of the vertebral column, sternum, and pelvis; the ability of their arms to rotate the palm upward; the presence of a long vermiform appendix connected to a short cecum in the intestine; and the size and complexity of their brain's hemispheres and convolutions. They do differ in some aspects, such as limb proportions, the bone structure of their brow ridges, and the opposable big toe, which makes their feet well-suited for climbing and grasping.

Man differs from them in the absence of a hairy coat; in the development of a large lobule to the external ear; in his fully erect attitude; in his flattened foot with the non-opposable great toe; in the straight limb-bones; in the wider pelvis; in the marked sigmoid flexure of his spine; in the perfection of the muscular movements of the arm; in the delicacy of hand; in the smallness of the canine teeth and other dental peculiarities; in the development of a chin; and in the small size of his jaws compared to the relatively great size of the cranium. Together with man and the baboons, the anthropoid apes form the group known to science as Catarhini, those, that is, possessing a narrow nasal septum, and are thus easily distinguishable from the flat-nosed monkeys or Platyrhini. The anthropoid apes are arboreal and confined to the Old World. They are of special interest from the important place assigned to them in the arguments of Darwin and the Evolutionists. It is generally admitted now that no fundamental anatomical difference can be proved to exist between these higher apes and man, but it is equally agreed that none probably of the Simiidae is in the direct line of human ancestry. There is a great gap to be bridged between the highest anthropoid and the lowest man, and much importance has been attached to the discovery of an extinct primate, Pithecanthropus (q.v.), which has been regarded as the “missing link.”

Humans are different from them in that we lack a hairy coat, have a pronounced lobule in our external ear, stand fully upright, have flattened feet with a non-opposable big toe, straight limb bones, a wider pelvis, a distinct sigmoid curve in our spine, better-developed muscular movements in our arms, delicate hands, smaller canine teeth and other unique dental features, a developed chin, and smaller jaws compared to our relatively large cranium. Along with humans and baboons, the anthropoid apes make up a group known in science as Catarhini, which have a narrow nasal septum, making them easily distinguishable from the flat-nosed monkeys or Platyrhini. The anthropoid apes live in trees and are found only in the Old World. They are particularly significant in the discussions surrounding Darwin and evolution. It's now widely accepted that there aren't any major anatomical differences between these higher apes and humans, but it's also agreed that none of the Simiidae are directly in the line of human ancestry. There is a considerable gap between the most advanced anthropoid and the simplest human, and the discovery of an extinct primate, Pithecanthropus (q.v.), has been seen as the “missing link.”

See Huxley’s Man’s Place in Nature (1863); Robt. Hartmann’s Anthropoid Apes (1883; London, 1885); A.H. Keane’s Ethnology (1896); Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871; pop. ed., 1901); Haeckel’s Anthropogeny (Leipzig, 1874, 1903; Paris, 1877; Eng. ed., 1883); W.H. Flower and Rich. Lydekker, Mammals Living and Extinct (London, 1891).

See Huxley’s Man’s Place in Nature (1863); Robt. Hartmann’s Anthropoid Apes (1883; London, 1885); A.H. Keane’s Ethnology (1896); Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871; pop. ed., 1901); Haeckel’s Anthropogeny (Leipzig, 1874, 1903; Paris, 1877; Eng. ed., 1883); W.H. Flower and Rich. Lydekker, Mammals Living and Extinct (London, 1891).


ANTHROPOLOGY (Gr. ἄνθρωπος man, and λόγος, theory or science), the science which, in its strictest sense, has as its object the study of man as a unit in the animal kingdom. It is distinguished from ethnology, which is devoted to the study of man as a racial unit, and from ethnography, which deals with the distribution of the races formed by the aggregation of such units. To anthropology, however, in its more general sense as the natural history of man, ethnology and ethnography may both be considered to belong, being related as parts to a whole.

ANTHROPOLOGY (Gr. human man, and word, theory or science) is the science that focuses on studying humans as a part of the animal kingdom. It differs from ethnology, which studies humans as a racial unit, and from ethnography, which examines the distribution of the races formed by combining these units. In a broader sense, anthropology, as the natural history of humanity, encompasses both ethnology and ethnography, as they are related parts of a larger whole.

Various other sciences, in conformity with the above definition, must be regarded as subsidiary to anthropology, which yet hold their own independent places in the field of knowledge. Thus anatomy and physiology display the structure and functions of the human body, while psychology investigates the operations of the human mind. Philology deals with the general principles of language, as well as with the relations between the languages of particular races and nations. Ethics or moral science treats of man’s duty or rules of conduct toward his fellow-men. Sociology and the science of culture are concerned with the origin and development of arts and sciences, opinions, beliefs, customs, laws and institutions generally among mankind within historic time; while beyond the historical limit the study is continued by inferences from relics of early ages and remote districts, to interpret which is the task of prehistoric archaeology and geology.

Various other sciences, in line with the definition above, should be seen as secondary to anthropology, which still has its own important role in the broader field of knowledge. For example, anatomy and physiology show the structure and functions of the human body, while psychology looks into the workings of the human mind. Philology examines the general principles of language and the connections between the languages of different races and nations. Ethics, or moral science, discusses human duties and rules of conduct toward others. Sociology and the science of culture explore the origins and development of arts and sciences, ideas, beliefs, customs, laws, and institutions throughout human history. Beyond historical records, the study continues by drawing inferences from artifacts of ancient times and distant places, which is the focus of prehistoric archaeology and geology.

I. Man’s Place in Nature.—In 1843 Dr J.C. Prichard, who perhaps of all others merits the title of founder of modern anthropology, wrote in his Natural History of Man:—

I. Man’s Place in Nature.—In 1843, Dr. J.C. Prichard, who probably deserves the title of the founder of modern anthropology more than anyone else, wrote in his Natural History of Man:—

“The organized world presents no contrasts and resemblances more remarkable than those which we discover on comparing mankind with the inferior tribes. That creatures should exist so nearly approaching to each other in all the particulars of their physical structure, and yet differing so immeasurably in their endowments and capabilities, would be a fact hard to believe, if it were not manifest to our observation. The differences are everywhere striking: the resemblances are less obvious in the fulness of their extent, and they are never contemplated without wonder by those who, in the study of anatomy and physiology, are first made aware how near is man in his physical constitution to the brutes. In all the principles of his internal structure, in the composition and functions of his parts, man is but an animal. The lord of the earth, who contemplates the eternal order of the universe, and aspires to communion with its invisible Maker, is a being composed of the same materials, and framed on the same principles, as the creatures which he has tamed to be the servile instruments of his will, or slays for his daily food. The points of resemblance are innumerable; they extend to the most recondite arrangements of that mechanism which maintains instrumentally the physical life of the body, which 109 brings forward its early development and admits, after a given period, its decay, and by means of which is prepared a succession of similar beings destined to perpetuate the race.”

“The organized world shows no contrasts and similarities more striking than those we see when we compare humans with lower life forms. That such creatures can be so similar in all aspects of their physical structure, yet differ so vastly in their abilities and potential, is hard to comprehend unless we see it ourselves. The differences are everywhere apparent; the similarities are less obvious in their full extent and are always met with amazement by those who, while studying anatomy and physiology, first learn how closely related humans are to animals in their physical makeup. In all aspects of internal structure, as well as the composition and functions of various parts, a human is simply an animal. The ruler of the earth, who reflects on the eternal order of the universe and seeks a connection with its unseen Creator, is made of the same materials and designed under the same principles as the creatures he has trained to serve his will or kills for his food. The points of similarity are countless; they encompass even the most intricate arrangements of the mechanisms that sustain the body's physical life, promote its early development, signal decay after a certain period, and prepare a succession of similar beings intended to continue the species."

The acknowledgment of man’s structural similarity with the anthropomorphous species nearest approaching him, viz.: the higher or anthropoid apes, had long before Prichard’s day been made by Linnaeus, who in his Systema Naturae (1735) grouped them together as the highest order of Mammalia, to which he gave the name of Primates. The Amoenitates Academicae (vol. vi., Leiden, 1764), published under the auspices of Linnaeus, contains a remarkable picture which illustrates a discourse by his disciple Hoppius, and is here reproduced (see Plate, fig. 1). In this picture, which shows the crudeness of the zoological notions current in the 18th century as to both men and apes, there are set in a row four figures: (a) a recognizable orang-utan, sitting and holding a staff; (b) a chimpanzee, absurdly humanized as to head, hands, and feet; (c) a hairy woman, with a tail a foot long; (d) another woman, more completely coated with hair. The great Swedish naturalist was possibly justified in treating the two latter creatures as quasi-human, for they seem to be grotesque exaggerations of such tailed and hairy human beings as really, though rarely, occur, and are apt to be exhibited as monstrosities (see Bastian and Hartmann, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Index, “Geschwänzte Menschen”; Gould and Pile, Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, 1897). To Linnaeus, however, they represented normal anthropomorpha or man-like creatures, vouched for by visitors to remote parts of the world. This opinion of the Swedish naturalist seems to have been little noticed in Great Britain till it was taken up by the learned but credulous Scottish judge, Lord Monboddo (see his Origin and Progress of Language, 1774, &c.; Antient Metaphysics, 1778). He had not heard of the tailed men till he met with them in the work of Linnaeus, with whom he entered into correspondence, with the result that he enlarged his range of mankind with races of sub-human type. One was founded on the description by the Swedish sailor Niklas Köping of the ferocious men with long tails inhabiting the Nicobar Islands. Another comprised the orang-utans of Sumatra, who were said to take men captive and set them to work as slaves. One of these apes, it was related, served as a sailor on board a Jamaica ship, and used to wait on the captain. These are stories which seem to carry their own explanation. When the Nicobar Islands were taken over by the British government two centuries later, the native warriors were still wearing their peculiar loin-cloth hanging behind in a most tail-like manner (E.H. Man, Journal Anthropological Institute, vol. xv. p. 442). As for the story of the orang-utan cabin boy, this may even be verbally true, it being borne in mind that in the Malay languages the term orang-utan, “man of the forest,” was originally used for inland forest natives and other rude men, rather than for the miyas apes to which it has come to be generally applied by Europeans. The speculations as to primitive man connected with these stories diverted the British public, headed by Dr Johnson, who said that Monboddo was “as jealous of his tail as a squirrel.” Linnaeus’s primarily zoological classification of man did not, however, suit the philosophical opinion of the time, which responded more readily to the systems represented by Buffon, and later by Cuvier, in which the human mind and soul formed an impassable wall of partition between him and other mammalia, so that the definition of man’s position in the animal world was treated as not belonging to zoology, but to metaphysics and theology. It has to be borne in mind that Linnaeus, plainly as he recognized the likeness of the higher simian and the human types, does not seem to have entertained the thought of accounting for this similarity by common descent. It satisfied his mind to consider it as belonging to the system of nature, as indeed remained the case with a greater anatomist of the following century, Richard Owen. The present drawing, which under the authority of Linnaeus shows an anthropomorphic series from which the normal type of man, the Homo sapiens, is conspicuously absent, brings zoological similarity into view without suggesting kinship to account for it. There are few ideas more ingrained in ancient and low civilization than that of relationship by descent between the lower animals and man. Savage and barbaric religions recognize it, and the mythology of the world has hardly a more universal theme. But in educated Europe such ideas had long been superseded by the influence of theology and philosophy, with which they seemed too incompatible. In the 19th century, however, Lamarck’s theory of the development of new species by habit and circumstance led through Wallace and Darwin to the doctrines of the hereditary transmission of acquired characters, the survival of the fittest, and natural selection. Thenceforward it was impossible to exclude a theory of descent of man from ancestral beings whom zoological similarity connects also, though by lines of descent not at all clearly defined, with ancestors of the anthropomorphic apes. In one form or another such a theory of human descent has in our time become part of an accepted framework of zoology, if not as a demonstrable truth, at any rate as a working hypothesis which has no effective rival.

The recognition of how closely humans are structurally similar to the ape species most akin to them—the higher or anthropoid apes—was noted long before Prichard's time by Linnaeus, who in his Systema Naturae (1735) classified them as the top order of Mammals, which he named Primates. The Amoenitates Academicae (vol. vi., Leiden, 1764), published under Linnaeus's guidance, includes an interesting illustration accompanying a discussion by his student Hoppius, which is presented here (see Plate, fig. 1). In this illustration, which reflects the crude zoological views of the 18th century regarding both humans and apes, four figures are displayed: (a) a recognizable orangutan, seated and holding a staff; (b) a chimpanzee that is absurdly humanized in its head, hands, and feet; (c) a hairy woman with a tail a foot long; and (d) another woman, more fully covered in hair. The renowned Swedish naturalist may have had reason to view the latter two figures as quasi-human, as they seem to be exaggerated depictions of actual tailed and hairy humans that do really, though infrequently, exist and tend to be displayed as curiosities (see Bastian and Hartmann, Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Index, “Geschwänzte Menschen”; Gould and Pile, Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, 1897). To Linnaeus, however, they represented typical anthropomorphs or human-like beings, supported by travelers from distant regions. This viewpoint of the Swedish naturalist appears to have been largely overlooked in Great Britain until it was picked up by the knowledgeable but gullible Scottish judge, Lord Monboddo (see his Origin and Progress of Language, 1774, &c. Antient Metaphysics, 1778). He had not encountered the concept of tail-bearing humans until he read Linnaeus's work, which led him to correspond with Linnaeus and broaden his scope of humanity to include races of sub-human types. One was based on the account given by Swedish sailor Niklas Köping about fierce men with long tails living in the Nicobar Islands. Another referred to the orangutans of Sumatra, said to capture men and make them work as slaves. It was reported that one of these apes served as a sailor on a ship bound for Jamaica and attended to the captain. These stories seem to need little explanation. When the British government eventually took control of the Nicobar Islands two centuries later, local warriors were still seen wearing their distinctive loin-cloths, hanging down in a tail-like fashion (E.H. Man, Journal Anthropological Institute, vol. xv. p. 442). Regarding the tale of the orangutan cabin boy, this may indeed be literally true, considering that in Malay languages, the term orang-utan, meaning "man of the forest," was initially used for inland forest natives and other primitive peoples rather than the miyas apes to which it has typically been applied by Europeans. The discussions surrounding primitive man tied to these stories fascinated the British public, led by Dr. Johnson, who remarked that Monboddo was “as jealous of his tail as a squirrel.” Linnaeus's primarily zoological classification of humans didn’t align with the philosophical thinking of the time, which leaned more towards the ideas put forth by Buffon, and later Cuvier, where the human mind and soul were seen as a significant barrier separating humans from other mammals, placing the understanding of humanity’s position within the animal kingdom outside the realm of zoology and into metaphysics and theology. It’s essential to note that although Linnaeus recognized the similarities between higher primates and humans, he did not seem to consider the possibility of this similarity arising from common ancestry. He found it adequate to regard it as part of the natural order, a perspective that continued with Richard Owen, a prominent anatomist of the next century. The current illustration, which under Linnaeus's authority shows an anthropomorphic series from which the normal type of human, Homo sapiens, is notably absent, highlights zoological resemblance without implying any relationship to explain it. Few concepts are as deeply rooted in ancient and primitive cultures as the idea of descent linking lower animals and humans. Savage and primitive religions acknowledge this, and the mythology of the world often reflects this theme. However, in educated Europe, such notions had largely been replaced by the influence of theology and philosophy, which deemed them too incompatible. In the 19th century, though, Lamarck's theory on species development through habits and environmental factors led, via Wallace and Darwin, to ideas about the hereditary passing of acquired traits, survival of the fittest, and natural selection. From that point on, it became impossible to dismiss a theory suggesting humans descended from ancestral beings linked to the anthropoid apes through zoological resemblances, albeit through poorly defined lineages. This theory of human descent has become an integral part of accepted zoological thought today, if not seen as an absolute truth, at least as a working hypothesis with no viable competition.

The new development from Linnaeus’s zoological scheme which has thus ensued appears in Huxley’s diagram of simian and human skeletons (fig. 2, (a) gibbon; (b) orang; (c) chimpanzee; (d) gorilla; (e) man). Evidently suggested by the Linnean picture, this is brought up to the modern level of zoology, and continued on to man, forming an introduction to his zoological history hardly to be surpassed. Some of the main points it illustrates may be briefly stated here, the reader being referred for further information to Huxley’s Essays. In tracing the osteological characters of apes and man through this series, the general system of the skeletons, and the close correspondence in number and arrangement of vertebrae and ribs, as well as in the teeth, go far towards justifying the opinion of hereditary connexion. At the same time, the comparison brings into view differences in human structure adapted to man’s pre-eminent mode of life, though hardly to be accounted its chief causes. It may be seen how the arrangement of limbs suited for going on all-fours belongs rather to the apes than to man, and walking on the soles of the feet rather to man than the apes. The two modes of progression overlap in human life, but the child’s tendency when learning is to rest on the soles of the feet and the palms of the hands, unlike the apes, which support themselves on the sides of the feet and the bent knuckles of the hands. With regard to climbing, the long stretch of arm and the grasp with both hands and feet contribute to the arboreal life of the apes, contrasting with what seem the mere remains of the climbing habit to be found even among forest savages. On the whole, man’s locomotive limbs are not so much specialized to particular purposes, as generalized into adaptation to many ends. As to the mechanical conditions of the human body, the upright posture has always been recognized as the chief. To it contributes the balance of the skull on the cervical vertebrae, while the human form of the pelvis provides the necessary support to the intestines in the standing attitude. The marked curvature of the vertebral column, by breaking the shock to the neck and head in running and leaping, likewise favours the erect position. The lowest coccygeal vertebrae of man remain as a rudimentary tail. While it is evident that high importance must be attached to the adaptation of the human body to the life of diversified intelligence and occupation he has to lead, this must not be treated as though it were the principal element of the superiority of man, whose comparison with all lower genera of mammals must be mainly directed to the intellectual organ, the brain. Comparison of the brains of vertebrate animals (see Brain) brings into view the immense difference between the small, smooth brain of a fish or bird and the large and convoluted organ in man. In man, both size and complexity contribute to the increased area of the cortex or outer layer of the brain, which has been fully ascertained to be the seat of the mysterious processes by which sensation furnishes the groundwork of thought. Schäfer (Textbook of Physiology, vol. ii. p. 697) thus defines it: “The cerebral cortex is the seat of the intellectual functions, of intelligent sensation or consciousness, of ideation, of volition, and of memory.”

The new development from Linnaeus’s zoological framework is illustrated in Huxley’s diagram of simian and human skeletons (fig. 2, (a) gibbon; (b) orangutan; (c) chimpanzee; (d) gorilla; (e) human). Clearly inspired by the Linnean image, this is updated to modern zoology and extends to humans, providing an introduction to our zoological history that is hard to surpass. Some of the main points it highlights can be summarized here, while readers are directed to Huxley’s Essays for more details. In examining the skeletal features of apes and humans through this series, the overall structure of the skeletons and the close similarities in the number and arrangement of vertebrae and ribs, as well as in teeth, strongly support the idea of hereditary connection. However, the comparison also reveals differences in human structure suited to our unique way of life, although these differences shouldn't be considered the primary causes. It shows that the limb structure suited for walking on all fours is more characteristic of apes, while walking on the soles of the feet is predominantly human. The two methods of movement overlap in human function, but when learning to walk, children tend to use the soles of their feet and the palms of their hands, unlike apes, which balance on the sides of their feet and their bent knuckles. Regarding climbing, the long arms and the ability to grasp with both hands and feet are essential for the arboreal lifestyle of apes, in contrast to what appear to be remnants of climbing habits even among forest-dwelling humans. Overall, human locomotive limbs are not specialized for specific tasks but are adapted for a variety of functions. The upright posture has always been recognized as a key aspect of human mechanics. This posture is supported by the balance of the skull on the cervical vertebrae, while the human pelvis is shaped to support the intestines when standing. The pronounced curvature of the vertebral column helps absorb shocks to the neck and head during running and jumping, further supporting the upright position. The lowest coccygeal vertebrae in humans are akin to a rudimentary tail. While it’s clear that significant importance must be placed on how the human body is adapted to a life filled with diverse intelligence and activities, this should not be seen as the main reason for human superiority. Rather, comparisons with all lower mammal species should primarily focus on the intellectual organ, the brain. The comparison of vertebrate brains (see Brain) reveals the vast difference between the small, smooth brain of a fish or bird and the large, convoluted brain found in humans. In humans, both size and complexity enhance the area of the cortex, or outer layer of the brain, which is known to be where the complex processes that transform sensation into thought occur. Schäfer (Textbook of Physiology, vol. ii. p. 697) succinctly defines it: “The cerebral cortex is the seat of the intellectual functions, of intelligent sensation or consciousness, of ideation, of volition, and of memory.”

The relations between man and ape are most readily stated in 110 comparison with the gorilla, as on the whole the most anthropomorphous ape. In the general proportions of the body and limbs there is a marked difference between the gorilla and man. The gorilla’s brain-case is smaller, its trunk larger, its lower limbs shorter, its upper limbs longer in proportion than those of man. The differences between a gorilla’s skull and a man’s are truly immense. In the gorilla, the face, formed largely by the massive jaw-bones, predominates over the brain-case or cranium; in the man these proportions are reversed. In man the occipital foramen, through which passes the spinal cord, is placed just behind the centre of the base of the skull, which is thus evenly balanced in the erect posture, whereas the gorilla, which goes habitually on all fours, and whose skull is inclined forward, in accordance with this posture has the foramen farther back. In man the surface of the skull is comparatively smooth, and the brow-ridges project but little, while in the gorilla these ridges overhang the cavernous orbits like penthouse roofs. The absolute capacity of the cranium of the gorilla is far less than that of man; the smallest adult human cranium hardly measuring less than 63 cub. in., while the largest gorilla cranium measured had a content of only 34½ cub. in. The largest proportional size of the facial bones, and the great projection of the jaws, confer on the gorilla’s skull its small facial angle and brutal character, while its teeth differ from man’s in relative size and number of fangs. Comparing the lengths of the extremities, it is seen that the gorilla’s arm is of enormous length, in fact about one-sixth longer than the spine, whereas a man’s arm is one-fifth shorter than the spine; both hand and foot are proportionally much longer in the gorilla than in man; the leg does not so much differ. The vertebral column of the gorilla differs from that of man in its curvature and other characters, as also does the conformation of its narrow pelvis. The hand of the gorilla corresponds essentially as to bones and muscles with that of man, but is clumsier and heavier; its thumb is “opposable” like a human thumb, that is, it can easily meet with its extremity the extremities of the other fingers, thus possessing a character which does much to make the human hand so admirable an instrument; but the gorilla’s thumb is proportionately shorter than man’s. The foot of the higher apes, though often spoken of as a hand, is anatomically not such, but a prehensile foot. It has been argued by Sir Richard Owen and others that the position of the great toe converts the foot of the higher apes into a hand, an extremely important distinction from man; but against this Professor T.H. Huxley maintained that it has the characteristic structure of a foot with a very movable great toe. The external unlikeness of the apes to man depends much on their hairiness, but this and some other characteristics have no great zoological value. No doubt the difference between man and the apes depends, of all things, on the relative size and organization of the brain. While similar as to their general arrangement to the human brain, those of the higher apes, such as the chimpanzee, are much less complex in their convolutions, as well as much less in both absolute and relative weight—the weight of a gorilla’s brain hardly exceeding 20 oz., and a man’s brain hardly weighing less thin 32 oz., although the gorilla is considerably the larger animal of the two.

The relationship between humans and apes is best highlighted when compared to the gorilla, which is generally the most human-like ape. There are significant differences in the overall proportions of the body and limbs between gorillas and humans. The gorilla has a smaller braincase, a larger trunk, shorter lower limbs, and longer upper limbs in proportion to those of humans. The differences between a gorilla's skull and a human's are truly vast. In gorillas, the face, primarily shaped by the strong jawbones, dominates the braincase or cranium; in humans, these proportions are reversed. In humans, the occipital foramen, through which the spinal cord passes, is located just behind the center of the skull's base, allowing for an even balance while standing. In contrast, the gorilla, which typically walks on all fours and has a forward-inclined skull, has the foramen positioned farther back. The surface of a human skull is relatively smooth, with minimal brow ridges, whereas in the gorilla, these ridges protrude over the eye sockets like overhanging roofs. The overall capacity of a gorilla's cranium is significantly less than that of a human; the smallest adult human cranium is usually around 63 cubic inches, while the largest gorilla cranium measured only about 34½ cubic inches. The larger relative size of the facial bones and the pronounced jaws contribute to the gorilla's skull having a small facial angle and a more brutal appearance, and its teeth differ from those of humans in size and number of fangs. When comparing the lengths of the limbs, it's evident that a gorilla's arm is notably longer, about one-sixth longer than its spine, while a human's arm is one-fifth shorter than its spine; both the hand and foot are proportionately longer in gorillas compared to humans, though the legs are quite similar. The vertebral column of the gorilla differs from that of humans in curvature and other characteristics, as does the structure of its narrow pelvis. The gorilla's hand has a similar bone and muscle structure to that of humans but is clumsier and heavier; its thumb is "opposable," allowing it to touch the tips of the other fingers, similar to a human thumb, though it is proportionately shorter. The foot of higher apes, often referred to as a hand, is not genuinely a hand anatomically but a prehensile foot. Some, like Sir Richard Owen, argued that the position of the big toe turns the foot of higher apes into a hand, which is a crucial distinction from humans; however, Professor T.H. Huxley countered this by asserting that it has the typical structure of a foot with a very movable big toe. The noticeable differences between apes and humans are largely due to their hairiness, but this and other traits hold limited zoological significance. Undoubtedly, the differences between humans and apes primarily stem from the relative size and organization of the brain. While the general layout of the brains of higher apes like chimpanzees is somewhat similar to that of humans, they are much less complex in their convolutions and significantly lighter in both absolute and relative weight—the weight of a gorilla's brain is barely more than 20 ounces, while a human brain usually weighs at least 32 ounces, despite the gorilla being the larger of the two animals.

These anatomical distinctions are undoubtedly of great moment, and it is an interesting question whether they suffice to place man in a zoological order by himself. It is plain that some eminent zoologists, regarding man as absolutely differing as to mind and spirit from any other animal, have had their discrimination of mere bodily differences unconsciously sharpened, and have been led to give differences, such as in the brain or even the foot of the apes and man, somewhat more importance than if they had merely distinguished two species of apes. Many naturalists hold the opinion that the anatomical differences which separate the gorilla or chimpanzee from man are in some respects less than those which separate these man-like apes from apes lower in the scale. Yet all authorities class both the higher and lower apes in the same order. This is Huxley’s argument, some prominent points of which are the following: As regards the proportion of limbs, the hylobates or gibbon is as much longer in the arms than the gorilla as the gorilla is than the man, while on the other hand, it is as much longer in the legs than the man as the man is than the gorilla. As to the vertebral column and pelvis, the lower apes differ from the gorilla as much as, or more than, it differs from man. As to the capacity of the cranium, men differ from one another so extremely that the largest known human skull holds nearly twice the measure of the smallest, a larger proportion than that in which man surpasses the gorilla; while, with proper allowance for difference of size of the various species, it appears that some of the lower apes fall nearly as much below the higher apes. The projection of the muzzle, which gives the character of brutality to the gorilla as distinguished from the man, is yet further exaggerated in the lemurs, as is also the backward position of the occipital foramen. In characters of such importance as the structure of the hand and foot, the lower apes diverge extremely from the gorilla; thus the thumb ceases to be opposable in the American monkeys, and in the marmosets is directed forwards, and armed with a curved claw like the other digits, the great toe in these latter being insignificant in proportion. The same argument can be extended to other points of anatomical structure, and, what is of more consequence, it appears true of the brain. A series of the apes, arranged from lower to higher orders, shows gradations from a brain little higher that that of a rat, to a brain like a small and imperfect imitation of a man’s; and the greatest structural break in the series lies not between man and the man-like apes, but between the apes and monkeys on one side, and the lemurs on the other. On these grounds Huxley, restoring in principle the Linnean classification, desired to include man in the order of Primates. This order he divided into seven families: first, the Anthropini, consisting of man only; second, the Catarhini or Old World apes; third, the Platyrhini, all New World apes, except the marmosets; fourth, the Arclopithecini, or marmosets; fifth, the Lemurini, or lemurs; sixth and seventh, the Cheiromyini and Galeopithecini.

These anatomical differences are definitely important, and it's an interesting question whether they are enough to separate humans into their own zoological category. It's clear that some leading zoologists see humans as completely different in mind and spirit from any other animal, which may have unconsciously sharpened their focus on just physical differences. They might give more weight to aspects like the brain or even the foot differences between humans and apes than they would if they were only comparing two species of apes. Many naturalists believe that the anatomical distinctions between gorillas or chimpanzees and humans are, in some ways, less significant than those between these human-like apes and other, less advanced apes. Still, all experts group both higher and lower apes together in the same order. This is Huxley’s argument, and some of its key points include the following: In terms of limb proportions, the hylobates or gibbon has arms that are as much longer than a gorilla's as the gorilla's arms are longer than a human's, while, on the other hand, its legs are also much longer than a human's, just as a human's legs are longer than a gorilla's. Regarding the vertebral column and pelvis, lower apes differ from gorillas just as much, if not more, than gorillas differ from humans. When it comes to skull capacity, humans vary widely; the largest known human skull is nearly twice the size of the smallest, a bigger difference than between humans and gorillas. With proper consideration of the size differences among species, some of the lower apes are nearly as far from the higher apes. The jutting muzzle that makes gorillas seem brutish compared to humans is even more pronounced in lemurs, just like the backward position of their occipital foramen. In critical features like the structure of the hand and foot, lower apes differ greatly from gorillas; for example, American monkeys have thumbs that are not opposable, and in marmosets, the thumb points forward and has a curved claw like the other fingers, with the great toe being relatively small. The same reasoning applies to other anatomical structures, and importantly, it seems true for the brain. A series of apes, lined up from lower to higher orders, shows a gradient from a brain slightly more advanced than a rat's to a brain resembling a small, imperfect version of a human's; and the most significant structural difference occurs not between humans and human-like apes, but between the apes and monkeys on one side and lemurs on the other. For these reasons, Huxley, in principle restoring the Linnaean classification, wanted to place humans in the order of Primates. He divided this order into seven families: first, the Anthropini, which includes only humans; second, the Catarhini or Old World apes; third, the Platyrhini, which refers to all New World apes except marmosets; fourth, the Arclopithecini, or marmosets; fifth, the Lemurini, or lemurs; and sixth and seventh, the Cheiromyini and Galeopithecini.

It is in assigning to man his place in nature on psychological grounds that the greater difficulty arises. Huxley acknowledged an immeasurable and practically infinite divergence, ending in the present enormous psychological gulf between ape and man. It is difficult to account for this intellectual chasm as due to some minor structural difference. The opinion is deeply rooted in modern as in ancient thought, that only a distinctively human element of the highest import can account for the severance between man and the highest animal below him. Differences in the mechanical organs, such as the perfection of the human hand as an instrument, or the adaptability of the human voice to the expression of human thought, are indeed of great value. But they have not of themselves such value, that to endow an ape with the hand and vocal organs of a man would be likely to raise it through any large part of the interval that now separates it from humanity. Much more is to be said for the view that man’s larger and more highly organized brain accounts for those mental powers in which he so absolutely surpasses the brutes.

It’s in figuring out man's role in nature from a psychological perspective that we face the biggest challenge. Huxley recognized a vast and almost infinite gap, resulting in the current huge psychological divide between apes and humans. It's tough to explain this intellectual chasm as a simple result of minor structural differences. The belief, held deeply in both modern and ancient thought, is that only a uniquely human element of great significance can explain the separation between humans and the highest animals below them. Differences in physical features, like the human hand’s precision as a tool or the human voice’s ability to convey complex thoughts, are indeed important. However, these differences alone aren’t enough to suggest that giving an ape human-like hands and vocal cords would significantly narrow the gap between it and humanity. It makes much more sense to argue that the larger and more complex human brain is what gives us the mental abilities that far exceed those of other animals.

The distinction does not seem to lie principally in the range and delicacy of direct sensation, as may be judged from such well-known facts as man’s inferiority to the eagle in sight, or to the dog in scent. At the same time, it seems that the human sensory organs may have in various respects acuteness beyond those of other creatures. But, beyond a doubt, man possesses, and in some way possesses by virtue of his superior brain, a power of co-ordinating the impressions of his senses, which enables him to understand the world he lives in, and by understanding to use, resist, and even in a measure rule it. No human art shows the nature of this human attribute more clearly than does language. Man shares with the mammalia and birds the direct expression of the feelings by emotional tones and interjectional cries; the parrot’s power of articulate utterance almost equals his own; and, by association of ideas in some measure, some of the lower animals have even learnt to recognize words he utters. But, to use words in themselves unmeaning, as symbols by which to conduct and convey the complex intellectual processes in which mental conceptions are suggested, compared, combined, and even analysed, and new ones created— this is a faculty which is scarcely to be traced in any lower animal. 111 The view that this, with other mental processes, is a function of the brain, is remarkably corroborated by modern investigation of the disease of aphasia, where the power of thinking remains, but the power is lost of recalling the word corresponding to the thought, and this mental defect is found to accompany a diseased state of a particular locality of the brain (see Aphasia). This may stand among the most perfect of the many evidences that, in Professor Bain’s words, “the brain is the principal, though not the sole organ of mind.” As the brains of the vertebrate animals form an ascending scale, more and more approaching man’s in their arrangement, the fact here finds its explanation, that lower animals perform mental processes corresponding in their nature to our own, though of generally less power and complexity. The full evidence of this correspondence will be found in such works as Brehm’s Thierleben; and some of the salient points are set forth by Charles Darwin, in the chapter on “Mental Powers,” in his Descent of Man. Such are the similar effects of terror on man and the lower animals, causing the muscled to tremble, the heart to palpitate, the sphincters to be relaxed, and the hair to stand on end. The phenomena of memory, as to both persons and places, is strong in animals, as is manifest by their recognition of their masters, and their returning at once to habits of which, though disused for many years, their brain has not lost the stored-up impressions. Such facts as that dogs “hunt in dreams,” make it likely that their minds are not only sensible to actual events, present and past, but can, like our minds, combine revived sensations into ideal scenes in which they are actors,—that is to say, they have the faculty of imagination. As for the reasoning powers in animals, the accounts of monkeys learning by experience to break eggs carefully, and pick off bits of shell, so as not to lose the contents, or of the way in which rats or martens after a while can no longer be caught by the same kind of trap, with innumerable similar facts, show in the plainest way that the reason of animals goes so far as to form by new experience a new hypothesis of cause and effect which will henceforth guide their actions. The employment of mechanical instruments, of which instances of monkeys using sticks and stones furnish the only rudimentary traces among the lower animals, is one of the often-quoted distinctive powers of man. With this comes the whole vast and ever-widening range of inventive and adaptive art, where the uniform hereditary instinct of the cell-forming bee and the nest-building bird is supplanted by multiform processes and constructions, often at first rude and clumsy in comparison to those of the lower instinct, but carried on by the faculty of improvement and new invention into ever higher stages. “From the moment,” writes A.R. Wallace (Natural Selection), “when the first skin was used as a covering, when the first rude spear was formed to assist in the chase, when fire was first used to cook his food, when the first seed was sown or shoot planted, a grand revolution was effected in nature, a revolution which in all the previous ages of the earth’s history had had no parallel; for a being had arisen who was no longer necessarily subject to change with the changing universe,—a being who was in some degree superior to nature, inasmuch as he knew how to control and regulate her action, and could keep himself in harmony with her, not by a change in body, but by an advance of mind.”

The difference doesn’t seem to mainly be in the range and sensitivity of direct senses, as can be seen from well-known facts like humans being worse at seeing than eagles or smelling than dogs. At the same time, human sensory organs may have certain sensitivities that surpass those of other creatures. However, it’s clear that humans possess, thanks to their advanced brains, a unique ability to coordinate sensory impressions, which allows them to understand their world, and through that understanding, use, resist, and even partially control it. No human art illustrates this attribute better than language. Humans share with mammals and birds the ability to express feelings through emotional tones and spontaneous cries; a parrot’s knack for speaking nearly rivals that of humans; and, to some extent, some lower animals have even learned to recognize words spoken by humans. But the ability to use words that have no inherent meaning as symbols to express and communicate complex intellectual processes—where mental ideas are suggested, compared, combined, analyzed, and even created—this skill is hardly seen in any lower animals. 111 The idea that this, along with other mental processes, is a function of the brain is strongly supported by modern studies on aphasia, a condition where a person loses the ability to recall the specific word associated with their thoughts, despite still being able to think. This mental impairment is often linked to a specific damaged area in the brain (see Aphasia). This stands out as one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that, in Professor Bain’s words, “the brain is the main, though not the only, organ of the mind.” As the brains of vertebrate animals evolve in complexity and structure to resemble those of humans, the fact that lower animals perform mental processes similar to ours—though typically less potent and complex—finds its explanation. Full evidence of this similarity is explored in works like Brehm’s Thierleben, with notable points made by Charles Darwin in the chapter on “Mental Powers” in his Descent of Man. For example, both humans and lower animals experience similar reactions to fear, resulting in trembling muscles, rapid heartbeats, relaxed sphincters, and hair standing on end. Animals also have strong memory capabilities regarding people and places, evident in their ability to recognize their owners and quickly revert to habits they haven’t practiced for years because their brains retain the accumulated memories. Facts like dogs “hunting in dreams” suggest that their minds are not only aware of real current and past events but can also, like ours, combine revived sensations into imagined scenarios where they’re the actors—indicating they have some capacity for imagination. In terms of reasoning abilities in animals, stories of monkeys learning to carefully break eggs and remove bits of shell without spilling the contents, or rats and martens eventually figuring out how to evade the same type of traps, alongside countless similar examples, clearly demonstrate that animal reasoning can extend to forming hypotheses about causes and effects based on new experiences that guide their future actions. The use of tools, evidenced by monkeys using sticks and stones, is often highlighted as a unique skill of humans. This leads to the vast and expanding field of inventive and adaptive craft, where the instinctive behaviors of bees and nest-building birds are replaced by diverse methods and creations, often rudimentary at first compared to lower instincts, but advanced through the ability to improve and innovate to ever higher levels. “From the moment,” writes A.R. Wallace (Natural Selection), “when the first skin was used as a covering, when the first crude spear was made to help with hunting, when fire was first used to cook food, or when the first seed was sown or shoot planted, a grand revolution occurred in nature, a revolution that had no parallel in all the previous ages of the earth’s history; for a being had emerged who was no longer necessarily subject to change with the shifting universe—a being who was somewhat superior to nature, as they grasped how to control and direct her actions, maintaining harmony with her not by physical change but by intellectual advancement.”

As to the lower instincts tending directly to self-preservation, it is acknowledged on all hands that man has them in a less developed state than other animals; in fact, the natural defencelessness of the human being, and the long-continued care and teaching of the young by the elders, are among the commonest themes of moral discourse. Parental tenderness and care for the young are strongly marked among the lower animals, though so inferior in scope and duration to the human qualities; and the same may be said of the mutual forbearance and defence which bind together in a rudimentary social bond the families and herds of animals. Philosophy seeking knowledge for its own sake; morality, manifested in the sense of truth, right, and virtue; and religion, the belief in and communion with superhuman powers ruling and pervading the universe, are human characters, of which it is instructive to trace, if possible, the earliest symptoms in the lower animals, but which can there show at most only faint and rudimentary signs of their wondrous development in mankind. That the tracing of physical and even intellectual continuity between the lower animals and our own race, does not necessarily lead the anthropologist to lower the rank of man in the scale of nature, may be shown by citing A.R. Wallace. Man, he considers, is to be placed “apart, as not only the head and culminating point of the grand series of organic nature, but as in some degree a new and distinct order of being.”

Regarding the basic instincts focused on self-preservation, it's widely accepted that humans have them in a less developed form than other animals. In fact, our natural vulnerability and the prolonged care and teaching that younger generations receive from their elders are often discussed in moral conversations. Parental love and concern for the young are also evident among lower animals, though they are much less extensive and enduring than human qualities. The same can be said for the mutual support and protection that create a basic social bond among animal families and herds. Philosophy, which seeks knowledge for its own sake; morality, shown through a sense of truth, right, and virtue; and religion, the belief in and connection to higher powers that govern and permeate the universe, are distinctly human traits. It's valuable to trace their early signs in lower animals, even if they only exhibit faint and rudimentary forms of what fully develops in humans. The connection between lower animals and our species does not necessarily force anthropologists to downgrade humans in the scale of nature, as A.R. Wallace points out. He argues that humans should be seen as “apart, not only as the pinnacle of the grand series of organic life but also as a new and distinct order of existence.”

To regard the intellectual functions of the brain and nervous system as alone to be considered in the psychological comparison of man with the lower animals, is a view satisfactory to those thinkers who hold materialistic views. According to this school, man is a machine, no doubt the most complex and wonderfully adapted of all known machines, but still neither more nor less than an instrument whose energy is provided by force from without, and which, when set in action, performs the various operations for which its structure fits it, namely, to live, move, feel, and think. This view, however, always has been strongly opposed by those who accept on theological grounds a spiritualistic doctrine, or what is, perhaps, more usual, a theory which combines spiritualism and materialism in the doctrine of a composite nature in man, animal as to the body and in some measure as to the mind, spiritual as to the soul. It may be useful, as an illustration of one opinion on this subject, to continue here the citation of Dr Prichard’s comparison between man and the lower animals:—

To view the brain and nervous system's intellectual functions as the only factors worth considering when comparing humans to lower animals appeals to those who have a materialistic perspective. According to this viewpoint, humans are machines—indeed, the most complex and sophisticated of all known machines—but still just instruments powered by external forces. When activated, they carry out various functions their structure is designed for: living, moving, feeling, and thinking. However, this perspective has always faced strong opposition from those who, on theological grounds, support a spiritual belief system, or more commonly, a theory that blends spiritualism and materialism, proposing that humans have a composite nature: animal in body and partially in mind, and spiritual in soul. To illustrate one opinion on this matter, it would be helpful to continue quoting Dr. Prichard’s comparison between humans and lower animals:—

“If it be inquired in what the still more remarkable difference consists, it is by no means easy to reply. By some it will be said that man, while similar in the organization of his body to the lower tribes, is distinguished from them by the possession of an immaterial soul, a principle capable of conscious feeling, of intellect and thought. To many persons it will appear paradoxical to ascribe the endowment of a soul to the inferior tribes in the creation, yet it is difficult to discover a valid argument that limits the possession of an immaterial principle to man. The phenomena of feeling, of desire and aversion, of love and hatred, of fear and revenge, and the perception of external relations manifested in the life of brutes, imply, not only through the analogy which they display to the human faculties, but likewise from all that we can learn or conjecture of their particular nature, the superadded existence of a principle distinct from the mere mechanism of material bodies. That such a principle must exist in all beings capable of sensation, or of anything analogous to human passions and feelings, will hardly be denied by those who perceive the force of arguments which metaphysically demonstrate the immaterial nature of the mind. There may be no rational grounds for the ancient dogma that the souls of the lower animals were imperishable, like the soul of man: this is, however, a problem which we are not called upon to discuss; and we may venture to conjecture that there may be immaterial essences of divers kinds, and endowed with various attributes and capabilities. But the real nature of these unseen principles eludes our research: they are only known to us by their external manifestations. These manifestations are the various powers and capabilities, or rather the habitudes of action, which characterize the different orders of being, diversified according to their several destinations.”

“If you ask what the even more remarkable difference is, it's not easy to answer. Some people will say that while humans have a similar body structure to lower animals, they are distinguished by having an immaterial soul, a principle that allows for conscious feelings, intellect, and thought. Many might find it strange to attribute a soul to lower creatures, but it’s hard to find a solid argument that limits the existence of an immaterial principle to humans. The feelings, desires, aversions, loves, hates, fears, and desires for revenge, as well as the awareness of external relationships seen in the lives of animals, suggest that there is something in addition to just the physical bodies. The similarities to human faculties, along with what we can observe or infer about their nature, imply that a distinct principle exists. It's hard to deny that such a principle must exist in all beings capable of sensation or anything similar to human emotions and feelings, especially for those who recognize the strong arguments that show the immaterial nature of the mind. There may be no logical basis for the old belief that the souls of lower animals are immortal like human souls; however, that's a debate we don't need to dive into right now. We can speculate that there might be different kinds of immaterial essences with various attributes and abilities. But the true nature of these unseen principles evades our understanding: we only know them through their external expressions. These expressions are the various powers and abilities, or rather the tendencies of action, that define different forms of existence, varied according to their purposes.”

Dr Prichard here puts forward distinctly the time-honoured doctrine which refers the mental faculties to the operation of the soul. The view maintained by a distinguished comparative anatomist, Professor St George Mivart, in his Genesis of Species, ch. xii., may fairly follow. “Man, according to the old scholastic definition, is ‘a rational animal’ (animal rationale), and his animality is distinct in nature from his rationality, though inseparably joined, during life, in one common personality. Man’s animal body must have had a different source from that of the spiritual soul which informs it, owing to the distinctness of the two orders to which those two existences severally belong.” The two extracts just given, however, significant in themselves, fail to render an account of the view of the human constitution which would probably, among the theological and scholastic leaders of public opinion, count the largest weight of adherence. According to this view, not only life but thought are functions of the animal system, in which man excels all other animals as to height of organization: but beyond this, man embodies an immaterial and immortal spiritual principle which no lower creature possesses, and which makes the resemblance of the apes 112 to him but a mocking simulance. To pronounce any absolute decision on these conflicting doctrines is foreign to our present purpose, which is to show that all of them count among their adherents men of high rank in science.

Dr. Prichard clearly presents the long-held belief that connects mental abilities to the workings of the soul. This view aligns with that of the renowned comparative anatomist, Professor St. George Mivart, in his Genesis of Species, ch. xii. “According to the traditional scholastic definition, man is ‘a rational animal’ (animal rationale), and while his animal nature is different from his rational nature, they are inseparably linked within a single personality during life. The animal body of man must have originated from a different source than the spiritual soul that animates it, due to the distinct nature of the two categories to which these existences belong.” However, while these two quotes are significant in their own right, they don’t fully capture the perspective on human nature that likely holds the most weight among theological and scholarly leaders of public opinion. According to this perspective, both life and thought are functions of the animal system, where man surpasses other animals in terms of organizational complexity. Beyond this, man possesses an immaterial and immortal spiritual essence that no lower creature has, making the resemblance of apes to humans merely a superficial imitation. Making a definitive judgment on these conflicting beliefs is not our current aim; rather, we intend to demonstrate that all of them have proponents among well-regarded figures in the field of science.

II. Origin of Man.—Opinion as to the genesis of man is divided between the theories of creation and evolution. In both schools, the ancient doctrine of the contemporaneous appearance on earth of all species of animals having been abandoned under the positive evidence of geology, it is admitted that the animal kingdom, past and present, includes a vast series of successive forms, whose appearances and disappearances have taken place at intervals during an immense lapse of ages. The line of inquiry has thus been directed to ascertaining what formative relation subsists among these species and genera, the last link of the argument reaching to the relation between man and the lower creatures preceding him in time. On both the theories here concerned it would be admitted, in the words of Agassiz (Principles of Zoology, pp. 205-206), that “there is a manifest progress in the succession of beings on the surface of the earth. This progress consists in an increasing similarity of the living fauna, and, among the vertebrates especially, in their increasing resemblance to man.” Agassiz continues, however, in terms characteristic of the creationist school: “But this connexion is not the consequence of a direct lineage between the faunas of different ages. There is nothing like parental descent connecting them. The fishes of the Palaeozoic age are in no respect the ancestors of the reptiles of the Secondary age, nor does man descend from the mammals which preceded him in the Tertiary age. The link by which they are connected is of a higher and immaterial nature; and their connexion is to be sought in the view of the Creator himself, whose aim in forming the earth, in allowing it to undergo the successive changes which geology has pointed out, and in creating successively all the different types of animals which have passed away, was to introduce man upon the surface of our globe. Man is the end towards which all the animal creation has tended from the first appearance of the first Palaeozoic fishes.” The evolutionist, on the contrary (see Evolution), maintains that different successive species of animals are in fact connected by parental descent, having become modified in the course of successive generations. The result of Charles Darwin’s application of this theory to man may be given in his own words (Descent of Man, part i. ch. 6):—

II. Origin of Man.—Opinions about how humans came to be are split between the ideas of creation and evolution. Both sides have moved away from the old belief that all animal species appeared on earth simultaneously, thanks to solid geological evidence. It is now acknowledged that the animal kingdom, both past and present, displays a wide range of successive forms, which have appeared and disappeared over huge periods of time. This line of inquiry has led to the exploration of the relationships among these species and genera, culminating in the connection between humans and the lower creatures that came before them. Both theories agree with Agassiz's view (Principles of Zoology, pp. 205-206) that “there is a clear progression in the development of living beings on earth. This progression shows an increasing resemblance in the living fauna, especially among vertebrates, to humans.” However, Agassiz’s perspective, typical of the creationist viewpoint, continues: “But this connection is not due to a direct lineage between the animals of different eras. There is no parental descent linking them. The fish from the Paleozoic era are not ancestors of the reptiles from the Secondary era, nor does man descend from the mammals that came before him in the Tertiary era. The connection among them is of a higher and immaterial nature; and it should be understood in the context of the Creator’s purpose, whose goal in forming the earth, allowing it to undergo the changes highlighted by geology, and creating all the different types of animals that have existed, was to bring humans into being on our planet. Humanity is the ultimate aim towards which all animal life has been directed since the first appearance of the Paleozoic fishes.” In contrast, the evolutionist (see Evolution) argues that the different successive species of animals are indeed linked by parental descent, having evolved over many generations. The outcome of Charles Darwin’s application of this theory to humanity can be summarized in his own words (Descent of Man, part i. ch. 6):—

“The Catarhine and Platyrhine monkeys agree in a multitude of characters, as is shown by their unquestionably belonging to one and the same order. The many characters which they possess in common can hardly have been independently acquired by so many distinct species; so that these characters must have been inherited. But an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the Catarhine and Platyrhine monkeys, and others in an intermediate condition, and some few perhaps distinct from those now present in either group, would undoubtedly have been ranked, if seen by a naturalist, as an ape or a monkey. And as man under a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated. But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the early progenitor of the whole Simian stock, including man, was identical with, or even closely resembled, any existing ape or monkey.”

“The Catarhine and Platyrhine monkeys share many features, which clearly indicates they belong to the same order. The numerous traits they have in common could not have been developed independently by so many different species, so these traits must have been inherited. An ancient form that had many characteristics shared by both Catarhine and Platyrhine monkeys, along with some intermediate traits and perhaps a few unique ones, would definitely have been classified as an ape or a monkey by any naturalist observing it. Since humans, from a genealogical perspective, are part of the Catarhine or Old World lineage, we have to accept, no matter how much it challenges our pride, that our early ancestors would have been properly referred to in this way. However, we must avoid the mistake of thinking that the early ancestor of the entire Simian group, including humans, was the same as or even closely resembles any existing ape or monkey.”

The problem of the origin of man cannot be properly discussed apart from the full problem of the origin of species. The homologies between man and other animals which both schools try to account for; the explanation of the intervals, with apparent want of intermediate forms, which seem to the creationists so absolute a separation between species; the evidence of useless “rudimentary organs,” such as in man the external shell of the ear, and the muscle which enables some individuals to twitch their ears, which rudimentary parts the evolutionists claim to be only explicable as relics of an earlier specific condition,—these, which are the main points of the argument on the origin of man, belong to general biology. The philosophical principles which underlie the two theories stand for the most part in strong contrast, the theory of evolution tending toward the supposition of ordinary causes, such as “natural selection,” producing modifications in species, whether by gradual accumulation or more sudden leaps, while the theory of creation has recourse to acts of supernatural intervention (see the duke of Argyll, Reign of Law, ch. v.). St George Mivart (Genesis of Species) propounded a theory of a natural evolution of man as to his body, combined with a supernatural creation as to his soul; but this attempt to meet the difficulties on both sides seems to have satisfied neither.

The issue of how humans originated can't be fully addressed without considering the broader question of how species as a whole came into being. Both viewpoints try to explain the similarities between humans and other animals; they also tackle the gaps that appear due to the lack of intermediate forms, which creationists see as clear proof of a division between species. Additionally, there's the evidence of seemingly useless "rudimentary organs," like the outer ear and the muscle that allows some people to move their ears, which evolutionists argue are just remnants from earlier evolutionary stages. These points, central to the discussion on human origins, are part of general biology. The philosophical foundations of the two theories also contrast sharply, with evolution leaning towards the idea that ordinary processes, such as "natural selection," lead to changes in species, whether through gradual changes or sudden leaps, while creation relies on supernatural interventions (see the duke of Argyll, Reign of Law, ch. v.). St George Mivart (Genesis of Species) suggested a theory where humans evolved naturally in terms of their bodies, paired with a supernatural creation regarding their souls; however, this attempt to find a middle ground did not seem to satisfy either side.

The wide acceptance of the Darwinian theory, as applied to the descent of man, has naturally roused anticipation that geological research, which provides evidence of the animal life of incalculably greater antiquity, would furnish fossil remains of some comparatively recent being intermediate between the anthropomorphic and the anthropic types. This expectation has hardly been fulfilled, but of late years the notion of a variety of the human race, geologically ancient, differing from any known in historic times, and with characters approaching the simian, has been supported by further discoveries. To bring this to the reader’s notice, top and side views of three skulls, as placed together in the human development series in the Oxford University Museum, are represented in the plate, for the purpose of showing the great size of the orbital ridges, which the reader may contrast with his own by a touch with his fingers on his forehead. The first (fig. 3) is the famous Neanderthal skull from near Düsseldorf, described by Schaafhausen in Müller’s Archiv, 1858; Huxley in Lyell, Antiquity of Man, p. 86, and in Man’s Place in Nature. The second (fig. 4) is the skull from the cavern of Spy in Belgium (de Puydt and Lohest, Compte rendu du Congrès de Namur, 1886). The foreheads of these two skulls have an ape-like form, obvious on comparison with the simian skulls of the gorilla and other apes, and visible even in the small-scale figures in the Plate, fig. 2. Among modern tribes of mankind the forehead of the Australian aborigines makes the nearest approach to this type, as was pointed out by Huxley. This brief description will serve to show the importance of a later discovery. At Trinil, in Java, in an equatorial region where, if anywhere, a being intermediate between the higher apes and man would seem likely to be found, Dr Eugene Dubois in 1891-1892 excavated from a bed, considered by him to be of Sivalik formation (Pliocene), a thighbone which competent anatomists decide to be human, and a remarkably depressed calvaria or skull-cap (fig. 5), bearing a certain resemblance in its proportions to the corresponding part of the simian skull. These remains were referred by their discoverer to an animal intermediate between man and ape, to which he gave the name of Pithecanthropus erectus (q.v.), but the interesting discussions on the subject have shown divergence of opinion among anatomists. At any rate, classing the Trinil skull as human, it may be described as tending towards the simian type more than any other known.

The widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory regarding human evolution has naturally led to the hope that geological research, which reveals evidence of animal life much older than we can imagine, would uncover fossil remains of a relatively recent being that connects the traits of humans and apes. This expectation hasn’t really been met, but in recent years, the idea of a geologically ancient variety of the human race, distinct from any known in history and resembling more ape-like features, has gained support through new discoveries. To illustrate this, the top and side views of three skulls from the human development series at the Oxford University Museum are shown in the plate, highlighting the substantial size of the brow ridges, which the reader can compare to their own by feeling their forehead. The first (fig. 3) is the well-known Neanderthal skull found near Düsseldorf, described by Schaafhausen in Müller’s Archiv, 1858; with references by Huxley in Lyell, Antiquity of Man, p. 86, and in Man’s Place in Nature. The second (fig. 4) is the skull from the Spy cave in Belgium (de Puydt and Lohest, Compte rendu du Congrès de Namur, 1886). The foreheads of these two skulls have an ape-like shape, which is clear when compared to the skulls of gorillas and other apes, and this can even be seen in the smaller illustrations in Plate, fig. 2. Among modern human tribes, the forehead of Australian aborigines closely resembles this type, as noted by Huxley. This brief overview helps highlight the significance of a later discovery. In Trinil, Java, in a tropical area where one might expect to find beings between higher apes and humans, Dr. Eugene Dubois excavated in 1891-1892 from a layer he believed to be of Sivalik formation (Pliocene) a thighbone that qualified anatomists determine to be human, along with a notably flattened skull cap (fig. 5) that shares certain proportions with the skull of apes. Dubois classified these remains as belonging to a creature trapped between man and ape, naming it Pithecanthropus erectus (q.v.), but ongoing discussions have revealed differing opinions among anatomists. Regardless, if we classify the Trinil skull as human, it leans more towards the ape-like type than any other known example.

III. Races of Mankind.—The classification of mankind into a number of permanent varieties or races, rests on grounds which are within limits not only obvious but definite. Whether from a popular or a scientific point of view, it would be admitted that a Negro, a Chinese, and an Australian belong to three such permanent varieties of men, all plainly distinguishable from one another and from any European. Moreover, such a division takes for granted the idea which is involved in the word race, that each of these varieties is due to special ancestry, each race thus representing an ancient breed or stock, however these breeds or stocks may have had their origin. The anthropological classification of mankind is thus zoological in its nature, like that of the varieties or species of any other animal group, and the characters on which it is based are in great measure physical, though intellectual and traditional peculiarities, such as moral habit and language, furnish important aid. Among the best-marked race-characters are the colour of the skin, eyes and hair; and the structure and arrangement of the latter. Stature is by no means a general criterion of race, and it would not, for instance, be difficult to choose groups of Englishmen, Kaffirs, and North American Indians, whose mean height should hardly differ. Yet in many cases it is a valuable means of distinction, as between the tall Patagonians and the stunted Fuegians, and even as a help in minuter problems, such as separating the 113 Teutonic and Celtic ancestry in the population of England (see Beddoe, “Stature and Bulk of Man in the British Isles,” in Mem. Anthrop. Soc. London, vol. iii.) Proportions of the limbs, compared in length with the trunk, have been claimed as constituting peculiarities of African and American races; and other anatomical points, such as the conformation of the pelvis, have speciality. But inferences of this class have hardly attained to sufficient certainty and generality to be set down in the form of rules. The conformation of the skull is second only to the colour of the skin as a criterion for the distinction of race; and the position of the jaws is recognized as important, races being described as prognathous when the jaws project far, as in the Australian or Negro, in contradistinction to the orthognathous type, which is that of the ordinary well-shaped European skull. On this distinction in great measure depends the celebrated “facial angle,” measured by Camper as a test of low and high races; but this angle is objectionable as resulting partly from the development of the forehead and partly from the position of the jaws. The capacity of the cranium is estimated in cubic measure by filling it with sand, &c., with the general result that the civilized white man is found to have a larger brain than the barbarian or savage. Classification of races on cranial measurements has long been attempted by eminent anatomists, and in certain cases great reliance may be placed on such measurements. Thus the skulls of an Australian and a Negro would be generally distinguished by their narrowness and the projection of the jaw from that of any Englishman; but the Australian skull would usually differ perceptibly from the Negroid in its upright sides and strong orbital ridges. The relation of height to breadth may also furnish a valuable test; but it is acknowledged by all experienced craniologists, that the shape of the skull may vary so much within the same tribe, and even the same family, that it must be used with extreme caution, and if possible only in conjunction with other criteria of race. The general contour of the face, in part dependent on the form of the skull, varies much in different races, among whom it is loosely defined as oval, lozenge-shaped, pentagonal, &c. Of particular features, some of the most marked contrasts to European types are seen in the oblique Chinese eyes, the broad-set Kamchadale cheeks, the pointed Arab chin, the snub Kirghiz nose, the fleshy protuberant Negro lips, and the broad Kalmuck ear. Taken altogether, the features have a typical character which popular observation seizes with some degree of correctness, as in the recognition of the Jewish countenance in a European city.

III. Races of Mankind.—The classification of humans into different permanent varieties or races is based on clear and definite criteria. Whether from a casual or scientific perspective, it's generally accepted that a Negro, a Chinese person, and an Australian belong to three distinct races, each easily identifiable from the others and from any European. This classification assumes that each of these varieties stems from unique ancestral lines, with each race representing an ancient breed or lineage, regardless of how these breeds originated. The anthropological classification of humans is zoological in nature, similar to the classification of varieties or species among other animal groups, and is largely based on physical traits, although intellectual and cultural aspects, such as moral habits and language, also play an important role. Among the most noticeable racial characteristics are skin, eye, and hair color, along with hair structure and arrangement. Height is not a reliable general indicator of race; for instance, it would not be hard to find groups of Englishmen, Kaffirs, and North American Indians whose average height is very similar. However, in many cases, height is still a useful distinguishing feature, as seen in the tall Patagonians versus the shorter Fuegians, and even for more specific distinctions, such as differentiating between Teutonic and Celtic ancestry in England's population (see Beddoe, “Stature and Bulk of Man in the British Isles,” in Mem. Anthrop. Soc. London, vol. iii.). Limb proportions, relative to trunk length, have been suggested as distinguishing traits of African and American races; other anatomical aspects, such as pelvic shape, also have their unique characteristics. Nonetheless, these inferences have not reached a level of reliability and consistency that allows them to be established as rules. Skull shape is the second most important characteristic for distinguishing race, following skin color; the position of the jaw is also significant, with races described as prognathous when the jaw projects forward, as in Australians or Negroes, versus the orthognathous type typical of a well-shaped European skull. This distinction is a major factor in the well-known “facial angle,” measured by Camper as an indicator of racial advancement, but this angle is problematic since it is influenced by forehead development and jaw position. Cranium capacity, measured in cubic units by filling it with sand, shows that the average civilized white man has a larger brain than the average barbarian or savage. Racial classification based on cranial measurements has been pursued by prominent anatomists, and in certain cases, these measurements can be quite reliable. For example, the skulls of an Australian and a Negro are typically narrower and have a projecting jaw compared to those of any Englishman; however, the Australian skull usually differs noticeably from the Negroid skull in its straighter sides and pronounced orbital ridges. The relationship of height to width can also provide a valuable measure, but experienced craniologists recognize that skull shape can vary significantly within the same tribe or even family, so care must be taken in using it, ideally in conjunction with other racial criteria. The overall shape of the face, partly shaped by the skull, varies widely among races and is loosely categorized as oval, lozenge-shaped, pentagonal, etc. Among specific traits, some of the most notable contrasts to European features are observed in the slanted eyes of the Chinese, prominent cheeks of the Kamchadale, pointed chin of the Arab, flat nose of the Kirghiz, full lips of the Negro, and broad ears of the Kalmuck. Collectively, these features represent a typical character that everyday observation often recognizes fairly accurately, such as the identification of a Jewish face in a European city.

Were the race-characters constant in degree or even in kind, the classification of races would be easy; but this is not so. Every division of mankind presents in every character wide deviations from a standard. Thus the Negro race, well marked as it may seem at the first glance, proves on closer examination to include several shades of complexion and features, in some districts varying far from the accepted Negro type; while the examination of a series of native American tribes shows that, notwithstanding their asserted uniformity of type, they differ in stature, colour, features and proportions of skull. (See Prichard, Nat. Hist. of Man; Waitz, Anthropology, part i. sec. 5.) Detailed anthropological research, indeed, more and more justifies Blumenbach’s words, that “innumerable varieties of mankind run into one another by insensible degrees.” This state of things, due partly to mixture and crossing of races, and partly to independent variation of types, makes the attempt to arrange the whole human species within exactly bounded divisions an apparently hopeless task. It does not follow, however, that the attempt to distinguish special races should be given up, for there at least exist several definable types, each of which so far prevails in a certain population as to be taken as its standard. L.A.J. Quetelet’s plan of defining such types will probably meet with general acceptance as the scientific method proper to this branch of anthropology. It consists in the determination of the standard or typical “mean man” (homme moyen) of a population, with reference to any particular quality, such as stature, weight, complexion, &c. In the case of stature, this would be done by measuring a sufficient number of men, and counting how many of them belong to each height on the scale. If it be thus ascertained, as it might be in an English district, that the 5 ft. 7 in. men form the most numerous group, while the 5 ft. 6 in. and 5 ft. 8 in. men are less in number, and the 5 ft. 5 in. and 5 ft. 9 in. still fewer, and so on until the extremely small number of extremely short or tall individuals of 5 ft. or 7 ft. is reached, it will thus be ascertained that the stature of the mean or typical man is to be taken as 5 ft. 7 in. The method is thus that of selecting as the standard the most numerous group, on both sides of which the groups decrease in number as they vary in type. Such classification may show the existence of two or more types, in a community, as, for instance, the population of a Californian settlement made up of Whites and Chinese might show two predominant groups (one of 5 ft. 8 in., the other of 5 ft. 4 in.) corresponding to these two racial types. It need hardly be said that this method of determining the mean type of a race, as being that of its really existing and most numerous class, is altogether superior to the mere calculation of an average, which may actually be represented by comparatively few individuals, and those the exceptional ones. For instance, the average stature of the mixed European and Chinese population just referred to might be 5 ft. 6 in.—a worthless and indeed misleading result. (For particulars of Quetelet’s method, see his Physique sociale (1869), and Anthropométrie (1871).)

Were the racial traits consistent in degree or even in type, classifying races would be straightforward; however, that’s not the case. Every group of humans shows significant variations in every characteristic from a standard. For instance, while the Negro race may appear distinct at first glance, a closer look reveals a range of skin tones and features, with some areas diverging significantly from the accepted Negro type. Similarly, studying a variety of Native American tribes shows that, despite claims of uniformity, they differ in height, color, features, and skull proportions. (See Prichard, Nat. Hist. of Man; Waitz, Anthropology, part i. sec. 5.) In-depth anthropological research increasingly supports Blumenbach’s observation that “countless varieties of humanity blend into one another in subtle ways.” This situation, partly due to intermixing and crossbreeding of races, as well as independent variations among types, makes the effort to classify all humans into precisely defined categories seemingly futile. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we should abandon distinguishing specific races, as there are still several identifiable types, each of which prevails in a particular population enough to be regarded as its standard. L.A.J. Quetelet’s approach to defining such types will likely gain broad acceptance as the proper scientific method for this branch of anthropology. It involves determining the standard or typical “mean man” (homme moyen) of a population concerning a specific characteristic, such as height, weight, complexion, etc. For height, this would require measuring a sufficient number of men and counting how many fall into each height category. For example, if it is found in an English area that most men are 5 ft. 7 in. tall, while fewer are 5 ft. 6 in. or 5 ft. 8 in., and even fewer are 5 ft. 5 in. or 5 ft. 9 in., continuing until reaching the tiny number of individuals who are extremely short or tall at 5 ft. or 7 ft., it can then be concluded that the height of the mean or typical man is 5 ft. 7 in. This method involves selecting the standard as the most populous group, with the number of individuals decreasing as one moves away from this type. Such a classification may reveal the presence of two or more types within a community, such as a Californian settlement comprising Whites and Chinese, which might display two dominant groups (one at 5 ft. 8 in., the other at 5 ft. 4 in.), reflecting these two racial types. It goes without saying that this method of identifying the mean type of a race, based on its most populous class, is far superior to simply calculating an average, which might be skewed by a few individuals who are exceptional. For instance, the average height of the mixed European and Chinese population mentioned earlier might be 5 ft. 6 in.—an unhelpful and misleading figure. (For details on Quetelet’s method, see his Physique sociale (1869), and Anthropométrie (1871).)

Classifications of man have been numerous, and though, regarded as systems, most of them are unsatisfactory, yet they have been of great value in systematizing knowledge, and are all more or less based on indisputable distinctions. J.F. Blumenbach’s division, though published as long ago as 1781, has had the greatest influence. He reckons five races, viz. Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, Malay. The ill-chosen name of Caucasian, invented by Blumenbach in allusion to a South Caucasian skull of specially typical proportions, and applied by him to the so-called white races, is still current; it brings into one race peoples such as the Arabs and Swedes, although these are scarcely less different than the Americans and Malays, who are set down as two distinct races. Again, two of the best-marked varieties of mankind are the Australians and the Bushmen, neither of whom, however, seems to have a natural place in Blumenbach’s series. The yet simpler classification by Cuvier into Caucasian, Mongol and Negro corresponds in some measure with a division by mere complexion into white, yellow and black races; but neither this threefold division, nor the ancient classification into Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic nations can be regarded as separating the human types either justly or sufficiently (see Prichard, Natural History of Man, sec. 15; Waitz, Anthropology, vol. i. part i. sec. 5). Schemes which set up a larger number of distinct races, such as the eleven of Pickering, the fifteen of Bory de St Vincent and the sixteen of Desmoulins, have the advantage of finding niches for most well-defined human varieties; but no modern naturalist would be likely to adopt any one of these as it stands. In criticism of Pickering’s system, it is sufficient to point out that he divides the white nations into two races, entitled the Arab and the Abyssinian (Pickering, Races of Man, ch. i.). Agassiz, Nott, Crawfurd and others who have assumed a much larger number of races or species of man, are not considered to have satisfactorily defined a corresponding number of distinguishable types. On the whole, Huxley’s division probably approaches more nearly than any other to such a tentative classification as may be accepted in definition of the principal varieties of mankind, regarded from a zoological point of view, though anthropologists may be disposed to erect into separate races several of his widely-differing sub-races. He distinguishes four principal types of mankind, the Australioid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Xanthochroic (“fair whites”), adding a fifth variety, the Melanochroic (“dark whites”).

Classifications of humans have been many, and while most of them are considered systems, many are unsatisfactory. However, they have played a significant role in organizing knowledge and are all based on clear distinctions to some extent. J.F. Blumenbach’s classification, published in 1781, has had the most influence. He identified five races: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. The poorly chosen term Caucasian, which Blumenbach created based on a South Caucasian skull with typical features and applied to so-called white races, is still used today; it lumps together distinct groups like Arabs and Swedes, even though they are almost as different from each other as Americans and Malays, who are classified as two separate races. Additionally, two of the most distinct groups of people, the Australians and the Bushmen, don’t seem to fit neatly into Blumenbach’s framework. Cuvier’s simpler classification into Caucasian, Mongol, and Negro loosely aligns with a basic division by skin color into white, yellow, and black races. However, neither this three-part classification nor the ancient grouping into Semitic, Hamitic, and Japhetic nations can be considered adequate for distinguishing human types accurately or sufficiently (see Prichard, Natural History of Man, sec. 15; Waitz, Anthropology, vol. i. part i. sec. 5). Systems that propose a larger number of distinct races, such as Pickering’s eleven, Bory de St Vincent’s fifteen, and Desmoulins’s sixteen, do so with the advantage of accommodating most clearly defined human varieties; however, no modern naturalist would likely endorse any of these as they stand. In critiquing Pickering’s system, it suffices to note that he splits white nations into two races, which he labels Arab and Abyssinian (Pickering, Races of Man, ch. i.). Agassiz, Nott, Crawfurd, and others who propose a much larger number of races or species of humans are not seen as having satisfactorily defined a corresponding number of recognizable types. Overall, Huxley’s division probably comes closest to a tentative classification that could be accepted in describing the main varieties of humans from a zoological perspective, although anthropologists might want to treat several of his widely differing sub-races as separate races. He identifies four main types of humans: Australioid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Xanthochroic (“fair whites”), and adds a fifth type, Melanochroic (“dark whites”).

In determining whether the races of mankind are to be classed as varieties of one species, it is important to decide whether every two races can unite to produce fertile offspring. It is settled by experience that the most numerous and well-known crossed races, such as the Mulattos, descended from Europeans 114 and Negroes—the Mestizos, from Europeans and American indigenes—the Zambos, from these American indigenes and Negroes, &c., are permanently fertile. They practically constitute sub-races, with a general blending of the characters of the two parents, and only differing from fully-established races in more or less tendency to revert to one or other of the original types. It has been argued, on the other hand, that not all such mixed breeds are permanent, and especially that the cross between Europeans and Australian indigenes is almost sterile; but this assertion, when examined with the care demanded by its bearing on the general question of hybridity, has distinctly broken down. On the whole, the general evidence favours the opinion that any two races may combine to produce a new sub-race, which again may combine with any other variety. Thus, if the existence of a small number of distinct races of mankind be taken as a starting-point, it is obvious that their crossing would produce an indefinite number of secondary varieties, such as the population of the world actually presents. The working out in detail of the problem, how far the differences among complex nations, such as those of Europe, may have been brought about by hybridity, is still, however, a task of almost hopeless intricacy. Among the boldest attempts to account for distinctly-marked populations as resulting from the intermixture of two races, are Huxley’s view that the Hottentots are hybrid between the Bushmen and the Negroes, and his more important suggestion, that the Melanochroic peoples of southern Europe are of mixed Xanthochroic and Australioid stock.

In figuring out whether human races should be considered varieties of one species, it's crucial to determine if any two races can come together to produce fertile offspring. Experience shows that the most common and well-known mixed races, like the Mulattos, who descend from Europeans and Black people—the Mestizos, who come from Europeans and Indigenous Americans—the Zambos, who are from Indigenous Americans and Black people, etc., are permanently fertile. They essentially make up sub-races, blending characteristics from both parents, differing from fully established races mainly in their tendency to revert to one or the other original type. Some argue that not all mixed breeds are permanent, especially claiming that the cross between Europeans and Australian Indigenous people is nearly sterile; however, this claim has not held up under scrutiny, given its implications for the broader question of hybridization. Overall, evidence supports the idea that any two races can combine to create a new sub-race, which can then mix with any other variety. Therefore, if we start with a small number of distinct human races, it’s clear that crossing them would result in countless secondary varieties, as seen in the world’s population today. Investigating in detail how much the differences among complex nations, such as those of Europe, may have been influenced by hybridization remains a daunting challenge. Among the boldest theories explaining distinct populations as results of mixing two races are Huxley’s suggestion that the Hottentots are hybrids of the Bushmen and Black people, and his more significant proposal that the Melanochroic peoples of southern Europe are of mixed Xanthochroic and Australioid ancestry.

The problem of ascertaining how the small number of races, distinct enough to be called primary, can have assumed their different types, has been for years the most disputed field of anthropology, the battle-ground of the rival schools of monogenists and polygenists. The one has claimed all mankind to be descended from one original stock, and generally from a single pair; the other has contended for the several primary races being separate species of independent origin. The great problem of the monogenist theory is to explain by what course of variation the so different races of man have arisen from a single stock. In ancient times little difficulty was felt in this, authorities such as Aristotle and Vitruvius seeing in climate and circumstance the natural cause of racial differences, the Ethiopian having been blackened by the tropical sun, &c. Later and closer observations, however, have shown such influences to be, at any rate, far slighter in amount and slower in operation than was once supposed. A. de Quatrefages brings forward (Unité de l’espèce humaine) his strongest arguments for the variability of races under change of climate, &c. (action du milieu), instancing the asserted alteration in complexion, constitution and character of Negroes in America, and Englishmen in America and Australia. But although the reality of some such modification is not disputed, especially as to stature and constitution, its amount is not enough to upset the counter-proposition of the remarkable permanence of type displayed by races, ages after they have been transported to climates extremely different from that of their former home. Moreover, physically different peoples, such as the Bushmen and Negroes in Africa, show no signs of approximation under the influence of the same climate; while, on the other hand, the coast tribes of Tierra del Fuego and forest tribes of tropical Brazil continue to resemble one another, in spite of extreme differences of climate and food. Darwin is moderate in his estimation of the changes produced on races of man by climate and mode of life within the range of history (Descent of Man, part i. ch. 4 and 7). The slightness and slowness of variation in human races having become known, a great difficulty of the monogenist theory was seen to lie in the apparent shortness of the Biblical chronology. Inasmuch as several well-marked races of mankind, such as the Egyptian, Phoenician, Ethiopian, &c., were much the same three or four thousand years ago as now, their variation from a single stock in the course of any like period could hardly be accounted for without a miracle. This difficulty the polygenist theory escaped, and in consequence it gained ground. Modern views have however tended to restore, though under a new aspect, the doctrine of a single human stock. The fact that man has existed during a vast period of time makes it more easy to assume the continuance of very slow natural variation as having differentiated even the white man and the Negro among the descendants of a common progenitor. On the other hand it does not follow necessarily from a theory of evolution of species that mankind must have descended from a single stock, for the hypothesis of development admits of the argument, that several simian species may have culminated in several races of man. The general tendency of the development theory, however, is against constituting separate species where the differences are moderate enough to be accounted for as due to variation from a single type. Darwin’s summing-up of the evidence as to unity of type throughout the races of mankind is as distinctly a monogenist argument as those of Blumenbach, Prichard or Quatrefages—

The issue of figuring out how the small number of races, distinct enough to be called primary, developed their different types has long been one of the most debated areas in anthropology, the battleground for the opposing schools of monogenists and polygenists. One side claims that all humanity descends from a single original source, typically from one pair; the other argues that the different primary races are separate species with independent origins. The main challenge for the monogenist theory is to explain how such diverse races of humans emerged from a single source. In ancient times, this was not seen as difficult; thinkers like Aristotle and Vitruvius attributed racial differences to climate and environment, believing that the Ethiopian had darkened due to the tropical sun, etc. However, more recent and detailed observations have revealed that these influences are, at least, much weaker and slower in effect than previously thought. A. de Quatrefages presents his strongest arguments for the variability of races due to changes in climate and environment (Unité de l’espèce humaine), citing the claimed changes in skin color, physical makeup, and character of Black people in America and Englishmen in America and Australia. Although the existence of such modifications is acknowledged, especially regarding height and physique, the degree of change is not sufficient to challenge the remarkable stability of type that races demonstrate even after being moved to climates vastly different from their original homes. Furthermore, physically different groups, like the Bushmen and Black people in Africa, show no signs of merging under the same climate; meanwhile, the coastal tribes of Tierra del Fuego and forest tribes of tropical Brazil continue to resemble each other despite significant differences in climate and diet. Darwin is cautious in his assessment of the changes in human races due to climate and lifestyle throughout history (Descent of Man, part i. ch. 4 and 7). As the slightness and slowness of variation among human races have become apparent, a major issue for the monogenist theory emerged in the seemingly brief Biblical timeline. Several well-defined races, like the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Ethiopians, were much the same three or four thousand years ago as they are now, making it hard to explain their variation from a single stock over such a period without a miracle. This challenge is avoided by the polygenist theory, which consequently gained popularity. However, modern perspectives have started to revive, albeit in a new context, the idea of a single human stock. The fact that humans have existed for a very long time makes it easier to assume that very slow natural variation could have led to differences even between white people and Black people among the descendants of a common ancestor. On the other hand, it does not necessarily follow from a species evolution theory that humanity must have originated from a single source, since the development hypothesis allows for the argument that several primate species may have led to several races of humans. Nonetheless, the general trend of developmental theory is against classifying separate species when the differences can be accounted for as variations from a single type. Darwin’s summary of the evidence regarding the unity of type across human races is just as clearly a monogenist argument as those made by Blumenbach, Prichard, or Quatrefages—

“Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet, if their whole organization be taken into consideration, they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant, or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man.... Now, when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that all are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and, consequently, that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.”—(Darwin, Descent of Man, part i. ch. 7.)

“Even though the different races of humans vary in many ways, such as skin color, hair type, skull shape, body proportions, etc., if we consider their overall structure, they are found to be very similar in many aspects. Many of these similarities are so minor or unique that it’s highly unlikely they arose independently in originally distinct species or races. This observation applies even more strongly to the many shared mental traits among the most different races of humans.... When naturalists notice that two or more domestic breeds or closely related natural forms share a lot of small details in their habits, preferences, and behaviors, they use this as evidence that all of them have a common ancestor with those traits; therefore, they should all be classified as the same species. The same reasoning can be strongly applied to human races.”—(Darwin, Descent of Man, part i. ch. 7.)

The main difficulty of the monogenist school has ever been to explain how races which have remained comparatively fixed in type during the long period of history, such as the white man and the Negro, should, in even a far longer period, have passed by variation from a common original. To meet this A.R. Wallace suggests that the remotely ancient representatives of the human species, being as yet animals too low in mind to have developed those arts of maintenance and social ordinances by which man holds his own against influences from climate and circumstance, were in their then wild state much more plastic than now to external nature; so that “natural selection” and other causes met with but feeble resistance in forming the permanent varieties or races of man, whose complexion and structure still remained fixed in their descendants (see Wallace, Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, p. 319). On the whole, it may be asserted that the doctrine of the unity of mankind stands on a firmer basis than in previous ages. It would be premature to judge how far the problem of the origin of races may be capable of exact solution; but the experience gained since 1871 countenances Darwin’s prophecy that before long the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists would die a silent and unobserved death.

The main challenge for the monogenist school has always been explaining how races that have remained fairly stable over a long period, like white people and Black people, could have evolved from a common ancestor over an even longer time. To address this, A.R. Wallace suggests that the ancient ancestors of humans, being at that time too primitive to have developed the skills and social structures that help humans adapt to climate and environmental influences, were much more adaptable to nature. This meant that “natural selection” and other factors faced little resistance in shaping the permanent varieties or races of humans, whose skin color and physical traits remained constant in their descendants (see Wallace, Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, p. 319). Overall, it can be said that the idea of the unity of mankind is stronger now than in past eras. It would be too soon to determine how much progress can be made in solving the question of the origin of races; however, the knowledge gained since 1871 supports Darwin's prediction that the conflict between monogenists and polygenists will fade away quietly and unnoticed.

IV. Antiquity of Man.—Until the 10th century man’s first appearance on earth was treated on a historical basis as matter of record. It is true that the schemes drawn up by chronologists differed widely, as was natural, considering the variety and inconsistency of their documentary data. On the whole, the scheme of Archbishop Usher, who computed that the earth and man were created in 4004 B.C., was the most popular (see Chronology). It is no longer necessary, however, to discuss these chronologies. Geology has made it manifest that our earth must have been the seat of vegetable and animal life for an immense period of time; while the first appearance of man, though comparatively recent, is positively so remote, that an estimate between twenty and a hundred thousand years may fairly be taken as a minimum. This geological claim for a vast antiquity of the human race is supported by the similar claims of prehistoric archaeology and the science of culture, the evidence of all three departments of inquiry being intimately connected, and in perfect harmony.

IV. Antiquity of Man.—Until the 10th century, the first appearance of humans on earth was discussed historically as a matter of record. It's true that the timelines created by chronologists varied widely, which was expected given the diversity and inconsistency of their source materials. Overall, the timeline established by Archbishop Usher, who estimated that the earth and humans were created in 4004 BCE, was the most widely accepted (see Chronology). However, it's no longer necessary to debate these chronologies. Geology has clearly shown that our planet must have hosted plant and animal life for an incredibly long time; while the initial appearance of humans is relatively recent, it is still so distant that estimates between twenty and a hundred thousand years are a reasonable minimum. This geological argument for a great age of the human race is backed by similar arguments from prehistoric archaeology and cultural science, with all three areas of study being closely interconnected and perfectly aligned.

Human bones and objects of human manufacture have been found in such geological relation to the remains of fossil species of elephant, rhinoceros, hyena, bear, &c., as to lead to the distinct inference that man already existed at a remote period in localities 115 where these mammalia are now and have long been extinct. The not quite conclusive researches of Tournal and Christol in limestone caverns of the south of France date back to 1828. About the same time P.C. Schmerling of Liége was exploring the ossiferous caverns of the valley of the Meuse, and satisfied himself that the men whose bones he found beneath the stalagmite floors, together with bones cut and flints shaped by human workmanship, had inhabited this Belgian district at the same time with the cave-bear and several other extinct animals whose bones were imbedded with them (Recherches sur les ossements fossiles découverts dans les cavernes de la province de Liége (Liége, 1833-1834)). This evidence, however, met with little acceptance among scientific men. Nor, at first, was more credit given to the discovery by M. Boucher de Perthes, about 1841, of rude flint hatchets in a sand-bed containing remains of mammoth and rhinoceros at Menchecourt near Abbeville, which first find was followed by others in the same district (see Boucher de Perthes, De l’Industrie primitive, ou les arts à leur origine (1846); Antiquités celtiques et antédiluviennes (Paris, 1847), &c.). Between 1850 and 1860 French and English geologists were induced to examine into the facts, and found irresistible the evidence that man existed and used rude implements of chipped flint during the Quaternary or Drift period. Further investigations were then made, and overlooked results of older ones reviewed. In describing Kent’s Cavern (q.v.) near Torquay, R.A.C. Godwin-Austen had maintained, as early as 1840 (Proc. Geo. Soc. London, vol. iii. p. 286), that the human bones and worked flints had been deposited indiscriminately together with the remains of fossil elephant, rhinoceros, &c. Certain caves and rock-shelters in the province of Dordogne, in central France, were examined by a French and an English archaeologist, Edouard Lartet and Henry Christy, the remains discovered showing the former prevalence of the reindeer in this region, at that time inhabited by savages, whose bone and stone implements indicate a habit of life similar to that of the Eskimos. Moreover, the co-existence of man with a fauna now extinct or confined to other districts was brought to yet clearer demonstration by the discovery in these caves of certain drawings and carvings of the animals done by the ancient inhabitants themselves, such as a group of reindeer on a piece of reindeer horn, and a sketch of a mammoth, showing the elephant’s long hair, on a piece of a mammoth’s tusk from La Madeleine (Lartet and Christy, Reliquiae Aquitanicae, ed. by T.R. Jones (London, 1865), &c.).

Human bones and objects made by people have been found in such a way that they clearly suggest that humans existed a long time ago in areas where species like elephants, rhinoceroses, hyenas, and bears are now, and have been for a long time, extinct. The not entirely convincing research conducted by Tournal and Christol in limestone caves in southern France dates back to 1828. Around the same time, P.C. Schmerling from Liège was exploring the bone-filled caves in the Meuse Valley and became convinced that the people whose bones he discovered beneath the stalagmite floors, along with cut bones and flints shaped by human hands, had lived in this Belgian region at the same time as the cave bear and several other extinct animals whose bones were found with them (Recherches sur les ossements fossiles découverts dans les cavernes de la province de Liége (Liège, 1833-1834)). However, this evidence wasn't widely accepted among scientists. Initially, the discovery by M. Boucher de Perthes around 1841 of primitive flint tools in a sand layer containing remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses at Menchecourt near Abbeville also encountered skepticism, although he later found more in the same area (see Boucher de Perthes, De l’Industrie primitive, ou les arts à leur origine (1846); Antiquités celtiques et antédiluviennes (Paris, 1847), etc.). Between 1850 and 1860, French and English geologists were prompted to look into the facts and found the evidence overwhelming that humans existed and used crude flint tools during the Quaternary or Drift period. Further investigations were then conducted, and overlooked results from earlier studies were reassessed. When describing Kent’s Cavern (q.v.) near Torquay, R.A.C. Godwin-Austen argued as early as 1840 (Proc. Geo. Soc. London, vol. iii. p. 286) that human bones and worked flints had been mixed together with the remains of fossil elephants, rhinoceroses, etc. Certain caves and rock shelters in the Dordogne region of central France were examined by French archaeologist Edouard Lartet and English archaeologist Henry Christy. The remains discovered indicated that reindeer once thrived in this area, which was inhabited by early humans, whose bone and stone tools suggest a lifestyle similar to that of the Eskimos. Moreover, the coexistence of humans with fauna that is now extinct or found only in other areas was demonstrated more clearly by the discovery of drawings and carvings of animals created by the ancient inhabitants themselves, such as a group of reindeer on a piece of reindeer horn, and a sketch of a mammoth, showing the elephant's long hair, on a fragment of a mammoth's tusk from La Madeleine (Lartet and Christy, Reliquiae Aquitanicae, ed. by T.R. Jones (London, 1865), etc.).

This and other evidence (which is considered in more detail in the article Archaeology) is now generally accepted by geologists as carrying back the existence of man into the period of the post-glacial drift, in what is now called the Quaternary period, an antiquity at least of tens of thousands of years. Again, certain inferences have been tentatively made from the depth of mud, earth, peat, &c., which has accumulated above relics of human art imbedded in ancient times. Among these is the argument from the numerous borings made in the alluvium of the Nile valley to a depth of 60 ft., where down to the lowest level fragments of burnt brick and pottery were always found, showing that people advanced enough in the arts to bake brick and pottery have inhabited the valley during the long period required for the Nile inundations to deposit 60 ft. of mud, at a rate probably not averaging more than a few inches in a century. Another argument is that of Professor von Morlot, based on a railway section through a conical accumulation of gravel and alluvium, which the torrent of the Tinière has gradually built up where it enters the Lake of Geneva near Villeneuve. Here three layers of vegetable soil appear, proved by the objects imbedded in them to have been the successive surface soils in two prehistoric periods and in the Roman period, but now lying 4, 10 and 19 ft. underground. On this it is computed that if 4 ft. of soil were formed in the 1500 years since the Roman period, we must go 5000 years farther back for the date of the earliest human inhabitants. Calculations of this kind, loose as they are, deserve attention.

This and other evidence (which is discussed in more detail in the article Archaeology) is now generally accepted by geologists as indicating that humans existed during the post-glacial period, known today as the Quaternary period, dating back at least tens of thousands of years. Additionally, there are some preliminary conclusions drawn from the layers of mud, earth, peat, etc., that have accumulated above relics of human artifacts buried long ago. One argument stems from the numerous borings conducted in the Nile valley's alluvium, reaching a depth of 60 ft., where fragments of burnt bricks and pottery were consistently found, suggesting that people skilled enough to create baked brick and pottery lived in the valley during the extensive time it took for the Nile's floods to deposit 60 ft. of mud, likely at a rate of only a few inches per century. Another argument comes from Professor von Morlot, based on a railway cut through a conical buildup of gravel and alluvium formed by the Tinière's torrents where they enter the Lake of Geneva near Villeneuve. Here, three layers of ancient soil are evident, which have been identified by the objects found within them as having been the surface soils during two prehistoric periods and the Roman period, but currently lie 4, 10, and 19 ft. below the surface. From this, it is estimated that if 4 ft. of soil formed in the 1500 years since the Roman era, we must look back another 5000 years to estimate when the earliest human inhabitants lived. While these calculations are somewhat imprecise, they warrant consideration.

The interval between the Quaternary or Drift period and the period of historical antiquity is to some extent bridged over by relics of various intermediate civilizations, e.g. the Lake-dwellings (q.v.) of Switzerland, mostly of the lower grades, and in some cases reaching back to remote dates. And further evidence of man’s antiquity is afforded by the kitchen-middens or shell-heaps (q.v.), especially those in Denmark. Danish peat-mosses again show the existence of man at a time when the Scotch fir was abundant; at a later period the firs were succeeded by oaks, which have again been almost superseded by beeches, a succession of changes which indicate a considerable lapse of time.

The gap between the Quaternary or Drift period and the time of historical antiquity is somewhat filled by remains of various intermediate civilizations, e.g. the Lake-dwellings (q.v.) of Switzerland, mostly from the lower grades, and in some cases dating back to very ancient times. Additional proof of human antiquity is provided by kitchen-middens or shell-heaps (q.v.), especially those found in Denmark. Danish peat bogs also show that humans existed when the Scotch fir was plentiful; later, firs were replaced by oaks, which have since been nearly overtaken by beeches, indicating a significant passage of time.

Lastly, chronicles and documentary records, taken in connexion with archaeological relics of the historical period, carry back into distant ages the starting-point of actual history, behind which lies the evidently vast period only known by inferences from the relations of languages and the stages of development of civilization. The most recent work of Egyptologists proves a systematic civilization to have existed in the valley of the Nile at least 6000 to 7000 years ago (see Chronology).

Lastly, records and documents, along with archaeological findings from the historical period, push back the beginning of real history into distant ages, beyond which lies a clearly vast period known only through inferences from language relationships and the stages of civilization development. The latest research by Egyptologists shows that a structured civilization existed in the Nile Valley at least 6,000 to 7,000 years ago (see Chronology).

It was formerly held that the early state of society was one of comparatively high culture, and thus there was no hesitation in assigning the origin of man to a time but little beyond the range of historical records and monuments. But the researches of anthropologists in recent years have proved that the civilization of man has been gradually developed from an original stone-age culture, such as characterizes modern savage life. To the 6000 years to which ancient civilization dates back must be added a vast period during which the knowledge, arts and institutions of such a civilization as that of ancient Egypt attained the high level evidenced by the earliest records. The evidence of comparative philology supports the necessity for an enormous time allowance. Thus, Hebrew and Arabic are closely related languages, neither of them the original of the other, but both sprung from some parent language more ancient than either. When, therefore, the Hebrew records have carried back to the most ancient admissible date the existence of the Hebrew language, this date must have been long preceded by that of the extinct parent language of the whole Semitic family; while this again was no doubt the descendant of languages slowly shaping themselves through ages into this peculiar type. Yet more striking is the evidence of the Indo-European (formerly called Aryan) family of languages. The Hindus, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slavs make their appearance at more or less remote dates as nations separate in language as in history. Nevertheless, it is now acknowledged that at some far remoter time, before these nations were divided from the parent stock, and distributed over Asia and Europe, a single barbaric people stood as physical and political representative of the nascent Aryan race, speaking a now extinct Aryan language, from which, by a series of modifications not to be estimated as possible within many thousands of years, there arose languages which have been mutually unintelligible since the dawn of history, and between which it was only possible for an age of advanced philology to trace the fundamental relationship.

It used to be believed that the early state of society had a relatively high culture, which led to a common assumption that humans emerged not long before recorded history. However, research by anthropologists in recent years has shown that human civilization gradually evolved from an original stone-age culture, similar to what we see in modern tribal societies. The 6,000 years that ancient civilization can be traced back must also account for a much longer period during which the knowledge, arts, and institutions of civilizations like ancient Egypt reached the high standard evident in our earliest records. Comparative philology suggests that we need to consider an extensive time frame. For instance, Hebrew and Arabic are closely related languages, neither being the original of the other, but both having descended from an even older parent language. Thus, when Hebrew records trace the language back to its earliest possible date, that date still must have come long after the existence of the long-lost parent language of the entire Semitic language family; this language likely evolved through ages into its distinctive form. Even more notable is the evidence from the Indo-European (formerly called Aryan) family of languages. The Hindus, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, and Slavs emerged at different times as separate nations, each distinct in language and history. Nevertheless, it is now accepted that at some much earlier time, before these nations separated from their common ancestry and spread across Asia and Europe, there existed a single barbaric group that represented the early Aryan race, speaking a now-extinct Aryan language. From this language, through a series of changes that would take many thousands of years, languages emerged that have been completely unintelligible since the beginning of recorded history, and it has only been through advanced studies of languages that we can trace their fundamental connections.

From the combination of these considerations, it will be seen that the farthest date to which documentary or other records extend is now generally regarded by anthropologists as but the earliest distinctly visible point of the historic period, beyond which stretches back a vast indefinite series of prehistoric ages.

From these considerations, it's clear that the farthest date for which we have documentary or other records is now typically viewed by anthropologists as just the earliest distinct starting point of the historic period, beyond which lies an immense and unclear series of prehistoric ages.

V. Language.—In examining how the science of language bears on the general problems of anthropology, it is not necessary to discuss at length the critical questions which arise, the principal of which are considered elsewhere (see Language). Philology is especially appealed to by anthropologists as contributing to the following lines of argument. A primary mental similarity of all branches of the human race is evidenced by their common faculty of speech, while at the same time secondary diversities of race-character and history are marked by difference of grammatical structure and of vocabularies. The existence of groups or families of allied languages, each group being evidently descended from a single language, affords one of the principal aids in classifying nations and races. The adoption by one language of words originally belonging to another, proving as it does the fact of intercourse between two races, and even to some extent indicating the results of such intercourse, affords a 116 valuable clue through obscure regions of the history of civilization.

V. Language.—When examining how the science of language relates to the broader issues in anthropology, it’s not necessary to go into detail about the critical questions that arise, the main ones of which are discussed elsewhere (see Language). Anthropologists are particularly interested in philology because it contributes to the following arguments. A basic mental similarity among all branches of humanity is shown by their shared ability to speak, while secondary differences in race characteristics and history are highlighted by variations in grammatical structures and vocabularies. The existence of groups or families of related languages, each evidently deriving from a single language, plays a key role in classifying nations and races. The incorporation of words from one language into another, evidencing interaction between two races and even reflecting the outcomes of such interactions, provides a valuable insight into the unclear areas of civilization's history.

Communication by gesture-signs, between persons unable to converse in vocal language, is an effective system of expression common to all mankind. Thus, the signs used to ask a deaf and dumb child about his meals and lessons, or to communicate with a savage met in the desert about game or enemies, belong to codes of gesture-signals identical in principle, and to a great extent independent both of nationality and education; there is even a natural syntax, or order of succession, in such gesture-signs. To these gestures let there be added the use of the interjectional cries, such as oh! ugh! hey! and imitative sounds to represent the cat’s mew, the click of a trigger, the clap or thud of a blow, &c. The total result of this combination of gesture and significant sound will be a general system of expression, imperfect but serviceable, and naturally intelligible to all mankind without distinction of race. Nor is such a system of communication only theoretically conceivable; it is, and always has been, in practical operation between people ignorant of one another’s language, and as such is largely used in the intercourse of savage tribes. It is true that to some extent these means of utterance are common to the lower animals, the power of expressing emotion by cries and tones extending far down in the scale of animal life, while rudimentary gesture-signs are made by various mammals and birds. Still, the lower animals make no approach to the human system of natural utterance by gesture-signs and emotional-imitative sounds, while the practical identity of this human system among races physically so unlike as the Englishman and the native of the Australian bush indicates extreme closeness of mental similarity throughout the human species.

Communication through gestures between people who can't speak is an effective way to express oneself that all humans share. For example, the signs used to ask a deaf child about their meals and lessons, or to communicate with a person from a different culture about food or threats, are based on gesture codes that are fundamentally the same, regardless of nationality or education. There's even a natural order to these gestures. In addition to gestures, we can also use interjections like oh! ugh! hey! and sounds that mimic specific things, like a cat’s mew, the click of a trigger, or the clap or thud of a hit, etc. When you combine gestures with these meaningful sounds, you create a general system of expression that is imperfect but useful and easily understood by all people, no matter their race. This way of communicating isn't just a theoretical idea; it's been used in practice between people who don't share a language, and it's common in interactions among tribal groups. It's true that some of these forms of expression are found in lower animals too, as they can express emotions through sounds, and certain mammals and birds use basic gestures. However, lower animals don’t come close to the human system of natural expression through gestures and imitative sounds. The fact that this human system is similar among physically different races, like the English and the indigenous people of Australia, shows a significant mental similarity across the entire human species.

When, however, the Englishman and the Australian speak each in his native tongue, only such words as belong to the interjectional and imitative classes will be naturally intelligible, and as it were instinctive to both. Thus the savage, uttering the sound waow! as an explanation of surprise and warning, might be answered by the white man with the not less evidently significant sh! of silence, and the two speakers would be on common ground when the native indicated by the name bwirri his cudgel, flung whirring through the air at a flock of birds, or when the native described as a jakkal-yakkal the bird called by the foreigner a cockatoo. With these, and other very limited classes of natural words, however, resemblance in vocabulary practically ceases. The Australian and English languages each consist mainly of a series of words having no apparent connexion with the ideas they signify, and differing utterly; of course, accidental coincidences and borrowed words must be excluded from such comparisons. It would be easy to enumerate other languages of the world, such as Basque, Turkish, Hebrew, Malay, Mexican, all devoid of traceable resemblance to Australian and English, and to one another. There is, moreover, extreme difference in the grammatical structure both of words and sentences in various languages. The question then arises, how far the employment of different vocabularies, and that to a great extent on different grammatical principles, is compatible with similarity of the speakers’ minds, or how far does diversity of speech indicate diversity of mental nature? The obvious answer is, that the power of using words as signs to express thoughts with which their sound does not directly connect them, in fact as arbitrary symbols, is the highest grade of the special human faculty in language, the presence of which binds together all races of mankind in substantial mental unity. The measure of this unity is, that any child of any race can be brought up to speak the language of any other race.

When the Englishman and the Australian speak in their own languages, only interjections and imitative words are naturally understood by both. For example, a native might express surprise and warning with the sound waow!, and the Englishman might respond with the equally meaningful sh! to indicate silence. They would also connect when the native referred to his cudgel as bwirri, which he throws through the air at a flock of birds, or when he described a jakkal-yakkal, what the foreigner calls a cockatoo. However, beyond these limited natural words, their vocabularies have no real resemblance. Both Australian and English languages consist mainly of words with no clear link to the ideas they represent, which are completely different; accidental similarities and borrowed terms should not be considered in this comparison. Many other languages, like Basque, Turkish, Hebrew, Malay, and Mexican, also show no traceable similarity to Australian and English, or to each other. Additionally, there are significant differences in the grammatical structure of words and sentences across languages. This raises the question of how much using different vocabularies—and often different grammatical rules—compatible with similarities in the speakers' minds, or how far does variation in language reflect differences in mental nature? The clear answer is that the ability to use words as symbols to express thoughts, regardless of their sounds, represents the highest level of the unique human ability in language, which unites all human groups in a significant mental connection. The extent of this unity is such that any child from any race can learn to speak the language of any other race.

Under the present standard of evidence in comparing languages and tracing allied groups to a common origin, the crude speculations as to a single primeval language of mankind, which formerly occupied so much attention, are acknowledged to be worthless. Increased knowledge and accuracy of method have as yet only left the way open to the most widely divergent suppositions. For all that known dialects prove to the contrary, on the one hand, there may have been one primitive language, from which the descendant languages have varied so widely, that neither their words nor their formation now indicate their unity in long past ages, while, on the other hand, the primitive tongues of mankind may have been numerous, and the extreme unlikeness of such languages as Basque, Chinese, Peruvian, Hottentot and Sanskrit may arise from absolute independence of origin.

Under the current standard of evidence for comparing languages and tracing related groups back to a common origin, the rough theories about a single ancient language of humanity, which used to receive so much attention, are now seen as meaningless. Our growing knowledge and improved methods have only opened the door to the most wildly different possibilities. Despite what known dialects suggest, on one hand, there might have been one original language, from which the descendant languages have varied so much that their words or structures no longer show their unity from long ago. On the other hand, the original languages of humanity may have been numerous, and the vast differences among languages like Basque, Chinese, Peruvian, Hottentot, and Sanskrit might come from completely independent origins.

The language spoken by any tribe or nation is not of itself absolute evidence as to its race-affinities. This is clearly shown in extreme cases. Thus the Jews in Europe have almost lost the use of Hebrew, but speak as their vernacular the language of their adopted nation, whatever it may be; even the Jewish-German dialect, though consisting so largely of Hebrew words, is philologically German, as any sentence shows: “Ich hab noch hoiom lo geachelt,” “I have not yet eaten to-day.” The mixture of the Israelites in Europe by marriage with other nations is probably much greater than is acknowledged by them; yet, on the whole, the race has been preserved with extraordinary strictness, as its physical characteristics sufficiently show. Language thus here fails conspicuously as a test of race and even of national history. Not much less conclusive is the case of the predominantly Negro populations of the West India Islands, who, nevertheless, speak as their native tongues dialects of English or French, in which the number of intermingled native African words is very scanty: “Dem hitti netti na ini watra bikasi dem de fisiman,” “They cast a net into the water, because they were fishermen.” (Surinam Negro-Eng.) “Bef pas ca jamain lasse poter cônes li,” “Le boeuf n’est jamais las de porter ses cornes.” (Haitian Negro-Fr.) If it be objected that the linguistic conditions of these two races are more artificial than has been usual in the history of the world, less extreme cases may be seen in countries where the ordinary results of conquest-colonization have taken place. The Mestizos, who form so large a fraction of the population of modern Mexico, numbering several millions, afford a convenient test in this respect, inasmuch as their intermediate complexion separates them from both their ancestral races, the Spaniard, and the chocolate-brown indigenous Aztec or other Mexican. The mother-tongue of this mixed race is Spanish, with an infusion of Mexican words; and a large proportion cannot speak any native dialect. In most or all nations of mankind, crossing or intermarriage of races has thus taken place between the conquering invader and the conquered native, so that the language spoken by the nation may represent the results of conquest as much or more than of ancestry. The supersession of the Celtic Cornish by English, and of the Slavonic Old-Prussian by German, are but examples of a process which has for untold ages been supplanting native dialects, whose very names have mostly disappeared. On the other hand, the language of the warlike invader or peaceful immigrant may yield, in a few generations, to the tongue of the mass of the population, as the Northman’s was replaced by French, and modern German gives way to English in the United States. Judging, then, by the extirpation and adoption of languages within the range of history, it is obvious that to classify mankind into, races, Aryan, Semitic, Turanian, Polynesian, Kaffir, &c., on the mere evidence of language, is intrinsically unsound.

The language spoken by any tribe or nation isn't definitive proof of its racial connections. This is clearly evident in extreme examples. For instance, Jews in Europe have mostly stopped using Hebrew and communicate in the language of the country they’ve adopted, whatever that might be. Even the Jewish-German dialect, although it contains many Hebrew words, is linguistically German, as shown in this sentence: “Ich hab noch hoiom lo geachelt,” meaning “I have not yet eaten today.” The intermarriage of Israelites in Europe with other nations is likely much greater than they acknowledge; yet overall, the race has been remarkably maintained, as their physical traits clearly demonstrate. Here, language fails significantly as a measure of race and even national history. The same can be said for the largely Black populations of the West Indies, who still speak dialects of English or French as their native languages, with very few native African words mixed in: “Dem hitti netti na ini watra bikasi dem de fisiman,” which means “They cast a net into the water, because they were fishermen.” (Surinam Negro-Eng.) “Bef pas ca jamain lasse poter cônes li,” translates to “Le boeuf n’est jamais las de porter ses cornes.” (Haitian Negro-Fr.) If someone argues that the linguistic situations of these two races are more artificial than usual in world history, less extreme cases can be found in countries where typical outcomes of conquest and colonization have occurred. The Mestizos, who make up a significant part of modern Mexico’s population, numbering millions, provide a useful example here, as their mixed appearance sets them apart from both of their ancestral races: the Spaniards and the chocolate-brown indigenous Aztec or other Mexicans. This mixed race primarily speaks Spanish, with some Mexican words, and a large number cannot communicate in any native dialect. In most, if not all, nations, intermarriage between conquering invaders and conquered natives has occurred, meaning the language spoken by a nation often reflects the outcomes of conquest more than ancestry. The replacement of the Celtic Cornish by English and the Slavonic Old-Prussian by German are just examples of a process that has been replacing native dialects for ages, many of which have completely vanished. Conversely, the language of an invading warrior or peaceful immigrant can, within a few generations, be overtaken by that of the larger population, as happened when the Northman’s language was replaced by French, and modern German is yielding to English in the United States. Thus, based on the eradication and adoption of languages throughout history, it’s clear that categorizing humanity into races like Aryan, Semitic, Turanian, Polynesian, Kaffir, etc., based solely on language is fundamentally flawed.

VI. Development of Civilization.—The conditions of man at the lowest and highest known levels of culture are separated by a vast interval; but this interval is so nearly filled by known intermediate stages, that the line of continuity between the lowest savagery and the highest civilization is unbroken at any critical point.

VI. Development of Civilization.—The situation of humans at the lowest and highest known cultural levels is separated by a huge gap; however, this gap is almost entirely filled by recognized intermediate stages, making the line of continuity between the lowest savagery and the highest civilization unbroken at any key point.

An examination of the details of savage life shows not only that there is an immeasurable difference between the rudest man and the highest lower animal, but also that the least cultured savages have themselves advanced far beyond the lowest intellectual and moral state at which human tribes can be conceived as capable of existing, when placed under favourable circumstances of warm climate, abundant food, and security from too severe destructive influences. The Australian black-fellow or the forest Indian of Brazil, who may be taken as examples of the lowest modern savage, had, before contact with whites, attained to rudimentary stages in many of the characteristic 117 functions of civilized life. His language, expressing thoughts by conventional articulate sounds, is the same in essential principle as the most cultivated philosophic dialect, only less exact and copious. His weapons, tools and other appliances such as the hammer, hatchet, spear, knife, awl, thread, net, canoe, &c., are the evident rudimentary analogues of what still remains in use among Europeans. His structures, such as the hut, fence, stockade, earthwork, &c., may be poor and clumsy, but they are of the same nature as our own. In the simple arts of broiling and roasting meat, the use of hides and furs for covering, the plaiting of mats and baskets, the devices of hunting, trapping and fishing, the pleasure taken in personal ornament, the touches of artistic decoration on objects of daily use, the savage differs in degree but not in kind from the civilized man. The domestic and social affections, the kindly care of the young and the old, some acknowledgment of marital and parental obligation, the duty of mutual defence in the tribe, the authority of the elders, and general respect to traditional custom as the regulator of life and duty, are more or less well marked in every savage tribe which is not disorganized and falling to pieces. Lastly, there is usually to be discerned amongst such lower races a belief in unseen powers pervading the universe, this belief shaping itself into an animistic or spiritualistic theology, mostly resulting in some kind of worship. If, again, high savage or low barbaric types be selected, as among the North American Indians, Polynesians, and Kaffirs of South Africa, the same elements of culture appear, but at a more advanced stage, namely, a more full and accurate language, more knowledge of the laws of nature, more serviceable implements, more perfect industrial processes, more definite and fixed social order and frame of government, more systematic and philosophic schemes of religion and a more elaborate and ceremonial worship. At intervals new arts and ideas appear, such as agriculture and pasturage, the manufacture of pottery, the use of metal implements and the device of record and communication by picture writing. Along such stages of improvement and invention the bridge is fairly made between savage and barbaric culture; and this once attained to, the remainder of the series of stages of civilization lies within the range of common knowledge.

An examination of the details of primitive life shows not only that there is a vast difference between the most basic human and the highest lower animal, but also that even the least developed savages have progressed far beyond the lowest intellectual and moral state at which human groups can exist, given favorable conditions like a warm climate, plenty of food, and protection from severe destructive forces. The Australian Aboriginal or the forest Indian of Brazil, who can be considered examples of the lowest modern savage, had already achieved basic levels in many aspects of civilized life before contact with white people. Their language, which expresses thoughts through conventional spoken sounds, is fundamentally similar to the most sophisticated philosophical dialects, although it's less precise and rich. Their weapons, tools, and other resources such as hammers, hatchets, spears, knives, awls, thread, nets, canoes, etc., are clear primitive versions of what is still used by Europeans. Their structures, like huts, fences, stockades, and earthworks, may be simple and awkward, but they share the same purpose as our own. In basic skills like roasting and broiling meat, using hides and furs for clothing, weaving mats and baskets, hunting, trapping, and fishing techniques, as well as the enjoyment of personal adornment and artistic decoration on everyday items, the savage only differs from civilized people in degree, not in kind. The domestic and social bonds, the caring for the young and the old, some recognition of marital and parental responsibilities, the duty of mutual defense within the tribe, the authority of elders, and general respect for traditional customs as a guide for life and responsibilities are present to varying degrees in every savage tribe that is not disorganized and falling apart. Finally, among these lower races, there is usually a belief in unseen forces permeating the universe, which manifests as an animistic or spiritualistic theology, often leading to some form of worship. If we consider higher savages or lower barbarians such as the North American Indians, Polynesians, and South African Kaffirs, the same cultural elements appear, but at a more advanced level, namely a more comprehensive and accurate language, greater knowledge of natural laws, more effective tools, improved industrial techniques, a more defined and stable social order and government, more systematic and philosophical religious beliefs, and more elaborate ceremonial worship. Occasionally, new arts and ideas arise, such as agriculture and herding, pottery making, the use of metal tools, and methods for recording and communicating through picture writing. Along these stages of progress and invention, a solid link exists between savage and barbaric cultures; and once this connection is made, the remaining stages of civilization are within the realm of common knowledge.

The teaching of history, during the three to four thousand years of which contemporary chronicles have been preserved, is that civilization is gradually developed in the course of ages by enlargement and increased precision of knowledge, invention and improvement of arts, and the progression of social and political habits and institutions towards general well-being. That processes of development similar to these were in prehistoric times effective to raise culture from the savage to the barbaric level, two considerations especially tend to prove. First, there are numerous points in the culture even of rude races which are not explicable otherwise than on the theory of development. Thus, though difficult or superfluous arts may easily be lost, it is hard to imagine the abandonment of contrivances of practical daily utility, where little skill is required and materials are easily accessible. Had the Australians or New Zealanders, for instance, ever possessed the potter’s art, they could hardly have forgotten it. The inference that these tribes represent the stage of culture before the invention of pottery is confirmed by the absence of buried fragments of pottery in the districts they inhabit. The same races who were found making thread by the laborious process of twisting with the hand, would hardly have disused, if they had ever possessed, so simple a labour-saving device as the spindle, which consists merely of a small stick weighted at one end; the spindle may, accordingly, be regarded as an instrument invented somewhere between the lowest and highest savage levels (Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, p. 193). Again, many devices of civilization bear unmistakable marks of derivation from a lower source; thus the ancient Egyptian and Assyrian harps, which differ from ours in having no front pillar, appear certainly to owe this remarkable defect to having grown up through intermediate forms from the simple strung bow, the still used type of the most primitive stringed instrument. In this way the history of numeral words furnishes actual proof of that independent intellectual progress among savage tribes which some writers have rashly denied. Such words as hand, hands, foot, man, &c., are used as numerals signifying 5, 10, 15, 20, &c., among many savage and barbaric peoples; thus Polynesian lima, i.e. “hand,” means 5; Zulu tatisitupa, i.e. “taking the thumb,” means 6; Greenlandish arfersanek-pingasut, i.e. “on the other foot three,” means 18; Tamanac tevin itoto, i.e. “one man,” means 20, &c., &c. The existence of such expressions demonstrates that the people who use them had originally no spoken names for these numbers, but once merely counted them by gesture on their fingers and toes in low savage fashion, till they obtained higher numerals by the inventive process of describing in words these counting-gestures. Second, the process of “survival in culture” has caused the preservation in each stage of society of phenomena, belonging to an earlier period, but kept up by force of custom into the later, thus supplying evidence of the modern condition being derived from the ancient. Thus the mitre over an English bishop’s coat-of-arms is a survival which indicates him as the successor of bishops who actually wore mitres, while armorial bearings themselves, and the whole craft of heraldry, are survivals bearing record of a state of warfare and social order whence our present state was by vast modification evolved. Evidence of this class, proving the derivation of modern civilization, not only from ancient barbarism, but beyond this, from primeval savagery, is immensely plentiful, especially in rites and ceremonies, where the survival of ancient habits is peculiarly favoured. Thus the modern Hindu, though using civilized means for lighting his household fires, retains the savage “fire-drill” for obtaining fire by friction of wood when what he considers pure or sacred fire has to be produced for sacrificial purposes; while in Europe into modern times the same primitive process has been kept up in producing the sacred and magical “need-fire,” which was lighted to deliver cattle from a murrain. Again, the funeral offerings of food, clothing, weapons, &c., to the dead are absolutely intelligible and purposeful among savage races, who believe that the souls of the departed are ethereal beings capable of consuming food, and of receiving and using the souls or phantoms of any objects sacrificed for their use. The primitive philosophy to which these conceptions belong has to a great degree been discredited by modern science; yet the clear survivals of such ancient and savage rites may still be seen in Europe, where the Bretons leave the remains of the All Souls’ supper on the table for the ghosts of the dead kinsfolk to partake of, and Russian peasants set out cakes for the ancestral manes on the ledge which supports the holy pictures, and make dough ladders to assist the ghosts of the dead to ascend out of their graves and start on their journey for the future world; while other provision for the same spiritual journey is made when the coin is still put in the hand of the corpse at an Irish wake. In like manner magic still exists in the civilized world as a survival from the savage and barbaric times to which it originally belongs, and in which is found the natural source and proper home of utterly savage practices still carried on by ignorant peasants in Great Britain, such as taking omens from the cries of animals, or bewitching an enemy by sticking full of pins and hanging up to shrivel in the smoke an image or other object, that similar destruction may fall on the hated person represented by the symbol (Tylor, Primitive Culture, ch. i., iii., iv., xi., xii.; Early Hist. of Man, ch. vi.).

The teaching of history, over the three to four thousand years for which we have records, shows that civilization gradually develops over time through the expansion and refinement of knowledge, the invention and improvement of arts, and the evolution of social and political habits and institutions toward overall well-being. There are two main points that suggest similar processes were effective in prehistoric times to advance culture from a savage to a barbaric state. First, even in the cultures of primitive societies, there are many elements that can only be explained through the theory of development. For example, while complex or unnecessary arts can easily be lost, it's hard to imagine people abandoning practical tools that require little skill to use and are made from readily available materials. If the Australians or New Zealanders ever had pottery, they likely wouldn’t have forgotten it. The fact that these tribes show no signs of pottery fragments in their areas supports the idea that they are at a cultural stage before pottery was invented. The same groups who were found making thread by hand wouldn't have stopped using a simple tool like the spindle, which is just a small stick with weight at one end. The spindle should be seen as a tool created somewhere between the most primitive and more advanced savage levels (Tylor, Early Hist. of Mankind, p. 193). Additionally, many aspects of civilization clearly show they originated from simpler forms; for instance, ancient Egyptian and Assyrian harps lack a front pillar, likely because they evolved from the simple stringed bow, which is still seen in the most basic stringed instruments. The history of numeral words provides clear evidence of independent intellectual progress among primitive tribes, which some writers have carelessly dismissed. Words like hand, hands, foot, man, etc., are used as numbers signifying 5, 10, 15, 20, etc., among various primitive and barbaric societies; for instance, in Polynesian, lima means 5, Zulu tatisitupa translates to 6 ("taking the thumb"), Greenlandish arfersanek-pingasut means 18 ("on the other foot three"), and Tamanac tevin itoto denotes 20 ("one man"), etc. The existence of these expressions shows that these people originally had no spoken names for these numbers, but counted them using gestures on their fingers and toes in a primitive manner, later creating words to describe those gestures. Secondly, the process of "survival in culture" has preserved elements from an earlier period in each stage of society, maintained by tradition, which provides evidence that modern conditions come from the ancient past. For example, the mitre on an English bishop's coat-of-arms shows he is a successor to bishops who wore mitres, while heraldry itself reflects a state of warfare and social organization from which our current situation has evolved through significant changes. Such evidence that modern civilization derives from ancient barbarism, and even earlier from primal savagery, is abundantly found, particularly in rituals and ceremonies where ancient customs have been especially well-preserved. For instance, modern Hindus may use civilized methods to light their home fires, but they still use the primitive "fire-drill" to create sacred fire for religious purposes; likewise, in Europe, the same ancient method has been maintained for producing the sacred and magical "need-fire" to save cattle from disease. Moreover, funeral offerings of food, clothing, weapons, etc., for the dead make perfect sense among primitive societies, who believe the souls of the deceased are ethereal beings that can consume food and receive the souls or phantoms of items sacrificed for them. The primitive beliefs behind these views have largely been discredited by modern science; however, clear remnants of such ancient and savage rites can still be seen in Europe, where Bretons leave their All Souls’ supper remnants on the table for the spirits of deceased relatives, and Russian peasants offer cakes to honor ancestral spirits on shelves holding holy pictures, even making dough ladders to help the spirits ascend from their graves on their journey to the afterlife; similarly, coins are placed in the hand of the corpse at Irish wakes to provide for that spiritual journey. Likewise, magic still exists in the civilized world as a remnant from savage and barbaric times, showing the natural source and proper context for completely primitive practices still observed by uninformed peasants in Great Britain, such as interpreting animal cries for omens or cursing an enemy by sticking pins into representations of them to cause similar harm (Tylor, Primitive Culture, ch. i., iii., iv., xi., xii.; Early Hist. of Man, ch. vi.).

The comparative science of civilization thus not only generalizes the data of history, but supplements its information by laying down the lines of development along which the lowest prehistoric culture has gradually risen to the highest modern level. Among the most clearly marked of these lines is that which follows the succession of the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages (see Archaeology). The Stone Age represents the early condition of mankind in general, and has remained in savage districts up to modern times, while the introduction of metals need not at once supersede the use of the old stone hatchets and arrows, which have often long continued in dwindling survival by the side of the new bronze and even iron ones. The Bronze Age had its most important place among ancient nations of Asia and Europe, and 118 among them was only succeeded after many centuries by the Iron Age; while in other districts, such as Polynesia and Central and South Africa, and America (except Mexico and Peru), the native tribes were moved directly from the Stone to the Iron Age without passing through the Bronze Age at all. Although the three divisions of savage, barbaric, and civilized man do not correspond at all perfectly with the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, this classification of civilization has proved of extraordinary value in arranging in their proper order of culture the nations of the Old World.

The comparative science of civilization not only generalizes historical data but also adds to it by outlining the development paths from the earliest prehistoric cultures to today’s advanced societies. One of the most prominent paths follows the sequence of the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages (see Archaeology). The Stone Age reflects the initial state of humanity overall and has persisted in some remote areas into modern times. The introduction of metals didn't immediately replace the use of old stone tools like axes and arrows, which often continued to exist alongside newer bronze and even iron tools for a long time. The Bronze Age was particularly significant among ancient nations in Asia and Europe, lasting many centuries before being succeeded by the Iron Age. In some regions, such as Polynesia, Central and South Africa, and most of America (excluding Mexico and Peru), native tribes transitioned directly from the Stone Age to the Iron Age without going through the Bronze Age. While the distinctions between savage, barbaric, and civilized people don't align perfectly with the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, this classification of civilization has been incredibly useful in organizing the cultures of the Old World in their proper order.

Another great line of progress has been followed by tribes passing from the primitive state of the wild hunter, fisher and fruit-gatherer to that of the settled tiller of the soil, for to this change of habit may be plainly in great part traced the expansion of industrial arts and the creation of higher social and political institutions. These, again, have followed their proper lines along the course of time. Among such is the immense legal development by which the primitive law of personal vengeance passed gradually away, leaving but a few surviving relics in the modern civilized world, and being replaced by the higher doctrine that crime is an offence against society, to be repressed for the public good. Another vast social change has been that from the patriarchal condition, in which the unit is the family under the despotic rule of its head, to the systems in which individuals make up a society whose government is centralized in a chief or king. In the growth of systematic civilization, the art of writing has had an influence so intense, that of all tests to distinguish the barbaric from the civilized state, none is so generally effective as this, whether they have but the failing link with the past which mere memory furnishes, or can have recourse to written records of past history and written constitutions of present order. Lastly, still following the main lines of human culture, the primitive germs of religious institutions have to be traced in the childish faith and rude rites of savage life, and thence followed in their expansion into the vast systems administered by patriarchs and priests, henceforth taking under their charge the precepts of morality, and enforcing them under divine sanction, while also exercising in political life an authority beside or above the civil law.

Another significant line of progress has been followed by tribes moving from the primitive lifestyle of wild hunters, fishers, and fruit gatherers to that of settled farmers. This shift in habits can be clearly linked to the growth of industrial skills and the establishment of more advanced social and political systems. These developments have followed their own paths throughout history. One example is the extensive legal evolution that saw the primitive law of personal revenge gradually fade away, leaving only a few remnants in the modern civilized world, replaced by the more advanced principle that crime is an offense against society, which should be addressed for the common good. Another major social change has been the transition from a patriarchal system, where the family unit is ruled despotically by its head, to systems where individuals form a society governed by a chief or king. In the advancement of systematic civilization, the art of writing has had such a significant impact that it serves as one of the most effective measures to differentiate the barbaric from the civilized state—whether societies rely solely on the frail link of memory from the past or can reference written records of history and legal documents defining current order. Lastly, in line with the main currents of human culture, we can trace the roots of religious institutions back to the naïve beliefs and crude rituals of primitive life, which later evolved into extensive systems managed by patriarchs and priests, who took on the responsibility of moral teachings and enforced them with divine authority, while also holding political power beside or above civil law.

The state of culture reached by Quaternary man is evidenced by the stone implements in the drift-gravels, and other relics of human art in the cave deposits. His drawings on bone or tusk found in the caves show no mean artistic power, as appears by the three specimens copied in the Plate. That representing two deer (fig. 6) was found so early as 1852 in the breccia of a limestone cave on the Charente, and its importance recognized in a remarkable letter by Prosper Merimée, as at once historically ancient and geologically modern (Congrès d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques, Copenhagen (1869), p. 128). The other two are the famous mammoth from the cave of La Madeleine, on which the woolly mane and huge tusks of Elephas primigenius are boldly drawn (fig. 7); and the group of man and horses (fig. 8). There has been found one other contemporary portrait of man, where a hunter is shown stalking an aurochs.

The culture achieved by prehistoric humans is evidenced by the stone tools found in sediment and other artifacts in cave deposits. Their drawings on bone or tusk discovered in the caves demonstrate significant artistic skill, as shown by the three examples illustrated in the Plate. The one depicting two deer (fig. 6) was discovered as early as 1852 in the breccia of a limestone cave in Charente, and its significance was noted in a remarkable letter by Prosper Merimée, recognized as both historically ancient and geologically modern (Congrès d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques, Copenhagen (1869), p. 128). The other two include the famous mammoth from the cave of La Madeleine, which features the woolly mane and large tusks of Elephas primigenius (fig. 7); and the depiction of a man with horses (fig. 8). There has also been one other contemporary portrayal of a man, showing a hunter pursuing an aurochs.

That the men of the Quaternary period knew the savage art of producing fire by friction, and roasted the flesh on which they mainly subsisted, is proved by the fragments of charcoal found in the cave deposits, where also occur bone awls and needles, which indicate the wearing of skin clothing, like that of the modern Australians and Fuegians. Their bone lance-heads and dart-points were comparable to those of northern and southern savages. Particular attention has to be given to the stone implements used by these earliest known of mankind. The division of tribes in the stone implement stage into two classes, the Palaeolithic or Old Stone Age, and the Neolithic or New Stone Age, according to their proficiency in this most important art furnishes in some respects the best means of determining their rank in general culture.

That the people of the Quaternary period could create fire through friction and cooked the meat that was their main source of food is shown by the pieces of charcoal found in cave deposits. These deposits also contain bone awls and needles, suggesting they wore animal skin clothing, similar to modern Australians and Fuegians. Their bone spearheads and dart points were comparable to those of other hunter-gatherers in the north and south. It's important to pay close attention to the stone tools used by these earliest humans. The classification of tribes during the stone tool period into two categories—the Palaeolithic or Old Stone Age, and the Neolithic or New Stone Age—based on their skill in this vital craft provides one of the best ways to assess their overall cultural development.

In order to put this argument clearly before the reader, a few selected implements are figured in the Plate. The group in fig. 9 contains tools and weapons of the Neolithic period such as are dug up on European soil; they are evident relics of ancient populations who used them till replaced by metal. The stone hatchets are symmetrically shaped and edged by grinding, while the cutting flakes, scrapers, spear and arrow heads are of high finish. Direct knowledge of the tribes who made them is scanty, but implements so similar in make and design having been in use in North and South America until modern times, it may be assumed for purposes of classification that the Neolithic peoples of the New World were at a similar barbarous level in industrial arts, social organization, moral and religious ideas. Such comparison, though needing caution and reserve, at once proved of great value to anthropology. When, however, there came to light from the drift-gravels and limestone caves of Europe the Palaeolithic implements, of which some types are shown in the group (fig. 10), the difficult problem presented itself, what degree of general culture these rude implements belonged to. On mere inspection, their rudeness, their unsuitability for being hafted, and the absence of shaping and edging by the grindstone, mark their inferiority to the Neolithic implements. Their immensely greater antiquity was proved by their geological position and their association with a long extinct fauna, and they were not, like the Neoliths, recognizable as corresponding closely to the implements used by modern tribes. There was at first a tendency to consider the Palaeoliths as the work of men ruder than savages, if, indeed, their makers were to be accounted human at all. Since then, however, the problem has passed into a more manageable state. Stone implements, more or less approaching the European Palaeolithic type, were found in Africa from Egypt southwards, where in such parts as Somaliland and Cape Colony they lie about on the ground, as though they had been the rough tools and weapons of the rude inhabitants of the land at no very distant period. The group in fig. 11 in the Plate shows the usual Somaliland types. These facts tended to remove the mystery from Palaeolithic man, though too little is known of the ruder ancient tribes of Africa to furnish a definition of the state of culture which might have co-existed with the use of Palaeolithic implements. Information to this purpose, however, can now be furnished from a more outlying region. This is Tasmania, where as in the adjacent continent of Australia, the survival of marsupial animals indicates long isolation from the rest of the world. Here, till far on into the 19th century, the Englishmen could watch the natives striking off flakes of stone, trimming them to convenient shape for grasping them in the hand, and edging them by taking off successive chips on one face only. The group in fig. 12 shows ordinary Tasmanian forms, two of them being finer tools for scraping and grooving. (For further details reference may be made to H. Ling Roth, The Tasmanians, (2nd ed., 1899); R. Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria (1878), vol. ii.; Papers and Proceedings of Royal Society of Tasmania; and papers by the present writer in Journal of the Anthropological Institute.) The Tasmanians, when they came in contact with the European explorers and settlers, were not the broken outcasts they afterwards became. They were a savage people, perhaps the lowest in culture of any known, but leading a normal, self-supporting, and not unhappy life, which had probably changed little during untold ages. The accounts, imperfect as they are, which have been preserved of their arts, beliefs and habits, thus present a picture of the arts, beliefs and habits of tribes whose place in the Stone Age was a grade lower than that of Palaeolithic man of the Quaternary period.

To clearly present this argument to the reader, a few selected tools are illustrated in the Plate. The group in fig. 9 includes tools and weapons from the Neolithic period that have been found in Europe; they are clear remnants of ancient societies that used them until they were replaced by metal. The stone axes are symmetrically shaped and sharpened through grinding, while the cutting flakes, scrapers, spear points, and arrowheads are of high quality. There is limited knowledge about the tribes that made these tools, but since similar tools have been used in North and South America up until modern times, we can assume, for classification purposes, that the Neolithic people of the New World were at a similar level of development in their industrial practices, social structures, and moral and religious beliefs. Although this comparison must be approached with caution, it has proven valuable to anthropology. However, when Palaeolithic tools were discovered in the drift gravels and limestone caves of Europe, as illustrated in group (fig. 10), it raised a challenging question about the level of culture these primitive tools represented. At first glance, their roughness, lack of suitability for hafting, and no evidence of grinding suggest they were less sophisticated than the Neolithic tools. Their much greater age has been shown by their geological context and association with long-extinct animal species, and unlike Neolithic tools, they don't resemble those used by modern tribes. Initially, there was a tendency to view the Palaeolithic tools as products of people who were less advanced than savages, if their makers were considered human at all. However, since then, this issue has become more manageable. Stone tools similar to the European Palaeolithic type have been found in Africa, particularly in areas from Egypt southwards, where in places like Somaliland and Cape Colony, they are scattered on the ground, as if they were the crude tools and weapons of the local people not too long ago. The group in fig. 11 illustrates the common types from Somaliland. These findings have helped clarify the enigma of Palaeolithic humans, although we still know very little about the primitive ancient tribes of Africa to define their cultural state alongside the use of Palaeolithic tools. However, we can now draw information from a more remote region: Tasmania, where, like in nearby Australia, the presence of marsupial animals indicates prolonged isolation from the rest of the world. Up until well into the 19th century, Englishmen could observe the natives chipping away at stones, shaping them for easier handling, and sharpening them by removing successive chips from one side only. The group in fig. 12 depicts typical Tasmanian tools, two of which are finer tools for scraping and grooving. (For more details, see H. Ling Roth, The Tasmanians, (2nd ed., 1899); R. Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria (1878), vol. ii.; Papers and Proceedings of Royal Society of Tasmania; and articles by the current author in Journal of the Anthropological Institute.) When the Tasmanians encountered European explorers and settlers, they were not the broken outcasts they later became. They were a primitive people, perhaps the least advanced in culture of any known, but they led a typical, self-sufficient, and not unhappy life, which had likely changed little over countless ages. The accounts that have survived, though incomplete, about their arts, beliefs, and customs offer a glimpse into the lives of tribes whose position in the Stone Age was a rung lower than that of the Palaeolithic humans of the Quaternary period.

Plate

Plate

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8.
Fig. 9. Fig. 10.
Fig. 11. Fig. 12.

The Tasmanian stone implements, figured in the Plate, show their own use when it is noticed that the rude chipping forms a good hand-grip above, and an effective edge for chopping, sawing, and cutting below. But the absence of the long-shaped implements, so characteristic of the Neolithic and Palaeolithic series, and serviceable as picks, hatchets, and chisels, shows remarkable limitation in the mind of these savages, who made a broad, hand-grasped knife their tool of all work to cut, saw, and chop with. Their weapons were the wooden club or waddy notched to the grasp, and spears of sticks, often crooked but well balanced, with points sharpened by tool or fire, and sometimes jagged. No spear thrower or bow and arrow was known. The 119 Tasmanian savages were crafty warriors and kangaroo-hunters, and the women climbed the highest trees by notching, in quest of opossums. Shell-fish and crabs were taken, and seals knocked on the head with clubs, but neither fish-hook nor fishing-net was known, and indeed swimming fish were taboo as food. Meat and vegetable food, such as fern-root, was broiled over the fire, but boiling in a vessel was unknown. The fire was produced by the ordinary savage fire-drill. Ignorant of agriculture, with no dwellings but rough huts or breakwinds of sticks and bark, without dogs or other domestic animals, these savages, until the coming of civilized man, roamed after food within their tribal bounds. Logs and clumsy floats of bark and grass enabled them to cross water under favourable circumstances. They had clothing of skins rudely stitched together with bark thread, and they were decorated with simple necklaces of kangaroo teeth, shells and berries. Among their simple arts, plaiting and basket-work was one in which they approached the civilized level. The pictorial art of the Tasmanians was poor and childish, quite below that of the Palaeolithic men of Europe. The Tasmanians spoke a fairly copious agglutinating language, well marked as to parts of speech, syntax and inflexion. Numeration was at a low level, based on counting fingers on one hand only, so that the word for man (puggana) stood also for the number 5. The religion of the Tasmanians, when cleared from ideas apparently learnt from the whites, was a simple form of animism based on the shadow (warrawa) being the soul or spirit. The strongest belief of the natives was in the power of the ghosts of the dead, so that they carried the bones of relatives to secure themselves from harm, and they fancied the forest swarming with malignant demons. They placed weapons near the grave for the dead friend’s soul to use, and drove out disease from the sick by exorcising the ghost which was supposed to have caused it. Of greater special spirits of Nature we find something vaguely mentioned. The earliest recorders of the native social life set down such features as their previous experience of rude civilized life had made them judges of. They notice the self-denying affection of the mothers, and the hard treatment of the wives by the husbands, polygamy and the shifting marriage unions. But when we meet with a casual remark as to the tendency of the Tasmanians to take wives from other tribes than their own, it seems likely that they had some custom of exogamy which the foreigners did not understand. Meagre as is the information preserved of the arts, thoughts, and customs of these survivors from the lower Stone Age, it is of value as furnishing even a temporary and tentative means of working out the development of culture on a basis not of conjecture but of fact.

The Tasmanian stone tools shown in the Plate demonstrate their use, as it's clear that the rough chipping creates a good grip at the top and an effective edge for chopping, sawing, and cutting at the bottom. However, the lack of elongated tools typical of the Neolithic and Paleolithic eras—used as picks, hatchets, and chisels—indicates a significant limitation in the mindset of these people, who relied on a broad, hand-held knife for all their cutting, sawing, and chopping tasks. Their weapons included wooden clubs or waddies, notched for grip, and spears made of wood, often crooked yet well-balanced, with points sharpened by tools or fire and sometimes jagged. They didn’t use spear throwers or bows and arrows. The 119 Tasmanian people were skilled warriors and hunters of kangaroos, while women climbed tall trees, using notches to hunt for opossums. They gathered shellfish and crabs, and they would knock seals on the head with clubs, but they didn't have fishhooks or nets, as catching fish was considered taboo. Meat and plant foods, like fern root, were roasted over the fire, but boiling food was not practiced. Fire was made using a traditional fire-drill. Without knowledge of agriculture, they lived in makeshift huts or windbreaks made of sticks and bark, with no dogs or domestic animals, roaming within their tribal territory until the arrival of civilized people. They used logs and crude rafts made from bark and grass to cross water when conditions allowed. Their clothing consisted of skins crudely stitched together with bark thread, and they adorned themselves with simple necklaces made of kangaroo teeth, shells, and berries. Among their basic crafts, plaiting and basket-making were areas where they nearly reached a more civilized level. The artistic abilities of Tasmanians were limited and naïve, far below those of Paleolithic Europeans. The Tasmanians spoke a fairly rich agglutinating language, clearly distinguished by parts of speech, syntax, and inflection. Their counting system was basic, relying on counting fingers of one hand only, so the word for man (puggana) also meant the number 5. Their religion, stripped of ideas seemingly learned from white people, was a simple form of animism, based on the belief that the shadow (warrawa) was the soul or spirit. The strongest belief among the natives was in the power of the ghosts of the dead, leading them to carry the bones of relatives to protect themselves from harm, while they imagined the forests filled with malevolent spirits. They placed weapons near graves for the deceased friend's soul to use and sought to drive away illness by exorcising the ghost thought to cause it. There are vague mentions of greater special spirits of Nature. The earliest observers of the native social structure noted features shaped by their previous experiences of primitive civilized life. They observed the selfless love of mothers, the harsh treatment of wives by their husbands, practices of polygamy, and changing marriage unions. However, when a casual remark references the Tasmanians' tendency to marry outside their own tribes, it suggests they may have had some form of exogamy that outsiders did not understand. Although little information remains about the arts, thoughts, and customs of these survivors from the lower Stone Age, it is valuable for providing a temporary and tentative way to understand cultural development based on fact rather than speculation.

Conclusion.—To-day anthropology is grappling with the heavy task of systematizing the vast stores of knowledge to which the key was found by Boucher de Perthes, by Lartet, Christy and their successors. There have been recently no discoveries to rival in novelty those which followed the exploration of the bone-caves and drift-gravels, and which effected an instant revolution in all accepted theories of man’s antiquity, substituting for a chronology of centuries a vague computation of hundreds of thousands of years. The existence of man in remote geological time cannot now be questioned, but, despite much effort made in likely localities, no bones, with the exception of those of the much-discussed Pithecanthropus, have been found which can be regarded as definitely bridging the gulf between man and the lower creation. It seems as if anthropology had in this direction reached the limits of its discoveries. Far different are the prospects in other directions where the work of co-ordinating the material and facts collected promises to throw much light on the history of civilization. Anthropological researches undertaken all over the globe have shown the necessity of abandoning the old theory that a similarity of customs and superstitions, of arts and crafts, justifies the assumption of a remote relationship, if not an identity of origin, between races. It is now certain that there has ever been an inherent tendency in man, allowing for difference of climate and material surroundings, to develop culture by the same stages and in the same way. American man, for example, need not necessarily owe the minutest portion of his mental, religious, social or industrial development to remote contact with Asia or Europe, though he were proved to possess identical usages. An example in point is that of pyramid-building. No ethnical relationship can ever have existed between the Aztecs and the Egyptians; yet each race developed the idea of the pyramid tomb through that psychological similarity which is as much a characteristic of the species man as is his physique.

Conclusion.—Today, anthropology is facing the significant challenge of organizing the vast amount of knowledge unlocked by Boucher de Perthes, Lartet, Christy, and their successors. Recently, there haven’t been any discoveries as groundbreaking as those that followed the exploration of the bone caves and drift gravels, which triggered an immediate revolution in our understanding of human antiquity, shifting our view from a timeline of centuries to a vague estimation of hundreds of thousands of years. The existence of humans in remote geological times can no longer be doubted; however, despite considerable efforts in promising locations, no bones—except for those of the much-debated Pithecanthropus—have been found to definitively connect humans to lower forms of life. It seems anthropology has hit a wall in this area of discovery. The outlook is much brighter in other areas, where the task of organizing collected materials and facts is poised to shed significant light on the history of civilization. Anthropological research conducted worldwide has demonstrated the need to discard the old theory that similarities in customs, superstitions, arts, and crafts imply a distant relationship, if not an identical origin, among races. It is now clear that there has always been an inherent tendency in humans, accounting for differences in climate and environment, to develop culture through the same stages and in similar ways. For instance, an American individual doesn’t necessarily have to owe even a tiny part of their mental, religious, social, or industrial development to distant connections with Asia or Europe, even if they share identical practices. A clear example is pyramid-building. There cannot have been any ethnic relationship between the Aztecs and the Egyptians; yet, each civilization independently developed the concept of the pyramid tomb due to a psychological similarity that is just as much a defining trait of the human species as its physical form.

Bibliography.—J.C. Prichard, Natural History of Man (London, 1843); T.H. Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature (London, 1863); and “Geographical Distribution of Chief Modifications of Mankind,” in Journal Ethnological Society for 1870; E.B. Tylor, Early History of Man (London, 1865), Primitive Culture (London, 1871), and Anthropology (London, 1881); A. de Quatrefages, Histoire générale des races humaines (Paris, 1889), Human Species (Eng. trans., 1879); Lord Avebury, Prehistoric Times (1865, 6th ed. 1900) and Origin of Civilization (1870, 6th ed. 1902), Theo. Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvolker (1859-1871), E.H. Haeckel, Anthropogenie (Leipzig, 1874-1891), Eng. trans., 1879; O. Peschel, Volkerkunde (Leipzig, 1874-1897); P. Topinard, L’Anthropologie (Paris, 1876); Éleménts d’anthropologie générale (Paris, 1885); D.G. Brinton, Races and Peoples (1890); A.H. Keane, Ethnology (1896), and Man: Past and Present (1899); G. Sergi, The Mediterranean Race (Eng. ed., 1889); F. Ratzel, History of Mankind (Eng. trans., 1897); G. de Mortillet, Le Préhistorique (Paris, 1882); A.C. Haddon, Study of Man (1897); J. Deniker, The Races of Man (London, 1900); W.Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe (1900, with long bibliography); The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain; Revue d’anthropologie (Paris); Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (Berlin). See also bibliographies under separate ethnological headings (Australia, Africa, Arabs, America, &c.).

References.—J.C. Prichard, Natural History of Man (London, 1843); T.H. Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature (London, 1863); and “Geographical Distribution of Chief Modifications of Mankind,” in Journal Ethnological Society for 1870; E.B. Tylor, Early History of Man (London, 1865), Primitive Culture (London, 1871), and Anthropology (London, 1881); A. de Quatrefages, Histoire générale des races humaines (Paris, 1889), Human Species (Eng. trans., 1879); Lord Avebury, Prehistoric Times (1865, 6th ed. 1900) and Origin of Civilization (1870, 6th ed. 1902); Theo. Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvolker (1859-1871); E.H. Haeckel, Anthropogenie (Leipzig, 1874-1891), Eng. trans., 1879; O. Peschel, Volkerkunde (Leipzig, 1874-1897); P. Topinard, L’Anthropologie (Paris, 1876); Éleménts d’anthropologie générale (Paris, 1885); D.G. Brinton, Races and Peoples (1890); A.H. Keane, Ethnology (1896), and Man: Past and Present (1899); G. Sergi, The Mediterranean Race (Eng. ed., 1889); F. Ratzel, History of Mankind (Eng. trans., 1897); G. de Mortillet, Le Préhistorique (Paris, 1882); A.C. Haddon, Study of Man (1897); J. Deniker, The Races of Man (London, 1900); W.Z. Ripley, The Races of Europe (1900, with long bibliography); The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain; Revue d’anthropologie (Paris); Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (Berlin). See also bibliographies under separate ethnological headings (Australia, Africa, Arabs, America, &c.).

(E. B. T.)

ANTHROPOMETRY (Gr. ἄνθρωπος, man, and μέτρον, measure), the name given by the French savant, Alphonse Bertillon (b. 1853), to a system of identification (q.v.) depending on the unchanging character of certain measurements of parts of the human frame. He found by patient inquiry that several physical features and the dimensions of certain bones or bony structures in the body remain practically constant during adult life. He concluded from this that when these measurements were made and recorded systematically every single individual would be found to be perfectly distinguishable from others. The system was soon adapted to police methods, as the immense value of being able to fix a person’s identity was fully realized, both in preventing false personation and in bringing home to any one charged with an offence his responsibility for previous wrongdoing. “Bertillonage,” as it was called, became widely popular, and after its introduction into France in 1883, where it was soon credited with highly gratifying results, was applied to the administration of justice in most civilized countries. England followed tardily, and it was not until 1894 that an investigation of the methods used and results obtained was made by a special committee sent to Paris for the purpose. It reported favourably, especially on the use of the measurements for primary classification, but recommended also the adoption in part of a system of “finger prints” as suggested by Francis Galton, and already practised in Bengal.

ANTHROPOMETRY (Gr. human, man, and measure, measure), is the term coined by the French scholar, Alphonse Bertillon (b. 1853), for a system of identification (q.v.) that relies on the unchanging characteristics of certain measurements of body parts. Through careful investigation, he discovered that several physical features and the dimensions of specific bones or skeletal structures remain largely consistent throughout adult life. He concluded that by systematically measuring and recording these figures, each individual could be distinctly identified from others. The system was quickly adapted for police work, as the significant benefit of establishing a person's identity was recognized for preventing impersonation and holding individuals accountable for past offenses. Known as “Bertillonage,” this method gained widespread acceptance, and after its introduction in France in 1883—with notable success—it was implemented in the justice systems of most developed nations. England was slower to adopt it, and it wasn’t until 1894 that a special committee traveled to Paris to investigate the methods and results. The committee gave a positive report, particularly praising the use of measurements for initial classification, but also recommended partially incorporating a “fingerprint” system as suggested by Francis Galton, which was already in use in Bengal.

M. Bertillon selected the following five measurements as the basis of his system: (1) head length; (2) head breadth; (3) length of middle finger; (4) of left foot, and (5) of cubit or forearm from the elbow to the extremity of the middle finger. Each principal heading was further subdivided into three classes of “small,” “medium” and “large,” and as an increased guarantee height, length of little finger, and the colour of the eye were also recorded. From this great mass of details, soon represented in Paris by the collection of some 100,000 cards, it was possible, proceeding by exhaustion, to sift and sort down the cards till a small bundle of half a dozen produced the combined facts of the measurements of the individual last sought. The whole of the information is easily contained in one cabinet of very ordinary dimensions, and most ingeniously contrived so as to make the most of the space and facilitate the search. The whole of the record is independent of names, and the final identification is by means of the photograph which lies with the individual’s card of measurements.

M. Bertillon chose these five measurements as the foundation of his system: (1) head length; (2) head width; (3) length of the middle finger; (4) length of the left foot; and (5) length of the cubit or forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Each main category was divided into three sizes: “small,” “medium,” and “large,” and to enhance accuracy, height, length of the little finger, and eye color were also recorded. From this vast collection of information, eventually represented in Paris by around 100,000 cards, it was possible to sift through the cards and narrow them down until a small stack of six or so cards revealed the combined measurements of the specific individual being searched for. All the information can easily fit in one standard-sized cabinet, which is cleverly designed to maximize space and make searching more efficient. The entire system operates independently of names, and the final identification is made using the photograph that accompanies the person’s measurement card.

Anthropometry, however, gradually fell into disfavour, and it has been generally supplanted by the superior system of finger 120 prints (q.v.). Bertillonage exhibited certain defects which were first brought to light in Bengal. The objections raised were (1) the costliness of the instruments employed and their liability to get out of order; (2) the need for specially instructed measurers, men of superior education; (3) the errors that frequently crept in when carrying out the processes and were all but irremediable. Measures inaccurately taken, or wrongly read off, could seldom, if ever, be corrected, and these persistent errors defeated all chance of successful search. The process was slow, as it was necessary to repeat it three times so as to arrive at a mean result. In Bengal measurements were already abandoned by 1897, when the finger print system was adopted throughout British India. Three years later England followed suit; and as the result of a fresh inquiry ordered by the Home Office, finger prints were alone relied upon for identification.

Anthropometry, however, gradually fell out of favor and has mostly been replaced by the more effective system of fingerprints (q.v.). Bertillonage had some flaws that were first pointed out in Bengal. The criticisms included (1) the high cost of the tools used and their tendency to malfunction; (2) the requirement for specially trained measurers, who needed to be highly educated; and (3) the frequent errors that occurred during the process, which were nearly impossible to fix. Measurements that were taken incorrectly or misread could rarely, if ever, be corrected, and these ongoing mistakes ruined any chance of a successful search. The process was slow, requiring three repetitions to get an average result. In Bengal, measurements were already discarded by 1897 when the fingerprint system was adopted across British India. Three years later, England followed suit, and as a result of a new investigation ordered by the Home Office, fingerprints became the sole method used for identification.

Authorities.—Lombroso, Antropometria di 400 delinquenti (1872); Roberts, Manual of Anthropometry (1878); Ferri, Studi comparati di antropometria (2 vols., 1881-1882); Lombroso, Rughe anomale speciali ai criminali (1890); Bertillon, Instructions signalétiques pour l’identification anthropométrique (1893); Livi, Anthropometria (Milan, 1900); Fürst, Indextabellen zum anthropometrischen Gebrauch (Jena, 1902); Report of Home Office Committee on the Best Means of Identifying Habitual Criminals (1893-1894).

Authorities.—Lombroso, Anthropometry of 400 Criminals (1872); Roberts, Guide to Anthropometry (1878); Ferri, Comparative Studies in Anthropometry (2 vols., 1881-1882); Lombroso, Special Anomalous Wrinkles in Criminals (1890); Bertillon, Identification Guidelines for Anthropometric Identification (1893); Livi, Anthropometry (Milan, 1900); Fürst, Index Tables for Anthropometric Use (Jena, 1902); Report of Home Office Committee on the Best Methods for Identifying Habitual Criminals (1893-1894).

(A. G.)

ANTHROPOMORPHISM (Gr. ἄνθρωπος, man, μορφή, form), the attribution (a) of a human body, or (b) of human qualities generally, to God or the gods. The word anthropomorphism is a modern coinage (possibly from 18th century French). The New English Dictionary is misled by the 1866 reprint of Paul Bayne on Ephesians when it quotes “anthropomorphist” as 17th century English. Seventeenth century editions print “anthropomorphits,” i.e. anthropomorphites, in sense (a). The older abstract term is “anthropopathy,” literally “attributing human feelings,” in sense (b).

ANTHROPOMORPHISM (Gr. human, man, form, form), the assignment (a) of a human body or (b) of human traits in general to God or the gods. The term anthropomorphism is a modern creation (possibly from 18th century French). The New English Dictionary is misled by the 1866 reprint of Paul Bayne on Ephesians when it cites “anthropomorphist” as 17th century English. Seventeenth century editions print “anthropomorphits,” i.e. anthropomorphites, in the sense of (a). The earlier abstract term is “anthropopathy,” literally “attributing human feelings,” in the sense of (b).

Early religion, among its many objects of worship, includes beasts (see Animal-Worship), considered, in the more refined theology of the later Greeks and Romans, as metamorphoses of the great gods. Similarly we find “therianthropic” forms—half animal, half human—in Egypt or Assyria-Babylonia. In contrast with these, it is considered one of the glories of the Olympian mythology of Greece that it believed in happy manlike beings (though exempt from death, and using special rarefied foods, &c.), and celebrated them in statues of the most exquisite art. Israel shows us animal images, doubtless of a ruder sort, when Yahweh is worshipped in the northern kingdom under the image of a steer. (Some scholars think the title “mighty one of Jacob,” Psalm cxxxii., 2, 5, et al., ריבא as if from רבא is really “steer” ריבא “of Jacob.”) But the higher religion of Israel inclined to morality more than to art, and forbade image worship altogether. This prepared the way for the conception of God as an immaterial Spirit. True mythical anthropomorphisms occur in early parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis iii. 8, cf. vi. 2), though in the majority of Old Testament passages such expressions are merely verbal (e.g. Isaiah lix. 1). In the Christian Church (and again in early Mahommedanism) simple minds believed in the corporeal nature of God. Gibbon and other writers quote from John Cassian the tale of the poor monk, who, being convinced of his error, burst into tears, exclaiming, “You have taken away my God! I have none now whom I can worship!” According to a fragment of Origen (on Genesis i. 26), Melito of Sardis shared this belief. Many have thought Melito’s work, περἰ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ, must have been a treatise on the Incarnation; but it is hard to think that Origen could blunder so. Epiphanius tells of Audaeus of Mesopotamia and his followers, Puritan sectaries in the 4th century, who were orthodox except for this belief and for Quartodecimanism (see Easter). Tertullian, who is sometimes called an anthropomorphist, stood for the Stoical doctrine, that all reality, even the divine, is in a sense material.

Early religion, among its many objects of worship, includes animals (see Animal-Worship), which were seen, in the more sophisticated theology of later Greeks and Romans, as transformations of the major gods. Likewise, we find “therianthropic” figures—half animal, half human—in Egypt or Assyria-Babylonia. In contrast, it's considered one of the achievements of Greek Olympian mythology that it believed in joyful, human-like beings (though free from death and consuming special, rarefied foods, etc.), and honored them in incredibly beautiful statues. Israel presents us with more primitive animal images, such as when Yahweh is worshipped in the northern kingdom under the figure of a bull. (Some scholars propose that the title “mighty one of Jacob” in Psalm 132:2, 5, et al, ריבא as if from רבא actually means “bull” ריבא “of Jacob.”) However, Israel's higher religion leaned more towards morality than art, completely forbidding idol worship. This set the stage for the idea of God as a non-material Spirit. True mythical anthropomorphisms appear in the early parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Genesis 3:8, cf. 6:2), although in most Old Testament references, such expressions are merely figurative (e.g. Isaiah 59:1). In the Christian Church (and also in early Islam), simple people believed in the physical nature of God. Gibbon and other writers recount a story from John Cassian about a poor monk who, realizing his mistake, cried out, "You've taken away my God! I have no one left to worship!" According to a fragment of Origen (on Genesis 1:26), Melito of Sardis shared this belief. Many have speculated that Melito’s work, about embodied god, must have been a treatise on the Incarnation; however, it’s hard to believe that Origen could have been so mistaken. Epiphanius mentions Audaeus of Mesopotamia and his followers, who were Puritan dissidents in the 4th century and were orthodox except for this belief and for Quartodecimanism (see Easter). Tertullian, sometimes labeled an anthropomorphist, supported the Stoical idea that all reality, including the divine, is in a sense material.

The reaction against anthropomorphism begins in Greek philosophy with the satirical spirit of Xenophanes (540 B.C.), who puts the case as broadly as any. The “greatest God” resembles man “neither in form nor in mind.” In Judaism—unless we should refer to the prophets’ polemic against images—a reaction is due to the introduction of the codified law. God seemed to grow more remote. The old sacred name Yahweh is never pronounced; even “God” is avoided for allusive titles like “heaven” or “place.” Still, amid all this, the God of Judaism remains a personal, almost a limited, being. In Philo we see Jewish scruples uniting with others drawn from Greek philosophy. For, though the quarrel with popular anthropomorphism was patched up, and the gods of the Pantheon were described by Stoics and Epicureans as manlike in form, philosophy nevertheless tended to highly abstract conceptions of supreme, or real, deity. Philo followed out the line of this tradition in teaching that God cannot be named. How much exactly he meant is disputed. The same inheritance of Greek philosophy appears in the Christian fathers, especially Origen. He names and condemns the “anthropomorphites,” who ascribe a human body to God (on Romans i., sub fin.; Rufinus’ Latin version). In Arabian philosophy the reaction sought to deny that God had any attributes. And, under the influence of Mahommedan Aristotelianism, the same paralysing speculation found entrance among the learned Jews of Spain (see Maimonides).

The backlash against anthropomorphism starts in Greek philosophy with the satirical perspective of Xenophanes (540 B.C.), who argues as broadly as anyone. The “greatest God” doesn’t resemble humans “either in form or in mind.” In Judaism—unless we consider the prophets’ criticism of images—this reaction comes from the introduction of codified law. God appeared to become more distant. The old sacred name Yahweh is never spoken; even “God” is avoided in favor of allusive titles like “heaven” or “place.” Yet, despite all this, the God of Judaism stays a personal, almost limited, being. In Philo, we see Jewish concerns merging with ideas from Greek philosophy. Although the conflict with popular anthropomorphism was resolved, and the gods of the Pantheon were described by Stoics and Epicureans as human-like in form, philosophy still leaned towards highly abstract ideas of the supreme or true deity. Philo extended this tradition by teaching that God cannot be named. How precisely he meant this is debated. The same legacy of Greek philosophy is evident in the Christian fathers, especially Origen. He identifies and condemns the “anthropomorphites,” who attribute a human body to God (on Romans i., sub fin.; Rufinus’ Latin version). In Arabian philosophy, the reaction aimed to deny that God had any attributes. And, influenced by Islamic Aristotelianism, this same paralyzing speculation made its way among the learned Jews of Spain (see Maimonides).

Till modern times the philosophical reaction was not carried out with full vigour. Spinoza (Ethics, i. 15 and 17), representing here as elsewhere both a Jewish inheritance and a philosophical, but advancing further, sweeps away all community between God and man. So later J.G. Fichte and Matthew Arnold (“a magnified and non-natural man”),—strangely, in view of their strong belief in an objective moral order. For the use of the word “anthropomorphic,” or kindred forms, in this new spirit of condemnation for all conceptions of God as manlike—sense (b) noted above—see J.J. Rousseau in Émile iv. (cited by Littré),— Nous sommes pour la plupart de vrais anthropomorphites. Rousseau is here speaking of the language of Christian theology,—a divine Spirit: divine Persons. At the present day this usage is universal. What it means on the lips of pantheists is plain. But when theists charge one another with “anthropomorphism,” in order to rebuke what they deem unduly manlike conceptions of God, they stand on slippery ground. All theism implies the assertion of kinship between man, especially in his moral being, and God. As a brilliant theologian, B. Duhm, has said, physiomorphism is the enemy of Christian faith, not anthropomorphism.

Until modern times, the philosophical response was not fully engaged. Spinoza (Ethics, i. 15 and 17), representing both a Jewish legacy and a philosophical viewpoint, goes further by rejecting any connection between God and man. Later, J.G. Fichte and Matthew Arnold (who viewed man as “a magnified and non-natural man”) also reflected this shift, which is surprising given their strong belief in an objective moral order. The use of the term anthropomorphic or similar words in this new context served as a criticism of all views of God as resembling humans—specifically sense (b) mentioned above. J.J. Rousseau in Émile iv. (as cited by Littré) commented, Nous sommes pour la plupart de vrais anthropomorphites. Here, Rousseau was referring to the language of Christian theology—divine Spirit and divine Persons. Today, this usage is widespread. Its meaning among pantheists is clear. However, when theists accuse each other of “anthropomorphism” to criticize what they see as overly human-like notions of God, they tread on unstable ground. All theism posits a kinship between humans, especially in their moral nature, and God. As the accomplished theologian B. Duhm has pointed out, physiomorphism is the true adversary of Christian faith, not anthropomorphism.

The latest extension of the word, proposed in the interests of philosophy or psychology, uses it of the principle according to which man is said to interpret all things (not God merely) through himself. Common-sense intuitionalism would deny that man does this, attributing to him immediate knowledge of reality. And idealism in all its forms would say that man, interpreting through his reason, does rightly, and reaches truth. Even here then the use of the word is not colourless. It implies blame. It is the symptom of a philosophy which confines knowledge within narrow limits, and which, when held by Christians (e.g. Peter Browne, or H.L. Mansel), believes only in an “analogical” knowledge of God.

The most recent extension of the term, suggested for the sake of philosophy or psychology, describes the idea that people interpret everything (not just God) through their own perspective. Common-sense intuitionalism would reject this, claiming that people have direct knowledge of reality. Meanwhile, idealism in all its variations would argue that by interpreting through their reason, people are correct and achieve truth. Even in this context, the term carries a negative connotation. It reflects a philosophy that restricts knowledge to narrow boundaries, and when embraced by Christians (e.g., Peter Browne or H.L. Mansel), it only acknowledges an "analogical" understanding of God.

(R. Ma.)

ANTI, or Campa, a tribe of South American Indians of Arawakan stock, inhabiting the forests of the upper Ucayali basin, east of Cuzco, on the eastern side of the Andes, south Peru. The Antis, who gave their name to the eastern province of Antisuyu, have always been notorious for ferocity and cannibalism. They are of fine physique and generally good-looking. Their dress is a robe with holes for the head and arms. Their long hair hangs down over the shoulders, and round their necks a toucan beak or a bunch of feathers is worn as an ornament.

ANTI, or Campaign, a tribe of South American Indians of Arawakan heritage, lives in the forests of the upper Ucayali basin, east of Cuzco, on the eastern side of the Andes in southern Peru. The Antis, who gave their name to the eastern province of Antisuyu, have always been known for their ferocity and cannibalism. They have strong physiques and are generally attractive. Their clothing consists of a robe with openings for the head and arms. Their long hair flows over their shoulders, and they wear a toucan beak or a cluster of feathers around their necks as jewelry.


ANTIBES, a seaport town in the French department of the Alpes-Maritimes (formerly in that of the Var, but transferred after the Alpes-Maritimes department was formed in 1860 out of the county of Nice). Pop. (1906) of the town, 5730; of the commune, 11,753. It is 12½ m. by rail S.W. of Nice, and is situated on the E. side of the Garoupe peninsula. It was formerly fortified, but all the ramparts (save the Fort Carré, built by Vauban) have now been demolished, and a new town is rising on their site. There is a tolerable harbour, with a considerable fishing industry. The principal exports are dried fruits, salt fish and oil. Much perfume distilling is done here, as the surrounding 121 country produces an abundance of flowers. Antibes is the ancient Antipolis. It is said to have been founded before the Christian era (perhaps about 340 B.C.) by colonists from Marseilles, and is mentioned by Strabo. It was the seat of a bishopric from the 5th century to 1244, when the see was transferred to Grasse.

ANTIBES, is a seaport town in the French department of Alpes-Maritimes (previously part of the Var, but transferred after Alpes-Maritimes was created in 1860 from the county of Nice). The population in 1906 was 5,730 for the town and 11,753 for the commune. It is located 12½ miles southwest of Nice by rail and is situated on the eastern side of the Garoupe peninsula. It used to be fortified, but all the ramparts (except for Fort Carré, built by Vauban) have been torn down, and a new town is developing on their site. There is a decent harbor with a significant fishing industry. The main exports include dried fruits, salted fish, and oil. A lot of perfume is produced here, as the surrounding area has a large number of flowers. Antibes was known as ancient Antipolis. It is believed to have been founded before the Christian era (around 340 BCE) by settlers from Marseilles and is mentioned by Strabo. It was the center of a bishopric from the 5th century until 1244, when the bishopric was moved to Grasse.

(W. A. B. C.)

ANTICHRIST (ἀντίχριστος). The earliest mention of the name Antichrist, which was probably first coined in Christian eschatological literature, is in the Epistles of St John (I. ii. 18, 22, iv. 3; II. 7), and it has since come into universal use. The conception, paraphrased in this word, of a mighty ruler who will appear at the end of time, and whose essence will be enmity to God (Dan. xi. 36; cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4; ἀντικείμενος), is older, and traceable to Jewish eschatology. Its origin is to be sought in the first place in the prophecy of Daniel, written at the beginning of the Maccabean period. The historical figure who served as a model for the “Antichrist” was Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, the persecutor of the Jews, and he has impressed indelible traits upon the conception. Since then ever-recurring characteristics of this figure (cf. especially Dan xi. 40, &c.) are, that he would appear as a mighty ruler at the head of gigantic armies, that he would destroy three rulers (the three horns, Dan. vii. 8, 24), persecute the saints (vii. 25), rule for three and a half years (vii. 25, &c.), and subject the temple of God to a horrible devastation (βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημὠσεως). When the end of the world foretold by Daniel did not take place, but the book of Daniel retained its validity as a sacred scripture which foretold future things, the personality of the tyrant who was God’s enemy disengaged itself from that of Antiochus IV., and became merely a figure of prophecy, which was applied now to one and now to another historical phenomenon. Thus for the author of the Psalms of Solomon (c. 60 B.C.), Pompey, who destroyed the independent rule of the Maccabees and stormed Jerusalem, was the Adversary of God (cf. ii. 26, &c.); so too the tyrant whom the Ascension of Moses (c. A.D. 30) expects at the end of all things, possesses, besides the traits of Antiochus IV., those of Herod the Great. A further influence on the development of the eschatological imagination of the Jews was exercised by such a figure as that of the emperor Caligula (A.D. 37-41), who is known to have given the order, never carried out, to erect his statue in the temple of Jerusalem. In the little Jewish Apocalypse, the existence of which is assumed by many scholars, which in Mark xiii. and Matt. xxiv. is combined with the words of Christ to form the great eschatological discourse, the prophecy of the “abomination of desolation” (Mark xiii. 14 et seq.) may have originated in this episode of Jewish history. Later Jewish and Christian writers of Apocalypses saw in Nero the tyrant of the end of time. The author of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (or his source), cap. 36-40, speaks in quite general terms of the last ruler of the end of time. In 4 Ezra v. 6 also is found the allusion: regnabit quem non sperant.

ANTICHRIST (antichrist). The first mention of the name Antichrist, which likely originated in Christian end-times literature, is found in the Epistles of St John (I. ii. 18, 22, iv. 3; II. 7), and it has since become widely recognized. The idea, summarized by this term, of a powerful ruler who will emerge at the end of times, whose very being opposes God (Dan. xi. 36; cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4; antagonist), is older and can be traced back to Jewish eschatology. Its roots can be primarily found in the prophecy of Daniel, written at the beginning of the Maccabean era. The historical figure who served as a template for the "Antichrist" was Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, the persecutor of the Jews, and he has left lasting marks on this concept. Since then, recurring traits of this figure (cf. especially Dan xi. 40, &c.) include appearing as a powerful ruler leading massive armies, destroying three rulers (the three horns, Dan. vii. 8, 24), persecuting the saints (vii. 25), ruling for three and a half years (vii. 25, &c.), and causing terrible devastation to the temple of God (abomination of desolation). When the end of the world predicted by Daniel did not come to pass, yet the book of Daniel retained its status as sacred scripture that foretold future events, the identity of the tyrant who opposed God detached from Antiochus IV. and became merely a prophetic figure, applied to various historical occurrences over time. For instance, the author of the Psalms of Solomon (c. 60 BCE) viewed Pompey, who destroyed the Maccabees' independent rule and invaded Jerusalem, as the Adversary of God (cf. ii. 26, &c.); similarly, the tyrant anticipated by the Ascension of Moses (c. CE 30) is depicted with traits of both Antiochus IV. and Herod the Great. Another significant influence on the development of Jewish eschatological thought came from figures like Emperor Caligula (CE 37-41), who famously ordered, though it was never executed, the erection of his statue in the Jerusalem temple. In the little Jewish Apocalypse, which many scholars believe existed and is integrated with Christ's words in Mark xiii. and Matt. xxiv to create the great eschatological discourse, the prophecy of the “abomination of desolation” (Mark xiii. 14 et seq.) may have originated from this episode in Jewish history. Later Jewish and Christian apocalypse writers identified Nero as the tyrant of the end times. The author of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (or his source), cap. 36-40, speaks broadly of the last ruler of the end of times. In 4 Ezra v. 6, there is also the reference: regnabit quem non sperant.

The roots of this eschatological fancy are to be sought perhaps still deeper in a purely mythological and speculative expectation of a battle at the end of days between God and the devil, which has no reference whatever to historical occurrences. This idea has its original source in the apocalypses of Iran, for these are based upon the conflict between Ahura-Mazda (Auramazda, Ormazd) and Angro-Mainyush (Ahriman) and its consummation at the end of the world. This Iranian dualism is proved to have penetrated into the late Jewish eschatology from the beginning of the 1st century before Christ, and did so probably still earlier. Thus the opposition between God and the devil already plays a part in the Jewish groundwork of the Testaments of the Patriarchs, which was perhaps composed at the end of the period of the Maccabees. In this the name of the devil appears, besides the usual form (σατανᾶς, διάβολος), especially as Belial (Beliar, probably, from Ps. xviii. 4, where the rivers of Belial are spoken of, originally a god of the underworld), a name which also plays a part in the Antichrist tradition. In the Ascension of Moses we already hear, at the beginning of the description of the latter time (x. 1): “And then will God’s rule be made manifest over all his creatures, then will the devil have an end” (cf. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 20; John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11).1 This conception of the strife of God with the devil was further interwoven, before its introduction into the Antichrist myth, with another idea of different origin, namely, the myth derived from the Babylonian religion, of the battle of the supreme God (Marduk) with the dragon of chaos (Tiamat), originally a myth of the origin of things which, later perhaps, was changed into an eschatological one, again under Iranian influence.2 Thus it comes that the devil, the opponent of God, appears in the end often also in the form of a terrible dragon-monster; this appears most clearly in Rev. xii. Now it is possible that the whole conception of Antichrist has its final roots in this already complicated myth, that the form of the mighty adversary of God is but the equivalent in human form of the devil or of the dragon of chaos. In any case, however, this myth has exercised a formative influence on the conception of Antichrist. For only thus can we explain how his figure acquires numerous superhuman and ghostly traits, which cannot be explained by any particular historical phenomenon on which it may have been based. Thus the figure of Antiochus IV. has already become superhuman, when in Dan. viii. 10, it is said that the little horn “waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground.” Similarly Pompey, in the second psalm of Solomon, is obviously represented as the dragon of chaos, and his figure exalted into myth. Without this assumption of a continual infusion of mythological conceptions, we cannot understand the figure of Antichrist. Finally, it must be mentioned that Antichrist receives, at least in the later sources, the name originally proper to the devil himself.3

The roots of this end-times idea probably go even deeper into a purely mythological and speculative belief in a final battle between God and the devil, which has no ties to real historical events. This concept originally comes from Iranian apocalypses, based on the conflict between Ahura-Mazda (Auramazda, Ormazd) and Angro-Mainyush (Ahriman) and its climax at the end of the world. This Iranian dualism is shown to have influenced late Jewish eschatology from the early 1st century BC, possibly even earlier. Therefore, the clash between God and the devil already appears in the Jewish groundwork of the Testaments of the Patriarchs, likely written at the end of the Maccabean period. In this text, the name of the devil appears, besides the common forms (Satan, devil), especially as Belial (Beliar, probably derived from Ps. xviii. 4, where the rivers of Belial are mentioned, originally a god of the underworld), a name that also figures into the Antichrist tradition. In the Ascension of Moses, we hear, at the beginning of the description of the end times (x. 1): “And then God’s rule will be revealed over all His creatures, then the devil will come to an end” (cf. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 20; John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11).1 This view of the conflict between God and the devil was further mixed with another idea from a different origin, namely, the Babylonian myth of the supreme God (Marduk) battling the chaos dragon (Tiamat), which was originally about the creation of the world but may have later transformed into an end-times myth due to Iranian influence.2 Therefore, the devil, God’s opponent, often appears at the end as a terrifying dragon-monster; this is most clearly seen in Rev. xii. It’s possible that the entire idea of the Antichrist has its ultimate roots in this already complex myth, where the strong enemy of God is simply a human version of the devil or the chaos dragon. In any case, this myth has significantly shaped the idea of the Antichrist. This explains how his image takes on many superhuman and ghostly characteristics that can’t be traced to any specific historical event it might have originated from. For example, the figure of Antiochus IV. is depicted as superhuman when Dan. viii. 10 states that the little horn “grew strong, even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground.” Similarly, Pompey in the second psalm of Solomon is clearly depicted as the chaos dragon, his figure elevated into myth. Without this ongoing infusion of mythological ideas, we can’t fully grasp the figure of the Antichrist. Lastly, it should be noted that the Antichrist is referred to, especially in later sources, by the name that originally belonged to the devil himself.3

From the Jews, Christianity took over the idea. It is present quite unaltered in certain passages, specifically traceable to Judaism, e.g. (Rev. xi.). “The Beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit” and, surrounded by a mighty host of nations, slays the “two witnesses” in Jerusalem, is the entirely superhuman Jewish conception of Antichrist. Even if the beast (ch. xiii.), which rises from the sea at the summons of the devil, be interpreted as the Roman empire, and, specially, as any particular Roman ruler, yet the original form of the malevolent tyrant of the latter time is completely preserved.

From the Jews, Christianity adopted the idea. It remains quite unchanged in certain passages that can be directly linked to Judaism, e.g. (Rev. xi.). “The Beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” and, surrounded by a powerful army of nations, kills the “two witnesses” in Jerusalem, represents the entirely otherworldly Jewish concept of Antichrist. Even if the beast (ch. xiii.), which rises from the sea at the call of the devil, is interpreted as the Roman Empire, or specifically any particular Roman ruler, the original image of the malevolent tyrant of the last days is completely preserved.

A fundamental change of the whole idea from the specifically Christian point of view, then, is signified by the conclusion of ch. ii. of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.4 There can, of course, be no doubt as to the identity of the “man of sin, the son of perdition” here described with the dominating figure of Jewish eschatology (cf. ii. 3 &c., ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, i.e. Beliar (?), ὁ ἀντικείμενος—the allusion that follows to Dan xi. 36). But Antichrist here appears as a tempter, who works by signs and wonders (ii. 9) and seeks to obtain divine honours; it is further signified that this “man of sin” will obtain credence, more especially among the Jews, because they have not accepted the truth. The conception, moreover, has become almost more superhuman than ever (cf. ii. 4, “showing himself that he is God”). The destruction of the Adversary is drawn from Isaiah xi. 4, where it is said of the Messiah: “with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.”5 The idea that Antichrist was to establish himself in the temple of Jerusalem (ii. 4) is very enigmatical, and has not yet been explained. The “abomination of desolation” has naturally had its influence upon it; possibly also the experience of the time of Caligula (see above). Remarkable also is the allusion to a power which 122 still retards the revelation of Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 6 &c., τὸ κατέχον; ὁ κατέχων), an allusion which, in the tradition of the Fathers of the church, came to be universally, and probably correctly, referred to the Roman empire. In this then consists the significant turn given by St Paul in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians to the whole conception, namely, in the substitution for the tyrant of the latter time who should persecute the Jewish people, of a pseudo-Messianic figure, who, establishing himself in the temple of God, should find credence and a following precisely among the Jews. And while the originally Jewish idea led straight to the conception, set forth in Revelation, of the Roman empire or its ruler as Antichrist, here, on the contrary, it is probably the Roman empire that is the power which still retards the reign of Antichrist. With this, the expectation of such an event at last separates itself from any connexion with historical fact, and becomes purely ideal. In this process of transformation of the idea, which has become of importance for the history of the world, is revealed probably the genius of Paul, or at any rate, that of the young Christianity which was breaking its ties with Judaism and establishing itself in the world of the Roman empire.

A fundamental shift in the whole concept from a specifically Christian perspective is represented by the conclusion of chapter 2 of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. There can be no doubt that the “man of sin, the son of perdition” described here is identical to the dominant figure in Jewish eschatology (see 2:3 &c., the man of lawlessness, i.e. Beliar (?), the opponent—with reference to Dan xi. 36). However, Antichrist is presented here as a tempter who performs signs and wonders (2:9) and seeks to claim divine honors; it is further indicated that this “man of sin” will gain acceptance, particularly among the Jews, because they have not embraced the truth. Moreover, this concept has become almost more superhuman than ever (see 2:4, “showing himself that he is God”). The destruction of the Adversary is drawn from Isaiah 11:4, which states of the Messiah: “with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.” The idea that Antichrist will establish himself in the temple of Jerusalem (2:4) is quite enigmatic and has yet to be fully explained. The “abomination of desolation” has naturally influenced this idea; possibly also the experiences during the time of Caligula (see above). Notably, there is a reference to a power that 122 still holds back the revelation of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:6 &c., the one who holds), an allusion that, in the tradition of the Church Fathers, was universally, and likely correctly, attributed to the Roman Empire. Herein lies the significant turn that St. Paul gives in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians to the entire concept, which is the replacement of the tyrant of the later times who would persecute the Jewish people with a pseudo-Messianic figure, who, by establishing himself in the temple of God, would gain acceptance and followers particularly among Jews. While the original Jewish idea directly led to the conception set forth in Revelation that identifies the Roman Empire or its ruler as Antichrist, here, conversely, it is likely the Roman Empire that is the power still delaying the reign of Antichrist. Consequently, the expectation of such an event eventually detaches itself from any connection to historical fact and becomes purely ideal. In this transformation of the idea, which has become significant for world history, we likely see the genius of Paul, or at the very least, that of the early Christianity which was breaking its ties with Judaism and establishing itself in the world of the Roman Empire.

This version of the figure of Antichrist, who may now really for the first time be described by this name, appears to have been at once widely accepted in Christendom. The idea that the Jews would believe in Antichrist, as punishment for not having believed in the true Christ, seems to be expressed by the author of the fourth gospel (v. 43). The conception of Antichrist as a perverter of men, leads naturally to his connexion with false doctrine (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7). The Teaching of the Apostles (xvi. 4) describes his form in the same way as 2 Thessalonians (καὶ τότε φαινήσεται ὁ κοσμοπλάνος ὡς υἱὸς θεοῦ καὶ ποιεῖ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα). In the late Christian Sibylline fragment (iii. 63 &c.) also, “Beliar” appears above all as a worker of wonders, this figure having possibly been influenced by that of Simon Magus. Finally the author of the Apocalypse of St John also has made use of the new conception of Antichrist as a wonder-worker and seducer, and has set his figure beside that of the “first” Beast which was for him the actual embodiment of Antichrist (xiii. II &c.). Since this second Beast could not appear along with the first as a power demanding worship and directly playing the part of Antichrist, he made out of him the false prophet (xvi. 13, xix. 20, xx. 10) who seduces the inhabitants of the earth to worship the first Beast, and probably interpreted this figure as applying to the Roman provincial priesthood.6

This version of the figure of the Antichrist, who can now truly be called by this name for the first time, seems to have been widely accepted within Christianity. The notion that the Jews would believe in the Antichrist as punishment for not believing in the true Christ appears to be conveyed by the author of the fourth gospel (v. 43). The idea of the Antichrist as a corruptor of people naturally connects him with false teaching (1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7). The Teaching of the Apostles (xvi. 4) describes his nature similarly to 2 Thessalonians (And then the world creator will appear as the Son of God and will perform signs and wonders.). In the later Christian Sibylline fragment (iii. 63 &c.), “Beliar” is primarily depicted as a miracle worker, possibly influenced by Simon Magus. Lastly, the author of the Apocalypse of St. John also incorporated this new view of the Antichrist as a miracle worker and deceiver and placed his figure alongside that of the “first” Beast, which embodied the Antichrist for him (xiii. II &c.). Since this second Beast could not appear with the first as a force demanding worship and directly acting as the Antichrist, he portrayed him as the false prophet (xvi. 13, xix. 20, xx. 10), who leads the people on earth to worship the first Beast, likely interpreting this figure as related to the Roman provincial priesthood.6

But this version of the idea of Antichrist, hostile to the Jews and better expressing the relation of Christianity to the Roman empire, was prevented from obtaining an absolute ascendancy in Christian tradition by the rise of the belief in the ultimate return of Nero, and by the absorption of this outcome of pagan superstition into the Jewish-Christian apocalyptic conceptions. It is known that soon after the death of Nero rumours were current that he was not dead. This report soon took the more concrete form that he had fled to the Parthians and would return thence to take vengeance on Rome. This expectation led to the appearance of several pretenders who posed as Nero; and as late as A.D. 100 many still held the belief that Nero yet lived.7 This idea of Nero’s return was in the first instance taken up by the Jewish apocalyptic writers. While the Jewish author of the fourth Sibylline book (c. A.D. 80) still only refers simply to the heathen belief, the author of the (Jewish?) original of the 17th chapter of the Apocalypse of St John expects the return of Nero with the Parthians to take vengeance on Rome, because she had shed the blood of the Saints (destruction of Jerusalem!). In the fifth Sibylline book, which, with the exception of verses 1-51, was mainly composed by a Jewish writer at the close of the first century, the return of Nero plays a great part. Three times the author recurs to this theme, 137-154; 214-227; 361-385. He sees in the coming again of Nero, whose figure he endows with supernatural and daemonic characteristics, a judgment of God, in whose hand the revivified Nero becomes a rod of chastisement. Later, the figure of Nero redivivus became, more especially in Christian thought, entirely confused with that of Antichrist. The less it became possible, as time went on, to believe that Nero yet lived and would return as a living ruler, the greater was the tendency for his figure to develop into one wholly infernal and daemonic. The relation to the Parthians is also gradually lost sight of; and from being the adversary of Rome, Nero becomes the adversary of God and of Christ. This is the version of the expectation of Nero’s second coming preserved in the form given to the prophecy, under Domitian, by the collaborator in the Apocalypse of John (xiii., xvii.). Nero is here the beast that returns from the bottomless pit, “that was, and is not, and yet is”; the head “as it were wounded to death” that lives again; the gruesome similitude of the Lamb that was slain, and his adversary in the final struggle. The number of the Beast, 666, points certainly to Nero (ןורנ רסק = 666, or ורנ רסק = 616). In the little apocalypse of the Ascensio Jesaiae (iii. 13b-iv. 18), which dates perhaps from the second, perhaps only from the first, decade of the third century,8 it is said that Beliar, the king of this world, would descend from the firmament in the human form of Nero. In the same way, in Sibyll. v. 28-34, Nero and Antichrist are absolutely identical (mostly obscure reminiscences, Sib. viii. 68 &c., 140 &c., 151 &c.). Then the Nero-legend gradually fades away. But Victorinus of Pettau, who wrote during the persecution under Diocletian, still knows the relation of the Apocalypse to the legend of Nero; and Commodian, whose Carmen Apologeticum was perhaps not written until the beginning of the 4th century, knows two Antichrist-figures, of which he still identifies the first with Nero redivivus.

But this version of the idea of Antichrist, which was hostile to the Jews and better reflected the relationship between Christianity and the Roman Empire, was kept from completely dominating Christian tradition by the rise of the belief in Nero's eventual return and how this notion of pagan superstition got integrated into Jewish-Christian apocalyptic ideas. It’s known that shortly after Nero's death, rumors circulated that he was still alive. This eventually evolved into the more specific claim that he had escaped to the Parthians and would come back to take revenge on Rome. This expectation led to several false claimants posing as Nero; even as late as CE 100, many still believed that Nero was alive. 7 This idea of Nero’s return was initially adopted by Jewish apocalyptic writers. While the Jewish author of the fourth Sibylline book (c. CE 80) only mentions the pagan belief, the author of the presumed Jewish original of the 17th chapter of the Apocalypse of St. John anticipated Nero’s return alongside the Parthians to take vengeance on Rome for the blood of the Saints (the destruction of Jerusalem!). In the fifth Sibylline book, mainly authored by a Jewish writer at the end of the first century, the return of Nero is a significant theme. The author revisits this idea three times, specifically in passages 137-154; 214-227; 361-385. He views Nero’s return, endowing him with supernatural and demonic traits, as a judgment from God, where the resurrected Nero becomes an instrument of punishment. Over time, the character of Nero redivivus became increasingly conflated, especially in Christian thought, with that of Antichrist. As it became less plausible to believe that Nero was still alive and would return as a living ruler, the trend shifted to view him as entirely infernal and demonic. The connection to the Parthians was gradually forgotten; instead of being Rome’s adversary, Nero became an enemy of God and Christ. This is the version of Nero’s expected second coming reflected in the prophecy shaped during the reign of Domitian by the collaborator in the Apocalypse of John (xiii., xvii.). Here, Nero is portrayed as the beast that emerges from the abyss, “that was, and is not, and yet is”; the head “that appeared wounded to death” and then lives again; the horrific likeness of the Lamb that was slain, and his opponent in the ultimate battle. The number of the Beast, 666, clearly alludes to Nero (רסק קינוח = 666, or ורן רסק = 616). In the little apocalypse of the Ascensio Jesaiae (iii. 13b-iv. 18), possibly from the second or first decade of the third century, it’s stated that Beliar, the king of this world, would descend from heaven in the human form of Nero. Similarly, in Sibyll. v. 28-34, Nero and Antichrist are considered completely identical (with mostly obscure references, Sib. viii. 68 &c., 140 &c., 151 &c.). Eventually, the legend of Nero began to fade. However, Victorinus of Pettau, who wrote during the persecution under Diocletian, still acknowledged the connection between the Apocalypse and the legend of Nero; and Commodian, whose Carmen Apologeticum might not have been written until the early 4th century, recognized two figures of Antichrist, one of which he still identified with Nero redivivus.

In proportion as the figure of Nero again ceased to dominate the imagination of the faithful, the wholly unhistorical, unpolitical and anti-Jewish conception of Antichrist, which based itself more especially on 2 Thess. ii., gained the upper hand, having usually become associated with the description of the universal conflagration of the world which had also originated in the Iranian eschatology. On the strength of exegetical combinations, and with the assistance of various traditions, it was developed even in its details, which it thenceforth maintained practically unchanged. In this form it is in great part present in the eschatological portions of the Adv. Haereses of Irenaeus, and in the de Antichristo and commentary on Daniel of Hippolytus. In times of political excitement, during the following centuries, men appealed again and again to the prophecy of Antichrist. Then the foreground scenery of the prophecies was shifted; special prophecies, having reference to contemporary events, are pushed to the front, but in the background remains standing, with scarcely a change, the prophecy of Antichrist that is bound up with no particular time. Thus at the beginning of the Testamentum Domini, edited by Rahmani, there is an apocalypse, possibly of the time of Decius, though it has been worked over (Harnack, Chronol. der altchrist. Litt. ii. 514 &c.) In the third century, the period of Aurelianus and Gallienus, with its wild warfare of Romans and Persians, and of Roman pretenders one with another, seems especially to have aroused the spirit of prophecy. To this period belongs the Jewish apocalypse of Elijah (ed. Buttenwieser), of which the Antichrist is possibly Odaenathus of Palmyra, while Sibyll. xiii., a Christian writing of this period, glorifies this very prince. It is possible that at this time also the Sibylline fragment (iii. 63 &c.) and the Christian recension of the two first Sibylline books were written.9 To this time possibly belongs also a recension of the Coptic apocalypse of Elijah, edited by Steindorff (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. ii. 3). To the 4th century belongs, according to Kamper (Die deutsche Kaiseridee, 1896, p. 18) and Sackur (Texte und Forschungen, 1898, p. 114 &c.), the first nucleus of the “Tiburtine” Sibyl, very celebrated in the middle ages, with its prophecy of the return of 123 Constans, and its dream, which later on exercised so much influence, that after ruling over the whole world he would go to Jerusalem and lay down his crown upon Golgotha. To the 4th century also perhaps belongs a series of apocalyptic pieces and homilies which have been handed down under the name of Ephraem. At the beginning of the Mahommedan period, then, we meet with the most influential and the most curious of these prophetic books, the Pseudo-Methodius,10 which prophesied of the emperor who would awake from his sleep and conquer Islam. From the Pseudo-Methodius are derived innumerable Byzantine prophecies (cf. especially Vassiliev, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina) which follow the fortunes of the Byzantine emperors and their governments. A prophecy in verse, adorned with pictures, which is ascribed to Leo VI. the Philosopher (Migne, Patr. Gracca, cvii. p. 1121 &c.), tells of the downfall of the house of the Comneni and sings of the emperor of the future who would one day awake from death and go forth from the cave in which he had lain. Thus the prophecy of the sleeping emperor of the future is very closely connected with the Antichrist tradition. There is extant a Daniel prophecy which, in the time of the Latin empire, foretells the restoration of the Greek rule.11 In the East, too, Antichrist prophecies were extraordinarily flourishing during the period of the rise of Islam and of the Crusades. To these belong the apocalypses in Arabic, Ethiopian and perhaps also in Syrian, preserved in the so-called Liber Clementis discipuli S. Petri (Petri apostoli apocalypsis per Clementem), the late Syrian apocalypse of Ezra (Bousset, Antichrist, 45 &c.), the Coptic (14th) vision of Daniel (in the appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus; Oxford, 1799), the Ethiopian Wisdom of the Sibyl, which is closely related to the Tiburtine Sibyl (see Basset, Apocryphes éthiopiennes, x.); in the last mentioned of these sources long series of Islamic rulers are foretold before the final time of Antichrist. Jewish apocalypse also awakes to fresh developments in the Mahommedan period, and shows a close relationship with the Christian Antichrist literature. One of the most interesting apocalypses is the Jewish History of Daniel, handed down in Persian.12

As the image of Nero faded from the minds of the faithful, the completely fictional, non-political, and anti-Jewish idea of Antichrist, particularly based on 2 Thess. ii., gained popularity, often linked with the concept of the world's total destruction, which also originated in Iranian eschatology. Through various interpretations and traditions, this idea developed in detail and was largely maintained unchanged from then on. It is primarily found in the eschatological sections of the Adv. Haereses by Irenaeus, and in the de Antichristo and commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus. During times of political turmoil in the following centuries, people repeatedly referred to the prophecy of Antichrist. The focus of the prophecies shifted; specific prophecies related to current events came to the forefront, yet the prophecy of Antichrist, which is not tied to any particular time, remained unchanged in the background. At the beginning of the Testamentum Domini, edited by Rahmani, there is an apocalypse, possibly from the time of Decius, although it has been revised (Harnack, Chronol. der altchrist. Litt. ii. 514 &c.). In the third century, during the times of Aurelianus and Gallienus, with their intense conflicts between Romans and Persians, and among Roman claimants, the spirit of prophecy seems particularly stirred. This period includes the Jewish apocalypse of Elijah (ed. Buttenwieser), where the Antichrist may be Odaenathus of Palmyra, while Sibyll. xiii., a Christian text from this time, glorifies this very ruler. It’s possible that during this time, the Sibylline fragment (iii. 63 &c.) and the Christian version of the first two Sibylline books were also composed.9 Additionally, a version of the Coptic apocalypse of Elijah, edited by Steindorff (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. ii. 3), may belong to this period. According to Kamper (Die deutsche Kaiseridee, 1896, p. 18) and Sackur (Texte und Forschungen, 1898, p. 114 &c.), the first nucleus of the “Tiburtine” Sibyl, widely known in the Middle Ages for its prophecy about the return of Constans, which later had a significant impact, stating that after ruling over the entire world, he would go to Jerusalem and lay down his crown on Golgotha, likely belongs to the 4th century. This century may also include a series of apocalyptic writings and sermons attributed to Ephraem. At the beginning of the Islamic era, we encounter the most significant and intriguing of these prophetic texts, the Pseudo-Methodius,10 which foretold an emperor who would rise from his slumber and conquer Islam. Many Byzantine prophecies (see especially Vassiliev, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina) derive from the Pseudo-Methodius, following the fate of Byzantine emperors and their regimes. A verse prophecy filled with illustrations, attributed to Leo VI. the Philosopher (Migne, Patr. Gracca, cvii. p. 1121 &c.), talks about the downfall of the Comneni family and sings of a future emperor who would awaken from death and emerge from the cave where he had lain. Thus, the prophecy of the sleeping emperor is closely linked to the Antichrist tradition. There is a prophecy from Daniel that, during the Latin empire, predicts the return of Greek rule.11 In the East, Antichrist prophecies thrived significantly during the rise of Islam and the Crusades. These include apocalypses in Arabic, Ethiopian, and possibly also in Syrian, preserved in the so-called Liber Clementis discipuli S. Petri (Petri apostoli apocalypsis per Clementem), the late Syrian apocalypse of Ezra (Bousset, Antichrist, 45 &c.), the Coptic (14th) vision of Daniel (in the appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus; Oxford, 1799), and the Ethiopian Wisdom of the Sibyl, which is closely related to the Tiburtine Sibyl (see Basset, Apocryphes éthiopiennes, x.); in the latter of these texts, a long line of Islamic rulers is foretold before the final emergence of Antichrist. Jewish apocalypse also experiences new developments during the Islamic period, exhibiting a close connection with Christian Antichrist literature. One of the most interesting apocalypses is the Jewish History of Daniel, preserved in Persian.12

This whole type of prophecy reached the West above all through the Pseudo-Methodius, which was soon translated into Latin. Especially influential, too, in this respect was the letter which the monk Adso in 954 wrote to Queen Gerberga, De ortu et tempere Antichristi. The old Tiburtine Sibylla went through edition after edition, in each case being altered so as to apply to the government of the monarch who happened to be ruling at the time. Then in the West the period arrived in which eschatology, and above all the expectation of the coming of Antichrist, exercised a great influence on the world’s history. This period, as is well known, was inaugurated, at the end of the 12th century, by the apocalyptic writings of the abbot Joachim of Floris. Soon the word Antichrist re-echoed from all sides in the embittered controversies of the West. The pope bestowed this title upon the emperor, the emperor upon the pope, the Guelphs on the Ghibellines and the Ghibellines on the Guelphs. In the contests between the rival powers and courts of the period, the prophecy of Antichrist played a political part. It gave motives to art, to lyrical, epic and dramatic poetry.13 Among the visionary Franciscans, enthusiastic adherents of Joachim’s prophecies, arose above all the conviction that the pope was Antichrist, or at least his precursor. From the Franciscans, influenced by Abbot Joachim, the lines of connexion are clearly traceable with Milic of Kremsier (Libellus de Antichristo) and Matthias of Janow. For Wycliffe and his adherent John Purvey (probably the author of the Commentarius in Apocalypsin ante centum annos editus, edited in 1528 by Luther), as on the other hand for Hus, the conviction that the papacy is essentially Antichrist is absolute. Finally, if Luther advanced in his contest with the papacy with greater and greater energy, he did so because he was borne on by the conviction that the pope in Rome was Antichrist. And if in the Augustana. the expression of this conviction was suppressed for political reasons, in the Articles of Schmalkalden, drawn up by him, Luther propounded it in the most uncompromising fashion. This sentence was for him an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. To write the history of the idea of Antichrist in the last centuries of the middle ages, would be almost to write that of the middle ages themselves.

This type of prophecy primarily came to the West through the Pseudo-Methodius, which was quickly translated into Latin. The letter that the monk Adso wrote to Queen Gerberga in 954, De ortu et tempore Antichristi, was also particularly influential. The ancient Tiburtine Sibylla went through numerous editions, each time modified to apply to the reigning monarch. Then, in the West, a period emerged when eschatology, especially the anticipation of Antichrist’s arrival, had a significant impact on world history. This era, notably, began at the end of the 12th century with the apocalyptic writings of Abbot Joachim of Floris. Soon, the term Antichrist was echoed throughout the fierce debates in the West. The pope called the emperor Antichrist, the emperor called the pope the same, the Guelphs labeled the Ghibellines, and the Ghibellines returned the favor to the Guelphs. In the conflicts between the competing powers and courts of the time, the prophecy of Antichrist played a political role. It inspired art, lyrical, epic, and dramatic poetry. Among the visionary Franciscans, who were ardent followers of Joachim’s prophecies, there emerged a strong belief that the pope was Antichrist, or at least his forerunner. The connections from the Franciscans, influenced by Abbot Joachim, can be clearly traced to Milic of Kremsier (Libellus de Antichristo) and Matthias of Janow. For Wycliffe and his supporter John Purvey (likely the author of the Commentarius in Apocalypsin ante centum annos editus, published in 1528 by Luther), as well as for Hus, the belief that the papacy was fundamentally Antichrist was absolute. Ultimately, when Luther engaged increasingly vigorously in his conflict with the papacy, it was fueled by his conviction that the pope in Rome was Antichrist. Although this belief was downplayed in the Augustana for political reasons, Luther presented it unapologetically in the Articles of Schmalkalden that he drafted. This statement was for him an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. Writing the history of the idea of Antichrist in the last centuries of the Middle Ages would almost be equivalent to writing the history of the Middle Ages themselves.

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

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

(W. Bo.)

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

1 For more information, Bousset, Religion des Judentums, ed. ii. pp. 289 &c., 381 &c., 585 &c.

2 See Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos (1893).

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See Gunkel, Creation and Chaos (1893).

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

3 It's unclear if this phenomenon is present in 2 Cor. vi. 15, since Belial might still refer to Satan here; see also Ascensio Jesaiae iv. 2 &c.; Sibyll. iii. 63 &c., ii. 167 &c.

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

4 There's no need to determine if the letter was written by St. Paul or one of his students, although I think it’s much more likely to be by Paul himself, despite Wrede's strong criticism of the letter's authenticity in Texte und Übersetzungen, N.F. ix. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

7 Same source. ch. xvii.: and Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, lvii. sq.

8 Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, i. 573

8 Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, i. 573

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

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

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

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

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

11 See Bousset, Journal of Church History, xx. p. 289 &c.

12 Published in Merx, Archiv zur Erforschung des Alten Testament.

12 Published in Merx, Archive for the Study of the Old Testament.

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

13 Check out the Ludus de Antichristo, edited by W. Meyer.


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

ANTICLIMAX (i.e. the opposite of “climax”), in rhetoric, is a sudden drop (either intentional or accidental) by a speaker or writer from the seriousness of the idea they seemed to be pursuing; as seen in the following well-known couplet:—

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

“The great Dalhousie, the god of war,

Lieutenant-colonel to the earl of Mar.”

Lieutenant Colonel to the Earl of Mar.

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

An anticlimax can be used on purpose only for a humorous or satirical reason. It often has a contrastive nature, as—

“Die and endow a college or a cat.”

“Die and endow a college or a cat.”

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

It’s often hard to tell the difference between “anticlimax” and “bathos,” but the former is definitely more of a relative term. A whole speech can stay at the level of bathos, but a climax of higher or lower intensity has to come before an anticlimax.


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

ANTICOSTI, is an island in the province of Quebec, Canada, located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, between 49° and 50° N. and between 61° 40′ and 64° 30′ W., measuring 135 miles long and 30 miles wide. It has a population of 250 people, mostly made up of the keepers of the many lighthouses built by the Canadian government. The coastline is treacherous, and the only two harbors, Ellis Bay and Fox Bay, are quite inadequate. Anticosti was first seen by Jacques Cartier in 1534 and was named Assomption. In 1763, it was transferred from France to Britain, and in 1774 it became part of Canada. Wild animals, particularly bears, are abundant, but before 1896, fish and game were nearly wiped out due to rampant hunting. In that year, Anticosti and the coastal fisheries were leased to M. Menier, a French chocolate maker, who turned the island into a game reserve and sought to develop its resources of timber, peat, and minerals.

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

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

124

124


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

ANTICYCLONE (i.e. opposite of a cyclone), is an atmospheric system where air moves downward, leading to a relative increase in atmospheric pressure over the affected area of the earth’s surface. At the surface, the air tends to flow outward in all directions from the central high-pressure area and is deflected due to the earth’s rotation (see FErrel’s Law), creating a spiral movement that goes clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. Since the air in an anticyclone is sinking, it gets warmed and dried, allowing it to transmit radiation easily, whether from the sun to the earth or from the earth into space. Therefore, in winter, anticyclonic weather is marked by clear air with icy conditions, leading to fog in cities and low-lying damp areas, and in summer, it features still, clear days with light variable winds and nice weather.


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

ANTICYRA, the ancient name of three cities in Greece, (1) (Mod. Aspraspitia), in Phocis, by the bay of Anticyra, in the Corinthian Gulf; some remains can still be seen. It was a town of significant importance in ancient times, destroyed by Philip of Macedon, regained its prosperity, and was captured by T. Quinctius Flamininus in 198 BCE The city was known for its black hellebore, a herb thought to cure insanity. This led to several proverbial expressions, like Άντικυρα σε χρειάζεσαι or “naviget Anticyram,” and frequent references in Greek and Latin literature. Hellebore was also seen as beneficial for gout and epilepsy. (2) In Thessaly, on the right bank of the Spercheus river, near its mouth. (3) In Locris, on the north side of the entrance to the Corinthian Gulf, close to Naupactus.


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

ANTIETAM, the name of a creek in Maryland, where the battle of Antietam or Sharpsburg took place on September 16-17, 1862 (see American Civil War), between the Union forces led by McClellan and the Confederates commanded by Lee. General McClellan had taken the passes at South Mountain further east on the 14th, and his Army of the Potomac marched to confront Lee’s forces, which had successfully gathered between the Antietam and the Potomac by the 16th after being previously divided. The Confederate Army of Northern Virginia held a position that can be likened to a drawn bowstring, with Lee’s left wing making up the upper half, his right the lower, and the Potomac behind them representing the bow itself. The town of Sharpsburg symbolizes the archer’s fingers pulling the bow. The right side of the position was shielded by the Antietam as it neared the Potomac, while the upper stretch of the river wasn’t part of the battlefield. Generals Longstreet and Jackson commanded the right and left wings, respectively. A.P. Hill's division was stationed at Harper’s Ferry but had received orders to reunite with Lee. McClellan's troops arrived late on the 16th, and Hooker was immediately sent across the upper Antietam. He engaged in a fierce battle with Jackson’s troops, but nightfall soon ended the clash. Early on the 19th, the corps of Sumner and Mansfield followed Hooker across the upper stream, while McClellan’s left wing (Burnside’s corps) positioned itself across from Lee’s far right. The Union leader aimed to hold back his center while these two forces flanked Lee’s wings. The battle commenced with a violent assault on the extreme right by Hooker’s corps. After intense fighting, he was pushed back, losing a quarter of his men, with Jackson’s divisions suffering even greater losses, including nearly all their generals and colonels. Only the arrival of Hood and D.H. Hill allowed Stonewall Jackson’s corps to maintain their position, and had the other Union corps been available to support Hooker, the outcome could have been very different. Mansfield then launched an attack further left and had more success. He was killed, but his replacement led the corps effectively, and after fierce fighting, they managed to push back Hood and D.H. Hill. A lack of support stalled the Union advance, leading to heavy casualties on both sides. Sumner then entered the fray, but his eagerness resulted in disaster as his troops were ambushed from the front and flanks and were driven back in chaos, suffering nearly half their number in casualties; their retreat also impacted the brave remnants of Mansfield’s corps. Shortly after, the Union divisions of French and Richardson advanced against D.H. Hill, whose troops were now worn out from ongoing combat. Fighting occurred in the “Bloody Lane,” north of Sharpsburg, which French and Richardson ultimately captured. Despite being opposed by D.H. Hill, whose men had already fought at South Mountain and were engaged three times on that day, effective support could have allowed the Union forces to overpower Lee’s center, yet Franklin and Porter in reserve were not permitted by McClellan to advance, and the chance slipped away. Burnside, on the southern flank, received his orders late and acted on them even later. The battle was already concluded on the right before he fired a shot, and Lee had been able to use most of his right-wing troops to assist Jackson. Eventually, Burnside moved forward, and after a valiant defense by the few soldiers left to oppose him, he crossed the Antietam and began to roll up Lee’s right, only to be counterattacked from behind by A.P. Hill’s troops arriving from Harper’s Ferry. Burnside’s repulse marked the end of the battle. Pressure was placed on McClellan to resume fighting, but he declined, and Lee retreated across the Potomac unscathed. The Army of the Potomac lost 11,832 men out of 46,000 engaged; the cavalry and two reserve corps lost only 578. Lee’s 31,200 men suffered over 8,000 casualties.

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

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


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

ANTI-FEDERALISTS, is the term used in U.S. political history for those who opposed the ratification of the federal Constitution of 1787 after it was created. This “party” (though it was never formally organized) included supporters of states’ rights, local interests, individual liberties, and radical democracy. They believed that a stronger government would threaten the sovereignty and status of the states, the specific interests of local areas, or individual freedoms. Some even thought the proposed government resembled a new centralized, hidden “monarchic” power that would replace the discarded tyranny of Great Britain. Opposition to the Constitution was strong in every state, and in North Carolina and Rhode Island, it delayed ratification until the new government was established, effectively forcing their acceptance. The individualistic viewpoint was the most prominent opposition, and there was widespread recognition of the necessity or at least the desirability of a bill of rights. Instead of agreeing to the Constitution with amendments—an approach that could have secured significant concessions—the Anti-Federalists insisted on outright rejection. Public opinion ultimately showed that, despite its flaws, the Constitution was seen as better than the Articles of Confederation. After the new government was inaugurated, the Anti-Federalist party evolved. The Federalist (q.v.) party began to show broad-construction, nationalistic tendencies, while the Anti-Federalists became a strict-construction party that advocated for popular rights against the perceived aristocratic and centralizing tendencies of their opposition. This group eventually transformed into the Democratic-Republican party, led by Thomas Jefferson, who, however, had supported the ratification of the Constitution and was therefore not an Anti-Federalist in the original sense.

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

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


ANTIGO, a city and the county-seat of Langlade county, Wisconsin, U.S.A., about 160 m. N.W. of Milwaukee. Pop. (1890) 4424; (1900) 5145, of whom 965 were foreign-born; (1905) 6663; (1910) 7196. It is served by the Chicago & North Western railway. Antigo is the centre of a good farming and lumbering district, and its manufactures consist principally of 125 lumber, chairs, furniture, sashes, doors and blinds, hubs and spokes, and other wood products. The city has a Carnegie library. Antigo was first settled in 1880, and was chartered as a city in 1885. Its name is said to be part of an Indian word, neequee-antigo-sebi, meaning “evergreen.”

ANTIGO, is a city and the county seat of Langlade County, Wisconsin, U.S.A., located about 160 miles northwest of Milwaukee. The population was 4,424 in 1890, 5,145 in 1900 (with 965 being foreign-born), 6,663 in 1905, and 7,196 in 1910. It is serviced by the Chicago & North Western railway. Antigo is at the heart of a productive farming and lumbering area, and its manufacturing primarily includes 125 lumber, chairs, furniture, window sashes, doors and blinds, hubs and spokes, and other wooden products. The city is home to a Carnegie library. Antigo was first settled in 1880 and became a chartered city in 1885. Its name is believed to be derived from an Indian word, neequee-antigo-sebi, meaning “evergreen.”


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

ANTIGONE, (1) in Greek mythology, daughter of Oedipus and Iocaste (Jocasta), or, according to the older version, of Euryganeia. When her father discovered that Iocaste, the mother of his children, was also his mother, he blinded himself and gave up the throne of Thebes. She went into exile with him to Colonus. After his death, she returned to Thebes, where Haemon, the son of Creon, the king of Thebes, fell in love with her. After her brothers Eteocles and Polyneices killed each other in a duel, she buried Polyneices, even though Creon had forbidden it. As punishment, she was sentenced to be buried alive in a vault, where she hanged herself, and Haemon took his life in despair. Her character and these events from her life fascinated Greek tragic poets, especially Sophocles in the Antigone and Oedipus at Colonus, and Euripides, whose version of Antigone, though now lost, is partly known from fragments preserved by later writers and passages in his Phoenissae. In terms of the sequence of events, Sophocles deviated from the original legend, which states that the burial of Polyneices occurred while Oedipus was still in Thebes, not after his death at Colonus. Furthermore, regarding Antigone’s tragic fate, Sophocles disagrees with Euripides, who claimed that the disaster was prevented by the intervention of Dionysus and led to the marriage of Antigone and Haemon. In Hyginus’s version of the legend, apparently based on a tragedy by a follower of Euripides, Antigone, when given over by Creon to be killed by her lover Haemon, was secretly taken away by him and hidden in a shepherd's hut, where she had a son named Maeon. When Maeon grew up, he attended some funeral games at Thebes and was recognized by a dragon mark on his body. This revelation led to the discovery that Antigone was still alive. Heracles unsuccessfully pleaded with Creon to spare Haemon, who killed both Antigone and himself to avoid his father’s wrath. The moment of Heracles’ intercession is depicted on a painted vase (Heydermann, Über eine nacheuripideische Antigone, 1868). The scene of Antigone placing Polyneices' body on the funeral pyre appears on a sarcophagus in the Villa Pamfili in Rome and is mentioned in an ancient painting description by Philostratus (Imag. ii. 29), who noted that the flames consuming the two brothers burned separately, signifying their unyielding hatred, even in death.

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

(2) A second Antigone was the daughter of Eurytion, king of Phthia, and wife of Peleus. Her husband accidentally killed Eurytion during the Calydonian boar hunt, fled, and sought purification from Acastus, whose wife made advances toward Peleus. When she realized she wasn’t getting his affection back, she falsely accused him of cheating on his wife, which led to her hanging herself (Apollodorus, iii. 13).


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

ANTIGONUS CYCLOPS (or Monophthalmic; named for having lost an eye) (382-301 BCE), was a Macedonian king and the son of Philip, and he was one of the generals of Alexander the Great. He was appointed governor of Greater Phrygia in 333, and after Alexander’s death in 323, Pamphylia and Lycia were added to his command. He made an enemy of Perdiccas, the regent, by refusing to help Eumenes (q.v.) claim the provinces assigned to him. Fearing for his life, he escaped with his son Demetrius to Greece, where he gained the favor of Antipater, the regent of Macedonia (321); and shortly after, when Perdiccas died, he was given command of the war against Eumenes, who had allied with Perdiccas against the coalition of Antipater, Antigonus, and the other generals. Eumenes was completely defeated and forced to retreat to Nora in Cappadocia, while a new army coming to his aid was defeated by Antigonus. When Polyperchon succeeded Antipater (who died in 319) as regent, excluding Cassander, Antigonus decided to position himself as the ruler of all Asia and, along with Cassander and Ptolemy of Egypt, refused to recognize Polyperchon. He started talks with Eumenes, but Eumenes stayed loyal to the royal family. After escaping from Nora, Eumenes rallied an army and formed an alliance with the satraps of the eastern provinces. He was ultimately betrayed and handed over to Antigonus in Persia, where he was executed (316). Antigonus then asserted his authority over all of Asia, captured the treasures at Susa, and advanced into Babylonia, where Seleucus was governor. Seleucus fled to Ptolemy and formed an alliance with him (315), along with Lysimachus and Cassander. After a series of conflicts from 315 to 311 with mixed results, peace was achieved, which temporarily assigned the governance of Asia Minor and Syria to Antigonus. This agreement was soon broken, claiming that garrisons had been placed in some free Greek cities by Antigonus, prompting Ptolemy and Cassander to restart hostilities against him. Demetrius Poliorcetes, Antigonus's son, managed to reclaim part of Greece from Cassander. Initially, Ptolemy had a successful campaign in Asia Minor and several islands in the Aegean, but he was ultimately defeated by Demetrius in a naval battle off Salamis in Cyprus (306). Following this victory, Antigonus declared himself king and conferred the same title upon his son, asserting that he was the heir of Alexander. Antigonus then readied a large army and a powerful fleet, which he entrusted to Demetrius, and prepared to invade Ptolemy's territory. However, the invasion of Egypt failed; he could not break through Ptolemy's defenses and had to retreat. Demetrius then tried to conquer Rhodes, which had refused to aid Antigonus against Egypt; but facing stubborn resistance, he was forced to negotiate a treaty on the best terms he could manage (304). In 302, even though Demetrius was achieving victory after victory in Greece, Antigonus was compelled to recall him to confront the alliance formed by Cassander, Seleucus, and Lysimachus. A decisive battle occurred at Ipsus, where Antigonus fell at the age of eighty-one.

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

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


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

ANTIGONUS GONATAS (c. 319-239 BCE), was a Macedonian king and the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the grandson of Antigonus Cyclops. After his father passed away in 283, he took the title of king of Macedonia, but he didn't actually take the throne until 276, after it had been held by Pyrrhus, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy Ceraunus. Antigonus successfully defended against the Gallic invasion and held onto Macedonia without dispute until 274, when Pyrrhus returned from Italy and, in 273, took control of almost all the region. When Pyrrhus advanced into Peloponnesus, Antigonus regained his territories. He was again ousted from his kingdom by Alexander, the son of Pyrrhus, between 263 and 255 but managed to take it back. The later part of his reign was relatively peaceful, and he earned the love of his people through his integrity and support for the arts. He surrounded himself with notable intellectuals—philosophers, poets, and historians. He died at the age of eighty, having reigned for forty-four years. Later Greek writers usually associated his name with his supposed birthplace, Gonni (Gonnus) in Thessaly; some suggest it comes from a Macedonian word meaning a knee guard, but neither theory is satisfying, and due to our limited knowledge of the Macedonian language, it remains unclear.

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

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


ANTIGONUS OF CARYSTUS (in Euboea), Greek writer on various subjects, flourished in the 3rd century B.C. After some time spent at Athens and in travelling, he was summoned to the court of Attalus I. (241-197) of Pergamum. His chief work was the Lives of Philosophers drawn from personal knowledge, of which considerable fragments are preserved in Athenaeus 126 and Diogenes Laertius. We still possess his Collection of Wonderful Tales, chiefly extracted from the θαυμάσια Άκούσματα attributed to Aristotle and the θαυμάσια of Callimachus. It is doubtful whether he is identical with the sculptor who, according to Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxxiv. 19), wrote books on his art.

ANTIGONUS OF CARYSTUS (in Euboea), a Greek writer on various topics, thrived in the 3rd century BCE. After spending some time in Athens and traveling, he was called to the court of Attalus I. (241-197) of Pergamum. His main work was the Lives of Philosophers, based on his personal experiences, with significant fragments preserved in Athenaeus 126 and Diogenes Laertius. We still have his Collection of Wonderful Tales, mostly taken from the Amazing Sounds attributed to Aristotle and the wonderful of Callimachus. It is uncertain if he is the same person as the sculptor who, according to Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxxiv. 19), wrote books on his craft.

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

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


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

ANTIGUA, is an island in the British West Indies, along with Barbuda and Redonda, making up one of the five presidencies in the colony of the Leeward Islands. It's located 50 miles east of St Kitts, at 17° 6′ N. and 61° 45′ W., and has a circumference of 54 miles, covering an area of 108 square miles. The landscape is mostly flat, and there isn’t a central mountain range like on many other West Indian islands, although there is a peak of 1,328 feet in the southwest hills. Due to a lack of rivers, few springs, and nearly complete deforestation, Antigua experiences frequent droughts; the average annual rainfall is 45.6 inches, but this can vary significantly from year to year. The dry air is very helpful for people with lung issues. The rugged coastline has many bays and inlets, several of which make excellent harbors, with St. John's being safe and convenient, but not as good as English Harbour, which, despite being rarely visited, can accommodate very large vessels. The soil, particularly in the interior, is highly fertile. Sugar and pineapples are the main exports, but sweet potatoes, yams, corn, and guinea corn are grown for local use. Antigua is where the governor of the Leeward Islands resides and where the general legislative council meets, but there’s also a local legislative council with 16 members, half official and half unofficial. Until 1898, when the Crown Colony system was introduced, the legislative council was made up of both elected and appointed members. Elementary education is mandatory. Agricultural training is provided under government supervision, and local examinations by Cambridge and the University of London are held annually. Antigua is the see of a bishop of the Church of England, which has a majority here, but there are also many Moravians and Wesleyans. A small volunteer defense force is present on the island. There is direct steam communication with Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, as well as submarine cable services. The three main towns are St. John, Falmouth, and Parham. St. John (population about 10,000), the capital, is located in the northwest and is a very picturesque town built on a hill overlooking one of the prettiest harbors in the West Indies. While both Falmouth and Parham have good harbors, most of the island's products are sent to St. John for shipping. Trade primarily occurs with the United States, with major exports including sugar, molasses, logwood, tamarinds, turtles, and pineapples. Cotton cultivation has been successfully introduced and is also exported. The smaller islands of Barbuda and Redonda cover an area of 62 square miles. The population of Antigua in 1901 was 34,178, and for the presidency, it was 35,073.

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

Antigua was discovered in 1493 by Columbus, who reportedly named it after a church in Seville called Santa Maria la Antigua. It remained uninhabited until 1632, when a group of English settlers took over. In 1663, another settlement by the same group was established under the leadership of Lord Willoughby, to whom the entire island was granted by Charles II. The French invaded in 1666, but the British quickly regained control, and it was officially returned to them by the Treaty of Breda. Since then, it has been a British territory.


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

ANTILEGOMENA (controversial, contradicted or disputed), is a term used by early Christian writers to refer to New Testament books that, while sometimes publicly read in churches, were not considered authentic or included in the canon of Scripture for a long time. They were contrasted with the Homologoumena, or universally accepted writings. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25) uses the term Antilegomena for the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Teaching of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In later contexts, it describes those New Testament books that have an uncertain status in the Canon. These include the Epistles of James and Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Apocalypse of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.


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

ANTILIA or Antillia, sometimes known as the Island of the Seven Cities (Portuguese Isla das Sete Cidades), is a legendary island in the Atlantic Ocean. The origin of the name is quite uncertain. The oldest suggested etymology (1455) whimsically connects it to the name of the Platonic Atlantis, while later writers have tried to derive it from the Latin anterior (i.e., the island that is reached “before” Cipango), or from the Jezirat al Tennyn, “Dragon’s Isle,” according to Arabian geographers. Antilia appears on an anonymous map dated 1424, which is kept in the grand-ducal library at Weimar. It also shows up in maps by the Genoese B. Beccario or Beccaria (1435) and the Venetian Andrea Bianco (1436), as well as again in 1455 and 1476. In most of these maps, it is accompanied by smaller and equally legendary islands like Royllo, St Atanagio, and Tanmar, all classified as insulae de novo repertae, “newly discovered islands.” The Florentine Paul Toscanelli, in his letters to Columbus and the Portuguese court (1474), uses Antilia as the main reference point for measuring the distance between Lisbon and the island of Cipango or Zipangu (Japan). One of the primary early descriptions of Antilia is noted on the globe made by the geographer Martin Behaim in Nuremberg in 1492 (see Map: History). Behaim mentions that in 734—a date likely misprinted for 714—after the Moors had conquered Spain and Portugal, the island of Antilia or “Septe Cidade” was settled by Christian refugees under the archbishop of Oporto and six bishops. The inscription adds that a Spanish ship saw the island in 1414. According to an old Portuguese tradition, each of the seven leaders established and governed a city, creating a Utopian commonwealth, free from the chaos of less fortunate states. Later Portuguese tradition identified Antilia with St Michael’s Island, the largest of the Azores. It is impossible to determine how much this legend reflects an actual, though poorly documented, discovery, and how much it is a memory of the ancient idea of an elysium in the western seas found in the legends of the Isles of the Blest or Fortunate Islands.


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

ANTILLES, is a term of somewhat uncertain origin, now commonly used, especially by foreign writers, as a synonym for “West India Islands.” Similar to “Brazil,” it comes from a time before the discovery of the New World, with “Antilia,” as mentioned above, being one of those mysterious lands that appeared on medieval maps sometimes as an archipelago and sometimes as a continuous landmass of varying size, constantly shifting in the ocean between the Canaries and East India. Eventually, it became associated with the land discovered by Columbus. Later, when this was revealed to be a large archipelago surrounding the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, Antilia took on its current plural form, Antilles, which was used to refer collectively to the entire archipelago.

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

A distinction is made between the Greater Antilles, which includes Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, and Puerto Rico; and the Lesser Antilles, which covers the rest of the islands.


ANTILOCHUS, in Greek legend, son of Nestor, king of Pylos. One of the suitors of Helen, he accompanied his father to the Trojan War. He was distinguished for his beauty, swiftness of foot, and skill as a charioteer; though the youngest among the Greek princes, he commanded the Pylians in the war, and performed many deeds of valour. He was a favourite of the gods, and an intimate friend of Achilles, to whom he was commissioned to announce the death of Patroclus. When his father was attacked by Memnon, he saved his life at the sacrifice of his own (Pindar, Pyth. vi. 28), thus fulfilling an oracle which had bidden him “beware of an Ethiopian.” His death was avenged by Achilles. According to other accounts, he was slain by 127 Hector (Hyginus, Fab. 113), or by Paris in the temple of the Thymbraean Apollo together with Achilles (Dares Phrygius 34). His ashes, with those of Achilles and Patroclus, were deposited in a mound on the promontory of Sigeum, where the inhabitants of Ilium offered sacrifice to the dead heroes (Odyssey, xxiv. 72; Strabo xiii. p. 596). In the Odyssey (xi. 468) the three friends are represented as united in the underworld and walking together in the fields of asphodel; according to Pausanias (iii. 19) they dwell together in the island of Leuke.

ANTILOCHUS, in Greek mythology, was the son of Nestor, the king of Pylos. He was one of Helen's suitors and accompanied his father to the Trojan War. Notable for his looks, speed, and chariot-racing skills, he was the youngest among the Greek princes but led the Pylians in the war, performing many acts of bravery. He was favored by the gods and was a close friend of Achilles, who sent him to inform Achilles about Patroclus's death. When his father was attacked by Memnon, he saved Nestor's life at the cost of his own (Pindar, Pyth. vi. 28), fulfilling an oracle's warning to “beware of an Ethiopian.” Achilles avenged his death. In other versions, he was killed by 127 Hector (Hyginus, Fab. 113) or by Paris in the temple of Apollo Thymbraeus, alongside Achilles (Dares Phrygius 34). His ashes, along with those of Achilles and Patroclus, were placed in a mound on the Sigeum promontory, where the people of Ilium held sacrifices for the fallen heroes (Odyssey, xxiv. 72; Strabo xiii. p. 596). In the Odyssey (xi. 468), the three friends are depicted as united in the underworld, walking together in the asphodel fields; according to Pausanias (iii. 19), they live together on the island of Leuke.


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

ANTIMACASSAR, a covering placed on the back of a chair or on the head or cushions of a sofa to protect the main fabric from stains. The term comes from the hair oil that was popular in the early 19th century—Byron called it “your unmatched oil, Macassar.” The original antimacassar was typically made of stiff, white crochet that was hard and uncomfortable, but by the late 19th century, it became simpler and more aesthetically pleasing, evolving into soft colored fabrics that often featured simple patterns made with dyed wools or silk.


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

ANTIMACHUS, of Colophon or Claros, was a Greek poet and grammarian who thrived around 400 B.C. Very little is known about his life. His poetic works weren't widely appreciated, though he did get support from his younger contemporary, Plato (Plutarch, Lysander, 18). His main works included a lengthy epic called Thebais, which tells the story of the Seven's expedition against Thebes and the war of the Epigoni, and an elegiac poem titled Lyde, named after his mistress. He sought consolation for her death by exploring mythology for tales of tragic love stories (Plutarch, Consol. ad Apoll. 9; Athenaeus xiii. 597). Antimachus is considered the founder of “learned” epic poetry and a precursor to the Alexandrian school, with critics placing him just after Homer. He also created a critical edition of the Homeric poems.

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

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


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

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, was an American political group that emerged after the mysterious disappearance in 1826 of William Morgan (c. 1776-c. 1826), a Freemason from Batavia, New York. He had become unhappy with the organization and planned to publish its secrets. Once the Masons learned of his intentions, Morgan faced ongoing harassment, and in September 1826, he was kidnapped and secretly taken to Fort Niagara, from which he vanished. Although his ultimate fate was never confirmed, many people believed he had met with foul play. This incident sparked widespread outrage and led many to think that Masonry and good citizenship couldn't coexist. Churches took up the cause against Masonry as a type of religious crusade, and it became a local political issue in western New York, where many citizens resolved in mass meetings early in 1827 not to support any Mason for public office. During this time, the National Republicans, or "Adams men," were a weak organization, and savvy political leaders quickly decided to tap into the strong anti-Masonic sentiment to form a new, vibrant party to challenge the rising Jacksonian Democracy. They benefited from the fact that Jackson was a prominent Mason who often spoke highly of the Order. In the 1828 elections, the new party performed surprisingly well, and after that year, it nearly replaced the National Republican party in New York. In 1829, the influence of its leaders was evident when, besides their opposition to the Masons, they also promoted internal improvements and protectionist tariffs. The movement spread from New York to other middle states and New England, gaining particular strength in Pennsylvania and Vermont. A national organization was proposed as early as 1827 when New York leaders unsuccessfully tried to convince Henry Clay, a Mason, to renounce the Order and lead the movement. In September 1831, the party convened a national convention in Baltimore, nominating William Wirt of Maryland and Amos Ellmaker (1787-1851) of Pennsylvania as their presidential and vice-presidential candidates; in the following year's election, they obtained the seven electoral votes from Vermont. This marked the peak of their success; by 1833, the organization in New York was nearing its end, and its members gradually merged with other opponents of Jacksonian Democracy to form the Whig party. However, in other states, the party lasted a bit longer, but by 1836, most of its members had joined the Whigs. Its final act in national politics was to nominate William Henry Harrison for president and John Tyler for vice-president at a convention in Philadelphia in November 1838.

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

The rise of the anti-Masonic movement was more about the political and social climate of the time than the Morgan incident, which was just the spark that set everything off. Under the label "Anti-Masons," strong leaders brought together those who were dissatisfied with the current political situation. The fact that their presidential candidate in 1832, William Wirt, was not only a Mason but also defended the Order in a speech at the convention that nominated him shows that basic opposition to Masonry quickly became a less important factor in uniting the different groups that made up the party.

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

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


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

ANTIMONY (symbol Sb, atomic weight 120.2), is one of the metallic chemical elements, part of the same natural family as nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, and bismuth. Antimony, particularly in the form of its sulfide, has been known since ancient times, especially in Eastern cultures, with references found in the Old Testament. The Arabic name for the naturally occurring stibnite is “kohl”; Dioscorides refers to it as στίμμι, Pliny calls it stibium; and Geber refers to it as antimonium. German scholars call it Speissglanz. Basil Valentine mentions it in his Triumphal Car of Antimony (around 1600) and later describes how to prepare the metal.

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

Native mineral antimony is sometimes found and was first identified in 1748. It typically appears as layered or granular masses, with a tin-white color and metallic shine, in limestone or in mineral veins, often alongside silver ores. Distinct crystals are rarely seen; these are rhombohedral and isomorphous with arsenic and bismuth; they feature perfect cleavage parallel to the basal plane, c (111), and can sometimes be twinned on a rhombohedral plane, e (110). Its hardness is 3-3½ and specific gravity is 6.63-6.72. Notable locations for this mineral include Sala in Sweden, Allemont in Dauphine, and Sarawak in Borneo.

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

Antimony mostly occurs as the sulfide known as stibnite. To a lesser degree, it can be found combined with other metallic sulfides in minerals like wolfsbergite, boulangerite, bournonite, pyrargyrite, and others. To prepare metallic antimony, the raw stibnite is first liquated to remove earthy and siliceous materials and then roasted to turn it into oxide. After oxidation, the product is reduced by heating it with carbon, ensuring no loss through volatilization by covering the mixture with a protective layer of materials like potash, soda, or Glauber salt, which also helps with the refining process. For richer ores, roasting the sulfide with metallic iron is sometimes used; carbon and salt or sodium sulfate are employed to slag the iron. Electrolytic methods, which use a solution of antimony sulfide in sodium sulfide as the electrolyte, have been proposed (see German Patent 67973, and also Borcher’s Electro-Metallurgie), but so far they don't seem to have been implemented on a large scale.

Antimony combines readily with many other metals to form alloys, some of which find extensive application in the arts. Type-metal is an alloy of lead with antimony and tin, to which occasionally a small quantity of copper or zinc is added. The presence of the antimony in this alloy gives to it hardness, and the property of expanding on solidification, thus allowing a sharp cast of the letter to be taken. An alloy of tin and antimony forms 128 the basis of Britannia-metal, small quantities of copper, lead, zinc or bismuth being added. It is a white metal of bluish tint and is malleable and ductile. For the linings of brasses, various white metals are used, these being alloys of copper, antimony and tin, and occasionally lead.

Antimony easily combines with many other metals to create alloys, some of which are widely used in various crafts. Type-metal is an alloy made from lead combined with antimony and tin, sometimes with a small amount of copper or zinc added. The inclusion of antimony in this alloy makes it hard and allows it to expand when it solidifies, which enables a sharp cast of the letter to be achieved. An alloy of tin and antimony forms the basis of Britannia-metal, to which small amounts of copper, lead, zinc, or bismuth are added. It is a white metal with a bluish tint and is both malleable and ductile. For lining brasses, different white metals are used, consisting of alloys of copper, antimony, and tin, and sometimes lead.

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

Antimony is a shiny, silvery-white, crystalline, and brittle metal with a high luster. Its specific gravity ranges from 6.7 to 6.86; it melts at 432°C (Dalton) and boils between 1090-1600°C (T. Carnelley), or above 1300°C (V. Meyer). Its specific heat is 0.0523 (H. Kopp). The vapor density of antimony at 1572°C is 10.74, and at 1640°C it is 9.78 (V. Meyer, Berichte, 1889, 22, p. 725), which means the antimony molecule is less complex than the molecules of phosphorus and arsenic. An amorphous form of antimony can be created by heating the metal in a stream of nitrogen, which condenses in the cooler part of the apparatus into a gray powder with a specific gravity of 6.22, melting at 614°C and containing 98-99% antimony (F. Herard, Comptes Rendus, 1888, cvii. 420).

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

Another form of the metal, called explosive antimony, was discovered by G. Gore (Phil. Trans., 1858, p. 185; 1859, p. 797; 1862, p. 623) by electrolysis of a solution of antimony trichloride in hydrochloric acid, using an antimony positive pole and a copper or platinum wire negative pole. It has a specific gravity of 5.78 and always contains some unaltered antimony trichloride (from 6 to 20%, G. Gore). It is very unstable, and a scratch can cause it to instantly revert to a stable form with explosive force and a lot of heat. Similar effects occur during the electrolysis of solutions of antimony tribromide and tri-iodide, with the product from the tribromide having a specific gravity of 5.4 and containing 18-20% of antimony tribromide, while the product from the tri-iodide has a specific gravity of 5.2-5.8 and contains about 22% of hydriodic acid and antimony tri-iodide.

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

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

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

Pure antimony is quite stable in the air at normal temperatures, but when heated in air or oxygen, it burns and creates trioxide. It breaks down steam at a red heat and burns (especially when finely powdered) in chlorine. Dilute hydrochloric acid has no effect on it, but when warmed with concentrated acid, it produces antimony trichloride; it dissolves in warm concentrated sulfuric acid, forming the sulfate Sb2(SO4)3. Nitric acid oxidizes antimony to either the trioxide Sb4O6 or the pentoxide Sb2O5, depending on the temperature and concentration of the acid. It directly reacts with sulfur and phosphorus and is easily oxidized when heated with metallic oxides (like litharge, mercuric oxide, manganese dioxide, etc.). Antimony and its salts can be easily identified by the orange precipitate of antimony sulfide produced when hydrogen sulfide is passed through their acidic solutions, and also by the Marsh test (see Arsenic); in this latter case, the black stain produced is not soluble in bleaching powder solution. Antimony compounds heated on charcoal with sodium carbonate in a reducing flame produce brittle beads of metallic antimony and a white crust of the oxide. The antimonious compounds break down when water is added, forming basic salts.

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

Antimony can be quantitatively measured by converting it into the sulfide. The resulting precipitate is dried at 100° C and heated in a stream of carbon dioxide, or it can be transformed into tetroxide using nitric acid.

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

Antimony, like phosphorus and arsenic, reacts directly with hydrogen. The resulting compound, antimoniuretted hydrogen or stibine, SbH3, can also be made by treating an alloy of antimony and zinc with hydrochloric acid or by using nascent hydrogen on antimony compounds. When created this way, it has a relatively high amount of hydrogen, which can be removed by passing it through a tube cooled in liquid air, causing it to condense into a white solid. It is a toxic, colorless gas with a distinct unpleasant smell. Generally, it behaves like arsine, burning with a violet flame and breaking down into its elemental parts when heated. When introduced into a silver nitrate solution, it forms a black precipitate of silver antimonide, SbAg3. It is broken down by halogens and also by hydrogen sulfide. All three hydrogen atoms can be replaced by organic groups, and the resulting compounds can combine with substances like RCl, RBr, and RI to create stibonium compounds.

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

There are three known oxides of antimony: trioxide Sb4O6, which can combine with both acids and bases to form salts; tetroxide Sb2O4; and pentoxide Sb2O5. Antimony trioxide occurs as the minerals valentinite and senarmontite, and it can be made artificially by burning antimony in air, heating the metal in steam to a bright red, oxidizing melted antimony with litharge, breaking down antimony trichloride with a solution of sodium carbonate, or reacting the metal with dilute nitric acid. It appears as a white powder, almost insoluble in water, and when vaporized, it condenses into two crystalline forms, either octahedral or prismatic. It doesn't dissolve in sulfuric or nitric acids, but it readily dissolves in hydrochloric and tartaric acids and in caustic alkaline solutions. When heated strongly in air, it converts to tetroxide. The corresponding hydroxide, orthoantimonious acid, Sb(OH)3, can be obtained in a slightly impure form by precipitating tartar emetic with dilute sulfuric acid or more effectively by breaking down antimonyl tartaric acid with sulfuric acid and drying the resulting white powder at 100° C. Antimony tetroxide is produced by strongly heating either the trioxide or pentoxide. It is a non-volatile white powder with a specific gravity of 6.6952; it is insoluble in water and nearly so in acids — concentrated hydrochloric acid dissolves a small amount. It is broken down by a hot solution of potassium bitartrate. Antimony pentoxide is obtained by repeatedly evaporating antimony with nitric acid and heating the resulting antimonic acid to a temperature no higher than 275° C.; by heating antimony with red mercuric oxide until the mixture turns yellow (J. Berzelius); or by evaporating antimony trichloride until dry with nitric acid. It is a pale yellow powder (specific gravity 6.5) that releases oxygen and turns into tetroxide when heated strongly. It is insoluble in water but dissolves slowly in hydrochloric acid. It has a weak acidic character, producing metantimoniates when heated with alkaline carbonates.

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

Orthoantimonic acid, H3SbO4, is produced by breaking down its potassium salt with nitric acid (A. Geuther); or by adding water to the pentachloride, with the resulting precipitate dried over sulfuric acid (P. Conrad, Chem. News, 1879, xl. 198). It appears as a white powder that is nearly insoluble in water and nitric acid, and when heated, it first changes into metantimonic acid, HSbO3, and then into the pentoxide Sb2O5. Pyroantimonic acid, H4Sb2O7 (the metantimonic acid according to E. Frémy), is created by breaking down antimony pentachloride with hot water and then drying the resulting precipitate at 100° C. It is a white powder that is more soluble in water and acids compared to orthoantimonic acid. It produces two series of salts, of the types M2H2Sb2O7 and M4Sb2O7. Metantimonic acid, HSbO3, can be made by heating orthoantimonic acid to 175° C., or by prolonged fusion of antimony with antimony sulfide and nitre. The fused mass is extracted with water, nitric acid is added to the solution, and the resulting precipitate is washed with water (J. Berzelius). It is a white powder that is almost insoluble in water. When left standing in water for some time, it slowly transforms into the ortho-acid.

Compounds of antimony with all the halogen elements are known, one atom of the metal combining with three or five atoms of the halogen, except in the case of bromine, where only the tribromide is known. The majority of these halide compounds are decomposed by water, with the formation of basic salts. Antimony trichloride (“Butter of Antimony”), SbCl3, is obtained by burning the metal in chlorine; by distilling antimony with excess of mercuric chloride; and by fractional distillation of antimony tetroxide or trisulphide in hydrochloric acid solution. It is a colourless deliquescent solid of specific gravity 3.06; it melts at 73.2° C. (H. Kopp) to a colourless oil; and boils at 223° (H. Capitaine). It is soluble in alcohol and in carbon bisulphide, and also in a small quantity of water; but with an excess of water it gives a precipitate of various oxychlorides, known as powder of algaroth (q.v.). These precipitated oxychlorides on continued boiling with water lose all their chlorine and ultimately give a residue of antimony trioxide. It combines with chlorides of the alkali metals to form double salts, and also with barium, calcium, strontium, and magnesium chlorides. Antimony pentachloride, SbCl5 is prepared by heating the trichloride in a current of chlorine. It is a nearly colourless fuming liquid of unpleasant smell, which can be solidified to a mass of crystals melting at -6°C. It dissociates into the trichloride and chlorine when heated. It combines with water, forming the hydrates SbCl5·H2O and SbCl5·4H2O; it also combines with phosphorus oxychloride, hydrocyanic acid, and cyanogen chloride. In chloroform solution it combines with anhydrous oxalic 129 acid to form a compound, Sb2Cl8(C2O4), which is to be considered as tetra-chlorstibonium oxalate (R. Anschütz and Evans, Annalen, 1887, ccxxxix. 235). Antimonyl chloride, SbOCl, is produced by the decomposition of one part of the trichloride with four parts of water. Prepared in this way it contains a small quantity of the unaltered chloride, which can be removed by ether or carbon bisulphide. It is a white powder insoluble in water, alcohol and ether. On heating, it is converted into the oxychloride Sb4O5Cl2 (Sb2O3·SbOCl). Antimony oxychloride, SbOCl3, is formed by addition of the calculated quantity of water to ice-cooled antimony pentachloride, SbCl5 + H2O = SbOCl3 + 2HCl. It forms a yellowish crystalline precipitate which in moist air goes to a thick liquid. Compounds of composition, SbOCl3·2SbCl5 and SbO2Cl·2SbOCl3, have also been described (W.C. Williams, Chem. News. 1871, xxiv. 234).

Compounds of antimony with all the halogen elements are known, where one atom of the metal combines with three or five atoms of the halogen, except in the case of bromine, where only the tribromide is recognized. Most of these halide compounds decompose in water, leading to the formation of basic salts. Antimony trichloride (“Butter of Antimony”), SbCl3, is obtained by burning the metal in chlorine; distilling antimony with excess mercuric chloride; and by fractional distillation of antimony tetroxide or trisulphide in hydrochloric acid solution. It is a colorless deliquescent solid with a specific gravity of 3.06; it melts at 73.2° C. (H. Kopp) into a colorless oil and boils at 223° (H. Capitaine). It is soluble in alcohol and carbon bisulphide, and also in a small amount of water; however, with an excess of water, it produces a precipitate of various oxychlorides, known as powder of algaroth (q.v.). These precipitated oxychlorides lose all their chlorine upon continued boiling with water and eventually yield a residue of antimony trioxide. It combines with alkali metal chlorides to form double salts, and also reacts with barium, calcium, strontium, and magnesium chlorides. Antimony pentachloride, SbCl5, is made by heating the trichloride in a chlorine stream. It is a nearly colorless fuming liquid with an unpleasant smell, which can be solidified into a mass of crystals that melt at -6°C. It breaks down into trichloride and chlorine when heated. It reacts with water, forming the hydrates SbCl5·H2O and SbCl5·4H2O; it also combines with phosphorus oxychloride, hydrocyanic acid, and cyanogen chloride. In chloroform solution, it forms a compound with anhydrous oxalic acid, Sb2Cl8(C2O4), which is considered tetra-chlorstibonium oxalate (R. Anschütz and Evans, Annalen, 1887, ccxxxix. 235). Antimonyl chloride, SbOCl, is produced by decomposing one part of the trichloride with four parts of water. When made this way, it contains a small amount of the unchanged chloride, which can be removed with ether or carbon bisulphide. It is a white powder that is insoluble in water, alcohol, and ether. Upon heating, it transforms into the oxychloride Sb4O5Cl2 (Sb2O33, is formed by adding the calculated amount of water to ice-cooled antimony pentachloride: SbCl5 + H2O = SbOCl3 + 2HCl. It creates a yellowish crystalline precipitate that turns into a thick liquid in moist air. Compounds with the composition SbOCl3·2SbCl5 and SbO2Cl·2SbOCl3 have also been reported (W.C. Williams, Chem. News, 1871, xxiv. 234).

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

Antimony tribromide, SbBr3, and tri-iodide, SbI3, can be made by reacting antimony with bromine or iodine solutions in carbon bisulfide. The tribromide is a colorless crystalline substance with a specific gravity of 4.148 (23°), melting between 90° and 94° C, and boiling at 275.4° C (H. Kopp). The tri-iodide produces red crystals with a specific gravity of 4.848 (26°), melting between 165° and 167° C, and boiling at 401° C. When water is added, they create oxybromides and oxyiodides like SbOBr, Sb4O5Br2, and SbOI. Antimony penta-iodide, SbI5, is made by heating antimony with excess iodine in a sealed tube at a temperature not exceeding 130° C. It results in a dark brown crystalline mass that melts between 78° and 79° C and easily decomposes when heated. Antimony trifluoride, SbF3, is obtained by dissolving the trioxide in aqueous hydrofluoric acid or by distilling antimony with mercuric fluoride. It can be crystallized into small prisms through rapid evaporation of its solution. The pentafluoride SbF5 is produced when metantimonic acid is dissolved in hydrofluoric acid and the solution is evaporated. It forms an amorphous, gummy mass that decomposes with heat. Oxyfluorides like SbOF and SbOF3 are also known.

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

Two known antimony sulfides are trisulfide Sb2S3 and pentasulfide Sb2S5; a third, tetrasulfide Sb2S4, has been mentioned but its existence is questionable. Antimony trisulfide, Sb2S3, is found as the mineral antimonite or stibnite, and the commercial product is obtained through liquation. The amorphous form can be made from the crystalline form by dissolving it in caustic potash or soda, or in alkaline sulfide solutions, and then precipitating the hot solution with dilute sulfuric acid. The precipitate is washed with water and dried at 100° C. to get the anhydrous form. When antimony trichloride or tartar emetic is precipitated with hydrogen sulfide in an acidic solution, it yields an orange-red hydrated sulfide that turns black when heated to 200° C. Trisulfide can be reduced to metal by heating it in hydrogen; it burns in air to form tetroxide and dissolves in concentrated hydrochloric acid, as well as in caustic alkali solutions and alkaline sulfides. Antimony trisulfide combined with basic sulfides produces antimony livers. These substances are generally made by fusing their components together and appear as dark powders that become less soluble in water as their antimony content increases. These thioantimonites are used in rubber vulcanization and in match production. Antimony pentasulfide, Sb2S5, is created by precipitating a pentachloride solution with hydrogen sulfide, by breaking down “Schlippe’s salt” (q.v.) with an acid, or by introducing hydrogen sulfide into water containing antimonic acid. It appears as a fine dark orange powder that is insoluble in water but easily dissolves in aqueous caustic alkali and alkaline carbonate solutions. When heated in the absence of air, it breaks down into trisulfide and sulfur.

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

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

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

Many organic compounds that contain antimony are recognized. By distilling an alloy of antimony and sodium with methyl iodide, mixed with sand, trimethyl stibine, Sb(CH3)3, is produced; this reacts with excess methyl iodide to form tetramethyl stibonium iodide, Sb(CH3)4I. From this iodide, trimethyl stibine can be obtained by distillation with an alloy of potassium and antimony in a flow of carbon dioxide. It is a colorless liquid, slightly soluble in water, and is spontaneously flammable. When the stibonium iodide is treated with moist silver oxide, it gives the corresponding tetramethyl stibonium hydroxide, Sb(CH3)4OH, which forms deliquescent crystals, is alkaline, and readily absorbs carbon dioxide. Distilling trimethyl stibine with zinc methyl results in the formation of antimony tetra-methyl and penta-methyl. Similar antimony compounds containing the ethyl group are known, as well as a tri-phenyl stibine, Sb(C6H5)3, which is made from antimony trichloride, sodium, and monochlorobenzene. See Chung Yu Wang, Antimony (1909).

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

Antimony in Medicine.—As far back as Basil Valentine and Paracelsus, antimony-based medicines were very popular, but they were misused so much that the Paris parliament banned their use in 1566. Metallic antimony was used to create goblets where wine would sit to gain emetic properties, and "everlasting" pills made from the metal, thought to work just by being in contact, were administered and then retrieved for future use after serving their purpose. Antimony compounds irritate both externally and internally. Tartar emetic (antimony tartrate) causes vomiting when ingested because it directly irritates the stomach lining, and its effects continue after absorption by acting on the medulla. It significantly slows down the heart, reducing both its strength and rate. It also depresses breathing and, in large doses, lowers body temperature. It can impair the nervous system, particularly the spinal cord. It is eliminated through all body secretions and excretions. As it leaves the body via the bronchial mucous membrane, it increases secretion, acting as an expectorant. On the skin, it acts as a diaphoretic, and since it’s excreted through bile, it also has a slight cholagogue effect. Overall, its effects include being an irritant and a depressant for the heart and nervous system. Because of these depressant effects, it's best avoided for women and children and is rarely used for men.

Toxicology.—Antimony is one of the “protoplasmic” poisons, directly lethal to all living matter. In acute poisoning by it the symptoms are almost identical with those of arsenical poisoning, which is much commoner (See Arsenic). The post-mortem appearances are also very similar, but the gastro-intestinal irritation is much less marked and inflammation of the lungs is more commonly seen. If the patient is not already vomiting freely the treatment is to use the stomach-pump, or give sulphate of zinc (gr. 10-30) by the mouth or apomorphine (gr. 120-110) subcutaneously. Frequent doses of a teaspoonful of tannin dissolved in water should be administered, together with strong tea and coffee and mucilaginous fluids. Stimulants may be given subcutaneously, and the patient should be placed in bed between warm blankets with hot-water bottles. Chronic poisoning by antimony is very rare, but resembles in essentials chronic poisoning by arsenic. In its medico-legal aspects antimonial poisoning is of little and lessening importance.

Toxicology.—Antimony is one of the “protoplasmic” poisons, directly lethal to all living things. In cases of acute poisoning, the symptoms are almost identical to those of arsenic poisoning, which is much more common (See Arsenic). The post-mortem findings are also very similar, but gastrointestinal irritation is much less pronounced, and lung inflammation is observed more frequently. If the patient isn't already vomiting a lot, the treatment involves using a stomach pump or giving a dose of zinc sulfate (10-30 grains) orally or apomorphine (1/20 - 1/10 grain) subcutaneously. Frequent doses of a teaspoonful of tannin dissolved in water should be given, along with strong tea, coffee, and thick fluids. Stimulants can be administered subcutaneously, and the patient should be kept in bed between warm blankets with hot water bottles. Chronic poisoning from antimony is very rare but is essentially similar to chronic arsenic poisoning. In legal medicine, antimonial poisoning is of diminishing importance.


ANTINOMIANS (Gr. ἀντί, against, νόμος, law), a term apparently coined by Luther to stigmatize Johannes Agricola (q.v.) and his following, indicating an interpretation of the antithesis between law and gospel, recurrent from the earliest times. Christians being released, in important particulars, from conformity to the Old Testament polity as a whole, a real difficulty attended the settlement of the limits and the immediate authority of the remainder, known vaguely as the moral law. Indications are not wanting that St Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith was, in his own day, mistaken or perverted in the interests of immoral licence. Gnostic sects approached the question in two ways. Marcionites, named by Clement of Alexandria Antitactae (revolters against the Demiurge) held the Old Testament economy to be throughout tainted by its source; but they are not accused of licentiousness. Manichaeans, again, holding their spiritual being to be unaffected by the action of matter, regarded carnal sins as being, at worst, forms of bodily disease. Kindred to this latter view was the position of sundry sects of English fanatics during the Commonwealth, who denied that an elect person sinned, even when committing acts in themselves gross and evil. Different from either of these was the Antinomianism charged by Luther against Agricola. Its starting-point was a dispute with Melanchthon in 1527 as to the relation between repentance and faith. Melanchthon urged that repentance must precede faith, and that knowledge of the moral law is needed to produce repentance. Agricola gave the initial place to faith, maintaining that repentance is the work, not of law, but of the gospel-given knowledge of the love of God. The resulting Antinomian controversy (the only one within the Lutheran body in Luther’s lifetime) is not remarkable for the precision or the moderation of the combatants on either side. Agricola was apparently satisfied in conference with Luther and Melanchthon at Torgau, December 1527. His eighteen Positiones of 1537 revived the 130 controversy and made it acute. Random as are some of his statements, he was consistent in two objects: (1) in the interest of solifidian doctrine, to place the rejection of the Catholic doctrine of good works on a sure ground; (2) in the interest of the New Testament, to find all needful guidance for Christian duty in its principles, if not in its precepts. From the latter part of the 17th century charges of Antinomianism have frequently been directed against Calvinists, on the ground of their disparagement of “deadly doing” and of “legal preaching.” The virulent controversy between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced as its ablest outcome Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism (1771-1775).

ANTINOMIANS (Gr. instead, against, law, law), a term likely created by Luther to criticize Johannes Agricola (q.v.) and his followers, refers to an interpretation of the conflict between law and gospel that has been present since ancient times. Christians have been freed, in significant ways, from adhering to the Old Testament laws as a whole, which created a genuine challenge in determining the boundaries and immediate authority of what we now refer to as the moral law. There are clear signs that St. Paul's teaching on justification by faith was, in his time, misunderstood or twisted to support immoral behavior. Gnostic sects addressed this issue in two distinct ways. The Marcionites, labeled by Clement of Alexandria as Antitactae (rebels against the Demiurge), believed the Old Testament was fundamentally flawed because of its origin; however, they were not accused of immorality. The Manichaeans, on the other hand, considered their spiritual essence unaffected by material actions, viewing bodily sins as merely a form of physical ailment. A similar idea was held by some English fanatics during the Commonwealth, who believed that an elected person could not sin, even when engaging in clearly wrong and immoral acts. Antinomianism, as criticized by Luther regarding Agricola, was different from these perspectives. It originated from a debate with Melanchthon in 1527 about the relationship between repentance and faith. Melanchthon argued that repentance should come before faith and that understanding the moral law is necessary for true repentance. Agricola emphasized faith first, arguing that repentance is prompted not by the law but by the gospel's revelation of God's love. The ensuing Antinomian controversy (the only one within the Lutheran community during Luther’s lifetime) was marked by a lack of precision and moderation from both sides. Agricola seemed to reach a satisfactory agreement in discussions with Luther and Melanchthon at Torgau in December 1527. His eighteen Positiones from 1537 reignited the controversy and intensified it. Although some of his statements were inconsistent, he aimed at two main objectives: (1) to uphold the doctrine of faith alone by firmly rejecting the Catholic view of good works; (2) to derive all necessary guidance for Christian conduct from the principles of the New Testament, even if not directly from its commands. Starting in the late 17th century, accusations of Antinomianism have often been leveled against Calvinists due to their criticism of “deadly doing” and “legal preaching.” The heated debate between Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists produced one of its most effective responses in Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism (1771-1775).

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

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


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

ANTINOMY (Gr. instead, against, law, law) refers to the mutual incompatibility, whether real or perceived, of two laws. The term gained special importance in Kant's philosophy, where he used it to describe the conflicting outcomes of applying concepts suited for the world of sensory experience (phenomena) to the realm of pure thought. There are four of these antinomies—two mathematical and two dynamical—related to (1) the limitation of the universe in terms of space and time, (2) the idea that everything is made up of indivisible atoms (even though none exist), (3) the issue of free will in relation to universal causation, and (4) the existence of a universal being—where pure reason contradicts empirical evidence, forming a thesis and antithesis. Kant argued that these contradictions are not real, no matter how genuine they might seem to the opposing sides or how they might appear to the mind without critical understanding. Therefore, it is incorrect to attribute to Kant the belief that human reason is ultimately in conflict with itself, in the sense of being drawn by equally strong arguments toward contradictory alternatives. The confusion stems from mixing up the realms of phenomena and noumena. In reality, no rational cosmology is feasible.

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

See John Watson, Selections from Kant (trans. Glasgow, 1897), pp. 155 and following; W. Windelband, History of Philosophy (Eng. trans. 1893); H. Sidgwick, Philos. of Kant, lectures 10 and 11 (Lond., 1905); F. Paulsen, I. Kant (Eng. trans. 1902), pp. 216 and following.


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

ANTINOÜS, was a stunning young man from Claudiopolis in Bithynia, and he was the favorite of Emperor Hadrian, traveling with him on his journeys. He tragically took his own life by drowning in the Nile (CE 130), either out of deep sadness or to save his patron’s life through his sacrifice. After his death, Hadrian ensured that his memory was honored in extravagant ways. Cities were named after him, medals were minted with his likeness, and statues were erected all over the empire. He was even elevated to god-like status, with temples built for his worship in Bithynia, Mantineia in Arcadia, and Athens, along with festivals held in his honor and prophecies given in his name. The city of Antinoöpolis was established on the site of Besa, where he died (Dio Cassius lix. 11; Spartianus, Hadrian). Many statues, busts, gems, and coins depicted Antinoüs as the epitome of youthful beauty, often adorned with symbols of particular gods. Today, we still have a colossal bust in the Vatican, a bust in the Louvre, a bas-relief from the Villa Albani, a statue in the Capitoline museum, another in Berlin, another in the Lateran, and many more.

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

See Levezow, About Antinous (1808); Dietrich, Antinoos (1884); Laban, The Emotional Expression of Antinoos (1891); Antinoüs, A Romance of Ancient Rome, translated from the German by A. Hausrath, by M. Saftord (New York, 1882); Ebers, The Emperor (1881).


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

ANTIOCH. There were sixteen cities known to have been founded under this name by Hellenistic kings, and at least twelve others took on the name Antioch. But by far the most famous and significant was Antioch on the Daphne (mod. Antakia), located on the left bank of the Orontes River, about 20 miles from the sea and its port, Seleucia of Pieria (Suedia). Founded as a Greek city in 300 BCE by Seleucus Nicator, shortly after securing his control over western Asia with the victory at Ipsus (301), it was destined to rival Alexandria in Egypt as the leading city of the Near East and to become the birthplace of gentile Christianity. The geographical features of the area north and northeast of the Orontes bend make it the natural center of Syria, as long as that region is under western control; only Asian, and particularly Arab, dynasties have overlooked it in favor of the oasis of Damascus. The two main routes from the Mediterranean, passing through the Orontes gorge and the Beilan Pass, converge in the plain of Antioch Lake (Balük Geut or El Bahr) and are joined there by (1) the road from the Amanic Gates (Baghche Pass) and western Commagene, which descends the Kara Su valley, (2) the roads from eastern Commagene and the Euphratean crossings at Samosata (Samsat) and Apamea Zeugma (Birejik), flowing through the Afrin and Kuwaik valleys, and (3) the route from the Euphratean ford at Thapsacus, which runs along the edge of the Syrian steppe. Travelers using all these roads must head south along the single path of the Orontes valley. It's said that Alexander camped at the future site of Antioch and dedicated an altar to Zeus Bottiaeus, which was located in the northwest of what would become the city. However, the first western ruler to truly recognize the area's significance was Antigonus, who started to build a city called Antigonia on the Kara Su a few miles north of Antioch's location; but after his defeat, he left it to serve as a quarry for his rival Seleucus. Seleucus reportedly sought omens to decide the exact spot for his planned city, but more practical factors played a significant role in the decision. Building south of the river, on and beneath the final eastern spur of Mount Casius, provided protection against invasion from the north and control over the abundant mountain water. One stream, the Onopniktes (“donkey-drowner”), flowed through the new city, and several other streams came down a few miles west into the lovely suburb of Daphne. The chosen site seems not to have been entirely uninhabited. A settlement called Meroe, featuring a shrine to Anait, known as the “Persian Artemis” by the Greeks, had already existed there and was eventually included in the eastern suburbs of the new city. Additionally, there appears to have been a village on the spur (Mt. Silpius), referred to in later sources as Io or Iopolis. This name was always cited as proof by the Antiochenes (e.g. Libanius) eager to connect themselves to the Attic Ionians—a desire reflected in the Athenian designs used on the city’s coins. Regardless, Io may have been a small early trading colony of Greeks (Javan). John Malalas also mentions a village, Bottia, in the plain by the river.

The original city of Seleucus was laid out in imitation of the “gridiron” plan of Alexandria by the architect, Xenarius. Libanius describes the first building and arrangement of this city (i. p. 300. 17). The citadel was on Mt. Silpius and the city lay mainly on the low ground to the north, fringing the river. Two great colonnaded streets intersected in the centre. Shortly afterwards a second quarter was laid out, probably on the east and by Antiochus I., which, from an expression of Strabo, appears to have been the native, as contrasted with the Greek, town. It was enclosed by a wall of its own. In the Orontes, north of the city, lay a large island, and on this Seleucus II. Callinicus began a third walled “city,” which was finished by Antiochus III. A fourth and last quarter was added by Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.); and thenceforth Antioch was known as Tetrapolis. From west to east the whole was about 4 m. in diameter and little less from north to south, this area including many large gardens. Of its population in the Greek period we know nothing. In the 4th century A.D. it was about 200,000 according to Chrysostom, who probably did not reckon slaves. About 4 m. west and beyond the suburb, Heraclea, lay the paradise of Daphne, a park of woods and waters, in the midst of which rose a great temple to the Pythian Apollo, founded by Seleucus I. and enriched with a cult-statue of the god, as Musagetes, by Bryaxis. A companion sanctuary of Hecate was constructed underground by Diocletian. The beauty and the lax morals of Daphne were celebrated all over 131 the western world; and indeed Antioch as a whole shared in both these titles to fame. Its amenities awoke both the enthusiasm and the scorn of many writers of antiquity.

The original city of Seleucus was designed to resemble the “gridiron” layout of Alexandria by the architect Xenarius. Libanius details the initial building and layout of this city (i. p. 300. 17). The citadel was situated on Mt. Silpius, while the city primarily occupied the low ground to the north, bordering the river. Two major colonnaded streets crossed in the center. Soon after, a second district was established, likely to the east by Antiochus I., which, according to Strabo, seems to have been the native area, as opposed to the Greek part of town. This section was surrounded by its own wall. A large island in the Orontes, north of the city, became the site where Seleucus II. Callinicus began a third walled “city,” completed by Antiochus III. A fourth and final district was added by Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.); from that point on, Antioch was known as Tetrapolis. The entire area was about 4 miles in diameter from west to east and slightly less from north to south, including many large gardens. We know nothing about its population during the Greek period. In the 4th century A.D., it was estimated to be around 200,000 according to Chrysostom, who likely did not include slaves in that number. About 4 miles west, beyond the suburb of Heraclea, lay the paradise of Daphne, a park filled with woods and waters, where a great temple to the Pythian Apollo was built by Seleucus I. and adorned with a cult statue of the god, as Musagetes, by Bryaxis. A companion sanctuary dedicated to Hecate was built underground by Diocletian. The beauty and loose morals of Daphne were famous throughout the western world; indeed, Antioch as a whole gained notoriety for both aspects. Its charm sparked both enthusiasm and scorn among many ancient writers.

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

Antioch became the capital and court city of the western Seleucid empire under Antiochus I, while Seleucia-on-Tigris served as its eastern counterpart. However, its significance truly began after the battle of Ancyra (240 B.C.), which shifted the Seleucid focus away from Asia Minor and indirectly contributed to the rise of Pergamum. From that point on, the Seleucids lived in Antioch and treated it as their main capital. We know little about it during the Greek period, aside from Syria; most of our information comes from authors of the late Roman era. Among its significant Greek structures, we only hear about the theater, of which the substructures still exist on the slope of Silpius, and the royal palace, likely located on the island. It had a strong reputation for literature and the arts (Cicero pro Archia, 3), but the distinguished figures in these fields during the Seleucid era who are remembered today are Apollophanes, the Stoic, and a dream writer named Phoebus. The majority of the population appears to have been only superficially Hellenic, primarily speaking Aramaic in their everyday lives. The nicknames they gave to their later kings were in Aramaic, and aside from Apollo and Daphne, the major deities of north Syria seemed to have remained primarily native, such as the “Persian Artemis” of Meroe and Atargatis of Hierapolis Bambyce. We can infer from its nickname, “Golden,” that Antioch’s external appearance was splendid, but the city required constant repairs due to the frequent seismic activity in the area. According to the local historian John Malalas, who provides most of our knowledge about the city, the first major earthquake occurred in 148 B.C. and caused extensive damage. The inhabitants were known to be turbulent, fickle, and notoriously indulgent. During the various conflicts within the Seleucid dynasty, they often took part in violent actions, rebelling against Alexander Balas in 147 B.C. and Demetrius II in 129. The latter, bringing in a group of Jews, punished the city with fire and sword. In the final struggles of the Seleucid dynasty, Antioch firmly turned against its weak rulers, inviting Tigranes of Armenia to take control of the city in 83, attempting to dethrone Antiochus XIII in 65, and petitioning Rome against his reinstatement the following year. Their wish was granted, and Antioch, along with Syria, came under the control of the Roman Republic in 64 B.C., but remained a civitas libera.

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

The Romans felt and expressed immense disdain for the mixed-breed Antiochenes; however, their emperors favored the city from the beginning, seeing it as a more appropriate capital for the eastern part of the empire than Alexandria could ever be, given Egypt's isolated position. To some extent, they tried to create an eastern Rome. Caesar visited it in 47 BCE and confirmed its independence. A massive temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on Silpius, probably initiated by Octavian, whose cause the city had supported. A Roman-style forum was established. Tiberius constructed two long colonnades to the south towards Silpius. Agrippa and Tiberius enlarged the theater, and Trajan completed their work. Antoninus Pius paved the main east-west road with granite. A circus, additional colonnades, and numerous baths were built, along with new aqueducts to supply them, named after the Caesars, with the finest being built by Hadrian. The Roman client, King Herod, built a long stoa to the east, and Agrippa encouraged the development of a new suburb to the south of this. Under the empire, we mainly hear about the earthquakes that struck Antioch. One, in CE 37, prompted Emperor Caligula to send two senators to report on the city's condition. Another occurred in the next reign; and in 115, during Trajan’s stay with his army from Parthia, the entire area was shaken, the landscape changed, and the emperor himself had to take shelter in the circus for several days. He and his successor rebuilt the city; but in 526, after minor tremors, disaster struck again in a horrific form, claiming thousands of lives, mainly those of Christians gathered for a major church assembly. There were also particularly devastating earthquakes on November 29, 528, and October 31, 588.

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

At Antioch, Germanicus died in CE 19, and they cremated his body in the forum. Titus set up the Cherubim, taken from the Jewish temple, above one of the gates. Commodus held Olympic games in Antioch, and in A.D. 266, the town was suddenly attacked by the Persians, who killed many in the theater. In 387, a major uprising occurred due to a new tax imposed by Theodosius, and the city was punished by losing its status as a metropolitan. Zeno, who renamed it Theopolis, restored many of its public buildings just before the massive earthquake in 526, which was further devastated by the Persian Chosroes twelve years later. Justinian tried to revive it, and Procopius wrote about his repairs to the walls; however, its glory was gone.

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

The main interest of Antioch during the empire is its connection to Christianity. It was possibly evangelized by Peter, according to the tradition that the Antiochene patriarchate still uses to claim primacy (see Acts 11), and definitely by Barnabas and Saul, with its converts being the first to be called "Christians." They grew rapidly, and by the time of Theodosius, Chrysostom estimated their number to be around 100,000 people. Between 252 and 300 A.D., ten church assemblies were held in Antioch, which became the residence of the patriarch of Asia. When Julian visited in 362, the bold locals criticized him for favoring Jewish and pagan rituals, and in retaliation for the closure of its grand church built by Constantine, they burned down the temple of Apollo in Daphne. The emperor’s harsh habits and strict administration inspired mockery from Antioch's residents, to which he responded with a curious satirical apologetic piece still in existence, called Misopogon. His successor, Valens, who gave Antioch a new forum with a statue of Valentinian on a central column, reopened the grand church, which lasted until the sack by Chosroes in 538. Antioch is known for a particular school of Christian thought, marked by a literal interpretation of the Scriptures and a focus on the human limitations of Jesus. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were the prominent figures of this school. The main local saint was Simeon Stylites, who did his penance on a hill about 40 miles east of the city. His body was brought to the city and buried in a structure built under Emperor Leo. In A.D. 635, during Heraclius's reign, Antioch fell into the hands of the Saracens and deteriorated for over 300 years; however, in 969, it was reclaimed for Byzantium by Michael Burza and Peter the Eunuch. In 1084, the Seljuk Turks captured it but held it for only fourteen years before the crusaders, who besieged it for nine months and endured severe hardships, took over. Ultimately betrayed, it was given to Bohemund, the prince of Tarentum, and remained the capital of a Latin principality for nearly two centuries. It finally fell to the Egyptian Bibars in 1268 after widespread destruction and slaughter, from which it never recovered. Little is left of the ancient city today—just massive ruins of aqueducts and parts of the Roman walls, which are used as quarries for modern Antakia; however, no scientific examination of the site has been conducted. A statue in the Vatican and a silver statuette in the British Museum keep alive the image of its grand effigy of civic Fortune of Antioch—a majestic seated figure with Orontes as a youth emerging from beneath her feet.

Antakia, the modern town, is still of considerable importance. Pop. about 25,000, including Ansarieh, Jews, and a large body of Christians of several denominations about 8000 strong. Though superseded by Aleppo (q.v.) as capital of N. Syria, it is still the centre of a large district, growing in wealth and productiveness with the draining of its central lake, undertaken by a French company. The principal cultures are tobacco, maize and cotton, and the mulberry for silk production. Liquorice also is collected and exported. In 1822 (as in 1872) Antakia suffered by earthquake, and when Ibrahim Pasha made it his headquarters in 1835, it had only some 5000 inhabitants. Its hopes, based on a Euphrates valley railway, which was to have started from its port of Suedia (Seleucia), were doomed to disappointment, and it has suffered repeatedly from visitations of cholera; but it has nevertheless grown rapidly and will resume much of its old importance when a railway is made down the lower Orontes valley. It is a 132 centre of American mission enterprise, and has a British vice-consul.

Antakya, the modern town, remains significant. With a population of about 25,000, including Ansarieh, Jews, and a large community of Christians from various denominations totaling around 8,000, it holds an important place. Although it has been replaced by Aleppo (q.v.) as the capital of Northern Syria, it is still the center of a large district that is growing in wealth and productivity due to the draining of its central lake, a project undertaken by a French company. The main crops include tobacco, maize, cotton, and mulberry for silk production. Liquorice is also gathered and exported. In 1822 (and again in 1872), Antakia was affected by an earthquake, and when Ibrahim Pasha made it his headquarters in 1835, it had only about 5,000 residents. Its expectations for growth were tied to a railway that was supposed to start from its port of Suedia (Seleucia) in the Euphrates valley, but this hope was not realized, and the town has faced repeated outbreaks of cholera. Nevertheless, it has experienced rapid growth and is expected to regain much of its former significance once a railway is constructed along the lower Orontes valley. It is a 132 center of American mission efforts and has a British vice-consul.

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

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

(D. G. H.)

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

Antioch Synods. Starting with three synods held between 264 and 269 regarding Paul of Samosata, over thirty councils took place in Antioch in ancient times. Most of these addressed aspects of the Arian and Christological debates. The most notable occurred in the summer of 341 at the dedication of the golden Basilica, and is thus referred to as in encaeniis (in the renovations), in dedicatione. Nearly a hundred bishops attended, all from the East, but there was no representative from the bishop of Rome. The emperor Constantius was present. The council approved three creeds (Hahn, §§ 153-155). It's unclear if the so-called “fourth formula” (Hahn, § 156) should be attributed to a continuation of this synod or to a separate but related assembly of the same year, but its purpose aligns with that of the first three; while rejecting certain Arian statements, it steers clear of the Athanasian term “homoousios.” This somewhat bland compromise likely came from Eusebius of Nicomedia's group and was not entirely opposed by the more orthodox members of the synod. The twenty-five canons adopted govern the so-called metropolitan structure of the church. Ecclesiastical authority primarily lies with the metropolitan (later known as archbishop), and the semi-annual provincial synod (cf. Nicaea, canon 5) that he convenes and oversees. As a result, the powers of rural bishops (chorepiscopi) are limited, and direct appeals to the emperor are prohibited. The ruling of one judicatory must be respected by other judicatories of equal standing; a re-trial can only occur before the authority to which an appeal is normally made (see canons 3, 4, 6). Without proper invitation, a bishop cannot ordain or interfere in matters outside his designated area; he also cannot select his own successor. Penalties are imposed for not celebrating Easter according to the Nicene decree, as well as for leaving a church before the Eucharist service concludes. The many objections raised by prominent scholars over the years regarding the assignment of these twenty-five canons to the synod in encaeniis have been thoroughly presented and likely countered by Hefele. These canons were part of the Codex canonum used at Chalcedon in 451 and were included in later collections of both the East and West.

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

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

(W. W. R.*)

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

ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA, an ancient city, the remains of which, including ruins of temples, a theater and a fine aqueduct, were discovered by Arundell in 1833 close to the modern Yalovach. It was located on the lower southern slopes of the Sultan Dagh, in the Konia province of Asia Minor, on the right bank of a stream, the ancient Anthius, which flows into the Hoiran Geul. It was likely founded on the site of a Phrygian sanctuary by Seleucus Nicator, before 280 BCE, and was granted the status of a free city by the Romans in 189 BCE. It was a fully Hellenized, Greek-speaking city, surrounded by a Phrygian population and a mixed community that included many Jews. Before 6 BCE, Augustus established it as a colony with the title Caesarea, making it the center of civil and military administration in southern Galatia, which was rapidly becoming Romanized during the time of Claudius, CE 41-54, when Paul visited it (Acts xiii. 14, xiv. 21, xvi. 6, xviii. 23). In 1097, the crusaders found rest and shelter within its walls. The ruins are fascinating and demonstrate that Antioch was a heavily fortified city of Hellenic and Roman design.


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

ANTIOCHUS, the name of thirteen kings from the Seleucid dynasty in the Near East. The most well-known are Antiochus III, the Great (223-187 BCE), who provided refuge to Hannibal and fought against Rome, and his son Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (176-164 BCE), who attempted to suppress Judaism through persecution (see Seleucid Dynasty).

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

The name was later carried by the kings of Commagene (69 BCE-CE 72), whose dynasty was connected to the Seleucid.

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

Antiochus I of Commagene, who has been incorrectly identified with the Seleucid Antiochus XIII. Asiaticus without just cause, made a favorable peace with Pompey in 64 BCE He later fought on Pompey’s side during the Civil War and eventually defended Samosata from an attack by Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony). He died before 31 BCE and was succeeded by one Mithradates I. This Mithradates was followed by an Antiochus II, who was executed by Augustus in 29 BCE After another Mithradates, we then have Antiochus III, whose death in A.D. 17 marked the point when Commagene became a Roman province. In 38, his son Antiochus IV Epiphanes was appointed king by Caligula, but he was deposed almost immediately. Restored by Claudius in 41, he ruled until 72 as an ally of Rome against Parthia. That year, he was removed from power on charges of treason and retreated to Rome. Several of his coins still exist.

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

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


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

ANTIOCHUS OF ASCALON (1st century B.C.), Greek philosopher. His philosophy aimed to combine the ideas of his teachers, Philo of Larissa and Mnesarchus the Stoic. In response to the skepticism of the former, he argued that the intellect has an adequate measure of truth within itself; against Mnesarchus, he asserted that happiness, while primarily rooted in virtue, also relies on external circumstances. This eclectic approach is known as the Fifth Academy (see Academy, Greek). His writings have been lost, and we rely on Cicero (Acad. Pr. ii. 43), who studied under him in Athens, and Sextus Empiricus (Pyrrh. hyp. i. 235) for information. Antiochus also gave lectures in Rome and Alexandria.

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

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


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

ANTIOCHUS OF SYRACUSE, G Greek historian, was active around 420 BCE We know very little about his life, but his works, of which only fragments still exist, were highly regarded. He wrote a History of Sicily covering from the earliest times to 424, which was referenced by Thucydides, and the Colonizing of Italy, which Strabo and Dionysius of Halicarnassus often cited.

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

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


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

ANTIOPE. (1) In Greek mythology, she is the mother of Amphion and Zethus, and according to Homer (Od. xi. 260), she is the daughter of the Boeotian river-god Asopus. In later poems, she is referred to as the daughter of Nycteus or Lycurgus. Her beauty caught the attention of Zeus, who, taking the form of a satyr, forced himself on her (Apollodorus iii. 5). Afterward, she was taken by Epopeus, king of Sicyon, who refused to let her go until her uncle Lycus intervened. On her way home, she gave birth to the twins Amphion and Zethus near Eleutherae on Mount Cithaeron; Amphion was the son of the god, while Zethus was the son of Epopeus. Both boys were raised by herdsmen. In Thebes, Antiope suffered from the harassment of Dirce, the wife of Lycus, but eventually escaped toward Eleutherae, where she unwittingly took refuge in the home of her two sons, who were living as herdsmen. Dirce discovered her there and commanded the young men to tie her to the horns of a wild bull. They were about to comply when the old herdsman who had raised them revealed the truth, and instead, they punished Dirce (Hyginus, Fab. 8). As a result, it is said that Dionysus, to whom Dirce had been devoted, afflicted Antiope with madness, leading her to wander aimlessly throughout Greece until she was cured and married Phocus of Tithorca, on Mount Parnassus, where they were both buried in one grave (Pausanias ix. 17, x. 32).

(2) A second Antiope, daughter of Ares, and sister of Hippolyte, queen of the Amazons, was the wife of Theseus. There are various accounts of the manner in which Theseus became possessed of her, and of her subsequent fortunes. Either she gave herself up to him out of love, when with Heracles he captured Themiscyra, the seat of the Amazons, or she fell to his lot as a captive (Diodorus iv. 16). Or again, Theseus himself 133 invaded the dominion of the Amazons and carried her off, the consequence of which was a counter-invasion of Attica by the Amazons. After four months of war peace was made, and Antiope left with Theseus as a peace-offering. According to another account, she had joined the Amazons against him because he had been untrue to her in desiring to marry Phaedra. She is said to have been killed by another Amazon, Molpadia, a rival in her affection for Theseus. Elsewhere it was believed that he had himself killed her, and fulfilled an oracle to that effect (Hyginus, Fab. 241). By Theseus she had a son, the well-known Hippolytus (Plutarch, Theseus).

(2) A second Antiope, daughter of Ares and sister of Hippolyte, the queen of the Amazons, was the wife of Theseus. There are different stories about how Theseus came to be with her and what happened to her afterward. Either she willingly chose to be with him out of love when he and Heracles captured Themiscyra, the home of the Amazons, or she was taken as a captive (Diodorus iv. 16). Alternatively, Theseus invaded the Amazons’ territory and took her, which led to the Amazons retaliating and invading Attica. After four months of fighting, peace was reached, and Antiope was given to Theseus as part of the settlement. According to another story, she joined the Amazons to fight against him because he had betrayed her by wanting to marry Phaedra. It is said that she was killed by another Amazon named Molpadia, who was also in love with Theseus. In some accounts, it’s believed that Theseus himself killed her to fulfill a prophecy (Hyginus, Fab. 241). She had a son with Theseus, the well-known Hippolytus (Plutarch, Theseus).


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

ANTIOQUIA, is an interior department of the Republic of Colombia, located south of Bolívar, west of the Magdalena River, and east of Cauca. It covers an area of 22,870 square miles and has an estimated population of 464,887 as of 1899. Most of its land is situated between the Magdalena and Cauca rivers and includes the northern part of the Central Cordillera. The area is rich in valuable forests, and its mineral resources make it one of the most significant mining regions in the country. The capital, Medellín (estimated population 53,000 in 1902), is a bustling mining hub at an elevation of 4,822 feet and is 125 miles from Puerto Berrió on the Magdalena River. Other notable towns include Manizales (18,000), in the far south, which serves as a commercial center in a prosperous gold mining and grazing area; Antioquia, the former capital, located on the Cauca River; and Puerto Berrió on the Magdalena, where a railway has been initiated to connect to the capital.


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

ANTIPAROS (formerly known as Oliaros) is an island in the kingdom of Greece, part of the modern district of Naxos, separated by a strait (about 1½ miles wide at its narrowest point) from the west coast of Paros. It is 7 miles long and 3 miles wide, with around 700 residents, most of whom live in Kastro, a village on the north coast, and work in agriculture and fishing. Piracy used to be common here. The island's most notable feature is a stalactite cave on the south coast, which can be accessed through a narrow passage that includes two steep and dangerous descents, requiring the use of rope ladders. The grotto itself measures about 150 feet by 100 feet and is 50 feet high (not all parts are visible from any one spot, and some areas may still be unexplored), showcasing many impressive stalactite formations and brilliant incrustations. Ancient writers did not mention it; the first Western traveler to visit was the Marquis de Nointel (ambassador of Louis XIV to the Ottoman Empire), who descended into it with a large entourage and held a high mass there on Christmas Day in 1673. However, there is an inscription at the entrance of the cavern that records the names of visitors from ancient times.

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

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


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

ANTIPATER (398?-319 BCE), Macedonian general and regent of Macedonia during Alexander’s Eastern campaign (334-323). He had previously (346) been sent as an ambassador by Philip to Athens and negotiated peace after the battle of Chaeroneia (338). Around 332, he set out against the rebellious tribes of Thrace, but before this uprising was put down, Spartan king Agis revolted against Macedonia. After handling affairs in Thrace as best he could, Antipater rushed south and won a decisive victory over the insurgents in a battle near Megalopolis (331) (Diodorus xvii. 62). His regency was significantly troubled by the ambitions of Olympias, Alexander's mother, and he was nominally replaced by Craterus. However, following Alexander's death in 323, he remained in charge of Macedonia after the first partition of the empire, and in the Lamian War, he defeated the Greeks trying to regain their independence at the battle of Crannon (322). Later that same year, he and Craterus were involved in a war against the Aetolians when news arrived from Asia prompting Antipater to negotiate peace with them; Antigonus had reported that Perdiccas intended to make himself the sole ruler of the empire. Consequently, Antipater and Craterus prepared for war against Perdiccas and allied with Ptolemy, the governor of Egypt. Antipater crossed into Asia in 321, and while still in Syria, he learned that Perdiccas had been killed by his own soldiers. Craterus fell in battle against Eumenes (Diodorus xviii. 25-39). Now the sole regent, Antipater implemented several new regulations and, after suppressing a mutiny among his troops, appointed Antigonus to continue the war against Eumenes and the other supporters of Perdiccas, before returning to Macedonia, where he arrived in 320 (Justin xiii. 6). Soon after, he fell ill, which ended his active career in 319. Overlooking his son Cassander, he appointed the elderly Polyperchon as regent, a decision that led to much confusion and resentment (Diodorus xvii., xviii).


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

ANTIPHANES, was the most significant writer of Middle Attic comedy, except for Alexis, and lived from around 408 to 334 BCE He was likely a foreigner who moved to Athens, where he started writing around 387. He was incredibly prolific: over 200 of the 365 (or 260) comedies attributed to him are known from the titles and substantial fragments preserved in Athenaeus. They mostly focus on topics related to dining but include many memorable statements.

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

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


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

ANTIPHILUS, was a Greek painter from the time of Alexander. He created art for Philip of Macedon and Ptolemy I of Egypt. He was a contemporary of Apelles, who is said to have been his rival, but he seemed to have worked in a different style. Quintilian mentions his skill, and the descriptions of his works that we have show that he excelled in light and shadow, everyday scenes, and caricature.

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

See Brunn, History of Greek Artists, ii. p. 249.


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

ANTIPHON, from Rhamnus in Attica, the first of the “ten” Attic orators, was born in 480 BCE He was actively involved in political matters in Athens and, as a strong supporter of the oligarchical party, played a significant role in establishing the Four Hundred in 411 (see Theramenes); after the democracy was restored, he was accused of treason and sentenced to death. Thucydides (viii. 68) holds him in high regard. Antiphon is considered the founder of political oratory, but he only addressed the public once, during his trial. Fragments of his speech from that trial in defense of his policy (titled About migration) were edited by J. Nicole (1907) from an Egyptian papyrus. His main role was as a professional speech-writer (speechwriter) for those who felt unable to represent themselves in court—since all litigants were expected to manage their own cases—without expert help. Fifteen of Antiphon’s speeches survive: twelve are simply exercises for school based on fictional cases, divided into tetralogies, each including two speeches for prosecution and defense—accusation, defense, reply, counter-reply; three refer to actual legal cases. All of them focus on cases of homicide (deadly justice). Antiphon is also said to have written a Art or art of Rhetoric.

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

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


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

ANTIPHONY (Gr. instead, and voice, meaning “against voice”), is a type of psalmody where the choir or congregation splits into two groups and sings back and forth. The unique structure of the Hebrew psalms suggests that this antiphonal style likely started in the worship of the ancient Jewish Church. According to the historian Socrates, it was introduced into Christian worship by Ignatius (who died in 115 CE), after he had a vision of angels singing in alternate choirs. In the Latin Church, it wasn't practiced until more than two centuries later when Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, introduced it by compiling an antiphonary, a collection of texts suitable for antiphonal singing. The antiphonary still used in the Roman Catholic Church was compiled by Gregory the Great (590 AD).


ANTIPODES (Gr. ἀντί, opposed to, and πόδες, feet), a term applied strictly to any two peoples or places on opposite sides of the earth, so situated that a line drawn from the one to the other passes through the centre of the globe and forms a true diameter. Any two places having this relation—as London and, approximately, Antipodes Island, near New Zealand— must be distant from each other by 180° of longitude, and the 134 one must be as many degrees to the north of the equator as the other is to the south, in other words, the latitudes are numerically equal, but one is north and the other south. Noon at the one place is midnight at the other, the longest day corresponds to the shortest, and mid-winter is contemporaneous with midsummer. In the calculation of days and nights, midnight on the one side may be regarded as corresponding to the noon either of the previous or of the following day. If a voyager sail eastward, and thus anticipate the sun, his dating will be twelve hours in advance, while the reckoning of another who has been sailing westward will be as much in arrear. There will thus be a difference of twenty-four hours between the two when they meet. To avoid the confusion of dates which would thus arise, it is necessary to determine a meridian at which dates should be brought into agreement, i.e. a line the crossing of which would involve the changing of the name of the day either forwards, when proceeding westwards, or backwards, when proceeding eastwards. Mariners have generally adopted the meridian 180° from Greenwich, situated in the Pacific Ocean, as a convenient line for co-ordinating dates. The so-called “International Date Line,” which is, however, practically only due to American initiative, is designed to remove certain objections to the meridian of 180° W., the most important of which is that groups of islands lying about this meridian differ in date by a day although only a few miles apart. Several forms have been suggested; these generally agree in retaining the meridian of 180° in the mid Pacific, with a bend in the north in order to make the Aleutian Islands and Alaska of the same time as America, and also in the south so as to bring certain of the South Sea islands into line with Australia and New Zealand.

ANTIPODES (Gr. instead, opposed to, and feet, feet), a term used specifically for any two groups of people or places located on opposite sides of the Earth, such that a straight line drawn from one to the other passes through the center of the planet and forms a true diameter. Any two locations that have this relationship—like London and roughly Antipodes Island, near New Zealand—must be 180° apart in longitude, and one must be as many degrees north of the equator as the other is south—that is, the latitudes are numerically equal, but one is north and the other south. When it’s noon at one location, it’s midnight at the other; the longest day matches the shortest day, and mid-winter coincides with mid-summer. In counting days and nights, midnight on one side can be seen as corresponding to noon on either the previous or the following day. If a traveler sails eastward, thus getting ahead of the sun, their clock will be twelve hours ahead, while someone sailing westward will be twelve hours behind. Therefore, when they meet, there will be a 24-hour difference between them. To avoid the confusion of dates that this situation could cause, it's necessary to establish a meridian where dates should align, i.e. a line that, when crossed, requires the date to adjust either forward when heading west or backward when going east. Sailors have typically chosen the 180° meridian from Greenwich, located in the Pacific Ocean, as a practical reference line for synchronizing dates. The so-called “International Date Line,” which mainly resulted from American efforts, aims to address some issues with the 180° W meridian, the most notable of which is that groups of islands near this meridian can have a one-day difference in date even though they are only a few miles apart. Various proposals have been made; they generally agree on preserving the 180° meridian in mid-Pacific, with a bend to the north to align the Aleutian Islands and Alaska with America, and also a bend to the south to align certain South Sea islands with Australia and New Zealand.


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

ANTIPYRINE (phenyldimethyl pyrazolone) (C11H12N2O) is made by combining phenylhydrazine with aceto-acetic ester. The resulting phenyl methyl pyrazolone is then heated with methyl iodide and methyl alcohol at a temperature of 100-110° C.:

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

In large-scale production, phenylhydrazine is dissolved in dilute sulfuric acid, and the solution is heated to about 40° C. Next, acetoacetic ester is added. Once the reaction is complete, the acid is neutralized with soda, and phenyl methyl pyrazolone is extracted with ether and distilled in vacuo. The portion that distills at about 200° C. is then methylated using methyl alcohol and methyl iodide at 100-110° C. Excess methyl alcohol is removed, and the product is decolorized with sulfuric acid. The residue is treated with a warm concentrated soda solution, and the oil that separates is extracted by shaking it with benzene. After evaporating the benzene layer, anti-pyrine is obtained as a colorless crystalline solid that melts at 113° C. and is soluble in water. It has a basic nature and produces a red color when ferric chloride is added. In medicine, anti-pyrine (“phenazonum”) has been used as an analgesic and antipyretic. The typical dose is 5-20 grams, but due to its depressant effect on the heart and its potential toxic effects, it is now rarely used. It is more safely replaced by phenacetine.


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

ANTIQUARY, a person who dedicates themselves to studying ancient knowledge and "antiques," i.e. ancient objects of art or science. The London Society of Antiquaries was established in the 18th century to encourage the study of antiquities. As early as 1572, a society was founded by Bishop Matthew Parker, Sir Robert Cotton, William Camden, and others for the preservation of national antiquities. This group existed until 1604, when it was suspected of having political motives and was dissolved by James I. Papers presented at their meetings are stored in the Cottonian library and were published by Thomas Hearne in 1720 under the title A Collection of Curious Discourses, with a second edition released in 1771. In 1707, a group of English antiquaries started holding regular meetings to discuss their interests, and in 1717 the Society of Antiquaries was officially restructured, finally receiving a charter from George II in 1751. In 1780, George III. granted the society rooms in Somerset House, Strand. The society is managed by a council of twenty and a president who is ex officio a trustee of the British Museum. The current headquarters of the society are at Burlington House, Piccadilly.

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

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


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

VINTAGE (Lat. antiquus, old), a term typically used to refer to the remnants of ancient art, like sculptures, gems, coins, seals, etc. In a narrower sense, it applies specifically to Greek and Roman art and does not include the artistic remains of other ancient cultures or any classical art created after the fall of the Western Empire.


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

ANTI-SEMITISM. In the political battles of the late 19th century, a significant part was played by a religious, political, and social movement against the Jews, known as “Anti-Semitism.” The origins of this notable movement are starting to become blurred by legend. The Jews argue that anti-Semitism is just an outdated revival of the Jew-hatred prevalent in the Middle Ages. The most extreme anti-Semites, who have given the movement its pseudo-scientific label, claim that it is a racial struggle—part of the ongoing conflict between Europe and Asia—and that anti-Semites are trying to prevent what they call the Aryan race from being dominated by Semitic immigration, and to protect Aryan ideals from being altered by a foreign and corrupting eastern worldview. There is no solid basis for either of these claims. Long-standing religious prejudices have been revived by the anti-Semitic movement, but they didn’t start it, and they haven’t fully dictated it. The supposed racial differences are also just a linguistic theory, and anthropologists disagree about the physical evidence for it (Topinard, Anthropologie, p. 444; Taylor, Origins of Aryans, cap. i.). Even if it were proven, these differences have existed in Europe for so many centuries, and there have been so many ethnic changes on both sides, that it can’t be seen as a practical issue. It is true that the ethnic histories of the Jews and European nations have moved along very different paths, but these paths have crossed and intertwined multiple times. Aryan elements are present at the start of both; European morals have been deeply influenced by Christianity, and the Jews have been part of Europe for over a thousand years, during which their identity has been altered and, in some ways, transformed by the religious and civil systems of the countries where they have settled. Therefore, anti-Semitism is primarily a question of European politics, and its roots are found not in the long-standing conflict between Europe and Asia, or between the Church and the Synagogue, which dominated much of ancient and medieval history, but in the social conditions that came about from the emancipation of the Jews in the mid-19th century.

If the emancipated Jews were Europeans in virtue of the antiquity of their western settlements, and of the character impressed upon them by the circumstances of their European history, they none the less presented the appearance of a strange people to their Gentile fellow-countrymen. They had been 135 secluded in their ghettos for centuries, and had consequently acquired a physical and moral physiognomy differentiating them in a measure from their former oppressors. This peculiar physiognomy was, on its moral side, not essentially Jewish or even Semitic. It was an advanced development of the main attributes of civilized life, to which Christendom in its transition from feudalism had as yet only imperfectly adapted itself. The ghetto, which had been designed as a sort of quarantine to safeguard Christendom against the Jewish heresy, had in fact proved a storage chamber for a portion of the political and social forces which were destined to sweep away the last traces of feudalism from central Europe. In the ghetto, the pastoral Semite, who had been made a wanderer by the destruction of his nationality, was steadily trained, through centuries, to become an urban European, with all the parasitic activities of urban economics, and all the democratic tendencies of occidental industrialism. Excluded from the army, the land, the trade corporations and the artisan gilds, this quondam oriental peasant was gradually transformed into a commercial middleman and a practised dealer in money. Oppressed by the Church, and persecuted by the State, his theocratic and monarchical traditions lost their hold on his daily life, and he became saturated with a passionate devotion to the ideals of democratic politics. Finally, this former bucolic victim of Phoenician exploitation had his wits preternaturally sharpened, partly by the stress of his struggle for life, and partly by his being compelled in his urban seclusion to seek for recreation in literary exercises, chiefly the subtle dialectics of the Talmudists (Loeb, Juif de l’histoire; Jellinek, Der Jüdische Stamm). Thus, the Jew who emerged from the ghetto was no longer a Palestinian Semite, but an essentially modern European, who differed from his Christian fellow-countrymen only in the circumstances that his religion was of the older Semitic form, and that his physical type had become sharply defined through a slightly more rigid exclusiveness in the matter of marriages than that practised by Protestants and Roman Catholics (Andree, Volkskunde der Juden, p. 58).

If the freed Jews were Europeans because of the long history of their western settlements and the impact of their European experiences, they still seemed like a foreign people to their Gentile neighbors. They had been isolated in their ghettos for centuries, which had resulted in a distinct physical and moral identity that set them apart from their previous oppressors. This unique identity, on the moral side, was not distinctly Jewish or even Semitic. It represented an evolved version of the fundamental traits of civilized life, to which Christendom had only partially adapted during its shift away from feudalism. The ghetto, originally created as a kind of quarantine to protect Christendom from Jewish heresy, had actually become a reservoir for some of the political and social forces that would ultimately eliminate the last remnants of feudalism in central Europe. Within the ghetto, the pastoral Semite, made a wanderer by the loss of his nationality, was slowly trained over centuries to transform into an urban European, embracing all the economic activities of city life and the democratic trends of Western industrialism. Excluded from the army, land, trade unions, and craft guilds, this former Oriental peasant gradually evolved into a commercial intermediary and an adept money handler. Oppressed by the Church and persecuted by the State, his theological and monarchical traditions lost their grip on his everyday life, leading him to adopt a passionate commitment to the ideals of democratic governance. Lastly, this once rural victim of Phoenician exploitation sharpened his wits, partly due to the challenges of survival, and partly because his urban isolation forced him to find entertainment in literary pursuits, particularly the intricate arguments of the Talmudists (Loeb, Juif de l’histoire; Jellinek, Der Jüdische Stamm). Thus, the Jew emerging from the ghetto was no longer a Palestinian Semite but a distinctly modern European, differing from his Christian compatriots mainly because his religion followed the older Semitic tradition and his physical characteristics had been sharply defined by a slightly stricter exclusivity in marriage than that observed by Protestants and Roman Catholics (Andree, Volkskunde der Juden, p. 58).

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

Unfortunately, these unique elements, while not very serious on their own, became highly emphasized due to concentration. If it had been possible to distribute the emancipated Jews evenly throughout Christian society, like other emancipated religious groups, there would have been no resurgence of the Jewish question. However, the Jews, not by their own doing, were limited to just one class in European society—the industrial bourgeoisie. They fully invested their strength into that class, and due to their ghetto upbringing, they quickly rose to a prominent position within it, both politically and socially. When the mid-century revolutions elevated the bourgeoisie to the ruling power in Europe, the illusion of a Hebrew domination emerged. It was the exaggeration of this perceived domination, not by the bourgeoisie itself, but by its adversaries among the defeated reactionaries on one side and by the extreme radicals on the other, that birthed modern anti-Semitism as a political force.

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

The movement started in Germany and Austria. Here, the concentration of Jews in one segment of the population was worsened by their large numbers. While in France, the percentage of Jews in the total population in the early 1870s was 0.14%, and in Italy it was 0.12%, in Germany, it was 1.22%, and in Austria-Hungary, it was 3.85%; Berlin had 4.36% Jews, and Vienna had 6.62% (Andree, Volkskunde, pp. 287, 291, 294, 295). As a result, Jewish activity was much more intense in these countries than elsewhere. This was evident even before the emancipations of 1848. By the middle of the 18th century, a limited number of wealthy Jews were allowed as Schutz-Juden outside the ghettos, and their sons, educated as Germans under Moses Mendelssohn and his school (see Jews), made up most of the leading figures in the revolutionary movement. This period included notable names like Ludwig Börne (1786-1837), Heinrich Heine (1799-1854), Edward Ganz (1798-1839), Gabriel Riesser (1806-1863), Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Moses Hess (1812-1875), Ignatz Kuranda (1811-1884), and Johann Jacobi (1805-1877). After the revolution, when Jews fully participated in the national life of Germany and Austria, they maintained high standards across all intellectual fields of middle-class activity. Here again, due to the circumstances of their history, further concentration became noticeable. Their contributions were almost entirely intellectual. Many moved into finance and distribution (as opposed to production), which were the sectors they had been limited to in the ghettos. The heightened abilities of the younger generation allowed them to excel in schools, leading them to dominate professions, especially medicine, law, and journalism (Nossig, Statistik des Jüd. Stammes, pp. 33-37; Jacobs, Jew. Statistics, pp. 41-69). Thus the so-called “Semitic domination” became increasingly pronounced. If it took a long time to provoke resentment and jealousy, it was because it was not at all foreign to the new national life. The competition was fair. The Jews might have been more successful than their Christian neighbors, but that was due to qualities that aligned with national standards of behavior. They were as law-abiding and patriotic as they were intelligent. The crime rate among them was far below the average (Nossig, p. 31). Their complete integration into the national spirit was brilliantly showcased by the contributions to German literature, art, and science from figures like Heinrich Heine, Berthold Auerbach (1812-1882), Felix Mendelssohn (-Bartholdy) (1809-1847), Jacob Meyerbeer (1794-1864), mathematician Karl Gustav Jacobi (1804-1851), physiologist Gabriel Gustav Valentin (1810-1883), and national psychologists Moritz Lazarus (1824-1903) and Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899). In politics, Edward Lasker (1829-1884) and Ludwig Bamberger (1823-1899) demonstrated how Jews could prioritize their country over party interests when they led the split from the Fortschritts-Partei in 1866 and founded the National Liberal Party, helping Prince Bismarck achieve German unity. Even their financiers were as patriotic as their Christian fellow citizens. Prince Bismarck himself admitted that the funds for the 1866 campaign came from Jewish banker Bleichroeder, despite the money market's refusal to support the war. Therefore, the echoes of old anti-Jewish sentiments—though still faintly present in some backward areas—were silenced, with oppression and persecution continuing mainly in places where medieval attitudes lingered, such as Russia, Romania, northern Africa, and Persia.

The signal for the change came in 1873, and was given unconsciously by one of the most distinguished Jews of his time, Edward Lasker, the gifted lieutenant of Bennigsen in the leadership of the National Liberal party. The unification of Germany in 1870, and the rapid payment of the enormous French war indemnity, had given an unprecedented impulse to industrial and financial activity throughout the empire. Money became cheap and speculation universal. A company mania set in which was favoured by the government, who granted railway and other concessions with a prodigal hand. The inevitable result of this state of things was first indicated by Jewish politicians and economists. On the 14th of January 1873, Edward Lasker called the attention of the Prussian diet to the dangers of the situation, while his colleague, Ludwig Bamberger, in an able article in the Preussischen Jahrbücher, condemned the policy which had permitted the milliards to glut the country instead of being paid on a plan which would have facilitated their gradual digestion by the economic machinery of the nation. Deeply impressed by the gravity of the impending crisis, Lasker instituted a searching inquiry, with the result that he discovered a series of grave company scandals in which financial promoters and aristocratic directors were chiefly involved. Undeterred by the fact that the leading spirit in these abuses, Bethel Henry Strousberg (1823-1884), was a Jew, Lasker presented the results of his inquiry to the diet on the 7th of February 1873, in a speech 136 of great power and full of sensational disclosures. The dramatic results of this speech need not be dwelt upon here (for details see Blum, Das deutsche Reich zur Zelt Bismarcks, pp. 153-181). It must suffice to say that in the following May the great Vienna “Krach” occurred, and the colossal bubble of speculation burst, bringing with it all the ruin foretold by Lasker and Bamberger. From the position occupied by the Jews in the commercial class, and especially in the financial section of that class, it was inevitable that a considerable number of them should figure in the scandals which followed. At this moment an obscure Hamburg journalist, Wilhelm Marr, who as far back as 1862 had printed a still-born tract against the Jews (Judenspiegel), published a sensational pamphlet entitled Der Sieg des Judenthums uber das Germanthum (“The Victory of Judaism over Germanism”). The book fell upon fruitful soil. It applied to the nascent controversy a theory of nationality which, under the great sponsorship of Hegel, had seized on the minds of the German youth, and to which the stirring events of 1870 had already given a deep practical significance. The state, according to the Hegelians, should be rational, and the nation should be a unit comprising individuals speaking the same language and of the same racial origin. Heterogeneous elements might be absorbed, but if they could not be reduced to the national type they should be eliminated. This was the pseudo-scientific note of the new anti-Semitism, the theory which differentiated it from the old religious Jew-hatred and sought to give it a rational place in modern thought. Marr’s pamphlet, which reviewed the facts of the Jewish social concentration without noticing their essentially transitional character, proved the pioneer of this teaching. It was, however, in the passions of party politics that the new crusade found its chief sources of vitality. The enemies of the bourgeoisie at once saw that the movement was calculated to discredit and weaken the school of Manchester Liberalism, then in the ascendant. Agrarian capitalism, which had been dethroned by industrial capitalism in 1848, and had burnt its fingers in 1873, seized the opportunity of paying off old scores. The clericals, smarting under the Kutlturkampj, which was supported by the whole body of Jewish liberalism, joined eagerly in the new cry. In 1876 another sensational pamphlet was published, Otto Glogau’s Die Börsen und Grundergeschwindel in Berlin (“The Bourses and the Company Swindles in Berlin”), dealing in detail with the Jewish participation in the scandals first revealed by Lasker. The agitation gradually swelled, its growth being helped by the sensitiveness and cacoëthes scribendi of the Jews themselves, who contributed two pamphlets and a much larger proportion of newspaper articles for every one supplied by their opponents (Jacobs. Bibliog. Jew. Question, p. xi.). Up to 1879, however, it was more of a literary than a political agitation, and was generally regarded only as an ephemeral craze or a passing spasm of popular passion.

The signal for change came in 1873, and it was given unknowingly by one of the most notable Jews of his time, Edward Lasker, a talented aide to Bennigsen in leading the National Liberal party. The unification of Germany in 1870 and the quick repayment of the huge French war indemnity had sparked an unprecedented surge in industrial and financial activity across the empire. Money became cheap, and speculation was everywhere. A mania for companies set in, encouraged by the government, which generously granted railway and other concessions. The inevitable consequences of this situation were first pointed out by Jewish politicians and economists. On January 14th, 1873, Edward Lasker alerted the Prussian diet to the dangers at hand, while his colleague, Ludwig Bamberger, in an insightful article in the Preussischen Jahrbücher, criticized the policy that allowed billions to flood the country rather than being paid according to a plan that would have helped the economy absorb them gradually. Deeply concerned by the severity of the looming crisis, Lasker initiated a thorough investigation that uncovered a series of serious corporate scandals mainly involving financial promoters and aristocratic directors. Despite the fact that the main figure in these abuses, Bethel Henry Strousberg (1823-1884), was Jewish, Lasker presented the findings of his inquiry to the diet on February 7th, 1873, in a powerful speech filled with shocking revelations. The dramatic impact of this speech needs no elaboration here (for details see Blum, Das deutsche Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks, pp. 153-181). It is enough to say that in May that year, the huge Vienna “Krach” occurred, and the massive bubble of speculation burst, bringing the ruin Lasker and Bamberger had predicted. Given the position of Jews in the commercial class, especially within the financial sector, it was inevitable that many would be involved in the ensuing scandals. At this moment, an unknown Hamburg journalist, Wilhelm Marr, who had published a stillborn tract against the Jews as early as 1862 (Judenspiegel), released a sensational pamphlet titled Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanthum (“The Victory of Judaism over Germanism”). The pamphlet found a receptive audience. It applied a nationalist theory, championed by Hegel, that had captivated the minds of German youth, which the dramatic events of 1870 had already given significant relevance. According to the Hegelians, the state should be rational, and the nation should be a unit made up of individuals who speak the same language and share the same racial background. Diverse elements could be integrated, but if they couldn't conform to the national type, they should be eliminated. This was the pseudo-scientific essence of the new anti-Semitism, a theory that set it apart from the old religious hatred of Jews and sought to rationalize it within modern thought. Marr’s pamphlet, which addressed the realities of Jewish social concentration without acknowledging their fundamentally transitional nature, was the precursor of this ideology. However, the passions of party politics provided the new movement with its main source of energy. The enemies of the bourgeoisie immediately recognized that the movement was designed to discredit and undermine the schools of Manchester Liberalism, which were then gaining strength. Agrarian capitalism, dethroned by industrial capitalism in 1848 and burned by the events of 1873, took this chance to settle old scores. The clerics, still feeling the sting of the Kulturkampf, which was backed by the entire body of Jewish liberalism, eagerly joined the new campaign. In 1876, another sensational pamphlet was published, Otto Glogau’s Die Börsen und Grundergeschwindel in Berlin (“The Bourses and the Company Swindles in Berlin”), which detailed Jewish involvement in the scandals first uncovered by Lasker. The agitation gradually escalated, fueled by the sensitivity and cacoëthes scribendi of the Jews themselves, who produced two pamphlets and a significantly larger share of newspaper articles for every one provided by their opponents (Jacobs. Bibliog. Jew. Question, p. xi.). However, until 1879, it was more a literary than a political agitation and was generally viewed as a fleeting craze or a temporary outburst of popular emotion.

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

Towards the end of 1879, it spread rapidly across all of Germany. This surge, occurring at a time when there were no new financial scandals or other examples of Jewish moral decay and dominance in the public eye, has never been completely understood. However, it's clear that the underlying causes of this new agitation were largely influenced by Prince Bismarck himself. Since 1877, the relationship between the chancellor and the National Liberals had gradually soured. The budget deficit had forced the government to consider new taxes, and to push these through the Reichstag, they sought the support of the National Liberals. Up until that point, the National Liberals had consistently backed the chancellor in strengthening the new empire, but the main goal of their leaders, particularly Lasker and Bamberger, who had learned their politics in England, was to implement a constitutional and economic system similar to that of Great Britain. With German unity now established, they saw Bismarck's new proposals as an opening to demand their constitutional rights. These demands were denied, the Reichstag was dissolved, and Bismarck boldly introduced a new fiscal policy, combining protectionism and state socialism. Lasker and Bamberger then led a significant break of National Liberals into opposition, forcing the chancellor to seek a new majority among ultra-Conservatives and the Roman Catholic Centre. This marked the beginning of the well-known "journey to Canossa." Bismarck didn't hide his embarrassment. He started to see anti-Semitism as a way to undermine the liberal Jews, and he hinted at this strategy to his allies who assisted him with his media campaigns (Busch, Bismarck, ii. 453-454, iii. 16). He even discussed a new Kulturkampf against the Jews (ibid. ii. p. 484). While it's unclear how these hints were acted upon, it's telling that the final split with the National Liberals occurred in July 1879, right before a significant resurgence of anti-Semitic activity. Marr’s pamphlet was reprinted and went through nine more editions within a few months. The historian Treitschke lent his prestigious name to the movement. The Conservative and Ultramontane press echoed the accusations against the Jews. In October, an anti-Semitic league was founded in Berlin and Dresden (for the league's statutes see Nineteenth Century, February 1881, p. 344).

The leadership of the agitation was now definitely assumed by a man who combined with social influence, oratorical power and inexhaustible energy, a definite scheme of social regeneration and an organization for carrying it out. This man was Adolf Stöcker (b. 1835), one of the court preachers. He had embraced the doctrines of Christian socialism which the Roman Catholics, under the guidance of Archbishop Ketteler, had adopted from the teachings of the Jew Lassalle (Nitti, Catholic Socialism, pp. 94-96, 122, 127), and he had formed a society called “The Christian Social Working-man’s Union.” He was also a conspicuous member of the Prussian diet, where he sat and voted with the Conservatives. He found himself in strong sympathy with Prince Bismarck’s new economic policy, which, although also of Lassallian origin (Kohut, Ferdinand Lassalle, pp. 144 et seq.), was claimed by its author as being essentially Christian (Busch, p. 483). Under his auspices the years 1880-1881 became a period of bitter and scandalous conflict with the Jews. The Conservatives supported him, partly to satisfy their old grudges against the Liberal bourgeoisie and partly because Christian Socialism, with its anti-Semitic appeal to ignorant prejudice, was likely to weaken the hold of the Social Democrats on the lower classes. The Lutheran clergy followed suit, in order to prevent the Roman Catholics from obtaining a monopoly of Christian Socialism, while the Ultramontanes readily adopted anti-Semitism, partly to maintain their monopoly, and partly to avenge themselves on the Jewish and Liberal supporters of the Kulturkampf. In this way a formidable body of public opinion was recruited for the anti-Semites. Violent debates took place in the Prussian diet. A petition to exclude the Jews from the national schools and universities and to disable them from holding public appointments was presented to Prince Bismarck. Jews were boycotted and insulted. Duels between Jews and anti-Semites, many of them fatal, became of daily occurrence. Even unruly demonstrations and street riots were reported. Pamphlets attacking every phase and aspect of Jewish life streamed by the hundred from the printing-press. On their side the Jews did not want for friends, and it was owing to the strong attitude adopted by the Liberals that the agitation failed to secure legislative fruition. The crown prince (afterwards Emperor Frederick) and crown princess boldly set themselves at the head of the party of protest. The crown prince publicly declared that the agitation was “a shame and a disgrace to Germany.” A manifesto denouncing the movement as a blot on German culture, a danger to German unity and a flagrant injustice to the Jews themselves, was signed by a long list of illustrious men, including Herr von Forckenbeck, Professors Mommsen, Gneist, Droysen, Virchow, and Dr Werner Siemens (Times, November 18, 1880). During the Reichstag elections of 1881 the agitation played an active part, but without much effect, although Stöcker was elected. This was due to the fact that the great Conservative parties, so 137 far as their political organizations were concerned, still remained chary of publicly identifying themselves with a movement which, in its essence, was of socialistic tendency. Hence the electoral returns of that year supplied no sure guide to the strength of anti-Semitic opinion among the German people.

The leadership of the movement was now firmly taken over by a man who, along with his social influence, excellent speaking skills, and endless energy, had a clear plan for social improvement and an organization to implement it. This man was Adolf Stöcker (b. 1835), one of the court preachers. He had accepted the ideas of Christian socialism that the Roman Catholics, led by Archbishop Ketteler, had adopted from the teachings of the Jew Lassalle (Nitti, Catholic Socialism, pp. 94-96, 122, 127), and he had formed a group called “The Christian Social Working-man’s Union.” He was also a prominent member of the Prussian diet, where he sat and voted with the Conservatives. He strongly supported Prince Bismarck’s new economic policy, which, while also of Lassallian origin (Kohut, Ferdinand Lassalle, pp. 144 et seq.), was claimed by its author to be fundamentally Christian (Busch, p. 483). During his leadership, the years 1880-1881 saw intense and scandalous conflict with the Jews. The Conservatives backed him, partly to settle old scores against the Liberal bourgeoisie and partly because Christian Socialism, with its anti-Semitic appeal to ignorant prejudice, was likely to reduce the Social Democrats' influence on the lower classes. The Lutheran clergy joined in to prevent the Roman Catholics from monopolizing Christian Socialism, while the Ultramontanes eagerly embraced anti-Semitism, partly to maintain their hold and partly to retaliate against the Jewish and Liberal supporters of the Kulturkampf. Thus, a strong public opinion was rallied in favor of the anti-Semites. Intense debates occurred in the Prussian diet. A petition to exclude Jews from national schools and universities and bar them from public appointments was submitted to Prince Bismarck. Jews faced boycotts and insults. Duels between Jews and anti-Semites, many of which were fatal, became daily events. There were even reports of unruly protests and street riots. Pamphlets attacking every aspect of Jewish life poured out by the hundreds from the printing presses. On their part, the Jews had allies, and it was due to the robust stance taken by the Liberals that the movement failed to achieve legislative success. The crown prince (later Emperor Frederick) and crown princess boldly took the lead in the protest. The crown prince publicly stated that the agitation was “a shame and a disgrace to Germany.” A manifesto denouncing the movement as a stain on German culture, a threat to German unity, and a blatant injustice to the Jews was signed by a long list of notable figures, including Herr von Forckenbeck, Professors Mommsen, Gneist, Droysen, Virchow, and Dr. Werner Siemens (Times, November 18, 1880). During the Reichstag elections of 1881, the agitation was actively involved, but without significant impact, although Stöcker was elected. This was because the major Conservative parties, regarding their political organizations, remained hesitant to publicly associate themselves with a movement that was fundamentally socialist in nature. Therefore, the electoral results of that year did not provide a reliable measure of the strength of anti-Semitic sentiment among the German people.

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

The first big setback for German anti-Semites happened in 1881, when, to the outrage of the entire civilized world, the brutal riots against Jews in Russia and the resurgence of the medieval Blood Accusation in Hungary (see infra) demonstrated how unthinking mobs can violently enact the inflammatory ideas put forward by the new Jew-haters. Anti-Semitism might have bounced back from this blow if it weren't for the infighting and scandals within its own ranks, along with the artificial forms it later took through superficial alliances with political parties that were more interested in benefiting from the anti-Jewish agitation than actually persecuting Jews. The divisions became apparent during the first attempt to create a political party based on anti-Semitism. Gradually, the agitators split into two groups: economic and ethnological anti-Semites. The extreme racial views of Marr and Treitschke were not embraced by Stöcker and the Christian Socialists. They were more inclined to leave the Jews alone as long as they behaved properly, and even though their campaigns against Jewish wrongdoings superficially aligned them with more extreme anti-Semites, they were actually not keen on adopting the racial theory that proposed a return to Jewish disabilities (Huret, La Question Sociale—interview with Stöcker). This attitude was reinforced by an extreme faction of racial anti-Semites who sought to broaden their campaign against Judaism to include its descendants, Christianity. In 1879, Professor Sepp claimed that Jesus belonged to no human race and suggested that Christianity should discard the Hebrew Scriptures and find a new historical foundation in cuneiform inscriptions. Later, Dr. Eugen Dübring criticized Christianity in several pamphlets, particularly in Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters (1881, 5th ed. Berlin, 1901), arguing it was a product of the Semitic spirit incompatible with the theological and ethical views of Scandinavian people. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche shared a similar perspective, unintentionally revealing the absurdity of the entire movement in his works, including Menschliches, Allzumenschliches (1878), Jenseits von Gut und Böse (1886), and Genealogie der Moral (1887). The Christian Socialists had no sympathy for these views, leading to the creation of two rival groups in March 1881 when an attempt was made to establish a political organization for anti-Semitism: the “Deutsche Volksverein,” backed by Conservative leaders Herr Liebermann von Sonnenberg (b. 1848) and Herr Förster, and the “Sociale Reichsverein,” led by racial and Radical anti-Semites Ernst Henrici (b. 1854) and Otto Böckel (b. 1859). In 1886, an anti-Semitic congress in Cassel resulted in a temporary reunion under the name “Deutsche antisemitische Verein,” but it only lasted three years. In June 1889, the anti-Semitic Christian Socialists under Stöcker split off again.

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

Meanwhile, racial anti-Semitism, with its extreme proposals, was gaining significant support among the uneducated lower classes. It connected more effectively with popular emotions and deep-seated prejudices than the more intellectual ideas of the Christian Socialists. The latter were mostly Conservatives, and their connections with the working class were mostly artificial. Among the peasantry in Hesse, the provocative messages of Böckel attracted many followers. This set the stage for a new anti-Semitic leader, Herrmann Ahlwardt (b. 1846), who, by the late 1880s, surpassed all other anti-Semites with the sensationalism and aggression with which he led the campaign. Ahlwardt was infamous. He was deep in debt. In the Manché decoration scandals, it was revealed that he initially acted as a corrupt middleman and later betrayed his associates. His anti-Semitism was originally adopted as a means of blackmail, and it was only when this approach failed to bring profit that he boldly became an agitator. The wild, ruthless, and passionate nature of his propaganda captivated the masses, and he seemed likely to become a powerful democratic leader. His pamphlets, filled with scandalous accusations against prominent Jews, were eagerly read. No fewer than ten were written and published in 1892. Time and again, he faced libel charges and was convicted, but this seemed to only enhance his influence among his supporters. The Roman Catholic clergy and newspapers stirred public emotions further. As a result, anti-Jewish riots erupted. In Neustettin, the Jewish synagogue was burned, and in Xanten, the Blood Accusation resurfaced, with a Jewish butcher tried on the old charge of murdering a Christian child for ritual purposes. The man was, of course, acquitted, but the revival of these medieval ideas greatly disturbed the liberal and educated people of Germany. Yet, all protests seemed ineffective, and the barbaric movement appeared poised to sweep everything away.

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

German politics at this time were very complex. Prince Bismarck had retired, and Count Caprivi was in charge with a plan for overall reconciliation based on Liberal ideals. Concerned about the failure to renew the anti-Socialist law and the signing of trade agreements that favored German industry, the landowners and the Conservative party became estranged from the new chancellor. In January 1892, the split was finalized when the government withdrew the Primary Education bill, which aimed to establish religious instruction in primary schools. The Conservatives seized their chance to present themselves as the party of Christianity against the Liberals and Socialists, who had sabotaged the bill, and they began to see Ahlwardt as a potential ally. He had advantages over Stöcker, as he wasn't a Socialist and was willing to lead his significant following to support the agrarian movement and undermine the Social Democrats. The plot gradually came to light. By the end of the year, Herr Liebknecht, the leader of the Social Democrats, accused the Conservatives in the Reichstag of trying to use the anti-Semitic movement as a diluted version of Socialism for gullible people (1st December). Two days later, this accusation was confirmed. At a party meeting on December 3rd, the following statement was added to the Conservative agenda: “We oppose the harmful and divisive Jewish influence on our national life; we demand a Christian magistracy and Christian teachers for Christian students; we reject the extremes of anti-Semitism.” Following this resolution, Ahlwardt was re-elected to the Reichstag in a by-election from the Conservative district of Arnswalde-Friedeberg. However, the coalition was not yet fully formed. The hardline Conservatives, led by Baron von Hammerstein, the editor of the Kreuz-Zeitung, felt rightly that the final phrase of the December 3rd resolution, which rejected “the extremes of anti-Semitism,” would obstruct complete and honest cooperation between the two parties. Therefore, on December 9th, another party meeting was called. Twelve hundred members gathered in Tivoli Hall in Berlin, and with only seven dissenters, they solemnly removed the contentious sentence from the resolution. The history of political parties shows no comparable instance of such a disgraceful event.

The capture of the Conservative party proved the high-water mark of German anti-Semitism. From that moment the tide began to recede. All that was best in German national life was scandalized by the cynical tactics of the Conservatives. The emperor, strong Christian though he was, was shocked at the idea of serving Christianity by a compact with unscrupulous demagogues and ignorant fanatics. Prince Bismarck growled out a stinging sarcasm from his retreat at Friedrichsruh. Even Stöcker raised his voice in protest against the “Ahlwardtismus” and “Böckelianismus,” and called upon his Conservative colleagues to distinguish between “respectable and disreputable anti-Semitism.” As for the Liberals and Socialists, they filled the air with bitter laughter, and declared from the housetops that the stupid party had at last been overwhelmed by its own 138 stupidity. The Conservatives began to suspect that they had made a false step, and they were confirmed in this belief by the conduct of their new ally in the Reichstag. His debut in parliament was the signal for a succession of disgraceful scenes. His whole campaign of calumny was transferred to the floor of the house, and for some weeks the Reichstag discussed little else than his so-called revelations. The Conservatives listened to his wild charges in uncomfortable silence, and refused to support him. Stöcker opposed him in a violent speech. The Radicals and Socialists, taking an accurate measure of the shallow vanity of the man, adopted the policy of giving him “enough rope.” Shortly after his election he was condemned to five months’ imprisonment for libel, and he would have been arrested but for the interposition of the Socialist party, including five Jews, who claimed for him the immunities of a member of parliament. When he moved for a commission to inquire into his revelations, it was again the Socialist party which supported him, with the result that all his charges, without exception, were found to be absolutely baseless. Ahlwardt was covered with ridicule, and when in May the Reichstag was dissolved, he was marched off to prison to undergo the sentence for libel from which his parliamentary privilege had up to that moment protected him.

The capture of the Conservative Party marked the peak of German anti-Semitism. From then on, things began to change. Everything good about German national life was appalled by the Conservatives' cynical strategies. The emperor, though a devout Christian, was disturbed by the idea of promoting Christianity through an alliance with unscrupulous demagogues and ignorant fanatics. Prince Bismarck grumbled a sharp remark from his retreat in Friedrichsruh. Even Stöcker protested against “Ahlwardtismus” and “Böckelianismus,” urging his Conservative colleagues to differentiate between “respectable and disreputable anti-Semitism.” Meanwhile, the Liberals and Socialists filled the air with scornful laughter, openly declaring that the foolish party had finally been undone by its own stupidity. The Conservatives began to suspect that they had made a mistake, a belief reinforced by the behavior of their new ally in the Reichstag. His entrance into parliament triggered a series of disgraceful incidents. His entire campaign of slander was brought to the floor of the house, and for weeks, the Reichstag discussed little else besides his so-called revelations. The Conservatives listened to his outrageous accusations in uneasy silence and refused to back him. Stöcker fiercely opposed him in a passionate speech. The Radicals and Socialists, seeing right through the man's shallow arrogance, decided to let him “hang himself.” Shortly after he was elected, he was sentenced to five months in prison for libel, and he would have been arrested then and there if not for the intervention of the Socialist Party, which included five Jews who claimed parliamentary immunity for him. When he called for a commission to investigate his claims, it was again the Socialist Party that supported him, leading to the conclusion that all his accusations were entirely unfounded. Ahlwardt was ridiculed, and when the Reichstag was dissolved in May, he was taken off to prison to serve the libel sentence that his parliamentary privilege had previously shielded him from.

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

His grip on the anti-Semitic crowd, however, remained strong. In fact, the Conservative actions at the Tivoli congress could not be quickly forgotten by the Conservative voters. When the electoral campaign started, it proved impossible to convince them that the party leaders had changed their stance. As a result, Ahlwardt, even while in prison, was elected by two constituencies. In Arnswalde-Friedeberg, he was re-elected despite the official Conservatives' opposition, and in Neustettin, he defeated none other than his anti-Semitic rival Stöcker. Fifteen other anti-Semites, all from the Ahlwardtian faction, were also elected. However, this counted for little in terms of political power; from that point on, the party had to function independently as one of many minor factions in the Reichstag, ignored by all the major parties, and too weak to have any real impact on the overall political landscape.

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

Over the next seven years, it became increasingly discredited. The financial scandals surrounding Förster’s attempt to start a Christian Socialist colony in Paraguay, the conviction of Baron von Hammerstein, the anti-Semitic Conservative leader, for forgery and fraud (1895-1896), and several smaller scandals of a similar unpleasant nature tarnished the party with the same disgrace it had tried to pin on the Jews. Meanwhile, the Christian Socialists who stayed with the Conservative party also faced consequences. After the 1893 elections, Stöcker was let go from his position as court preacher and publicly reprimanded for being too familiar with the empress. Two years later, Christian Socialist Pastor Neumann, noticing the Conservatives' tendency to join forces with moderate Liberals against Social Democracy, spoke out against the Conservative party. The following year, the emperor openly criticized Christian Socialism and the “political pastors,” leading to Stöcker’s expulsion from the Conservative party for refusing to tone down the socialist messaging of his publication, Das Volk. His downfall was finalized by a dispute with the Evangelical Social Union, from which he left and called on the Lutheran clergy to start a new church social organization, but received no support. Another setback for anti-Semitism came from the Roman Catholics, who had grown worried about the unchecked violence of the Ahlwardtians. When Förster claimed in a speech to the German anti-Semitic Union in 1894 that anarchic acts like the murder of President Carnot were due to both “top-down anarchy” and “bottom-up anarchy,” the Ultramontane Germania publicly distanced itself from the Jew-baiters (July 1, 1894). Gradually, German anti-Semitism lost all its unexpected allies; by the general election of 1898, it managed to secure only twelve seats in the Reichstag, and by 1903 its party strength dropped to nine. However, a notable revival occurred between 1905 and 1907. Aligning itself with extreme Chauvinists and Anglophobes, it took advantage of the anti-national mistakes of the Clericals and Socialists, winning a total of twelve by-elections. In the general election of 1907, its jingoistic and aggressive Protestant stance earned it twenty-five seats. However, it's clear from the second ballot figures that these victories were more due to the party's broader political tendencies than its anti-Semitism. In fact, the specifically anti-Semitic movement has remained largely inactive since 1893.

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

The reasons for the decline of German anti-Semitism are pretty clear. While it stayed a theory about nationality and a trend among metaphysicians, it made a lot of noise but didn’t really have much practical impact. When it tried to get involved in politics, it got overwhelmed by ignorant and superstitious voters who couldn’t grasp its scientific reasoning, but were eager to rant against the Jewish scare. It turned into a kind of revolt that, when taken advantage of by ruthless demagogues, quickly drove away all its respectable supporters. Its truly significant moments weren't because of any inherent power, but rather how other political parties manipulated it for their own agendas. These alliances aren't as threatening to Jews anymore, mainly because, in the face of the threat posed by democratic socialism and its unholy alliance with the Roman Catholic Centrum, all supporters of the current social order have found it necessary to set aside their differences. The new social struggle has overshadowed the racial theory of nationality. The Social Democrats became the enemy, and the new reactionary forces relied on wealthy Jews and the strongly individualist Jewish middle class to help maintain the existing social order. This led to a situation where, in Prince Billow’s “Bloc” (1908), anti-Semites stood alongside pro-Jewish radicals.

More serious have been the effects of German anti-Semitic teachings on the political and social life of the countries adjacent to the empire—Russia, Austria and France. In Russia these effects were first seriously felt owing to the fury of autocratic reaction to which the Russia. tragic death of the tsar Alexander II. gave rise. This, however, like the Strousberg Krach in Germany, was only the proximate cause of the outbreak. There were other elements which had created a milieu peculiarly favourable to the transplantation of the German craze. In the first place the medieval anti-Semitism was still an integral part of the polity of the empire. The Jews were cooped up in one huge ghetto in the western provinces, “marked out to all their fellow-countrymen as aliens, and a pariah caste set apart for special and degrading treatment” (Persecution of the Jews in Russia, 1891, p.5). In the next place, owing to the emancipation of the serfs which had half ruined the landowners, while creating a free but moneyless peasantry, the Jews, who could be neither nobles nor peasants, had found a vocation as money-lenders and as middlemen between the grain producers, and the grain consumers and exporters. There is no evidence that this function was performed, as a rule, in an exorbitant or oppressive way. On the contrary, the fall in the value of cereals on all the provincial markets, after the riots of 1881, shows that the Jewish competition had previously assured full prices to the farmers (Schwabacher, Denkschrift, 1882, p. 27). Nevertheless, the Jewish activity or “exploitation,” as it was called, was resented, and the ill-feeling it caused among landowners and farmers was shared by non-Jewish middlemen and merchants who had thereby been compelled to be satisfied with small profits. Still there was but little thought of seeking a remedy in an organized anti-Jewish movement. On the contrary, the abnormal situation aggravated by the disappointments and depression caused by the Turkish war, had stimulated a widespread demand for constitutional changes which would enable the people to adopt a state-machinery more exactly suited to their needs. Among the peasantry this demand was promoted and fomented by the Nihilists, and among the landowners it was largely adopted as a means of checking what threatened to become a new Jacquerie (Walcker, Gegertwärtige Lage Russlands, 1873; Innere Krisis Russlands, 1876). The tsar, Alexander II., strongly sympathized 139 with this movement, and on the advice of Count Loris-Melikov and the council of ministers a rudimentary scheme of parliamentary government had been drafted and actually signed when the emperor was assassinated. Meanwhile a nationalist and reactionary agitation, originating like its German analogue in the Hegelianism of a section of the lettered public, had manifested itself in Moscow. After some early vicissitudes, it had been organized, under the auspices of Alexis Kireiev, Chomyakov, Aksakov and Kochelev, into the Slavophil party, with a Romanticist programme of reforms based on the old traditions of the pre-Petrine epoch. This party gave a great impetus to Slav nationalism. Its final possibilities were sanguinarily illustrated by Muraviev’s campaign in Poland in 1863, and in the war against Turkey in 1877, which was exclusively its handiwork (Statement by General Kireiev: Schütz, Das heutige Russland, p. 104). After the assassination of Alexander II. the Slavophil teaching, as expounded by Ignatiev and Pobêdonostsev, became paramount in the government, and the new tsar was persuaded to cancel the constitutional project of his father. The more liberal views of a section of the Slavophils under Aksakov, who had been in favour of representative institutions on traditional lines, were displaced by the reactionary system of Pobêdonostsev, who took his stand on absolutism, orthodoxy and the racial unity of the Russian people. This was the situation on the eve of Easter 1881. The hardening nationalism above, the increasing discontent below, the economic activity of the Hebrew heretics and aliens, and the echoes of anti-Semitism from over the western border were combining for an explosion.

The effects of German anti-Semitic teachings have been more serious on the political and social life of neighboring countries—Russia, Austria, and France. In Russia, these effects were first strongly felt due to the angry reaction from the autocracy following the tragic death of Tsar Alexander II. However, similar to the Strousberg crash in Germany, this was only the immediate trigger for the outbreak. Other factors had created an environment particularly favorable to the spread of the German sentiment. First, medieval anti-Semitism was still a fundamental part of the empire's social structure. The Jews were confined to a massive ghetto in the western provinces, “marked out to all their fellow-countrymen as aliens, and a pariah caste set apart for special and degrading treatment” (Persecution of the Jews in Russia, 1891, p.5). Additionally, the emancipation of the serfs, which left the landowners in financial ruin while creating a free but impoverished peasantry, pushed the Jews—who were neither nobles nor peasants—to find roles as money-lenders and as intermediaries between grain producers and consumers/exporters. There's no evidence to suggest that this role was usually performed in an excessive or oppressive manner. In fact, the drop in cereal prices across provincial markets after the riots of 1881 indicates that the Jewish competition had previously helped secure fair prices for farmers (Schwabacher, Denkschrift, 1882, p. 27). Nonetheless, the Jewish activity or "exploitation," as it was referred to, was resented, and the negative feelings it created among landowners and farmers were shared by non-Jewish middlemen and merchants who had to settle for smaller profits. However, there was little thought of seeking a solution through an organized anti-Jewish movement. Instead, the unusual situation, worsened by disillusionments and depression stemming from the Turkish war, fueled a widespread desire for constitutional changes that would better fit the people's needs. Among the peasantry, this demand was encouraged and stirred up by Nihilists, and among landowners, it was largely embraced as a way to address what was threatening to become a new Jacquerie (Walcker, Gegertwärtige Lage Russlands, 1873; Innere Krisis Russlands, 1876). Tsar Alexander II. strongly supported this movement, and on the advice of Count Loris-Melikov and the council of ministers, a basic parliamentary government plan was drafted and actually signed just before the emperor was assassinated. Meanwhile, a nationalist and reactionary movement, originating like its German counterpart from the Hegelianism of a segment of the educated public, began to emerge in Moscow. After facing some early challenges, it was organized under the leadership of Alexis Kireiev, Chomyakov, Aksakov, and Kochelev into the Slavophil party, which had a Romantic program of reforms based on the old traditions from before Peter the Great. This party significantly boosted Slav nationalism. The potential consequences were brutally illustrated by Muraviev’s campaign in Poland in 1863, and in the war against Turkey in 1877, which was exclusively their initiative (Statement by General Kireiev: Schütz, Das heutige Russland, p. 104). Following Alexander II.'s assassination, Slavophil teachings, as explained by Ignatiev and Pobêdonostsev, gained significant influence in the government, and the new tsar was persuaded to scrap his father's constitutional project. The more liberal perspectives of a faction of the Slavophils, led by Aksakov, who supported representative institutions based on tradition, were replaced by the reactionary approach of Pobêdonostsev, who leaned on absolutism, orthodoxy, and the racial unity of the Russian people. This was the situation on the eve of Easter 1881. The rising nationalism from above, increasing discontent below, the economic activities of the Jewish "heretics" and outsiders, and the echoes of anti-Semitism from the western border were all converging towards an explosion.

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

A fight in a bar in Elisabethgrad, Kherson, was all it took to spark this explosive situation. The fight escalated into a riot, the bar was looted, and the drunken crowd, stirred up by agitators claiming that Jews were using Christian blood to make their Easter bread, attacked and robbed the Jewish neighborhood. The violence spread quickly. On May 7th, another riot broke out in Smiela, near Cherkasy, and the next day, a violent incident in Kiev left 2,000 Jews homeless. Within a few weeks, all of western Russia, from the Black Sea to the Baltic, was filled with the ruins of Jewish homes. Numerous Jewish women were assaulted, hundreds of men, women, and children were killed, and tens of thousands were left begging and without shelter. Violent riots or arson occurred in at least 167 towns and villages, including Warsaw, Odessa, and Kiev. Europe hadn’t seen such brutal mob violence since the massacres during the Black Death in the 14th century. As news of these events slowly reached the western capitals, it sparked widespread horror. An outrage meeting at the Mansion House in London, led by the lord mayor, kicked off a long series of public demonstrations condemning the persecutions, which took place in most major cities in England and across the continent.

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

Except for the resurgence of Judeophobia in Germany, the earlier Russian outbreaks don't really fit into the category of modern anti-Semitism. They were primarily medieval uprisings driven by religious fanaticism, widespread superstition, and the predatory instincts of a people still in a medieval mindset. This is backed up by the fact that although the Russian peasant was said to be suffering under unbearable Jewish "exploitation," he only rioted after being intoxicated and stirred up by the old myth of the Blood Accusation. The modern anti-Semitic element came from the top and closely followed the riots. It's often claimed that the Russian government encouraged the riots in 1881 to distract the public from the Nihilist propaganda and the political disappointments stemming from the cancellation of the previous tsar's constitutional plan (Lazare, L’Antisémitisme, p. 211). This seems true for General Ignatiev, who was then the minister of the interior, as well as the secret police (Séménoff, The Russian Government and the Massacres, pp. 17, 32, 241). It’s clear that the local authorities, both civil and military, supported the outbreak and took no action to stop it, and the feudal bureaucracy that had just avoided a serious threat was not upset to see the discontented populace directing their anger at the Jews. However, in the higher government circles, different opinions were held. The tsar initially believed that the riots were caused by Nihilists and publicly pledged to protect the Jews. On the flip side, his ministers, fervent Slavophiles, saw the outbreak as a validation of their nationalist agenda, and while condemning the violence, concluded that the best approach was to worsen the legal restrictions on the persecuted aliens and heretics. The tsar was persuaded to this view, partly due to the loud outrage from Western Europe, which hurt his national pride deeply, and partly by a biased report from a commission tasked not with investigating the administrative negligence that allowed the riots to occur in the western and southern provinces, but with examining the alleged "exploitation" by the Jews, why "the previous laws limiting Jewish rights" had been relaxed, and how these laws could be changed to "stop the harmful actions of the Jews" (Rescript of the 3rd of September 1881). The outcome of this report was the drafting of a "Temporary Order concerning the Jews" by the minister of the interior, which the tsar approved on the 3rd of May 1882. This order, which turned out to be anything but temporary as it has yet to be repealed, resulted in the establishment of several new ghettos within the designated areas for Jewish settlement. The Jews were confined to the towns, and their rural assets were arbitrarily seized. The ambiguous implementation of the order led to various judgments from the senate that revealed all its persecuting potential, effectively paralyzing Jewish activities and subjecting them to extreme brutality. As the horrific consequences of this legislation became known, a new wave of horror and indignation rose from Western Europe. It proved ineffective. Count Ignatiev was dismissed due to the outrage from high-ranking Russians who were appalled by the new Kulturkampf, but his policies remained in place, and under the influence of Pobêdonostsev, the procurator of the Holy Synod, the so-called "May Laws" were rigorously applied to all aspects of Jewish life. The tsar's attitude can be judged by the fact that when a request for mercy from a notable figure in England was delivered to him at Fredensborg through the kind mediation of the tsarina, he angrily exclaimed within earshot of an Englishman in the room carrying the message, “Never let me hear you mention the name of that people again!”

The Russian May Laws are the most conspicuous legislative monument achieved by modern anti-Semitism. It is true that they re-enacted regulations which resemble the oppressive statutes introduced into Poland through the influence of the Jesuits in the 16th century (Sternberg, Gesch. d. Juden in Polen, pp. 141 et seq.), but their Orthodox authors were as little conscious of this irony of history as they were of the Teutonic origins of the whole Slavophil movement. These laws are an experimental application of the political principles extracted by Marr and his German disciples from the metaphysics of Hegel, and as such they afford a valuable means of testing the practical operation of modern anti-Semitism. Their result was a widespread commercial depression which was felt all over the empire. Even before the May Laws were definitely promulgated the passport registers showed that the anti-Semitic movement had driven 67,900 Jews across the frontier, and it was estimated that they had taken with them 13,000,000 roubles, representing a minimum loss of 60,000,000 roubles to the annual turnover of the country’s trade. Towards the end of 1882 it was calculated that the agitation had cost Russia as much as the whole Turkish war of 1877. Trade was everywhere paralysed. The enormous increase of bankruptcies, the transfer of investments to foreign funds, the consequent fall in the value of the rouble and the prices of Russian stocks, the suspension of farming operations owing to advances on growing crops being no longer available, the rise in the prices of the necessaries of life, and lastly, the 140 appearance of famine, filled half the empire with gloom. Banks closed their doors, and the great provincial fairs proved failures. When it was proposed to expel the Jews from Moscow there was a loud outcry all over the sacred city, and even the Orthodox merchants, realizing that the measure would ruin their flourishing trade with the south and west, petitioned against it. The Moscow Exhibition proved a failure. Nevertheless the government persisted with its harsh policy, and Jewish refugees streamed by tens of thousands across the western frontier to seek an asylum in other lands. In 1891 the alarm caused by this emigration led to further protests from abroad. The citizens of London again assembled at Guildhall, and addressed a petition to the tsar on behalf of his Hebrew subjects. It was handed back to the lord mayor by the Russian ambassador, with a curt intimation that the emperor declined to receive it. At the same time orders were defiantly given that the May Laws should be strictly enforced. Meanwhile the Russian minister of finance was at his wits’ ends for money. Negotiations for a large loan had been entered upon with the house of Rothschild, and a preliminary contract had been signed, when, at the instance of the London firm, M. Wyshnigradski, the finance minister, was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were stopped the great banking-house would be compelled to withdraw from the operation. Deeply mortified by this attempt to deal with him de puissance à puissance, the tsar peremptorily broke off the negotiations, and ordered that overtures should be made to a non-Jewish French syndicate. In this way anti-Semitism, which had already so profoundly influenced the domestic politics of Europe, set its mark on the international relations of the powers, for it was the urgent need of the Russian treasury quite as much as the termination of Prince Bismarck’s secret treaty of mutual neutrality which brought about the Franco-Russian alliance (Daudet, Hist. Dipl. de l’Alliance Franco-Russe, pp. 259 et. seq.).

The Russian May Laws are the most visible legal testament to modern anti-Semitism. While it's true they reintroduced regulations similar to the oppressive laws imposed in Poland through Jesuit influence in the 16th century (Sternberg, Gesch. d. Juden in Polen, pp. 141 et seq.), their Orthodox creators were just as unaware of this historical irony as they were of the Teutonic roots of the entire Slavophil movement. These laws represent a trial run of the political principles derived by Marr and his German followers from Hegel’s metaphysics, and they provide a valuable opportunity to evaluate the real impact of modern anti-Semitism. The outcome was a widespread economic downturn felt across the empire. Even before the May Laws were officially announced, passport records showed that the anti-Semitic movement had forced 67,900 Jews to leave the country, taking with them an estimated 13,000,000 roubles, which represented a minimum loss of 60,000,000 roubles to the country's annual trade turnover. By late 1882, it was believed that the agitation had cost Russia as much as the entire Turkish war of 1877. Trade was stifled everywhere. There was a massive rise in bankruptcies, investments shifted to foreign funds, the rouble's value and the prices of Russian stocks plummeted, farming operations were halted due to lack of funds for crops, basic necessities became more expensive, and famine loomed, casting a shadow over half the empire. Banks shut down, and major provincial fairs failed to attract crowds. When it was suggested to expel the Jews from Moscow, there was an outcry throughout the city, and even Orthodox merchants recognized that this would devastate their prosperous trade with the south and west and petitioned against it. The Moscow Exhibition ended up being unsuccessful. Yet the government continued its harsh stance, and thousands of Jewish refugees fled across the western border seeking safety in other countries. In 1891, the panic triggered by this exodus led to more protests abroad. Citizens in London gathered again at Guildhall and sent a petition to the tsar on behalf of his Jewish subjects. The Russian ambassador curtly returned it to the lord mayor, stating that the emperor refused to accept it. Simultaneously, orders were defiantly given to enforce the May Laws strictly. Meanwhile, the Russian finance minister was desperate for funds. Negotiations for a major loan had started with Rothschild's firm, and a preliminary contract was signed when the London firm, M. Wyshnigradski, informed the finance minister that unless the persecution of Jews ended, the major banking house would withdraw from the deal. Deeply insulted by this attempt to engage him on equal terms, the tsar abruptly terminated the negotiations and instructed that approaches should be made to a non-Jewish French syndicate. In this manner, anti-Semitism, which had already significantly influenced European domestic politics, also impacted international relations, as the urgent need for Russian treasury funds was just as critical as the end of Prince Bismarck’s secret treaty of mutual neutrality, which led to the Franco-Russian alliance (Daudet, Hist. Dipl. de l’Alliance Franco-Russe, pp. 259 et seq.).

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

For nearly three more years, the persecutions continued. Excited by the success of his campaign against the Jews, Pobêdonostsev expanded his oppressive approach to other non-Orthodox groups. The laws targeting the Protestant Stundists became nearly as unbearable as those imposed on the Jews. In the Holy Synod's report presented to the tsar toward the end of 1893, the procurator called for harsh measures against Roman Catholics, Muslims, and Buddhists, and criticized the rationalist trend of the entire secular education system in the empire (Neue Freie Presse, 31st January 1894). However, a year later, the tsar died, and his successor, while not repealing any of the oppressive laws, signaled that their strict enforcement could be relaxed. The country was worn out from the persecution, and the tolerant suggestions from the upper ranks were taken up with noticeable eagerness.

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

A new era of conflict began with the major constitutional struggle toward the end of the century. However, the circumstances were very different from those in the ’80s. The May Laws had a unique way of avenging themselves. By forcing Jews to live in towns just as Count Witte's protective policies were creating a massive industrial working class, they provided the dissatisfied masses with a powerful ally in terms of numbers and intelligence — and especially in their deep sense of injustice, reckless despair, and cosmopolitan perspectives and connections. As early as 1885, Jewish workers, supported by Jewish university students, led the charge in forming trade unions. They also became the messengers of Western European socialism and played a crucial role in organizing the Russian Social Democratic Federation, which their “Arbeiter Bund” joined in 1898 with about 30,000 members. The Jewish involvement in the new democratic movement angered the government, and under Interior Minister M. Sipiaguine, the oppressive laws were strictly enforced again. In response, the “Bund” declared itself openly political and revolutionary in 1901 and quickly took a leading role in the revolutionary movement. The reactionaries were quick to take advantage of this. With the support of M. Plehve, the new minister of the interior, and the entire bureaucratic class, they labeled the revolution as a Jewish conspiracy aimed solely at Jewish interests and intended to establish Jewish domination over the Russian people. The government, and even those close to the tsar, became convinced that only by terrorizing the Jews could the revolutionary movement be effectively controlled. To accomplish this, a so-called League of True Russians was created. With high-level backing, and the help of the secret police and many local authorities, it sought to incite the public, especially fanatics and hooligans, against the Jews. Incendiary proclamations were prepared and printed by the interior ministry itself, and were distributed by provincial governors and the police (Prince Urussov’s speech in the Duma, June 8 (21), 1906). The outcome was another wave of massacres that began in Kishinev in 1903 and peaked in widespread slaughter in Odessa and Bielostok in October 1905. Efforts were made to portray and justify these outbreaks as a national uprising against the Jew-led revolution, but they failed. They only fueled bitterness among revolutionaries and "intellectuals" nationwide and garnered significant sympathy abroad. The artificial nature of the anti-Jewish uprising was highlighted by the first Duma elections. Thirteen Jews were elected, and every constituency that had experienced a pogrom returned a liberal member. Unfortunately, Jews gained little from the new parliamentary constitution. While they were granted the rights to vote for Duma members and sit in the new assembly, all their civil and religious disabilities remained in place. Both the first and second Duma proposed to free them, but they were dissolved before any actions could be taken. Changes to electoral law for the third Duma elections reduced the voting power of Jews and imposed further restrictions through official intimidation during the elections. Consequently, only two Jews were elected, while the reactionary nature of the new electorate essentially removed the question of their emancipation from practical politics.

The only other country in Europe in which a legalized anti-Semitism exists is Rumania. The conditions are very similar to those which obtain in Russia, with the important difference that Rumania is a constitutional country, Rumania. and that the Jewish persecutions are the work of the elected deputies of the nation. Like the Bourgeois Gentilhomme who wrote prose all his life without knowing it, the Rumanians practised the nationalist doctrines of the Hegelian anti-Semites unconsciously long before they were formulated in Germany. In the old days of Turkish domination the lot of the Rumanian Jews was not conspicuously unhappy. It was only when the nation began to be emancipated, and the struggle in the East assumed the form of a crusade against Islam that the Jews were persecuted. Rumanian politicians preached a nationalism limited exclusively to indigenous Christians, and they were strongly supported by all who felt the commercial competition of the Jews. Thus, although the Jews had been settled in the land for many centuries, they were by law declared aliens. This was done in defiance of the treaty of Paris of 1856 and the convention of 1858 which declared all Rumans to be equal before the law. Under the influence of this distinction the Jews became persecuted, and sanguinary riots were of frequent occurrence. The realization of a Jewish question led to legislation imposing disabilities on the Jews. In 1878 the congress of Berlin agreed to recognize the independence of Rumania on condition that all religious disabilities were removed. Rumania agreed to this condition, but ultimately persuaded the powers to allow her to carry out the emancipation of the Jews gradually. Persecutions, however, continued, and in 1902 they led to a great exodus of Jews. The United States addressed a strong remonstrance to the Rumanian government, but the condition of the Jews was in no way improved. Their emancipation was in 1908 as far off as ever, and their disabilities heavier than those of their brethren in Russia. For this state of things the example of the anti-Semites in Germany, Russia, Austria and France was largely to blame, since it had justified the intolerance of the Rumans. Owing, also, to 141 the fact that of late years Rumania had become a sort of annexe of the Triple Alliance, it was found impossible to induce the signatories of the treaty of Berlin to take action to compel the state to fulfil its obligations under that treaty.

The only other country in Europe where legalized anti-Semitism exists is Romania. The situation is very similar to that in Russia, with the key difference being that Romania is a constitutional country, Romania. and the anti-Jewish actions are carried out by the elected representatives of the nation. Like the Bourgeois Gentilhomme who wrote prose all his life without realizing it, the Romanians practiced the nationalist ideas of the Hegelian anti-Semites without even being aware of them long before they were articulated in Germany. In the past, under Turkish rule, the conditions for Romanian Jews weren't particularly harsh. It was only when the nation began to gain independence, and the struggle in the East turned into a fight against Islam, that the Jews faced persecution. Romanian politicians advocated for a nationalism that was exclusively for native Christians, heavily supported by those who felt threatened by Jewish economic competition. So, despite having lived in the country for centuries, the Jews were legally declared foreigners. This was done in violation of the 1856 Treaty of Paris and the 1858 convention, which stated that all Romanians should be equal under the law. Because of this distinction, Jews faced persecution, and violent riots became frequent. The recognition of a Jewish question led to laws that imposed restrictions on the Jews. In 1878, the Berlin congress agreed to recognize Romania's independence on the condition that all religious restrictions were lifted. Romania accepted this condition but eventually convinced the powers to let it gradually implement the emancipation of the Jews. However, persecutions continued, and in 1902, they caused a massive exodus of Jews. The United States lodged a strong protest with the Romanian government, but the situation for Jews did not improve at all. Their emancipation in 1908 seemed as distant as ever, and their restrictions were heavier than those faced by their counterparts in Russia. This situation was largely due to the example set by anti-Semites in Germany, Russia, Austria, and France, which validated the intolerance of the Romanians. Additionally, as Romania had recently become somewhat of an annex of the Triple Alliance, it proved impossible to persuade the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin to take action to compel the state to meet its obligations under that treaty.

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

In Austria-Hungary, anti-Semitic feelings emerged almost simultaneously from the North and East. By the 1870s, the rigid anti-Semitism of Berlin had found a following in Budapest. Two members of the diet, Austro-Hungarian Empire. Victor Istoczy and Geza Onody, along with a journalist named Georg Marczianyi, worked to spread Marr’s doctrine in Hungary. Marczianyi, who translated German anti-Semitic pamphlets into Hungarian and the works of Onody into German, served as the main link between the northern and southern schools of thought. In 1880, Istoczy attempted to establish a “Non-Jewish League” in Hungary, using statutes that were directly translated from those of the German anti-Semitic league. However, the movement did not gain traction due to the strong Liberalism of the main political parties and the national principles left over from the 1848 revolution. The significant role played by Jews during that struggle, along with their patriotic efforts for the country's political and economic development, fostered a strong sense of gratitude among the more honorable elements of the nation. Still, among the ultramontane clergy, the upper aristocracy, the poorly paid minor officials, and the uneducated peasantry, there were underlying anti-Semitic sentiments. It was likely the nobles' distaste for any form of demagogic agitation that temporarily prevented these sentiments from taking root. The news of the uprising in Russia and the arrival of Jewish refugees at the border brought attention to the efforts of Istoczy and Onody and stirred rural communities, but it failed to persuade the public of the pseudo-scientific concepts of the new anti-Semitism. It wasn’t until the agitators resorted to the Blood Accusation—a perennial tactic of ignorance and superstition—that Hungary effectively joined the anti-Semitic movement. The outbreak was brief and, thankfully, bloodless, but while it lasted, its scandals shocked all of Europe.

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

Dr. August Rohling, a professor of Hebrew at the University of Prague and a prominent Roman Catholic theologian with questionable knowledge, had been assisting Hungarian anti-Semites for several years by recycling Eisenmenger’s *Enidecktes Judenthum* (Frankfurt a/M. 1700). In 1881, he made a formal statement before the Supreme Court, accusing Jews of being obligated by their laws to bring about the moral and physical destruction of non-Jews. He went further by offering to testify under oath that the murder of Christians for ritual purposes was secretly taught among Jews. Professor Delitzsch and other notable Hebrew scholars, both Christian and Jewish, exposed and condemned Rohling's ignorance and malice but could not stop the damage he was causing. In April 1882, a Christian girl named Esther Sobymossi went missing from the Hungarian village of Tisza Eszlar, which had a small Jewish community. Rumors spread that she had been kidnapped and murdered by Jews, but this remained a topic of idle gossip and led to no formal complaints or public unrest. At this time, the issue of the Bosnian Pacification credits was under discussion in the diet. The unpopularity of Austria-Hungary's task under the treaty of Berlin, which was seen as strengthening the discontented Croat element within the empire, had diminished the government's majority significantly, leading to a united opposition from various reactionary factions. The government faced intense and unscrupulous attacks from all sides. On May 23, during a debate in the diet, M. Onody gave a passionate speech recounting the story of the missing girl from Tisza Eszlar and accused the ministers of criminal leniency towards races not aligned with the national spirit. In the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the Croat issue, this was a clever maneuver. The government, looking down on the story, fell into the trap. Subsequently, the anti-Semites began to investigate the case, and M. Joseph Bary, the magistrate at Nyiregyhaza and a well-known anti-Semite, was persuaded to travel to Tisza Eszlar and conduct an inquiry. All anti-liberal factions in the country united in this effort to discredit the liberal government, and for the first time, Hungarian anti-Semites found themselves leading a significant movement. Fifteen Jews were arrested and imprisoned. Every effort was made to build a case for trial, involving perjury and even forgery. The son of one of the accused, a fourteen-year-old boy, was taken into custody by the police and was coerced into giving testimony for the prosecution through threats and persuasion. He was carefully prepared for the crucial role he was to play. The trial began in Nyiregyhaza on June 19 and lasted until August 3. It became one of the most famous legal cases of the century. Through brilliant cross-examination by the defense attorneys, the entire shocking conspiracy was gradually revealed. The public prosecutor eventually withdrew from the case, and the four judges, one of whom held strong anti-Semitic views, unanimously acquitted all the defendants. The case marked a decisive blow to Hungarian anti-Semitism. Although another aspect of the Jewish question, which will be discussed later, still occupied public attention, the shame brought upon the nation by the Tisza Eszlar conspiracy effectively silenced the anti-Semites from voicing their opinions with any real impact thereafter.

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

Meanwhile, a more formidable and complex outburst was brewing in Austria itself. The lines of the German agitation were closely monitored here, but with far more dramatic outcomes. This situation was purely political—that is, it appealed to anti-Jewish biases for party gains while attempting to justify them on a pseudo-scientific basis, both racial and economic. Initially, it was limited to scattered pamphleteers. Alongside them, a group of Christian Socialists gradually emerged, recruited from the ultra-Clericals, focused on studying and applying the doctrines promoted in Mainz by Archbishop Ketteler. This became a complete Austrian parallel to the Evangelical-Socialist movement initiated in Germany by Herr Stöcker. For several years, the two movements remained separate, but early signs of convergence were evident. One of the first grievances of the anti-Semites was that Jews were becoming landowners. This resonated with the agrarian principles of the Christian Socialists, as articulated by Rudolph Meyer, which acknowledged individual ownership of land only if the landowners were “the families of the nation” rather than “cosmopolitan financiers.” Another indication of anti-Semitism can be found in a speech given in 1878 by Prince Alois von Liechtenstein (b. 1846), the most notable follower of Rudolph Meyer, who condemned the national debt as a payment the state owed to cosmopolitan investors (Nitti, Catholic Socialism, pp. 200, 201, 211, 216). The escalating disorder in parliament, caused by the intense conflict between the German and Czech parties, pushed anti-Semitism into the realm of practical politics. Since 1867, the German Liberals had been in power. They had alienated the Clericals by interfering with the concordat and had divided their own party through Count Taaffe's federalist policies. The Radical secessionists also struggled to find common ground, leading an extreme German nationalist faction to break away under the leadership of Ritter von Schonerer (b. 1842), a highly aggressive Radical nationalist. In 1882, two anti-Semitic leagues were established in Vienna, and the Radical nationalists sought their support. The growing influence of the party prompted the premier, Count Taaffe, to seek the Clerical vote by adopting part of the Christian Socialist agenda. This sparked significant backlash from the liberal press, mostly written by Jews, which helped unite the feudal Christian Socialists and Radical anti-Semites. In 1891, these unlikely factions coalesced, and during that year's elections, Prince Liechtenstein emerged as an anti-Semitic candidate and the recognized leader of the party. The elections resulted in the election of fifteen anti-Semites to the Reichsrath, primarily from Vienna.

Although Prince Liechtenstein and the bulk of the Christian 142 Socialists had joined the anti-Semites with the support of the Clerical organ, the Vaterland, the Clerical party as a whole still held aloof from the Jew-baiters. The events of 1892-1895 put an end to their hesitation. The Hungarian government, in compliance with long-standing pledges to the liberal party, introduced into the diet a series of ecclesiastical reform bills providing for civil marriage, freedom of worship, and the legal recognition of Judasim on an equality with other denominations. These proposals, which synchronized with Ahlwardt’s turbulent agitation in Germany, gave a great impulse to anti-Semitism and served to drive into its ranks a large number of Clericals. The agitation was taken in hand by the Roman Catholic clergy, and the pulpits resounded with denunciations of the Jews. One clergyman, Father Deckert, was prosecuted for preaching the Blood Accusation and convicted (1894). Cardinal Schlauch, bishop of Grosswardein, declared in the Hungarian House of Magnates that the Liberals were in league with “cosmopolitans” for the ruin of the country. In October 1894 the magnates adopted two of the ecclesiastical bills with amendments, but threw out the Jewish bill by a majority of six. The crown sided with the magnates, and the ministry resigned, although it had a majority in the Lower House. An effort was made to form a Clerical cabinet, but it failed. Baron Banffy was then entrusted with the construction of a fresh Liberal ministry. The announcement that he would persist with the ecclesiastical bills lashed the Clericals and anti-Semites into a fury, and the agitation broke out afresh. The pope addressed a letter to Count Zichy encouraging the magnates to resist, and once more two of the bills were amended, and the third rejected. The papal nuncio, Mgr. Agliardi, now thought proper to pay a visit to Budapest, where he allowed himself to be interviewed on the crisis. This interference in the domestic concerns of Hungary was deeply resented by the Liberals, and Baron Banffy requested Count Kalnoky, the imperial minister of foreign affairs, to protest against it at the Vatican. Count Kalnoky refused and tendered his resignation to the emperor. Clerical sympathies were predominant in Vienna, and the emperor was induced for a moment to decline the count’s resignation. It soon became clear, however, that the Hungarians were resolved to see the crisis out, and that in the end Vienna would be compelled to give way. The emperor accordingly retraced his steps, Count Kalnoky’s resignation was accepted, the papal nuncio was recalled, a batch of new magnates were created, and the Hungarian ecclesiastical bills passed.

Although Prince Liechtenstein and most of the Christian Socialists allied with the anti-Semites, supported by the Clerical publication, the Vaterland, the Clerical party as a whole still distanced itself from the Jew-baiters. The events of 1892-1895 ended their hesitation. The Hungarian government, fulfilling long-standing commitments to the liberal party, introduced several ecclesiastical reform bills in the diet. These bills aimed to provide for civil marriage, freedom of worship, and the legal recognition of Judaism on par with other religions. These proposals coincided with Ahlwardt’s turbulent activism in Germany, which bolstered anti-Semitism and attracted many Clericals to its ranks. The agitation was taken over by the Roman Catholic clergy, and the pulpits were filled with condemnations of the Jews. A clergyman, Father Deckert, was prosecuted for promoting the Blood Accusation and was convicted in 1894. Cardinal Schlauch, bishop of Grosswardein, stated in the Hungarian House of Magnates that the Liberals were colluding with “cosmopolitans” to ruin the country. In October 1894, the magnates passed two of the ecclesiastical bills with changes but rejected the Jewish bill by a majority of six. The crown backed the magnates, leading to the ministry's resignation despite holding a majority in the Lower House. An attempt to form a Clerical cabinet failed. Baron Banffy was then tasked with creating a new Liberal ministry. The announcement that he would continue with the ecclesiastical bills provoked outrage among the Clericals and anti-Semites, sparking renewed agitation. The pope sent a letter to Count Zichy encouraging the magnates to resist, and again two of the bills were amended while the third was rejected. The papal nuncio, Mgr. Agliardi, deemed it appropriate to visit Budapest, where he allowed himself to be interviewed about the crisis. This intervention in Hungary's internal issues was strongly resented by the Liberals, and Baron Banffy asked Count Kalnoky, the imperial foreign minister, to protest it at the Vatican. Count Kalnoky refused and submitted his resignation to the emperor. Clerical sympathies were prevalent in Vienna, and for a time the emperor was convinced to decline the count’s resignation. However, it soon became clear that the Hungarians were determined to endure the crisis and that ultimately Vienna would have to concede. Therefore, the emperor reversed his decision, Count Kalnoky’s resignation was accepted, the papal nuncio was recalled, several new magnates were appointed, and the Hungarian ecclesiastical bills were passed.

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

At the same time as this crisis, another shocking chapter of the anti-Semitic story was unfolding in Vienna. Strengthened by support from the Clericals, the anti-Semites decided to try to win the municipal elections in Vienna. Until now, the partnership between the Clericals and the anti-Semites had been unofficial, but just before the elections (January 1895), the pope, influenced partly by the Hungarian crisis and partly by an idea from Cardinal Rampolla that a clerically controlled merger of the Christian Socialists and anti-Semites would be the best way to combat democratic socialism, sent his blessing to Prince Liechtenstein and his supporters. This move alarmed the government and many members of the higher episcopate, who believed any ongoing support for the anti-Semites would ultimately empower the factions of dissent and chaos. Cardinal Schönborn was quickly sent to Rome to argue with the pope, and his efforts were strongly backed by the French and Belgian bishops. However, the damage was already done, and although the pope sent a verbal message to Prince Liechtenstein withdrawing his blessing from the anti-Semites, the elections led to a significant victory for those who hated Jews. The municipal council was immediately dissolved by the government, and new elections were called for, but these only reinforced the anti-Semites, who secured 92 out of 138 seats. Following this, a cabinet crisis occurred, and the premiership was given to Count Badeni, the Statthalter of Galicia, who took office with a commitment to fight anti-Semitism fiercely. In October, the newly elected municipal council chose Dr. Karl Lueger (b. 1844), a fervent anti-Semite, as the burgomaster of Vienna, replacing Prince Liechtenstein as the party leader. The emperor refused to approve the election, but the council reaffirmed it despite the imperial disapproval. Once again, a dissolution was ordered, and for three months, the city was run by administrative commissioners. In February 1896, elections were held again, and the anti-Semites returned with an even larger majority. The emperor then yielded, and after a temporary arrangement where Dr. Lueger served as vice-burgomaster and passed the burgomaster role to a noncontroversial nominee, he allowed the municipal council to proceed as it wished. The increasing chaos in parliament at this time further empowered the anti-Semites, and their takeover of Vienna was soon followed by an equally notable takeover of the Landtag of Lower Austria (November 1896).

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

Since then, a reaction of sanity has gradually taken hold. By 1908, the anti-Semites had been in power in Vienna for twelve years, and even though they had caused a lot of damage, the promised golden age they were supposed to usher in never arrived. In fact, the city's commercial interests had suffered, and rates had skyrocketed (Neue Freie Presse, 29th March 1901), while the predatory ambitions that helped them gain office had only been fulfilled on a small and exclusive scale. The sight of a Clerico-anti-Semitic machine in Vienna had strengthened the resistance from the more progressive elements in the community. Over time, it also became clear that Christian Socialism was merely a cover for high Toryism, and that the German Radicals, who had initially been drawn to the anti-Semites, were being used by the Clericals. The effects of this disillusionment started to show during the general elections of 1900-1901, when the anti-Semites lost six seats in the Reichsrath. These elections were followed by a papal encyclical on Christian democracy on January 26, 1901, which stated that Christian Socialism was an unacceptable term for the Church, urging the faithful to avoid demagogic and revolutionary agitation, and to “respect the rights of others.” Nevertheless, in 1907, the Christian Socialists tripled their representation in the Reichsrath. However, this increase was more due to their alliance with the German national parties than to any significant rise in anti-Semitism among voters.

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

The last country in Europe to adopt the principles of German anti-Semitism in its political parties was France. It's seen as one of the paradoxes of our recent history that this movement took root in a republican nation, where the ideals of democratic freedom have been fervently upheld. In fact, it's even more surprising that it didn't emerge sooner. All the social and political conditions that created anti-Semitism in Germany existed in France, but in a more intense form, mainly because of the very republican system that seemed, at first glance, to protect against it. In monarchical states, the power of the bourgeoisie was somewhat balanced by the authority of the crown and the political engagement of the aristocracy, which provided a significant check on political ethics and morality. In France, those checks were eliminated from public life by the republic. The nobility from both the old regime and the empire distanced themselves, and politics was largely left to opportunistic figures, while the bourgeoisie became an all-powerful plutocracy. This naturally attracted financial opportunists from across Europe to France, including many German Jews who had been alienated from their homeland by the efforts of Marr and Stöcker. Therefore, the bourgeoisie was not only more powerful in France than elsewhere, but the problematic nature of its Jewish population was intensified by an implication of being a national enemy. The anti-clerical stance of the bourgeois republic and its unprecedented series of financial scandals, culminating in the Panama "Krach," created a strong basis for anti-Semitism in the public consciousness.

Nevertheless, it was not until 1882 that the anti-Jewish movement was seriously heard of in France. Paul Bontoux (b. 1820), who had formerly been in the employ of the Rothschilds, 143 but had been obliged to leave the firm in consequence of his disastrous speculations, had joined the Legitimist party, and had started the Union Générale with funds obtained from his new allies. Bontoux promised to break up the alleged financial monopoly of the Jews and Protestants and to found a new plutocracy in its stead, which should be mainly Roman Catholic and aristocratic. The bait was eagerly swallowed. For five years the Union Générale, with the blessing of the pope, pursued an apparently prosperous career. Immense schemes were undertaken, and the 123-fr. shares rose gradually to 3200 francs. The whole structure, however, rested on a basis of audacious speculation, and in January 1882 the Union Générale failed, with liabilities amounting to 312,000,000 francs. The cry was at once raised that the collapse was due to the manoeuvres of the Jews, and a strong anti-Semitic feeling manifested itself in clerical and aristocratic circles. In 1886 violent expression was given to this feeling in a book since become famous, La France juive, by Edouard Drumont (b. 1844). The author illustrated the theories of German anti-Semitism with a chronique scandaleuse full of piquant personalities, in which the corruption of French national life under Jewish influences was painted in alarming colours. The book was read with avidity by the public, who welcomed its explanations of the obviously growing debauchery. The Wilson scandals and the suspension of the Panama Company in the following year, while not bearing out Drumont’s anti-Semitism, fully justified his view of the prevailing corruption. Out of this condition of things rose the Boulangist movement, which rallied all the disaffected elements in the country, including Drumont’s following of anti-Semites. It was not, however, until the flight of General Boulanger and the ruin of his party that anti-Semitism came forward as a political movement.

Nevertheless, it wasn't until 1882 that the anti-Jewish movement made a significant impact in France. Paul Bontoux (born 1820), who had previously worked for the Rothschilds but was forced to leave due to his poor investments, joined the Legitimist party and started the Union Générale with money from his new allies. Bontoux claimed he would dismantle the supposed financial monopoly of Jews and Protestants and create a new wealthy class that would primarily be Roman Catholic and aristocratic. People eagerly bought into this idea. For five years, the Union Générale, with the pope’s support, seemingly thrived. Huge projects were launched, and the 123-franc shares surged to 3,200 francs. However, the entire operation was built on risky speculation, and in January 1882, the Union Générale collapsed, facing debts of 312,000,000 francs. Immediately, it was claimed that this failure was caused by Jewish manipulation, leading to a rising anti-Semitic sentiment among clerical and aristocratic groups. In 1886, this feeling was violently expressed in a famous book, La France juive, by Edouard Drumont (born 1844). The author backed up German anti-Semitic theories with a chronique scandaleuse full of provocative personalities, depicting the corruption of French national life under Jewish influence in alarming terms. The public devoured the book, welcoming its explanations for the evident moral decline. The Wilson scandals and the suspension of the Panama Company the following year, while not supporting Drumont's anti-Semitism, reinforced his views on the rampant corruption. From this situation, the Boulangist movement emerged, attracting all the discontented groups in the country, including Drumont’s band of anti-Semites. However, it was only after General Boulanger fled and his party fell apart that anti-Semitism began to emerge as a political movement.

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

The main architect behind the downfall of Boulangism was a Jewish politician and journalist, Joseph Reinach (b. 1856), who was previously the private secretary to Gambetta and one of the most capable individuals in France. He was French by birth and education, but his father and uncles were Germans who established a significant banking business in Paris. Because of this, he was seen as representing the foreign Jewish control in France, and the former Boulangists reacted against him and his fellow Jews with rage. The Boulangist movement had once again caused severe financial damage to the Legitimists, and under the leadership of the marquis de Morès, they shifted all their support to Drumont. An anti-Semitic league was formed, and with the help of Royalists, branches were set up across the nation. The Franco-Russian alliance in 1891, during a time when the persecution of Jews by Pobêdonostsev was attracting Europe’s attention, gave Drumont's campaign a trendy and patriotic vibe. It symbolized the growing closeness between the two nations. In 1892, Drumont launched a daily anti-Semitic newspaper, La Libre Parole. With the establishment of this paper, a systematic campaign to uncover scandals began. Simultaneously, a group of aristocratic rogues, led by the marquis de Morès and the comte de Lamase, set out to intimidate the Jews and challenge them to duels. At a meeting in Neuilly in 1891, Jules Guérin, one of the marquis de Morès's followers, had dramatically called for un cadavre de Juif. He didn't have to wait long. Anti-Semitism was particularly strong in the army, which was the only sector of public service where the reactionary classes were fully represented. The republican law mandating that seminarists complete their military service had reinforced its Clerical and Royalist factions, leading to a movement against the Jewish officers, around 500 of whom held commissions. A series of articles in the Libre Parole targeting these officers resulted in several violent duels, culminating in 1892 with the death of a well-liked Jewish officer, Captain Armand Mayer, of the Engineers, who was mortally wounded in the lungs by the marquis de Morès. This tragedy, made even more heartbreaking by the revelation that Captain Mayer had gallantly fought to protect a friend, sparked widespread public outrage against the anti-Semites, and for a brief moment, it was believed that the movement had been buried along with its victim.

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

Towards the end of 1892, the discovery of widespread corruption by the Panama Company reignited anti-Semitism. The revelations were largely thanks to the efforts of the Libre Parole, and they were especially appreciated by its readers since it emerged that three Jews were involved in the scandals, one of whom, Baron de Reinach, was both the uncle and father-in-law of the despised enemy of Boulangism. The escape of the other two, Dr. Cornelius Herz and M. Arton, along with the difficulties in securing their extradition, strengthened the public belief that the authorities were involved in the scandals, and kept the public focused for a long time on the otherwise limited Jewish aspects of the events. In 1894, the military side of the agitation reignited with the arrest of a notable Jewish officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, on a charge of treason. From the outset, anti-Semitic influence was blatant in this new scandal. The first indication of the arrest appeared in the Libre Parole; and before the facts were officially shared with the public, that journal was already running a campaign against the war minister, fearing that, in collusion with the Juiverie and his republican colleagues, he might try to protect the traitor. Anti-Semitic sentiment was now fully stirred. The Panama scandal had conditioned the people to believe anything; and when it was announced that a secret court-martial had convicted Dreyfus, there was a national outcry against the Jews, even though the specifics of the convict’s alleged crime and the evidence supporting it were completely unknown. Dreyfus was publicly degraded and sentenced to life in exile amid unprecedented scenes of public uproar.

The Dreyfus Case registers the climax not only of French, but of European anti-Semitism. It was the most ambitious and most unscrupulous attempt yet made to prove the nationalist hypothesis of the anti-Semites, and in its failure it afforded the most striking illustration of the dangers of the whole movement by bringing France to the verge of revolution. For a few months after the Dreyfus court-martial there was a comparative lull; but the highly strung condition of popular passion was illustrated by a violent debate on “The Jewish Peril” in the Chamber of Deputies (25th April 1895), and by two outrages with explosives at the Rothschild bank in Paris. Meanwhile the family of Dreyfus, absolutely convinced of his innocence, were casting about for the means of clearing his character and securing his liberation. They were wealthy, and their activity unsettled the public mind and aroused the apprehensions of the conspirators. Had the latter known how to preserve silence, the mystery would perhaps have been yet unsolved; but in their anxiety to allay all suspicions they made one false step, which proved the beginning of their ruin. Through their friends in the press they secured the publication of a facsimile of a document known as the Bordereau—a list of documents supposed to be in Dreyfus’s handwriting and addressed apparently to the military attaché of a foreign power, which was alleged to constitute the chief evidence against the convict. It was hoped by this publication to put an end to the doubts of the so-called Dreyfusards. The result, however, was only to give them a clue on which they worked with remarkable ingenuity. To prove that the Bordereau was not in Dreyfus’s handwriting was not difficult. Indeed, its authorship was recognized almost on the day of publication; but the Dreyfusards held their hands in order to make assurance doubly sure by further evidence. Meanwhile one of the officers of the general staff, Colonel Picquart, had convinced himself by an examination of the dossier of the trial that a gross miscarriage of justice had taken place. On mentioning his doubts to his superiors, who were animated partly by anti-Semitic feeling and partly by reluctance to confess to a mistake, he was ordered to the Tunisian hinterland on a dangerous expedition. Before leaving Paris, however, he took the precaution to confide his discovery to his legal adviser. Harassed by their anxieties, the conspirators made further communications to the newspapers; and the government, questioned and badgered in parliament, added to the revelations. The new disclosures, so far from 144 stopping the Dreyfusards, proved to them, among other things, that the conviction had been partially based on documents which had not been communicated to the counsel for the defence, and hence that the judges had been tampered with by the ministry of war behind the prisoner’s back. So far, too, as these documents related to correspondence with foreign military attachés, it was soon ascertained that they were forgeries. In this way a terrible indictment was gradually drawn up against the ministry of war. The first step was taken towards the end of 1897 by a brother of Captain Dreyfus, who, in a letter to the minister of war, denounced Major Esterhazy as the real author of the Bordereau. The authorities, supported by parliament, declined to reopen the Dreyfus Case, but they ordered a court-martial on Esterhazy, which was held with closed doors and resulted in his acquittal. It now became clear that nothing short of an appeal to public opinion and a full exposure of all the iniquities that had been perpetrated would secure justice at the hands of the military chiefs. On behalf of Dreyfus, Émile Zola, the eminent novelist, formulated the case against the general staff of the army in an open letter to the president of the republic, which by its dramatic accusations startled the whole world. The letter was denounced as wild and fantastic even by those who were in favour of revision. Zola was prosecuted for libel and convicted, and had to fly the country; but the agitation he had started was taken in hand by others, notably M. Clémenceau, M. Reinach and M. Yves Guyot. In August 1898 their efforts found their first reward. A re-examination of the documents in the case by M. Cavaignac, then minister of war, showed that one was undoubtedly forged. Colonel Henry, of the intelligence department of the war office, then confessed that he had fabricated the document, and, on being sent to Mont Valérien under arrest, cut his throat.

The Dreyfus Case marks the peak of anti-Semitism not just in France, but across Europe. It was the most ambitious and ruthless attempt to support the nationalist claims of the anti-Semites, and its failure highlighted the dangers of this movement, bringing France close to revolution. For a few months after the Dreyfus court-martial, there was a brief calm; however, the intense public emotions were evident in a heated debate on “The Jewish Peril” in the Chamber of Deputies (25th April 1895) and in two bombing incidents at the Rothschild bank in Paris. Meanwhile, Dreyfus's family, completely convinced of his innocence, was searching for ways to clear his name and secure his release. They were wealthy, and their efforts unsettled the public mood and raised alarms among the conspirators. If the conspirators had kept quiet, the mystery might have remained unsolved; but in their eagerness to dispel any doubts, they made a critical mistake that led to their downfall. Through their friends in the press, they arranged for the publication of a facsimile of a document known as the Bordereau—a list of documents that supposedly had Dreyfus's handwriting and were directed to the military attaché of a foreign country, which was said to be a major piece of evidence against him. They hoped that this publication would silence the so-called Dreyfusards. However, it only provided them with a clue that they pursued with remarkable skill. Demonstrating that the Bordereau was not written by Dreyfus was not hard; in fact, its true authorship was identified almost immediately after its publication. But the Dreyfusards held back, wanting to gather more evidence to make their case stronger. Meanwhile, Colonel Picquart, an officer on the general staff, had come to believe, after examining the trial's dossier, that a serious miscarriage of justice had occurred. When he mentioned his doubts to his superiors, who were fueled by anti-Semitic sentiments and reluctant to admit to a mistake, they sent him on a dangerous mission to the Tunisian hinterland. Before leaving Paris, however, he took the precaution of confiding his discovery to his legal advisor. Stressed by their fears, the conspirators kept feeding information to the newspapers; and the government, pressed in parliament, added to the public revelations. The new disclosures, instead of stopping the Dreyfusards, revealed among other things that the conviction had relied on documents that had not been shown to the defense counsel, indicating that the judges had been manipulated by the ministry of war behind Dreyfus’s back. As for the documents relating to correspondence with foreign military attachés, it was soon determined that they were forgeries. Thus, a grave indictment was slowly built against the ministry of war. The first move towards justice was made at the end of 1897 by one of Captain Dreyfus’s brothers, who sent a letter to the minister of war accusing Major Esterhazy of being the true author of the Bordereau. The authorities, backed by parliament, refused to revisit the Dreyfus Case but ordered a closed court-martial for Esterhazy, which ended in his acquittal. It became clear that nothing less than an appeal to public opinion and a full exposure of the injustices committed would bring about justice from the military leaders. In defense of Dreyfus, Émile Zola, the renowned novelist, presented the case against the army's general staff in an open letter to the president of the republic, which shocked the world with its dramatic accusations. The letter was dismissed as outrageous and unrealistic, even by those who supported a revision of the case. Zola was prosecuted for libel and found guilty, prompting him to flee the country; nonetheless, the agitation he ignited was taken up by others, notably M. Clémenceau, M. Reinach, and M. Yves Guyot. In August 1898, their efforts started to pay off. A re-examination of the case documents by M. Cavaignac, the then minister of war, revealed that one document was definitely forged. Colonel Henry, from the intelligence unit of the war office, then confessed to having faked the document and, while being detained at Mont Valérien, took his own life.

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

Despite this damaging discovery, the war office continued to believe Dreyfus was guilty and opposed a new investigation. It was backed by three successive ministers of war and seemingly an overwhelming amount of public opinion. By this time, whether Dreyfus was guilty or innocent had become a secondary issue. Like in Germany and Austria, the anti-Semitic movement had shifted into the hands of political parties. On one side were the Radicals and Socialists, who, alarmed by the clerical dominance in the army and aware of the anti-republican motives of the agitators, aligned themselves with the Dreyfusards; on the other, the reactionaries, eager to gain the army's support, took the opposite stance, labeling their opponents as sans patrie and claiming they were conspiring to weaken and degrade the army in the face of the national enemy. The debate was, therefore, no longer just about Dreyfus, but rather about the army, with a life-or-death struggle between the republic and its adversaries at the forefront. The situation became dire. Rumors of military plots filled the air. Powerful leagues were formed to stir public sentiment; attempts to discredit the republic and intimidate the government were made. The president was insulted; there were riots in the streets, and M. Déroulède attempted to persuade the military to march on the Elysée and overthrow the republic. In this critical moment, France, to its eternal honor, found courageous individuals willing to do the right thing. The Socialists, by joining forces with the Radicals against the reactionaries, achieved a parliamentary majority to defend the republic. Brisson’s cabinet submitted a request for the review of Dreyfus’s case to the court of cassation; after an extensive inquiry, which thoroughly validated Zola’s famous letter, that tribunal overturned the court-martial's proceedings and sent the accused back to another court-martial, set to take place in Rennes. Throughout these proceedings, the military faction fought fiercely to obstruct justice; even though Dreyfus’s innocence was fully established, they focused all their efforts on securing a new conviction at Rennes. Public sentiment was running high, leading to an attack on M. Labori, one of the defense attorneys, who was shot and wounded just before he was to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. To the shock and anger of everyone outside France, the Rennes court-martial once again found the prisoner guilty; however, the credibility of this verdict was undermined by a rider that cited “extenuating circumstances” and reduced the punishment to ten years’ imprisonment, along with a recommendation for mercy. The verdict appeared to be an attempt at compromise, and the government decided to advise the president of the republic to pardon Dreyfus. This inadequate conclusion did not satisfy the accused, but his innocence had been so clearly established, and politically there were such pressing reasons to end the matter, that it was accepted without protest by the majority of moderate people.

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

The rehabilitation of Dreyfus, however, didn’t happen without another attempt by the reactionaries to exploit the public emotions stirred up by the case for their own gain. After Déroulède’s failed attempt to overthrow the republic, various Royalist and Boulangist groups, with the support of anti-Semites, came together to organize another plot. The government discovered this, and the leaders were arrested. Jules Guérin, the secretary of the anti-Semitic league, locked himself in the league's offices on rue Chabrol in Paris, which had been fortified and held by a group of his armed friends. For over a month, these anti-Semites managed to keep the authorities at bay, and around 5,000 troops were deployed for the siege. The conspirators were all tried by the Senate in session as a high court, and Guérin was sentenced to ten years in prison. The evidence revealed that the anti-Semitic organization had played an active role in the anti-republican plot (see the report of the Commission d’Instruction in the Petit Temps, 1st November 1899).

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

The government decided to tackle the underlying issue by limiting the power of religious orders, so a strict Association bill was introduced in the chambers. This anti-clerical initiative ignited strong emotions among reactionaries, but it gained overwhelming support in the 1902 elections and became law. The conflict that reopened soon led to a resurgence of the Dreyfus controversy. Nationalists bombarded the country with inflammatory accusations against “the government of national treason,” and Dreyfus himself loudly called for a new trial. It was clear that attempts at conciliation and compromise were futile. Early in 1905, M. Jaurès urged the chamber to grant the Jewish officer's request just to calm the country. The necessary faits nouveaux were quickly provided by the Minister of War, General André, and after being reviewed by a special revision commission, they were sent to the court of cassation for final judgment. On July 12, 1906, the court, with all chambers united, delivered its verdict. After a lengthy review of the case, it unanimously declared that all accusations against Dreyfus had been disproved, and it annulled the verdict of the Rennes court-martial sans renvoi. The whole situation was explained by the fact that Esterhazy and Henry were the real offenders; they had been trading military documents to the German government, and once the Bordereau was discovered, they used the anti-Jewish fervor to shift the blame onto Dreyfus.

Thus ended this famous case, to the relief of the whole country and with the approval of the great majority of French citizens. Except a knot of anti-Semitic monomaniacs all parties bowed loyally to the judgment of the court of cassation. The government gave the fullest effect to the judgment. Dreyfus and Picquart were restored to the active list of the army with the ranks respectively of major and general of brigade. Dreyfus was also created a knight of the Legion of Honour, and received the decoration in public in the artillery pavilion of the military school. Zola, to whose efforts the triumph of truth was chiefly due, had not been spared to witness the final scene, but the chambers decided to give his remains a last resting-place in the Pantheon. When three months later M. Clémenceau formed his first cabinet he appointed General Picquart minister of war. Nothing indeed was left undone to repair the terrible series of wrongs which had grown out of the Dreyfus case. Nevertheless its destructive work could not be wholly healed. For over ten years it had been 145 a nightmare to France, and it now modified the whole course of French history. In the ruin of the French Church, which owed its disestablishment very largely to the Dreyfus conspiracy, may be read the most eloquent warning against the demoralizing madness of anti-Semitism.

Thus ended this famous case, bringing relief to the whole country and receiving approval from the vast majority of French citizens. Except for a small group of anti-Semitic extremists, all parties accepted the judgment of the court of cassation. The government fully implemented the ruling. Dreyfus and Picquart were restored to active duty in the army, with Dreyfus promoted to major and Picquart to general of brigade. Dreyfus was also made a knight of the Legion of Honour and received the medal publicly in the artillery pavilion of the military school. Zola, whose efforts were largely responsible for the triumph of truth, was not able to witness the final scene, but the chambers decided to give him a final resting place in the Pantheon. When M. Clémenceau formed his first cabinet three months later, he appointed General Picquart as the Minister of War. Everything was done to rectify the terrible series of injustices that stemmed from the Dreyfus case. However, its damaging impact could not be entirely undone. For over ten years, it had been a nightmare for France, altering the entire course of French history. The decline of the French Church, which was largely a result of the Dreyfus conspiracy, serves as a powerful warning against the destructive madness of anti-Semitism.

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

In line with the unrest happening in France, a similar movement has emerged in Algeria, where the European population has long opposed granting native Jews the rights of French citizenship. This agitation has been marked by significant violence, and many of the anti-Semitic representatives in the French parliament, including M. Drumont, have found support in Algeria. Since the local anti-Semites are mostly Spaniards and various marginalized groups, this agitation lacks the distinctive nationalist element that is typical of anti-Semitism on the continent. Recently, under the pressure from authorities, the movement has started to show signs of cooling down.

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

While anti-Semitism has primarily emerged in Germany, Russia, Romania, Austria-Hungary, and France, its influence has been felt in other countries when favorable conditions arose. In England, there have been multiple efforts to introduce the ideas of Marr and Treitschke. The fact that a Jewish Prime Minister, Lord Beaconsfield, was in power when German anti-Semitism was on the rise first brought the idea of a Jewish threat to the attention of English political extremists. The Eastern crisis of 1876-1878, which the Liberal party saw as a conflict between Christianity, represented by Russia, and a degrading Semitism, represented by Turkey, intensified anti-Jewish sentiment, especially given the government’s anti-Russian stance. Sir J.G. Tollemache Sinclair gave a harsh expression to ancient prejudices against Jews in his work, A Defence of Russia (1877). Mr. T.P. O’Connor, in a biography of Lord Beaconsfield (1878), depicted him as an agent of the Jewish people, “shaping the entire policy of Christendom to Jewish interests.” Professor Goldwin Smith attempted to articulate the rising anti-Jewish sentiment in several articles for the Nineteenth Century (1878, 1881, and 1882), by aligning with the nationalist theories of German anti-Semites. This movement found some uneasy support in the speeches of leading Liberal statesmen, but it generally had little impact on the public. It re-emerged when persecutions in Russia threatened England with a significant influx of Polish Jews, whose lifestyles were feared to undermine living standards in the industries they entered, leaving a mark on the anti-alien legislation of 1905. In 1883, Stöcker visited London but was met with a very negative response. Unsuccessful attempts to introduce anti-Semitism have also been made in Switzerland, Belgium, Greece, and the United States.

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

Anti-Semitism had a significant impact on history during the thirty years leading up to 1908, but it hasn't left any lasting, positive mark on the social and political development of Europe. It stems from a major ethnographic and political mistake and has been fueled by blatant political scheming. Its racial ideology is at best a simplistic conjecture; its nationalist perspective has mainly highlighted the fundamentally economic foundations of modern society, while its political actions have exposed the vulgarity and ignorance that are its main sources of power. Rather than harming the Jews, it has actually revitalized Jewish racial unity. Outrageous claims, such as those in the Tisza Eszlar and Dreyfus cases, have vindicated Jewish identity. The general agitation surrounding these issues, along with a resurgence of interest in Jewish history, has helped shift Jewish solidarity from a religious to a racial framework. The connection of a shared race, energized by a new pride in Hebrew history and motivated by the insults from anti-Semites, has infused Judaism with a fresh spirit and strength at a time when the convergence of ethical systems and the rejection of dogma were weakening its religious foundations. In the entire history of Judaism, there may have been no more significant or notable instances of returning to the faith than in this period. The Jewish response to anti-Semitism has taken two interesting practical forms. First is the so-called Zionist movement, which represents a kind of Jewish nationalism that shares the same flaws as its anti-Semitic counterpart (see Zionism). Second is a movement represented by the Maccabaeans’ Society in London, which aims to unite the Jewish people in an effort to elevate Jewish character and raise awareness of the dignity of the race. It does not emphasize orthodoxy but welcomes anyone who seeks to ensure that Jewish behavior is a fitting response to anti-Semitic theories. Both of these movements bring fresh vitality to Judaism and are likely to yield significant results in the coming years. A remarkable spirit of generosity has also been shown by the Jewish community in assisting and supporting the victims of anti-Jewish hate. In addition to the countless funds raised through public donations, Baron de Hirsch established an extensive plan to relocate persecuted Jews to new countries under better living conditions, donating a staggering £9,000,000 to the cause (see Hirsch, Maurice de).

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

Though anti-Semitism has been exposed and discredited, we must fear that its history isn’t over yet. With over six million Jews in Russia and Romania who are being systematically degraded and who periodically move across the western border, the Jewish question will persist in Europe. As long as there are weak governments and ignorant or superstitious elements among the enfranchised classes in these countries, this issue will continue to influence politics.

Literature.—No impartial history of modern anti-Semitism has yet been written. The most comprehensive works on the subject, Israel among the Nations, by A. Leroy-Beaulieu (1895), and L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes, by Bernard Lazare (1894), are collections of studies rather than histories. M. Lazare’s work will be found most useful by the student on account of its detached standpoint and its valuable bibliographical notes. A good list of works relating to Jewish ethnography will be found at the end of M. Isidor Loeb’s valuable article, “Juifs,” in the Dictionnaire universel de géographie (1884). To these should be added, Adolf Jellinek, Der Jüdische Stamm (1869); Chwolson, Die semitischen Volker (1872); Nossig, Materialien zur Statistik (1887); Jacobs, Jewish Statistics (1891); and Andree, Zur Volkskunde der Juden (1881). A bibliography of the Jewish question from 1875 to 1884 has been published by Mr Joseph Jacobs (1885). Useful additions and rectifications will be found in the Jewish World, 11th September 1885. During the period since 1885 the anti-Semitic movement has produced an immense pamphlet literature. Some of these productions have already been referred to; others will be found in current bibliographies under the names of the personages mentioned, such as Stöcker, Ahlwardt, &c. On the Russian persecutions, besides the works quoted by Jacobs, see the pamphlet issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee in 1890, and the annual reports of the Russo-Jewish Mansion House Fund; Les Juifs de Russie (Paris, 1891); Report of the Commissioners of Immigration upon the Causes which incite Immigration to the United States (Washington, 1892); The New Exodus, by Harold Frederic (1892); Les Juifs russes, by Leo Errera (Brussels, 1893). The most valuable collection of facts relating to the persecutions of 1881-1882 are to be found in the Feuilles Jaunes (52 nos.), compiled and circulated for the information of the European press by the Alliance Israélite of Paris. Complete collections are very scarce. For the struggle during the past decade the Russische Correspondenz of Berlin should be consulted, together with its French and English editions. See also the publications of the Bund (Geneva; Imprimerie Israélite); Séménoff, The Russian Government and the Massacres, and Quarterly Review, October 1906. On the Rumanian question, see Bluntschli, Roumania and the Legal Status of the Jews (London, 1879); Wir Juden (Zürich, 1883); Schloss, The Persecution of the Jews in Roumania (London, 1885); Schloss, Notes of Information (1886); Sincerus, Juifs en Roumanie (London, 1901); Plotke, Die rumanischen Juden unter dem Fürsten u. Konig Karl (1901); Dehn, Diplomatic u. Hochfinanz in der rumanischen Judenfrage (1901); Conybeare, “Roumania as a Persecuting Power,” Nat. Rev., February 1901. On Hungary and the Tisza Eszlar Case, see (besides the references in Jacobs) Nathan, Der Prozess van Tisza Eszlar (Berlin, 1892). On this case and the Blood Accusation generally, see Wright, “The Jews and the Malicious Charge of Human Sacrifice,” Nineteenth Century, 1883. The origins of the Austrian agitation are dealt with by Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895). This work, though inclining to anti-Semitism, should be consulted for the Christian Socialist elements in the whole continental agitation. The most valuable source of information on the Austrian movement is the Österreichische Wochenschrift, edited by Dr Bloch. See also pamphlets and speeches by the anti-Semitic leaders, Liechtenstein, Lueger, Schoenerer, &c. The case of the French anti-Semites is stated by E. Drumont in his France juive. 146 and other works; the other side by Isidor Loeb, Bernard Lazare, Leonce Reynaud, &c. Of the Dreyfus Case there is an enormous literature: see especially the reports of the Zola and Picquart trials, the revision case before the Court of Cassation, the proceedings of the Rennes court-martial, and the final judgment of the Court of Cassation printed in full in the Figaro, July 15, 1906; also Reinach, Histoire de l’affaire Dreyfus (Paris, 1908, 6 vols.), and the valuable series of volumes by Captain Paul Marin, MM. Clémenceau, Lazare, Yves Guyot, Paschal Grousset, Urbain Gohier, de Haime, de Pressensé, and the remarkable letters of Dreyfus (Lettres d’un innocent). An English history of the case was published by F.C. Conybeare (1898), whose articles and those of Sir Godfrey Lushington and L.J. Maxse in the National Review, 1897-1900, will be found invaluable by the student. On the Algerian question, see M. Wahl in the Revue des études juives; L. Forest, Naturalisation des Israélites algériens; and E. Audinet in the Revue générale de droit international publique, 1897, No. 4. On the history of the anti-Semitic movement generally, see the annual reports of the Alliance Israélite of Paris and the Anglo-Jewish Association of London, also the annual summaries published at the end of the Jewish year by the Jewish Chronicle of London. The connexion of the movement with general party politics must be followed in the newspapers. The present writer has worked with a collection of newspaper cuttings numbering several thousands and ranging over thirty years.

Literature.—No unbiased history of modern anti-Semitism has been written yet. The most thorough works on the topic, Israel among the Nations by A. Leroy-Beaulieu (1895) and L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes by Bernard Lazare (1894), are more like collections of studies than actual histories. M. Lazare’s book is particularly useful for students because of its neutral perspective and valuable bibliographical notes. At the end of M. Isidor Loeb’s insightful article, “Juifs,” in the Dictionnaire universel de géographie (1884), you'll find a helpful list of works about Jewish ethnography. Additionally, you should include Adolf Jellinek’s Der Jüdische Stamm (1869); Chwolson’s Die semitischen Volker (1872); Nossig’s Materialien zur Statistik (1887); Jacobs’ Jewish Statistics (1891); and Andree’s Zur Volkskunde der Juden (1881). A bibliography focusing on the Jewish question from 1875 to 1884 was published by Mr. Joseph Jacobs (1885). Useful updates and corrections can be found in the Jewish World, September 11, 1885. Since 1885, the anti-Semitic movement has generated a massive amount of pamphlet literature. Some of these have been mentioned already; others can be found in current bibliographies under the names of individuals like Stöcker, Ahlwardt, etc. Regarding the Russian persecutions, in addition to the works cited by Jacobs, see the pamphlet published by the Russo-Jewish Committee in 1890, and the annual reports of the Russo-Jewish Mansion House Fund; Les Juifs de Russie (Paris, 1891); Report of the Commissioners of Immigration upon the Causes which incite Immigration to the United States (Washington, 1892); The New Exodus by Harold Frederic (1892); Les Juifs russes by Leo Errera (Brussels, 1893). The best collection of facts relating to the persecutions of 1881-1882 is found in the Feuilles Jaunes (52 nos.), created and distributed for the awareness of the European press by the Alliance Israélite of Paris. Complete collections are quite rare. For the struggles of the past decade, refer to the Russische Correspondenz of Berlin along with its French and English editions. Also, check the publications of the Bund (Geneva; Imprimerie Israélite); Séménoff’s The Russian Government and the Massacres and Quarterly Review, October 1906. Regarding the Romanian issue, refer to Bluntschli’s Roumania and the Legal Status of the Jews (London, 1879); Wir Juden (Zürich, 1883); Schloss’s The Persecution of the Jews in Roumania (London, 1885); Schloss’s Notes of Information (1886); Sincerus’s Juifs en Roumanie (London, 1901); Plotke’s Die rumanischen Juden unter dem Fürsten u. König Karl (1901); Dehn’s Diplomatic u. Hochfinanz in der rumanischen Judenfrage (1901); Conybeare’s “Roumania as a Persecuting Power,” Nat. Rev., February 1901. For Hungary and the Tisza Eszlar case, see (in addition to the references in Jacobs) Nathan’s Der Prozess van Tisza Eszlar (Berlin, 1892). For details on this case and the Blood Accusation in general, see Wright’s “The Jews and the Malicious Charge of Human Sacrifice,” Nineteenth Century, 1883. Nitti discusses the origins of the Austrian agitation in Catholic Socialism (1895). Although this work leans towards anti-Semitism, it should be consulted for the Christian Socialist aspects of the entire continental agitation. The most valuable source of information on the Austrian movement is the Österreichische Wochenschrift, edited by Dr. Bloch. Also, check pamphlets and speeches from anti-Semitic leaders like Liechtenstein, Lueger, Schoenerer, etc. E. Drumont presents the position of French anti-Semites in his France juive. 146 and other works provide the opposing view from Isidor Loeb, Bernard Lazare, Leonce Reynaud, etc. There is a vast literature on the Dreyfus case: particularly the reports of the Zola and Picquart trials, the revision case before the Court of Cassation, the proceedings of the Rennes court-martial, and the final judgment of the Court of Cassation published in full in the Figaro, July 15, 1906; as well as Reinach’s Histoire de l’affaire Dreyfus (Paris, 1908, 6 vols.), and the important series of volumes by Captain Paul Marin, MM. Clémenceau, Lazare, Yves Guyot, Paschal Grousset, Urbain Gohier, de Haime, de Pressensé, and the remarkable letters of Dreyfus (Lettres d’un innocent). An English history of the case was published by F.C. Conybeare (1898), whose articles, along with those from Sir Godfrey Lushington and L.J. Maxse in the National Review, 1897-1900, will be invaluable for study. Concerning the Algerian issue, see M. Wahl in the Revue des études juives; L. Forest's Naturalisation des Israélites algériens; and E. Audinet in the Revue générale de droit international publique, 1897, No. 4. For a general history of the anti-Semitic movement, refer to the annual reports of the Alliance Israélite of Paris and the Anglo-Jewish Association of London, as well as the annual summaries published at the end of the Jewish year by the Jewish Chronicle of London. The connection between this movement and general party politics should be tracked through newspapers. The current writer has compiled several thousand newspaper clippings over the last thirty years.

(L. W.)

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

ANTISEPTICS (Gr. instead, against, and septic, putrefactive), refers to substances used to prevent bacterial growth in animal or plant matter. Some act as true germicides, able to kill bacteria, while others just prevent or slow their growth. The antiseptic approach to treating wounds (see Surgery) was introduced by Lord Lister, stemming from Pasteur’s germ theory of decay. For bacteria to grow, they need a food source, moisture, oxygen in most cases, and a minimum temperature (see Bacteriology). These conditions have been specifically studied and applied in food preservation (see Food Preservation) and in the ancient practice of embalming the dead, which is the earliest example of systematic antiseptic use (see Embalming). Early research focused significantly on preventing decay, aiming to determine how much of a substance should be added to a solution to stop any accidentally present bacteria from developing. However, for various reasons, this method was imprecise, and today, an antiseptic is evaluated based on its effects on pure cultures of specific pathogenic microbes and their active and spore forms. Standardization has been achieved in many cases, and a water solution of carbolic acid of a specific strength is now considered the standard against which other antiseptics are measured. The most important ones in use today include carbolic acid, perchloride and biniodide of mercury, iodoform, formalin, salicylic acid, etc. Carbolic acid is germicidal in strong solutions and inhibitory in weaker ones. The so-called “pure” acid is applied to infected living tissues, especially tuberculous sinuses or wounds, after scraping them to destroy any remaining tuberculous material. A solution of 1 in 20 is used to sterilize instruments before an operation, and towels or lint used for the patient. Care must always be taken to prevent absorption (see Carbolic Acid). Perchloride of mercury is another very effective antiseptic used in solutions of strength 1 in 2000, 1 in 1000, and 1 in 500. This or biniodide of mercury is the last antiseptic applied to the surgeon’s and assistants’ hands before starting an operation. However, they should not be used to disinfect instruments, nor on any large abraded surfaces where absorption could occur. Boracic acid is not mentioned here; although it is commonly known as an antiseptic, it is actually just a soothing liquid, and bacteria can thrive in contact with it. Among dry antiseptics, iodoform is frequently used in septic or tuberculous wounds and appears to inhibit Bacillus tuberculosis. Its effectiveness relies on its slow decomposition in tissues, releasing free iodine. Recent antiseptics like chinosol, a yellow substance that dissolves easily in water, and lysol, another coal-tar derivative, are widely used. However, every antiseptic, no matter how effective, is somewhat toxic and irritating to a wound. This is why the “antiseptic” method has been replaced in modern surgery by the “aseptic” method (see Surgery), which focuses on preventing bacterial invasion instead of destroying them when they occur.


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

ANTISTHENES (c. 444-365 BCE), the founder of the Cynic school of philosophy, was born in Athens to a Thracian mother, which may explain his intense critique of traditional ideas. In his youth, he studied rhetoric under Gorgias, and possibly also under Hippias and Prodicus. Gomperz suggests he started in decent circumstances but ended up in poverty. Regardless of his background, he fell under the influence of Socrates and became a dedicated student. He was so eager to hear Socrates that he would walk every day from Peiraeus to Athens, urging his friends to join him. Inspired by the Socratic view of virtue, he established his own school in Cynosarges, the hall for outcasts (bastards). He attracted the lower classes with his simple lifestyle and teachings. He wore a cloak and carried a staff and a wallet, which became the uniform for his followers. Diogenes Laertius states that his works filled ten volumes, but only fragments remain. His preferred style appeared to be dialogue, showing the influence of his early rhetorical training. Aristotle describes him as uneducated and simple-minded, while Plato portrays him as struggling unsuccessfully with the challenges of dialectic. His work represents a significant aspect of Socratic philosophy and should be compared with the doctrines of the Cyrenaics and Megarians.

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

References.—Charles Chappuis, Antisthène (Paris, 1854); A. Müller, De Antisthenis cynici vita et scriptis (Dresden, 1860); T. Gomperz, Greek Thinkers (English translation, 1905), vol. ii. pp. 142 ff., 150 ff. For his philosophy, see Cynics, and for his students, Diogenes and Crates, check the articles under those headings.


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

ANTISTROPHE, the part of an ode that the chorus sings while moving back from west to east, responding to the strophe, which was sung from east to west. It serves as a reply and balances the impact of the strophe. For example, in Gray’s ode titled “The Progress of Poesy,” the strophe emphasizes the beauty, power, and joy of poetry with triumphant tones, while the antistrophe responds in a more somber and melancholic mood—

“Man’s feeble race what ills await,

“Man’s weak race, what troubles lie ahead,

Labour, and Penury, the racks of Pain,

Labour, and Poverty, the torture of Pain,

Disease and Sorrow’s weeping Train,

Disease and Sorrow's weeping Train,

And Death, sad refuge from the storms of Fate,” &c.

And Death, a sorrowful escape from the trials of Fate,” &c.

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

When the sections of the chorus finish their responses, they come together and conclude with the epode, demonstrating the triple structure found in the ancient sacred hymns of Greece, starting from the time of Stesichorus. As Milton puts it, “strophe, antistrophe, and epode were a type of stanza created specifically for the music used with the chorus that sang.”


ANTITHESIS (the Greek for “setting opposite”), in rhetoric, the bringing out of a contrast in the meaning by an obvious contrast in the expression, as in the following:—“When there is need of silence, you speak, and when there is need of speech, you are dumb; when present, you wish to be absent, and when absent, you desire to be present; in peace you are for war, and in war you long for peace; in council you descant on bravery, and in the battle you tremble.” Antithesis is sometimes double or alternate, as in the appeal of Augustus:—“Listen, young men, to an old man to whom old men were glad to listen when he was young.” The force of the antithesis is increased if the words on which the beat of the contrast falls are alliterative, or otherwise similar in sound, as—“The fairest but the falsest of her sex.” There is nothing that gives to expression greater point and vivacity than a judicious employment of this figure; but, on the other hand, there is nothing more tedious and trivial than a pseudo-antithetical style. Among English writers who have made the most abundant use of antithesis are Pope, Young, Johnson, and Gibbon; and especially Lyly in his Euphues. It is, however, a much more common feature in French than in 147 English; while in German, with some striking exceptions, it is conspicuous by its absence.

ANTITHESIS (the Greek term for “setting opposite”) in rhetoric refers to highlighting a contrast in meaning through an obvious difference in expression, as seen in this example: “When it's time for silence, you speak, and when it's time for speaking, you're quiet; when you're present, you want to be absent, and when you're absent, you wish to be present; in peace, you advocate for war, and in war, you long for peace; in meetings, you talk about courage, but in battle, you panic.” Antithesis can sometimes appear in a double or alternate structure, like in Augustus's appeal: “Listen, young men, to an old man whom old men were happy to listen to when he was young.” The impact of the antithesis is stronger if the words emphasized by the contrast are alliterative or similar in sound, such as—“The fairest but the falsest of her kind.” There is nothing that adds more impact and energy to expression than a careful use of this figure; however, nothing is more boring and trivial than a fake-antithetical style. Among English writers who have frequently used antithesis are Pope, Young, Johnson, and Gibbon; particularly Lyly in his Euphues. It is, however, much more common in French than in 147 English; while in German, with some notable exceptions, it is noticeably absent.


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

ANTITYPE (Gr. negative copy), the counterpart of “type,” relates to it like a stamp to a die, or vice versa. In the sense of copy or likeness, the term appears in the Greek New Testament (Heb. ix. 24; 1 Peter iii. 21), known in English as “figure.” Theological writers use antitype to refer to the actual reality that a type symbolizes prophetically. Therefore, Christ is the antitype of many types found in Jewish rituals. The fathers of the Greek church (e.g. Gregory Nazianzen) also use antitype to refer to the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.


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

ANTIUM (modern Anzio), an ancient Volscian city on the coast of Latium, about 33 miles south of Rome. The legends about its foundation and the stories of its early interactions with Rome aren't very reliable; however, Livy’s account of the wars between Antium and Rome in the early 4th century BCE might be credible. Antium is listed along with Ardea, Laurentum, and Circeii as being under Roman protection in the treaty with Carthage in 348 BCE In 341, it lost its independence after a rebellion with the rest of Latium against Rome, and the beaks (rostra) of the six captured Antiatine ships decorated and gave their name to the orators’ tribunal in the Roman Forum. By the end of the Republican period, it became a vacation spot for wealthy Romans, and the Julian and Claudian emperors often visited; both Caligula and Nero were born there. The latter established a colony of veterans and built a new harbor, the projecting moles of which are still visible today. In the Middle Ages, it was abandoned in favor of Nettuno; at the end of the 17th century, Innocent XII and Clement XI restored the harbor, not at the original site but to the east of it, with the opening facing east, which led to it frequently getting silted up; it has a depth of about 15 feet. Remains of Roman villas are prominently visible along the shore, both to the east and northwest of the town. Nero’s villa cannot be precisely identified but is generally thought to be at the so-called Arco Muto, where remnants of a theater (discovered in 1712 and covered up again) are also found. Many artworks have been uncovered. As for the famous temple of Fortune (Horace, Od. i. 35), no remnants are known. The sea is gradually eroding Anzio, but several miles farther northwest, the old Roman coastline now lies slightly inland (see Tiber). The Volscian city was situated on higher ground and somewhat away from the shore, although it extended down to it. It was protected by a deep ditch, which can still be traced, and by walls, a part of which, on the eastern side, made of rectangular blocks of tufa, was uncovered in 1897. The modern town is a summer getaway and has several villas, including the Villa Borghese.

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

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

(T. As.)

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

ANTIVARI (Montenegrin Bar, named by the Venetians because it faces Bari in Italy) is a seaport in Montenegro that belonged to Turkey until 1878. The population was about 2,500 in 1900. The old town is located inland on a narrow strip of land between the Adriatic Sea and the Sutorman mountain range, overshadowed by the peak of Rumiya (5,148 ft.). Just a few hundred yards away, it’s not visible, hidden among dense olive groves. Inside, there’s a dilapidated walled village and the remains of an old Venetian fortress, surrounded by mosques and bazaars; Antivari feels more Turkish than Montenegrin. The beautiful bay of Antivari, with its port Prstan, is about an hour’s drive through barren and harsh terrain, enclosed by mountains. At the northern tip of the bay is Spizza, an Austrian military outpost. Antivari is home to the residence of its Roman Catholic archbishop, and the unadorned palace of the crown prince, Topolitsa, is located in the center of the shore. The name Antivari is used for both Prstan and the old town. Occasionally, Austrian Lloyd steamers stop here, and the “Puglia” S.S. Company runs regular steamers to and from Bari. However, as a trade outlet for Montenegro, Antivari can't compete with the Austrian Cattaro, as the harbor is somewhat challenging to access during stormy weather. The main industries are fishing and olive oil refining.


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

ANT-LION refers to insects in the family Myrmeleonidae, characterized by their relatively short, clubbed antennae and four large, intricately patterned wings where the top veins create regular rectangular spaces. Most adult ants-lions are active at night and are thought to be carnivorous. The most recognized species, Myrmeleon formicarius, can be found in late summer across many European countries, but like others in this group, it isn't native to England. Technically, the term ant-lion actually refers to the larval stage, which has been scientifically recognized for over two hundred years due to its unusual and intimidating look, as well as its clever method of catching prey using a pitfall. The larva's body is oval, sandy-grey in color, and covered with warts and bristles; the prothorax acts like a mobile neck for its large square head, which has a pair of long, powerful, toothed mandibles. The ant-lion creates its trap in dry sand. After identifying the chosen spot with a circular groove, it moves backward, using its abdomen like a plow to dig up the soil. It uses one front leg to stack loose particles on its head, then with a quick jerk, throws each little pile out of the way. It continues this way, moving from the edge toward the center. Once it reaches the middle and completes the pit, the larva settles at the bottom, buried in the soil with only its jaws visible above the surface. The loose sand along the pit's sides provides an unstable foothold for any small insect that accidentally wanders over the edge. If the prey slips to the bottom, it's quickly grabbed by the hidden ant-lion, or if it tries to climb the slippery walls, it's pulled down by showers of loose sand hurled from below by the larva. With similar head jerks, the emptied skins of insects are ejected from the pit, which is kept clean of debris. A fully grown larva digs a pit about 2 in. deep and 3 in. wide at the top. The pupal stage of the ant-lion is inactive. The larva constructs a round case made of sand bound together with fine silk, which is believed to be spun from a slender spinneret at the back end of its body. It remains in this case until it transforms into a sexually mature insect, which then emerges, leaving the pupal skin behind. In certain species of Myrmeleonidae, like Dendroleon pantheormis, the larva resembles that of Myrmeleon structurally but does not create a pit; instead, it catches passing prey from any nook or crevice it hides in.

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

The exact meaning of the name ant-lion (Fr. fourmilion) is uncertain. It has been thought that it refers to the fact that ants make up a large part of the insect's diet, with the suffix “lion” simply suggesting a destroyer or eater. However, the name might just refer to a large, ground-dwelling, biting, wingless insect that is bigger than an ant and has similar predatory behavior.

(R. I. P.)

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

ANTOFAGASTA, is a town and port in northern Chile and the capital of the Chilean province with the same name, located about 768 miles north of Valparaíso at 23° 38′ 39″ S latitude and 70° 24′ 39″ W longitude. The population is estimated to be around 16,084 (as of 1902). Antofagasta serves as the seaport for a railway that connects to Oruro, Bolivia, and is the only trade outlet for the southwestern regions of that country. It has smelting facilities for the nearby silver mines and maintains a bustling trade with the local mining towns. The town was established in 1870 as a shipping hub for the recently discovered silver mines in the area and was part of Bolivia until 1879, when it was taken over by a Chilean military force.

The province of Antofagasta has an area of 46,611 sq. m. lying within the desert of Atacama and between the provinces of Tarapacá and Atacama. It is rich in saline and other mineral deposits, the important Caracoles silver mines being about 90 m. north-east of the port of Antofagasta. Like the other provinces of this region, Antofagasta produces for export copper, silver, 148 silver ores, lead, nitrate of soda, borax and salt. Iron and manganese ores are also found. Besides Antofagasta the principal towns are Taltal, Mejillones, Cobija (the old capital) and Tocopilla. Up to 1879 the province belonged to Bolivia, and was known as the department of Atacama, or the Litoral. It fell into the possession of Chile in the war of 1879-82, and was definitely ceded to that republic in 1885.

The province of Antofagasta covers an area of 46,611 sq. m. situated in the Atacama Desert, bordered by the provinces of Tarapacá and Atacama. It has abundant saline and other mineral deposits, with the significant Caracoles silver mines located about 90 m northeast of the port of Antofagasta. Like the other provinces in this area, Antofagasta exports copper, silver, 148 silver ores, lead, sodium nitrate, borax, and salt. Iron and manganese ores are also present. Besides Antofagasta, the main towns include Taltal, Mejillones, Cobija (the former capital), and Tocopilla. Until 1879, the province was part of Bolivia, known as the department of Atacama, or the Litoral. It came under Chilean control during the 1879-82 war and was officially ceded to Chile in 1885.


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

ANTOINE, ANDRÉ (1858-  ), French actor-manager, was born in Limoges. In his early years, he worked in business. However, he was a passionate amateur actor, and in 1887, he founded the Théâtre Libre in Paris to pursue his vision for the advancement of dramatic art. For more about his work, which greatly impacted the French stage, see Drama: France. In 1894, he stepped down from running this theatre and became associated with the Gymnase, and later (1896) with the Odéon.


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

ANTONELLI, GIACOMO (1806-1876), an Italian cardinal, was born in Sonnino on April 2, 1806. He was educated for the priesthood, but after taking minor orders, he decided against becoming a priest and instead pursued a career in administration. Made a secular prelate, he was sent as an apostolic delegate to Viterbo, where he quickly showed his conservative views by trying to eliminate Liberalism. He was recalled to Rome in 1841 and joined the office of the papal secretary of state, but four years later he was appointed the pontifical treasurer-general. Created a cardinal on June 11, 1847, he was chosen by Pius IX to lead the state council responsible for drafting the constitution. On March 10, 1848, Antonelli became the head of the first constitutional ministry of Pius IX, a position in which he showed remarkable deceit. After his cabinet fell, Antonelli created the role of governor of the sacred palaces for himself to maintain constant access to and influence over the pope. Following the assassination of Pellegrino Rossi on November 15, 1848, he organized Pius IX's escape to Gaeta, where he became the secretary of state. Despite promising to the powers, he reinstated absolute government upon returning to Rome on April 12, 1850, and broke the surrender conditions by imprisoning numerous Liberals. In 1855, he narrowly avoided assassination. As an ally of the Bourbons of Naples, from whom he received an annual subsidy, he tried to assist in their restoration after 1860 by encouraging banditry along the Neapolitan border. In response to overtures from Ricasoli in 1861, Pius IX, at Antonelli’s suggestion, replied with the famous “Non possumus,” but later (in 1867) accepted Ricasoli’s proposal concerning church property, albeit too late. After the September Convention in 1864, Antonelli organized the Legion of Antibes to take over from French troops in Rome and secured French support against Garibaldi’s invasion of papal territory in 1867. When the French reoccupied Rome after Mentana, Antonelli held significant power again, but when the Italians entered in 1870, he was forced to limit his role to managing foreign relations. He wrote, with papal approval, the letter that requested the Italians to occupy the Leonine city and secured from them payment of 5,000,000 lire in Peter’s pence remaining in the papal treasury, as well as 50,000 scudi—the first and only installment of the Italian allowance (later established by the Law of Guarantees on March 21, 1871) ever accepted by the Holy See. Upon Antonelli's death, the Vatican’s finances were found to be disorganized, with a deficit of 45,000,000 lire. His personal wealth, accumulated during his time in office, was significant and was mostly left to his family, with little left to the Church and only a small memento for the pope. From 1850 until his death, he had little involvement in dogma and church discipline, although he did send circulars to the powers containing the Syllabus (1864) and the acts of the Vatican Council (1870). His efforts were largely focused on the conflict between the papacy and the Italian Risorgimento, a history that can only be understood fully by considering the influence of his unscrupulous, greedy, and questionable character. He died on November 6, 1876.


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

ANTONELLO DA MESSINA (c. 1430-1479), Italian painter, was likely born in Messina around the early 15th century and worked at his craft for some time in his homeland. When he saw an oil painting by Jan Van Eyck in Naples, owned by Alphonso of Aragon, he was captivated by the uniqueness and value of this new technique. He traveled to the Netherlands to learn the method from Van Eyck’s students. Antonello spent some time there honing his skills and returned to Messina around 1465. He likely visited Milan before moving to Venice in 1472, where he created works for the Council of Ten. He passed away there in mid-February 1479 (see Venturi’s article in Thieme-Becker, Kunstlerlexikon, 1907). His style is notable for its combination—though not always successfully—of Italian simplicity with Flemish attention to detail. He often focused on single figures, dedicating his highest skill to accurately portraying them. There are around twenty verified works from him, alongside several questionable ones, including representations of “Ecce Homo,” Madonnas, saints, and half-length portraits, many painted on wood. The most famous piece is believed to be an unnamed painting of a man in the Berlin museum. The National Gallery in London holds three of his works, including “St Jerome in his Study.” Antonello had a significant impact on Italian painting, both through the introduction of the Flemish invention and by promoting Flemish artistic tendencies.


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

ANTONINI ITINERARIUM, is a valuable record that's still around, detailing the stations and distances along the different roads of the Roman Empire. It seems to be based on official documents, likely from the survey organized by Julius Caesar and carried out under Augustus. We don’t know for sure when it was created or who wrote it. However, it’s believed that the original edition dates back to the early 3rd century, while the version we have is from the time of Diocletian. If the author or creator of the work was an emperor, it was most likely Antoninus Caracalla.

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

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


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

ANTONINUS, SAINT [Antonio Pierozzi, also known as de Forciglioni] (1389-1459), archbishop of Florence, was born in that city on March 1, 1389. He joined the Dominican order at 16 and was quickly given responsibility for various houses of his order in Cortona, Rome, Naples, and Florence, where he worked hard to implement reforms. He was consecrated as the archbishop of Florence in 1446 and gained the respect and affection of his people, particularly for his determination and resourcefulness in dealing with the consequences of the plague and earthquake in 1448 and 1453. He passed away on May 2, 1459, and was canonized by Pope Adrian VI in 1523. His feast day is celebrated every year on May 13. Antoninus was highly regarded for his theological knowledge and served as the papal theologian at the council of Florence (1439). Among his many works, as listed in Quétif-Echard's De Scriptoribus Ord. Praedicat, i. 818, the most recognized are his Summa theologica (Venice, 1477; Verona, 1740) and the Summa confessionalis (Mondovi, 1472), both essential resources for confessors.

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

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


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

ANTONINUS LIBERALIS, Greek grammarian, likely active around A.D. 150. He compiled a collection of forty-one stories about mythical transformations (Synagogue of Transformations), which are mainly important as a resource for mythological knowledge.

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

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


ANTONINUS PIUS [Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus], (A.D. 86-161), Roman emperor A.D. 138-161, the son of Aurelius Fulvus, a Roman consul whose family had originally belonged to Nemausus (Nîmes), was born near Lanuvium on the 19th of September 86. After the death of his father, he was brought up under the care of Arrius Antoninus, his maternal grandfather, a man of integrity and culture, and on terms of friendship with the younger Pliny. Having filled with more than usual success the offices of quaestor and praetor, 149 he obtained the consulship in 120; he was next chosen one of the four consulars for Italy, and greatly increased his reputation by his conduct as proconsul of Asia. He acquired much influence with the emperor Hadrian, who adopted him as his son and successor on the 25th of February 138, after the death of his first adopted son Aelius Verus, on condition that he himself adopted Marcus Annius Verus, his wife’s brother’s son, and Lucius, son of Aelius Verus, afterwards the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aelius Verus (colleague of Marcus Aurelius). A few months afterwards, on Hadrian’s death, he was enthusiastically welcomed to the throne by the Roman people, who, for once, were not disappointed in their anticipation of a happy reign. For Antoninus came to his new office with simple tastes, kindly disposition, extensive experience, a well-trained intelligence and the sincerest desire for the welfare of his subjects. Instead of plundering to support his prodigality, he emptied his private treasury to assist distressed provinces and cities, and everywhere exercised rigid economy (hence the nickname κυμινοπρίστης, “cummin-splitter”). Instead of exaggerating into treason whatever was susceptible of unfavourable interpretation, he turned the very conspiracies that were formed against him into opportunities of signalizing his clemency. Instead of stirring up persecution against the Christians, he extended to them the strong hand of his protection throughout the empire. Rather than give occasion to that oppression which he regarded as inseparable from an emperor’s progress through his dominions, he was content to spend all the years of his reign in Rome, or its neighbourhood. Under his patronage the science of jurisprudence was cultivated by men of high ability, and a number of humane and equitable enactments were passed in his name. Of the public transactions of this period we have but scant information, but, to judge by what we possess, those twenty-two years were not remarkably eventful. One of his first acts was to persuade the senate to grant divine honours to Hadrian, which they had at first refused; this gained him the title of Pius (dutiful in affection). He built temples, theatres, and mausoleums, promoted the arts and sciences, and bestowed honours and salaries upon the teachers of rhetoric and philosophy. His reign was comparatively peaceful. Insurrections amongst the Moors, Jews, and Brigantes in Britain were easily put down. The one military result which is of interest to us now is the building in Britain of the wall of Antoninus from the Forth to the Clyde. In his domestic relations Antoninus was not so fortunate. His wife, Faustina, has almost become a byword for her lack of womanly virtue; but she seems to have kept her hold on his affections to the last. On her death he honoured her memory by the foundation of a charity for orphan girls, who bore the name of Alimentariae Faustinianae. He had by her two sons and two daughters; but they all died before his elevation to the throne, except Annia Faustina, who became the wife of Marcus Aurelius. Antoninus died of fever at Lorium in Etruria, about 12 m. from Rome, on the 7th of March 161, giving the keynote to his life in the last word that he uttered when the tribune of the night-watch came to ask the password—aequanimitas.

ANTONINUS PIUS [Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus], (A.D. 86-161), Roman emperor A.D. 138-161, the son of Aurelius Fulvus, a Roman consul whose family originally came from Nemausus (Nîmes), was born near Lanuvium on September 19, 86. After his father passed away, he was raised by his maternal grandfather, Arrius Antoninus, a man of integrity and culture who was friends with the younger Pliny. After successfully serving as quaestor and praetor, 149 he became consul in 120. He was then selected as one of the four consular officials for Italy and significantly enhanced his reputation while serving as proconsul of Asia. He gained considerable influence with Emperor Hadrian, who adopted him as his son and successor on February 25, 138, following the death of his first adopted son Aelius Verus. Hadrian required that Antoninus adopt Marcus Annius Verus, the son of his wife’s brother, and Lucius, the son of Aelius Verus, who later became the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aelius Verus (Marcus Aurelius's colleague). A few months later, upon Hadrian's death, he was warmly welcomed to the throne by the Roman people, who, for once, were not let down in their expectations for a prosperous reign. Antoninus approached his new role with simple tastes, a kind nature, extensive experience, sharp intelligence, and a genuine desire for the welfare of his people. Rather than exploit his subjects to fund his lavish lifestyle, he used his private treasury to help struggling provinces and cities, practicing strict economy everywhere (hence the nickname κυμινοπρίστης, “cummin-splitter”). Instead of turning incidental criticisms into charges of treason, he transformed conspiracies against him into chances to showcase his mercy. Rather than persecute Christians, he provided them with robust protection throughout the empire. Rather than create the oppression he believed came with an emperor's travels through his territories, he chose to spend his entire reign in or near Rome. Under his guidance, the field of law was advanced by talented individuals, and many humane and fair laws were enacted in his name. We have very limited information about public events during this period, but based on what we do know, those twenty-two years were not particularly eventful. One of his first actions was persuading the senate to grant divine honors to Hadrian, which they had initially refused; this earned him the title of Pius (devoted in affection). He constructed temples, theaters, and mausoleums, supported the arts and sciences, and granted honors and salaries to rhetoric and philosophy teachers. His reign was relatively peaceful, with uprisings among the Moors, Jews, and Brigantes in Britain being easily suppressed. The only military achievement of interest to us today is the construction of the Antonine Wall in Britain, stretching from the Forth to the Clyde. In his personal life, Antoninus wasn't as fortunate. His wife, Faustina, is often noted for her lack of virtue, but she seemingly retained his affection until the end. After her death, he honored her memory by founding a charity for orphaned girls, which was called Alimentariae Faustinianae. He had two sons and two daughters with her; however, they all passed away before he ascended to the throne, except for Annia Faustina, who became the wife of Marcus Aurelius. Antoninus died of fever at Lorium in Etruria, about 12 miles from Rome, on March 7, 161, encapsulating his life with his last word when the night-watch tribune came to ask for the password—aequanimitas.

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

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


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

ANTONIO, known as “The Prior of Crato” (1531-1595), was a claimant to the Portuguese throne and the illegitimate son of Louis (Luis), the duke of Beja, and Yolande (Violante) Gomez, a Jewish woman who is said to have died as a nun. His father was a younger son of Emanuel, king of Portugal (1495-1521). Antonio was educated at Coimbra and joined the order of St John. He was granted the wealthy priory of Crato. There’s little known about his life until 1578. That year, he joined King Sebastian (1557-1578) in his invasion of Morocco and was captured by the Moors during the battle of Alcazar-Kebir, where the king was killed. Antonio supposedly secured his release through a clever ruse. When asked about the cross of St John that he wore on his doublet, he claimed it was the sign of a small benefice he held from the pope, which he would lose if he didn't return by January 1st. His captor, thinking he was a poor man, allowed him to escape for a small ransom. When he got back to Portugal, he found that his uncle, Cardinal Henry, the last surviving son of King John III (1521-1557), had been recognized as king. The cardinal was old and was the last legitimate male representative of the royal line (see Portugal: History). Philip II of Spain claimed the succession. Antonio, counting on the people's dislike for a Spanish ruler, stepped forward as a candidate. He tried to prove that his parents had married after he was born, but there was no evidence of the marriage. His claim was weaker not just than Philip II's but also than that of the Duchess of Braganza, and he didn’t have support from the nobles or gentry. His followers were mainly from the lower clergy, peasants, and workers. The prior tried to resist the army Philip II sent into Portugal to back his claims but was easily defeated by the Duke of Alva, the Spanish commander, at Alcantara on August 25, 1580. By the end of the year or in early 1581, he fled to France, taking with him the crown jewels, which included many valuable diamonds. He was well received by Catherine de’ Medici, who had her own claim to the Portuguese crown and viewed him as a useful ally against Philip II. By promising to give her the Portuguese colony of Brazil and selling part of his jewels, Antonio gained the means to outfit a fleet crewed by Portuguese exiles and French and English adventurers. Since the Spaniards hadn’t occupied the Azores yet, he sailed there but was completely defeated at sea by the Marquis of Santa Cruz off Saint Michael’s on July 27, 1582. He then returned to France and lived for a time at Ruel near Paris. Fearing for his life from assassins hired by Philip II, Antonio kept moving from one refuge to another, eventually arriving in England. Elizabeth supported him for similar reasons as Catherine de’ Medici. In 1589, the year after the Armada, he joined an English expedition led by Drake and Norris to the Spanish and Portuguese coasts. The force was made up of both the queen's ships and privateers seeking treasure. Antonio, naively hoping his presence would spark a widespread uprising against Philip II, was disappointed when nothing happened, and the expedition ended up being a costly failure. In 1590, he left England and went back to France, where he fell into poverty. He gradually sold off his remaining diamonds. The last and most valuable was acquired by M. de Sancy and later bought by Sully to be included in the crown jewels. In his final days, he lived as a private gentleman on a small pension from Henry IV and passed away in Paris on August 26, 1595. He had two illegitimate sons, and his descendants can be traced until 1687. In addition to documents published to defend his claims, Antonio wrote Panegyrus Alphonsi Lusitanorum Regis (Coimbra, 1550), and a cento of the Psalms, Psalmi Confessionales (Paris 1592), which was translated into English as The Royal Penitent by Francis Chamberleyn (London, 1659), and into German as Heilige Betrachtungen (Marburg, 1677).

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

Authorities.—Antonio is often mentioned in the French, English, and Spanish state documents of that time. A biography of him, credited to Gomes Vasconcellos de Figueredo, was published in a French translation by Mme de Sainctonge in Amsterdam (1696). A modern account, Un prétendant portugais au XVI. siècle, by E. Fournier (Paris, 1852), is based on reliable sources. Also, see Dom Antonio Prior de Crato—notas de bibliographia, by J. de Aranjo (Lisbon, 1897).

(D. H.)

ANTONIO, NICOLAS (1617-1684), Spanish bibliographer, was born at Seville on the 31st of July 1617. After taking his degree at Salamanca (1636-1639), he returned to his native city, wrote his treatise De Exilio (which was not printed till 1659), and began his monumental register of Spanish writers. The fame of his learning reached Philip IV., who conferred the order of Santiago on him in 1645, and sent him as general agent to Rome in 1654. 150 Returning to Spain in 1679, Antonio died at Madrid in the spring of 1684. His Bibliotheca Hispana nova, dealing with the works of Spanish authors who flourished after 1500, appeared at Rome in 1672; the Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, a literary history of Spain from the time of Augustus to the end of the 15th century, was revised by Manuel Martí, and published by Antonio’s friend, Cardinal José Saenz de Aguirre at Rome in 1696. A fine edition of both parts, with additional matter found in Antonio’s manuscripts, and with supplementary notes by Francisco Perez Bayer, was issued at Madrid in 1787-1788. This great work, incomparably superior to any previous bibliography, is still unsuperseded and indispensable.

ANTONIO, NICOLAS (1617-1684), a Spanish bibliographer, was born in Seville on July 31, 1617. After earning his degree at Salamanca (1636-1639), he returned to his hometown, wrote his treatise De Exilio (which wasn't printed until 1659), and started his comprehensive register of Spanish writers. His scholarly reputation reached Philip IV, who honored him with the order of Santiago in 1645 and appointed him as the general agent to Rome in 1654. 150 After returning to Spain in 1679, Antonio passed away in Madrid in the spring of 1684. His Bibliotheca Hispana nova, covering works by Spanish authors who thrived after 1500, was published in Rome in 1672; the Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, a literary history of Spain from the time of Augustus until the late 15th century, was revised by Manuel Martí and published by Antonio’s friend, Cardinal José Saenz de Aguirre, in Rome in 1696. A fine edition of both parts, including additional materials found in Antonio’s manuscripts and supplementary notes by Francisco Perez Bayer, came out in Madrid in 1787-1788. This monumental work, far superior to any previous bibliography, remains unmatched and essential.

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

Of Antonio’s various writings, the most significant is the posthumous Censura de historias fabulosas (Valencia, 1742), where scholarly knowledge meets critical insight. His Bibliotheca Hispana rabinica hasn't been published; the manuscript is kept in the national library in Madrid.


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

ANTONIO DE LEBRIJA [Antonius Nebrissensis], (1444-1522), Spanish scholar, was born in Lebrija, Andalusia. After studying at Salamanca, he spent ten years in Italy and completed his education at Bologna University. Upon returning to Spain in 1473, he committed himself to promoting classical learning among his fellow countrymen. After serving as a professor of poetry and grammar at Salamanca, he moved to the university of Alcalá de Henares, where he taught until his death in 1522 at the age of seventy-eight. His contributions to classical literature in Spain have been likened to those of Valla, Erasmus, and Budaeus in Italy, Holland, and France. He wrote extensively on various topics, including a Latin and Spanish dictionary, commentaries on Sedulius and Persius, and a Compendium of Rhetoric, drawing on Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. His most ambitious work was a chronicle titled Rerum in Hispania Gestarum Decades (published in 1545 by his son as an original work by him), which was later found to be just a Latin translation of the Spanish chronicle by Pulgar, published in Saragossa in 1567. De Lebrija also contributed to the creation of the Complutense polyglot Bible, published under the patronage of Cardinal Jimenes.

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

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


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

ANTONIUS, the name of many notable citizens of ancient Rome from the Antonia family. Antonius the triumvir asserted that his lineage traced back to Anton, the son of Heracles. The following are key members of the Antonii.

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

1. Mark Antony (143-87 BCE), one of the most renowned Roman speakers of his time, was elected quaestor in 113 and praetor in 102, where he had proconsular powers and was assigned to the province of Cilicia. There, he achieved significant success against pirates, earning a naval triumph. He served as consul in 99 and as censor in 97, and he led forces during the Marsic War in 90. A supporter of Sulla, he was executed by Marius and Cinna when they took control of Rome in 87. Antonius’s reputation for eloquence is based on Cicero’s authority, as none of his speeches remain today. He is one of the main figures in Cicero’s De Oratore.

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

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

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

2. Mark Antony, mockingly called Creticus, was the older son of Marcus Antonius, the “orator,” and the father of the triumvir. He served as praetor in 74 B.C., and received an extraordinary command (similar to what Pompey got from the Gabinian law) to clear the sea of pirates to support the fight against Mithradates VI. He failed at this job and made himself unpopular by plundering the provinces (Sallust, Hist. iii., fragments ed. B. Maurenbrecher, p. 108; Velleius Paterculus ii. 31; Cicero, In Verrem, iii. 91). He went after the Cretans, who had teamed up with the pirates, but was completely defeated, with most of his ships sinking. Diodorus Siculus (xl. 1) notes that he managed to save himself only through a shameful treaty. He died shortly after (72-71) in Crete. All sources agree on his greed and incompetence.

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

3. Gaius Antonius, known as Hybrida due to his wild nature (Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 213), was the second son of Marcus Antonius, the “orator,” and the uncle of the triumvir. He served as one of Sulla’s officers during the Mithradatic War and stayed in Greece after Sulla returned to loot with a cavalry force. In 76, he was tried for his corrupt actions but avoided punishment; six years later, he was expelled from the senate by the censors, only to be reinstated shortly after. Despite his reputation, he was elected tribune in 71, praetor in 66, and consul alongside Cicero in 63. He secretly backed Catiline but was swayed by Cicero’s offer of the wealthy province of Macedonia. When the Catilinarian conspiracy erupted, Antonius had to lead an army into Etruria but handed over command on the day of battle to Marcus Petreius due to illness. He then went to Macedonia, where his oppressive and extortionate behavior made him so hated that he left the province and was accused in Rome (59) of being involved in the conspiracy and of extortion there. It was rumored that Cicero had conspired with Antonius to split the loot. Cicero’s defense of Antonius two years earlier when a recall was proposed, as well as during his trial, intensified the suspicions. Despite Cicero’s eloquence, Antonius was convicted and went into exile in Cephallenia. He seems to have been recalled by Caesar, as he attended a senate meeting in 44 and was a censor in 42.

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

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

4. Marcus Antonius, commonly called Mark Antony, the Triumvir, grandson of Antonius the “orator” and son of Antonius Creticus, related on his mother’s side to Julius Caesar, was born about 83 B.C. Under the influence of his stepfather, Cornelius Lentulus Sura, he spent a profligate youth. For a time he co-operated with P. Clodius Pulcher, probably out of hostility to Cicero, who had caused Lentulus Sura to be put to death as a Catilinarian; the connexion was severed by a disagreement arising from his relations with Clodius’s wife, Fulvia. In 58 he fled to Greece to escape his creditors. After a short time spent in attendance on the philosophers at Athens, he was summoned by Aulus Gabinius, governor of Syria, to take part in the campaigns against Aristobulus in Palestine, and in support of Ptolemy Auletes in Egypt. In 54 he was with Caesar in Gaul. Raised by Caesar’s influence to the offices of quaestor, augur, and tribune of the plebs, he supported the cause of his patron with great energy, and was expelled from the senate-house when the Civil War broke out. Deputy-governor of Italy during Caesar’s absence in Spain (49), second in command in the decisive battle of Pharsalus (48), and again deputy-governor of Italy while Caesar was in Africa (47), Antony was second only to the dictator, and seized the opportunity of indulging in the most extravagant excesses, depicted by Cicero in the Philippics. In 46 he seems to have taken offence because Caesar insisted on payment for the property of Pompey which Antony professedly had purchased, but had in fact simply appropriated. The estrangement was not of long continuance; for we find Antony meeting the dictator at Narbo the following year, and rejecting the suggestion of Trebonius that he should join in the conspiracy that was already on foot. In 44 he was consul with Caesar, and seconded his ambition by the famous offer of the crown at the festival of Lupercalia (February 15). After the murder of Caesar on the 15th of March, Antony conceived the idea of making himself sole ruler. At first he seemed disposed to treat the conspirators leniently, but at the same time he so roused the people against them by the publication of Caesar’s will and by his eloquent funeral oration, that they were obliged to leave the city. He surrounded himself with a bodyguard of Caesar’s veterans, and forced the senate to transfer to him the province of Cisalpine Gaul, which was then administered by Decimus Junius Brutus, one of the conspirators. Brutus refused to surrender the province, and Antony set out to attack him in October 44, 151 But at this time Octavian, whom Caesar had adopted as his son, arrived from Illyria, and claimed the inheritance of his “father.” Octavian obtained the support of the senate and of Cicero; and the veteran troops of the dictator flocked to his standard. Antony was denounced as a public enemy, and Octavian was entrusted with the command of the war against him. Antony was defeated at Mutina (43) where he was besieging Brutus. The consuls Aulus Hirtius and C. Vibius Pansa, however, fell in the battle, and the senate became suspicious of Octavian, who, irritated at the refusal of a triumph and the appointment of Brutus to the command over his head, entered Rome at the head of his troops, and forced the senate to bestow the consulship upon him (August 19th). Meanwhile, Antony escaped to Cisalpine Gaul, effected a junction with Lepidus and marched towards Rome with a large force of infantry and cavalry. Octavian betrayed his party, and came to terms with Antony and Lepidus. The three leaders met at Bononia and adopted the title of Triumviri reipublicae constituendae as joint rulers. Gaul was to belong to Antony, Spain to Lepidus, and Africa, Sardinia and Sicily to Octavian. The arrangement was to last for five years. A reign of terror followed; proscriptions, confiscations, and executions became general; some of the noblest citizens were put to death, and Cicero fell a victim to Antony’s revenge. In the following year (42) Antony and Octavian proceeded against the conspirators Cassius and Brutus, and by the two battles of Philippi annihilated the senatorial and republican parties. Antony proceeded to Greece, and thence to Asia Minor, to procure money for his veterans and complete the subjugation of the eastern provinces. On his passage through Cilicia in 41 he fell a victim to the charms of Cleopatra, in whose company he spent the winter at Alexandria. At length he was aroused by the Parthian invasion of Syria and the report of an outbreak between Fulvia his wife and Lucius his brother on the one hand and Octavian on the other. On arriving in Italy he found that Octavian was already victorious; on the death of Fulvia, a reconciliation was effected between the triumvirs, and cemented by the marriage of Antony with Octavia, the sister of his colleague. A new division of the Roman world was made at Brundusium, Lepidus receiving Africa, Octavian the west, and Antony the east. Returning to his province Antony made several attempts to subdue the Parthians, without any decided success. In 39 he visited Athens, where he behaved in a most extravagant manner, assuming the attributes of the god Dionysus. In 37 he crossed over to Italy, and renewed the triumvirate for five years at a meeting with Octavian. Returning to Syria, he resumed relations with Cleopatra. His treatment of Octavia, her brother’s desire to get rid of him, and the manner in which he disposed of kingdoms and provinces in favour of Cleopatra alienated his supporters. In 32 the senate deprived him of his powers and declared war against Cleopatra. After two years spent in preparations, Antony was defeated at the battle of Actium (2nd September 31). Once more he sought refuge in the society of Cleopatra, who had escaped with sixty ships to Egypt. He was pursued by his enemies and his troops abandoned him. Thereupon he committed suicide in the mistaken belief that Cleopatra had already done so (30 B.C.). Antony had been married in succession to Fadia, Antonia, Fulvia and Octavia, and left behind him a number of children.

4. Mark Antony, commonly known as Mark Antony, the Triumvir, grandson of Antonius the “orator” and son of Antonius Creticus, related to Julius Caesar through his mother, was born around 83 BCE Influenced by his stepfather, Cornelius Lentulus Sura, he lived a wild youth. For a while, he collaborated with P. Clodius Pulcher, likely out of animosity toward Cicero, who had caused Lentulus Sura's execution as a Catilinarian; their relationship ended due to a falling out over Clodius’s wife, Fulvia. In 58, he fled to Greece to escape his debts. After spending some time with philosophers in Athens, he was called by Aulus Gabinius, governor of Syria, to participate in campaigns against Aristobulus in Palestine and to support Ptolemy Auletes in Egypt. In 54, he was with Caesar in Gaul. Thanks to Caesar's influence, he rose to the positions of quaestor, augur, and tribune of the plebs, and vigorously supported his patron, ultimately being expelled from the Senate when the Civil War began. He served as deputy-governor of Italy while Caesar was in Spain (49), was second-in-command in the decisive battle of Pharsalus (48), and again served as deputy-governor of Italy while Caesar was in Africa (47). Antony ranked just below the dictator and took advantage of this to indulge in extravagant excesses, which Cicero described in the Philippics. In 46, he seemed offended when Caesar insisted on payment for property that Antony claimed to have purchased but had actually taken. However, their estrangement was short-lived; in the following year, Antony met the dictator in Narbo and dismissed Trebonius’s suggestion to join the already underway conspiracy. In 44, he was consul with Caesar and supported Caesar's ambitions by famously offering him the crown during the festival of Lupercalia (February 15). After Caesar’s assassination on March 15, Antony aimed to make himself the sole ruler. Initially, he appeared inclined to be lenient toward the conspirators, yet he stoked public outrage against them by revealing Caesar's will and delivering a powerful funeral oration, forcing the conspirators to flee the city. He gathered a bodyguard of Caesar’s veterans and pressured the Senate to assign him the province of Cisalpine Gaul, then governed by Decimus Junius Brutus, one of the conspirators. When Brutus refused to relinquish the province, Antony prepared to confront him in October 44. But at that moment, Octavian, adopted by Caesar as his son, arrived from Illyria, claiming his inheritance. Octavian rallied support from the Senate and Cicero, and the veteran troops of the dictator rallied to him as well. Antony was branded a public enemy, and Octavian was tasked with leading the war against him. Antony was defeated at Mutina (43), where he was besieging Brutus. However, the consuls Aulus Hirtius and C. Vibius Pansa died in battle, raising suspicions within the Senate regarding Octavian, who, frustrated with the denial of a triumph and the Senate’s appointment of Brutus over him, entered Rome leading his troops and forced the Senate to grant him the consulship (August 19). Meanwhile, Antony fled to Cisalpine Gaul, joined forces with Lepidus, and advanced on Rome with a large army. Octavian betrayed his faction and negotiated with Antony and Lepidus. The three leaders convened in Bononia and took on the title of Triumviri reipublicae constituendae as co-rulers. Antony was assigned Gaul, Lepidus was given Spain, and Octavian received Africa, Sardinia, and Sicily. This arrangement was set to last for five years. A reign of terror ensued; proscriptions, confiscations, and executions became widespread, with some of the noblest citizens killed, including Cicero, who fell victim to Antony’s vengeance. The next year (42), Antony and Octavian launched an attack against the conspirators Cassius and Brutus, utterly destroying the senatorial and republican factions in two battles at Philippi. Antony then went to Greece and Asia Minor to gather funds for his veterans and finish conquering the eastern provinces. While passing through Cilicia in 41, he fell under Cleopatra's spell, spending the winter in Alexandria with her. Eventually, he was jolted by the Parthian invasion of Syria and the news of a conflict between Fulvia, his wife, and Lucius, his brother, against Octavian. Upon returning to Italy, Antony found that Octavian had already achieved victory; following Fulvia's death, a reconciliation occurred between the triumvirs, solidified by Antony’s marriage to Octavia, Octavian's sister. A new division of the Roman world was established in Brundusium, with Lepidus receiving Africa, Octavian the West, and Antony the East. Back in his province, Antony made several attempts to conquer the Parthians but with little success. In 39, he visited Athens, where he acted extravagantly, adopting the persona of the god Dionysus. In 37, he returned to Italy and renewed the triumvirate for another five years during a meeting with Octavian. He then returned to Syria and rekindled his relationship with Cleopatra. His treatment of Octavia, combined with her brother’s desire to distance himself from Antony, and his distribution of kingdoms and provinces favoring Cleopatra estranged his followers. In 32, the Senate stripped him of his powers and declared war on Cleopatra. After two years of preparation, Antony was defeated at the battle of Actium (September 2, 31). Once again, he sought refuge with Cleopatra, who had escaped to Egypt with sixty ships. As he was pursued by his enemies and abandoned by his troops, he committed suicide, mistakenly believing Cleopatra had already taken her life (30 BCE). Antony had been married to Fadia, Antonia, Fulvia, and Octavia in succession, leaving behind several children.

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

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

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

5. Lucius Antonius, the youngest son of Marcus Antonius Creticus and brother of the triumvir. In 44, as tribune of the people, he introduced a law that allowed Caesar to appoint the chief magistrates while he was away from Rome. After Caesar's murder, he backed his brother Marcus. He suggested an agrarian law to benefit the people and Caesar’s veterans and participated in the Mutina campaign (43). In 41, he became consul and had a conflict with Octavian, which led to the Perusian War, where he was supported by Fulvia (Mark Antony’s wife), who wanted to bring her husband back from Cleopatra’s court. Later, seeing the resentment caused by the land distribution to Caesar's veterans, Antonius and Fulvia changed their stance and positioned themselves as advocates for those adversely affected. Antonius marched on Rome, expelled Lepidus, and promised the people that the triumvirate would be disbanded. When Octavian approached, he retreated to Perusia in Etruria, where he was surrounded by three armies and forced to surrender (winter of 41). His life was spared, and Octavian sent him to Spain as governor. The details and timing of his death are unknown. Cicero, in his Philippics, largely driven by personal vendetta, offers a very negative portrayal of his character.

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

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

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

6. Gaius Antonius, the second son of Marcus Antonius Creticus and brother of the triumvir, served as a legate for Caesar in 49. Together with P. Cornelius Dolabella, he was given the task of defending Illyricum against the Pompeians. Dolabella’s fleet was destroyed, and Gaius was trapped on the island of Curicta, where he was forced to surrender. In 44, he became city praetor, while his brothers Marcus and Lucius served as consul and tribune in the same year. Gaius was assigned to the province of Macedonia, but on his way there, he was captured by M. Junius Brutus along the coast of Illyria. Although Brutus initially treated him well, he ultimately had him killed in 42.

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

Plutarch, Brutus, 28; Dio Cassius xlvii. 21-24. For overall information about the family, check the entries in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie, i. pt. 2 (1894).


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

ANTONOMASIA, in rhetoric, the Greek term for using an epithet or phrase in place of a proper name; like “Pelides” or “the son of Peleus” for Achilles; “the Stagirite” for Aristotle; “the author of Paradise Lost” for Milton; “the little corporal” for Napoleon I; “Macedonia’s madman” for Alexander the Great, etc. The opposite use of a proper name instead of a general term is also sometimes referred to as antonomasia; for example, “a Cicero” for an orator.


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

ANTRAIGUES, EMMANUEL HENRI LOUIS ALEXANDRE DE LAUNAY, Count D’ (c. 1755-1812), French publicist and political adventurer, was the nephew of François Emmanuel de Saint-Priest (1735-1821), one of the last ministers of Louis XVI. He was a cavalry captain, but finding little interest in the military, he left and traveled extensively, especially in the East. Upon returning to Paris, he sought the company of philosophers and artists, spending three months with Voltaire at Ferney, though he was more drawn to J.J. Rousseau, with whom he became somewhat close. He published a Mémoire sur les états-généraux, enthusiastically supported the Revolution when it started, was elected as a deputy, and took the oath to the constitution; however, he suddenly changed his mind completely, became a supporter of the monarchy, and emigrated in 1790. He worked as a secret agent for the comte de Provence (Louis XVIII) at various courts in Europe, while also accepting money from the courts he visited. He published several pamphlets, including Des monstres ravagent partout, Point d’accommodement, etc. In Venice, where he was attached to the Russian legation, he was arrested in 1797 but managed to escape to Russia. After being sent as a Russian attaché to Dresden, he published a fierce pamphlet against Napoleon I and was expelled by the Saxon government. He then moved to London, where it was widely believed that he betrayed the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit to the British cabinet, although his recent biographer, Pingaud, disputes this. In 1812, he and his wife, Madame Saint-Huberty, an opera singer, were murdered by an Italian servant they had dismissed. It has never been determined whether the murder was motivated by personal or political reasons.

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

See H. Vaschalde, Bibliographic Notice on Louis Alexandre de Launay, Count d'Antraigues, His Life and Works; Léonce Pingaud, A Secret Agent during the Revolution and the Empire, Count d'Antraigues (Paris, 1893); Édouard de Goncourt, Saint-Huberty and Opera in the 18th Century.


152

152

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

ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL, 1st Earl of (d. 1636), known as “Arranach,” was raised on the Scottish island of Arran by the Hamiltons. He was the fourth son of Sorley Boy MacDonnell (q.v.) and Mary, daughter of Conn O’Neill, the 1st Earl of Tyrone. He initially fought against the English government, taking part in his brother James’s victory over Sir John Chichester at Carrickfergus in November 1597 and joining O'Neill’s rebellion in 1600. However, on December 16, he signed articles with Sir Arthur Chichester and received protection. In 1601, after his elder brother’s death, he became the head of his house, with his pardon confirmed. By 1602, he submitted to Lord Mountjoy and was knighted. When James I acceded in 1603, he was granted the Route and Glynns (Glens) districts as well as the island of Rathlin, remaining loyal to the government despite facing unpopularity among his relatives, who plotted to depose him. In 1607, he defended himself against accusations of disloyalty during the flight of the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnell, aiding the government by settling and civilizing his areas, leading to a warm reception from James in London the following year. In 1618, he was made Viscount Dunluce and later appointed a privy councillor and lord-lieutenant of Antrim. On December 12, 1620, he became the Earl of Antrim. In 1621, he was accused of harboring Roman Catholic priests, admitted his wrongdoing, and was pardoned. He offered help in 1625 amid fears of a Spanish invasion, yet still was considered someone to be monitored. His unpredictable behavior in Ireland in 1627 was suggested as a matter for investigation by the Star Chamber, but he remained loyal to the government until the end. In 1631, he focused on repairing Protestant churches and attended the Irish parliament in 1634. In 1635, he made a significant agreement to buy the lordship of Cantire, or Kintyre, from James Campbell, Lord Cantire, from whom the MacDonnells had been dispossessed in 1600 by Argyll; however, Lord Lorne successfully contested his claim. He died on December 10, 1636. Antrim married Alice, daughter of Hugh O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone, and had six daughters, along with Randal, 2nd Earl and 1st Marquess of Antrim (q.v.), and Alexander, 3rd Earl. Three other sons, Maurice, Francis, and James, were likely illegitimate. The earldom has remained with the family to this day, with the 11th Earl (b. 1851) succeeding in 1869.

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

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


ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL, 1st Marquess of (1609-1683), son of the 1st earl of Antrim, was born in 1609 and educated as a Roman Catholic. He travelled abroad, and on his return in 1634 went to court, next year marrying Katherine Manners, widow of the 1st duke of Buckingham, and living on her fortune for some years in great splendour. In 1639, on the outbreak of the Scottish war, he initiated a scheme of raising a force in Ireland to attack Argyll in Scotland and recover Kintyre (or Cantire), a district formerly possessed by his family; but the plan, discouraged and ridiculed by Strafford, miscarried.1 Soon afterwards he returned to Ireland, and sought in 1641 to create a diversion, together with Ormonde, for Charles I. against the parliament. He joined in his schemes Lord Slane and Sir Phelim O’Neill, later leaders of the rebellion, but on the outbreak of the rebellion in the autumn he dissociated himself from his allies and retired to his castle at Dunluce. His suspicious conduct, however, and his Roman Catholicism, caused him to be regarded as an enemy by the English party. In May 1642 he was captured at Dunluce Castle by the parliamentary general Robert Munro, and imprisoned at Carrickfergus. Escaping thence he joined the queen at York; and subsequently, having proceeded to Ireland to negotiate a cessation of hostilities, he was again captured with his papers in May 1643 and confined at Carrickfergus, thence once more escaping and making his way to Kilkenny, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic confederation. He returned to Oxford in December with a scheme for raising 10,000 Irish for service in England and 2000 to join Montrose in Scotland, which through the influence of the duchess of Buckingham secured the consent of the king. On the 26th of January 1644 Antrim was created a marquess. He returned to Kilkenny in February, took the oath of association, and was made a member of the council and lieutenant-general of the forces of the Catholic confederacy. The confederacy, however, giving him no support in his projects, he threw up his commission, and with Ormonde’s help despatched about 1600 men in June to Montrose’s assistance in Scotland, subsequently returning to Oxford and being sent by the king in 1645 with letters for the queen at St Germains. He proceeded thence to Flanders and fitted out two frigates with military stores, which he brought to the prince of Wales at Falmouth. He visited Cork and afterwards in July 1646 joined his troops in Scotland, with the hope of expelling Argyll from Kintyre; but he was obliged to retire by order of the king, and returning to Ireland threw himself into the intrigues between the various factions. In 1647 he was appointed with two others by the confederacy to negotiate a treaty with the prince of Wales in France, and though he anticipated his companions by starting a week before them, he failed to secure the coveted lord-lieutenancy, which was confirmed to Ormonde. He now ceased to support the Roman Catholics or the king’s cause; opposed the treaty between Ormonde and the confederates; supported the project of union between O’Neill and the parliament; and in 1649 entered into communications with Cromwell, for whom he performed various services, though there appears no authority to support Carte’s story that Antrim was the author of a forged agreement for the betrayal of the king’s army by Lord Inchiquin.2 Subsequently he joined Ireton, and was present at the siege of Carlow. He returned to England in December 1650, and in lieu of his confiscated estate received a pension of £500 and later of £800, together with lands in Mayo. At the Restoration Antrim was excluded from the Act of Oblivion on account of his religion, and on presenting himself at court was imprisoned in the Tower, subsequently being called before the lords justices in Ireland. In 1663 he succeeded, in spite of Ormonde’s opposition, in securing a decree of innocence from the commissioners of claims. This raised an outcry from the adventurers who had been put in possession of his lands, and who procured a fresh trial; but Antrim appealed to the king, and through the influence of the queen mother obtained a pardon, his estates being restored to him by the Irish, Act of Explanation in 1665.3 Antrim died on the 3rd of February 1683. He is described by Clarendon as of handsome appearance but “of excessive pride and vanity and of a marvellous weak and narrow understanding.” He married secondly Rose, daughter of Sir Henry O’Neill, but had no children, being succeeded in the earldom by his brother Alexander, 3rd earl of Antrim.

ANTRIM, RANDAL MACDONNELL, 1st Marquess of (1609-1683), son of the 1st earl of Antrim, was born in 1609 and educated as a Roman Catholic. He traveled abroad, and upon his return in 1634, went to court, marrying Katherine Manners, widow of the 1st duke of Buckingham, the following year. He lived on her fortune for several years in great luxury. In 1639, when the Scottish war broke out, he started a plan to raise a force in Ireland to attack Argyll in Scotland and reclaim Kintyre (or Cantire), a region once held by his family; however, the plan was discouraged and mocked by Strafford and ultimately failed. Soon after, he returned to Ireland and in 1641 sought to create a diversion with Ormonde for Charles I against Parliament. He collaborated with Lord Slane and Sir Phelim O’Neill, who later became leaders of the rebellion, but when the rebellion started in the fall, he distanced himself from his allies and retreated to his castle at Dunluce. His suspicious behavior and Roman Catholic faith, however, led the English party to view him as an enemy. In May 1642, he was captured at Dunluce Castle by the parliamentary general Robert Munro and imprisoned at Carrickfergus. After escaping, he joined the queen at York. Later, after going to Ireland to negotiate a ceasefire, he was captured again in May 1643 along with his papers and imprisoned at Carrickfergus. He escaped once more and made his way to Kilkenny, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic confederation. He returned to Oxford in December with a plan to raise 10,000 Irish troops for service in England and 2,000 to join Montrose in Scotland, which the duchess of Buckingham helped secure the king's approval for. On January 26, 1644, Antrim was made a marquess. He went back to Kilkenny in February, took the oath of association, and became a member of the council and lieutenant-general of the Catholic confederacy's forces. However, when the confederacy didn’t support his plans, he stepped down from his commission, and with Ormonde’s assistance, sent about 1,600 men in June to help Montrose in Scotland, then returned to Oxford, where the king sent him in 1645 with letters for the queen at St Germains. He went from there to Flanders and outfitted two frigates with military supplies, which he delivered to the prince of Wales at Falmouth. He visited Cork and later in July 1646 joined his troops in Scotland, hoping to drive Argyll out of Kintyre; however, he was ordered to withdraw by the king and returned to Ireland, getting involved in the intrigues among the various factions. In 1647, he was appointed along with two others by the confederacy to negotiate a treaty with the prince of Wales in France, and although he left a week earlier than his companions, he failed to secure the desired lord-lieutenancy, which was granted to Ormonde. He then stopped supporting the Roman Catholics or the king's cause; opposed the treaty between Ormonde and the confederates; backed the idea of a union between O’Neill and Parliament; and in 1649 began communicating with Cromwell, for whom he performed various services, though there seems to be no evidence to support Carte’s claim that Antrim was the mastermind behind a forged agreement to betray the king's army by Lord Inchiquin. He subsequently joined Ireton and was present at the siege of Carlow. He returned to England in December 1650, and in place of his confiscated estate received a pension of £500 and later £800, along with lands in Mayo. At the Restoration, Antrim was excluded from the Act of Oblivion due to his religion, and when he presented himself at court he was imprisoned in the Tower, later being called before the lords justices in Ireland. In 1663, despite Ormonde’s opposition, he managed to secure a decree of innocence from the commissioners of claims. This caused an outcry from the adventurers who had taken over his lands, and they obtained a retrial; but Antrim appealed to the king and, with the influence of the queen mother, received a pardon, with his estates restored to him by the Irish Act of Explanation in 1665. Antrim died on February 3, 1683. Clarendon described him as handsome but "excessively proud and vain and having a remarkably weak and narrow mind." He married Rose, daughter of Sir Henry O’Neill, but had no children, and his brother Alexander, the 3rd earl of Antrim, succeeded him in the earldom.

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

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

(P. C. Y.)

1 Strafford’s Letters, ii. 300.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Strafford’s Letters, vol. 2, p. 300.

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

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

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

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


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

ANTRIM, is a county in the northeast corner of Ireland, in the province of Ulster. It is bordered to the north and east by the narrow seas that separate Ireland from Scotland, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Irish Sea. To the south, it is bordered by Belfast Lough and the Lagan River, which separates it from County Down. To the west, it is bordered by Lough Neagh, which divides it from Counties Armagh and Tyrone, and by County Londonderry, with the boundary marked by the River Bann.

The area is 751,965 acres or about 1175 sq. m. A large portion of the county is hilly, especially in the east, where the highest elevations are attained, though these are nowhere great. The range runs north and south, and, following this direction 153 the highest points are Knocklayd (1695 ft.), Slieveanorra (1676), Trostan (1817), Slemish (1457), and Divis (1567). The inland slope is gradual, but on the northern shore the range terminates in abrupt and almost perpendicular declivities, and here, consequently, some of the finest coast scenery in the island is found, widely differing, with its unbroken lines of cliffs, from the indented coast-line of the west. The most remarkable cliffs are those formed of perpendicular basaltic columns, extending for many miles, and most strikingly displayed in Fair Head and the celebrated Giant’s Causeway. From the eastern coast the hills rise instantly but less abruptly, and the indentations are wider and deeper. On both coasts there are several frequented watering-places, of which may be mentioned on the north Portrush (with well-known golf links), Port Ballintrae and Ballycastle; on the east Cushendun, Cushendall and Milltown on Red Bay, Carn Lough and Glenarm, Larne, and Whitehead on Belfast Lough. All are somewhat exposed to the easterly winds prevalent in spring. The only island of size is Rathlin, off Ballycastle, 6½ m. in length by 1½ in breadth, 7 m. from the coast, and of similar basaltic and limestone formation to that of the mainland. It is partially arable, and supports a small population. The so-called Island Magee is a peninsula separating Larne Lough from the Irish Channel.

The area is 751,965 acres or about 1,175 square miles. A large part of the county is hilly, especially in the east, where the highest elevations are found, although they aren’t particularly high. The range runs north and south, and following this direction 153, the highest points are Knocklayd (1,695 ft.), Slieveanorra (1,676 ft.), Trostan (1,817 ft.), Slemish (1,457 ft.), and Divis (1,567 ft.). The inland slope is gradual, but on the northern shore, the range ends in steep and almost vertical cliffs, creating some of the most beautiful coastal scenery on the island, which is quite different from the jagged coastline of the west. The most impressive cliffs are made of vertical basalt columns, stretching for many miles, particularly seen at Fair Head and the famous Giant’s Causeway. From the eastern coast, the hills rise quickly but less sharply, with wider and deeper bays. Both coasts feature several popular seaside resorts, including on the north: Portrush (known for its golf links), Port Ballintrae, and Ballycastle; on the east: Cushendun, Cushendall, Milltown on Red Bay, Carnlough, Glenarm, Larne, and Whitehead on Belfast Lough. All are somewhat exposed to the easterly winds common in spring. The only large island is Rathlin, off Ballycastle, measuring 6.5 miles long and 1.5 miles wide, located 7 miles from the coast, and made of similar basaltic and limestone rock as the mainland. It has some agricultural land and supports a small population. The so-called Island Magee is actually a peninsula separating Larne Lough from the Irish Channel.

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

The valleys of the Bann and Lagan, along with the shores of Lough Neagh, create the fertile lowlands. These two rivers, both originating in County Down, are the only significant ones. The Lagan flows into Belfast Lough, while the Bann drains Lough Neagh, which is fed by several smaller streams, including the Crumlin, known for its petrifying properties. The fisheries of the Bann and Lough Neagh (especially for salmon) are important for both commercial purposes and for anglers, with the small town of Toome, at the river's outlet, being the main hub. Just below this point is Lough Beg, the "Small Lake," which is about 15 feet lower than Lough Neagh and boasts more picturesque scenery along its banks. The smaller streams are very useful for powering machinery.

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

Geology.—As you enter the county from the south, you can see a steep ridge of hills beyond the Lagan valley, marking the edge of the basalt plateaus, which runs almost continuously around the coast to Red Bay. Below this ridge, Triassic beds are exposed from Lisburn to Island Magee, showcasing layers of red sands and marls. Above these, marine Rhaetic beds appear at intervals, especially near Larne, where they are followed by Lower Lias shales and limestones. At Portrush, the Lower Lias can be seen on the shore, filled with ammonites, but it has been silicified and transformed by invading dolerite. As you approach the scarps, the next deposits are greensands of “Selbornian” age, followed by Cenomanian and locally by Turonian sands. The Senonian series is represented by the White Limestone, which is a hardened chalk often containing flints, and is frequently glauconitic and conglomeratic at the base. Erosion during the earliest Eocene times created flint gravels above the chalk, and an ancient stream deposit of chalk pebbles can be found at Ballycastle. The volcanic fissures that allowed the rise of basalt are shown by numerous dykes, many of which cut through the earlier lava flows and all the underlying beds. The accumulation of lava led to the formation of the plateaus that make up almost the entire interior of the county. During a quiet period, the Lower Eocene plant beds of Glenarm and Ballypalady formed in lakes, where iron ores also gathered. Rhyolites erupted locally near Tardree, Ballymena, and Glenarm. The later basalts are particularly notable for their columnar jointing, which creates the famous structures of the Giant’s Causeway and the coastline near Bengore Head. Volcanic necks can be found at Carrick-a-rede, in the intrusive dolerite mass at Slemish, at Carnmoney near Belfast, and a few other locations. Fair Head is made of intrusive dolerite, presenting a stunning columnar face toward the sea. Faulting, likely during Pliocene times, lowered the basalt plateaus to form the basin of Lough Neagh, leaving the eastern ridge at heights reaching up to 1800 ft. The glens of Antrim are deep ravines carved by streams flowing seaward through the basalt scarp, with their floors made up of Triassic or older rocks. Unlike most Irish counties, Antrim's main features are due to rocks from the Mesozoic and Cainozoic eras. However, at Cushendun, a coarse conglomerate is thought to be Devonian, while Lower Carboniferous Sandstones, with several coal seams, form a small productive basin at Ballycastle. The dolerite of Fair Head extends sheets along the bedding planes of these Carboniferous layers. “Dalradian” schists and gneisses, along with some dark limestones, are found in the northeast of the county, creating a moorland area between Cushendun and Ballycastle. The dome of Knocklayd, topped by a remnant of chalk and basalt, consists mostly of this much older rock series. Glacial gravels are prominently seen near Antrim town and in drumlins between Ballymena and Ballycastle. The drift phenomena associated with the ice flow from Scotland are particularly interesting. Recently raised marine clays from post-glacial times line the southeastern coast, while gravels containing marine shells, alongside flint tools made by early humans, have been discovered about 20 ft. above sea level near Larne.

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

Rock salt that’s about 80 ft. thick is mined in the Trias near Carrickfergus. The Keuper clays provide material for bricks. Bauxite, likely formed from the breakdown of lava, is found between Glenarm and Broughshane, along with brown and red pisolitic iron ores; both of these materials are commercially mined. Bauxite is also found near Ballintoy. The Ballycastle coal is extracted and sold locally.

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

Industries.—The climate is very mild. The soil varies significantly by area, with some regions having rich loam, others featuring chalky marl, and still others showing a layer of peat. The ratio of barren land to total area is approximately 1 to 9, and the ratio of cultivated land to pasture is about 2 to 3. Therefore, agriculture is relatively advanced compared to other counties, and oats and potatoes are grown extensively, although their cultivation is decreasing. Flax is less important now than it used to be. The population of cattle, sheep, pigs, and poultry is generally increasing. Dutch, Ayrshire, and other breeds are being used to enhance the cattle breeds through crossing. There is little natural woodland left in the county, but plantations thrive on the large estates, and orchards have been successful.

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

The linen industry is the most important sector. Cotton spinning using jennies was first introduced by Robert Joy and Thomas M‘Cabe from Belfast in 1777. An estimate made twenty-three years later showed that over 27,000 people were employed in this sector within 10 miles of Belfast, which remains its main hub. Women work on designing patterns on muslin. There are several paper mills in Bushmills to the north; whisky distilling is also taking place, and there are valuable sea fisheries split between the districts of Ballycastle and Carrickfergus, with the former being the center of a salmon fishing area. The Ballycastle coal mines are probably the oldest in Ireland. In 1770, miners accidentally found a complete gallery that has been dug many hundreds of yards into the coal bed, branching into thirty-six chambers that are all well constructed. There’s no local tradition of the mine being worked before. Some of the coal beds are bituminous, while others are anthracite.

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

Communications.—Aside from the Great Northern railway line running from Belfast to the south and west, which only briefly runs near the county's southern border, the main communication routes are part of the Northern Counties system, managed by the Midland railway of England. The key routes include: Belfast, Antrim, Ballymena (and from there to Coleraine and Londonderry); a line branching off at White Abbey to Carrickfergus and Larne, the port for Stranraer in Scotland; branches from Ballymena to Larne and to Parkmore; and from Coleraine to Portrush. The Ballycastle railway connects Ballymoney to Ballycastle on the north coast; and the Giant’s Causeway and Portrush line is an electric railway (the first one to operate in the United Kingdom). The Lagan Canal links Lough Neagh with Belfast Lough.

Population and Administration.—The population in 1891 was 154 208,010, and in 1901, 196,090. The county is among those least seriously affected by emigration. Of the total about 50% are Presbyterians, about 20% each Protestant Episcopalians and Roman Catholics; Antrim being one of the most decidedly Protestant counties in Ireland. Of the Presbyterians the greater part are in connexion with the General Synod of Ulster, and the other are Remonstrants, who separated from the Synod in 1829, or United Presbyterians. The principal towns are Antrim (pop. 1826), Ballymena (10,886), Ballymoney (2952), Carrickfergus (4208), Larne (6670), Lisburn (11,461) and Portrush (1941). Belfast though constituting a separate county ranks as the metropolis of the district. Ballyclare, Bushmills, Crumlin, Portglenone and Randalstown are among the lesser towns. Belfast and Larne are the chief ports. The county comprises 14 baronies and 79 civil parishes and parts of parishes. The constabulary force has its headquarters at Ballymena. The assize town is Belfast, and quarter sessions are held at Ballymena, Ballymoney, Belfast, Larne and Lisburn. The county is divided between the Protestant dioceses of Derry and Down, and the Roman Catholic dioceses of Down and Connor, and Dromore. It is divided into north, mid, east and south parliamentary divisions, each returning one member.

Population and Administration.—The population in 1891 was 154 208,010, and in 1901, it was 196,090. The county is one of the least affected by emigration. About 50% of the population are Presbyterians, with around 20% each being Protestant Episcopalians and Roman Catholics; Antrim is one of the most strongly Protestant counties in Ireland. Most Presbyterians are affiliated with the General Synod of Ulster, while others are Remonstrants, who broke away from the Synod in 1829, or United Presbyterians. The main towns are Antrim (pop. 1826), Ballymena (10,886), Ballymoney (2,952), Carrickfergus (4,208), Larne (6,670), Lisburn (11,461), and Portrush (1,941). Although Belfast is its own county, it serves as the district's capital. Ballyclare, Bushmills, Crumlin, Portglenone, and Randalstown are among the smaller towns. Belfast and Larne are the primary ports. The county consists of 14 baronies and 79 civil parishes and parts of parishes. The police force is based in Ballymena. The assize town is Belfast, and quarter sessions take place in Ballymena, Ballymoney, Belfast, Larne, and Lisburn. The county falls within the Protestant dioceses of Derry and Down, and the Roman Catholic dioceses of Down and Connor, as well as Dromore. It is organized into northern, mid, eastern, and southern parliamentary divisions, each electing one member.

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

History and Antiquities.—The exact date when the county of Antrim was established isn't known, but it seems that a certain area was called by this name before the reign of Edward II (early 14th century). When Sir John Perrot was working on the shiring of Ulster in the 16th century, Antrim and Down were already recognized as distinct divisions from the rest of the province. The earliest known inhabitants were of Celtic origin, and the names of the townlands or subdivisions, believed to have originated in the 13th century, are purely Celtic. Antrim faced invasions from the Danes and northern Scots, who eventually settled there permanently. The county's antiquities include cairns, mounds or forts, remains of churches and military structures, and round towers. The main cairns are located on Colin mountain near Lisburn, on Slieve True near Carrickfergus, and two on Colinward. The notable cromlechs include one near Cairngrainey, to the northeast of the old road from Belfast to Templepatrick; the large cromlech at Mount Druid near Ballintoy; and one at the northern tip of Island Magee. The mounds, forts, and earthworks are very numerous. There are three round towers: one in Antrim, one in Armoy, and one on Ram Island in Lough Neagh, with only the one in Antrim being intact. Some remnants of ecclesiastical establishments can be found at Bonamargy, where the earls of Antrim are buried, as well as in Kells, Glenarm, Glynn, Muckamore, and White Abbey. The impressive castle of Carrickfergus is the only one in perfect condition. However, there are remains of other ancient castles, such as Olderfleet, Cam’s, Shane’s, Glenarm, Garron Tower, Redbay, and others, but the most fascinating is the castle of Dunluce, known for its large size and romantic setting. Mount Slemish, about 8 miles east of Ballymena, is significant as the site of St. Patrick’s early life. Island Magee, in addition to its archaeological remains, is infamous for being a center of witchcraft and was the site of a retaliatory act for the highly contested massacre of Protestants around 1641 by the soldiers of Carrickfergus.


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

ANTRIM, is a market town located in the west of County Antrim, Ireland, in the southern parliamentary division, on the banks of the Six-Mile Water, just half a mile from Lough Neagh, situated in a beautiful and fertile valley. Population (1901) was 1,826. It is 21¾ miles northwest of Belfast via the Northern Counties (Midland) railway and is also the terminus of a branch of the Great Northern railway from Lisburn. There's nothing particularly noteworthy in the town itself, but the surrounding areas, including Shane’s Castle and Antrim Castle, have attractions of considerable interest. About a mile from the town is one of the best-preserved round towers in Ireland, standing 93 feet high and 50 feet in circumference at the base. This tower is located on the grounds of Steeple, a nearby estate, which also features the “Witches’ Stone,” a prehistoric monument. A battle took place near Antrim between the English and Irish during the reign of Edward III, and in 1642, a naval engagement occurred on Lough Neagh, as Viscount Massereene and Ferrard (who founded Antrim Castle in 1662) had the right to maintain a fighting fleet on the lake. On June 7, 1798, there was a fierce confrontation in the town between the king’s troops and a significant group of rebels, resulting in the defeat of the latter and the mortal wounding of Lord O’Neill. Before the Union, Antrim was represented in parliament by two members, due to letters patent granted in 1666 by Charles II. The town has industries producing paper, linen, and woolen cloth. The local government is managed by town commissioners.


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

ANTRUSTION, refers to the members of the bodyguard or military household of the Merovingian kings. The term, which has been explained in different ways, comes from the Old High German word trost, meaning comfort, aid, fidelity, trust, through the Latinized form trustis. Our knowledge about the antrustions comes from one of the formulae of Marculfus (i. 18, ed. Zeumer, p. 55) and various provisions of the Salic law (see du Cange, Glossarium, s. “trustis”). Anyone wanting to join the body of Antrustions had to show up armed at the royal palace and there, with their hands in those of the king, take a special oath or trustis and fidelitas, in addition to the oath of loyalty sworn by every subject at the king’s accession. Once this was done, they were considered to be in truste dominica and were obligated to fulfill all the services that came with it. In exchange for these duties, the antrustion received certain valuable benefits, such as being specifically entitled to royal assistance and protection; their wergeld was three times that of a regular Frank; if someone killed a Frank, they paid 200 solidi, but if they killed an antrustion, the compensation was 600. Antrustions were always of Frankish descent, and only in exceptional cases were Gallo-Romans allowed into the king’s bodyguard. These Gallo-Romans were then referred to as convivae regis, and their wergeld of 300 solidi was three times that of a homo romanus. The antrustions, being part of one body, had clearly defined responsibilities to one another; for instance, one antrustion was prohibited from testifying against another on penalty of a compensation of 15 solidi.

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

The antrustions seemed to have played an important role during the time of Clovis. They were apparently the ones who formed the army that conquered the land, largely made up of Franks and a few Gallo-Romans who sided with Clovis. After the conquest, the antrustions' role became less significant. For each of their campaigns, the kings gathered an army of citizens, where Gallo-Romans increasingly mixed with the Franks; they only maintained a small permanent force that served as their bodyguard (trustis dominica), with some members occasionally assigned to other duties, such as garrisoning frontier towns. The institution seems to have faded away during the chaos at the start of the 8th century. It has incorrectly been thought to be the origin of vassalage. Only the king had antrustions; every lord could have vassals. The antrustions were a military institution; vassalage was a social institution, the origins of which are very complex.

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

All historians who study Merovingian institutions and law have examined the antrustions, and each has their own approach. The main sources are:—Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, 3rd ed. vol. ii. pp. 335 et seq.; Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, vol. ii. p. 97 et seq.; Fustel de Coulanges, La Monarchie franque, p. 80 et seq.; Maxirne Deloche, La Trustis et Vantrustion royal sous les deux premieres races (Paris, 1873), which gathers and discusses the key texts; Guilhermoz, Les Origines de la noblesse (Paris, 1902), which presents a system that is partially new.

(C. Pf.)

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

ANTWERP, is the northernmost of Belgium's nine provinces. It borders the Netherlands to the north. Towns in the province include Malines, Lierre, and Turnhout. Its significance comes mainly from being home to Belgium's commercial hub. The province is divided into three administrative districts (arrondissements): Antwerp, Malines, and Turnhout. These are further divided into 25 cantons and 152 communes. The total area is 707,932 acres or 1,106 square miles. The population (in 1904) was 888,980, averaging 804 people per square mile.


155

155

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

ANTWERP (Fr. Anvers), the capital of the aforementioned province, is an important city on the right bank of the Scheldt, Belgium’s main center of commerce and a well-fortified location.

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

Modern Antwerp is a well-planned city with wide avenues that outline the original city walls. There are long streets and rows of impressive homes belonging to the city's merchants and manufacturers, showcasing its wealth and recalling the 16th-century saying that Antwerp was known for its wealthy citizens (“Antwerpia nummis”). Even after the devastation of war and internal strife, it still holds some reminders of its former glory, particularly its stunning cathedral. This church started construction in the 14th century but wasn't completed until 1518. Its tower, standing over 400 feet tall, is a prominent landmark visible from far away across the flat countryside. A second tower, part of the initial design, was never built. The interior proportions are grand, and the church displays three masterpieces by Rubens: “The Descent from the Cross,” “The Elevation of the Cross,” and “The Assumption.” Another impressive church in Antwerp is St. James, which is more ornate than the cathedral and holds the tomb of Rubens, who contributed to its decoration. The Bourse, or exchange, which claims to be the first to bear that name in Europe, is a beautiful new building completed in 1872, built on the site of the old Bourse that was erected in 1531 and destroyed by fire in 1858. Fire has consumed several other historic buildings in the city, notably the Hansa League house on the northern quays in 1891. A fascinating museum is the Maison Plantin, the home of the renowned printer C. Plantin and his successor Moretus, which remains just as it was during Moretus's time. The new art gallery near the southern quays is an impressive structure divided into ancient and modern sections. The collection of old masters is exceptional, featuring many outstanding works by Rubens, Van Dyck, Titian, and the leading Dutch masters. Antwerp, known in the Middle Ages and today for its commercial activities, enjoyed considerable fame in the 17th century for its distinguished art scene, which included painters like Rubens, Van Dyck, Jordaens, the two Teniers, and many more.

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

Commerce.—Since 1863, when Antwerp opened up to global trade after acquiring the Dutch right to collect tolls, its status has dramatically shifted, and no other city in Europe has evolved more during this time than the historic city along the Scheldt. The statistics for the years 1904 and 1905 indicate that its trade continues to grow quickly:—

Year. Exports. Imports
Tonnage. Value. Tonnage. Value.
1904 6,578,558 £71,349,678 8,427,894 £79,539,100
1905 7,153,655 £80,032,355 9,061,781 £91,194,517

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

The recent growth of its commerce can be seen by comparing the following figures. In 1888, 4,272 ships entered the port and 4,302 left. By 1905, 6,095 entered and 6,065 sailed out—an increase of nearly 50%. In 1888, the total tonnage was 7,800,000; by 1905, it had jumped to 19,662,000. These numbers show how and why Antwerp has outgrown its dock facilities. The eight main basins or docks that existed in 1908 were (1) the Little or Bonaparte dock; (2) the Great dock, also built during Napoleon’s time; (3) the Kattendijk, which was constructed in 1860 and expanded in 1881; (4) the Wood dock; (5) the Campine dock, mainly used for minerals; (6) the Asia dock, which connects directly to the Meuse via a canal and also to the Scheldt; (7) the Lefebvre dock; and (8) the America dock, which opened in 1905. Two new docks, referred to as "intercalary" because they would fit into whatever plan was adopted for straightening the course of the Scheldt, were still to be built, leading out of the Lefebvre dock and covering 70 acres. With the completion of the new maritime lock, ships that draw 30 ft. of water would be able to access these new docks as well as the Lefebvre and America docks. In connection with the planned grande coupure (that is, a cut through the bend in the river Scheldt just below Antwerp), the importance of these four docks would significantly increase as they would flank the new main river channel. When the Belgian Chambers approved funding in February 1906 for the improvement of the Antwerp harbor, no specific plan was approved; the issue was referred to a special mixed commission. The improvements in Antwerp extend beyond building new docks. The quays along the Scheldt are 3½ miles long. They are made of granite, and no expense has been spared in outfitting them with hydraulic cranes, warehouses, etc.

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

Fortifications.—In addition to being Belgium's main commercial port, Antwerp is also the country's strongest fortress. However, little remains of the old walls or the famous citadel defended by General Chassé in 1832, except for the Steen, which has been restored and now houses a museum of weapons and artifacts. After Belgium gained independence, Antwerp was mainly protected by the citadel and a wall about 2.5 km around the city. There was no significant change until 1859, when the Belgian defense system was completely revamped by dismantling seventeen of the twenty-two fortresses built under Wellington’s guidance from 1815 to 1818. At Antwerp, the old citadel and walls were taken down. A new wall, 8 km long, was built, and the neighborhoods of Berchem and Borgerhout, now part of Antwerp, were incorporated into the city. This wall still exists and is a remarkable piece of engineering. It is surrounded by a broad wet ditch (plans in article Fortification), and within the caponiers are the storage areas and supply rooms of the fortress. The wall has nineteen openings or gates, though seven of these are not accessible to the public. Once the wall was completed, eight detached forts were built 2 to 2.5 km away from it. They started in the north near Wyneghem and the flooding zone, ending in the south at Hoboken. In 1870, Fort Merxem and the redoubts of Berendrecht and Oorderen were constructed to defend the flooding area north of Antwerp. By 1878, due to the improved range of artillery and the stronger impact of explosives, it was clear that Antwerp's fortifications were becoming outdated and inefficient. So, a decision was made to change it from a fortress to a fortified position by building an outer line of forts and batteries 6 to 9 km from the wall. This second line was planned to have fifteen forts, both large and small. By 1898, only five had been built, but in that year and the following two years, five more were completed, leaving five remaining to finish the line. A mixed commission determined where they would be placed. With this project, which was being rapidly advanced in 1908, Antwerp could be considered one of the best-fortified locations in Europe, and as long as its sea communications remain secure, it will be virtually impenetrable.

Two subsidiary or minor problems remained over. (1) The much-discussed removal of the existing enceinte in order to give Antwerp further growing space. If it were removed there arose the further question, should a new enceinte be made at the first line of outer forts, or should an enceinte be dispensed with? An enceinte following the line of those forts would be 30 m. in length. Then if the city grew up to this extended enceinte the outer forts would be too near. To screen the city from bombardment they would have to be carried 3 m. further out, and the whole Belgian army would scarcely furnish an adequate garrison for this extended position. A new enceinte, or more correctly a rampart of a less permanent character, connecting the eight forts of the inner line and extending from Wyneghem to a little south of Hoboken, was decided upon in 1908. (2) The second problem was the position on the left bank of the Scheldt. All the defences enumerated are on the right bank. On the left bank the two old forts Isabelle and Marie alone defend the Scheldt. It is assumed (probably rightly) that no enemy could get round to this side in sufficient strength to deliver any attack that the existing forts could not easily 156 repel. The more interesting question connected with the left bank is whether it does not provide, as Napoleon thought, the most natural outlet for the expansion of Antwerp. Proposals to connect the two banks by a tunnel under the Scheldt have been made from time to time in a fitful manner, but nothing whatever had been done by 1908 to realize what appears to be a natural and easy project.

Two minor issues were left to address. (1) The much-debated removal of the current city walls to allow Antwerp to grow further. If they were taken down, another question arose: should a new wall be built along the front lines of the outer forts, or should the wall be eliminated altogether? A wall following the line of those forts would need to be 30 meters long. If the city expanded to this new wall, the outer forts would be too close to it. To protect the city from bombardment, those forts would need to be moved out another 3 meters, and the entire Belgian army would barely be able to provide enough soldiers for this extended position. In 1908, it was decided to build a new wall, or more accurately, a rampart that is less permanent, connecting the eight forts of the inner line and extending from Wyneghem to just south of Hoboken. (2) The second issue was the situation on the left bank of the Scheldt. All the defenses mentioned are on the right bank. On the left bank, only the two old forts Isabelle and Marie protect the Scheldt. It is thought (probably correctly) that no enemy could come around to this side with enough force to launch an attack that the current forts couldn’t easily fend off. The more intriguing question related to the left bank is whether it provides, as Napoleon believed, the most natural outlet for Antwerp's expansion. From time to time, proposals to connect the two banks with a tunnel under the Scheldt have been made sporadically, but by 1908, nothing had been done to pursue what seems like a straightforward and reasonable project.

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

Population.—The following statistics show the growth of the population in and since the 19th century. In 1800, the population was estimated to be around 40,000. In the census of 1846, the total was 88,487; in 1851, it was 95,501; in 1880, it reached 169,100; in 1900, it was 272,830; and in 1904, it stood at 291,949. To these numbers, we should add the populations (1904) of Borgerhout (43,391) and Berchem (26,383), as they are part of the city, which would give Antwerp a total population of 361,723.

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

History.—The proposed origin of the name Antwerp from Hand-werpen (hand-throwing), based on a mythical robber chief who supposedly cut off his prisoners’ hands and tossed them into the Scheldt, seems a bit far-fetched to Motley. However, it’s also not very reasonable to trace it back to an t werf (on the wharf), especially since the name Andhunerbo existed in the 6th century during the split between Austrasia and Neustria. Additionally, cutting off hands wasn’t an uncommon practice in Europe. It survived from a brutal past in the custom of severing the right hand of a man who died without heirs and sending it as proof of main-morte to the feudal lord. Furthermore, the two hands and a castle, which make up the coat of arms of Antwerp, cannot be dismissed as irrelevant by anyone familiar with the meticulous care that heralds took during the golden age of chivalry before assigning or recognizing the armorial bearings of any claimant.

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

In the 4th century, Antwerp was noted as one of the locations in the second Germany, and in the 11th century, Godfrey of Bouillon was recognized for several years as the marquis of Antwerp. Antwerp served as the base for Edward III during his initial negotiations with van Artevelde, and his son Lionel, the Earl of Cambridge, was born there in 1338.

It was not, however, till after the closing of the Zwyn and the decay of Bruges that Antwerp became of importance. At the end of the 15th century the foreign trading gilds or houses were transferred from Bruges to Antwerp, and the building assigned to the English nation is specifically mentioned in 1510. In 1560, a year which marked the highest point of its prosperity, six nations, viz. the Spaniards, the Danes and the Hansa together, the Italians, the English, the Portuguese and the Germans, were named at Antwerp, and over 1000 foreign merchants were resident in the city. Guicciardini, the Venetian envoy, describes the activity of the port, into which 500 ships sometimes passed in a day, and as evidence of the extent of its land trade he mentioned that 2000 carts entered the city each week. Venice had fallen from its first place in European commerce, but still it was active and prosperous. Its envoy, in explaining the importance of Antwerp, states that there was as much business done there in a fortnight as in Venice throughout the year.

It wasn't until after the closure of the Zwyn and the decline of Bruges that Antwerp gained significance. By the end of the 15th century, foreign trade guilds or houses had moved from Bruges to Antwerp, and the building designated for the English was specifically mentioned in 1510. In 1560, a year that marked its peak prosperity, six nations—namely, the Spaniards, the Danes, the Hansa, the Italians, the English, the Portuguese, and the Germans—were present in Antwerp, and over 1,000 foreign merchants lived in the city. Guicciardini, the Venetian envoy, described the bustling activity of the port, where sometimes 500 ships would enter in a day, and as evidence of the extensive land trade, he noted that 2,000 carts entered the city each week. Venice had fallen from its top position in European commerce, but it remained active and prosperous. Its envoy remarked that as much business was conducted in Antwerp in a fortnight as in Venice over an entire year.

The religious troubles that marked the second half of the 16th century broke out in Antwerp as in every other part of Belgium excepting Liége. In 1576 the Spanish soldiery plundered the town during what was called “the Spanish Fury,” and 6000 citizens were massacred. Eight hundred houses were burnt down, and over two millions sterling of damage was wrought in the town on that occasion.

The religious conflicts that defined the second half of the 16th century erupted in Antwerp, just like in every other part of Belgium except Liège. In 1576, Spanish soldiers looted the town during an event known as “the Spanish Fury,” resulting in the massacre of 6,000 citizens. Eight hundred houses were set on fire, and the town suffered over two million pounds in damages at that time.

In 1585 a severe blow was struck at the prosperity of Antwerp when Parma captured it after a long siege and sent all its Protestant citizens into exile. The recognition of the independence of the United Provinces by the treaty of Munster in 1648 carried with it the death-blow to Antwerp’s prosperity as a place of trade, for one of its clauses stipulated that the Scheldt should be closed to navigation. This impediment remained in force until 1863, although the provisions were relaxed during French rule from 1795 to 1814, and also during the time Belgium formed part of the kingdom of the Netherlands (1815 to 1830). Antwerp had reached the lowest point of its fortunes in 1800, and its population had sunk under 40,000, when Napoleon, realizing its strategical importance, assigned two millions for the construction of two docks and a mole.

In 1585, a significant setback hit the prosperity of Antwerp when Parma captured the city after a long siege and exiled all its Protestant citizens. The recognition of the independence of the United Provinces by the treaty of Munster in 1648 dealt a final blow to Antwerp's trade prosperity, as one of its clauses mandated that the Scheldt be closed to navigation. This restriction remained in effect until 1863, even though it was relaxed during French rule from 1795 to 1814 and again when Belgium was part of the kingdom of the Netherlands (1815 to 1830). Antwerp hit rock bottom in 1800, with its population dropping below 40,000, when Napoleon, recognizing its strategic importance, allocated two million for the construction of two docks and a mole.

One other incident in the chequered history of Antwerp deserves mention. In 1830 the city was captured by the Belgian insurgents, but the citadel continued to be held by a Dutch garrison under General Chasse. For a time this officer subjected the town to a periodical bombardment which inflicted much damage, and at the end of 1832 the citadel itself was besieged by a French army. During this attack the town was further injured. In December 1832, after a gallant defence, Chasse made an honourable surrender.

One other event in the complicated history of Antwerp deserves to be mentioned. In 1830, the city was taken over by Belgian rebels, but the citadel was still held by a Dutch garrison led by General Chasse. For a while, this officer bombarded the town on a regular basis, causing significant damage, and by the end of 1832, a French army besieged the citadel itself. During this attack, the town suffered even more damage. In December 1832, after a brave defense, Chasse made an honorable surrender.

See J.L. Motley’s Rise of the Dutch Republic; C. Scribanii, Origines Antwerpiensium; Gens, Hist. de la ville d’Anvers; Mertens and Torfs, Geschiedenis van Antwerp; Genard, Anvers a travers les ages; Annuaire statisgue de la Belgigue.

See J.L. Motley’s Rise of the Dutch Republic; C. Scribanii, Origines Antwerpiensium; Gens, Hist. de la ville d’Anvers; Mertens and Torfs, Geschiedenis van Antwerp; Genard, Anvers a travers les ages; Annuaire statisgue de la Belgigue.

(D. C. B.)

ANU, a Babylonian deity, who, by virtue of being the first figure in a triad consisting of Anu, Bel and Ea, came to be regarded as the father and king of the gods. Anu is so prominently associated with the city of Erech in southern Babylonia that there are good reasons for believing this place to have been the original seat of the Anu cult. If this be correct, then the goddess Nana (or Ishtar) of Erech was presumably regarded as his consort. The name of the god signifies the “high one” and he was probably a god of the atmospheric region above the earth— perhaps a storm god like Adad (q.v.), or like Yahweh among the ancient Hebrews. However this may be, already in the old-Babylonian period, i.e. before Khammurabi, Anu was regarded as the god of the heavens and his name became in fact synonymous with the heavens, so that in some cases it is doubtful whether, under the term, the god or the heavens is meant. It would seem from this that the grouping of the divine powers recognized in the universe into a triad symbolizing the three divisions, heavens, earth and the watery-deep, was a process of thought which had taken place before the third millennium. To Anu was assigned the control of the heavens, to Bel the earth, and to Ea the waters. The doctrine once established remained an inherent part of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion and led to the more or less complete disassociation of the three gods constituting the triad from their original local limitations. An intermediate step between Anu viewed as the local deity of Erech (or some other centre), Bel as the god of Nippur, and Ea as the god of Eridu is represented by the prominence which each one of the centres associated with the three deities in question must have acquired, and which led to each one absorbing the qualities of other gods so as to give them a controlling position in an organized pantheon. For Nippur we have the direct evidence that its chief deity, En-lil or Bel, was once regarded as the head of an extensive pantheon. The sanctity and, therefore, the importance of Eridu remained a fixed tradition in the minds of the people to the latest days, and analogy therefore justifies the conclusion that Anu was likewise worshipped in a centre which had acquired great prominence. The summing-up of divine powers manifested in the universe in a threefold division represents an outcome of speculation in the schools attached to the temples of Babylonia, but the selection of Anu, Bel and Ea for the three representatives of the three spheres recognized, is due to the importance which, for one reason or the other, the centres in which Anu, Bel and Ea were worshipped had acquired in the popular mind. Each of the three must have been regarded in his centre as the most important member in a larger or smaller group, so that their union in a triad marks also the combination of the three distinctive pantheons into a harmonious whole.

ANU is a Babylonian god who, as the first figure in a trio made up of Anu, Bel, and Ea, came to be seen as the father and king of the gods. Anu is closely associated with the city of Erech in southern Babylonia, which suggests that this location might have been the original center of the Anu worship. If that's true, then the goddess Nana (or Ishtar) of Erech was likely viewed as his partner. The name of the god means “the high one,” and he was probably a god of the atmosphere above the earth—maybe a storm god like Adad (q.v.), or like Yahweh among the ancient Hebrews. Regardless, by the old-Babylonian period, i.e. before Khammurabi, Anu was recognized as the god of the heavens, and his name became synonymous with the heavens, to the point that in some cases it's unclear whether the term refers to the god or the heavens themselves. This indicates that the grouping of divine powers in the universe into a triad representing the three realms—heavens, earth, and watery deep—was a conceptual process that emerged before the third millennium. Anu was assigned control over the heavens, Bel over the earth, and Ea over the waters. This doctrine remained a fundamental part of Babylonian-Assyrian religion, leading to a more or less complete separation of the three gods in the triad from their original local contexts. There was an intermediate phase where Anu was seen as the local deity of Erech (or another center), Bel as the god of Nippur, and Ea as the god of Eridu, reflected in the prominence each of the associated centers must have gained. This growth allowed each center to absorb the characteristics of other gods, giving them a leading role in a structured pantheon. For Nippur, we have direct evidence that its main god, En-lil or Bel, was once viewed as the head of a large pantheon. The sanctity and significance of Eridu remained a strong tradition among the people until later times, which suggests that Anu was also worshipped in a center that gained significant importance. The categorization of divine powers in the universe into three divisions is a result of speculation from the schools linked to the temples of Babylonia. However, the choice of Anu, Bel, and Ea as the representatives of the three recognized spheres is due to the significance these centers held in people's minds for various reasons. Each of the three must have been seen in their center as the most important figure in a bigger or smaller group, meaning their unity in a triad also represents the merging of three distinct pantheons into a cohesive whole.

In the astral theology of Babylonia and Assyria, Anu, Bel and Ea became the three zones of the ecliptic, the northern, middle and southern zone respectively. The purely theoretical character of Anu is thus still further emphasized, and in the annals and votive inscriptions as well as in the incantations and hymns, he is rarely introduced as an active force to whom a personal appeal can be made. His name becomes little more than a synonym for the heavens in general and even his title as king 157 or father of the gods has little of the personal element in it. A consort Antum (or as some scholars prefer to read, Anatum) is assigned to him, on the theory that every deity must have a female associate, but Antum is a purely artificial product—a lifeless symbol playing even less of a part in what may be called the active pantheon than Anu.

In the astral theology of Babylon and Assyria, Anu, Bel, and Ea represent the three zones of the ecliptic: the northern, middle, and southern zones, respectively. Anu's purely theoretical nature is further highlighted, and in the records, votive inscriptions, incantations, and hymns, he is seldom portrayed as an active force to whom people can personally appeal. His name becomes almost synonymous with the heavens in general, and even his title as king or father of the gods lacks any personal touch. A consort named Antum (or Anatum, as some scholars prefer) is assigned to him, based on the belief that every deity should have a female counterpart, but Antum is only a contrived creation—a lifeless symbol that plays an even lesser role in what could be considered the active pantheon than Anu.

For works of reference see Babylonian and Assyrian Religion.

For reference works, see Babylonian and Assyrian Religion.

(M. Ja.)

ANUBIS (in Egyptian Anūp, written Īnpw in hieroglyphs), the name of one of the most important of the Egyptian gods. There were two types of canine divinities in Egypt, their leading representatives being respectively Anubis and Ophois (Wp-w,’-wt, “opener of the ways”): the former type is symbolized by the recumbent animal , the other by a similar animal (in a stiff standing attitude), carried as an emblem on a standard in war or in religious processions. The former comprised two beneficent gods of the necropolis; the latter also were beneficent, but warlike, divinities. They thus corresponded, at any rate in some measure, respectively to the fiercer and milder aspects of the dog-tribe. In late days the Greeks report that κύνες (dogs) were the sacred animals of Anubis while those of Ophois were λύκοι (wolves). The above figure is coloured black as befits a funerary and nocturnal animal: it is more attenuated than even a greyhound, but it has the bushy tail of the fox or the jackal. Probably these were the original genii of the necropolis, and in fact the same lean animal figured passant is s,’b “jackal” or “fox.” The domestic dog would be brought into the sacred circle through the increased veneration for animals, and the more pronounced view in later times of Anubis as servant, messenger and custodian of the gods.

ANUBIS (in Egyptian Anūp, written Īnpw in hieroglyphs), is the name of one of the most important Egyptian gods. There were two types of canine deities in Egypt, with Anubis and Ophois (Wp-w,’-wt, “opener of the ways”) being their main representatives: the first type is represented by the lying-down animal , and the other by a similar animal (standing upright), carried as a symbol on a standard during battles or religious ceremonies. The first group included two benevolent gods of the burial grounds; the second group was also benevolent, but they were warlike deities. They corresponded, at least in some way, to the more aggressive and gentler sides of the dog family. In later years, the Greeks reported that dogs (dogs) were the sacred animals of Anubis, while Ophois's were wolves (wolves). The figure above is colored black, appropriate for a funerary and nocturnal animal: it is leaner than even a greyhound, but it has the bushy tail of a fox or a jackal. These likely were the original guardians of the necropolis, and in fact, the same slender animal depicted passant is s,’b “jackal” or “fox.” The domestic dog was incorporated into the sacred realm through the growing respect for animals and the increasing perception in later times of Anubis as a servant, messenger, and guardian of the gods.

Anubis was the principal god in the capitals of the XVIIth and XVIIIth nomes of Upper Egypt, and secondary god in the XIIIth and probably in the XIIth nome; but his cult was universal. To begin with, he was the god of the dead, of the cemetery, of all supplies for the dead, and therefore of embalming when that became customary. In very early inscriptions the funerary prayers in the tombs are addressed to him almost exclusively, and he always took a leading place in them. In the scene of the weighing of the soul before Osiris, dating from the New kingdom onwards, Anubis attends to the balance while Thoth registers the result. Anubis was believed to have been the embalmer of Osiris: the mummy of Osiris, or of the deceased, on a bier, tended by this god, is a very common subject on funerary tablets of the late periods. Anubis came to be considered especially the attendant of the gods and conductor of the dead, and hence was commonly identified with Hermes (cf. the name Hermanubis); but the role of Hermes as the god of eloquence, inventor of arts and recorder of the gods was taken by Thoth. In those days Anubis was considered to be son of Osiris by Nephthys; earlier perhaps he was son of Re, the sun-god. In the 2nd century A.D. his aid was “compelled” by the magicians and necromancers to fetch the gods and entertain them with food (especially in the ceremony of gazing into the bowl of oil), and he is invoked by them sometimes as the “Good Ox-herd.” The cult of Anubis must at all times have been very popular in Egypt, and, belonging to the Isis and Serapis cycle, was introduced into Greece and Rome.

Anubis was the main god in the capitals of the 17th and 18th nomes of Upper Egypt, and a secondary god in the 13th and probably in the 12th nome; however, his worship was widespread. First of all, he was the god of the dead, the cemetery, and all provisions for the dead, which included embalming when it became a common practice. In very early inscriptions, the funeral prayers in the tombs were almost exclusively addressed to him, and he always played a prominent role in them. In the scene depicting the weighing of the soul before Osiris, dating from the New Kingdom onwards, Anubis is the one managing the scales while Thoth records the results. Anubis was thought to have embalmed Osiris: the mummy of Osiris or the deceased on a bier, watched over by this god, is a very common theme on funerary tablets from the later periods. Anubis came to be known as the attendant of the gods and the guide of the dead, which is why he was often identified with Hermes (hence the name Hermanubis); however, the role of Hermes as the god of eloquence, inventor of arts, and recorder of the gods was taken on by Thoth. In those days, Anubis was seen as the son of Osiris and Nephthys; earlier, he may have been viewed as the son of Re, the sun god. In the 2nd century A.D., magicians and necromancers “compelled” his assistance to summon the gods and offer them food (especially during the ceremony of gazing into the bowl of oil), and he is sometimes called the “Good Ox-herd” by them. The worship of Anubis must always have been very popular in Egypt and was introduced into Greece and Rome as part of the Isis and Serapis cycle.

See Erman, Egyptian Religion; Budge, Gods of the Egyptians; Meyer, in Zeits. f. Aeg. Spr. 41-97.

See Erman, Egyptian Religion; Budge, Gods of the Egyptians; Meyer, in Zeits. f. Aeg. Spr. 41-97.

(F. Ll. G.)

ANURADHAPURA, a ruined city of Ceylon, famous for its ancient monuments. It is situated in the North-central province. Anuradhapura became the capital of Ceylon in the 5th century B.C., and attained its highest magnificence about the commencement of the Christian era. In its prime it ranked beside Nineveh and Babylon in its colossal proportions—its four walls, each 16 m. long, enclosing an area of 256 sq. m.,—in the number of its inhabitants, and the splendour of its shrines and public edifices. It suffered much during the earlier Tamil invasions, and was finally deserted as a royal residence in A.D. 769. It fell completely into decay, and it is only of recent years that the jungle has been cleared away, the ruins laid bare, and some measure of prosperity brought back to the surrounding country by the restoration of hundreds of village tanks. The ruins consist of three classes of buildings, dagobas, monastic buildings, and pokunas. The dagobas are bell-shaped masses of masonry, varying from a few feet to over 1100 in circumference. Some of them contain enough masonry to build a town for twenty-five thousand inhabitants. Remains of the monastic buildings are to be found in every direction in the shape of raised stone platforms, foundations and stone pillars. The most famous is the Brazen Palace erected by King Datagamana about 164 B.C. The pokunas are bathing-tanks or tanks for the supply of drinking-water, which are scattered everywhere through the jungle. The city also contains a sacred Bo-tree, which is said to date back to the year 245 B.C. The railway was extended from Matale to Anuradhapura in 1905. Population: town, 3672; province, 79,110.

ANURADHAPURA, is a ruined city in Sri Lanka, known for its ancient monuments. It's located in the North-central province. Anuradhapura became the capital of Sri Lanka in the 5th century BCE and reached its peak around the beginning of the Christian era. At its height, it was comparable to Nineveh and Babylon in size—its four walls, each 16 m long, enclosed an area of 256 sq. m.—in population, and in the grandeur of its temples and public buildings. It suffered greatly during the early Tamil invasions and was eventually abandoned as a royal residence in CE 769. It fell into complete decay, and it’s only in recent years that the jungle has been cleared, the ruins have been uncovered, and some level of prosperity has returned to the surrounding area through the restoration of hundreds of village tanks. The ruins include three types of structures: dagobas, monastic buildings, and pokunas. The dagobas are bell-shaped masonry structures, ranging from a few feet to over 1100 in circumference. Some contain enough stone to build a town for twenty-five thousand residents. Remnants of the monastic buildings can be found all around in the form of raised stone platforms, foundations, and stone pillars. The most notable is the Brazen Palace built by King Datagamana around 164 BCE The pokunas are bathing tanks or tanks for drinking water, found throughout the jungle. The city also has a sacred Bo-tree, believed to date back to 245 BCE The railway was extended from Matale to Anuradhapura in 1905. Population: town, 3,672; province, 79,110.


ANVIL (from Anglo-Saxon anfilt or onfilti, either that on which something is “welded” or “folded,” cf. German falzen, to fold, or connected with other Teutonic forms of the word, cf. German amboss, in which case the final syllable is from “beat,” and the meaning is “that on which something is beaten”), a mass of iron on which material is supported while being shaped under the hammer (see Forging). The common blacksmith’s anvil is made of wrought iron, often in America of cast iron, with a smooth working face of hardened steel. It has at one end a projecting conical beak or bick for use in hammering curved pieces of metal; occasionally the other end is also provided with a bick, which is then partly rectangular in section. There is also a square hole in the face, into which tools, such as the anvil-cutter or chisel, can be dropped, cutting edge uppermost. For power hammers the anvil proper is supported on an anvil block which is of great massiveness, sometimes weighing over 200 tons for a 12-ton hammer, and this again rests on a strong foundation of timber and masonry or concrete. In anatomy the term anvil is applied to one of the bones of the middle ear, the incus, which is articulated with the malleus.

ANVIL (from Anglo-Saxon anfilt or onfilti, either that on which something is “welded” or “folded,” cf. German falzen, to fold, or connected with other Teutonic forms of the word, cf. German amboss, in which case the final syllable is from “beat,” and the meaning is “that on which something is beaten”), a mass of iron on which material is supported while being shaped under the hammer (see Forging). The typical blacksmith’s anvil is made of wrought iron, often in America of cast iron, with a smooth working surface made of hardened steel. At one end, it has a protruding conical beak or bick for hammering curved pieces of metal; sometimes the other end also has a bick, which is partly rectangular in shape. There is also a square hole in the face, where tools, such as the anvil-cutter or chisel, can be inserted with the cutting edge facing up. For power hammers, the anvil itself is supported on a massive anvil block, which can weigh over 200 tons for a 12-ton hammer, and this is supported by a strong foundation made of timber and masonry or concrete. In anatomy, the term anvil refers to one of the bones in the middle ear, the incus, which connects with the malleus.


ANVILLE, JEAN BAPTISTE BOURGUIGNON D’ (1697-1782), perhaps the greatest geographical author of the 18th century, was born at Paris on the 11th of July 1697. His passion for geographical research displayed itself from early years: at the age of twelve he was already amusing himself by drawing maps for Latin authors. Later, his friendship with the antiquarian, Abbé Longuerue, greatly aided his studies. His first serious map, that of Ancient Greece, was published when he was fifteen, and at the age of twenty-two he was appointed one of the king’s geographers, and began to attract the attention of the first authorities. D’Anville’s studies embraced everything of geographical nature in the world’s literature, as far as he could master it: for this purpose he not only searched ancient and modern historians, travellers and narrators of every description, but also poets, orators and philosophers. One of his cherished objects was to reform geography by putting an end to the blind copying of older maps, by testing the commonly accepted positions of places through a rigorous examination of all the descriptive authority, and by excluding from cartography every name inadequately supported. Vast spaces, which had before been covered with countries and cities, were thus suddenly reduced almost to a blank.

ANVILLE, JEAN BAPTISTE BOURGUIGNON D’ (1697-1782), probably the greatest geographical author of the 18th century, was born in Paris on July 11, 1697. His passion for geographical research showed from a young age; at twelve, he was already entertaining himself by drawing maps for Latin authors. Later, his friendship with the antiquarian Abbé Longuerue greatly supported his studies. His first serious map, that of Ancient Greece, was published when he was fifteen, and by the age of twenty-two, he was appointed one of the king’s geographers and began to gain recognition from leading authorities. D’Anville’s studies covered all aspects of geography in world literature, as far as he could explore it: for this, he not only searched through ancient and modern historians, travelers, and narrators of all kinds, but also poets, orators, and philosophers. One of his main goals was to reform geography by putting an end to the blind copying of older maps, testing the commonly accepted locations of places through careful examination of all descriptive sources, and removing from cartography every name that lacked proper evidence. As a result, vast areas that had previously been filled with countries and cities were suddenly left almost blank.

D’Anville was at first employed in the humbler task of illustrating by maps the works of different travellers, such as Marchais, Charlevoix, Labat and Duhalde. For the history of China by the last-named writer he was employed to make an atlas, which was published separately at the Hague in 1737. In 1735 and 1736 he brought out two treatises on the figure of the earth; but these attempts to solve geometrical problems by literary material were, to a great extent, refuted by Maupertuis’ measurements of a degree within the polar circle. D’Anville’s historical method was more successful in his 1743 map of Italy, which first indicated numerous errors in the mapping of that country, and was accompanied by a valuable memoir (a novelty in such work), showing 158 in full the sources of the design. A trigonometrical survey which Benedict XIV. soon after had made in the papal states strikingly confirmed the French geographer’s results. In his later years d’Anville did yeoman service for ancient and medieval geography, accomplishing something like a revolution in the former; mapping afresh all the chief countries of the pre-Christian civilizations (especially Egypt), and by his Mémoire et abrégé de géographie ancienne et générale and his États formés en Europe après la chute de l’empire romain en occident (1771) rendering his labours still more generally useful. In 1754, at the age of fifty-seven, he became a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, whose transactions he enriched with many papers. In 1775 he received the only place in the Académie des Sciences which is allotted to geography; and in the same year he was appointed, without solicitation, first geographer to the king. His last employment consisted in arranging his collection of maps, plans and geographical materials. It was the most extensive in Europe, and had been purchased by the king, who, however, left him the use of it during his life. This task performed, he sank into a total imbecility both of mind and body, which continued for two years, till his death in January 1782.

D’Anville initially worked on the simpler task of creating maps to illustrate the travels of various explorers, including Marchais, Charlevoix, Labat, and Duhalde. He was commissioned to create an atlas for Duhalde’s history of China, which was published separately in The Hague in 1737. In 1735 and 1736, he released two treatises on the shape of the earth; however, these attempts to address geometric problems through literary means were largely disproven by Maupertuis’ measurements of a degree in the polar circle. D’Anville’s historical approach was more successful with his 1743 map of Italy, which pointed out many errors in the country’s mapping and was accompanied by a valuable memoir (a novel addition to such work) that fully detailed the sources of the design. A trigonometric survey conducted shortly after by Benedict XIV in the papal states notably confirmed the French geographer’s findings. In his later years, d’Anville made significant contributions to ancient and medieval geography, nearly revolutionizing the former by remapping all the major regions of pre-Christian civilizations (especially Egypt) and making his work even more useful with his Mémoire et abrégé de géographie ancienne et générale and États formés en Europe après la chute de l’empire romain en occident (1771). In 1754, at the age of fifty-seven, he became a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres and contributed many papers to its transactions. In 1775, he was awarded the only geography position in the Académie des Sciences and was appointed, without asking, as the first geographer to the king. His final task involved organizing his extensive collection of maps, plans, and geographical materials, which was the largest in Europe and had been purchased by the king, who allowed him to use it for his lifetime. After completing this task, he fell into complete mental and physical incapacity for two years until his death in January 1782.

D’Anville’s published memoirs and dissertations amounted to 78, and his maps to 211. A complete edition of his works was announced in 1806 by de Manne in 6 vols. quarto, only two of which had appeared when the editor died in 1832. See Dacier’s Éloge de d’Anville (Paris, 1802). Besides the separate works noticed above, d’Anville’s maps executed for Rollin’s Histoire ancienne and Histoire romaine, and his Traité des mesures anciennes et modernes (1769), deserve special notice.

D’Anville’s published memoirs and essays totaled 78, and his maps numbered 211. A complete collection of his works was announced in 1806 by de Manne in 6 quarto volumes, but only two were published before the editor passed away in 1832. See Dacier’s Éloge de d’Anville (Paris, 1802). In addition to the individual works mentioned above, d’Anville’s maps created for Rollin’s Histoire ancienne and Histoire romaine, as well as his Traité des mesures anciennes et modernes (1769), are particularly noteworthy.


ANWARI [Auhad-uddin Ali Anwari], Persian poet, was born in Khorasan early in the 12th century. He enjoyed the especial favour of the sultan Sinjar, whom he attended in all his warlike expeditions. On one occasion, when the sultan was besieging the fortress of Hazarasp, a fierce poetical conflict was maintained between Anwari and his rival Rashidi, who was within the beleaguered castle, by means of verses fastened to arrows. Anwari died at Balkh towards the end of the 12th century. The Diwan, or collection of his poems, consists of a series of long poems, and a number of simpler lyrics. His longest piece, The Tears of Khorassan, was translated into English verse by Captain Kirkpatrick (see also Persia. Literature).

ANWARI [Auhad-uddin Ali Anwari], a Persian poet, was born in Khorasan in the early 12th century. He had the special favor of Sultan Sinjar, accompanying him on all his military campaigns. Once, while the sultan was laying siege to the fortress of Hazarasp, a fierce poetic battle broke out between Anwari and his rival Rashidi, who was inside the besieged castle, using verses attached to arrows. Anwari passed away in Balkh toward the end of the 12th century. His collection of poems, known as the Diwan, includes a series of long poems and several simpler lyrics. His longest work, The Tears of Khorassan, was translated into English verse by Captain Kirkpatrick (see also Persia. Literature).


ANWEILER, or Annweiler, a town of Germany, in the Bavarian Palatinate, on the Queich, 8 m. west of Landau, and on the railway from that place to Zweibrücken. Pop. 3700. It is romantically situated in the part of the Haardt called the Pfälzer Schweiz (Palatinate Switzerland), and is surrounded by high hills which yield a famous red sandstone. On the Sonnenberg (1600 ft.) lie the ruins of the castle of Trifels, in which Richard Coeur de Lion was imprisoned in 1193. The industries include cloth-weaving, tanning, dyeing and saw mills. There is also a considerable trade in wine.

ANWEILER, or Annweiler is a town in Germany, located in the Bavarian Palatinate along the Queich River, 8 miles west of Landau, and on the railway line connecting that area to Zweibrücken. Its population is 3,700. The town is beautifully positioned in the part of the Haardt known as the Pfälzer Schweiz (Palatinate Switzerland) and is surrounded by high hills that produce a well-known red sandstone. On the Sonnenberg (1,600 ft.), you can find the ruins of Trifels Castle, where Richard the Lionheart was imprisoned in 1193. The local economy includes industries like cloth weaving, tanning, dyeing, and sawmilling. There is also a significant trade in wine.


ANZENGRUBER, LUDWIG (1839-1889), Austrian dramatist and novelist, was born at Vienna on the 29th of November 1839. He was educated at the Realschule of his native town, and then entered a bookseller’s shop; from 1860 to 1867 he was an actor, without, however, displaying any marked talent, although his stage experience later stood him in good stead. In 1869 he became a clerk in the Viennese police department, but having in the following year made a success with his anti-clerical drama, Der Pfarrer von Kirchfeld, he gave up his appointment and devoted himself entirely to literature. He died at Vienna on the both of December 1889. Anzengruber was exceedingly fertile in ideas, and wrote a great many plays. They are mostly of Austrian peasant life, and although somewhat melancholy in tone are interspersed with bright and witty scenes. Among the best known are Der Meineidbauer (1871), Die Kreuzelschreiber (1872), Der G’wissenswurm (1874), Hand und Herz (1875), Doppelselbstmord (1875), Das vierte Gebot (1877), and Der Fleck auf der Ehr’ (1889). Anzengruber also published a novel of considerable merit, Der Schandfleck (1876; remodelled 1884); and various short stories and tales of village life collected under the title Wolken und Sunn’schein (1888).

ANZENGRUBER, LUDWIG (1839-1889), Austrian playwright and novelist, was born in Vienna on November 29, 1839. He was educated at the local Realschule and then worked in a bookstore; from 1860 to 1867 he was an actor, although he didn't show any standout talent, his stage experience later proved helpful. In 1869 he got a job as a clerk in the Vienna police department, but after his anti-clerical play, Der Pfarrer von Kirchfeld, became a hit the following year, he quit his job to focus entirely on writing. He passed away in Vienna on December 30, 1889. Anzengruber was incredibly prolific and wrote many plays, mostly centered on Austrian peasant life. While they often have a melancholic tone, they include bright and witty moments. Some of his best-known works are Der Meineidbauer (1871), Die Kreuzelschreiber (1872), Der G’wissenswurm (1874), Hand und Herz (1875), Doppelselbstmord (1875), Das vierte Gebot (1877), and Der Fleck auf der Ehr’ (1889). Anzengruber also wrote a noteworthy novel, Der Schandfleck (1876; revised 1884), along with various short stories and tales of village life collected under the title Wolken und Sunn’schein (1888).

Anzengruber’s collected works, with a biography, were published in 10 vols. in 1890 (3rd ed. 1897); his correspondence has been edited by A. Bettelheim (1902). See A. Bettelheim, L. Anzengruber (1890); L. Rosner, Erinnerungen an L. Anzengruber (1890): H. Sittenberger, Studien zur Dramaturgie der Gegenwart (1899); S. Friedmann, L. Anzengruber (1902).

Anzengruber’s collected works, along with a biography, were published in 10 volumes in 1890 (3rd ed. 1897); his correspondence has been edited by A. Bettelheim (1902). See A. Bettelheim, L. Anzengruber (1890); L. Rosner, Erinnerungen an L. Anzengruber (1890); H. Sittenberger, Studien zur Dramaturgie der Gegenwart (1899); S. Friedmann, L. Anzengruber (1902).


ANZIN, a town of northern France, in the department of Nord, on the Scheldt, 1½ m. N.W. of Valenciennes, of which it is a suburb. Pop. (1906) 14,077. Anzin is the centre of important coal-mines of the Valenciennes basin belonging to the Anzin Company, the formation of which dates to 1717. The metallurgical industries of the place are extensive, and include iron and copper founding and the manufacture of steam-engines, machinery, chain-cables and a great variety of heavy iron goods. There are also glass-works and breweries.

ANZIN is a town in northern France, located in the Nord department along the Scheldt River, just 1.5 miles northwest of Valenciennes, which it serves as a suburb. The population was 14,077 in 1906. Anzin is the hub of significant coal mines in the Valenciennes basin, owned by the Anzin Company, which was established in 1717. The town has a strong metallurgical industry, including iron and copper foundries, as well as the manufacturing of steam engines, machinery, chain cables, and a wide range of heavy iron products. Additionally, there are glassworks and breweries.


AONIA, a district of ancient Boeotia, containing the mountains Helicon and Cithaeron, and thus sacred to the Muses, who are called by Pope the “Aonian maids.”

AONIA, a region of ancient Boeotia, home to the mountains Helicon and Cithaeron, and therefore revered by the Muses, referred to by Pope as the “Aonian maids.”


AORIST (from Gr. ἀόριστος, indefinite), the name given in Greek grammar to certain past tenses of verbs (first aorist, second aorist).

AORIST (from Gr. undefined, indefinite), the term used in Greek grammar for specific past tenses of verbs (first aorist, second aorist).


AOSTA (anc. Augusta Praetoria Salassorum), a town and episcopal see of Piedmont, Italy, in the province of Turin, 80 m. N.N.W. by rail of the town of Turin, and 48 m. direct, situated 1910 ft. above sea-level, at the confluence of the Buthier and the Dora Baltea, and at the junction of the Great and Little St Bernard routes. Pop. (1901) 7875. The cathedral, reconstructed in the 11th century (to which one of its campanili and some architectural details belong), was much altered in the 14th and 17th; it has a rich treasury including an ivory diptych of 406 with a representation of Honorius. The church of St Ours, founded in 425, and rebuilt in the 12th century, has good cloisters (1133); the 15th-century priory is picturesque. The castle of Bramafam (11th century) is interesting. Cretinism is common in the district.

AOSTA (formerly Augusta Praetoria Salassorum) is a town and the seat of a bishopric in Piedmont, Italy, located in the province of Turin, 80 miles N.N.W. by train from the town of Turin and 48 miles directly. It sits 1,910 feet above sea level, at the meeting point of the Buthier and Dora Baltea rivers, and at the crossroads of the Great and Little St Bernard routes. Population (1901) was 7,875. The cathedral, rebuilt in the 11th century (with one of its towers and some architectural details dating back to that period), was significantly altered in the 14th and 17th centuries; it has a rich treasury that includes an ivory diptych from 406 featuring a depiction of Honorius. The church of St Ours, established in 425 and reconstructed in the 12th century, has impressive cloisters (from 1133); the 15th-century priory is charming. The castle of Bramafam, from the 11th century, is noteworthy. Cretinism is prevalent in the area.

After the fall of the Roman empire the valley of Aosta fell into the hands of the Burgundian kings; and after many changes of masters, it came under the rule of Count Humbert I. of Savoy (Biancamano) in 1032. The privilege of holding the assembly of the states-general was granted to the inhabitants in 1189. An executive council was nominated from this body in 1536, and continued to exist until 1802. After the restoration of the rule of Savoy it was reconstituted and formally recognized by Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, at the birth of his grandson Prince Amedeo, who was created duke of Aosta. Aosta was the birthplace of Anselm. For ancient remains see Augusta Praetoria Salassorum.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Aosta Valley came under the control of the Burgundian kings; and after numerous changes in leadership, it was governed by Count Humbert I of Savoy (Biancamano) in 1032. The right to hold the assembly of the states-general was granted to the residents in 1189. An executive council was formed from this assembly in 1536 and continued to exist until 1802. After the restoration of Savoy's rule, it was reestablished and formally recognized by Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, at the birth of his grandson Prince Amedeo, who became Duke of Aosta. Aosta was the birthplace of Anselm. For ancient remains see Augusta Praetoria Salassorum.


APACHE (apparently from the Zuni name, = “enemy,” given to the Navaho Indians), a tribe of North American Indians of Athapascan stock. The Apaches formerly ranged over south-eastern Arizona and south-western Mexico. The chief divisions of the Apaches were the Arivaipa, Chiricahua, Coyotero, Faraone Gileno, Llanero, Mescalero, Mimbreno, Mogollon, Naisha, Tchikun and Tchishi. They were a powerful and warlike tribe, constantly at enmity with the whites. The final surrender of the tribe took place in 1886, when the Chiricahuas, the division involved, were deported to Florida and Alabama, where they underwent military imprisonment. The Apaches are now in reservations in Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma, and number between 5000 and 6000.

APACHE (likely derived from the Zuni word meaning "enemy," given to the Navajo people) is a tribe of North American Indians of Athapascan heritage. The Apaches once inhabited southeastern Arizona and southwestern Mexico. The main groups of the Apaches included the Arivaipa, Chiricahua, Coyotero, Faraone Gileno, Llanero, Mescalero, Mimbreno, Mogollon, Naisha, Tchikun, and Tchishi. They were a strong and warlike tribe, often in conflict with white settlers. The tribe's final surrender occurred in 1886, when the Chiricahuas, the group involved, were relocated to Florida and Alabama, where they faced military imprisonment. Today, the Apaches live on reservations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, numbering between 5,000 and 6,000.

For details see Handbook of American Indians, ed. F.W. Hodge, (Washington, 1907); also Indians, North American.

For details see Handbook of American Indians, ed. F.W. Hodge, (Washington, 1907); also Indians, North American.


APALACHEE (apparently a Choctaw name, = “people on the other side”), a tribe of North American Indians of Muskhogean stock. They have been known since the 16th century, and formerly ranged the country around Apalachee Bay, Florida. About 1600 the Spanish Franciscans founded a successful mission among them, but early in the 18th century the tribe suffered defeat at the hands of the British, the mission churches were burnt, the priests killed, and the tribe practically annihilated, more than one thousand of them being sold as slaves.

APALACHEE (supposedly a Choctaw word meaning “people on the other side”), is a tribe of North American Indians of Muskhogean descent. They have been recognized since the 16th century, originally inhabiting the area around Apalachee Bay, Florida. Around 1600, Spanish Franciscans established a successful mission among them, but in the early 18th century, the tribe faced defeat by the British. The mission churches were set on fire, the priests were killed, and the tribe was nearly wiped out, with over a thousand of them sold into slavery.

See Handbook of American Indians, ed. F.W. Hodge (Washington, 1907).

See Handbook of American Indians, ed. F.W. Hodge (Washington, 1907).


APALACHICOLA, a city, port of entry, and the county-seat of Franklin county, Florida, U.S.A., in the N.W. part of the 159 state, on Apalachicola Bay and at the mouth of the Apalachicola river. Pop. (1890) 2727; (1900) 3077, of whom 1589 were of negro descent; (1905, state census) 3244. It is served by the Apalachicola Northern railway (to Chattahoochee, Florida), and by river steamers which afford connexion with railways at Carrabelle about 25 m. distant, at Chatahoochee (or River Junction), and at Columbus and Bainbridge, Georgia, and by ocean-going vessels with American and foreign ports. The city has a monument (1900) to John Gorrie (1803-1855), a physician who discovered the cold-air process of refrigeration in 1849 (and patented an ice-machine in 1850), as the result of experiments to lower the temperatures of fever patients. The bay is well protected by St Vincent, Flag, Sand, and St George’s islands; and the shipping of lumber, naval stores and cotton, which reach the city by way of the river, forms the principal industry. Before the development of railways in the Gulf states, Apalachicola was one of the principal centres of trade in the southern states, ranking third among the Gulf ports in 1835. In 1907 the Federal government projected a channel across the harbour bar 100 ft. wide and 10 ft. deep and a channel 150 ft. wide and 18 ft. deep for Link Channel and the West Pass. In 1907 the exports were valued at $317,838; the imports were insignificant. The value of the total domestic and foreign commerce of the port for the year ending on the 30th of June 1907 was estimated at $1,240,000 (76,000 tons). The fishery products, including oysters, tarpon, sturgeon, caviare and sponges, are also important.

APALACHICOLA, is a city, port of entry, and the county seat of Franklin County, Florida, U.S.A., located in the northwest part of the state, on Apalachicola Bay and at the mouth of the Apalachicola River. Population (1890) 2,727; (1900) 3,077, including 1,589 people of African descent; (1905, state census) 3,244. It is served by the Apalachicola Northern Railway (to Chattahoochee, Florida), and by river steamers that connect with railways at Carrabelle, about 25 miles away, at Chattahoochee (or River Junction), and at Columbus and Bainbridge, Georgia, as well as by ocean-going vessels with American and foreign ports. The city has a monument (1900) to John Gorrie (1803-1855), a physician who discovered the cold-air refrigeration process in 1849 (and patented an ice machine in 1850), as a result of experiments to reduce the temperatures of fever patients. The bay is well protected by St. Vincent, Flag, Sand, and St. George’s islands; the shipping of lumber, naval stores, and cotton, which come to the city via the river, makes up the main industry. Before the development of railroads in the Gulf states, Apalachicola was one of the main trading centers in the southern states, ranking third among Gulf ports in 1835. In 1907, the Federal government proposed a channel across the harbor bar that would be 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and a channel 150 feet wide and 18 feet deep for Link Channel and the West Pass. In 1907, exports were valued at $317,838, while imports were negligible. The total value of the domestic and foreign commerce of the port for the year ending June 30, 1907, was estimated at $1,240,000 (76,000 tons). Fishery products, including oysters, tarpon, sturgeon, caviar, and sponges, are also significant.


APAMEA, the name of several towns in western Asia.

APAMEA, the name of several towns in western Asia.

1. A treasure city and stud-depot of the Seleucid kings in the valley of the Orontes. It was so named by Seleucus Nicator, after Apama, his wife. Destroyed by Chosroes in the 7th century A.D. it was partially rebuilt and known as Famia by the Arabs; and overthrown by an earthquake in 1152. It kept its importance down to the time of the Crusades. The acropolis hill is now occupied by the ruins of Kalat el-Mudik.

1. A treasure city and stud depot of the Seleucid kings in the Orontes Valley. It was named by Seleucus Nicator after his wife, Apama. Destroyed by Chosroes in the 7th century CE, it was partially rebuilt and referred to as Famia by the Arabs, and was later devastated by an earthquake in 1152. It remained significant until the time of the Crusades. The acropolis hill is now home to the ruins of Kalat el-Mudik.

See R.F. Burton and T. Drake, Unexplored Syria; E. Sachau, Reise in Syrien, 1883.

See R.F. Burton and T. Drake, Unexplored Syria; E. Sachau, Reise in Syrien, 1883.

2. A city in Phrygia, founded by Antiochus Soter (from whose mother, Apama, it received its name), near, but on lower ground than, Celaenae. It was situated where the Marsyas leaves the hills to join the Maeander, and it became a seat of Seleucid power, and a centre of Graeco-Roman and Graeco-Hebrew civilization and commerce. There Antiochus the Great collected the army with which he met the Romans at Magnesia, and there two years later the treaty between Rome and the Seleucid realm was signed. After Antiochus’ departure for the East, Apamea lapsed to the Pergamenian kingdom and thence to Rome in 133, but it was resold to Mithradates V., who held it till 120. After the Mithradatic wars it became and remained a great centre for trade, largely carried on by resident Italians and by Jews. In 84 Sulla made it the seat of a conventus of the Asian province, and it long claimed primacy among Phrygian cities. Its decline dates from the local disorganization of the empire in the 3rd century A.D.; and though a bishopric, it was not an important military or commercial centre in Byzantine times. The Turks took it first in 1070, and from the 13th century onwards it was always in Moslem hands. For a long period it was one of the greatest cities of Asia Minor, commanding the Maeander road; but when the trade routes were diverted to Constantinople it rapidly declined, and its ruin was completed by an earthquake. A Jewish tradition, possibly arising from a name Cibotus (ark), which the town bore, identified a neighbouring mountain with Ararat. The famous “Noah” coins of the emperor Philip commemorate this belief. The site is now partly occupied by Dineir (q.v., sometimes locally known also as Geiklar, “the gazelles,” perhaps from a tradition of the Persian hunting-park, seen by Xenophon at Celaenae), which is connected with Smyrna by railway; there are considerable remains, including a great number of important Graeco-Roman inscriptions.

2. A city in Phrygia, founded by Antiochus Soter (named after his mother, Apama), located nearby but on lower ground than Celaenae. It was situated where the Marsyas river leaves the hills to join the Maeander, and it became a stronghold of Seleucid power, as well as a hub of Graeco-Roman and Graeco-Hebrew civilization and trade. There, Antiochus the Great gathered the army that confronted the Romans at Magnesia, and two years later, the treaty between Rome and the Seleucid kingdom was signed. After Antiochus left for the East, Apamea fell under the Pergamenian kingdom and then to Rome in 133, but it was sold again to Mithradates V., who held it until 120. After the Mithradatic wars, it became and remained a major trade center, primarily operated by local Italians and Jews. In 84, Sulla made it the base of a conventus for the Asian province, and it long claimed superiority among Phrygian cities. Its decline began with the local disorganization of the empire in the 3rd century CE; and although it had a bishopric, it was not an important military or commercial center during Byzantine times. The Turks first captured it in 1070, and from the 13th century onward, it was always in Muslim hands. For a long time, it was one of the greatest cities in Asia Minor, controlling the Maeander road; however, as trade routes shifted to Constantinople, it quickly declined, and its destruction was finalized by an earthquake. A Jewish tradition, possibly stemming from the name Cibotus (ark), which the town had, identified a nearby mountain with Ararat. The famous “Noah” coins from Emperor Philip commemorate this belief. The site is now partly occupied by Dineir (q.v., sometimes locally referred to as Geiklar, “the gazelles,” possibly from a tradition of the Persian hunting-park seen by Xenophon at Celaenae), which is connected to Smyrna by railway; there are significant remains, including many important Graeco-Roman inscriptions.

See W.M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. ii.; G. Weber, Dineir-Celènes (1892); D.G. Hogarth in Journ, Hell. Studies (1888); O. Hirschfeld in Trans. Berlin Academy (1875).

See W.M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. ii.; G. Weber, Dineir-Celènes (1892); D.G. Hogarth in Journ, Hell. Studies (1888); O. Hirschfeld in Trans. Berlin Academy (1875).

(D. G. H.)

3. A town on the left bank of the Euphrates, at the end of a bridge of boats (zeugma); the Til-Barsip of the Assyrian inscriptions, now Birejik (q.v.).

3. A town on the left bank of the Euphrates, at the end of a bridge made of boats (zeugma); the Til-Barsip mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions, now known as Birejik (q.v.).

4. The earlier Myrlea of Bithynia, now Mudania (q.v.), the port of Brusa. The name was given it by Prusias I., who rebuilt it.

4. The earlier Myrlea of Bithynia, now Mudania (q.v.), the port of Brusa. The name was given to it by Prusias I, who reconstructed it.

5. A city mentioned by Stephanus and Pliny as situated near the Tigris, the identification of which is still uncertain.

5. A city mentioned by Stephanus and Pliny as located near the Tigris, which still hasn’t been definitively identified.

6. A Greek city in Parthia, near Rhagae.

6. A Greek city in Parthia, close to Rhagae.


APARRI, a town of the province of Cagayán, Luzon, Philippine Islands, on the Grande de Cagayán river near, its mouth, about 55 m. N. of Tuguegarao, the capital. Pop. (1903) 18,252. The valley is one of the largest tobacco-producing sections in the Philippines; and the town has a considerable coastwise trade. Here, too, is a meteorological station.

APARRI, a town in Cagayán province, Luzon, Philippines, located near the mouth of the Grande de Cagayán river, about 55 miles north of Tuguegarao, the capital. Population (1903) 18,252. The valley is one of the largest tobacco-producing areas in the Philippines, and the town engages in significant coastal trade. There is also a meteorological station here.


APATITE, a widely distributed mineral, which, when found in large masses, is of considerable economic value as a phosphate. As a mineral species it was first recognized by A.G. Werner in 1786 and named by him from the Greek ἀπατᾶν, to deceive, because it had previously been mistaken for other minerals, such as beryl, tourmaline, chrysolite, amethyst, &c. Although long known to consist mainly of calcium phosphate, it was not until 1827 that G. Rose found that fluorine or chlorine is an essential constituent. Two chemical varieties of apatite are to be distinguished, namely a fluor-apatite, (CaF)Ca4P3O12, and a chlor-apatite, (CaCl)Ca4P3O12: the former, which is much the commoner, contains 42.3% of phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) and 3.8% fluorine, and the latter 4.10 P2O5 and 6.8% chlorine. Fluorine and chlorine replace each other in indefinite proportions, and they may also be in part replaced by hydroxyl, so that the general formula becomes [Ca (F, Cl, OH)] Ca4P3O12, in which the univalent group Ca(F, Cl, OH) takes the place of one hydrogen atom in orthophosphoric acid H3PO4. The formula is sometimes written in the form 3Ca3(PO4)2 + CaF2. Mangan-apatite is a variety in which calcium is largely replaced by manganese (up to 10% MnO). Cerium, didymium, yttrium, &c., oxides may also sometimes be present, in amounts up to 5%.

APATITE is a widely found mineral that has significant economic value as a phosphate when present in large quantities. A.G. Werner first identified it as a mineral species in 1786 and named it from the Greek deceive, meaning to deceive, because it was often confused with other minerals like beryl, tourmaline, chrysolite, amethyst, and others. Although it has been known for a long time that it mainly consists of calcium phosphate, G. Rose discovered in 1827 that fluorine or chlorine is a crucial component. There are two chemical varieties of apatite: fluor-apatite, (CaF)Ca4P3O12, and chlor-apatite, (CaCl)Ca4P3O12. The former, which is much more common, contains 42.3% phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) and 3.8% fluorine, while the latter contains 4.10% P2O5 and 6.8% chlorine. Fluorine and chlorine can substitute for each other in varying amounts, and they can also be partly replaced by hydroxyl, making the general formula [Ca (F, Cl, OH)] Ca4P3O12, where the univalent group Ca(F, Cl, OH) replaces one hydrogen atom in orthophosphoric acid H3PO4. The formula is sometimes expressed as 3Ca3(PO4)2 + CaF2. Mangan-apatite is a variety where calcium is largely replaced by manganese (up to 10% MnO). Cerium, didymium, yttrium, and other oxides may occasionally be present in amounts up to 5%.

Fig. 1. Fig. 2.

Apatite frequently occurs as beautifully developed crystals, sometimes a foot or more in length, belonging to that division of the hexagonal system in which there is pyramidal hemi-hedrism. In this type of symmetry, of which apatite is the best example, there is only one plane of symmetry, which is perpendicular to the hexad axis. The arrangement of the pyramidal faces n and u in fig. 2 show the hemihedral character and absence of the full number of planes and axes of symmetry. Fig. 2 represents a highly modified crystal from St Gotthard; a more common form is shown in fig. 1, which is bounded by the hexagonal prism m, hexagonal bipyramid x and basal pinacoid c.

Apatite often appears as beautifully formed crystals, sometimes over a foot long, and belongs to the hexagonal system with pyramidal hemi-hedrism. In this type of symmetry, of which apatite is the best example, there’s only one plane of symmetry that is perpendicular to the hexad axis. The arrangement of the pyramidal faces n and u in fig. 2 illustrates the hemihedral character and the lack of the full number of symmetry planes and axes. Fig. 2 shows a highly modified crystal from St Gotthard; a more common form is illustrated in fig. 1, which is bounded by the hexagonal prism m, hexagonal bipyramid x, and basal pinacoid c.

In its general appearance, apatite exhibits wide variations. Crystals may be colourless and transparent or white and opaque, but are often coloured, usually some shade of green or brown, occasionally violet, sky-blue, yellow, &c. The lustre is vitreous, inclining to sub-resinous. There is an imperfect cleavage parallel to the basal pinacoid, and the fracture is conchoidal. Hardness 5, specific gravity 3.2.

In general, apatite shows a lot of variation in its appearance. Crystals can be colorless and transparent or white and opaque, but they are often tinted, usually in shades of green or brown, and sometimes violet, sky-blue, yellow, etc. The luster is glassy and somewhat resinous. There’s an imperfect cleavage along the basal pinacoid, and the fracture is conchoidal. Hardness is 5, and specific gravity is 3.2.

Yellowish-green prismatic crystals from Jumilla in Murcia in Spain have long been known under the name asparagus-stone. Lazurapatite is a sky-blue variety found as crystals with lapis-lazuli in Siberia; and moroxite is the name given to dull greenish-blue crystals from Norway and Canada. Francolite, from Wheal Franco, near Tavistock in Devonshire, and also from several Cornish mines, occurs as crystallized stalactitic masses. In 160 addition to these crystallized varieties, there are massive varieties, fibrous, concretionary, stalactitic, or earthy in form, which are included together under the name phosphorite (q.v.), and it is these massive varieties, together with various rock-phosphates (phosphatic nodules, coprolites, guano, &c.) which are of such great economic importance: crystallized apatite is mined for phosphates only in Norway and Canada.

Yellowish-green prismatic crystals from Jumilla in Murcia, Spain, have long been known as asparagus stone. Lazurapatite is a sky-blue variety found as crystals alongside lapis lazuli in Siberia, and moroxite refers to dull greenish-blue crystals from Norway and Canada. Francolite, from Wheal Franco near Tavistock in Devon, and several Cornish mines, occurs as crystallized stalactitic masses. In 160 addition to these crystallized varieties, there are massive varieties that can be fibrous, concretionary, stalactitic, or earthy, all grouped under the name phosphorite (q.v.). These massive varieties, along with various rock-phosphates (phosphatic nodules, coprolites, guano, etc.), are of great economic importance: crystallized apatite is only mined for phosphates in Norway and Canada.

With regard to its mode of occurrence, apatite is found under a variety of conditions. In igneous rocks of all kinds it is invariably present in small amounts as minute acicular crystals, and was one of the first constituents of the rock to crystallize out from the magma. The extensive deposits of chlor-apatite near Kragerö and Bamle, near Brevik, in southern Norway, are in connexion with gabbro, the felspar of which has been altered, by emanations containing chlorine, to scapolite, and titanium minerals have been developed. The apatite occurring in connexion with granite and veins of tin-stone is, on the other hand, a fluor-apatite, and, like the other fluorine-bearing minerals characteristic of tin-veins, doubtless owes its origin to the emanations of tin fluoride which gave rise to the tin-ore. Special mention may be here made of the beautiful violet crystals of fluor-apatite which occur in the veins of tin-ore in the Erzgebirge, and of the brilliant bluish-green crystals encrusting cavities in the granite of Luxullian in Cornwall. Another common mode of occurrence of apatite is in metamorphic crystalline rocks, especially in crystalline limestones: in eastern Canada extensive beds of apatite occur in the limestones associated with the Laurentian gneisses. Still another mode of occurrence is presented by beautifully developed and transparent crystals found with crystals of felspar and quartz lining the crevices in the gneiss of the Alps. Crystallized apatite is also occasionally found in metalliferous veins, other than those of tin, and in beds of iron ore; whilst if the massive varieties (phosphorite) be considered many other modes of occurrence might be cited.

Apatite occurs in various settings. It is commonly found in igneous rocks, usually present in small quantities as tiny needle-like crystals, and was one of the first minerals to crystallize from the magma. The large deposits of chlor-apatite near Kragerö and Bamle, close to Brevik in southern Norway, are associated with gabbro, where its feldspar has been altered by chlorine emissions into scapolite, leading to the development of titanium minerals. In contrast, the apatite found with granite and tin-stone veins is a fluor-apatite, likely formed from the emissions of tin fluoride that led to the tin ore. It's worth noting the lovely violet crystals of fluor-apatite found in the tin ore veins of the Erzgebirge, as well as the striking bluish-green crystals that line cavities in the granite of Luxullian in Cornwall. Apatite also frequently occurs in metamorphic crystalline rocks, especially in crystalline limestones; for example, extensive apatite beds are found in the limestones associated with the Laurentian gneisses in eastern Canada. Another notable occurrence is the well-formed and clear crystals that are found with feldspar and quartz crystals lining the crevices in the gneiss of the Alps. Crystallized apatite can also sometimes be found in metallic veins, excluding tin, and in iron ore deposits; if we consider the massive varieties (phosphorite), many other occurrences could be mentioned.

(L. J. S.)

APATURIA (Άπατούρια), an ancient Greek festival held annually by all the Ionian towns except Ephesus and Colophon (Herodotus i. 147). At Athens it took place in the month of Pyanepsion (October to November), and lasted three days, on which occasion the various phratries (i.e. clans) of Attica met to discuss their affairs. The name is a slightly modified form of ἀπατόρια = ἀμαπατόρια, ὁμοπατόρια, the festival of “common relationship.” The ancient etymology associated it with ἀπάτη (deceit), a legend existing that the festival originated in 1100 B.C. in commemoration of a single combat between a certain Melanthus, representing King Thymoetes of Attica, and King Xanthus of Boeotia, in which Melanthus successfully threw his adversary off his guard by crying that a man in a black goat’s skin (identified with Dionysus) was helping him (Schol. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 146). On the first day of the festival, called Dorpia or Dorpeia, banquets were held towards evening at the meeting-place of the phratries or in the private houses of members. On the second, Anarrhysis (from ἀναρρύειν, to draw back the victim’s head), a sacrifice of oxen was offered at the public cost to Zeus Phratrius and Athena. On the third day, Cureotis (κουρεῶτις), children born since the last festival were presented by their fathers or guardians to the assembled phratores, and, after an oath had been taken as to their legitimacy and the sacrifice of a goat or a sheep, their names were inscribed in the register. The name κουρεῶτις is derived either from κοῦρος, that is, the day of the young, or less probably from κείρω, because on this occasion young people cut their hair and offered it to the gods. The victim was called μεῖον. On this day also it was the custom for boys still at school to declaim pieces of poetry, and to receive prizes (Plato, Timaeus, 21 B). According to Hesychius these three days of the festival were followed by a fourth, called ἐπίβδα, but this is merely a general term for the day after any festival.

APATURIA (Άπατούρια) was an ancient Greek festival celebrated every year by all the Ionian towns except Ephesus and Colophon (Herodotus i. 147). In Athens, it happened during the month of Pyanepsion (October to November) and lasted three days, during which the various phratries (i.e. clans) of Attica gathered to discuss their matters. The name is a slightly altered form of ἀπατόρια = ἀμαπατόρια, ὁμοπατόρια, meaning the festival of “common relationship.” The ancient origin linked it to deception (deceit), with a legend that the festival started in 1100 BCE to commemorate a duel between a man named Melanthus, representing King Thymoetes of Attica, and King Xanthus of Boeotia. Melanthus tricked his opponent by shouting that a man in a black goat’s skin (identified with Dionysus) was aiding him (Schol. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 146). On the first day of the festival, called Dorpia or Dorpeia, banquets were held in the evening at the gathering place of the phratries or in the homes of members. On the second day, Anarrhysis (from αναρρύειν, meaning to draw back the victim’s head), a public sacrifice of oxen was offered to Zeus Phratrius and Athena. On the third day, Cureotis (κουρεῶτις), children born since the last festival were presented by their fathers or guardians to the assembled phratores. After they took an oath regarding the children's legitimacy and a goat or sheep was sacrificed, their names were recorded. The name κουρεῶτις comes either from kouros, meaning the day of the young, or, less likely, from κείρω, as during this occasion, young people cut their hair and offered it to the gods. The victim was called minus. On this day, it was also customary for boys still in school to recite poetry and receive prizes (Plato, Timaeus, 21 B). According to Hesychius, these three days of the festival were followed by a fourth day called ἐπίβδα, but this is just a general term for the day after any festival.


APE (Old Eng. apa; Dutch aap; Old Ger. affo; Welsh epa; Old Bohemian op; a word of uncertain origin, possibly an imitation of the animal’s chatter), the generic English name, till the 16th century, for animals of the monkey tribe, and still used specifically for the tailless, manlike representatives of the order Primates (q.v.). The word is now generally a synonym for “monkey,” but the common verb for both (as transferred figuratively to human beings) is “to ape,” i.e. to imitate.

APE (Old Eng. apa; Dutch aap; Old Ger. affo; Welsh epa; Old Bohemian op; a word of uncertain origin, possibly mimicking the animal’s chatter), the general English term until the 16th century for creatures of the monkey family, and still specifically used for the tailless, human-like members of the order Primates (q.v.). The word is now mostly a synonym for “monkey,” but the common verb for both (as used figuratively for people) is “to ape,” i.e. to imitate.


APELDOORN, a town in the province of Gelderland, Holland, and a junction station 26½ m. by rail W. of Amersfoort. It is connected by canal north and south with Zwolle and Zutphen respectively. Pop. (1900) 25,834. The neighbourhood of Apeldoorn is very picturesque and well wooded. The Protestant church was restored after a fire in 1890. Close by is the favourite country-seat of the royal family of Holland called the Loo. It was originally a hunting-lodge of the dukes of Gelderland, but in its present form dates chiefly from the time of the Stadtholder William III., king of England. Apeldoorn possesses large paper-mills.

APELDOORN, is a town in Gelderland province, Holland, located 26½ miles by rail west of Amersfoort. It is connected by canal to Zwolle in the north and Zutphen in the south. The population was 25,834 in 1900. The area around Apeldoorn is very scenic and well-wooded. The Protestant church was renovated after a fire in 1890. Nearby is the popular country residence of the Dutch royal family known as the Loo. Originally a hunting lodge for the dukes of Gelderland, its current structure mostly dates back to the time of Stadtholder William III, who was also king of England. Apeldoorn is home to large paper mills.


APELLA, the official title of the popular assembly at Sparta, corresponding to the ecclesia in most other Greek states. Every full citizen who had completed his thirtieth year was entitled to attend the meetings, which, according to Lycurgus’s ordinance, must be held at the time of each full moon within the boundaries of Sparta. They had in all probability taken place originally in the Agora, but were later transferred to the neighbouring building known as the Skias (Paus. iii. 12. 10). The presiding officers were at first the kings, but in historical times the ephors, and the voting was conducted by shouts; if the president was doubtful as to the majority of voices, a division was taken and the votes were counted. Lycurgus had ordained that the apella must simply accept or reject the proposals submitted to it, and though this regulation fell into neglect, it was practically restored by the law of Theopompus and Polydorus which empowered the kings and elders to set aside any “crooked” decision of the people (Plut. Lycurg. 6). In later times, too, the actual debate was almost, if not wholly, confined to the kings, elders, ephors and perhaps the other magistrates. The apella voted on peace and war, treaties and foreign policy in general: it decided which of the kings should conduct a campaign and settled questions of disputed succession to the throne: it elected elders, ephors and other magistrates, emancipated helots and perhaps voted on legal proposals. There is a single reference (Xen. Hell. iii. 3. 8) to a “small assembly” (ἡ μικρὰ καλουμένη ἐκκλησία) at Sparta, but nothing is known as to its nature or competence. The term apella does not occur in extant Spartan inscriptions, though two decrees of Gythium belonging to the Roman period refer to the μεγάλαι ἀπέλλαι (Le Bas-Foucart, Voyage archéologique, ii., Nos. 242a, 243).

APELLA is the official title of the popular assembly in Sparta, similar to the ecclesia found in most other Greek states. Every full citizen who had reached the age of thirty was allowed to attend the meetings, which, according to Lycurgus’s rules, had to be held during each full moon within Sparta's boundaries. They likely initially took place in the Agora but later moved to a nearby building known as the Skias (Paus. iii. 12. 10). At first, the kings served as the presiding officers, but in historical times, this role was taken over by the ephors, and voting was done by shouting; if the president was unsure of the majority, a division was called, and the votes were counted. Lycurgus had required that the apella could only accept or reject proposals brought to it, and although this rule was eventually disregarded, it was effectively reinstated by laws from Theopompus and Polydorus that allowed the kings and elders to overturn any “crooked” decisions made by the people (Plut. Lycurg. 6). In later periods, actual discussions were mostly, if not entirely, limited to the kings, elders, ephors, and possibly other magistrates. The apella voted on matters of peace and war, treaties, and broader foreign policy: it determined which king would lead a military campaign and resolved disputes over succession to the throne; it also elected elders, ephors, and other magistrates, freed helots, and probably voted on legal proposals. There is one mention (Xen. Hell. iii. 3. 8) of a “small assembly” (the small church called) in Sparta, but nothing is known about its nature or authority. The term apella does not appear in any existing Spartan inscriptions, although two decrees from Gythium during the Roman period refer to the great challenges (Le Bas-Foucart, Voyage archéologique, ii., Nos. 242a, 243).

See G. Gilbert, Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens (Eng, trans., 1895), pp. 49 ff.; Studien zur altspartanischen Geschichte (Göttingen, 1872), pp. 131 ff.; G.F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State (Eng. trans., 1880), pp. 234 ff.; De ecdesiis Lacedaemoniorum (Griefswald, 1836) [= Opusc. academ. i. pp. 87 ff.]; C.O. Müller, History and Antiquities of the Doric Race (Eng. trans., 2nd ed. 1839), book iii. ch. 5, §§ 8-10; G. Busolt, Die griechischen Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer, 1887 (in Iwan Müller’s Handbuch der klassischen Altertumsiuissenschaft, iv. 1), § 90; Griechische Geschichte (2nd ed.), i. p. 552 ff.

See G. Gilbert, Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens (Eng. trans., 1895), pp. 49 ff.; Studien zur altspartanischen Geschichte (Göttingen, 1872), pp. 131 ff.; G.F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State (Eng. trans., 1880), pp. 234 ff.; De ecdesiis Lacedaemoniorum (Griefswald, 1836) [= Opusc. academ. i. pp. 87 ff.]; C.O. Müller, History and Antiquities of the Doric Race (Eng. trans., 2nd ed. 1839), book iii. ch. 5, §§ 8-10; G. Busolt, Die griechischen Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer, 1887 (in Iwan Müller’s Handbuch der klassischen Altertumsiuissenschaft, iv. 1), § 90; Griechische Geschichte (2nd ed.), i. p. 552 ff.

(M. N. T.)

APELLES, probably the greatest painter of antiquity. He lived from the time of Philip of Macedon till after the death of Alexander. He was of Ionian origin, but after he had attained some celebrity he became a student at the celebrated school of Sicyon, where he worked under Pamphilus. He thus combined the Dorian thoroughness with the Ionic grace. Attracted to the court of Philip, he painted him and the young Alexander with such success that he became the recognized court painter of Macedon, and his picture of Alexander holding a thunderbolt ranked with the Alexander with the spear of the sculptor Lysippus. Other works of Apelles had a great reputation in antiquity, such as the portraits of the Macedonians Clitus, Archelaus and Antigonus, the procession of the high priest of Artemis at Ephesus, Artemis amid a chorus of maidens, a great allegorical picture representing Calumny, and the noted painting representing Aphrodite rising out of the sea. Of none of these works have we any copy, unless indeed we may consider a painting of Alexander as Zeus in the house of the Vettii at Pompeii as a reminiscence of his work; but some of 161 the Italian artists of the Renaissance repeated the subjects, in a vain hope of giving some notion of the composition of them.

APELLES, was probably the greatest painter of ancient times. He lived from the era of Philip of Macedon until after Alexander's death. He was of Ionian descent, but after gaining some fame, he became a student at the famous school in Sicyon, where he learned under Pamphilus. This allowed him to blend Dorian precision with Ionic elegance. Attracted to Philip's court, he painted both Philip and the young Alexander with such skill that he became the official court painter of Macedon. His painting of Alexander holding a thunderbolt was as acclaimed as Lysippus's sculpture of Alexander with a spear. Other works by Apelles were also highly regarded in antiquity, including portraits of the Macedonians Clitus, Archelaus, and Antigonus, the depiction of the high priest of Artemis in Ephesus, Artemis surrounded by a group of maidens, a large allegorical painting called Calumny, and the famous artwork of Aphrodite rising from the sea. We have no copies of any of these works, except perhaps for a painting of Alexander as Zeus found in the house of the Vettii at Pompeii, which might remind us of his style. However, some Italian artists of the Renaissance tried to recreate these themes, hoping to convey a sense of their original compositions.

Few things are more hopeless than the attempt to realize the style of a painter whose works have vanished. But a great wealth of stories, true or invented, clung to Apelles in antiquity; and modern archaeologists have naturally tried to discover what they indicate. We are told, for example, that he attached great value to the drawing of outlines, practising every day. The tale is well known of his visit to Protogenes, and the rivalry of the two masters as to which could draw the finest and steadiest line. The power of drawing such lines is conspicuous in the decoration of red-figured vases of Athens. Apelles is said to have treated his rival with generosity, for he increased the value of his pictures by spreading a report that he meant to buy them and sell them as his own. Apelles allowed the superiority of some of his contemporaries in particular matters: according to Pliny he admired the dispositio of Melanthius, i.e. the way in which he spaced his figures, and the mensurae of Asclepiodorus, who must have been a great master of symmetry and proportion. It was especially in that undefinable quality “grace” that Apelles excelled. He probably used but a small variety of colours, and avoided elaborate perspective: simplicity of design, beauty of line and charm of expression were his chief merits. When the naturalism of some of his works is praised— for example, the hand of his Alexander is said to have stood out from the picture—we must remember that this is the merit always ascribed by ignorant critics to works which they admire. In fact the age of Alexander was one of notable idealism, and probably Apelles succeeded in a marked degree in imparting to his figures a beauty beyond nature.

Few things are more hopeless than trying to recreate the style of a painter whose works are gone. However, a wealth of stories, whether true or made-up, has surrounded Apelles since ancient times; and modern archaeologists have naturally attempted to figure out what they mean. For instance, it’s said that he placed great importance on drawing outlines, practicing every day. The famous story of his visit to Protogenes highlights the competition between the two artists to see who could draw the finest and steadiest line. This skill in drawing such lines is evident in the decoration of red-figured vases from Athens. Apelles is said to have treated his rival generously, as he enhanced the value of Protogenes’ paintings by spreading a rumor that he planned to buy them and sell them as his own. Apelles acknowledged the superiority of some of his peers in specific areas: according to Pliny, he admired Melanthius for his layout, that is, how he spaced his figures, and Asclepiodorus for his mastery of symmetry and proportion. It was especially in that elusive quality of "grace" that Apelles thrived. He likely used a limited palette of colors and avoided intricate perspective; his main strengths were simplicity of design, beauty of line, and charm of expression. When people praise the naturalism of some of his works—like how the hand of Alexander supposedly stands out from the painting—we must remember that this is a quality often mistakenly attributed by uninformed critics to art they admire. In reality, the era of Alexander was one of significant idealism, and Apelles likely succeeded notably in giving his figures a beauty that transcended nature.

Apelles was also noted for improvements which he introduced in technique. He had a dark glaze, called by Pliny atramentum, which served both to preserve his paintings and to soften their colour. There can be little doubt that he was one of the most bold and progressive, of artists.

Apelles was also known for the advancements he made in technique. He used a dark glaze, referred to by Pliny as atramentum, which helped to both protect his paintings and enhance their color. It's clear that he was one of the most daring and innovative artists.

(P. G.)

APELLICON, a wealthy native of Teos, afterwards an Athenian citizen, a famous book collector. He not only spent large sums in the acquisition of his library, but stole original documents from the archives of Athens and other cities of Greece. Being detected, he fled in order to escape punishment, but returned when Athenion (or Aristion), a bitter opponent of the Romans, had made himself tyrant of the city with the aid of Mithradates. Athenion sent him with some troops to Delos, to plunder the treasures of the temple, but he showed little military capacity. He was surprised by the Romans under the command of Orobius (or Orbius), and only saved his life by flight. He died a little later, probably in 84 B.C.

APELLICON, was a wealthy native of Teos who later became an Athenian citizen and was known for being a famous book collector. He not only spent large amounts of money acquiring his library but also stole original documents from the archives of Athens and other cities in Greece. When he was caught, he fled to avoid punishment but returned when Athenion (or Aristion), a fierce opponent of the Romans, took control of the city with the help of Mithradates. Athenion sent him with some troops to Delos to loot the treasures of the temple, but he showed little military skill. He was ambushed by the Romans under the command of Orobius (or Orbius) and only saved his life by fleeing. He died a little later, probably in 84 BCE

Apellicon’s chief pursuit was the collection of rare and important books. He purchased from the family of Neleus of Skepsis in the Troad manuscripts of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus (including their libraries), which had been given to Neleus by Theophrastus himself, whose pupil Neleus had been. They had been concealed in a cellar to prevent their falling into the hands of the book-collecting princes of Pergamum, and were in a very dilapidated condition. Apellicon filled in the lacunae, and brought out a new, but faulty, edition. In 84 Sulla removed Apellicon’s library to Rome (Strabo xiii. p. 609; Plutarch, Sulla, 26). Here the MSS. were handed over to the grammarian Tyrannion, who took copies of them, on the basis of which the peripatetic philosopher Andronicus of Rhodes prepared an edition of Aristotle’s works. Apellicon’s library contained a remarkable old copy of the Iliad. He is said to have published a biography of Aristotle, in which the calumnies of other biographers were refuted.

Apellicon was primarily focused on collecting rare and significant books. He bought manuscripts of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus (including their libraries) from the family of Neleus of Skepsis in the Troad. These had originally been given to Neleus by Theophrastus, who had been his student. The manuscripts were hidden in a cellar to keep them away from the book-collecting princes of Pergamum, and they were in very poor condition. Apellicon filled in the gaps and produced a new, though imperfect, edition. In 84, Sulla moved Apellicon’s library to Rome (Strabo xiii. p. 609; Plutarch, Sulla, 26). There, the manuscripts were given to the grammarian Tyrannion, who made copies from them. Based on those copies, the peripatetic philosopher Andronicus of Rhodes created an edition of Aristotle’s works. Apellicon’s library also had a remarkable old copy of the Iliad. He is said to have published a biography of Aristotle that countered the falsehoods of other biographers.


APENNINES (Gr. Άπέννινος, Lat. Appenninus—in both cases used in the singular), a range of mountains traversing the entire peninsula of Italy, and forming, as it were, the backbone of the country. The name is probably derived from the Celtic pen, a mountain top: it originally belonged to the northern portion of the chain, from the Maritime Alps to Ancona; and Polybius is probably the first writer who applied it to the whole chain, making, indeed, no distinction between the Apennines and the Maritime Alps, and extending the former name as far as Marseilles. Classical authors do not differentiate the various parts of the chain, but use the name as a general name for the whole. The total length is some 800 m. and the maximum width 70 to 80 m.

APENNINES (Gr. Άπέννινος, Lat. Appenninus—in both cases used in the singular), a mountain range that runs through the entire Italian peninsula, essentially forming the backbone of the country. The name likely comes from the Celtic word pen, meaning mountain top: it originally referred to the northern part of the range, from the Maritime Alps to Ancona; and Polybius is probably the first writer to apply it to the entire range, not making a distinction between the Apennines and the Maritime Alps, and extending the name all the way to Marseilles. Classical authors don’t differentiate the various parts of the range, instead using the name as a general term for the whole. The total length is about 800 km and the maximum width is 70 to 80 km.

Divisions.—Modern geographers divide the range into three parts, northern, central and southern.

Divisions.—Today's geographers split the range into three sections: northern, central, and southern.

1. The northern Apennines are generally distinguished (though there is no real solution of continuity) from the Maritime Alps at the Bocchetta dell’ Altare, some 5 m. W. of Savona on the high road to Turin.1 They again are divided into three parts— the Ligurian, Tuscan and Umbrian Apennines. The Ligurian Apennines extend as far as the pass of La Cisa in the upper valley of the Magra (anc. Macra) above Spezia; at first they follow the curve of the Gulf of Genoa, and then run east-south-east parallel to the coast. On the north and north-east lie the broad plains of Piedmont and Lombardy, traversed by the Po, the chief tributaries of which from the Ligurian Apennines are the Scrivia (Olumbria), Trebbia (Trebia) and Taro (Tarus). The Tanaro (Tanarus), though largely fed by tributaries from the Ligurian Apennines, itself rises in the Maritime Alps, while the rivers on the south and south-west of the range are short and unimportant. The south side of the range rises steeply from the sea, leaving practically no coast strip: its slopes are sheltered and therefore fertile and highly cultivated, and the coast towns are favourite winter resorts (see Riviera). The highest point (the Monte Bue) reaches 5915 ft. The range is crossed by several railways—the line from Savona to Turin (with a branch at Ceva for Acqui), that from Genoa to Ovada and Acqui, the main lines from Genoa to Novi, the junction for Turin and Milan (both of which2 pass under the Monte dei Giovi, the ancient Mons loventius, by which the ancient Via Postumia ran from Genua to Dertona), and that from Spezia to Parma under the pass of La Cisa.3 All these traverse the ridge by long tunnels—that on the new line from Genoa to Honco is upwards of 5 m. in length.

1. The northern Apennines are generally distinguished (though there’s no clear break) from the Maritime Alps at the Bocchetta dell’Altare, about 5 miles west of Savona on the main road to Turin.1 They are divided into three parts—the Ligurian, Tuscan, and Umbrian Apennines. The Ligurian Apennines stretch as far as the La Cisa pass in the upper Magra valley (formerly Macra) above Spezia; initially, they follow the curve of the Gulf of Genoa and then run southeast parallel to the coast. To the north and northeast are the wide plains of Piedmont and Lombardy, crossed by the Po River, whose main tributaries from the Ligurian Apennines are the Scrivia (Olumbria), Trebbia (Trebia), and Taro (Tarus). The Tanaro (Tanarus), although mostly fed by tributaries from the Ligurian Apennines, itself originates in the Maritime Alps, while the rivers to the south and southwest of the range are short and insignificant. The southern side of the range rises steeply from the sea, leaving almost no coastal strip: its slopes are sheltered, making them fertile and highly cultivated, and the coastal towns are popular winter vacation spots (see Riviera). The highest point (Monte Bue) reaches 5,915 feet. The range is intersected by several railways—the line from Savona to Turin (with a branch at Ceva for Acqui), the one from Genoa to Ovada and Acqui, the main lines from Genoa to Novi, connecting for Turin and Milan (both of which2 pass under the Monte dei Giovi, the ancient Mons Ioventius, which the ancient Via Postumia used to connect Genua to Dertona), and that from Spezia to Parma under the La Cisa pass.3 All these run through the ridge via long tunnels—one on the new line from Genoa to Honco is over 5 miles long.

The Tuscan Apennines extend from the pass of La Cisa to the sources of the Tiber. The main chain continues to run in an east-south-east direction, but traverses the peninsula, the west coast meanwhile turning almost due south. From the northern slopes many rivers and streams run north and north-north-east into the Po, the Secchia (Secia) and Panaro (Scultenna) being among the most important, while farther east most of the rivers are tributaries of the Reno (anc. Rhenus). Other small streams, e.g. the Ronco (Bedesis) and Montone (Utis), which flow into the sea together east of Ravenna, were also tributaries of the Po; and the Savio (Sapis) and the Rubicon seem to be the only streams from this side of the Tuscan Apennines that ran directly into the sea in Roman days. From the south-west side of the main range the Arno (q.v.) and Serchio run into the Mediterranean. This section of the Apennines is crossed by two railways, from Pistoia to Bologna and from Florence to Faenza, and by several good high roads, of which the direct road from Florence to Bologna over the Futa pass is of Roman origin; and certain places in it are favourite summer resorts. The highest point of the chain is Monte Cimone (7103 ft.). The so-called Alpi Apuane (the Apuani were an ancient people of Liguria), a detached chain south-west of the valley of the Serchio, rise to a maximum height of 6100 ft. They contain the famous marble quarries of Carrara. The greater part of Tuscany, however, is taken up by lower hills, which form no part of the Apennines, being divided from the main chain by the valleys of the Arno, Chiana (Clanis) and Paglia (Pallia), Towards the west they are rich in minerals and chemicals, which the Apennines proper do not produce.

The Tuscan Apennines stretch from La Cisa pass to the sources of the Tiber River. The main chain continues in an east-southeast direction, while the west coast bends almost due south. From the northern slopes, many rivers and streams flow north and northeast into the Po River, with the Secchia and Panaro being among the most important. Farther east, most rivers are tributaries of the Reno (ancient Rhenus). Other smaller streams, like the Ronco and Montone, which flow into the sea just east of Ravenna, were also tributaries of the Po. The Savio and the Rubicon appear to be the only streams from this side of the Tuscan Apennines that flowed directly into the sea during Roman times. On the southwest side of the main range, the Arno and Serchio rivers flow into the Mediterranean. This section of the Apennines is crossed by two railways, from Pistoia to Bologna and from Florence to Faenza, as well as several good highways, including the direct road from Florence to Bologna over the Futa pass, which dates back to Roman times. Certain areas of this region are popular summer resorts. The highest point of the chain is Monte Cimone, at 7,103 feet. The so-called Alpi Apuane (the Apuani were an ancient Ligurian people), a separate chain southwest of the Serchio valley, rises to a maximum height of 6,100 feet and contains the famous marble quarries of Carrara. However, most of Tuscany is made up of lower hills, which are not part of the Apennines, as they are separated from the main chain by the valleys of the Arno, Chiana (Clanis), and Paglia (Pallia). To the west, these hills are rich in minerals and chemicals that the Apennines do not produce.

The Umbrian Apennines extend from the sources of the Tiber to (or perhaps rather beyond) the pass of Scheggia near Cagli, where the ancient Via Flaminia crosses the range. The highest point is the Monte Nerone (5010 ft.). The chief river is the Tiber itself: the others, among which the Foglia (Pisaurus), Metauro 162 (Metaurus) and Esino4 may be mentioned, run north-east into the Adriatic, which is some 30 m. from the highest points of the chain. This portion of the range is crossed near its southern termination by a railway from Foligno to Ancona (which at Fabriano has a branch to Macerata and Porto Civitanova, on the Adriatic coast railway), which may perhaps be conveniently regarded as its boundary.5 By some geographers, indeed, it is treated as a part of the central Apennines.

The Umbrian Apennines stretch from the sources of the Tiber to (or maybe even beyond) the Scheggia pass near Cagli, where the ancient Via Flaminia crosses the mountain range. The highest point is Monte Nerone (5010 ft.). The main river is the Tiber itself; other rivers, including the Foglia (Pisaurus), Metauro (Metaurus), and Esino4, flow northeast into the Adriatic, which is about 30 miles from the highest points of the range. This section of the range is crossed near its southern end by a railway from Foligno to Ancona (which has a branch to Macerata and Porto Civitanova, on the Adriatic coast railway), which can be conveniently seen as its boundary.5 Some geographers actually consider it part of the central Apennines.

2. The central Apennines are the most extensive portion of the chain, and stretch as far as the valley of the Sangro (Sangrus). To the north are the Monti Sibillini, the highest point of which is the Monte Vettore (8128 ft.). Farther south three parallel chains may be traced, the westernmost of which (the Monti Sabini) culminates to the south in the Monte Viglio (7075 ft.), the central chain in the Monte Terminillo (7260 ft.), and farther south in the Monte Velino (8160 ft.), and the eastern in the Gran Sasso d’Italia (9560 ft.), the highest summit of the Apennines, and the Maiella group (Monte Amaro, 9170 ft.). Between the western and central ranges are the plain of Rieti, the valley of the Salto (Himella), and the Lago Fucino; while between the central and eastern ranges are the valleys of Aquila and Sulmona. The chief rivers on the west are the Nera (Nar), with its tributaries the Velino (Velinus) and Salto, and the Anio, both of which fall into the Tiber. On the east there is at first a succession of small rivers which flow into the Adriatic, from which the highest points of the chain are some 25 m. distant, such as the Potenza (Flosis), Chienti (Cluentus), Tenna (Tinna), Tronto (Truentus), Tordino (Helvinus), Vomano (Vomanus), &c. The Pescara (Aternus), which receives the Aterno from the north-west and the Gizio from the south-east, is more important; and so is the Sangro.

2. The central Apennines are the largest part of the mountain range, extending up to the valley of the Sangro (Sangrus). To the north are the Monti Sibillini, with Monte Vettore as the highest point at 8,128 ft. Further south, you can see three parallel chains: the westernmost (the Monti Sabini) peaks at Monte Viglio (7,075 ft.), the central chain at Monte Terminillo (7,260 ft.), and further south at Monte Velino (8,160 ft.), while the eastern chain features Gran Sasso d’Italia (9,560 ft.), the highest peak of the Apennines, and the Maiella group (Monte Amaro, 9,170 ft.). Between the western and central ranges lie the plain of Rieti, the valley of Salto (Himella), and Lago Fucino; while between the central and eastern ranges are the valleys of Aquila and Sulmona. The main rivers on the west are the Nera (Nar) and its tributaries, the Velino (Velinus) and Salto, along with the Anio, all of which flow into the Tiber. On the east, there are initially a series of small rivers that empty into the Adriatic, located about 25 miles from the highest points of the range, including the Potenza (Flosis), Chienti (Cluentus), Tenna (Tinna), Tronto (Truentus), Tordino (Helvinus), Vomano (Vomanus), etc. The Pescara (Aternus), which takes in the Aterno from the northwest and the Gizio from the southeast, is more significant, as is the Sangro.

The central Apennines are crossed by the railway from Rome to Castelammare Adriatico via Avezzano and Sulmona: the railway from Orte to Terni (and thence to Foligno) follows the Nera valley; while from Terni a line ascends to the plain of Rieti, and thence crosses the central chain to Aquila, whence it follows the valley of the Aterno to Sulmona. In ancient times the Via Salaria, Via Caecilia and Via Valeria-Claudia all ran from Rome to the Adriatic coast. The volcanic mountains of the province of Rome are separated from the Apennines by the Tiber valley, and the Monti Lepini, or Volscian mountains, by the valleys of the Sacco and Liri.

The central Apennines are crossed by the train line from Rome to Castelammare Adriatico through Avezzano and Sulmona: the train from Orte to Terni (and then to Foligno) follows the Nera valley; while from Terni, a line goes up to the Rieti plain, and then crosses the central range to Aquila, from where it follows the Aterno valley to Sulmona. In ancient times, the Via Salaria, Via Caecilia, and Via Valeria-Claudia all connected Rome to the Adriatic coast. The volcanic mountains in the province of Rome are separated from the Apennines by the Tiber valley, and the Monti Lepini, or Volscian mountains, are separated by the Sacco and Liri valleys.

3. In the southern Apennines, to the south of the Sangro valley, the three parallel chains are broken up into smaller groups; among them may be named the Matese, the highest point of which is the Monte Miletto (6725 ft.). The chief rivers on the south-west are the Liri or Garigliano (anc. Liris) with its tributary the Sacco (Trerus), the Volturno (Volturnus), Sebeto (Sabatus), Sarno (Sarnus), on the north the Trigno (Trinius), Biferno (Tifernus), and Fortore (Frento). The promontory of Monte Gargano, on the east, is completely isolated, and so are the volcanic groups near Naples. The district is traversed from north-west to south-east by the railway from Sulmona to Benevento and on to Avellino, and from south-west to north-east by the railways from Caianello via Isernia to Campobasso and Termoli, from Caserta to Benevento and Foggia, and from Nocera and Avellino to Rocchetta S. Antonio, the junction for Foggia, Spinazzola (for Barletta, Bari, and Taranto) and Potenza. Roman roads followed the same lines as the railways: the Via Appia ran from Capua to Benevento, whence the older road went to Venosa and Taranto and so to Brindisi, while the Via Traiana ran nearly to Foggia and thence to Bari.

3. In the southern Apennines, south of the Sangro valley, the three parallel mountain ranges break into smaller groups, including the Matese, which has its highest point at Monte Miletto (6,725 ft.). The main rivers to the southwest are the Liri or Garigliano (anc. Liris) along with its tributary the Sacco (Trerus), the Volturno (Volturnus), Sebeto (Sabatus), and Sarno (Sarnus), while to the north, there are the Trigno (Trinius), Biferno (Tifernus), and Fortore (Frento). The promontory of Monte Gargano, to the east, is entirely isolated, as are the volcanic areas near Naples. The region is crossed from northwest to southeast by the railway connecting Sulmona to Benevento and on to Avellino, and from southwest to northeast by the railways from Caianello through Isernia to Campobasso and Termoli, from Caserta to Benevento and Foggia, and from Nocera and Avellino to Rocchetta S. Antonio, which is the junction for Foggia, Spinazzola (for Barletta, Bari, and Taranto), and Potenza. Roman roads followed the same routes as the railways: the Via Appia ran from Capua to Benevento, from where the older road continued to Venosa and Taranto and then to Brindisi, while the Via Traiana ran nearly to Foggia and then to Bari.

The valley of the Ofanto (Aufidus), which runs into the Adriatic close to Barletta, marks the northern termination of the first range of the Lucanian Apennines (now Basilicata), which runs from east to west, while south of the valleys of the Sele (on the west) and Basiento (on the east)-which form the line followed by the railway from Battipaglia via Potenza to Metaponto—the second range begins to run due north and south as far as the plain of Sibari (Sybaris). The highest point is the Monte Pollino (7325 ft.). The chief rivers are the Sele (Silarus)—joined by the Negro (Tanager) and Calore (Calor)— on the west, and the Bradano (Bradanus), Basiento (Casuentus), Agri (Aciris), Sinni (Siris) on the east, which flow into the gulf of Taranto; to the south of the last-named river there are only unimportant streams flowing into the sea east and west, inasmuch as here the width of the peninsula diminishes to some 40 m. The railway running south from Sicignano to Lagonegro, ascending the valley of the Negro, is planned to extend to Cosenza, along the line followed by the ancient Via Popilia, which beyond Cosenza reached the west coast at Terina and thence followed it to Reggio. The Via Herculia, a branch of the Via Traiana, ran from Aequum Tuticum to the ancient Nerulum. At the narrowest point the plain of Sibari, through which the rivers Coscile (Sybaris) and Crati (Crathis) flow to the sea, occurs on the east coast, extending halfway across the peninsula. Here the limestone Apennines proper cease and the granite mountains of Calabria (anc. Bruttii) begin. The first group extends as far as the isthmus formed by the gulfs of S. Eufemia and Squillace; it is known as the Sila, and the highest point reached is 6330 ft. (the Botte Donato). The forests which covered it in ancient times supplied the Greeks and Sicilians with timber for shipbuilding. The railway from S. Eufemia to Catanzaro and Catanzaro Marina crosses the isthmus, and an ancient road may have run from Squillace to Monteleone. The second group extends to the south end of the Italian peninsula, culminating in the Aspromonte (6420 ft.) to the east of Reggio di Calabria. In both groups the rivers are quite unimportant.

The valley of the Ofanto (Aufidus), which flows into the Adriatic near Barletta, marks the northern end of the first range of the Lucanian Apennines (now Basilicata), running from east to west. South of the Sele valley (to the west) and the Basiento valley (to the east)—which follows the route of the railway from Battipaglia via Potenza to Metaponto—the second range runs due north and south all the way to the plain of Sibari (Sybaris). The highest point is Monte Pollino (7325 ft). The main rivers are the Sele (Silarus), joined by the Negro (Tanager) and Calore (Calor) on the west, and the Bradano (Bradanus), Basiento (Casuentus), Agri (Aciris), and Sinni (Siris) on the east, flowing into the Gulf of Taranto. South of the Sinni, there are only minor streams flowing into the sea to the east and west, as the peninsula narrows to about 40 meters in width. The railway running south from Sicignano to Lagonegro, which goes up the Negro valley, is planned to extend to Cosenza, following the ancient Via Popilia, which once reached the west coast at Terina and then followed it to Reggio. The Via Herculia, a branch of the Via Traiana, connected Aequum Tuticum to the ancient Nerulum. At its narrowest point, the plain of Sibari, where the rivers Coscile (Sybaris) and Crati (Crathis) flow to the sea, is located on the east coast, stretching halfway across the peninsula. Here, the limestone Apennines end and the granite mountains of Calabria (anc. Bruttii) begin. The first group extends to the isthmus formed by the gulfs of S. Eufemia and Squillace; it is called the Sila, with its highest point being 6330 ft. (Botte Donato). The forests that once covered it provided timber for shipbuilding to the Greeks and Sicilians. The railway from S. Eufemia to Catanzaro and Catanzaro Marina crosses the isthmus, and there could have been an ancient road from Squillace to Monteleone. The second group stretches to the southern tip of the Italian peninsula, culminating in Aspromonte (6420 ft.) to the east of Reggio di Calabria. In both groups, the rivers are quite minor.

Character.-The Apennines are to some extent clothed with forests, though these were probably more extensive in classical times (Pliny mentions especially pine, oak and beech woods, Hist. Nat. xvi. 177); they have indeed been greatly reduced in comparatively modern times by indiscriminate timber-felling, and though serious attempts at reafforestation have been made by the government, much remains to be done. They also furnish considerable summer pastures, especially in the Abruzzi: Pliny (Hist. Nat. xi. 240) praises the cheese of the Apennines. In the forests wolves were frequent, and still are found, the flocks being protected against them by large sheep-dogs; bears, however, which were known in Roman times, have almost entirely disappeared. Nor are the wild goats called rotae, spoken of by Varro (R. R. II. i. 5), which may have been either chamois or steinbock, to be found. Brigandage appears to have been prevalent in Roman times in the remoter parts of the Apennines, as it was until recently: an inscription found near the Furlo pass was set up in A.D. 246 by an evocatus Augusti (a member of a picked corps) on special police duty with a detachment of twenty men from the Ravenna fleet (G. Henzen in Römische Mitteilungen, 1887, 14). Snow lies on the highest peaks of the Apennines for almost the whole year. The range produces no minerals, but there are a considerable number of good mineral springs, some of which are thermal (such as Bagni di Lucca, Monte Catini, Monsummano, Porretta, Telese, &c.), while others are cool (such as Nocera, Sangemini, Cinciano, &c.), the water of which is both drunk on the spot and sold as table water elsewhere.

Character.- The Apennines are partially covered in forests, although these were likely more extensive in ancient times (Pliny specifically mentions pine, oak, and beech woods, Hist. Nat. xvi. 177); they have been significantly reduced in more recent times due to excessive logging, and while the government has made serious efforts to restore the forests, there is still much to be done. The mountains also provide substantial summer pastures, particularly in the Abruzzi: Pliny (Hist. Nat. xi. 240) praises the cheese from the Apennines. Wolves were common in the forests, and they are still found today, with flocks being protected by large sheepdogs; however, bears, which were present in Roman times, have nearly vanished. The wild goats referred to as rotae, mentioned by Varro (R. R. II. i. 5), which may have been either chamois or steinbock, are also no longer present. Brigandage seems to have been widespread in Roman times in the more remote areas of the Apennines, just as it has been until recently: an inscription discovered near the Furlo pass was erected in CE 246 by an evocatus Augusti (a member of an elite corps) on special police duty with a detachment of twenty men from the Ravenna fleet (G. Henzen in Römische Mitteilungen, 1887, 14). Snow covers the highest peaks of the Apennines for nearly the entire year. The range does not produce any minerals, but there are quite a few good mineral springs, some of which are thermal (like Bagni di Lucca, Monte Catini, Monsummano, Porretta, Telese, etc.), while others are cool (such as Nocera, Sangemini, Cinciano, etc.), with their waters both consumed on-site and sold as bottled water elsewhere.

(T. As.)

Geology.—The Apennines are the continuation of the Alpine chain, but the individual zones of the Alps cannot be traced into the Apennines. The zone of the Brianconnais (see Alps) may be followed as far as the Gulf of Genoa, but scarcely beyond, unless it is represented by the Trias and older beds of the Apuan Alps. The inner zone of crystalline and schistose rocks which forms the main chain of the Alps, is absent in the Apennines except towards the southern end. The Apennines, indeed, consist almost entirely of Mesozoic and Tertiary beds, like the outer zones of the Alps. Remnants of a former inner zone of more ancient rocks may be seen in the Apuan Alps, in the islands off the Tuscan coast; in the Catena Metallifera, Cape Circeo and the island of Zannone, as well as in the Calabrian peninsula. These remnants lie at a comparatively low level, and excepting 163 the Apuan Alps and the Calabrian peninsula they do not now form any part of the Apennine chain. But that in Tertiary times there was a high interior zone of crystalline rocks is indicated by the character of the Eocene beds in the southern Apennines. These are formed to a large extent of thick conglomerates which are full of pebbles and boulders of granite and schist. Many of the boulders are of considerable size and they are often still angular. There is now no crystalline region from which they could reach their present position; and this and other considerations have led the followers of E. Suess to conclude that even in Tertiary times a large land mass consisting of ancient rocks occupied the space which is now covered by the southern portion of the Tyrrhenian Sea. This old land mass has been called Tyrrhenis, and probably extended from Sicily into Latium and as far west as Sardinia. On the Italian border of this land there was raised a mountain chain with an inner crystalline zone and an outer zone of Mesozoic and Tertiary beds. Subsequent faulting has caused the subsidence of the greater part of Tyrrhenis, including nearly the whole of the inner zone of the mountain chain, and has left only the outer zones standing as the present Apennines.

Geology.—The Apennines are a continuation of the Alpine chain, but you can't trace the individual zones of the Alps into the Apennines. The Brianconnais zone (see Alps) can be followed as far as the Gulf of Genoa, but not much further, unless it's represented by the Triassic and older layers of the Apuan Alps. The inner zone of crystalline and schistose rocks that forms the main chain of the Alps is missing in the Apennines, except near the southern end. The Apennines are primarily made up of Mesozoic and Tertiary layers, similar to the outer zones of the Alps. Remnants of an older inner zone of more ancient rocks can be found in the Apuan Alps, on the islands off the Tuscan coast, in the Catena Metallifera, Cape Circeo, and the island of Zannone, as well as in the Calabrian peninsula. These remnants are at a relatively low elevation, and apart from the Apuan Alps and the Calabrian peninsula, they don't currently form any part of the Apennine chain. However, the nature of the Eocene layers in the southern Apennines suggests that there was a high inner zone of crystalline rocks during the Tertiary period. These layers are largely made up of thick conglomerates filled with granite and schist pebbles and boulders. Many of the boulders are quite large and often still have angular shapes. There is no crystalline area nearby from which they could have originated; this and other details have led E. Suess's followers to believe that even during Tertiary times, a large landmass of ancient rocks occupied what is now the southern part of the Tyrrhenian Sea. This ancient landmass has been named Tyrrhenis and likely stretched from Sicily to Latium and as far west as Sardinia. On the Italian side of this landmass, a mountain chain rose with an inner crystalline zone and an outer zone of Mesozoic and Tertiary layers. Later faulting caused most of Tyrrhenis to sink, taking nearly all of the inner zone of the mountain chain with it, leaving only the outer zones as the current Apennines.

Be this as it may, the Apennines, excepting in Calabria, are formed chiefly of Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Eocene and Miocene beds. In the south the deposits, from the Trias to the middle Eocene, consist mainly of limestones, and were laid down, with a few slight interruptions, upon a quietly subsiding sea-floor. In the later part of the Eocene period began the folding which gave rise to the existing chain. The sea grew shallow, the deposits became conglomeratic and shaly, volcanic eruptions began, and the present folds of the Apennines were initiated. The folding and consequent elevation went on until the close of the Miocene period when a considerable subsidence took place and the Pliocene sea overspread the lower portions of the range. Subsequent elevation, without folding, has raised these Pliocene deposits to a considerable height—in some cases over 3000 ft. and they now lie almost undisturbed upon the older folded beds. This last elevation led to the formation of numerous lakes which are now filled up by Pleistocene deposits. Both volcanic eruptions and movements of elevation and depression continue to the present day on the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea. In the northern Apennines the elevation of the sea floor appears to have begun at an earlier period, for the Upper Cretaceous of that part of the chain consists largely of sandstones and conglomerates. In Calabria the chain consists chiefly of crystalline and schistose rocks; it is the Mesozoic and Tertiary zone which has here been sunk beneath the sea. Similar rocks are found beneath the Trias farther north, in some of the valleys of Basilicata. Glaciers no longer exist in the Apennines, but Post-Pliocene moraines have been observed in Basilicata.

Be that as it may, the Apennines, except in Calabria, are mainly made up of Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Eocene, and Miocene layers. In the south, the deposits from the Triassic to the middle Eocene primarily consist of limestones, which were formed, with a few minor interruptions, on a gradually sinking sea floor. In the later part of the Eocene period, folding began, leading to the formation of the current mountain range. The sea became shallower, the deposits turned into conglomerate and shale, volcanic eruptions started, and the modern folds of the Apennines were created. The folding and elevation continued until the end of the Miocene period when significant sinking occurred, allowing the Pliocene sea to spread over the lower parts of the range. Subsequent elevation, without folding, has raised these Pliocene deposits to a significant height—in some cases over 3000 ft.—and they now lie almost undisturbed on the older folded layers. This last elevation resulted in the formation of numerous lakes, which are now filled with Pleistocene deposits. Both volcanic eruptions and movements of elevation and subsidence continue to this day on the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea. In the northern Apennines, the rising of the sea floor seems to have started earlier, since the Upper Cretaceous in that part of the range is largely made up of sandstones and conglomerates. In Calabria, the mountain chain mainly consists of crystalline and schistose rocks; it's the Mesozoic and Tertiary zone that has sunk beneath the sea here. Similar rocks can be found beneath the Triassic farther north, in some valleys of Basilicata. Glaciers no longer exist in the Apennines, but Post-Pliocene moraines have been spotted in Basilicata.

References.—G. de Lorenzo, “Studi di geologia nell’ Appennino Meridionale,” Atti d. R. Accad. d. Sci, Fis. e Mat., Napoli, ser. 2, vol. viii., no. 7 (1896); F. Sacco, “L’ Appennino settentrionale,” Boll. Soc. geol. Ital. (1893-1899).

References.—G. de Lorenzo, “Geological Studies in the Southern Apennines,” Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Physics and Math., Naples, ser. 2, vol. viii., no. 7 (1896); F. Sacco, “The Northern Apennines,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Italy (1893-1899).

(P. La.)

1 The ancient Via Aemilia, built in 109 B.C., led over this pass, but originally turned east to Dertona (mod. Tortona).

1 The old Via Aemilia, built in 109 B.C., went over this pass, but originally headed east to Dertona (now Tortona).

2 There are two separate lines from Sampierdarena to Ronco.

2 There are two different routes from Sampierdarena to Ronco.

3 This pass was also traversed by a nameless Roman road.

3 This pass was also crossed by an unnamed Roman road.

4 This river (anc. Aesis) was the boundary of Italy proper in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.

4 This river (anc. Aesis) marked the border of Italy proper in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE

5 The Monte Conero, to the south of Ancona, was originally an island of the Pliocene sea.

5 Monte Conero, located south of Ancona, was originally an island in the Pliocene sea.


APENRADE, a town of Germany in the Prussian province of Schleswig, beautifully situated on the Apenrade Fjord, an arm of the Little Belt, 38 m. N. of the town of Schleswig. Pop. (1900) 5952. It is connected by a branch line with the main railway of Schleswig, and possesses a good harbour, which affords shelter for a large carrying trade. Fishing, shipbuilding and various small factories provide occupation for the population. The town is a bathing resort, as is Elisenlund close by.

APENRADE, is a town in Germany located in the Prussian province of Schleswig, beautifully positioned on the Apenrade Fjord, an arm of the Little Belt, 38 miles north of Schleswig. The population in 1900 was 5,952. It's connected by a branch line to the main railway in Schleswig and has a good harbor that provides shelter for a large shipping trade. Fishing, shipbuilding, and various small factories offer employment to the residents. The town is also a resort for bathing, as is nearby Elisenlund.


APERTURE (from Lat. aperire, to open), an opening. In optics, it is that portion of the diameter of an object-glass or mirror through which light can pass free from obstruction. It is equal to the actual diameter of the cylinder of rays admitted by a telescope.

APERTURE (from Latin aperire, meaning to open), refers to an opening. In optics, it is the part of the diameter of an object lens or mirror that allows light to pass through without any blockage. It is equal to the actual diameter of the cylinder of rays that a telescope can take in.


APEX, the Latin word (pl. apices) for the top, tip or peak of anything. A diminutive “apiculus” is used in botany.

APEX is the Latin word (pl. apices) for the top, tip, or peak of anything. A smaller form “apiculus” is used in botany.


APHANITE, a name given (from the Gr. ἀφανής, invisible) to certain dark-coloured igneous rocks which are so fine-grained that their component minerals are not detected by the unaided eye. They consist essentially of plagioclase felspar, with hornblende or augite, and may contain also biotite, quartz and a limited amount of orthoclase. Although a few authorities still recognize the aphanites as a distinct class, most systematic petrologists, at the present time, have discarded it, and regard these rocks as merely structural facies of other species. Those which contain hornblende are uniform, fine-grained diorites, vogesites, &c., while when pyroxene predominates they are ascribed to the dolerites, quartz-dolerites, &c. Hence, any rock which is compact, crystalline and fine grained, is frequently said to be aphanitic, without implying exactly to which of the principal rock groups it really belongs.

APHANITE, is a term derived from the Greek invisible, meaning invisible, used to describe certain dark-colored igneous rocks that are so fine-grained their mineral components can't be seen with the naked eye. These rocks mainly consist of plagioclase feldspar, along with hornblende or augite, and may also include biotite, quartz, and a limited amount of orthoclase. While a few experts still consider aphanites a separate category, most petrologists today have dismissed it, viewing these rocks as structural variations of other types. Those that contain hornblende are recognized as uniform, fine-grained diorites, vogesites, etc., while those that are rich in pyroxene are categorized as dolerites, quartz-dolerites, etc. Consequently, any rock that is compact, crystalline, and fine-grained is often referred to as aphanitic, without specifying which main rock group it truly belongs to.


APHASIA1 (from Gr. α, privative, and φάσις, speech), a term which means literally inability to speak, and is used to denote various defects in the comprehension and expression of both spoken and written language which result from lesions of the brain. Aphasic disorders may be classed in two groups:—first, receptive or sensory aphasia, which comprises (a) inability to understand spoken language (auditory aphasia), and (b) inability to read (visual aphasia, or alexia); second, emissive or motor aphasia, under which category are included (a) inability to speak (motor vocal aphasia, or aphemia), and (b) inability to write (motor graphic aphasia, or agraphia). It has been shown that each of these defects is produced by destruction of a special region of the cortex of the brain. These regions, which are termed the speech centres, are, in right-handed people, situated in the left cerebral hemisphere; this is the reason why aphasia is so commonly associated with paralysis of the right side of the body.

APHASIA1 (from Gr. α, meaning 'not', and phase, speech), is a term that literally means inability to speak. It is used to describe various impairments in understanding and expressing both spoken and written language due to brain damage. Aphasic disorders can be categorized into two groups: first, receptive or sensory aphasia, which includes (a) the inability to understand spoken language (auditory aphasia), and (b) the inability to read (visual aphasia, or alexia); second, emissive or motor aphasia, which covers (a) the inability to speak (motor vocal aphasia, or aphemia), and (b) the inability to write (motor graphic aphasia, or agraphia). Research has shown that each of these impairments results from damage to specific areas of the brain’s cortex. These areas, known as the speech centres, are typically located in the left hemisphere of the brain in right-handed individuals; this is why aphasia is often linked with paralysis on the right side of the body.

A study of the acquisition of the faculty of speech throws light upon the education of the speech centres, and helps to elucidate their physiological interaction and the phenomena of aphasia. The auditory speech centre is the first to show signs of functional activity, for within a few months of birth the child begins to understand spoken language. Some months later the motor vocal speech centre begins to functionate. The memories of the auditory word images which are stored up in the auditory speech centre play a most important part in the process of learning to speak. The child born deaf grows up mute. The visual speech centre comes into activity when the child is taught to read. Again, when he learns to write and thus begins to educate his graphic centre, he is constantly calling upon his visual speech centre for the visual images of the words he wishes to produce. From these remarks it will be seen that there is a very intimate association between the auditory speech centre and the motor vocal speech centre, also between the visual speech centre and the graphic centre.

A study of how we develop the ability to speak sheds light on the education of the speech centers and helps clarify how they interact physiologically and the phenomena of aphasia. The auditory speech center is the first to show signs of activity; within a few months of birth, a child begins to understand spoken language. A few months later, the motor vocal speech center starts to function. The memories of the auditory word images stored in the auditory speech center play a crucial role in the process of learning to speak. A child born deaf remains mute. The visual speech center becomes active when the child is taught to read. Later, when the child learns to write and starts to develop their graphic center, they constantly rely on their visual speech center for the visual images of the words they want to produce. From these observations, it’s clear that there is a close connection between the auditory speech center and the motor vocal speech center, as well as between the visual speech center and the graphic center.

Auditory Aphasia.—The auditory speech centre is situated in the posterior part of the first and second temporo-sphenoidal convolutions on the left side of the brain. Destruction of this centre causes “auditory aphasia.” Hearing is unimpaired but spoken language is quite unintelligible. The subject of auditory aphasia may be compared to an individual who is listening to a foreign language of which he does not understand a word. Word deafness, a term often used as synonymous with auditory aphasia, is misleading and should be abandoned. Auditory aphasia commonly interferes with vocal expression, for the 164 majority of people when they speak do so by recalling the auditory memories of words stored up in the auditory speech centre. Amnesia verbalis is employed to designate failure to call up in the memory the images of words which are needed for purposes of vocal expression or silent thought.

Auditory Aphasia.—The auditory speech center is located in the back part of the first and second temporo-sphenoidal folds on the left side of the brain. Damage to this center leads to "auditory aphasia." While hearing remains intact, spoken language becomes completely unintelligible. A person with auditory aphasia can be likened to someone listening to a foreign language they don't understand at all. The term word deafness, often used interchangeably with auditory aphasia, is misleading and should be avoided. Auditory aphasia typically hampers vocal expression, as most people recall the auditory memories of words stored in the auditory speech center when they speak. Amnesia verbalis is used to describe the inability to retrieve the mental images of words needed for verbal expression or silent thought.

Visual Aphasia or Alexia.—The visual speech centre, which is located in the left angular gyrus, is connected with the two centres for vision which are situated one in either occipital lobe. Destruction of the visual speech centre produces visual aphasia or alexia. Word blindness, sometimes used as the equivalent of visual aphasia, is, like word deafness, a misleading term. The individual is not blind, he sees the words and letters perfectly, but they appear to him as unintelligible cyphers. When the visual speech centre is destroyed, the memories of the visual images of words are obliterated and interference with writing, a consequence of amnesia verbalis, results. On the other hand, when the lesion is situated deeply in the occipital lobe, and does not implicate the cortex, but merely cuts off the connexions of the angular gyrus with both visual centres, agraphia is not produced, for the visual word centre and its connexion with the graphic centre are still intact (pure, or sub-cortical word blindness).

Visual Aphasia or Alexia.—The visual speech center, located in the left angular gyrus, is connected to the two visual centers found in each occipital lobe. Damage to the visual speech center leads to visual aphasia or alexia. The term word blindness, often used interchangeably with visual aphasia, is misleading, similar to word deafness. The person isn't blind; they can see the words and letters perfectly, but they look like meaningless symbols to them. When the visual speech center is damaged, the memories of the visual images of words are erased, leading to difficulties with writing, a result of amnesia verbalis. However, if the damage is deep within the occipital lobe and does not affect the cortex, but only disconnects the angular gyrus from both visual centers, agraphia does not occur, as the visual word center and its connection to the graphic center remain intact (pure, or sub-cortical word blindness).

Motor Vocal Aphasia or Aphemia.—The centre for motor vocal speech is situated in the posterior part of the third left frontal convolution and extends on to the foot of the left ascending frontal convolution (Broca’s convolution). Complete destruction of this region produces loss of speech, although it often happens that a few words, such as “yes” and “no,” and, it may be, emotional exclamations such as “Oh! dear!” and the like are retained. The utterance of unintelligible sounds is still possible, however, and there is neither defective voice production (aphonia) nor paralysis of the mechanism of articulation. The individual can recall the auditory and visual images of the words which he wishes to use, but his memory for the complicated, co-ordinated movements which he acquired in the process of learning to speak, and which are necessary for vocal expression, has been blotted out. In the great majority of cases of motor vocal aphasia there is associated agraphia, a circumstance which is perhaps to be accounted for by the proximity of the graphic centre. When the lesion is situated below the cortex of Broca’s convolution but destroys the fibres which pass from it towards the internal capsule, agraphia is not produced (sub-cortical or pure motor vocal aphasia). Destruction of the auditory speech centre is, as we have seen, commonly accompanied by more or less interference with vocal speech, a consequence of amnesia verbalis.

Motor Vocal Aphasia or Aphemia.—The area responsible for motor vocal speech is located in the back part of the third left frontal gyrus and extends down to the base of the left ascending frontal gyrus (Broca’s area). Complete damage to this region results in a total loss of speech, although individuals often retain a few words like “yes” and “no,” as well as emotional expressions such as “Oh! dear!” and similar phrases. They can still produce nonsensical sounds, and neither voice production is affected (aphonia) nor is there paralysis of the speech articulation mechanism. The person can recall the auditory and visual images of the words they want to use, but their memory for the complex, coordinated movements learned during the process of speaking, which are crucial for vocal expression, has been erased. In most cases of motor vocal aphasia, there is also agraphia, likely due to the closeness of the graphic center. When the damage occurs below the Broca’s area but affects the fibers leading to the internal capsule, agraphia does not occur (sub-cortical or pure motor vocal aphasia). As we've noted, the destruction of the auditory speech center is typically accompanied by some level of impairment in vocal speech, resulting from amnesia verbalis.

Agraphia.—Discussion still rages as to the presence of a special writing centre. Those who favour the separate existence of a graphic centre locate it in the second left frontal convolution. It may be that the want of unanimity as to the graphic centre is to be explained by an anatomical relationship so close between the graphic centre and that for the fine movement of the hand that a lesion in this situation which produces agraphia must at the same time cause a paralysis of the hand. Destruction of the visual speech centre by obliterating the visual memories of words (amnesia verbalis) produces agraphia. Further, several instances are on record in which agraphia has followed destruction of the commissure between the visual speech centre and the graphic centre. As already mentioned, agraphia is very often associated with motor vocal aphasia.

Agraphia.—The debate continues about whether there is a specific writing center in the brain. Those who support the idea of a separate graphic center believe it is located in the second left frontal convolution. The lack of agreement regarding the graphic center might be due to the close anatomical connection between the graphic center and the fine motor control of the hand, meaning that damage in this area causing agraphia would also likely result in hand paralysis. Additionally, damage to the visual speech center, which erases the visual memories of words (amnesia verbalis), can also lead to agraphia. Furthermore, there are several documented cases where agraphia occurred after damage to the connection between the visual speech center and the graphic center. As mentioned earlier, agraphia is often linked with motor vocal aphasia.

A number of aphasic defects are met with in addition to those already mentioned. Thus paraphasia is a condition in which the patient makes use of words other than those he intends. He may mix up his words so that his conversation is quite unintelligible. In the most pronounced forms he gabbles away, employing unrecognizable sounds in place of words (jargon and gibberish aphasia). Paragraphia is a similar defect which occurs in writing. Both paraphasia and paragraphia may be produced by partial lesions of the sensory speech centres or of the commissures which connect these with the motor centres. Object blindness (syn. mind-blindness) refers to an inability to recognize an object or its uses by the aid of sight alone. The probable explanation would seem to be that the ordinary centre for vision has been isolated from the other sensory centres with which it is connected. Not uncommonly there is associated visual aphasia. Optic aphasia was introduced to designate a somewhat similar state in which, although the uses of an object are recognized, the patient cannot name it at sight, yet, if it is of such a nature that it appeals directly to one of the other senses, he may at once be able to name it. Tactile aphasia, is a rare defect in which there exists an inability to recognize an object by touch alone although the qualities which, under normal circumstances, suffice for its detection can be accurately described. Amusia, or loss of the musical faculty, may occur in association with or independent of aphasia. There is reason for believing that special receptive and emissive centres exist for the musical sense exactly analogous to those for speech.

A number of language-related issues occur in addition to those already mentioned. Thus, paraphasia is a condition where the patient uses words that are different from the ones intended. He may mix up his words so that his speech is completely unintelligible. In the most severe cases, he might babble, using unrecognizable sounds instead of actual words (jargon and gibberish aphasia). Paragraphia is a similar issue that happens in writing. Both paraphasia and paragraphia can be caused by partial damage to the sensory speech centers or to the connections that link these to the motor centers. Object blindness (also known as mind-blindness) refers to the inability to recognize an object or understand its uses just by seeing it. The likely explanation is that the usual vision center has been separated from the other sensory centers it is linked to. Often, this is accompanied by visual aphasia. Optic aphasia was introduced to describe a somewhat similar condition in which, although the uses of an object are understood, the patient cannot name it upon seeing it, yet if it engages one of the other senses, he may be able to name it right away. Tactile aphasia is a rare condition where a person cannot recognize an object by touch alone, even though they can accurately describe the qualities needed to identify it under normal circumstances. Amusia, or the loss of musical ability, can occur alongside or independently of aphasia. There is evidence to suggest that specific centers exist for processing music, similar to those for speech.

The speech centres are all supplied by the left middle cerebral artery. When this artery is blocked close to its origin by an embolus or thrombus, total aphasia results. It may be, however, that only one of the smaller branches of the artery is obstructed, and, according to the region of the brain to which this branch is distributed, one or more of the speech centres may be destroyed. Occlusion of the left posterior cerebral artery causes extensive softening of the occipital lobe and produces pure word blindness. Further, a tumour, abscess, haemorrhage or meningitis may be so situated as to damage or destroy the individual speech centres or their connecting commissures. The amount of recovery to be expected in any given case depends upon the nature, situation and extent of the lesion, and upon the age of the patient. Even after complete destruction of the speech centres, perfect recovery may take place, for the centres in the right hemisphere of the brain are capable of education. This is only possible in young individuals. In the great majority of instances the nature of the lesion is such as to render futile all treatment directed towards its removal. In suitable cases, however, the education of the right side of the brain may be very greatly assisted by an intelligent application of scientific methods.

The speech centers are all supplied by the left middle cerebral artery. When this artery is blocked near its origin by an embolus or thrombus, total aphasia results. However, it’s possible that only one of the smaller branches of the artery is blocked, and depending on which area of the brain this branch supplies, one or more of the speech centers may be affected. Blockage of the left posterior cerebral artery leads to significant damage to the occipital lobe, resulting in pure word blindness. Additionally, a tumor, abscess, hemorrhage, or meningitis can be located in a way that harms or destroys individual speech centers or their connecting pathways. The extent of recovery in any particular case depends on the nature, location, and size of the lesion, as well as the age of the patient. Even after the complete destruction of the speech centers, it’s possible to achieve full recovery, since the centers in the right hemisphere of the brain can be trained. This is only feasible in younger individuals. In most cases, the nature of the lesion makes any treatment aimed at removal ineffective. However, in appropriate cases, training the right side of the brain can be significantly enhanced through a thoughtful application of scientific techniques.

Bibliography.—Broca, Bulletin de la Société anatomique (1861); Wernicke, Der Aphasische Symptomen-complex (Breslau, 1874); Kussmaul, Ziemssen’s Cyclopaedia, vol. xiv. p. 759; Wyllie, The Disorders of Speech (1895); Elder, Aphasia and the Cerebral Speech Mechanism (1897); Collins, The Faculty of Speech (1897); Bastian, Aphasia and other Speech Defects (1898); Byrom Bramwell, “Will-making and Aphasia,” British Medical Journal (1897); “The Morison Lectures on Aphasia,” The Lancet (1906). See also the works of Charcot, Hughlings Jackson, Dejerine, Lichtheim, Pitres, Grasset, Ross, Broadbent, Mills, Bateman, Mirallié, Exner, Marie and others.

References.—Broca, Bulletin de la Société anatomique (1861); Wernicke, Der Aphasische Symptomen-complex (Breslau, 1874); Kussmaul, Ziemssen’s Cyclopaedia, vol. xiv. p. 759; Wyllie, The Disorders of Speech (1895); Elder, Aphasia and the Cerebral Speech Mechanism (1897); Collins, The Faculty of Speech (1897); Bastian, Aphasia and other Speech Defects (1898); Byrom Bramwell, “Will-making and Aphasia,” British Medical Journal (1897); “The Morison Lectures on Aphasia,” The Lancet (1906). See also the works of Charcot, Hughlings Jackson, Dejerine, Lichtheim, Pitres, Grasset, Ross, Broadbent, Mills, Bateman, Mirallié, Exner, Marie and others.

(J. B. T.)

1 In 1906 Pierre Marie of Paris expressed views (La Semaine medicale, May 23 and October 17, and elsewhere) upon the question of aphasia which have given rise to much animated controversy, since they are in many respects at complete variance with the classical conception which has been represented in the present article. Marie holds that Broca’s convolution plays no special role in the function of speech. He admits that a lesion in the region of the lenticular nucleus is followed by inability to speak, but this defect is, in his opinion, to be regarded as an anarthria. He further admits the production of sensory aphasia—the aphasia of Wernicke, as he prefers to call it after its discoverer—by lesions which destroy the angular and supramarginal gyri, and the upper two temporo-sphenoidal convolutions, but he regards the essential foundation of sensory aphasia as a diminution of intelligence. There are, in his opinion, no sensory images of language. Motor aphasia is, he believes, nothing more than a combination of sensory aphasia and anarthria. These conclusions have been vigorously attacked, more especially by Dejerine of Paris (La Presse medicale, July 1906 and elsewhere).

1 In 1906, Pierre Marie from Paris shared his views (La Semaine medicale, May 23 and October 17, and elsewhere) on aphasia, sparking a lot of debate since they significantly differ from the classical understanding presented in this article. Marie argues that Broca’s area doesn’t play a unique role in speech function. He acknowledges that damage to the area around the lenticular nucleus results in the inability to speak, but he sees this issue as an anarthria. He also recognizes that sensory aphasia—the type of aphasia that Wernicke discovered—can occur due to damage that affects the angular and supramarginal gyri, as well as the upper two temporo-sphenoidal regions. However, he believes the core issue of sensory aphasia is a decrease in intelligence. He argues that there are no sensory images of language. According to him, motor aphasia is simply a mix of sensory aphasia and anarthria. These claims have faced strong criticism, particularly from Dejerine of Paris (La Presse medicale, July 1906 and elsewhere).


APHELION (from Gr. ἀπό, from, and ᾔλιος, sun), in astronomy, that point of the orbit of a planet at which it is most distant from the sun. Apogee, Apocentre, Aposaturnium, &c. are terms applied to those points of the orbit of a body moving around a centre of force—as the Earth, Saturn, &c.—at which it is farthest from the central body.

APHELION (from Gr. ἀπό, meaning from, and ᾔλιος, meaning sun), is in astronomy, the point in a planet's orbit where it is farthest from the sun. Terms like Apogee, Apocentre, Aposaturnium, etc. refer to points in the orbit of a body revolving around a center of force—like the Earth, Saturn, etc.—where it is at its greatest distance from that central body.


APHEMIA (from Gr. , without, and φήμη, speech), in pathology, the loss of the power of speech (see Aphasia).

APHEMIA (from Gr. , meaning without, and reputation, meaning speech), in pathology, refers to the inability to speak (see Aphasia).


APHIDES (pl. of Aphis), minute insects, also known as “plant-lice,” “blight,” and “green-fly,” belonging to the homopterous division of the order Hemiptera, with long antennae and legs, two-jointed, two-clawed tarsi, and usually a pair of abdominal tubes through which a waxy secretion is exuded. These tubes were formerly supposed to secrete the sweet substance known as “honey-dew” so much sought after by ants; but this is now known to come from the alimentary canal. Both winged and wingless forms of both sexes occur, and the wings when present are normal in number, that is to say two pairs. Apart from their importance from the economic standpoint, Aphides are chiefly remarkable for the phenomena connected with the propagation of the species. The following brief summary of what takes place in the plant-louse of the rose (Aphis rosae), may be regarded as typical of the family, though exceptions occur in other species: Eggs produced in the autumn by fertilized females remain on the plant through the winter and hatching in the spring give rise to female individuals which may be winged or wingless. From these females are born 165 parthenogenetically, that is to say without the intervention of males, and by a process that has been compared to internal budding, large numbers of young resembling their parents in every particular except size, which themselves reproduce their kind in the same way. This process continues throughout the summer, generation after generation being produced until the number of descendants from a single individual of the spring-hatched brood may amount to very many thousands. In the autumn winged males appear, union between the sexes takes place and the females lay the fertilized eggs which are destined to carry the species through the cold months of winter. If, however, the food-plant is grown in a conservatory where protection against cold is afforded, the aphides may go on reproducing agamogenetically without cessation for many years together. Not the least interesting features connected with this strange life-history are the facts that the young may be born by the oviparous or viviparous methods and either gamogenetically or agamogenetically, and may develop into winged forms or remain wingless, and that the males only appear in any number at the close of the season. Although the factors which determine these phenomena are not clearly understood, it is believed that the appearance of the males is connected with the increasing cold of autumn and the growing scarcity of food, and that the birth of winged females is similarly associated with decrease in the quantity or vitiation of the quality of the nourishment imbibed. Sometimes the winged females migrate from the plant they were born on to start fresh colonies on others often of quite a different kind. Thus the apple blight (Aphis mali) after producing many generations of apterous females on its typical food-plant gives rise to winged forms which fly away and settle upon grass or corn-stalks.

APHIDS (plural of Aphis) are tiny insects, commonly called “plant-lice,” “blight,” and “green-fly.” They belong to the homopterous section of the order Hemiptera, characterized by long antennae and legs, two-jointed, two-clawed tarsi, and typically a pair of abdominal tubes that secrete a waxy substance. These tubes were once thought to produce the sweet substance known as “honey-dew,” which ants seek out; however, it's now understood to come from the digestive system. Both winged and wingless forms of both sexes exist, and when wings are present, they are normal in number, meaning two pairs. Beyond their economic significance, Aphides are especially notable for their unique reproductive processes. The following brief summary of the life cycle of the rose plant-louse (Aphis rosae) can be seen as typical for the family, though there are exceptions in other species: Fertilized females lay eggs in the autumn, which remain on the plant over winter. When these eggs hatch in the spring, they produce female individuals that can be either winged or wingless. These females then give birth parthenogenetically, meaning without male involvement, and through a process similar to internal budding, produce many young that closely resemble the adults except for their size, and these young also reproduce in the same manner. This cycle continues through the summer, with generation after generation being produced, leading to thousands of descendants from a single spring-hatched individual. In the autumn, winged males appear, the sexes mate, and the females lay fertilized eggs that will survive the winter. However, if the food plant is kept in a greenhouse that protects against the cold, aphids can continue to reproduce asexually without pause for many years. One of the most fascinating aspects of their unusual life cycle is that young may be born either through oviparous or viviparous methods, and either sexually or asexually, and can develop into winged or remain wingless, with males only appearing in significant numbers at the end of the season. Although the reasons for these patterns are not fully understood, it is believed that the emergence of males is linked to the cooling weather in autumn and the declining food supply, and that the birth of winged females is similarly related to a decrease in the quantity or quality of their nourishment. At times, the winged females will leave the plant they were born on to establish new colonies on other plants, often of a different type. For instance, the apple blight (Aphis mali), after producing many generations of wingless females on its typical host, eventually results in the birth of winged forms that fly off and settle on grasses or corn stalks.

Closely related to the typical aphides is Phylloxera vastatrix, the insect which causes enormous loss by attacking the leaves and roots of vines. Its life-history is somewhat similar to that of Aphis rosae summarized above. In the autumn a single fertile egg is laid by apterous females in a crevice of the bark of the vine where it is protected during the winter. From this egg in the spring emerges an apterous female who makes a gall in the new leaf and lays therein a large number of eggs. Some of the apterous young that are hatched from these form fresh galls and continue to multiply in the leaves, others descend to the root of the plant, becoming what are known as root-forms. These, like the parent form of spring, reproduce parthenogenetically, giving rise to generation after generation of egg-laying individuals. In the course of the summer, from some of these eggs are hatched females which acquire wings and lay eggs from which wingless males and females are born. From the union of the sexes comes the fertile egg from which the parent form of spring is hatched.

Closely related to the common aphids is Phylloxera vastatrix, the insect that causes significant damage by attacking the leaves and roots of vines. Its life cycle is somewhat similar to that of Aphis rosae described earlier. In autumn, a single fertile egg is laid by wingless females in a crack in the bark of the vine where it stays protected during winter. In spring, this egg hatches into a wingless female that creates a gall in the new leaf and lays a large number of eggs inside it. Some of the wingless young that hatch from these eggs form new galls and continue to multiply in the leaves, while others move down to the plant's roots, becoming what are known as root forms. These root forms, like the spring parent, reproduce asexually, resulting in generation after generation of egg-laying individuals. Throughout the summer, some of these eggs hatch into females that grow wings and lay eggs that produce wingless males and females. The mating of these individuals leads to the fertile egg from which the spring parent form hatches.

See generally G.B. Buckton, British Aphides (Ray Soc. 1876-1883); also Economic Entomology.

See generally G.B. Buckton, British Aphides (Ray Soc. 1876-1883); also Economic Entomology.

(R. I. P.)

APHORISM (from the Gr. ἀφορίζειν, to define), literally a distinction or a definition, a term used to describe a principle expressed tersely in a few telling words or any general truth conveyed in a short and pithy sentence, in such a way that when once heard it is unlikely to pass from the memory. The name was first used in the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, a long series of propositions concerning the symptoms and diagnosis of disease and the art of healing and medicine. The term came to be applied later to other sententious statements of physical science, and later still to statements of all kinds of principles. Care must be taken not to confound aphorisms with axioms. Aphorisms came into being as the result of experience, whereas axioms are self-evident truths, requiring no proof, and appertain to pure reason. Aphorisms have been especially used in dealing with subjects to which no methodical or scientific treatment was applied till late, such as art, agriculture, medicine, jurisprudence and politics. The Aphorisms of Hippocrates form far the most celebrated as well as the earliest collection of the kind, and it may be interesting to quote a few examples. “Old men support abstinence well: people of a ripe age less well: young folk badly, and children less well than all the rest, particularly those of them who are very lively.” “Those who are very fat by nature are more exposed to die suddenly than those who are thin.” “Those who eject foaming blood, eject it from the lung.” “When two illnesses arrive at the same time, the stronger silences the weaker.” The first aphorism, perhaps the best known of all, which serves as a kind of introduction to the book, runs as follows:—“Life is short, art is long, opportunity fugitive, experimenting dangerous, reasoning difficult: it is necessary not only to do oneself what is right, but also to be seconded by the patient, by those who attend him, by external circumstances.” Another famous collection of aphorisms is that of the school of Salerno in Latin verse, in which Joannes de Meditano, one of the most celebrated doctors of the school of medicine of Salerno, has summed up the precepts of this school. The book was dedicated to a king of England. It is a disputed point as to which king, some authorities dating the publication as at 1066, others assigning a later date. The dedication gives the following excellent advice:—

APHORISM (from the Gr. ἀφορίζειν, to define), literally a distinction or a definition, is a term used to describe a principle expressed concisely in just a few impactful words or any general truth conveyed in a short and meaningful sentence, making it memorable once heard. The term was first used in the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, a comprehensive set of propositions regarding the symptoms and diagnosis of illnesses and the practice of healing and medicine. Later, it was applied to other notable statements in physical science, and eventually to principles of all kinds. It’s important not to confuse aphorisms with axioms. Aphorisms arise from experience, whereas axioms are self-evident truths that need no proof and pertain to pure logic. Aphorisms have notably been used to discuss topics that lacked systematic or scientific treatment until much later, like art, agriculture, medicine, law, and politics. The Aphorisms of Hippocrates is the most famous and earliest collection of this type, and it may be interesting to share a few examples. “Older people handle abstinence well: those of middle age less so: young people poorly, and children even less than all the others, especially those who are very energetic.” “Naturally very fat individuals are more likely to die suddenly than those who are thin.” “Those who cough up foamy blood do so from the lungs.” “When two diseases strike at the same time, the stronger one suppresses the weaker.” The most well-known aphorism, which serves as a sort of introduction to the book, goes: “Life is short, art is long, opportunity fleeting, experiment risky, reasoning tough: it's essential not only to do what is right oneself but also to have support from the patient, the caregivers, and external circumstances.” Another famous collection of aphorisms comes from the school of Salerno in Latin verse, in which Joannes de Meditano, one of the leading doctors from the Salerno medical school, summarized the school's guidelines. The book was dedicated to a king of England, though there is debate over which king it was, with some sources dating the publication to 1066 and others proposing a later date. The dedication offers the following excellent advice:—

“Anglorum regi scribit schola tota Salernae.

“Writing to the King of England, the whole school of Salerno.”

Si vis incolumem, si vis te reddere sanum,

Si vis incolumem, si vis te reddere sanum,

Curas tolle graves: irasci crede profanum:

Curas, put aside your worries: believe that it's okay to be angry:

Parce mero: coenato parum; non sit tibi vanum

Parce mero: coenato parum; non sit tibi vanum

Surgere post epulas: somnum fuge meridianum:

Surgere after meals: avoid midday sleep:

Ne mictum retine, nec comprime fortiter anum:

Ne mictum retine, nec comprime fortiter anum:

Haec bene si serves, tu longo tempore vives.”

Haec bene si serves, tu longo tempore vives.”

Another collection of aphorisms, also medical and also in Latin, is that of the Dutchman Hermann Boerhaave, published at Leiden in the year 1709; it gives a terse summary of the medical knowledge prevailing at the time, and is of great interest to the student of the history of medicine.

Another collection of sayings, also medical and in Latin, is by the Dutchman Hermann Boerhaave, published in Leiden in 1709. It offers a concise summary of the medical knowledge of that era and is very interesting for anyone studying the history of medicine.


APHRAATES (a Greek form of the Persian name Aphrahaṭ or Pharhadh), a Syriac writer belonging to the middle of the 4th century A.D., who composed a series of twenty-three expositions or homilies on points of Christian doctrine and practice. The first ten were written in 337, the following twelve in 344, and the last in 345.1 The author was early known as ḥakkīmā phārsāyā (“the Persian sage”), was a subject of Sapor II., and was probably of heathen parentage and himself a convert from heathenism. He seems at some time in his life to have assumed the name of Jacob, and is so entitled in the colophon to a MS. of A.D. 512 which contains twelve of his homilies. Hence he was already by Gennadius of Marseilles (before 496) confused with Jacob, bishop of Nisibis; and the ancient Armenian version of nineteen of the homilies has been published under this latter name. But (1) Jacob of Nisibis, who attended the council of Nicaea, died in 338; and (2) our author, being a Persian subject, cannot have lived at Nisibis, which became Persian only by Jovian’s treaty of 363. That his name was Aphrahat or Pharhadh we learn from comparatively late writers—Bar Bahlul (10th century), Elias of Nisibis (11th), Bar-Hebraeus, and ‘Abhd-īshō’. George, bishop of the Arabs, writing in A.D. 714 to a friend who had sent him a series of questions about the “Persian sage,” confesses ignorance of his name, home and rank, but infers from his homilies that he was a monk, and of high esteem among the clergy. The fact that in 344 he was selected to draw up a circular letter from a council of bishops and other clergy to the churches of Seleucia and Ctesiphon and elsewhere—included in our collection as homily 14—is held by Dr W. Wright and others to prove that he was a bishop. According to a marginal note in a 14th-century MS. (B.M. Orient. 1017), he was “bishop of Mar Mattai,” a famous monastery near Mosul, but it is unlikely that this institution existed so early. The homilies of Aphraates are intended to form, as Professor Burkitt has shown, “a full and ordered exposition of the Christian faith.” The standpoint is that of the Syriac-speaking church, before it was touched by the Arian controversy. Beginning with faith as the foundation, the writer proceeds to build up the Structure of doctrine and duty. The first ten homilies, which form one division completed in 337, are without polemical reference; 166 their subjects are faith, love, fasting, prayer, wars (a somewhat mysterious setting forth of the conflict between Rome and Persia under the imagery of Daniel), the sons of the covenant (monks or ascetics), penitents, the resurrection, humility, pastors. Those numbered 11-22, written in 344, are almost all directed against the Jews; the subjects are circumcision, passover, the sabbath, persuasion (the encyclical letter referred to above), distinction of meats, the substitution of the Gentiles for the Jews, that Christ is the Son of God, virginity and holiness, whether the Jews have been finally rejected or are yet to be restored, provision for the poor, persecution, death and the last times. The 23rd homily, on the “grape kernel” (Is. lxv. 8), written in 344, forms an appendix on the Messianic fulfilment of prophecy, together with a treatment of the chronology from Adam to Christ. Aphraates impresses a reader favourably by his moral earnestness, his guilelessness, his moderation in controversy, the simplicity of his style and language, his saturation with the ideas and words of Scripture. On the other hand, he is full of cumbrous repetition, he lacks precision in argument and is prone to digression, his quotations from Scripture are often inappropriate, and he is greatly influenced by Jewish exegesis. He is particularly fond of arguments about numbers. How wholly he and his surroundings were untouched by the Arian conflict may be judged from the 17th homily—“that Christ is the Son of God.” He argues that, as the name “God” or “Son of God” was given in the O.T. to men who were worthy, and as God does not withhold from men a share in His attributes—such as sovereignty and fatherhood—it was fitting that Christ who has wrought salvation for mankind should obtain this highest name. From the frequency of his quotations, Aphraates is a specially important witness to the form in which the Gospels were read in the Syriac church in his day; Zahn and others have shown that he—mainly at least—used the Diatessaron. Finally, he bears important contemporary witness to the sufferings of the Christian church in Persia under Sapor (Shapur) II. as well as the moral evils which had infected the church, to the sympathy of Persian Christians with the cause of the Roman empire, to the condition of early monastic institutions, to the practice of the Syriac church in regard to Easter, &c.

APHRAATES (a Greek version of the Persian name Aphrahaṭ or Pharhadh) was a Syriac writer from the mid-4th century CE, who wrote a series of twenty-three expositions or homilies on various aspects of Christian doctrine and practice. The first ten were composed in 337, the next twelve in 344, and the final one in 345.1 He was known early on as ḥakkīmā phārsāyā (“the Persian sage”), was a subject of Sapor II, and was likely of non-Christian parentage, having converted from paganism. At some point in his life, he seemed to have taken the name Jacob, as noted in the colophon of a manuscript from C.E. 512 that contains twelve of his homilies. Because of this, he was inaccurately identified by Gennadius of Marseilles (before 496) with Jacob, the bishop of Nisibis; the ancient Armenian version of nineteen of the homilies has been published under Jacob's name. However, (1) Jacob of Nisibis, who attended the council of Nicaea, died in 338; and (2) our author, being a subject of Persia, couldn't have lived in Nisibis, which became Persian only after Jovian’s treaty in 363. We learn that his name was Aphrahat or Pharhadh from later writers—Bar Bahlul (10th century), Elias of Nisibis (11th), Bar-Hebraeus, and ‘Abhd-īshō’. George, bishop of the Arabs, writing in CE 714 to a friend who asked him questions about the “Persian sage,” admitted he didn’t know his name, background, or position, but assumed from his homilies that he was a monk and held in high regard among the clergy. The fact that he was chosen in 344 to draft a circular letter from a council of bishops and other clergy to the churches of Seleucia and Ctesiphon and beyond—included in our collection as homily 14—is taken by Dr. W. Wright and others as evidence that he was a bishop. According to a marginal note in a 14th-century manuscript (B.M. Orient. 1017), he was “bishop of Mar Mattai,” a famous monastery near Mosul, though it's unlikely that this institution existed at that time. Aphraates' homilies aim to provide, as Professor Burkitt has indicated, “a comprehensive and organized explanation of the Christian faith.” His perspective is that of the Syriac-speaking church, before the influence of the Arian controversy. He starts with faith as the foundation and then builds on the structure of doctrine and duty. The first ten homilies, completed in 337, do not engage in polemic; their topics include faith, love, fasting, prayer, warfare (a somewhat mysterious depiction of the conflict between Rome and Persia through the imagery of Daniel), the sons of the covenant (monks or ascetics), penitents, resurrection, humility, and pastors. The homilies numbered 11-22, written in 344, target mostly Jewish audiences; they cover circumcision, Passover, the Sabbath, persuasion (referring to the encyclical letter mentioned above), distinctions in food, the replacement of the Jews by Gentiles, affirming Christ as the Son of God, virginity and holiness, whether the Jews have been permanently rejected or will be restored, provision for the poor, persecution, death, and the end times. The 23rd homily, on the “grape kernel” (Is. lxv. 8), written in 344, serves as an appendix addressing the Messianic fulfillment of prophecy along with a timeline from Adam to Christ. Aphraates leaves a positive impression on readers with his moral seriousness, sincerity, moderation in debate, simplicity of style and language, and deep engagement with the concepts and language of Scripture. However, he also tends to be repetitive, lacks precision in his arguments, often digresses, and his scriptural quotes can be sometimes unsuitable, heavily influenced by Jewish interpretations. He shows a particular fondness for discussions involving numbers. His detachment from the Arian conflict is evident in the 17th homily—“that Christ is the Son of God.” He argues that since the titles “God” or “Son of God” were given in the O.T. to deserving men, and since God allows men to share in His attributes—such as sovereignty and fatherhood—it is fitting that Christ, who has achieved salvation for humanity, should hold this highest title. Due to the frequency of his citations, Aphraates serves as an important witness to how the Gospels were read in the Syriac church during his time; Zahn and others have demonstrated that he—at least primarily—used the Diatessaron. Lastly, he provides significant contemporary insight into the hardships faced by the Christian church in Persia under Sapor (Shapur) II, the moral challenges that affected the church, the support of Persian Christians for the Roman Empire, the state of early monastic institutions, and the practices of the Syriac church regarding Easter, etc.

Editions by W. Wright (London, 1869), and J. Parisot (with Latin translation, Paris, 1894); the ancient Armenian version of 19 homilies edited, translated into Latin, and annotated by Antonelli (Rome, 1756). Besides translations of particular homilies by G. Bickell and E.W. Budge, the whole have been translated by G. Bert (Leipzig, 1888). Cf. also C.J.F. Sasse, Proleg, in Aphr. Sapientis Persae sermones homileticos (Leipzig, 1879); J. Forget, De Vita et Scriptis Aphraatis (Louvain, 1882); F.C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904); J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’empire perse (Paris, 1904); J. Zahn, Forschungen I.; “Aphraates and the Diatessaron,” vol. ii. pp. 180-186 of Burkitt’s Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904); articles on “Aphraates and Monasticism,” by R.H. Connolly and Burkitt in Journal of Theological Studies (1905) pp. 522-539; (1906) pp. 10-15.

Editions by W. Wright (London, 1869), and J. Parisot (with Latin translation, Paris, 1894); the ancient Armenian version of 19 homilies edited, translated into Latin, and annotated by Antonelli (Rome, 1756). Besides translations of specific homilies by G. Bickell and E.W. Budge, the complete work has been translated by G. Bert (Leipzig, 1888). See also C.J.F. Sasse, Proleg, in Aphr. Sapientis Persae sermones homileticos (Leipzig, 1879); J. Forget, De Vita et Scriptis Aphraatis (Louvain, 1882); F.C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904); J. Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’empire perse (Paris, 1904); J. Zahn, Forschungen I.; “Aphraates and the Diatessaron,” vol. ii. pp. 180-186 of Burkitt’s Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904); articles on “Aphraates and Monasticism,” by R.H. Connolly and Burkitt in Journal of Theological Studies (1905) pp. 522-539; (1906) pp. 10-15.

(N. M.)

1 Hom. 1-22 begin with the letters of the Syriac alphabet in succession. Their present order in the Syriac MSS. is therefore right. The ancient Armenian version, published by Antonelli in 1756, has only 19 of the homilies, and those in a somewhat different order.

1 Hom. 1-22 start with the letters of the Syriac alphabet in order. So, the current sequence in the Syriac manuscripts is correct. The old Armenian version, released by Antonelli in 1756, includes only 19 of the homilies, and they are arranged in a slightly different order.


APHRODITE,1 the Greek goddess of love and beauty, counterpart of the Roman Venus. Although her myth and cult were essentially Semitic, she soon became Hellenized and was admitted to a place among the deities of Olympus. Some mythologists hold that there already existed in the Greek system an earlier goddess of love, of similar attributes, who was absorbed by the Asiatic importation; and one writer (A. Enmann) goes so far as to deny the oriental origin of Aphrodite altogether. It is therefore necessary first to examine the nature and characteristics of her Eastern prototype, and then to see how far they reappear in the Greek Aphrodite.

APHRODITE,1 the Greek goddess of love and beauty, counterpart of the Roman Venus. Although her myth and worship had roots in Semitic traditions, she quickly became part of Hellenistic culture and was included among the Olympian deities. Some mythologists believe there was already an earlier Greek goddess of love with similar qualities who was absorbed by this Asian influence, while one writer (A. Enmann) even argues that Aphrodite has no oriental origins at all. Therefore, it’s essential to first look into the nature and characteristics of her Eastern counterpart, and then see how much of that reappears in the Greek Aphrodite.

Among the Semitic peoples (with the notable exception of the Hebrews) a supreme female deity was worshipped under different names—the Assyrian Ishtar, the Phoenician Ashtoreth (Astarte), the Syrian Atargatis (Derketo), the Babylonian Belit (Mylitta), the Arabian Ilat (Al-ilat). The article “Aphrodite” in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie is based upon the theory that all these were originally moon-goddesses, on which assumption all their functions are explained. This view, however, has not met with general acceptance, on the ground that, in Semitic mythology, the moon is always a male divinity; and that the full moon and crescent, found as attributes of Astarte, are due to a misinterpretation of the sun’s disk and cow’s horns of Isis, the result of the dependence of Syrian religious art upon Egypt. On the other hand, there is some evidence in ancient authorities (Herodian v. 6, 10; Lucian, De Dea Syria, 4) that Astarte and the moon were considered identical.

Among the Semitic peoples (except for the Hebrews), a supreme female deity was worshipped under different names—the Assyrian Ishtar, the Phoenician Ashtoreth (Astarte), the Syrian Atargatis (Derketo), the Babylonian Belit (Mylitta), and the Arabian Ilat (Al-ilat). The article “Aphrodite” in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie is based on the theory that all these deities were originally moon goddesses, which explains all their functions. However, this view hasn't been widely accepted because, in Semitic mythology, the moon is always a male deity. The full moon and crescent associated with Astarte are thought to be a misinterpretation of the sun's disk and the cow's horns of Isis, stemming from the influence of Syrian religious art on Egypt. On the other hand, there is some evidence from ancient sources (Herodian v. 6, 10; Lucian, De Dea Syria, 4) that Astarte and the moon were seen as identical.

This oriental Aphrodite was worshipped as the bestower of all animal and vegetable fruitfulness, and under this aspect especially as a goddess of women. This worship was degraded by repulsive practices (e.g. religious prostitution, self-mutilation), which subsequently made their way to centres of Phoenician influence, such as Corinth and Mount Eryx in Sicily. In this connexion may be mentioned the idea of a divinity, half male, half female, uniting in itself the active and passive functions of creation, a symbol of luxuriant growth and productivity. Such was the bearded Aphrodite of Cyprus, called Aphrodites by Aristophanes according to Macrobius, who mentions a statue of the androgynous divinity in his Saturnalia (iii. 8. 2; see also Hermaphroditus). The moon, by its connexion with menstruation, and as the cause of the fertilizing dew, was regarded as exercising an influence over the entire animal and vegetable creation.

This Eastern Aphrodite was revered as the giver of all animal and plant fertility, especially as a goddess of women. This worship was tainted by disturbing practices (e.g., religious prostitution, self-mutilation), which later spread to Phoenician-influenced areas like Corinth and Mount Eryx in Sicily. In this context, we can mention the concept of a deity that is both male and female, combining the active and passive aspects of creation, symbolizing lush growth and productivity. Such was the bearded Aphrodite of Cyprus, referred to as Aphrodites by Aristophanes according to Macrobius, who notes a statue of this androgynous deity in his Saturnalia (iii. 8. 2; see also Hermaphroditus). The moon, connected with menstruation and as a source of fertilizing dew, was believed to influence all of animal and plant life.

The Eastern Aphrodite was closely related to the sea and the element of moisture; in fact, some consider that she made her first appearance on Greek soil rather as a marine divinity than as a nature goddess. According to Syrian ideas, as a fish goddess, she represented the fructifying power of water. At Ascalon there was a lake full of fish near the temple of Atargatis-Derketo, into which she was said to have been thrown together with her son Ichthys (fish) as a punishment for her arrogance, and to have been devoured by fishes; according to another version, ashamed of her amour with a beautiful youth, which resulted in the birth of Semiramis, she attempted to drown herself, but was changed into a fish with human face (see Atargatis). At Hierapolis (Bambyce) there was a pool with an altar in the middle, sacred to the goddess, where a festival was held, at which her images were carried into the water. Her connexion with the sea is explained by the influence of the moon on the tides, and the idea that the moon, like the sun and the stars, came up from the ocean.

The Eastern Aphrodite was closely linked to the sea and water; in fact, some believe she first appeared in Greece more as a sea goddess than as a goddess of nature. According to Syrian beliefs, as a fish goddess, she symbolized the life-giving power of water. At Ascalon, there was a fish-filled lake near the temple of Atargatis-Derketo, where she was said to have been thrown in with her son Ichthys (fish) as punishment for her pride and was consumed by fish; in another version, feeling ashamed of her romantic involvement with a handsome youth, which led to the birth of Semiramis, she tried to drown herself but was transformed into a fish with a human face (see Atargatis). At Hierapolis (Bambyce), there was a pool with an altar in the center, dedicated to the goddess, where a festival took place, during which her statues were taken into the water. Her connection with the sea is explained by the moon's influence on the tides, and the belief that the moon, like the sun and stars, rose from the ocean.

The oriental Aphrodite is connected with the lower world, and came to be looked upon as one of its divinities. Thus, Ishtar descends to the kingdom of Ilat the queen of the dead, to find the means of restoring her favourite Tammuz (Adon, Adonis) to life. During her stay all animal and vegetable productivity ceases, to begin again with her return to earth—a clear indication of the conception of her as a goddess of fertility. This legend, which strikingly resembles that of Persephone, probably refers to the decay of vegetation in winter, and the reawakening of nature in spring (cf. Hyacinthus). The lunar theory connects it with the disappearance of the moon at the time of change or during an eclipse.

The eastern Aphrodite is linked to the underworld and was regarded as one of its deities. So, Ishtar goes down to the realm of Ilat, the queen of the dead, to find a way to bring her beloved Tammuz (also known as Adon, Adonis) back to life. While she’s there, all animal and plant life stops, only to resume when she returns to the earth—clearly showing her role as a fertility goddess. This story, which closely resembles that of Persephone, likely refers to the dying of plants in winter and the revival of nature in spring (see Hyacinth). The lunar theory links it to the moon disappearing during a new phase or an eclipse.

Another aspect of her character is that of a warlike goddess, armed with spear or bow, sometimes wearing a mural crown, as sovereign lady and protectress of the locality where she was worshipped. The spear and arrows are identified with the beams of the sun and moon.

Another aspect of her character is that of a warrior goddess, armed with a spear or bow, sometimes wearing a crown that represents the city, as the ruling lady and protector of the area where she was worshipped. The spear and arrows are associated with the rays of the sun and moon.

The attributes of the goddess were the ram, the he-goat, the dove, certain fish, the cypress, myrtle and pomegranate, the animals being symbolical of fertility, the plants remedies against sterility.

The goddess was represented by the ram, the male goat, the dove, certain fish, the cypress, myrtle, and pomegranate. The animals symbolized fertility, while the plants were thought to be remedies for sterility.

The worship of Aphrodite at an early date was introduced into Cyprus, Cythera and Crete by Phoenician colonists, whence it spread over the whole of Greece, and as far west as Italy and Sicily. In Crete she has been identified with Ariadne, who, according to one version of her story, was put ashore in Cyprus, where she died and was buried in a grove called after the name 167 of Ariadne-Aphrodite (L.R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, ii. p. 663). Cyprus was regarded as her true home by the Greeks, and Cythera was one of the oldest seats of her worship (cf. her titles Cytherea, Cypris, Paphia, Amathusia, Idalia—the last three from places in Cyprus). In both these islands there lingered a definite tradition of a connexion with the cult of the oriental Aphrodite Urania, an epithet which will be referred to later. The oriental features of her worship as practised at Corinth are due to its early commercial relations with Asia Minor; the fame of her temple worship on Mount Eryx spread to Carthage, Rome and Latium.

The worship of Aphrodite was brought to Cyprus, Cythera, and Crete at an early stage by Phoenician settlers, from where it spread throughout Greece and as far west as Italy and Sicily. In Crete, she has been linked to Ariadne, who, according to one version of her tale, was left on Cyprus, where she died and was buried in a grove named after Ariadne-Aphrodite. 167 (L.R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, ii. p. 663). The Greeks considered Cyprus her true home, and Cythera was one of the earliest places of her worship (see her titles Cytherea, Cypris, Paphia, Amathusia, Idalia—last three taken from locations in Cyprus). In both islands, there was a lasting tradition connecting them to the cult of the eastern Aphrodite Urania, a name that will be discussed later. The eastern aspects of her worship as practiced in Corinth stem from its early trade links with Asia Minor; the reputation of her temple worship on Mount Eryx reached Carthage, Rome, and Latium.

In the Iliad, Aphrodite is the daughter of Zeus and Dione, a name by which she herself is sometimes called. This has been supposed to point to a confusion between Aphrodite and Hebe, the daughter of Zeus and Hera, Dione being an Epirot name for the last-named goddess. In the Odyssey, she is the wife of Hephaestus, her place being taken in the Iliad by Charis, the personification of grace and divine skill, possibly supplanted by Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty. Her amour with Ares, by whom she became the mother of Harmonia, the wife of Cadmus, is famous (Od. viii. 266). From her relations with these acknowledged Hellenic divinites it is argued that there once existed a primitive Greek goddess of love. This view is examined in detail and rejected by Farnell (Cults, ii. pp. 619-626).

In the Iliad, Aphrodite is the daughter of Zeus and Dione, which is another name she is sometimes referred to. This has led to some confusion between Aphrodite and Hebe, the daughter of Zeus and Hera, as Dione is an Epirot name for the latter goddess. In the Odyssey, she is married to Hephaestus, while in the Iliad, her role is filled by Charis, the embodiment of grace and divine skill, who may have been replaced by Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty. Her affair with Ares, which resulted in the birth of Harmonia, the wife of Cadmus, is well-known (Od. viii. 266). Based on her relationships with these recognized Hellenic deities, some argue that there was once an original Greek goddess of love. This perspective is thoroughly examined and ultimately dismissed by Farnell (Cults, ii. pp. 619-626).

It is admitted that few traces remain of direct relations of the Greek goddess to the moon, although such possibly survive in the epithets πασιφαής, ἀστερία, οὐρανία. It is suggested that this is due to the fact that, at the time of the adoption of the oriental goddess, the Greeks already possessed lunar divinities in Hecate, Selene, Artemis. But, although her connexion with the moon has practically disappeared, in all other aspects a development from the Semitic divinity is clearly manifest.

It is recognized that there are few remnants of the direct connections between the Greek goddess and the moon, although some may still exist in the epithets Pasiphae, Asteria, Urania. It is proposed that this is because, by the time the eastern goddess was adopted, the Greeks already had lunar deities in Hecate, Selene, and Artemis. However, even though her link to the moon has largely faded, in every other aspect, a development from the Semitic deity is clearly evident.

Aphrodite as the goddess of all fruitfulness in the animal and vegetable world is especially prominent. In the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite she is described as ruling over all living things on earth, in the air, and in the water, even the gods being subject to her influence. She is the goddess of gardens, especially worshipped in spring and near lowlands and marshes, favourable to the growth of vegetation. As such in Crete she is called Antheia (“the flower-goddess”), at Athens ἐν κήποις (“in the gardens”), and ἐν καλάμοις (“in the reed-beds”) or ἐν ἔλει (“in the marsh”) at Samos. Her character as a goddess of vegetation is clearly shown in the cult and ritual of Adonis (q.v.; also Farnell, ii. p. 644) and Attis (q.v.). In the animal world she is the goddess of sexual impulse; amongst men, of birth, marriage, and family life. To this aspect may be referred the names Genetyllis (“bringing about birth”), Arma (ἄρω, “to join,” i.e., in marriage, cf. Harmonia), Nymphia (“bridal goddess”), Kourotrophos (“rearer of boys”). Aphrodite Apaturus (see G.M. Hirst in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxiii., 1903) refers to her connexion with the clan and the festival Apaturia, at which children were admitted to the phratria. It is pointed out by Farnell that this cult of Aphrodite, as the patroness of married life, is probably a native development of the Greek religion, the oriental legends representing her by no means as an upholder of the purer relations of man and woman. As the goddess of the grosser form of love she inspires both men and women with passion (ἐπιστροφία, “turning them to” thoughts of love), or the reverse (ἀποστροφία, “turning them away”). Upon her male favourites (Paris, Theseus) she bestows the fatal gift of seductive beauty, which generally leads to disastrous results in the case of the woman (Helen, Ariadne). As μηχανῖτις (“contriver”) she acts as an intermediary for bringing lovers together, a similar idea being expressed in πρᾶξις (of “success” in love, or=creatrix). The two epithets ἀνδροφόνος (“man-slayer”) and σώσανδρα (“man-preserver”) find an illustration in the pseudo-Plautine (in the Mercator) address to Astarte, who is described as the life and death, the saviour and destroyer of men and gods. It was natural that a personality invested with such charms should be regarded as the ideal of womanly beauty, but it is remarkable that the only probable instance in which she appears as such is as Aphrodite μορφώ (“form”) at Sparta (O. Gruppe suggests the meaning “ghost,” C. Tumpel the “dark one,” referring to Aphrodite’s connexion with the lower world). The function of Aphrodite as the patroness of courtesans represents the most degraded form of her worship as the goddess of love, and is certainly of Phoenician or Eastern origin. In Corinth there were more than a thousand of these ἱερόδουλοι (“temple slaves”), and wealthy men made it a point of honour to dedicate their most beautiful slaves to the service of the goddess.

Aphrodite, as the goddess of all fertility in the animal and plant world, is especially prominent. In the Homeric hymn to Aphrodite, she is described as having authority over all living things on land, in the air, and in the water, even the gods being influenced by her. She is the goddess of gardens, particularly worshipped in spring and near lowlands and marshes that encourage plant growth. In Crete, she is called Antheia (“the flower-goddess”), in Athens in the gardens (“in the gardens”), and in reeds (“in the reed-beds”) or in the sauce (“in the marsh”) at Samos. Her role as a goddess of vegetation is clearly illustrated in the worship and rituals surrounding Adonis (q.v.; also Farnell, ii. p. 644) and Attis (q.v.). In the animal kingdom, she embodies sexual desire; among humans, she represents birth, marriage, and family life. Related to this aspect are the names Genetyllis (“bringing about birth”), Arma (aroma, “to join,” referring to marriage, cf. Harmonia), Nymphia (“bridal goddess”), and Kourotrophos (“rearer of boys”). Aphrodite Apaturus (see G.M. Hirst in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxiii., 1903) refers to her connection with the clan and the festival Apaturia, during which children were accepted into the phratria. Farnell notes that this worship of Aphrodite as the patroness of married life is likely a native Greek religious development, and that oriental legends do not depict her as an upholder of pure relationships between men and women. As the goddess of more primal love, she inspires both men and women with passion (return, “turning them toward” thoughts of love), or the opposite (apostrrophe, “turning them away”). To her male favorites (Paris, Theseus), she grants the dangerous gift of seductive beauty, which often leads to disastrous outcomes for the women involved (Helen, Ariadne). As μηχανῖτις (“contriver”), she serves as a mediator to bring lovers together, a similar idea expressed in action (“success” in love, or=creatrix). The two epithets man-killer (“man-slayer”) and σώσανδρα (“man-preserver”) are illustrated in the pseudo-Plautine (in the Mercator) address to Astarte, who is described as the giver of life and death, the savior and destroyer of men and gods. It makes sense that someone with such captivating qualities would be seen as the embodiment of feminine beauty, but interestingly, the only likely instance where she appears as such is as Aphrodite μορφώ (“form”) at Sparta (O. Gruppe suggests the meaning "ghost," while C. Tumpel refers to her as “the dark one,” relating to Aphrodite’s association with the underworld). Her role as the patroness of courtesans represents the most disreputable form of her love worship, likely of Phoenician or Eastern origin. In Corinth, there were over a thousand of these sacred sex workers (“temple slaves”), and affluent men considered it an honor to dedicate their most beautiful slaves to serve the goddess.

Like her oriental prototype, the Greek Aphrodite was closely connected with the sea. Thus, in the Hesiodic account of her birth, she is represented as sprung from the foam which gathered round the mutilated member of Uranus, and her name has been explained by reference to this. Further proof may be found in many of her titles—ἀναδυομένη (“rising from the sea”), εὔπλοια (“giver of prosperous voyages”), γαληναία (“goddess of fair weather”), κατασκοπία (“she who keeps a look-out from the heights”)—in the attribute of the dolphin, and the veneration in which she was held by seafarers. Aphrodite Aineias, the protectress of the Trojan hero, is probably also another form of the maritime goddess of the East (see E. Worner, article “Aineias” in Roscher’s Lexikon, and Farnell, ii. p. 638), which originated in the Troad, where Aphrodite Aineias may have been identical with the earth-goddess Cybele. The title ἔφιππος is connected with the legend of Aeneas, who is said to have dedicated to his mother a statue that represented her on horseback. Remembering the importance of the horse in the cult of the sea-god Poseidon, it is natural to associate it with Aphrodite as the sea-goddess, although it may be explained with reference to her character as a goddess of vegetation, the horse being an embodiment of the corn-spirit (see J.G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, ii., 1900, p. 281).

Like her Eastern counterpart, the Greek Aphrodite was closely linked to the sea. In Hesiod's account of her birth, she is described as emerging from the foam that formed around Uranus's severed member, and her name has been explained in relation to this. Further evidence can be found in many of her titles—rising (“rising from the sea”), smooth sailing (“giver of prosperous voyages”), γαλήνη (“goddess of fair weather”), spying (“she who keeps a look-out from the heights”)—which emphasize her association with the dolphin and the reverence held for her by sailors. Aphrodite Aineias, the protector of the Trojan hero, is likely another form of the Eastern maritime goddess (see E. Worner, article “Aineias” in Roscher’s Lexikon, and Farnell, ii. p. 638), originating in the Troad, where Aphrodite Aineias may have been identical to the earth-goddess Cybele. The title rider is related to the legend of Aeneas, who is said to have dedicated a statue of her on horseback to his mother. Considering the significance of the horse in the worship of Poseidon, the sea god, it makes sense to connect it with Aphrodite as a sea goddess, although it can also be linked to her role as a goddess of vegetation, with the horse representing the corn-spirit (see J.G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, ii., 1900, p. 281).

Like Ishtar, Aphrodite was connected with the lower world. Thus, at Delphi there was an image of Aphrodite ἐπιτυμβία (“Aphrodite of the tomb”), to which the dead were summoned to receive libations; the epithets τυμβώρυχος (“grave-digger”), μυχία (“goddess of the depths”), μελαινίς (“the dark one”), the grave of Ariadne-Aphrodite at Amathus, and the myth of Adonis, point in the same direction.

Like Ishtar, Aphrodite was linked to the underworld. At Delphi, there was a statue of Aphrodite epitaph (“Aphrodite of the tomb”), where the dead were called to receive offerings; the titles grave robber (“grave-digger”), μυχία (“goddess of the depths”), μελαινίς (“the dark one”), the grave of Ariadne-Aphrodite at Amathus, and the story of Adonis all point in the same direction.

The cult of the armed Aphrodite probably belongs to the earlier period of her worship in Greece, and down to the latest period of Greek history she retained this character in some of the Greek states. The cult is found not only where oriental influence was strongest, but in places remote from it, such as Sparta, where she was known by the name of Areia (“the warlike”), and there are numerous references in the Anthology to an Aphrodite armed with helmet and spear. It is possible that the frequent association of Aphrodite with Ares is to be explained by an armed Aphrodite early worshipped at Thebes, the most ancient seat of the worship of Ares.

The worship of the armed Aphrodite likely dates back to the early days of her veneration in Greece, and she maintained this warrior aspect in some Greek states all the way to the latest periods of Greek history. This cult is found not only in regions heavily influenced by the East but also in distant locations like Sparta, where she was called Areia ("the warlike"). There are many mentions in the Anthology of an Aphrodite equipped with a helmet and spear. It’s possible that the frequent link between Aphrodite and Ares can be traced back to an early worship of an armed Aphrodite at Thebes, which is the oldest center of Ares worship.

The most distinctively oriental title of the Greek Aphrodite is Urania, the Semitic “queen of the heavens.” It has been explained by reference to the lunar character of the goddess, but more probably signifies “she whose seat is in heaven,” whence she exercises her sway over the whole world—earth, sea, and air alike. Her cult was first established in Cythera, probably in connexion with the purple trade, and at Athens it is associated with the legendary Porphyrion, the purple king. At Thebes, Harmonia (who has been identified with Aphrodite herself) dedicated three statues, of Aphrodite Urania, Pandemos, and Apostrophia. A few words must be added on the second of these titles. There is no doubt that Pandemos was originally an extension of the idea of the goddess of family and city life to include the whole people, the political community. Hence the name was supposed to go back to the time of Theseus, the reputed author of the reorganization of Attica and its demes. Aphrodite Pandemos was held in equal regard with Urania; she was called σεμνή (“holy”), and was served by priestesses upon whom strict chastity was enjoined. In time, however, the meaning of the term underwent a change, probably due to the philosophers and moralists, by whom a radical distinction was drawn between Aphrodite Urania and Pandemos. According to Plato 168 (Symposium, 180), there are two Aphrodites, “the elder, having no mother, who is called the heavenly Aphrodite—she is the daughter of Uranus; the younger, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione—her we call common.” The same distinction is found in Xenophon’s Symposium (viii. 9), although the author is doubtful whether there are two goddesses, or whether Urania and Pandemos are two names for the same goddess, just as Zeus, although one and the same, has many titles; but in any case, he says, the ritual of Urania is purer, more serious, than that of Pandemos. The same idea is expressed in the statement (quoted by Athenaeus, 569d, from Nicander of Colophon) that after Solon’s time courtesans were put under the protection of Aphrodite Pandemos. But there is no doubt that the cult of Aphrodite was on the whole as pure as that of any other divinities, and although a distinction may have existed in later times between the goddess of legal marriage and the goddess of free love, these titles do not express the idea. Aphrodite Urania was represented in Greek art on a swan, a tortoise or a globe; Aphrodite Pandemos as riding on a goat, symbolical of wantonness. (For the legend of Theseus and Aphrodite hepitagia, “on the goat,” see Farnell, Cults, ii. p. 633.)

The most distinctly Eastern title of the Greek Aphrodite is Urania, the Semitic "queen of the heavens." This has been interpreted in relation to the goddess's lunar connection, but it likely means "she whose seat is in heaven," from where she commands influence over the entire world—earth, sea, and sky. Her worship began in Cythera, probably linked to the purple dye trade, and in Athens it ties to the legendary Porphyrion, the purple king. In Thebes, Harmonia (who has been associated with Aphrodite herself) dedicated three statues: Aphrodite Urania, Pandemos, and Apostrophia. A few words need to be added about the second of these titles. Clearly, Pandemos originally expanded the concept of the goddess of family and civic life to encompass the entire community—the political body. Therefore, this name is thought to trace back to the era of Theseus, who is credited with reorganizing Attica and its districts. Aphrodite Pandemos was equally respected as Urania; she was called modest (“holy”) and was served by priestesses who were expected to maintain strict chastity. Over time, however, the meaning of the term changed, likely due to philosophers and moralists, who made a clear distinction between Aphrodite Urania and Pandemos. According to Plato 168 (Symposium, 180), there are two Aphrodites: “the elder, having no mother, called the heavenly Aphrodite—she is the daughter of Uranus; the younger, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione—her we call common.” This same distinction appears in Xenophon’s Symposium (viii. 9), where the author is uncertain whether there are two separate goddesses or if Urania and Pandemos are just two names for the same goddess, similar to how Zeus, though one, has many titles; however, he states that the rituals for Urania are purer and more serious than those for Pandemos. The same idea is conveyed in the statement (quoted by Athenaeus, 569d, from Nicander of Colophon) that after Solon’s time, courtesans were placed under the protection of Aphrodite Pandemos. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the worship of Aphrodite was generally as pure as that of any other deities, and while there may have been a distinction in later times between the goddess of legal marriage and the goddess of free love, these titles do not convey that notion. Aphrodite Urania was depicted in Greek art on a swan, a tortoise, or a globe; Aphrodite Pandemos was shown riding a goat, symbolizing licentiousness. (For the legend of Theseus and Aphrodite hepitagia, "on the goat," see Farnell, Cults, ii. p. 633.)

To her oriental attributes the following may be added: the sparrow and hare (productivity), the wry-neck (as a love-charm, of which Aphrodite was considered the inventor), the swan and dolphin (as a marine divinity), the tortoise (explained by Plutarch as a symbol of domesticity, but connected by Gruppe with the marine deity), the rose, the poppy, and the lime tree.

To her Eastern features, the following can be added: the sparrow and hare (representing fertility), the wry-neck (used as a love charm, which Aphrodite was believed to have created), the swan and dolphin (as symbols of a sea goddess), the tortoise (described by Plutarch as a symbol of home life but linked by Gruppe to the sea goddess), and the rose, poppy, and lime tree.

In ancient art Aphrodite was at first represented clothed, sometimes seated, but more frequently standing; then naked, rising from the sea, or after the bath. Finally, all idea of the divine vanished, and the artists merely presented her as the type of a beautiful woman, with oval face, full of grace and charm, languishing eyes, and laughing mouth, which replaced the dignified severity and repose of the older forms. The most famous of her statues in ancient times was that at Cnidus, the work of Praxiteles, which was imitated on the coins of that town, and subsequently reproduced in various copies, such as the Vatican and Munich. Of existing statues the most famous is the Aphrodite of Melos (Venus of Milo), now in the Louvre, which was found on the island in 1820 amongst the ruins of the theatre; the Capitoline Venus at Rome and the Venus of Capua, represented as a goddess of victory (these two exhibit a lofty conception of the goddess); the Medicean Venus at Florence, found in the porticus of Octavia at Rome and (probably wrongly) attributed to Cleomenes; the Venus stooping in the bath, in the Vatican; and the Callipygos at Naples, a specimen of the most sensual type.

In ancient art, Aphrodite was initially depicted wearing clothes, sometimes seated but more often standing; then she was shown naked, emerging from the sea or fresh from a bath. Eventually, the divine element faded away, and artists simply portrayed her as the ideal beautiful woman, with an oval face full of grace and charm, dreamy eyes, and a smiling mouth, replacing the dignified seriousness and calm of the earlier representations. The most famous statue from ancient times was the one at Cnidus, created by Praxiteles, which was copied on the coins of that city and later reproduced in various forms, such as those in the Vatican and Munich. Among the existing statues, the most renowned is the Aphrodite of Melos (Venus of Milo), currently in the Louvre, discovered on the island in 1820 among the ruins of a theater; the Capitoline Venus in Rome and the Venus of Capua, shown as a goddess of victory (these two reflect a grand concept of the goddess); the Medicean Venus in Florence, found in the porticus of Octavia in Rome and (likely incorrectly) attributed to Cleomenes; the Venus bending in the bath, located in the Vatican; and the Callipygos in Naples, which is a striking example of the more sensual type.

For the oriental Aphrodite, see E. Meyer, article “Astarte” in W.H. Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie, and Wolf Baudissin, articles “Astarte” and “Atargatis” in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopadie für protestantische Theologie; for the Greek, articles m Roscher’s Lexikon and Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopadie; L. Preller, Griechische Mythologie (4th ed. by C. Robert); L.R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, ii. (1896); O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, ii. (1906); L. Dyer, The Gods in Greece (1891); A. Enmann, Kypros und der Ursprung des Aphrodite-Kults (1886). W.H. Engel, Kypros, ii. (1841), and J.B. Lajard, Recherches sur le culte de Venus (1837), may still be consulted with advantage. For Aphrodite in art see J.J. Bernoulli, Aphrodite (1873); W.J. Stillman, Venus and Apollo in Painting and Sculpture (1897). In the article Greek Art, figs. 71 (pl. v.) and 77 (pi. vi.) represent Aphrodite of Cridus and Melos respectively.

For the eastern Aphrodite, see E. Meyer, article “Astarte” in W.H. Roscher’s Lexicon of Mythology, and Wolf Baudissin, articles “Astarte” and “Atargatis” in Herzog-Hauck’s Real Encyclopedia for Protestant Theology; for the Greek, articles in Roscher’s Lexicon and Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Encyclopedia; L. Preller, Greek Mythology (4th ed. by C. Robert); L.R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, ii. (1896); O. Gruppe, Greek Mythology and Religious History, ii. (1906); L. Dyer, The Gods in Greece (1891); A. Enmann, Cyprus and the Origin of the Aphrodite Cult (1886). W.H. Engel, Cyprus, ii. (1841), and J.B. Lajard, Researches on the Cult of Venus (1837), can still be read with benefit. For Aphrodite in art, see J.J. Bernoulli, Aphrodite (1873); W.J. Stillman, Venus and Apollo in Painting and Sculpture (1897). In the article Greek Art, figs. 71 (pl. v.) and 77 (pl. vi.) show Aphrodite of Cridus and Melos respectively.

(J. H. F.)

1 No satisfactory etymology of the name has been given; although the first part is usually referred to ἀφρός (“the sea foam”), it is equally probable that it is of Eastern origin. F. Homoll (Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, cxxv., 1882) explains it as a corruption of Ashtoreth; for other derivations see O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, ii. p. 1348, note 2.

1 No satisfactory explanation of the name's origin has been provided; although the first part is typically linked to foam (“the sea foam”), it's just as likely that it comes from an Eastern source. F. Homoll (Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, cxxv., 1882) suggests it as a variation of Ashtoreth; for additional origins, see O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, ii. p. 1348, note 2.


APHTHONIUS, of Antioch, Greek sophist and rhetorician, flourished in the second half of the 4th century A.D., or even later. Nothing is known of his life, except that he was a friend of Libanius and of a certain Eutropius, perhaps the author of the epitome of Roman history. We possess by him Προγυμνάσματα, a text-book on the elements of rhetoric, with exercises for the use of the young before they entered the regular rhetorical schools. They apparently formed an introduction to the Τέχνη of Hermogenes. His style is pure and simple, and ancient critics praise his “Atticism.” The book maintained its popularity as late as the 17th century, especially in Germany. A collection of forty fables by Aphthonius, after the style of Aesop, is also extant.

APHTHONIUS, of Antioch, a Greek sophist and rhetorician, thrived in the second half of the 4th century AD, or even later. We know very little about his life, except that he was friends with Libanius and a certain Eutropius, who might have written the summary of Roman history. He wrote the Drills, a textbook on the basics of rhetoric, featuring exercises for students before they joined formal rhetorical schools. These exercises served as an introduction to the Art of Hermogenes. His writing style is clear and straightforward, and ancient critics commend his “Atticism.” The book remained popular well into the 17th century, especially in Germany. There is also a collection of forty fables by Aphthonius, written in the manner of Aesop.

Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, ii.; Finckh, Aphthonii Progytnnasmata (1865); Hoppichler, De Theone, Hermogene, Aphthonioque Pro-gymnasmatum Scriptoribus (1884); edition of the fables by Furia (1810).

Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, ii.; Finckh, Aphthonii Progymnasmata (1865); Hoppichler, De Theone, Hermogene, Aphthonioque Progymnasmatum Scriptoribus (1884); edition of the fables by Furia (1810).


APHTHONIUS, AELIUS FESTUS, Latin grammarian, possibly of African origin, lived in the 4th century A.D. He wrote a metrical handbook in four books, which has been incorporated by Marius Victorinus in his system of grammar.

APHTHONIUS, AELIUS FESTUS, was a Latin grammarian, likely from Africa, who lived in the 4th century CE He created a metrical handbook in four books, which was included by Marius Victorinus in his grammar system.

Keil, Gratnmatici Latini, vi.; Schultz, Quibus Auctoribus Aelius Festus Aphthonius usus sit (1885).

Keil, Gratnmatici Latini, vi.; Schultz, Quibus Auctoribus Aelius Festus Aphthonius usus sit (1885).


APICIUS, the name of three celebrated Roman epicures. The second of these, M. Gavius Apicius, who lived under Tiberius, is the most famous (Seneca, Consol. ad Helviam, 10). He invented various cakes and sauces, and is said to have written on cookery. The extant De Re Coquinaria (ed. Schuch, 1874), a collection of receipts, ascribed to one Caelius Apicius, is founded on Greek originals, and belongs to the 3rd century A.D. It is probable that the real title was Caelii Apicius, Apicius being the name of the work (cp. Taciti Agricola), and De Re Coquinaria a sub-title.

APICIUS, refers to three famous Roman food lovers. The second, M. Gavius Apicius, who lived during Tiberius's reign, is the most well-known (Seneca, Consol. ad Helviam, 10). He created various cakes and sauces and is said to have written about cooking. The existing De Re Coquinaria (ed. Schuch, 1874), a collection of recipes attributed to someone named Caelius Apicius, is based on Greek sources and dates back to the 3rd century A.D. It’s likely that the actual title was Caelii Apicius, with Apicius being the name of the work (see Taciti Agricola), and De Re Coquinaria serving as a subtitle.


APICULTURE (from Lat. apis, a bee), bee-keeping (see Bee). So also other compounds of api-. Apiarium or apiary, a bee-house or hive, is used figuratively by old writers for a place of industry, e.g. a college.

BEEKEEPING (from Latin apis, meaning bee), bee-keeping (see Bee). Other terms that include api- are also relevant. Apiarium or apiary, referring to a bee-house or hive, was used metaphorically by earlier writers to denote a place of work, like a college.


APION, Greek grammarian and commentator on Homer, born at Oasis in Libya, flourished in the first half of the 1st century A.D. He studied at Alexandria, and headed a deputation sent to Caligula (in 38) by the Alexandrians to complain of the Jews: his charges were answered by Josephus in his Contra Apionem. He settled at Rome—it is uncertain when—and taught rhetoric till the reign of Claudius. Apion was a man of great industry and learning, but extremely vain. He wrote several works, which are lost. The well-known story of Androclus and the lion, preserved in Aulus Gellius, is from his Αἰγυπτιακὰ; fragments of his Γλῶσσαι Όμηρικαὶ are printed in the Etymologicum Gudianum, ed. Sturz, 1818.

APION, G Greek grammarian and commentator on Homer, born in Oasis, Libya, thrived in the first half of the 1st century CE. He studied in Alexandria and led a delegation sent to Caligula (in 38) by the Alexandrians to complain about the Jews; his accusations were addressed by Josephus in his Contra Apionem. He eventually settled in Rome—when exactly is unclear—and taught rhetoric until the reign of Claudius. Apion was incredibly hardworking and knowledgeable but also very vain. He wrote several works, which are now lost. The well-known story of Androcles and the lion, preserved by Aulus Gellius, comes from his Egyptian; fragments of his Όμηρος γλώσσες are published in the Etymologicum Gudianum, ed. Sturz, 1818.


APIS or Hapis, the sacred bull of Memphis, in Egyptian Hp, Hope, Hope. By Manetho his worship is said to have been instituted by Kaiechos of the Second Dynasty. Hape is named on very early monuments, but little is known of the divine animal before the New Kingdom. He was entitled “the renewal of the life” of the Memphite god Ptah: but after death he became Osorapis, i.e. the Osiris Apis, just as dead men were assimilated to Osiris, the king of the underworld. This Osorapis was identified with Serapis, and may well be really identical with him (see Serapis): and Greek writers make the Apis an incarnation of Osiris, ignoring the connexion with Ptah. Apis was the most important of all the sacred animals in Egypt, and, like the others, its importance increased as time went on. Greek and Roman authors have much to say about Apis, the marks by which the black bull-calf was recognized, the manner of his conception by a ray from heaven, his house at Memphis with court for disporting himself, the mode of prognostication from his actions, the mourning at his death, his costly burial and the rejoicings throughout the country when a new Apis was found. Mariette’s excavation of the Serapeum at Memphis revealed the tombs of over sixty animals, ranging from the time of Amenophis III. to that of Ptolemy Alexander. At first each animal was buried in a separate tomb with a chapel built above it. Khamuis, the priestly son of Rameses II. (c. 1300 B.C.), excavated a great gallery to be lined with the tomb chambers; another similar gallery was added by Psammetichus I. The careful statement of the ages of the animals in the later instances, with the regnal dates for their birth, enthronization and death have thrown much light on the chronology from the XXIInd dynasty onwards. The name of the mother-cow and the place of birth are often recorded. The sarcophagi are of immense size, and the burial must have entailed enormous expense. It is therefore remarkable that the priests contrived to bury one of the animals in the fourth year of Cambyses.

APIs or Happiness, the sacred bull of Memphis, in Egyptian Hp, Hope, Hope. According to Manetho, his worship was established by Kaiechos of the Second Dynasty. Hape appears on very early monuments, but not much is known about this divine animal before the New Kingdom. He was known as “the renewal of life” of the Memphite god Ptah; however, after death, he became Osorapis, i.e. Osiris Apis, similar to how deceased humans were associated with Osiris, the ruler of the underworld. This Osorapis was linked to Serapis and might actually be the same as him (see Serapis); Greek writers regarded Apis as an incarnation of Osiris, overlooking the connection with Ptah. Apis was the most significant of all sacred animals in Egypt, and like the others, his importance grew over time. Greek and Roman authors wrote extensively about Apis, detailing the signs by which the black bull-calf was identified, the way he was conceived through a ray from heaven, his home at Memphis with a court for recreation, the ways to predict the future based on his actions, the mourning at his death, his lavish burial, and the celebrations throughout the country when a new Apis was discovered. Mariette’s excavation of the Serapeum at Memphis uncovered the tombs of over sixty animals, spanning from the time of Amenophis III. to that of Ptolemy Alexander. Initially, each animal was buried in a separate tomb with a chapel built above it. Khamuis, the priestly son of Rameses II. (c. 1300 BCE), excavated a large gallery to house the tomb chambers; another similar gallery was added by Psammetichus I. The detailed recording of the ages of these animals in later cases, along with the regnal dates for their birth, enthronization, and death, has provided significant insights into the chronology from the XXIInd dynasty onward. The name of the mother-cow and the place of birth are frequently noted. The sarcophagi are enormous, and the burial must have involved tremendous costs. It is therefore surprising that the priests managed to bury one of the animals in the fourth year of Cambyses.

See Jablonski, Pantheon, ii.; Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, ii. 350; Mariette-Maspero, Le Sérapéum de Memphis.

See Jablonski, Pantheon, ii.; Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, ii. 350; Mariette-Maspero, Le Sérapéum de Memphis.

(F. Ll. G.)

169

169

APLITE, in petrology, the name given to intrusive rock in which quartz and felspar are the dominant minerals. Aplites are usually very fine-grained, white, grey or flesh-coloured, and their constituents are visible only with the help of a magnifying lens. Dykes and threads of aplite are very frequently to be observed traversing granitic bosses; they occur also, though in less numbers, in syenites, diorites, quartz-diabases and gabbros. Without doubt they have usually a genetic affinity to the rocks they intersect. The aplites of granite areas, for example, are the last part of the magma to crystallize, and correspond in composition to the quartzo-felspathic aggregates which fill up the interspaces between the early minerals in the main body of the rock. They bear a considerable resemblance to the eutectic mixtures which are formed on the cooling of solutions of mineral salts, and remain liquid till the excess of either of the components has separated out, finally solidifying en masse when the proper proportions of the constituents and a suitable temperature are reached. The essential components of the aplites are quartz and alkali felspar (the latter usually orthoclase or microperthite). Crystallization has been apparently rapid (as the rocks are so fine-grained), and the ingredients have solidified almost at the same time. Hence their crystals are rather imperfect and fit closely to one another in a sort of fine mosaic of nearly equi-dimensional grains. Porphyritic felspars occur occasionally and quartz more seldom; but the relation of the aplites to quartz-porphyries, granophyres and felsites is very close, as all these rocks have nearly the same chemical composition. Yet the aplites associated with diorites and quartz-diabases differ in minor respects from the common aplites, which accompany granites. The accessory minerals of these rocks are principally oligoclase, muscovite, apatite and zircon. Biotite and all ferromagnesian minerals rarely appear in them, and never are in considerable amount. Riebeckite-granites (paisanites) have close affinities to aplites, shown especially in the prevalence of alkali felspars. Tourmaline also occurs in some aplites. The rocks of this group are very frequent in all areas where masses of granite are known. They form dykes and irregular veins which may be only a few inches or many feet in diameter. Less frequently aplite forms stocks or bosses, or occupies the edges or irregular portions of the interior of outcrops of granite. The syenite-aplites consist mainly of alkali felspar; the diorite-aplites of plagioclase; there are nepheline-bearing aplites which intersect some elaeolite-syenites. In all cases they bear the same relation to the parent masses. By increase of quartz aplites pass gradually, in a few localities, through highly quartzose modifications (beresite, &c.) into quartz veins.

APLITE, in petrology, refers to an intrusive rock where quartz and feldspar are the main minerals. Aplites are typically very fine-grained, often white, gray, or flesh-colored, and their components can only be seen with a magnifying lens. It's common to see dykes and threads of aplite running through granitic formations; they also appear, though less frequently, in syenites, diorites, quartz-diabases, and gabbros. They usually have a genetic connection to the rocks they cut through. For instance, the aplites in granite areas represent the last portion of magma that crystallizes and match the quartz-feldspar aggregates filling the gaps between the early minerals in the main rock body. They are quite similar to the eutectic mixtures formed when cooling mineral salt solutions, which stay liquid until the excess of one component separates out, ultimately solidifying all at once when the right proportions and temperature are met. The main components of aplites are quartz and alkali feldspar (usually orthoclase or microperthite). Crystallization seems to have happened quickly (as the rocks are so fine-grained), causing the ingredients to solidify almost simultaneously. As a result, their crystals are somewhat imperfect and fit tightly together in a fine mosaic of nearly equal-sized grains. Occasionally, porphyritic feldspars can be found, and quartz appears even less often; however, the relationship between aplites and quartz-porphyries, granophyres, and felsites is very close, as all these rocks share similar chemical compositions. Nonetheless, aplites associated with diorites and quartz-diabases have slight differences from the typical aplites found with granites. The accessory minerals in these rocks mainly include oligoclase, muscovite, apatite, and zircon. Biotite and other ferromagnesian minerals are rare and never present in significant amounts. Riebeckite-granites (paisanites) are closely related to aplites, primarily due to the prevalence of alkali feldspars. Tourmaline can also be found in some aplites. These rocks are very common in regions where granite masses are found. They can form dykes and irregular veins that may be just a few inches or several feet wide. Less frequently, aplite can form stocks or bosses, or fill the edges or irregular parts of granite outcrops. Syenite-aplites are mainly composed of alkali feldspar; diorite-aplites consist of plagioclase; and there are nepheline-bearing aplites that cut through some elaeolite-syenites. In all instances, they maintain the same relationship with their parent masses. In certain locations, as quartz increases, aplites gradually transition into highly quartzose variations (beresite, etc.) and into quartz veins.

(J. S. F.)

APNOEA (Gr. ἄπνοια, from -, privative, πνέειν, to breathe), a technical term for suspension of breathing.

APNOEA (Gr. breathlessness, from -, meaning "without," breathe, "to breathe"), a technical term for stopping breathing.


APOCALYPSE (Gr. ἀποκάλυψις, disclosure), a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of men. The Greek root corresponds in the Septuagint to the Heb. gālāh, to reveal. The last book of the New Testament bears in Greek the title Άποκάλυψις Ίωάννου, and is frequently referred to as the Apocalypse of John, but in the English Bible it appears as the Revelation of St John the Divine (see Revelation). Earlier among the hellenistic Jews the term was used of a number of writings which depicted in a prophetic and parabolic way the end or future state of the world (e.g. Apocalypse of Baruch), the whole class is now commonly known as Apocalyptic Literature (q.v.).

APOCALYPSE (Gr. revelation, disclosure), a term used for the revelation to certain select individuals of something hidden from the majority. The Greek root corresponds in the Septuagint to the Heb. gālāh, meaning to reveal. The final book of the New Testament is titled in Greek Αποκάλυψη Ιωάννη, and is often called the Apocalypse of John, but in the English Bible, it is referred to as the Revelation of St John the Divine (see Revelation). Earlier among the Hellenistic Jews, the term was applied to various writings that depicted in a prophetic and parabolic manner the end or future state of the world (e.g. Apocalypse of Baruch), and this entire category is now generally recognized as Apocalyptic Literature (q.v.).


APOCALYPSE, KNIGHTS OF THE, a secret society founded in Italy in 1693 to defend the church against the expected Antichrist. Agostino Gabrino, the son of a merchant of Brescia, was its founder. On Palm Sunday 1693, when the choir of St Peter’s was chanting Quis est iste Rex Gloriae? Gabrino sword in hand, rushed to the altar crying Ego sum Rex Gloriae. Though Gabrino was treated as a madman, the society flourished, until a member denounced it to the Inquisition, who arrested the knights. Though chiefly mechanics they always carried swords even when at work, and wore on their breasts a star with seven rays. Gabrino styled himself monarch of the Holy Trinity. He was credited by his enemies with a desire to introduce polygamy.

APOCALYPSE, KNIGHTS OF THE, is a secret society that was founded in Italy in 1693 to protect the church from the anticipated Antichrist. Agostino Gabrino, the son of a merchant from Brescia, started it. On Palm Sunday 1693, while the choir at St. Peter's was singing Quis est iste Rex Gloriae?, Gabrino, with a sword in hand, rushed to the altar yelling Ego sum Rex Gloriae. Although people considered Gabrino a madman, the society thrived until a member reported it to the Inquisition, which led to the knights’ arrest. Mainly mechanics, they always carried swords even while working and wore a seven-pointed star on their chests. Gabrino called himself the monarch of the Holy Trinity. His enemies accused him of wanting to introduce polygamy.


APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE. The Apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity embraces a considerable period, from the centuries following the exile down to the close of the middle ages. In the present survey we shall limit ourselves to the great formative periods in this literature—in Judaism to 200 B.C. to A.D. 100, and in Christianity to A.D. 50 to 350 or thereabouts.

Apocalyptic Literature. The Apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity covers a significant timeframe, from the centuries after the exile until the end of the Middle Ages. In this overview, we will focus on the key formative periods in this literature— in Judaism from 200 BCE to CE 100, and in Christianity from CE 50 to around 350.

The transition from prophecy to apocalyptic (ἀποκαλύπτειν, to reveal something hidden) was gradual and already accomplished within the limits of the Old Testament. Beginning in the bosom of prophecy, and steadily differentiating itself from it in its successive developments, it never came to stand in absolute contrast to it. Apocalyptical elements disclose themselves in the prophetical books of Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, while in Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii. and xxxiii. we find well-developed apocalypses; but it is not until we come to Daniel that we have a fully matured and classical example of this class of literature. The way, however, had in an especial degree been prepared for the apocalyptic type of thought and literature by Ezekiel, for with him the word of God had become identical with a written book (ii. 9-iii. 3) by the eating of which he learnt the will of God, just as primitive man conceived that the eating of the tree in Paradise imparted spiritual knowledge. When the divine word is thus conceived as a written message, the sole office of the prophet is to communicate what is written. Thus the human element is reduced to zero, and the conception of prophecy becomes mechanical. And as the personal element disappears in the conception of the prophetic calling, so it tends to disappear in the prophetic view of history, and the future comes to be conceived not as the organic result of the present under the divine guidance, but as mechanically determined from the beginning in the counsels of God, and arranged under artificial categories of time. This is essentially the apocalyptic conception of history, and Ezekiel may be justly represented as in certain essential aspects its founder in Israel.

The shift from prophecy to apocalyptic (reveal, to reveal something hidden) happened gradually and was already established within the Old Testament. It started within the realm of prophecy and increasingly set itself apart in its developments, but it never completely opposed it. Apocalyptic elements appear in the prophetic books of Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah, while Isaiah chapters xxiv.-xxvii. and xxxiii. showcase fully developed apocalypses; however, it isn't until we reach Daniel that we find a complete and classic example of this type of literature. Ezekiel particularly prepared the way for the apocalyptic form of thought and literature, as he equated the word of God with a written book (ii. 9-iii. 3), which he consumed to understand God’s will, similar to how early humans believed that eating from the tree in Paradise granted them spiritual knowledge. When the divine word is viewed as a written message, the prophet's role becomes solely to convey what’s written. This diminishes the human aspect to nothing, making the concept of prophecy mechanical. As the personal aspect fades from the idea of the prophetic calling, it also tends to vanish from the prophetic view of history; thus, the future is understood not as a natural outcome of the present under divine guidance, but as something mechanically determined from the start in God's plans, categorized by artificial measures of time. This is fundamentally the apocalyptic view of history, and Ezekiel can rightly be seen as its key figure in Israel.

We shall now consider (I.) Apocalyptic, its origin and general characteristics; (II.) Old Testament Apocalyptic; (III.) New Testament Apocalyptic.

We will now explore (I.) Apocalyptic, its origins and overall characteristics; (II.) Old Testament Apocalyptic; (III.) New Testament Apocalyptic.

I. Apocalyptic—its Origin and General Characteristics

I. Apocalyptic—Its Origin and General Characteristics

i. Sources of Apocalyptic.—The origin of Apocalyptic is to be sought in (a) unfulfilled prophecy and in (b) traditional elements drawn from various sources.

i. Sources of Apocalyptic.—The origin of Apocalyptic can be found in (a) prophecies that were not fulfilled and in (b) traditional elements taken from different sources.

(a) The origin of Apocalyptic is to be sought in unfulfilled prophecy. That certain prophecies relating to the coming kingdom of God had clearly not been fulfilled was a matter of religious difficulty to the returned exiles from Babylon. The judgments predicted by the pre-exilic prophets had indeed been executed to the letter, but where were the promised glories of the renewed kingdom and Israel’s unquestioned sovereignty over the nations of the earth? One such unfulfilled prophecy Ezekiel takes up and reinterprets in such a way as to show that its fulfilment is still to come. The prophets Jeremiah (iv.-vi.) and Zephaniah had foretold the invasion of Judah by a mighty people from the north. But as this northern foe had failed to appear Ezekiel re-edited this prophecy in a new form as a final assault of Gog and his hosts on Jerusalem, and thus established a permanent dogma in Jewish apocalyptic, which in due course passed over into Christian.

(a) The origin of Apocalyptic can be traced back to unfulfilled prophecy. The fact that certain prophecies about the coming kingdom of God had clearly not come true posed a religious challenge to the exiles who returned from Babylon. The judgments predicted by the prophets before the Babylonian exile had indeed been carried out exactly as foretold, but where were the promised glories of the renewed kingdom and Israel’s unquestioned dominance over the nations of the earth? One such unfulfilled prophecy is taken up by Ezekiel, who reinterprets it to demonstrate that its fulfillment is still expected. The prophets Jeremiah (iv.-vi.) and Zephaniah had predicted an invasion of Judah by a powerful people from the north. But since this northern enemy never appeared, Ezekiel revised this prophecy into a new narrative about a final attack from Gog and his armies on Jerusalem, thereby establishing a lasting doctrine in Jewish apocalyptic thought, which eventually carried over into Christian teachings.

But the non-fulfilment of prophecies relating to this or that individual event or people served to popularize the methods of apocalyptic in a very slight degree in comparison with the non-fulfilment of the greatest of all prophecies—the advent of the Messianic kingdom. Thus, though Jeremiah had promised that after seventy years (xxv. 11., xxix. 10) Israel should be restored to their own land (xxiv. 5, 6), and then enjoy the blessings of the Messianic kingdom under the Messianic king (xxiii. 5, 6), this period passed by and things remained as of old. Haggai and Zechariah explained the delay by the failure of Judah to rebuild 170 the temple, and so generation after generation the hope of the kingdom persisted, sustained most probably by ever-fresh reinterpretations of ancient prophecy, till in the first half of the 2nd century the delay is explained in the Books of Daniel and Enoch as due not to man’s shortcomings but to the counsels of God. The 70 years of Jeremiah are interpreted by the angel in Daniel (ix. 25-27) as 70 weeks of years, of which 69½ have already expired, while the writer of Enoch (lxxxv.-xc.) interprets the 70 years of Jeremiah as the 70 successive reigns of the 70 angelic patrons of the nations, which are to come to a close in his own generation.

But the unfulfilled prophecies about this or that individual event or group of people helped to popularize apocalyptic methods only slightly compared to the non-fulfillment of the most significant prophecy—the arrival of the Messianic kingdom. So, even though Jeremiah had promised that after seventy years (xxv. 11., xxix. 10) Israel would be restored to their own land (xxiv. 5, 6), and then experience the blessings of the Messianic kingdom under the Messianic king (xxiii. 5, 6), that time passed and nothing changed. Haggai and Zechariah attributed the delay to Judah's failure to rebuild the temple, and so, generation after generation, the hope of the kingdom remained, likely fueled by new interpretations of ancient prophecies, until the first half of the 2nd century when the delay was explained in the Books of Daniel and Enoch as being due not to human failures but to God’s plans. The 70 years mentioned by Jeremiah are interpreted by the angel in Daniel (ix. 25-27) as 70 weeks of years, of which 69½ have already passed, while the writer of Enoch (lxxxv.-xc.) interprets Jeremiah's 70 years as the 70 consecutive reigns of the 70 angelic guardians of the nations, which are expected to conclude in his own generation.

But the above periods came and passed by, and again the expectations of the Jews were disappointed. Presently the Greek empire of the East was overthrown by Rome, and in due course this new phenomenon, so full of meaning for the Jews, called forth a new interpretation of Daniel. The fourth and last empire which, according to Daniel vii. 10-25, was to be Greek, was now declared to be Roman by the Apocalypse of Baruch (xxxvi.-xl.) and 4 Ezra (x. 60-xii. 35). Once more such ideas as those of “the day of Yahweh” and the “new heavens and a new earth” were constantly re-edited with fresh nuances in conformity with their new settings. Thus the inner development of Jewish apocalyptic was always conditioned by the historical experiences of the nation.

But those periods came and went, and once again the hopes of the Jews were unmet. Soon, the Eastern Greek empire was toppled by Rome, and this significant event led to a fresh interpretation of Daniel. The fourth and final empire, which according to Daniel 7:10-25 was to be Greek, was now identified as Roman by the Apocalypse of Baruch (36-40) and 4 Ezra (10:60-12:35). Ideas like "the day of Yahweh" and the "new heavens and a new earth" were continually reinterpreted with new meanings to fit their changing contexts. Thus, the inner evolution of Jewish apocalyptic thought was always shaped by the historical experiences of the nation.

(b) Another source of apocalyptic was primitive mythological and cosmological traditions, in which the eye of the seer could see the secrets of the future no less surely than those of the past. Thus the six days of the world’s creation, followed by a seventh of rest, were regarded as at once a history of the past and a forecasting of the future. As the world was made in six days its history would be accomplished in six thousand years, since each day with God was as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day; and as the six days of creation were followed by one of rest, so the six thousand years of the world’s history would be followed by a rest of a thousand years (2 Enoch xxxii. 2-xxxiii. 2). Of primitive mythological traditions we might mention the primeval serpent, leviathan, behemoth, while to ideas native to or familiar in apocalyptic belong those of the seven archangels, the angelic patrons of the nations (Deut. xxxii. 8, in LXX.; Isaiah xxiv. 21; Dan. x. 13, 20, &c.), the mountain of God in the north (Isaiah xiv. 13; Ezek. i. 4, &c.), the garden of Eden.

(b) Another source of apocalyptic thought was primitive mythological and cosmological traditions, in which the seer's eye could perceive the secrets of the future just as clearly as those of the past. Therefore, the six days of the world's creation, followed by a seventh day of rest, were seen as both a history of the past and a prediction of the future. Since the world was created in six days, its history would be completed in six thousand years, because each day for God was like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day; and just as the six days of creation were followed by a day of rest, the six thousand years of the world's history would be followed by a thousand years of rest (2 Enoch xxxii. 2-xxxiii. 2). Among primitive mythological traditions, we can mention the ancient serpent, leviathan, and behemoth, while ideas typically associated with or familiar in apocalyptic thought include the seven archangels, the guardian angels of the nations (Deut. xxxii. 8, in LXX.; Isaiah xxiv. 21; Dan. x. 13, 20, etc.), the mountain of God in the north (Isaiah xiv. 13; Ezek. i. 4, etc.), and the garden of Eden.

ii. Object and Contents of Apocalyptic.—The object of this literature in general was to solve the difficulties connected with the righteousness of God and the suffering condition of His righteous servants on earth. The righteousness of God postulated according to the law the temporal prosperity of the righteous and the temporal prosperity of necessity; for as yet there was no promise of life or recompense beyond the grave. But this connexion was not found to obtain as a rule in life, and the difficulties arising from this conflict between promise and experience centred round the lot of the righteous as a community and the lot of the righteous man as an individual. Old Testament prophecy had addressed itself to both these problems, though it was hardly conscious of the claims of the latter. It concerned itself essentially with the present, and with the future only as growing organically out of the present. It taught the absolute need of personal and national righteousness, and foretold the ultimate blessedness of the righteous nation on the present earth. But its views were not systematic and comprehensive in regard to the nations in general, while as regards the individual it held that God’s service here was its own and adequate reward, and saw no need of postulating another world to set right the evils of this. But later, with the growing claims of the individual and the acknowledgment of these in the religious and intellectual life, both problems, and especially the latter, pressed themselves irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers, and made it impossible for any conception of the divine rule and righteousness to gain acceptance, which did not render adequate satisfaction to the claims of both problems. To render such satisfaction was the task undertaken by apocalyptic, as well as to vindicate the righteousness of God alike in respect of the individual and of the nation. To justify their contention they sketched in outline the history of the world and mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the final consummation of all things. Thus they presented in fact a theodicy, a rudimentary philosophy of religion. The righteous as a nation should yet possess the earth, even in this world the faithful community should attain its rights in an eternal Messianic kingdom on earth, or else in temporary blessedness here and eternal blessedness hereafter. So far as regards the righteous community. It was, however, in regard to the destiny of the individual that apocalyptic rendered its chief service. Though the individual might perish amid the disorders of this world, he would not fail, apocalyptic taught, to attain through resurrection the recompense that was his due in the Messianic kingdom or in heaven itself. Apocalyptic thus forms the indispensable preparation for the religion of the New Testament.

ii. Object and Contents of Apocalyptic.—The goal of this literature was to address the challenges related to God's righteousness and the suffering experiences of His righteous servants on earth. God's righteousness, as understood by the law, implied that the righteous should enjoy prosperity in this life; there was no promise of life or reward after death at that point. However, this correlation didn’t consistently hold true in real life, leading to difficulties stemming from the tension between what was promised and actual experiences. These difficulties revolved around both the community of the righteous and the experience of the individual righteous person. Old Testament prophecy tackled both issues, even though it rarely fully acknowledged the latter. It focused primarily on the present, connecting the future organically to the present. It emphasized the essential need for personal and national righteousness, predicting the eventual blessing of the righteous nation on earth. Yet, its perspectives were not comprehensive regarding nations as a whole, and when it came to individuals, it maintained that serving God here was a sufficient reward, viewing no need for another world to rectify the wrongs of this one. Over time, as individual claims gained prominence and were recognized in both religious and intellectual circles, both problems, especially the latter, became pressing concerns for religious thinkers, making it impossible for any view of divine rule and righteousness to be accepted unless it adequately addressed both issues. Apocalyptic literature took on the task of providing this satisfaction, as well as defending God's righteousness concerning both individuals and nations. To support their arguments, they outlined the history of the world and humanity, the origins and progression of evil, and the ultimate resolution of all things. In doing so, they effectively presented a theodicy, a basic philosophy of religion. The righteous, as a nation, were destined to inherit the earth; even in this life, the faithful community would claim its rights in an everlasting Messianic kingdom or achieve temporary blessings here and eternal blessings later. However, the main contribution of apocalyptic literature was concerning the fate of the individual. Although individuals might suffer amidst the chaos of this world, apocalyptic taught that they would achieve through resurrection the rewards that were rightfully theirs in the Messianic kingdom or in heaven itself. Apocalyptic thus serves as an essential precursor to the religion of the New Testament.

iii. Form of Apocalyptic.—The form of apocalyptic is a literary form; for we cannot suppose that the writers experienced the voluminous and detailed visions we find in their books. On the other hand the reality of the visions is to some extent guaranteed by the writer’s intense earnestness and by his manifest belief in the divine origin of his message. But the difficulty of regarding the visions as actual experiences, or as in any sense actual, is intensified, when full account is taken of the artifices of the writer; for the major part of his visions consists of what is to him really past history dressed up in the guise of prediction. Moreover, the writer no doubt intended that his reader should take the accuracy of the prediction (?) already accomplished to be a guarantee for the accuracy of that which was still unrealized. How, then, it may well be asked, can this be consistent with reality of visionary experience? Are we not here obliged to assume that the visions are a literary invention and nothing more?

iii. Form of Apocalyptic.—The form of apocalyptic is a literary style; we can’t assume that the writers actually had the extensive and intricate visions we see in their texts. On the flip side, the reality of these visions is somewhat supported by the writer’s deep sincerity and clear belief in the divine source of their message. However, the challenge of viewing the visions as real experiences, or as anything genuinely tangible, grows when we consider the techniques employed by the writer; most of their visions consist of what is effectively past history presented as if it were prophecies. Furthermore, the writer likely intended for readers to view the accuracy of the fulfilled predictions as proof of the validity of those yet to come true. So, how can this align with the authenticity of visionary experience? Doesn’t this lead us to conclude that the visions are merely a literary creation and nothing more?

However we may explain the inconsistency, we are precluded by the moral earnestness of the writer from assuming the visions to be pure inventions. But the inconsistency has in part been explained by Gunkel, who has rightly emphasized that the writer did not freely invent his materials but derived them in the main from tradition, as he held that these mysterious traditions of his people were, if rightly expounded, forecasts of the time to come. Furthermore, the visionary who is found at most periods of great spiritual excitement was forced by the prejudice of his time, which refused to acknowledge any inspiration in the present, to ascribe his visionary experiences and reinterpretations of the mysterious traditions of his people to some heroic figure of the past. Moreover, there will always be a difficulty in determining what belongs to his actual vision and what to the literary skill or free invention of the author, seeing that the visionary must be dependent on memory and past experience for the forms and much of the matter of the actual vision.

However we may explain the inconsistency, the writer's moral seriousness prevents us from assuming that the visions are just pure inventions. Part of the inconsistency has been explained by Gunkel, who pointed out that the writer didn’t freely create his materials but mainly derived them from tradition, believing that these mysterious traditions of his people were, if interpreted correctly, predictions of the future. Additionally, the visionary, often found during times of great spiritual fervor, was constrained by the biases of his era, which refused to recognize any present inspiration, leading him to attribute his visionary experiences and reinterpretations of his people's mysterious traditions to some heroic figure from the past. Furthermore, there will always be a challenge in determining what is part of his actual vision and what stems from the author's literary skill or imagination, since the visionary must rely on memory and past experiences for the forms and much of the content of the actual vision.

iv. Apocalyptic as distinguished from Prophecy.—We have already dwelt on certain notable differences between apocalyptic and prophecy; but there are certain others that call for attention.

iv. Apocalyptic versus Prophecy.—We have already discussed some key differences between apocalyptic and prophecy; however, there are additional distinctions that deserve attention.

(a) In the Nature of its Message.—The message of the prophets was primarily a preaching of repentance and righteousness if the nation would escape judgment; the message of the apocalyptic writers was of patience and trust for that deliverance and reward were sure to come.

(a) In the Nature of its Message.—The prophets' message was mainly about preaching repentance and righteousness so the nation could avoid judgment; the message of the apocalyptic writers focused on patience and trust, promising that deliverance and reward would definitely come.

(b) By its dualistic Theology.—Prophecy believes that this world is God’s world and that in this world His goodness and truth will yet be vindicated. Hence the prophet prophesies of a definite future arising out of and organically connected with the present. The apocalyptic writer on the other hand despairs of the present, and directs his hopes absolutely to the future, to a new world standing in essential opposition to the present. (Non fecit Altissimus unum saeculum sed duo, 4 Ezra vii. 50.) Here we have essentially a dualistic principle, which, though it can largely be accounted for by the interaction of certain inner tendencies and outward sorrowful experience on the part of Judaism, may ultimately be derived from Mazdean influences. This principle, which shows itself clearly at first in the conception that the various nations are under angelic rulers, who are in a greater or less degree in rebellion against God, as in Daniel and 171 Enoch, grows in strength with each succeeding age, till at last Satan is conceived as “the ruler of this world” (John xii. 31) or “the god of this age” (2 Cor. iv. 4). Under the guidance of such a principle the writer naturally expected the world’s culmination in evil to be the immediate precursor of God’s intervention on behalf of the righteous, and every fresh growth in evil to be an additional sign that the time was at hand. The natural concomitant in conduct of such a belief is an uncompromising asceticism. He that would live to the next world must shun this. Visions are vouchsafed only to those who to prayer have added fasting.

(b) By its dualistic Theology.—Prophecy believes that this world is God's world and that in this world His goodness and truth will ultimately be proven right. Therefore, the prophet speaks about a clear future that is directly connected to the present. In contrast, the apocalyptic writer feels hopeless about the present and places all hopes in the future, in a new world that stands in stark opposition to the current one. (Non fecit Altissimus unum saeculum sed duo, 4 Ezra vii. 50.) Here we essentially have a dualistic principle, which, although it can largely be explained by the interaction of certain internal tendencies and the external sorrowful experiences of Judaism, may ultimately be traced back to Mazdean influences. This principle, which is clearly shown in the idea that various nations are under angelic rulers, who may be more or less in rebellion against God, as seen in Daniel and Enoch, grows stronger with each passing age until finally, Satan is seen as “the ruler of this world” (John xii. 31) or “the god of this age” (2 Cor. iv. 4). Guided by such a principle, the writer naturally expects that the world's peak of evil will be the immediate sign of God's intervention on behalf of the righteous, and each new increase in evil will be an additional sign that the time is near. A natural result of such a belief in conduct is a strict asceticism. One who wishes to live for the next world must avoid this one. Visions are granted only to those who combine prayer with fasting.

(c) By pseudonymous Authorship.—We have already touched on this characteristic of apocalyptic. The prophet stood in direct relations with his people; his prophecy was first spoken and afterwards written. The apocalyptic writer could obtain no hearing from his contemporaries, who held that, though God spoke in the past, “there was no more any prophet.” This pessimism and want of faith limited and defined the form in which religious enthusiasm should manifest itself, and prescribed as a condition of successful effort the adoption of pseudonymous authorship. The apocalyptic writer, therefore, professedly addressed his book to future generations. Generally directions as to the hiding and sealing of the book (Dan. xii. 4, 9; 1 Enoch i. 4; Ass. Mos. i. 16-18) were given in the text in order to explain its publication so long after the date of its professed period. Moreover, there was a sense in which such books were not wholly pseudonymous. Their writers were students of ancient prophecy and apocalyptical tradition, and, though they might recast and reinterpret them, they could not regard them as their own inventions. Each fresh apocalypse would in the eyes of its writer be in some degree but a fresh edition of the traditions naturally attaching themselves to great names in Israel’s past, and thus the books named respectively Enoch, Noah, Ezra would to some slight extent be not pseudonymous.

(c) By pseudonymous Authorship.—We’ve already discussed this aspect of apocalyptic literature. The prophet had a direct relationship with his people; his prophecies were first spoken and then written down. The apocalyptic writer couldn’t get any attention from his contemporaries, who believed that although God had spoken in the past, “there were no more prophets.” This sense of pessimism and lack of faith shaped how religious enthusiasm expressed itself and made pseudonymous authorship a requirement for successful communication. Therefore, the apocalyptic writer intentionally addressed his book to future generations. Generally, instructions about hiding and sealing the book (Dan. xii. 4, 9; 1 Enoch i. 4; Ass. Mos. i. 16-18) were included in the text to explain why it was published so long after its claimed timeline. Furthermore, there was a way in which these books weren’t entirely pseudonymous. Their authors were students of ancient prophecy and apocalyptic tradition, and while they might reinterpret and reshape these ideas, they couldn’t see them as their own creations. Each new apocalypse would, in the author’s view, be somewhat of a new version of the traditions tied to significant figures from Israel’s past, making the books titled Enoch, Noah, and Ezra not completely pseudonymous.

(d) By its comprehensive and deterministic Conception of History.—Apocalyptic took an indefinitely wider view of the world’s history than prophecy. Thus, whereas prophecy had to deal with temporary reverses at the hands of some heathen power, apocalyptic arose at a time when Israel had been subject for generations to the sway of one or other of the great world-powers. Hence to harmonize such difficulties with belief in God’s righteousness, it had to take account of the rôle of such empires in the counsels of God, the rise, duration and downfall of each in turn, till finally the lordship of the world passed into the hands of Israel, or the final judgment arrived. These events belonged in the main to the past, but the writer represented them as still in the future, arranged under certain artificial categories of time definitely determined from the beginning in the counsels of God and revealed by Him to His servants the prophets. Determinism thus became a leading characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic, and its conception of history became severely mechanical.

(d) By its comprehensive and deterministic Conception of History.—Apocalyptic took a much broader view of the world’s history than prophecy did. While prophecy dealt with temporary setbacks caused by some foreign power, apocalyptic emerged during a time when Israel had been under the control of various great world powers for generations. Therefore, to reconcile these challenges with faith in God’s righteousness, it had to consider the role of these empires in God’s plan, including their rise, duration, and fall, until ultimately the authority of the world was restored to Israel, or the final judgment occurred. These events primarily belonged to the past, but the writer portrayed them as still unfolding in the future, organized into specific, artificial categories of time that had been predetermined from the beginning in God’s plan and revealed by Him to His prophets. Determinism thus became a key feature of Jewish apocalyptic, leading to a very mechanical view of history.

II. Old Testament Apocalyptic

II. Old Testament Apocalypse

i. Canonical:—

i. Canonical:—

Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii.; xxxiii.; xxxiv.-xxxv.

Isaiah 24-27; 33; 34-35.

(Jeremiah xxxiii. 14-26?)

(Jeremiah 33:14-26?)

Ezekiel ii. 8; xxxviii.-xxxix.

Ezekiel 2:8; 38-39

Joel iii. 9-17.

Joel 3:9-17.

Zech. xii—xiv.

Zech. 12-14.

Daniel.

Daniel.

We cannot enter here into a discussion of the above passages and books.1 All are probably pseudepigraphic except the passages from Ezekiel and Joel. Of the remaining passages and books Daniel belongs unquestionably to the Maccabean period, and the rest possibly to the same period. Isaiah xxxiii. was probably written about 163 B.C. (Duhm and Marti); Zech. xii.-xiv. about 160 B.C., Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii. about 128 B.C., and xxxiv.-xxxv. sometime in the reign of John Hyrcanus. Jeremiah xxxiii. 14-26 is assigned by Marti to Maccabean times, but this is highly questionable.

We can't dive into a discussion about the passages and books mentioned above.1 Most of them are likely pseudepigrapha except for the passages from Ezekiel and Joel. Daniel definitely belongs to the Maccabean period, and the others may also date from that time. Isaiah 33 was probably written around 163 BCE (according to Duhm and Marti); Zechariah 12-14 around 160 BCE, Isaiah 24-27 around 128 BCE, and 34-35 sometime during John Hyrcanus's reign. Marti assigns Jeremiah 33:14-26 to Maccabean times, but that's very much in question.

ii. Extra-canonical:—

ii. Non-canonical:—

(a) Palestinian:—

Palestinian:—

(200-100 B.C.)

(200-100 B.C.)

Book of Noah.

Noah's Book.

1 Enoch vi.-xxxvi.; lxxii.-xc.

1 Enoch 6-36; 72-90

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.

Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs.

(100 B.C. to 1 B.C.)

(100 B.C. to 1 B.C.)

1 Enoch i.-v.; xxxvii.-lxxi.; xci.-civ.

1 Enoch 1-5; 37-71; 91-104.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi., T. Jud. xxi. 6-xxiii, T. Zeb. ix., T. Dan. v. 6, 7.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi., T. Jud. xxi. 6-xxiii, T. Zeb. ix., T. Dan. v. 6, 7.

Psalms of Solomon.

Psalms of Solomon.

(A.D. 1-100 and later.)

A.D. 1-100 and beyond.

Assumption of Moses.

Assumption of Moses.

Apocalypse of Baruch.

Baruch's Apocalypse.

4 Ezra.

4 Ezra.

Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.

Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.

Apocalypse of Zephaniah.

Zephaniah's Apocalypse.

Apocalypse of Abraham.

Abraham's Apocalypse.

Prayer of Joseph.

Joseph's Prayer.

Book of Eldad and Modad.

Book of Eldad and Modad.

Apocalypse of Elijah.

Elijah's Apocalypse.

(b) Hellenistic:—

Hellenistic

2 Enoch.

2 Enoch.

Oracles of Hystaspes.

Hystaspes Oracles.

Testament of Job.

Job's Testament.

Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.

Testaments of the Third Patriarchs.

Sibylline Oracles (excluding Christian portions).

Sibylline Oracles (not including Christian parts).

Book of Noah.—Though this book has not come down to us independently, it has in large measure been incorporated in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and can in part be reconstructed from it. The Book of Noah is mentioned in Jubilees x. 13, xxi. 10. Chapters lx., lxv.-lxix. 25 of the Ethiopic Enoch are without question derived from it. Thus lx. 1 runs: “In the year 500, in the seventh month ... in the life of Enoch.” Here the editor simply changed the name Noah in the context before him into Enoch, for the statement is based on Gen. v. 32, and Enoch lived only 365 years. Chapters vi.-xi. are clearly from the same source; for they make no reference to Enoch, but bring forward Noah (x. 1) and treat of the sin of the angels that led to the flood, and of their temporal and eternal punishment. This section is compounded of the Semjaza and Azazel myths, and in its present composite form is already presupposed by 1 Enoch lxxxviii.-xc. Hence these chapters are earlier than 166 B.C. Chapters cvi.-cvii. of the same book are probably from the same source; likewise liv. 7-lv. 2, and Jubilees vii. 20-39, x. 1-15. In the former passage of Jubilees the subject-matter leads to this identification, as well as the fact that Noah is represented as speaking in the first person, although throughout Jubilees it is the angel that speaks. Possibly Eth. En. xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., lix. are from the same work. The book may have opened with Eth. En. cvi.-cvii. On these chapters may have followed Eth. En. vi.-xi., lxv.-lxix. 25, lx., xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., liv. 7-lv. 2; Jubilees vii. 26-39, x. 1-15.

Book of Noah.—Although this book hasn't survived on its own, much of it has been included in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and we can partly reconstruct it from that. The Book of Noah is referenced in Jubilees x. 13 and xxi. 10. Chapters lx., lxv.-lxix. 25 of the Ethiopic Enoch are definitely based on it. For example, lx. 1 states: “In the year 500, in the seventh month ... in the life of Enoch.” Here, the editor simply changed the name Noah in the original text to Enoch, since the statement is derived from Gen. v. 32, and Enoch only lived for 365 years. Chapters vi.-xi. also clearly come from the same source; they do not mention Enoch but instead focus on Noah (x. 1) and discuss the angels' sin that caused the flood, along with their temporary and eternal punishment. This section combines the Semjaza and Azazel myths, and in its current form is referenced by 1 Enoch lxxxviii.-xc. Thus, these chapters are earlier than 166 BCE Chapters cvi.-cvii. of the same book likely come from the same source, just like liv. 7-lv. 2, and Jubilees vii. 20-39, x. 1-15. In the earlier part of Jubilees, the subject matter supports this identification, along with the fact that Noah is depicted as speaking in the first person, whereas throughout Jubilees it is typically an angel who speaks. Possibly, Eth. En. xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., lix are also from the same work. The book might have started with Eth. En. cvi.-cvii. Following these chapters, there may have been Eth. En. vi.-xi., lxv.-lxix. 25, lx., xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., liv. 7-lv. 2; Jubilees vii. 26-39, x. 1-15.

The Hebrew Book of Noah, a later work, is printed in Jellinek’s Bet ha-Midrasch, iii. 155-156, and translated into German in Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 385-387. It is based on the part of the above Book of Noah which is preserved in the Book of Jubilees. The portion of this Hebrew work which is derived from the older work is reprinted in Charles’s Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, p. 179.

The Hebrew Book of Noah, a later piece, is included in Jellinek’s Bet ha-Midrasch, iii. 155-156, and is translated into German in Rönsch's Das Buch der Jubiläen, 385-387. It draws from the section of the earlier Book of Noah that is found in the Book of Jubilees. The part of this Hebrew text that comes from the older work is reprinted in Charles’s Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, p. 179.

1 Enoch, or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch.—This is the most important of all the apocryphal writings for the history of religious thought. Like the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Megilloth and the Pirke Aboth, this work was divided into five parts, which, as we shall notice presently, spring from five different sources. Originally written partly in Aramaic (i.e. vi.-xxxvi.) and partly in Hebrew (i.-vi., xxxvii.-cviii.), it was translated into Greek, and from Greek into Ethiopic and possibly Latin. Only one-fifth of the Greek version in two forms survives. The various elements of the book were written by different authors at different dates, vi.-xxxvi. was written before 166 B.C., lxxii.-lxxxii. before the Book of Jubilees, i.e. before 120 B.C. or thereabouts, lxxxiii.-xc. about 166 B.C., i.-v., xci.-civ. before 95 B.C., and xxxvii.-lxxi. before 64 B.C. There are many interpolations drawn mainly from the Book of Noah.

1 Enoch, or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch.—This is the most significant of all the apocryphal writings for the history of religious thought. Like the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Megilloth, and the Pirke Aboth, this work is divided into five parts, which, as we will see shortly, originate from five different sources. It was originally written partly in Aramaic (i.e. vi.-xxxvi.) and partly in Hebrew (i.-vi., xxxvii.-cviii.), then translated into Greek, and from Greek into Ethiopic and possibly Latin. Only one-fifth of the Greek version in two forms has survived. The various parts of the book were written by different authors at different times: vi.-xxxvi. was written before 166 BCE, lxxii.-lxxxii. before the Book of Jubilees, i.e. before around 120 BCE, lxxxiii.-xc. about 166 BCE, i.-v., xci.-civ. before 95 BCE, and xxxvii.-lxxi. before 64 BCE There are many interpolations mainly drawn from the Book of Noah.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.—This book, in some respects 172 the most important of Old Testament apocryphs, has only recently come into its own. Till a few years ago, owing to Christian interpolations, it was taken to be a Christian apocryph, written originally in Greek in the 2nd century A.D. Now it is acknowledged by Christian and Jewish scholars alike to have been written in Hebrew in the 2nd century B.C. From Hebrew it was translated into Greek and from Greek into Armenian and Slavonic. The versions have come down in their entirety, and small portions of the Hebrew text have been recovered from later Jewish writings. The Testaments were written about the same date as the Book of Jubilees. These two books form the only Apology in Jewish literature for the religious and civil hegemony of the Maccabees from the Pharisaic standpoint. To the Jewish interpolation of the 1st century B.C. (about 60-40), i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi.; T. Jud. xxii.-xxiii., &c., a large interest attaches; for these, like I Enoch xci.-civ. and the Psalms of Solomon, constitute an unmeasured attack on every office— prophetic, priestly and kingly—administered by the Maccabees. The ethical character of the book is of the highest type, and its profound influence on the writers of the New Testament is yet to be appreciated. (See Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.)

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.—This book, in some ways the most significant of Old Testament apocryphs, has only recently gained recognition. Until a few years ago, due to Christian additions, it was considered a Christian apocryph, originally written in Greek in the 2nd century CE Now, it is recognized by both Christian and Jewish scholars as having been written in Hebrew in the 2nd century BCE It was translated from Hebrew into Greek and then from Greek into Armenian and Slavonic. The complete versions have been preserved, and small sections of the Hebrew text have been found in later Jewish writings. The Testaments were written around the same time as the Book of Jubilees. These two works represent the only defense in Jewish literature for the religious and civil dominance of the Maccabees from the Pharisaic perspective. A significant focus is given to the Jewish interpolation from the 1st century BCE (around 60-40), i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi.; T. Jud. xxii.-xxiii., etc., as these, like I Enoch xci.-civ. and the Psalms of Solomon, launch an extensive critique on every role—prophetic, priestly, and kingly—held by the Maccabees. The ethical nature of the book is of the highest quality, and its deep impact on the writers of the New Testament is still to be fully understood. (See Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.)

Psalms of Solomon.—These psalms, in all eighteen, enjoyed but small consideration in early times, for only six direct references to them are found in early literature. Their ascription to Solomon is due solely to the copyists or translators, for no such claim is made in any of the psalms. On the whole, Ryle and James are no doubt right in assigning 70-40 B.C. as the limits within which the psalms were written. The authors were Pharisees. They divide their countrymen into two classes— “the righteous,” ii. 38-39, iii. 3-5, 7, 8, &c., and “the sinners,” ii. 38, iii. 13, iv. 9, &c.; “the saints,” iii. 10, &c., and “the transgressors,” iv. II, &c. The former are the Pharisees; the latter the Sadducees. They protest against the Asmonaean house for usurping the throne of David, and laying violent hands on the high priesthood (xvii. 5, 6, 8), and proclaim the coming of the Messiah, the Son of David, who is to set all things right and establish the supremacy of Israel. Pss. xvii.-xviii. and i.-xvi. cannot be assigned to the same authorship. The hopes of the Messiah are confined to the former, and a somewhat different eschatology underlies the two works. Since the Psalms were written in Hebrew, and intended for public worship in the synagogues, it is most probable that they were composed in Palestine. (See Solomon, The Psalms of.)

Psalms of Solomon.—These psalms, totaling eighteen, received little attention in early times, as only six direct references to them appear in early literature. The attribution to Solomon comes only from copyists or translators, as there is no such claim made in any of the psalms themselves. Generally, Ryle and James are likely correct in dating the psalms to between 70 and 40 BCE The authors were Pharisees. They categorize their fellow Jews into two groups—“the righteous,” ii. 38-39, iii. 3-5, 7, 8, etc., and “the sinners,” ii. 38, iii. 13, iv. 9, etc.; “the saints,” iii. 10, etc., and “the transgressors,” iv. 11, etc. The former refers to the Pharisees; the latter to the Sadducees. They criticize the Asmonaean dynasty for taking over the throne of David and for improperly claiming the high priesthood (xvii. 5, 6, 8), and they proclaim the coming of the Messiah, the Son of David, who will restore order and establish Israel's dominance. Pss. xvii.-xviii. and i.-xvi. cannot be attributed to the same authorship. The hopes of the Messiah are only present in the former, and a somewhat different theology underpins the two works. Since the Psalms were written in Hebrew and meant for public worship in the synagogues, it's most likely that they were composed in Palestine. (See Solomon, The Psalms of.)

The Assumption of Moses.—This book was lost for many centuries till a large fragment of it was discovered by Ceriani in 1861 (Monumenta Sacra, I. i. 55-64) from a palimpsest of the 6th century. Very little was known about the contents of this book prior to this discovery. The present book is possibly the long-lost Διαθήκη Μωυσέως mentioned in some ancient lists, for it never speaks of the assumption of Moses, but always of his natural death. About a half of the original Testament is preserved in the Latin version. The latter half probably dealt with questions about the creation. With this “Testament” the “Assumption,” to which almost all the patristic references and that of Jude are made, was subsequently edited. The book was written between 4 B.C. and A.D. 7. As for the author, he was no Essene, for he recognizes animal sacrifices and cherishes the Messianic hope; he was not a Sadducee, for he looks forward to the establishment of the Messianic kingdom (x.); nor a Zealot, for the quietistic ideal is upheld (ix.), and the kingdom is established by God Himself (x.). He is therefore a Chasid of the ancient type, and glorifies the ideals which were cherished by the old Pharisaic party, but which were now being fast disowned in favour of a more active role in the political life of the nation. He pours his most scathing invectives on the Sadducees, who are described in vii. in terms that recall the anti-Sadducean Psalms of Solomon. His object, therefore, is to protest against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of popular Messianic beliefs and political ideals. (See also Moses, Assumption of.)

The Assumption of Moses.—This book was lost for many centuries until a large fragment was discovered by Ceriani in 1861 (Monumenta Sacra, I. i. 55-64) from a 6th-century palimpsest. Very little was known about the content of this book before this discovery. The current book is possibly the long-lost Moses' Testament mentioned in some ancient lists, as it never refers to the assumption of Moses, but always to his natural death. About half of the original Testament is preserved in the Latin version. The latter half likely covered questions about creation. This "Testament" was later edited into what became the "Assumption," to which almost all patristic references and that of Jude are made. The book was written between 4 BCE and A.D. 7. As for the author, he was not an Essene, as he acknowledges animal sacrifices and holds a Messianic hope; he was not a Sadducee, as he anticipates the establishment of the Messianic kingdom (x.); nor was he a Zealot, as he supports a quietistic ideal (ix.), and the kingdom is established by God Himself (x.). He is therefore a Chasid of the ancient type, praising the ideals cherished by the old Pharisaic party, which were now being increasingly rejected in favor of a more active political role for the nation. He delivers his harshest criticisms against the Sadducees, describing them in vii. in a way that echoes the anti-Sadducean Psalms of Solomon. His goal, therefore, is to protest against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party due to its adoption of popular Messianic beliefs and political ideals. (See also Moses, Assumption of.)

Apocalypse of Baruch—The Syriac.—This apocalypse has survived only in the Syriac version. The Syriac is a translation from the Greek, and the Greek in turn from the Hebrew. The book treats of the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, the woes of Israel in the past and the destruction of Jerusalem in the present, as well as of theological questions relating to original sin, free will, works, &c. The views expressed on several of these subjects are often conflicting. We must, therefore, assume a number of independent sources put together by an editor or else that the book is on the whole the work of one author who made use of independent writings but failed to blend them into one harmonious whole. In its present form the book was written soon after A.D. 70. For fuller treatment see Baruch.

Apocalypse of Baruch—The Syriac.—This apocalypse has only survived in the Syriac version. The Syriac is a translation from the Greek, which in turn was translated from the Hebrew. The book discusses the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, the sufferings of Israel in the past, the destruction of Jerusalem in the present, and various theological issues related to original sin, free will, works, etc. The perspectives on several of these topics are often conflicting. Therefore, we should assume that there are multiple independent sources compiled by an editor, or that the book is primarily the work of one author who utilized independent writings but didn't successfully blend them into a cohesive whole. In its current form, the book was written shortly after CE 70. For a more detailed discussion, see Baruch.

4 Ezra.—This apocryph is variously named. In the first Arabic and Ethiopic versions it is called I Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the English authorized version it is 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra. With the majority of the Latin MSS. we designate the book 4 Ezra. In its fullest form this apocryph consists of sixteen chapters, but i.-ii. and xv.-xvi. are of different authorship from each other and from the main work iii.-xiv. The book was written originally in Hebrew. There are Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian versions. The Greek version is lost. This apocalypse is of very great importance, on account of its very full treatment of the theological questions rife in the latter half of the 1st century of the Christian era. The book, even if written by one author, was based on a variety of already existing works. It springs from the same school of thought as the Apocalypse of Baruch, and its affinities with the latter are so numerous and profound that scholars have not yet come to any consensus as to the relative priority of either. In its present form it was composed A.D. 80-100. For fuller treatment see Ezra.

4 Ezra.—This apocryphal book is known by different names. In the earliest Arabic and Ethiopic versions, it's referred to as I Ezra; in some Latin manuscripts and the English authorized version, it’s called 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian, it’s 3 Ezra. With most Latin manuscripts, we refer to the book as 4 Ezra. In its complete form, this apocryphal text contains sixteen chapters, but chapters i.-ii. and xv.-xvi. are written by different authors compared to the main sections, iii.-xiv. The book was originally written in Hebrew. There are versions in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian. The Greek version has been lost. This apocalypse is extremely important due to its comprehensive discussion of the theological issues prevalent in the latter half of the 1st century of the Christian era. Even if it was authored by a single individual, it was based on various existing works. It arises from the same line of thought as the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the connections between the two are so numerous and significant that scholars have yet to reach a consensus on which came first. In its current form, it was composed CE 80-100. For more details, see Ezra.

Apocalypse of Baruch—The Greek.—This work is referred to by Origen (de Princip. II. iii. 6): “Denique etiam Baruch prophetae librum in assertionis hujus’ testimonium vocant, quod ibi de septem mundis vel caelis evidentius indicatur.” This book survives in two forms in Slavonic and Greek. The former was translated by Bonwetsch in 1896, in the Nachrichten von der königl. Ges. der Wiss. zu, Gött. pp. 91-101; the latter by James in 1897 in Anecdota, ii. 84-94, with an elaborate introduction (pp. li.-lxxi.). The Slavonic is only of secondary value, as it is merely an abbreviated form of the Greek. Even the Greek cannot claim to be the original work, but only to be a recension of it; for, whereas Origen states that this apocalypse contained an account of the seven heavens, the existing Greek work describes only five, and the Slavonic only two. As the original, work presupposes 2 Enoch and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and was known to Origen, it was written between A.D. 80 and 200, and nearer the earlier date than the later, as it would otherwise be hard to understand how it came to circulate among Christians. The superscription shows points of connexion with the Rest of the Words of Baruch, but little weight can be attached to the fact, since titles and superscriptions were so frequently transformed and expanded in ancient times. As James and Kohler have pointed out, part of section 4 on the Vine is a Christian addition. A German translation of the Greek appears in Kautzsch’s Apok. u. Pseud, ii. 448-457, and a strong article by Kohler on the Jewish authorship of the book in the Jewish Encyclopedia, ii. 549-551. (See Baruch.)

Apocalypse of Baruch—The Greek.—This work is mentioned by Origen (de Princip. II. iii. 6): “Finally, they also refer to the book of Baruch the prophet as evidence for this assertion, since it clearly mentions the seven worlds or heavens.” This book exists in two versions, in Slavonic and Greek. The Slavonic version was translated by Bonwetsch in 1896, in the Nachrichten von der königl. Ges. der Wiss. zu, Gött. pp. 91-101; the Greek version was translated by James in 1897 in Anecdota, ii. 84-94, along with a detailed introduction (pp. li.-lxxi.). The Slavonic version holds little value, as it is just an abbreviated form of the Greek. Even the Greek version cannot be considered the original text but is just a revised edition; although Origen states that this apocalypse included a description of the seven heavens, the Greek version refers to only five, and the Slavonic version mentions only two. Since the original work assumes knowledge of 2 Enoch and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and was known to Origen, it was written between AD 80 and 200, likely closer to the earlier date, as it would be difficult to understand how it became known among Christians otherwise. The title shows some connections to the Rest of the Words of Baruch, but this connection is not very significant, as titles and headers were often altered and expanded in ancient times. As James and Kohler noted, part of section 4 concerning the Vine is a Christian addition. A German translation of the Greek appears in Kautzsch’s Apok. u. Pseud, ii. 448-457, along with a substantial article by Kohler discussing the Jewish authorship of the book in the Jewish Encyclopedia, ii. 549-551. (See Baruch.)

Apocalypse of Abraham.—This book is found only in the Slavonic (edited by Bonwetsch, Studien zur Geschichte d. Theologie und Kirche, 1897), a translation from the Greek. It is of Jewish origin, but in part worked over by a Christian reviser. The first part treats of Abraham’s conversion, and the second forms an apocalyptic expansion of Gen. xv. This book was possibly known to the author of the Clem. Recognitions, i. 32, a passage, however, which may refer to Jubilees. It is most probably distinct from the Άποκάλυψις Άβραάμ used by the gnostic Sethites (Epiphanius, Haer. xxxix. 5), which was very heretical. On the other hand, it is probably identical with the apocryphal book Άβραάμ mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and the Synopsis Athanasii, together with the Apocalypses of Enoch, &c.

Apocalypse of Abraham.—This book is found only in the Slavonic version (edited by Bonwetsch, Studien zur Geschichte d. Theologie und Kirche, 1897), which is a translation from Greek. It originates from Jewish traditions but has been revised in parts by a Christian editor. The first section discusses Abraham’s conversion, while the second is an apocalyptic elaboration of Gen. xv. The author of the Clem. Recognitions, i. 32, might have been familiar with this book, although the reference could also relate to Jubilees. It is likely different from the Αποκάλυψη του Αβραάμ used by the gnostic Sethites (Epiphanius, Haer. xxxix. 5), which was considered very heretical. On the other hand, it is likely the same as the apocryphal book Άβραάμ mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the Synopsis Athanasii, along with the Apocalypses of Enoch, etc.

173

173

Lost Apocalypses: Prayer of Joseph.—The Prayer of Joseph is quoted by Origen [In Joann. II. xxv, (Lommatzsch, i. 147, 148); in Gen. III. ix. (Lommatzsch, viii. 30-31)]. The fragments in Origen represent Jacob as speaking and claiming to be “the first servant in God’s presence,” “the first-begotten of every creature animated by God,” and declaring that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (and was identified by Christians with Christ) was only eighth in rank. The work was obviously anti-Christian. (See Schürer3, iii. 265-266.)

Lost Apocalypses: Prayer of Joseph.—The Prayer of Joseph is referenced by Origen [In Joann. II. xxv, (Lommatzsch, i. 147, 148); in Gen. III. ix. (Lommatzsch, viii. 30-31)]. The fragments in Origen depict Jacob as speaking and claiming to be “the first servant in God’s presence,” “the first-born of every creature filled with God’s spirit,” and stating that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (who Christians identified as Christ) held only the eighth rank. The work was clearly anti-Christian. (See Schürer3, iii. 265-266.)

Book of Eldad and Modad.—This book was written in the name of the two prophets mentioned in Num. xi. 26-29. It consisted, according to the Targ. Jon. on Num. xi. 26-20, mainly of prophecies on Magog’s last attack on Israel. The Shepherd of Hermas quotes it Vis. ii. 3. (See Marshall in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, i. 677.)

Book of Eldad and Modad.—This book was written in the name of the two prophets mentioned in Num. xi. 26-29. According to the Targ. Jon. on Num. xi. 26-20, it mainly consisted of prophecies about Magog’s final attack on Israel. The Shepherd of Hermas quotes it in Vis. ii. 3. (See Marshall in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, i. 677.)

Apocalypse of Elijah.—This apocalypse is mentioned in two of the lists of books. Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Euthalius ascribe to it I Cor. ii. 9. If they are right, the apocalypse is pre-Pauline. The peculiar form in which I Cor. ii. 9 appears in Clemens Alex. Protrept. x. 94, and the Const. Apost. vii. 32, shows that both have the same source, probably this apocalypse. Epiphanius (Haer. xlii., ed. Oehler, vol. ii. 678) ascribes to this work Eph. v. 14. Isr. Lévi (Revue des études juives, 1880, i. 108 sqq.) argues for the existence of a Hebrew apocalypse of Elijah from two Talmudic passages. A late work of this name has been published by Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, 1855, iii. 65-68, and Buttenwieser in 1897. Zahn, Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, ii. 801-810, assigns this apocalypse to the 2nd century A.D. (See Schürer3, iii. 267-271.)

Apocalypse of Elijah.—This apocalypse is mentioned in two of the lists of books. Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Euthalius link it to I Cor. ii. 9. If they are correct, the apocalypse predates Paul. The specific way I Cor. ii. 9 appears in Clemens Alex. Protrept. x. 94, and the Const. Apost. vii. 32, indicates that both draw from the same source, likely this apocalypse. Epiphanius (Haer. xlii., ed. Oehler, vol. ii. 678) attributes Eph. v. 14 to this work. Isr. Lévi (Revue des études juives, 1880, i. 108 sqq.) argues for the existence of a Hebrew apocalypse of Elijah based on two Talmudic passages. A later work with this title was published by Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, 1855, iii. 65-68, and Buttenwieser in 1897. Zahn, Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, ii. 801-810, dates this apocalypse to the 2nd century A.D. (See Schürer3, iii. 267-271.)

Apocalypse of Zephaniah.—Apart from two of the lists this work is known to us in its original form only through a citation in Clem. Alex. Strom. v. II, 77. A Christian revision of it is probably preserved in the two dialects of Coptic. Of these the Akhmim text is the original of the Sahidic. These texts and their translations have been edited by Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und Bruchstucke der Sophonias-Apokalypse (1809). As Schürer (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1899, No. I. 4-8) has shown, these fragments belong most probably to the Zephaniah apocalypse. They give descriptions of heaven and hell, and predictions of the Antichrist. In their present form these Christianized fragments are not earlier than the 3rd century. (See Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes3, iii. 271-273.)

Apocalypse of Zephaniah.—Besides two of the lists, we only know this work in its original form through a citation in Clem. Alex. Strom. v. II, 77. A Christian version of it is likely preserved in the two Coptic dialects. Of these, the Akhmim text is the original of the Sahidic. These texts and their translations have been edited by Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und Bruchstücke der Sophonias-Apokalypse (1809). As Schürer (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1899, No. I. 4-8) has demonstrated, these fragments most likely belong to the Zephaniah apocalypse. They provide descriptions of heaven and hell, as well as predictions about the Antichrist. In their current form, these Christianized fragments date to no earlier than the 3rd century. (See Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes3, iii. 271-273.)

2 Enoch, or the Slavonic Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch.—This new fragment of the Enochic literature was recently brought to light through five MSS. discovered in Russia and Servia. The book in its present form was written before A.D. 70 in Greek by an orthodox Hellenistic Jew, who lived in Egypt. For a fuller account see Enoch.

2 Enoch, or the Slavonic Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch.—This new piece of Enochic literature was recently uncovered through five manuscripts found in Russia and Serbia. The book, in its current version, was written in Greek by a traditional Hellenistic Jew who lived in Egypt before A.D. 70. For a more detailed account, see Enoch.

Oracles of Hystaspes.—See under N. T. Apocalypses, below.

Oracles of Hystaspes.—See under N. T. Apocalypses, below.

Testament of Job.—This book was first printed from one MS. by Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. (1833), VII. i. 180, and translated into French in Migne’s Dict. des Apocryphes, ii. 403. An excellent edition from two MSS. is given by M.R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. pp. lxxii.-cii., 104-137, who holds that the book in its present form was written by a Christian Jew in Egypt on the basis of a Hebrew Midrash on Job in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Kohler (Kohut Memorial Volume, 1897, pp. 264-338) has given good grounds for regarding the whole work, with the exception of some interpolations, as “one of the most remarkable productions of the pre-Christian era, explicable only when viewed in the light of Hasidean practice.” See Jewish Encycl. vii. 200-202.

Testament of Job.—This book was first printed from one manuscript by Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. (1833), VII. i. 180, and translated into French in Migne’s Dict. des Apocryphes, ii. 403. An excellent edition from two manuscripts is provided by M.R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. pp. lxxii.-cii., 104-137, who argues that the book, in its current form, was written by a Christian Jew in Egypt based on a Hebrew Midrash on Job in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Kohler (Kohut Memorial Volume, 1897, pp. 264-338) has presented solid reasons to view the entire work, except for some additions, as “one of the most remarkable productions of the pre-Christian era, understandable only in the context of Hasidean practice.” See Jewish Encycl. vii. 200-202.

Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.—For an account of these three Testaments (referred to in the Apost. Const. vi. 16), the first of which only is preserved in the Greek and is assigned by James to the 2nd century A.D., see that scholar’s “Testament of Abraham,” Texts and Studies, ii. 2 (1892), which appears in two recensions from six and three MSS. respectively, and Vassiliev’s Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, (1893), pp. 292-308, from one MS. already used by James. This work was written in Egypt, according to James, and survives also in Slavonic, Rumanian, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions. It deals with Abraham’s reluctance to die and the means by which his death was brought about. James holds that this book is referred to by Origen (Hom. in Luc. xxxv.), but this is denied by Schürer, who also questions its Jewish origin. With the exception of chaps. x.-xi., it is really a legend and not an apocalypse. An English translation of James’s texts will be found in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Clark, 1897), pp. 185-201. The Testaments of Isaac and Jacob are still preserved in Arabic and Ethiopic (see James, op. cit. 140-161). See Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.

Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.—For an overview of these three Testaments (mentioned in the Apost. Const. vi. 16), the first of which is only available in Greek and is dated by James to the 2nd century CE, refer to the scholar’s “Testament of Abraham,” Texts and Studies, ii. 2 (1892). This work appears in two versions from six and three manuscripts respectively, and Vassiliev’s Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, (1893), pp. 292-308, from one manuscript already referenced by James. This text was written in Egypt, according to James, and also exists in Slavonic, Rumanian, Ethiopic, and Arabic translations. It discusses Abraham’s hesitation to die and how his death came about. James believes that this book is referred to by Origen (Hom. in Luc. xxxv.), but Schürer contests this and questions its Jewish origins. Aside from chapters x.-xi., it is mainly a legend and not an apocalypse. An English translation of James’s texts can be found in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Clark, 1897), pp. 185-201. The Testaments of Isaac and Jacob are still available in Arabic and Ethiopic (see James, op. cit. 140-161). See Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.

Sibylline Oracles.—Of the books which have come down to us the main part is Jewish, and was written at various dates, iii. 97-829, iv.-v. are decidedly of Jewish authorship, and probably xi.-xii., xiv. and parts of i.-ii. The oldest portions are in iii., and belong to the 2nd century B.C.

Sibylline Oracles.—Among the books that have survived, the majority are Jewish and were written at different times. Sections iii. 97-829 and iv.-v. are clearly by Jewish authors, and likely sections xi.-xii., xiv., and parts of i.-ii. The oldest sections are found in iii., dating back to the 2nd century B.C.

III. New Testament Apocalyptic

III. New Testament End Times

When we pass from Jewish literature to that of the New Testament, we enter into a new and larger atmosphere at once recalling and transcending what had been best in the prophetic periods of the past. Again the heavens had opened and the divine teaching come to mankind, no longer merely in books bearing the names of ancient patriarchs, but on the lips of living men, who had taken courage to appear in person as God’s messengers before His people. But though Christianity was in spirit the descendant of ancient Jewish prophecy, it was no less truly the child of that Judaism which had expressed its highest aspirations and ideals in pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic literature. Hence we shall not be surprised to find that the two tendencies are fully represented in primitive Christianity, and, still more strange as it may appear, that New Testament apocalyptic found a more ready hearing amid the stress and storm of the 1st century than the prophetic side of Christianity, and that the type of the forerunner on the side of its declared asceticism appealed more readily to primitive Christianity than that of Him who came “eating and drinking,” declaring both worlds good and both God’s.

When we move from Jewish literature to the New Testament, we enter a new and broader scene that both recalls and goes beyond the best of past prophetic periods. Again, the heavens opened, and divine teachings came to humanity, not just in books named after ancient patriarchs, but through the voices of living men who bravely presented themselves as God’s messengers to His people. While Christianity is, in spirit, the successor to ancient Jewish prophecy, it also significantly derives from the Judaism that expressed its highest hopes and ideals in pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic writings. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see both of these influences represented in early Christianity. Interestingly, New Testament apocalyptic literature was more readily accepted during the turmoil of the 1st century than the prophetic aspect of Christianity. Additionally, the ascetic figure of the forerunner resonated more strongly with early Christianity than the one who came “eating and drinking,” proclaiming that both worlds were good and both belonged to God.

Early Christianity had thus naturally a special fondness for this class of literature. It was Christianity that preserved Jewish apocalyptic, when it was abandoned by Judaism as it sank into Rabbinism, and gave it a Christian character either by a forcible exegesis or by a systematic process of interpolation. Moreover, it cultivated this form of literature and made it the vehicle of its own ideas. Though apocalyptic served its purpose in the opening centuries of the Christian era, it must be confessed that in many of its aspects its office is transitory, as they belong not to the essence of Christian thought. When once it had taught men that the next world was God’s world, though it did so at the cost of relinquishing the present to Satan, it had achieved its real task, and the time had come for it to quit the stage of history, when Christianity appeared as the heir of this true spiritual achievement. But Christianity was no less assuredly the heir of ancient prophecy, and thus as spiritual representative of what was true in prophecy and apocalyptic; its essential teaching was as that of its Founder that both worlds were of God and that both should be made God’s.

Early Christianity naturally had a special appreciation for this type of literature. It was Christianity that preserved Jewish apocalyptic writings when Judaism abandoned them as it transitioned into Rabbinism, giving these texts a Christian twist either through forceful interpretation or a systematic process of adding to them. Additionally, it embraced this form of literature and used it to express its own ideas. While apocalyptic literature served its purpose in the early centuries of the Christian era, it must be acknowledged that in many ways, its role was temporary, as many aspects of it did not reflect the core of Christian thought. Once it had taught people that the next world was God's world, even at the cost of leaving the present to Satan, it had fulfilled its main task, and the time came for it to exit the stage of history, as Christianity emerged as the true inheritor of this spiritual achievement. However, Christianity was equally the inheritor of ancient prophecy and thus served as the spiritual representative of what was true in both prophecy and apocalyptic literature; its essential teaching, like that of its Founder, was that both worlds belonged to God and that both should be made God's.

(i.) Canonical:—

(i.) Canonical:—

Apocalypse in Mark xiii. (Matthew xxiv., Luke xxi.).

Apocalypse in Mark 13. (Matthew 24, Luke 21.)

2 Thessalonians ii.

2 Thessalonians 2.

Revelation.

Revelation.

(ii.) Extra-Canonical:—

Extra-Canonical:—

Apocalypse of Peter.

Apocalypse of Peter.

Testament of Hezekiah.

Hezekiah's Testament.

Testament of Abraham.

Abraham's Testament.

Oracles of Hystaspes.

Hystaspes Oracles.

Vision of Isaiah.

Isaiah's Vision.

Shepherd of Hermas.

Shepherd of Hermas.

5 Ezra.

5 Ezra.

6 Ezra.

6 Ezra.

Christian Sibyllines.

Christian Sibyllines.

Apocalypses of Paul, Thomas and Stephen.

Apocalypses of Paul, Thomas, and Stephen.

Apocalypses of Esdras, Paul, John, Peter, The Virgin, Sedrach, Daniel.

Apocalypses of Esdras, Paul, John, Peter, The Virgin, Sedrach, Daniel.

Revelations of Bartholomew.

Bartholomew's Revelations.

Questions of Bartholomew.

Bartholomew's Questions.

174

174

Apocalypse in Mark xiii.—According to the teaching of the Gospels the second advent was to take the world by surprise. Only one passage (Mark xiii. = Matt. xxiv. = Luke xxi.) conflicts with this view, and is therefore suspicious. This represents the second advent as heralded by a succession of signs which are unmistakable precursors of its appearance, such as wars, earthquakes, famines, the destruction of Jerusalem and the like. Our suspicion is justified by a further examination of Mark xiii. For the words “let him that readeth understand” (ver. 14) indicate that the prediction referred to appeared first not in a spoken address but in a written form, as was characteristic of apocalypses. Again, in ver. 30, it is declared that this generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled, whereas in 32 we have an undoubted declaration of Christ “Of that day or of that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” On these and other grounds verses 7, 8, 14-20, 24-27, 30, 31 should be removed from their present context. Taken together they constitute a Christian adaptation of an originally Jewish work, written A.D. 67-68, during the troubles preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The apocalypse consists of three Acts: Act i. consisting of verses 7, 8, enumerating the woes heralding the parusia, Act ii. describing the actual tribulation, and Act iii. the parusia itself. (See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 12-21; Charles, Eschatology, 325 sqq.; H.S. Holtzmann, N. T. Theol. 1-325 sqq. with literature there given.)

Apocalypse in Mark xiii.—According to the teachings of the Gospels, the second coming was meant to take the world by surprise. Only one passage (Mark xiii. = Matt. xxiv. = Luke xxi.) contradicts this view, which raises suspicion. This passage portrays the second coming as being preceded by a series of unmistakable signs, like wars, earthquakes, famines, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Our suspicion is supported by a closer look at Mark xiii. The phrase “let him that readeth understand” (ver. 14) suggests that the prediction was first presented in writing rather than in a spoken address, which is typical of apocalypses. Furthermore, in ver. 30, it states that this generation will not pass away until all these things happen, while in 32, there is a clear statement from Christ: “Of that day or of that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.” Based on these and other reasons, verses 7, 8, 14-20, 24-27, 30, 31 should be removed from their current context. Together, they form a Christian adaptation of an originally Jewish work written A.D. 67-68, during the turmoil leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. The apocalypse consists of three Acts: Act i. contains verses 7, 8, listing the troubles preceding the second coming, Act ii. describes the actual tribulation, and Act iii. depicts the second coming itself. (See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 12-21; Charles, Eschatology, 325 sqq.; H.S. Holtzmann, N. T. Theol. 1-325 sqq. with literature there given.)

2 Thessalonians ii.—The earliest form of Pauline eschatology is essentially Jewish. He starts from the fundamental thought of Jewish apocalyptic that the end of the world will be brought about by the direct intervention of God when evil has reached its climax. The manifestation of evil culminates in the Antichrist whose parusia (2 Thess. ii. 9) is the Satanic counterfeit of that of the true Messiah. But the climax of evil is the immediate herald of its destruction; for thereupon Christ will descend from heaven and destroy the Antichrist (ii. 8). Nowhere in his later epistles does this forecast of the future reappear. Rather under the influence of the great formative Christian conceptions he parted gradually with the eschatology he had inherited from Judaism, and entered on a progressive development, in the course of which the heterogeneous elements were for the most part silently dropped.

2 Thessalonians ii.—The earliest version of Pauline eschatology is primarily Jewish. It begins with the core idea of Jewish apocalyptic, which holds that the end of the world will come through direct intervention by God when evil has reached its peak. The peak of evil is represented by the Antichrist, whose arrival (2 Thess. ii. 9) is a satanic imitation of the true Messiah’s coming. However, this peak of evil also signals its imminent destruction; after this, Christ will descend from heaven and destroy the Antichrist (ii. 8). This prediction of the future does not appear again in his later letters. Instead, influenced by the significant foundational Christian ideas, he gradually moved away from the eschatology he inherited from Judaism and entered a progressive development, during which most of the unrelated elements were quietly dropped.

Revelation.—Since this book is discussed separately we shall content ourselves here with indicating a few of the conclusions now generally accepted. The apocalypse was written about A.D. 96. Its object, like other Jewish apocalypses, was to encourage faith under persecution; its burden is not a call to repentance but a promise of deliverance. It is derived from one author, who has made free use of a variety of elements, some of which are Jewish and consort but ill with their new context. The question of the pseudonymity of the book is still an open one.

Revelation.—Since this book is discussed separately, we'll just highlight a few of the conclusions that are generally accepted now. The apocalypse was written around CE 96. Its purpose, like other Jewish apocalypses, was to boost faith during times of persecution; its main message is not about calling for repentance but rather a promise of deliverance. It comes from one author, who freely used various elements, some of which are Jewish and don’t fit well with their new context. The question of whether the book was written under a pseudonym is still debatable.

Apocalypse of Peter.—Till 1892 only some five or more fragments of this book were known to exist. These are preserved in Clem. Alex. and in Macarius Magnes (see Hilgenfeld, N.T. extra Can. iv. 74 sqq.; Zahn, Gesch. Kanons ii. 818-819). It is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, and according to Eusebius (H.E. vi. 14. i) was commented on by Clement of Alexandria. In the fragment found at Akhmim there is a prediction of the last things, and a vision of the abode and blessedness of the righteous, and of the abode and torments of the wicked.

Apocalypse of Peter.—Until 1892, only about five or more fragments of this book were known to exist. These are kept in Clement of Alexandria and Macarius Magnes (see Hilgenfeld, N.T. extra Can. iv. 74 sqq.; Zahn, Gesch. Kanons ii. 818-819). It is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, and according to Eusebius (H.E. vi. 14. i), Clement of Alexandria commented on it. In the fragment discovered at Akhmim, there's a prediction about the end times, and a vision of the home and happiness of the righteous, as well as the home and suffering of the wicked.

Testament of Hezekiah.—This writing is fragmentary, and has been preserved merely as a constituent of the Ascension of Isaiah. To it belongs iii. 13b-iv. 18 of that book. It is found under the above name, Διαθήκη Έζεκίου, only in Cedrenus i. 120-121, who quotes partially iv. 12. 14 and refers to iv. 15-18. For a full account see Isaiah, Ascension of.

Testament of Hezekiah.—This text is incomplete and has only been preserved as part of the Ascension of Isaiah. It includes sections iii. 13b-iv. 18 of that book. It appears under this title, Ezekiel's Will, only in Cedrenus i. 120-121, where he partially quotes iv. 12, 14 and refers to iv. 15-18. For a complete account, see Isaiah, Ascension of.

Testament of Abraham.—This work in two recensions was first published by James, Texts and Studies, ii. 2. Its editor is of opinion that it was written by a Jewish Christian in Egypt in the 2nd century A.D., but that it embodies legends of an earlier date, and that it received its present form in the 9th or 10th century. It treats of Michael being sent to announce to Abraham his death: of the tree speaking with a human voice (iii.), Michael’s sojourn with Abraham (iv.-v.) and Sarah’s recognition of him as one of the three angels, Abraham’s refusal to die (vii.), and the vision of judgment (x.-xx.).

Testament of Abraham.—This work exists in two versions and was first published by James in Texts and Studies, ii. 2. The editor believes it was written by a Jewish Christian in Egypt during the 2nd century CE, but that it includes legends from an earlier time and was given its current form in the 9th or 10th century. It discusses Michael being sent to inform Abraham of his death, a tree speaking with a human voice (iii.), Michael's time spent with Abraham (iv.-v.) and Sarah's recognition of him as one of the three angels, Abraham’s refusal to die (vii.), and the vision of judgment (x.-xx.).

Oracles of Hystaspes.—This eschatological work (Χρήσεις Ύστάσπου: so named by the anonymous 5th-century writer in Buresch, Klaros, 1889, p. 95) is mentioned in conjunction with the Sibyllines by Justin (Apol. i. 20), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 5), and Lactantius (Inst. VII. xv. 19; xviii. 2-3). According to Lactantius, it prophesied the overthrow of Rome and the advent of Zeus to help the godly and destroy the wicked, but omitted all reference to the sending of the Son of God. According to Justin, it prophesied the destruction of the world by fire. According to the Apocryph of Paul, cited by Clement, Hystaspes foretold the conflict of the Messiah with many kings and His advent. Finally, an unknown 5th-century writer (see Buresch, Klaros, 1889, pp. 87-126) says that the Oracles of Hystaspes dealt with the incarnation of the Saviour. The work referred to in the last two writers has Christian elements, which were absent from it in Lactantius’s copy. The lost oracles were therefore in all probability originally Jewish, and subsequently re-edited by a Christian.

Oracles of Hystaspes.—This eschatological work (Uses of Ustaspo: named by the anonymous 5th-century writer in Buresch, Klaros, 1889, p. 95) is mentioned alongside the Sibyllines by Justin (Apol. i. 20), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 5), and Lactantius (Inst. VII. xv. 19; xviii. 2-3). According to Lactantius, it predicted the fall of Rome and the arrival of Zeus to aid the righteous and punish the wicked, but it did not mention the sending of the Son of God. Justin states it foretold the world’s destruction by fire. According to the Apocryph of Paul, referenced by Clement, Hystaspes predicted the Messiah’s battle with many kings and His arrival. Lastly, an unknown 5th-century author (see Buresch, Klaros, 1889, pp. 87-126) indicates that the Oracles of Hystaspes addressed the incarnation of the Savior. The versions mentioned by the last two writers included Christian elements that were absent from Lactantius’s version. The lost oracles were likely originally Jewish and later revised by a Christian.

Vision of Isaiah.—This writing has been preserved in its entirety in the Ascension of Isaiah, of which it constitutes chaps, vi.-xi. Before its incorporation in the latter work it circulated independently in Greek. There are independent versions of these chapters in Latin and Slavonic. (See Isaiah, Ascension of.)

Vision of Isaiah.—This text has been fully preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah, specifically in chapters vi to xi. Before being included in that work, it was shared on its own in Greek. There are separate versions of these chapters available in Latin and Slavonic. (See Isaiah, Ascension of.)

Shepherd of Hermas.—In the latter half of the 2nd century this book enjoyed a respect bordering on that paid to the writings of the New Testament. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote it as Scripture, though in Africa it was not held in such high consideration, as Tertullian speaks slightingly of it. The writer belongs really to the prophetic and not to the apocalyptic school. His book is divided into three parts containing visions, commands, similitudes. In incidental allusions he lets us know that he had been engaged in trade, that his wife was a termagant, and that his children were ill brought up. Various views have been held as to the identity of the author. Thus some have made him out to be the Hermas to whom salutation is sent at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, others that he was the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome in the middle of the 2nd century, and others that he was a contemporary of Clement, bishop of Rome at the close of the ist century. Zahn fixes the date at 97, Salmon a few years later, Lipsius 142. The literature of this book (see Hermas, Shepherd of) is very extensive. Among the chief editions are those of Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868); Gebhardt and Harnack, Patres Apostolici (1877, with full bibliographical material); Funk, Patres Apost. (1878). Further see Harnack, Gesch. d. altchristl. Literatur, i. 49-58; II. i. 257-267, 437 f.

Shepherd of Hermas.—In the second half of the 2nd century, this book was held in high regard, almost like the writings of the New Testament. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen cite it as Scripture, while in Africa it was viewed less favorably, as Tertullian criticized it. The author is more aligned with the prophetic tradition than the apocalyptic one. His book is split into three sections containing visions, commands, and similitudes. Through casual references, he reveals that he was involved in trade, that his wife was difficult, and that his children were not well raised. There are various theories about the author’s identity. Some believe he is the Hermas mentioned at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, others that he was the brother of Pius, the bishop of Rome in the mid-2nd century, and still others think he was a contemporary of Clement, the bishop of Rome at the end of the 1st century. Zahn dates it to 97, Salmon a few years later, and Lipsius to 142. The literature surrounding this book (see Hermas, Shepherd of) is quite extensive. Some major editions include those by Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868); Gebhardt and Harnack, Patres Apostolici (1877, with full bibliographical material); and Funk, Patres Apost. (1878). Also, see Harnack, Gesch. d. altchristl. Literatur, i. 49-58; II. i. 257-267, 437 f.

5 Ezra.—This book, which constitutes in the later MSS. the first two chapters to 4 Ezra, falls obviously into two parts. The first (i. 5-ii. 9) contains a strong attack on the Jews whom it regards as the people of God; the second (ii. 10-47) addresses itself to the Christians as God’s people and promises them the heavenly kingdom. It is not improbable that these chapters are based on an earlier Jewish writing. In its present form it may have been written before A.D. 200, though James and other scholars assign it to the 3rd century. Its tone is strongly anti-Jewish. The style is very vigorous and the materials of a strongly apocalyptic character. See Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (1869); James in Bensly’s edition of 4 Ezra, pp. xxxviii.-lxxx.; Weinel in Hennecke’s N.T. Apokryphen, 331-336.

5 Ezra.—This book, which in later manuscripts makes up the first two chapters of 4 Ezra, clearly divides into two parts. The first part (i. 5-ii. 9) strongly criticizes the Jews, whom it sees as the people of God; the second part (ii. 10-47) speaks to Christians as God’s people and assures them of the heavenly kingdom. It's likely that these chapters are based on an earlier Jewish text. In its current form, it may have been written before CE 200, although James and other scholars suggest it dates to the 3rd century. Its tone is very anti-Jewish. The style is quite forceful, and the content has a distinctly apocalyptic feel. See Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (1869); James in Bensly’s edition of 4 Ezra, pp. xxxviii.-lxxx.; Weinel in Hennecke’s N.T. Apokryphen, 331-336.

6 Ezra.—This work consists of chapters xv.-xvi. of 4 Ezra. It may have been written as an appendix to 4 Ezra, as it has no proper introduction. Its contents relate to the destruction of the world through war and natural catastrophes—for the heathen a source of menace and fear, but for the persecuted people of God one of admonition and comfort. There is nothing specifically Christian in the book, which represents a persecution which extends over the whole eastern part of the Empire. Moreover, the idiom is particularly Semitic. Thus we have xv. 8 nec 175 sustinebo in his quae inique exercent, that is ב אשנ: in 9 vindicans vindicabo: in 22 non parcet dextera mea super peccatores = φείσεται ... ἐπί = לע ... לומחי. In verses 9, 19 the manifest corruptions may be explicable from a Semitic background. There are other Hebraisms in the text. It is true that these might have been due to the writer’s borrowings from earlier Greek works ultimately of Hebrew origin. The date of the book is also quite uncertain, though several scholars have ascribed it to the 3rd century.

6 Ezra.—This work includes chapters xv.-xvi. of 4 Ezra. It was likely written as an appendix to 4 Ezra since it lacks a proper introduction. The content addresses the destruction of the world through war and natural disasters—viewed as a threat and source of fear for the heathens, but as a warning and comfort for God's persecuted people. There’s nothing explicitly Christian in the book, which depicts a persecution affecting the entire eastern part of the Empire. Additionally, the style is distinctly Semitic. For example, in xv. 8 nec 175 sustinebo in his quae inique exercent, meaning ב אשנ: in 9 vindicans vindicabo: in 22 non parcet dextera mea super peccatores = φείσεται ... ἐπί = לע ... Experts. The evident corruptions in verses 9 and 19 may be understood within a Semitic context. The text contains other Hebraisms as well. While these could be attributed to the author borrowing from earlier Greek works of Hebrew origin, the dating of the book remains quite uncertain, though several scholars have dated it to the 3rd century.

Christian Sibyllines.—Critics are still at variance as to the extent of the Christian Sibyllines. It is practically agreed that vi.-viii. are of Christian origin. As for i.-ii., xi.-xiv. most writers are in favour of Christian authorship; but not so Geffcken (ed. Sibyll., 1902), who strongly insists on the Jewish origin of large sections of these books.

Christian Sibyllines.—Critics still disagree about the scope of the Christian Sibyllines. It's widely accepted that sections vi.-viii. are of Christian origin. Regarding sections i.-ii. and xi.-xiv., most scholars believe they were written by Christians; however, Geffcken (ed. Sibyll., 1902) strongly argues for the Jewish origins of significant parts of these texts.

Apocalypses of Paul, Thomas and Stephen.—These are mentioned in the Gelasian decree. The first may possibly be the Άναβατικὸν Παύλου mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer. xxxviii. 2) as current among the Cainites. It is not to be confounded with the apocalypse mentioned two sections later.

Apocalypses of Paul, Thomas and Stephen.—These are mentioned in the Gelasian decree. The first might be the Αναβαθμισμένο Παύλου referred to by Epiphanius (Haer. xxxviii. 2) as being used by the Cainites. It should not be confused with the apocalypse mentioned two sections later.

Apocalypse of Esdras.—This Greek production resembles the more ancient fourth book of Esdras in some respects. The prophet is perplexed about the mysteries of life, and questions God respecting them. The punishment of the wicked especially occupies his thoughts. Since they have sinned in consequence of Adam’s fall, their fate is considered worse than that of the irrational creation. The description of the tortures suffered in the infernal regions is tolerably minute. At last the prophet consents to give up his spirit to God, who has prepared for him a crown of immortality. The book is a poor imitation of the ancient Jewish one. It may belong, however, to the 2nd or 3rd centuries of the Christian era. See Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae, pp. 24-33.

Apocalypse of Esdras.—This Greek text shares some similarities with the older fourth book of Esdras. The prophet is confused about the mysteries of life and asks God about them. He is particularly focused on the punishment of the wicked. Since they have sinned because of Adam’s fall, their fate is seen as worse than that of non-human creatures. The account of the torments experienced in the underworld is fairly detailed. Eventually, the prophet agrees to surrender his spirit to God, who has prepared a crown of immortality for him. The book is a weak imitation of the ancient Jewish work. It likely dates back to the 2nd or 3rd century of the Christian era. See Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae, pp. 24-33.

Apocalypse of Paul.—This work (referred to by Augustine, Tractat. in Joan. 98) contains a description of the things which the apostle saw in heaven and hell. The text, as first published in the original Greek by Tischendorf (Apocalypses Apocr. 34-69), consists of fifty-one chapters, but is imperfect. Internal evidence assigns it to the time of Theodosius, i.e. about A.D. 388. Where the author lived is uncertain. Dr Perkins found a Syriac MS. of this apocalypse, which he translated into English, and printed in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1864, vol. viii. This was republished by Tischendorf below the Greek version in the above work. In 1893 the Latin version from one MS. was edited by M.R. James, Texts and Studies, ii. 1-42, who shows that the Latin version is the completest of the three, and that the Greek in its present form is abbreviated.

Apocalypse of Paul.—This work (mentioned by Augustine, Tractat. in Joan. 98) describes the visions the apostle had in heaven and hell. The text was first published in its original Greek by Tischendorf (Apocalypses Apocr. 34-69), consisting of fifty-one chapters, although it is incomplete. Internal evidence dates it to the time of Theodosius, around AD 388. The author's place of residence is unknown. Dr. Perkins discovered a Syriac manuscript of this apocalypse, which he translated into English and published in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1864, vol. viii. Tischendorf later republished this translation below the Greek version in the aforementioned work. In 1893, M.R. James edited the Latin version from one manuscript, Texts and Studies, ii. 1-42, demonstrating that the Latin version is the most complete of the three, while the current Greek version is abbreviated.

Apocalypse of John (Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocr. 70 sqq.) contains a description of the future state, the general resurrection and judgment, with an account of the punishment of the wicked, as well as the bliss of the righteous. It appears to be the work of a Jewish Christian. The date is late, for the writer speaks of the “venerable and holy images,” as well as “the glorious and precious crosses and the sacred things of the churches” (xiv.), which points to the 5th century, when such things were first introduced into churches. It is a feeble imitation of the canonical apocalypse.

Apocalypse of John (Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocr. 70 sqq.) contains a description of the future state, the general resurrection and judgment, along with an account of the punishment of the wicked and the bliss of the righteous. It seems to be the work of a Jewish Christian. The date is late, as the writer refers to the “venerable and holy images,” as well as “the glorious and precious crosses and the sacred things of the churches” (xiv.), which indicates the 5th century, when such elements were first introduced into churches. It is a weak imitation of the canonical apocalypse.

Arabic Apocalypse of Peter contains a narrative of events from the foundation of the world till the second advent of Christ. The book is said to have been written by Clement, Peter’s disciple. This Arabic work has not been printed, but a summary of the contents is given by Nicoll in his catalogue of the Oriental MSS. belonging to the Bodleian (p. 49, xlviii.). There are eighty-eight chapters. It is a late production; for Ishmaelites are spoken of, the Crusades, and the taking of Jerusalem. See Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocr. pp. xx.-xxiv.

Arabic Apocalypse of Peter tells the story of events from the creation of the world to the second coming of Christ. This book is believed to have been written by Clement, who was a disciple of Peter. Although this Arabic text has never been printed, Nicoll provides a summary of its contents in his catalog of the Oriental manuscripts belonging to the Bodleian (p. 49, xlviii.). There are eighty-eight chapters. It is a later work, as it refers to Ishmaelites, the Crusades, and the capture of Jerusalem. See Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocr. pp. xx.-xxiv.

The Apocalypse of the Virgin, containing her descent into hell, is not published entire, but only several portions of it from Greek MSS. in different libraries, by Tischendorf in his Apocalypses Apocryphae, pp. 95 sqq.; James, Texts and Studies, ii. 3. 109-126.

The Apocalypse of the Virgin, which includes her descent into hell, hasn't been fully published; only selected parts from Greek manuscripts in various libraries have been released by Tischendorf in his Apocalypses Apocryphae, pages 95 and following; James, Texts and Studies, volume ii, pages 3, 109-126.

Apocalypse of Sedrach.—This late apocalypse, which M.R. James assigns to the 10th or 11th century, deals with the subject of intercession for sinners and Sedrach’s unwillingness to die. See James, Texts and Studies, ii. 3. 127-137.

Apocalypse of Sedrach.—This later apocalypse, which M.R. James dates to the 10th or 11th century, focuses on the theme of intercession for sinners and Sedrach’s reluctance to die. See James, Texts and Studies, ii. 3. 127-137.

Apocalypse of Daniel.—See Vassiliev’s Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina (Moscow, 1893), pp. 38-44; Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament (Venice, 1901), pp. 237 sqq., 387 sqq.

Apocalypse of Daniel.—See Vassiliev’s Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina (Moscow, 1893), pp. 38-44; Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament (Venice, 1901), pp. 237 and following, 387 and following.

The Revelations of Bartholomew.—Dulaurier published from a Parisian Sahidic MS., subjoining a French translation, what is termed a fragment of the apocryphal revelations of St Bartholomew (Fragment des révélations apocryphes de Saint Barthélemy, &c., Paris, 1835), and of the history of the religious communities founded by St Pachomius. After narrating the pardon obtained by Adam, it is said that the Son ascending from Olivet prays the Father on behalf of His apostles; who consequently receive consecration from the Father, together with the Son and Holy Spirit—Peter being made archbishop of the universe. The late date of the production is obvious.

The Revelations of Bartholomew.—Dulaurier published a fragment of the apocryphal revelations of St. Bartholomew from a Sahidic manuscript in Paris, along with a French translation (Fragment des révélations apocryphes de Saint Barthélemy, &c., Paris, 1835), and the history of the religious communities established by St. Pachomius. After recounting the forgiveness granted to Adam, it states that the Son, ascending from Olivet, prays to the Father on behalf of His apostles; as a result, they receive consecration from the Father, along with the Son and Holy Spirit—Peter being named archbishop of the universe. The late date of this work is clearly evident.

Questions of St Bartholomew.—See Vassiliev, Anec. Graeco-Byzantina (1893), pp. 10-22. The introduction, which is wanting in the Greek MS., has been supplied by a Latin translation from the Slavonic version (see pp. vii.-ix.). The book contains disclosures by Christ, the Virgin and Beliar and much of the subject-matter is ancient.

Questions of St Bartholomew.—See Vassiliev, Anec. Graeco-Byzantina (1893), pp. 10-22. The introduction, which is missing in the Greek manuscript, has been added from a Latin translation of the Slavonic version (see pp. vii.-ix.). The book includes revelations from Christ, the Virgin, and Beliar, and much of the content is ancient.

(R. H. C.)

1 See the separate headings for the various apocalyptic books mentioned in this article.

1 Check the separate headings for the different apocalyptic books mentioned in this article.


APOCATASTASIS, a Greek word, meaning “re-establishment,” used as a technical scientific term for a return to a previous position or condition.

APOCATASTASIS, a Greek word, meaning “re-establishment,” used as a technical scientific term for returning to a previous position or condition.


APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. The history of the earlier usage of the term “Apocrypha” (from ἀποκρύπτειν, to hide) is not free from obscurity. We shall therefore enter at once on a short account of the origin of this literature in Judaism, of its adoption by early Christianity, of the various meanings which the term “apocryphal” assumed in the course of its history, and having so done we shall proceed to classify and deal with the books that belong to this literature. The word most generally denotes writings which claimed to be, or were by certain sects regarded as, sacred scriptures although excluded from the canonical scriptures.

APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. The history of the earlier usage of the term “Apocrypha” (from keep hidden, meaning to hide) is somewhat unclear. Therefore, we will immediately provide a brief overview of the origins of this literature in Judaism, its adoption by early Christianity, the different meanings the term “apocryphal” took on throughout its history, and after that, we will classify and discuss the books that are part of this literature. The term most commonly refers to writings that claimed to be or were considered sacred scriptures by certain groups, even though they were excluded from the canonical scriptures.

Apocrypha in Judaism.—Certain circles in Judaism, as the Essenes in Palestine (Josephus, B.J. ii. 8. 7) and the Therapeutae (Philo, De Vita Contempl. ii. 475, ed. Mangey) in Egypt possessed a secret literature. But such literature was not confined to the members of these communities, but had been current among the Chasids and their successors the Pharisees.1 To this literature belong essentially the apocalypses which were published in fast succession from Daniel onwards. These works bore, perforce, the names of ancient Hebrew worthies in order to procure them a hearing among the writers’ real contemporaries. To reconcile their late appearance with their claims to primitive antiquity the alleged author is represented as “shutting up and sealing” (Dan. xii. 4, 9) the book, until the time of its fulfilment had arrived; for that it was not designed for his own generation but for far-distant ages (1 Enochi. 2, cviii. 1.; Ass. Mos. i. 16, 17). It is not improbable that with many Jewish enthusiasts this literature was more highly treasured than the canonical scriptures. Indeed, we have a categorical statement to this effect in 4 Ezra xiv. 44 sqq., which tells how Ezra was inspired to dictate the sacred scriptures which had been destroyed in the overthrow of Jerusalem: “In forty days they wrote ninety-four books: and it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled that the Highest spake, saying: the first that thou hast written publish openly that the worthy and unworthy may read it; but keep the seventy last that thou mayst deliver them only to such as be wise among the people; for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom and the stream of knowledge.” Such esoteric books are apocryphal in the original conception of the term. In due course the Jewish authorities were forced to draw up a canon or book of sacred scriptures, and mark them off from those which claimed to be such without justification. 176 The true scriptures, according to the Jewish canon (Yad. iii. 5; Toseph. Yad. ii. 3), were those which defiled the hands of such as touched them. But other scholars, such as Zahn, Schürer, Porter, state that the secret books with which we have been dealing formed a class by themselves and were called “Genuizim” םיזנג, and that this name and idea passed from Judaism over into the Greek, and that ἀπόκρυφα βιβλία is a translation of םיזונג םירפס. But the Hebrew verb does not mean “to bide” but “to store away,” and is only used of things in themselves precious. Moreover, the phrase is unknown in Talmudic literature. The derivation of this idea from Judaism has therefore not yet been established. Whether the Jews had any distinct name for these esoteric works we do not know. For writings that stood wholly without the pale of sacred books such as the books of heretics or Samaritans they used the designation Hisonim, Sanh. x. 1 (םינוצח םירפס and םינימה ירפס). To this class in later times even Sirach was relegated, and indeed all books not included in the canon (Midr. r. Num. 14 and on Koheleth xii. 12; cf. Jer. Sabb. 16).2 In Aqiba’s time Sirach and other apocryphal books were not reckoned among the Hisonim; for Sirach was largely quoted by rabbis in Palestine till the 3rd century A.D.

Apocrypha in Judaism.—Certain groups in Judaism, like the Essenes in Palestine (Josephus, B.J. ii. 8. 7) and the Therapeutae (Philo, De Vita Contempl. ii. 475, ed. Mangey) in Egypt, had a collection of secret writings. However, this literature wasn't limited to these communities but was also present among the Chasids and their successors, the Pharisees.1 The key works in this literature are the apocalypses that were published in quick succession starting from Daniel. These texts used the names of ancient Hebrew figures to gain attention from contemporary readers. To explain their later appearances while claiming ancient origins, the supposed authors are depicted as having "shut up and sealed" (Dan. xii. 4, 9) their books until the right time came for them to be revealed; they were intended for future generations rather than their own (1 Enochi. 2, cviii. 1.; Ass. Mos. i. 16, 17). It's likely that many Jewish enthusiasts valued this literature even more than the canonical scriptures. In fact, there's a clear statement about this in 4 Ezra xiv. 44 sqq., which describes how Ezra was inspired to dictate the sacred scriptures that were lost during the destruction of Jerusalem: “In forty days they wrote ninety-four books: and when the forty days were complete, the Highest spoke, saying: the first one you wrote, publish openly for everyone to read, but keep the last seventy for only the wise among the people; in them lies the source of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.” Such hidden writings are considered apocryphal in the original sense of the term. Eventually, the Jewish authorities had to create a canon or list of sacred scriptures, distinguishing them from those that claimed the title without proper foundation. 176 The true scriptures according to the Jewish canon (Yad. iii. 5; Toseph. Yad. ii. 3) were those that made the hands of those who touched them impure. Other scholars, like Zahn, Schürer, and Porter, argue that the secret writings we’ve discussed formed a separate category and were referred to as “Genuizim” םיזנג, and that this term and concept transitioned from Judaism to Greek, where hidden books is the translation of יפרוס דגמים. However, the Hebrew verb means “to store away” rather than “to hide,” and is used exclusively for items of inherent value. Moreover, this phrase is not found in Talmudic literature. Thus, it's not yet verified that this concept originated in Judaism. We don't know if the Jews had a specific term for these esoteric writings. For works that were completely outside the realm of sacred texts, such as heretical or Samaritan books, they used the term Hisonim, Sanh. x. 1 (תפגשו את ים שלנו and שם יש קיץ). Later on, even Sirach was categorized in this group, along with all books not included in the canon (Midr. r. Num. 14 and on Koheleth xii. 12; cf. Jer. Sabb. 16).2 In Aqiba’s time, Sirach and other apocryphal works were not considered part of the Hisonim; Sirach was frequently quoted by rabbis in Palestine until the 3rd century CE

Apocrypha in Christianity.—Christianity as it springs from its Founder had no secret or esoteric teaching. It was essentially the revelation or manifestation of the truth of God. But as Christianity took its origin from Judaism, it is not unnatural that a large body of Jewish ideas was incorporated in the system of Christian thought. The bulk of these in due course underwent transformation either complete or partial, but there was always a residuum of incongruous and inconsistent elements existing side by side with the essential truths of Christianity. This was no isolated phenomenon; for in every progressive period of the history of religion we have on the one side the doctrine of God advancing in depth and fulness: on the other we have cosmological, eschatological and other survivals, which, however justifiable in earlier stages, are in unmistakable antagonism with the theistic beliefs of the time. The eschatology of a nation—and the most influential portion of Jewish and Christian apocrypha are eschatological—is always the last part of their religion to experience the transforming power of new ideas and new facts.

Apocrypha in Christianity.—Christianity, as it originated from its Founder, had no hidden or secret teachings. It was fundamentally the revelation or expression of God's truth. However, since Christianity emerged from Judaism, it's not surprising that many Jewish ideas were integrated into Christian thought. Over time, most of these ideas underwent some degree of transformation, but there always remained a mix of contradictory and inconsistent elements existing alongside the core truths of Christianity. This was not an isolated occurrence; throughout every progressive era in the history of religion, we can see on one hand the understanding of God deepening and expanding, while on the other hand, there are cosmological, eschatological, and other remnants that, although they may have been valid in earlier times, now clearly conflict with the theistic beliefs of that period. A nation's eschatology—and the most influential parts of Jewish and Christian apocrypha are eschatological—tends to be the last aspect of their religion to be influenced by new ideas and new realities.

Now the current religious literature of Judaism outside the canon was composed of apocryphal books, the bulk of which bore an apocalyptic character, and dealt with the coming of the Messianic kingdom. These naturally became the popular religious books of the rising Jewish-Christian communities, and were held by them in still higher esteem, if possible, than by the Jews. Occasionally these Jewish writings were re-edited or adapted to their new readers by Christian additions, but on the whole it was found sufficient to submit them to a system of reinterpretation in order to make them testify to the truth of Christianity and foreshadow its ultimate destinies. Christianity, moreover, moved by the same apocalyptic tendency as Judaism, gave birth to new Christian apocryphs, though, in the case of most of them, the subject matter was to a large extent traditional and derived from Jewish sources.

Now, the current religious literature of Judaism outside the canon was made up of apocryphal books, most of which had an apocalyptic theme and focused on the coming of the Messianic kingdom. These naturally became the popular religious texts for the emerging Jewish-Christian communities, and they were held in even higher regard by them than by the Jews. Sometimes, these Jewish writings were re-edited or adapted for their new audience with Christian additions, but generally, it was considered enough to reinterpret them so that they testified to the truth of Christianity and predicted its ultimate fate. Christianity, driven by the same apocalyptic inclination as Judaism, also produced new Christian apocryphs, although, in most cases, the content was largely traditional and derived from Jewish sources.

Another prolific source of apocryphal gospels, acts and apocalypses was Gnosticism. While the characteristic features of apocalyptic literature were derived from Judaism, those of Gnosticism sprang partly from Greek philosophy, partly from oriental religions. They insisted on an allegorical interpretation of the apostolic writings: they alleged themselves to be the guardians of a secret apostolic tradition and laid claim to prophetic inspiration. With them, as with the bulk of the Christians of the 1st and 2nd centuries, apocryphal books as such were highly esteemed. They were so designated by those who valued them. It was not till later times that the term became one of reproach.

Another rich source of apocryphal gospels, acts, and apocalypses was Gnosticism. While the key features of apocalyptic literature came from Judaism, those of Gnosticism were influenced partly by Greek philosophy and partly by Eastern religions. They advocated for an allegorical interpretation of the apostolic writings, claiming to be the protectors of a secret apostolic tradition and asserting prophetic inspiration. Like the majority of Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries, they held apocryphal books in high regard. These texts were labeled as such by those who valued them. It wasn't until later that the term became a derogatory label.

We have remarked above that the Jewish apocrypha—especially the apocalyptic section and the host of Christian apocryphs—became the ordinary religious literature of the early Christians. And this is not strange seeing that of the former such abundant use was made by the writers of the New Testament.3 Thus Jude quotes the Book of Enoch by name, while undoubted use of this book appears in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The influence of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is still more apparent in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels, and the same holds true of Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses, though in a very slight degree. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Ep. of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. But the high position which apocryphal books occupied in the first two centuries was undermined by a variety of influences. All claims to the possession of a secret tradition were denied (Irenaeus ii. 27. 2, iii. 2. 1, 3. 1; Tertullian, Praescript. 22-27): true inspiration was limited to the apostolic age, and universal acceptance by the church was required as a proof of apostolic authorship. Under the action of such principles apocryphal books tended to pass into the class of spurious and heretical writings.

We noted earlier that the Jewish apocrypha—especially the apocalyptic parts and numerous Christian apocrypha—became common religious texts for early Christians. This isn't surprising since the writers of the New Testament made extensive use of them. For example, Jude references the Book of Enoch by name, and this book is definitely present in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The influence of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is even more evident in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels, and the same goes for Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses, albeit to a lesser extent. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were acknowledged by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. However, the significant role that apocryphal books held in the first two centuries was challenged by various factors. All claims of having a secret tradition were disputed (Irenaeus ii. 27. 2, iii. 2. 1, 3. 1; Tertullian, Praescript. 22-27): true inspiration was thought to be limited to the apostolic age, and universal acceptance by the church was seen as necessary proof of apostolic authorship. Under these influences, apocryphal books tended to be categorized as spurious and heretical writings.

The Term “Apocryphal.”—Turning now to the consideration of the word “apocryphal” itself, we find that in its earliest use it was applied in a laudatory sense to writings,’(1) which were kept secret because they were the vehicles of esoteric knowledge which was too profound or too sacred to be imparted to any save the initiated. Thus it occurs in a magical book of Moses, which has been edited from a Leiden papyrus of the 3rd or 4th century by Dieterich (Abraxas, 109). This book, which may be as old as the 1st century, is entitled: “A holy and secret Book of Moses, called eighth, or holy” (Μωυσέως ἱερὰ βιβλος ἀπόκρυφος ἐπικαλουμένη ὀγδόη ᾒ ἁγία). The disciples of the Gnostic Prodicus boasted (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 15. 69) that they possessed the secret (ἀποκρύφους) books of Zoroaster. 4 Ezra is in its author’s view a secret work whose value was greater than that of the canonical scriptures (xiv. 44 sqq.) because of its transcendent revelations of the future. It is in a like laudatory meaning that Gregory reckons the New Testament apocalypse as ἐν ἀποκρύφοις (Orátio in suam ordinationem, iii. 549, ed. Migne; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. li. 3). The word enjoyed high consideration among the Gnostics (cf. Acts of Thomas, 10, 27, 44). (2) But the word was applied to writings that were kept from public circulation not because of their transcendent, but of, their secondary or questionable value. Thus Origen distinguishes between writings which were read by the churches and apocryphal writings; γραφῇ μὴ φερομένῃ μἐν ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημοσιευμένοις βιβλίοις εἰκὀς δ᾽ ὅτι ἐν ἀποκρύφοις φερομένῃ (Origen’s Comm. in Matt., x. 18, on Matt. xiii. 57, ed. Lommatzsch iii. 49 sqq.). Cf. Epist. ad Africam, ix. (Lommatzsch xvii. 31): Euseb. H.E. ii. 23, 25; iii. 3, 6. See Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 126 sqq. Thus the meaning of ἀπόκρυφος is here practically equivalent to “excluded from the public use of the church,” and prepares the way for the third and unfavourable sense of this word. (3) The word came finally to mean what is false, spurious, bad, heretical. If we may trust the text, this meaning appears in Origen (Prolog, in Cant. Cantic., Lommatzsch xiv. 325): “De scripturis his, quae appellantur apocryphae, pro eo quod multa in iis corrupta et contra fidem veram inveniuntur a majoribus tradita non placuit iis dari locum nec admitti ad auctoritatem.”

The Term “Apocryphal.”—Now, turning our attention to the term “apocryphal,” we see that it was originally used in a positive way to describe writings that were kept secret because they contained hidden knowledge that was too deep or too sacred to share with anyone except those who were initiated. This is noted in a magical book of Moses, edited from a Leiden papyrus from the 3rd or 4th century by Dieterich (Abraxas, 109). This book, which might date back to the 1st century, is titled: “A holy and secret Book of Moses, called the eighth, or holy” (The sacred book of Moses, known as the eighth holy text, is considered apocryphal.). The followers of the Gnostic Prodicus claimed (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 15. 69) to possess the secret (hidden) books of Zoroaster. In the author’s perspective, 4 Ezra is a secret work whose significance is greater than that of the canonical scriptures (xiv. 44 sqq.) due to its extraordinary revelations about the future. Similarly, Gregory includes the New Testament apocalypse in a positive context as in secret (Orátio in suam ordinationem, iii. 549, ed. Migne; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. li. 3). The term was highly regarded among the Gnostics (cf. Acts of Thomas, 10, 27, 44). (2) However, the term also came to be used for writings that were kept from public circulation not because of their high value, but because of their lesser or questionable significance. Origen distinguishes between writings that were read by the churches and apocryphal writings; When it's not found in the commonly held and published books, it's likely that it exists in hidden texts. (Origen’s Comm. in Matt., x. 18, on Matt. xiii. 57, ed. Lommatzsch iii. 49 sqq.). Cf. Epist. ad Africam, ix. (Lommatzsch xvii. 31): Euseb. H.E. ii. 23, 25; iii. 3, 6. See Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 126 sqq. Thus, the meaning of hidden here effectively equates to “excluded from the public use of the church,” leading to the third and negative meaning of the term. (3) Eventually, the term came to signify something false, spurious, bad, or heretical. If the text is reliable, this meaning appears in Origen (Prolog, in Cant. Cantic., Lommatzsch xiv. 325): “Regarding those writings called apocryphal, because many things in them are corrupted and contrary to true faith as passed down by the ancients, it was deemed inappropriate to give them a place or to admit them to authority.”

In addition to the above three meanings strange uses of the term appear in the western church. Thus the Gelasian Decree includes the works of Eusebius, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, under this designation. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xv. 23) explains it as meaning obscurity of origin, while Jerome (Protogus Galeatus) declares that all books outside the Hebrew canon belong to this class of apocrypha. Jerome’s practice, however, did not square with his theory. The western church did not accept Jerome’s definition of apocrypha, but retained the word in its original meaning, though great confusion prevailed. Thus the degree of estimation in which the apocryphal books have been held in the church has varied much according to place and time. As they stood in the Septuagint or Greek canon, along 177 with the other books, and with no marks of distinction, they were practically employed by the Greek Fathers in the same way as the other books; hence Origen, Clement and others often cite them as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine, and familiar with the Hebrew canon, rigidly exclude all but the books contained there. This view is reflected, for example, in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. Augustine, however (De Doct. Christ. ii. 8), attaches himself to the other side. Two well-defined views in this way prevailed, to which was added a third, according to which the books, though not to be put in the same rank as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, yet were of value for moral uses and to be read in congregations,—and hence they were called “ecclesiastical”—a designation first found in Rufinus (ob. 410). Notwithstanding the decisions of some councils held in Africa, which were in favour of the view of Augustine, these diverse opinions regarding the apocryphal books continued to prevail in the church down through the ages till the great dogmatic era of the Reformation. At that epoch the same three opinions were taken up and congealed into dogmas, which may be considered characteristic of the churches adopting them. In 1546 the council of Trent adopted the canon of Augustine, declaring “He is also to be anathema who does not receive these entire books, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical.” The whole of the books in question, with the exception of 1st and 2nd Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, were declared canonical at Trent. On the other hand, the Protestants universally adhered to the opinion that only the books in the Hebrew collection are canonical. Already Wycliffe had declared that “whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five (Hebrew) shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or belief.” Yet among the churches of the Reformation a milder and a severer view prevailed regarding the apocrypha. Both in the German and English translations (Luther’s, 1537; Coverdale’s, 1535, &c.) these books are separated from the others and set by themselves; but while in some confessions, e.g. the Westminster, a decided judgment is passed on them, that they are not “to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings,” a milder verdict is expressed regarding them in many other quarters, e.g. in the “argument” prefixed to them in the Geneva Bible; in the Sixth Article of the Church of England, where it is said that “the other books the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners,” though not to establish doctrine; and elsewhere.

In addition to the three meanings mentioned above, the term has strange uses in the Western church. The Gelasian Decree includes the works of Eusebius, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria under this label. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xv. 23) explains that it means obscurity of origin, while Jerome (Protogus Galeatus) states that all books outside the Hebrew canon fall into this category of apocrypha. However, Jerome's practice didn't match his theory. The Western church did not accept Jerome's definition of apocrypha, retaining the word in its original meaning, even though it led to a lot of confusion. The level of respect for apocryphal books varied significantly depending on the time and place. In the Septuagint or Greek canon, these books were included alongside the others, with no distinguishing marks, and Greek Fathers used them just like other books; for example, Origen, Clement, and others often referred to them as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and similar terms. Conversely, teachers from Palestine, who were familiar with the Hebrew canon, strictly excluded all but the books it contained. This perspective is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. However, Augustine (De Doct. Christ. ii. 8) aligned himself with the opposing view. Thus, two clear perspectives prevailed, along with a third view, which held that while these books shouldn't be placed on the same level as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, they still had value for moral teachings and were to be read in congregations, hence being labeled “ecclesiastical”—a term first found in Rufinus (ob. 410). Despite the decisions of some councils in Africa supporting Augustine's view, differing opinions on the apocryphal books persisted throughout history until the significant dogmatic era of the Reformation. During that time, the same three views were solidified into dogmas, each characteristic of the churches that endorsed them. In 1546, the council of Trent adopted Augustine’s canon, declaring, “He is also to be anathema who does not receive these entire books, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical.” All the books in question, except for 1st and 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, were declared canonical at Trent. On the other hand, Protestants universally upheld the view that only the books in the Hebrew collection are canonical. Wycliffe had already stated that “whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five (Hebrew) shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or belief.” Yet among the churches of the Reformation, there were both mild and strict views regarding the apocrypha. In both the German and English translations (Luther’s, 1537; Coverdale’s, 1535, etc.), these books are separated from the others and set aside; while in some confessions, e.g. the Westminster, a clear judgment is given that they are not “to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings,” a milder stance is expressed in many other places, e.g. in the “argument” prefixed to them in the Geneva Bible; in the Sixth Article of the Church of England, which states that “the other books the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners,” though not to establish doctrine; and in other contexts.

Old Testament Apocryphal Books

Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament

We shall now proceed to enumerate the apocryphal books: first the Apocrypha Proper, and next the rest of the Old and New Testament apocryphal literature.

We will now list the apocryphal books: first, the Apocrypha Proper, and then the rest of the Old and New Testament apocryphal literature.

1. The Apocrypha Proper, or the apocrypha of the Old Testament as used by English-speaking Protestants, consists of the following books: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy, Additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon), Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. Thus the Apocrypha Proper constitutes the surplusage of the Vulgate or Bible of the Roman Church over the Hebrew Old Testament. Since this surplusage is in turn derived from the Septuagint, from which the old Latin version was translated, it thus follows that the difference between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Old Testament is, roughly speaking, traceable to the difference between the Palestinian and the Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament. But this is only true with certain reservations; for the Latin Vulgate was revised by Jerome according to the Hebrew, and, where Hebrew originals were wanting, according to the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Vulgate rejects 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm cli., which generally appear in the Septuagint, while the Septuagint and Luther’s Bible reject 4 Ezra, which is found in the Vulgate and the Apocrypha Proper. Luther’s Bible, moreover, rejects also 3 Ezra. It should further be observed that the Vulgate adds the Prayer of Manasses and 3 and 4 Ezra after the New Testament as apocryphal.

1. The Apocrypha Proper, or the apocrypha of the Old Testament as used by English-speaking Protestants, includes the following books: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon), Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Thus, the Apocrypha Proper comprises the extra content of the Vulgate or Bible of the Roman Catholic Church compared to the Hebrew Old Testament. As this extra content is also derived from the Septuagint, from which the old Latin version was translated, it follows that the difference between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Old Testament can generally be traced back to the difference between the Palestinian and Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament. However, this is true with some exceptions; for the Latin Vulgate was revised by Jerome based on the Hebrew, and, where Hebrew originals were missing, according to the Septuagint. Additionally, the Vulgate excludes 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151, which typically appear in the Septuagint, while the Septuagint and Luther’s Bible exclude 4 Ezra, which is included in the Vulgate and the Apocrypha Proper. Luther’s Bible also excludes 3 Ezra. It is also worth noting that the Vulgate adds the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Ezra after the New Testament as apocryphal.

It is hardly possible to form any classification which is not open to some objection. In any case the classification must be to some extent provisional, since scholars are still divided as to the original language, date and place of composition of some of the books which must come under our classification.4 We may, however, discriminate (i.) the Palestinian and (ii.) the Hellenistic literature of the Old Testament, though even this distinction is open to serious objections. The former literature was generally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and seldom in Greek; the latter naturally in Greek. Next, within these literatures we shall distinguish three or four classes according to the nature of the subject with which they deal. Thus the books of which we have to treat will be classed as: (a) Historical, (b) Legendary (Haggadic), (c) Apocalyptic, (d) Didactic or Sapiential.

It’s almost impossible to create a classification that doesn’t have some objections. In any case, the classification has to be somewhat provisional since scholars are still divided over the original language, date, and location of some of the books that need to be included in our classification.4 However, we can distinguish (i.) the Palestinian and (ii.) the Hellenistic literature of the Old Testament, though this distinction is still open to serious questions. The former literature was usually written in Hebrew or Aramaic and rarely in Greek; the latter was naturally written in Greek. Next, within these literatures, we will identify three or four classes based on the nature of the subject they cover. Thus, the books we will discuss will be classified as: (a) Historical, (b) Legendary (Haggadic), (c) Apocalyptic, (d) Didactic or Sapiential.

The Apocrypha Proper then would be classified as follows:—

The Apocrypha Proper would be classified like this:—

i. Palestinian Jewish Literature:—

Palestinian Jewish Literature:—

(a) Historical.

Historical

1 (i.e. 3) Ezra.

1 (i.e. 3) Ezra.

1 Maccabees.

1 Maccabees.

(b) Legendary.

Legendary.

Book of Baruch (see Baruch).

Book of Baruch (see Baruch).

Judith.

Judith.

(c) Apocalyptic.

(c) Apocalyptic.

2 (i.e. 4) Ezra (see also under separate article on Apocalyptic Literature).

2 (i.e. 4) Ezra (see also under separate article on Apocalyptic Literature).

(d) Didactic.

Didactic

Sirach (see Ecclesiasticus).

Sirach (see __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__).

Tobit.

Tobit.

ii. Hellenistic Jewish Literature:—

ii. Hellenistic Jewish Literature:—

Historical and Legendary.

History and Legends.

Additions to Daniel (q.v.).

Additions to Daniel (see above).

Additions to Esther (q.v.).

Additions to Esther (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__).

Epistle of Jeremy (q.v.).

Letter of Jeremy (q.v.).

2 Maccabees (q.v.).

2 Maccabees (see also).

Prayer of Manasses (see Manasses).

Prayer of Manasses (see __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__).

Didactic.

Teaching.

Book of Wisdom (see Wisdom, Book of.)

Book of Wisdom (see Wisdom, Book of.)

Since all these books are dealt with in separate articles, they call for no further notice here.

Since all these books are covered in separate articles, they don’t need any additional mention here.

Literature.—Texts:—Holmes and Parsons, Vet. Test. Graecum cum var. lectionibus (Oxford, 1798-1827); Swete, Old Testament in Greek, i.-iii. (Cambridge, 1887-1894); Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi V.T. Graece (1871). Commentaries:—O.F. Fritzsche and Grimm, Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch zu den Apok. des A.T. (Leipzig, 1851-1860); E.C. Bissell, Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1880); Zockler, Apok. des A.T. (Munchen, 1891); Wace, The Apocrypha (“Speaker’s Commentary”) (1888). Introduction and General Literature:—E. Schürer3, Geschichte des jud. Volkes, vol. iii. 135 sqq., and his article on “Apokryphen” in Herzog’s Realencykl. i. 622-653; Porter in Hastings’ Bible Dic. i. 111-123.

Literature.—Texts:—Holmes and Parsons, Vet. Test. Graecum cum var. lectionibus (Oxford, 1798-1827); Swete, Old Testament in Greek, vol. i.-iii. (Cambridge, 1887-1894); Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi V.T. Graece (1871). Commentaries:—O.F. Fritzsche and Grimm, Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch zu den Apok. des A.T. (Leipzig, 1851-1860); E.C. Bissell, Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1880); Zockler, Apok. des A.T. (Munich, 1891); Wace, The Apocrypha (“Speaker’s Commentary”) (1888). Introduction and General Literature:—E. Schürer3, Geschichte des jud. Volkes, vol. iii. 135 sqq., and his article on “Apokryphen” in Herzog’s Realencykl. vol. i. 622-653; Porter in Hastings’ Bible Dic. vol. i. 111-123.

2 (a). Other Old Testament Apocryphal Literature:—

2 (a). Other Old Testament Apocryphal Literature:—

(a) Historical.

Historical

History of Johannes Hyrcanus.

History of John Hyrcanus.

(b) Legendary.

Legendary.

Book of Jubilees.

Jubilees Book.

Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Rest of the Words of Baruch.

Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Additional Words of Baruch.

Martyrdom of Isaiah.

Martyrdom of Isaiah.

Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum.

Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Antiquities.

Books of Adam.

Adam's Books.

Jannes and Jambres.

Jannes and Jambres.

Joseph and Asenath.

Joseph and Asenath.

(c) Apocalyptic.

(c) Apocalyptic.

(See separate article.)

(See separate article.)

(d) Didactic or Sapiential.

(d) Teaching or Wise.

Pirke Aboth.

Pirkei Avot.

(a) Historical.The History of Johannes Hyrcanus is mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi. 23-24, but no trace has been discovered of its existence elsewhere. It must have early passed out of circulation, as it was unknown to Josephus.

(a) Historical.The History of Johannes Hyrcanus is mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi. 23-24, but no trace has been found of it anywhere else. It must have gone out of circulation early on, as it was unknown to Josephus.

(b) Legendary.—The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 B.C. Jubilees was translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic and Latin. It is 178 preserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic. Jubilees is the most advanced pre-Christian representative of the midrashic tendency, which was already at work in the Old Testament 1 and 2 Chronicles. As the chronicler rewrote the history of Israel and Judah from the basis of the Priests’ Code, so our author re-edited from the Pharisaic standpoint of his time the book of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus. His work constitutes an enlarged targum on these books, and its object is to prove the everlasting validity of the law, which, though revealed in time, was superior to time. Writing in the palmiest days of the Maccabean dominion, he looked for the immediate advent of the Messianic kingdom. This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung not from Judah but from Levi, that is, from the reigning Maccabean family. This kingdom was to be gradually realized on earth, the transformation of physical nature going hand in hand with the ethical transformation of man. (For a fuller account see Jubilees, Book of.)

(b) Legendary.—The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year Hyrcanus became high priest in 135 and his split with the Pharisees a few years before his death in 105 BCE Jubilees was translated into Greek and then into Ethiopic and Latin. It is preserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic. Jubilees is the most developed pre-Christian example of the midrashic tendency, which had already emerged in the Old Testament 1 and 2 Chronicles. Just as the chronicler rewrote the history of Israel and Judah based on the Priests’ Code, our author reinterpreted the book of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus from the Pharisaic viewpoint of his time. His work serves as an expanded targum on these books, aiming to demonstrate the everlasting validity of the law, which, though revealed over time, was superior to it. Writing during the height of Maccabean rule, he anticipated the imminent arrival of the Messianic kingdom. This kingdom would be led by a Messiah not from Judah but from Levi, meaning from the ruling Maccabean family. This kingdom was to be gradually realized on earth, with the transformation of physical nature occurring alongside the ethical transformation of humanity. (For a fuller account see Jubilees, Book of.)

Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Rest of the Words of Baruch.— This book has been preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian and Slavonic. The Greek was first printed at Venice in 1609, and next by Ceriani in 1868 under the title Paralipomena Jeremiae. It bears the same name in the Armenian, but in Ethiopic it is known by the second title. (See under Baruch.)

Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Rest of the Words of Baruch.— This book has been preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic. The Greek version was first printed in Venice in 1609 and later by Ceriani in 1868 under the title Paralipomena Jeremiae. It has the same name in Armenian, but in Ethiopic, it is known by the second title. (See under Baruch.)

Martyrdom of Isaiah.—This Jewish work has been in part preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah. To it belong i. 1, 2a, 6b-13a; ii. 1-8, 10-iii. 12; v. 1c-14 of that book. It is of Jewish origin, and recounts the martyrdom of Isaiah at the hands of Manasseh. (See Isaiah, Ascension of.)

Martyrdom of Isaiah.—This Jewish text is partly preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah. It includes i. 1, 2a, 6b-13a; ii. 1-8, 10-iii. 12; v. 1c-14 of that book. It has Jewish origins and tells the story of Isaiah's martyrdom at the hands of Manasseh. (See Isaiah, Ascension of.)

Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.—Though the Latin version of this book was thrice printed in the 16th century (in 1527, 1550 and 1599), it was practically unknown to modern scholars till it was recognized by Conybeare and discussed by Cohn in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1898, pp. 279-332. It is an Haggadic revision of the Biblical history from Adam to the death of Saul. Its chronology agrees frequently with the LXX. against that of the Massoretic text, though conversely in a few cases. The Latin is undoubtedly translated from the Greek. Greek words are frequently transliterated. While the LXX. is occasionally followed in its translation of Biblical passages, in others the Massoretic is followed against the LXX., and in one or two passages the text presupposes a text different from both. On many grounds Cohn infers a Hebrew original. The eschatology is similar to that taught in the similitudes of the Book of Enoch. In fact, Eth. En. li. 1 is reproduced in this connexion. Prayers of the departed are said to be valueless. The book was written after A.D. 70; for, as Cohn has shown, the exact date of the fall of Herod’s temple is predicted.

Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.—Although the Latin version of this book was printed three times in the 16th century (in 1527, 1550, and 1599), it was largely unknown to modern scholars until Conybeare acknowledged it and Cohn discussed it in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1898, pp. 279-332. It is a Haggadic retelling of Biblical history from Adam to Saul's death. Its timeline often aligns with the LXX rather than the Massoretic text, although there are a few exceptions. The Latin text is clearly translated from Greek, with many Greek words transliterated. While the LXX is sometimes followed in translating Biblical passages, in other instances the Massoretic text is preferred over the LXX, and in one or two cases, it seems to rely on a different text altogether. For several reasons, Cohn suggests a Hebrew original. The eschatology resembles that found in the similitudes of the Book of Enoch. In fact, Eth. En. li. 1 is referenced in this context. It's stated that prayers of the departed hold no value. The book was written after CE 70; as Cohn demonstrated, it predicts the exact date of the destruction of Herod's temple.

Life of Adam and Eve.—Writings dealing with this subject are extant in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian and Arabic. They go back undoubtedly to a Jewish basis, but in some of the forms in which they appear at present they are christianized throughout. The oldest and for the most part Jewish portion of this literature is preserved to us in Greek, Armenian, Latin and Slavonic, (i.) The Greek Διήγησις περὶ Άδὰμ καὶ Εὔας (published under the misleading title Άποκάλυψις Μωυσέως in Tischendorf’s Apocalypses Apocryphae, 1866) deals with the Fall and the death of Adam and Eve. Ceriani edited this text from a Milan MS. (Monumenta Sacra et Profana, v. i). This work is found also in Armenian, and has been published by the Mechitharist community in Venice in their Collection of Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament, and translated by Conybeare (Jewish Quarterly Review, vii. 216 sqq., 1895), and by Issaverdens in 1901. (ii.) The Vita Adae et Evae is closely related and in part identical with (i.). It was printed by W. Meyer in Abh. d. Münch. Akad., Philos.-philol. Cl. xiv., 1878. (iii.) The Slavonic Adam book was published by Jajić along with a Latin translation (Denkschr. d. Wien. Akad. d. Wiss. xlii., 1893). This version agrees for the most part with (i.). It has, moreover, a section, §§ 28-39, which though not found in (i.) is found in (ii.). Before we discuss these three documents we shall mention other members of this literature, which, though derivable ultimately from Jewish sources, are Christian in their present form, (iv.) The Book of Adam and Eve, also called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, translated from the Ethiopic (1882) by Malan. This was first translated by Dillmann (Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes, 1853), and the Ethiopic book first edited by Trump (Abh. d. Münch. Akad. xv., 1870-1881). (v.) A Syriac work entitled Die Schalzhöhle translated by Bezold from three Syriac MSS. in 1883 and subsequently edited in Syriac in 1888. This work has close affinities to (iv.), but is said by Dillmann to be more original, (vi.) Armenian books on the Death of Adam (Uncanonical Writings of O.T. pp. 84 sqq., 1901, translated from the Armenian), Creation and Transgression of Adam (op. cit. 39 sqq.), Expulsion of Adam from Paradise (op. cit. 47 sqq.), Penitence of Adam and Eve (op. cit. 71 sqq.) are mainly later writings from Christian hands.

Life of Adam and Eve.—Writings on this topic exist in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic. They undoubtedly have a Jewish foundation, but in many of the forms we have today, they are fully Christianized. The oldest and mostly Jewish part of this literature has been preserved in Greek, Armenian, Latin, and Slavonic. (i.) The Greek Story of Adam and Eve (published under the misleading title Μωυσέως Αποκάλυψη in Tischendorf’s Apocalypses Apocryphae, 1866) addresses the Fall and death of Adam and Eve. Ceriani edited this text from a manuscript in Milan (Monumenta Sacra et Profana, v. i). This work is also available in Armenian and has been published by the Mechitharist community in Venice in their Collection of Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament, and translated by Conybeare (Jewish Quarterly Review, vii. 216 sqq., 1895), and by Issaverdens in 1901. (ii.) The Vita Adae et Evae is closely related and partly identical to (i.). It was printed by W. Meyer in Abh. d. Münch. Akad., Philos.-philol. Cl. xiv., 1878. (iii.) The Slavonic Adam book was published by Jajić with a Latin translation (Denkschr. d. Wien. Akad. d. Wiss. xlii., 1893). This version mostly matches (i.) and also includes a section, §§ 28-39, which, while not in (i.), appears in (ii.). Before we discuss these three documents, we should mention other works in this literature that, while deriving ultimately from Jewish sources, are Christian in their current form. (iv.) The Book of Adam and Eve, also known as The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, was translated from Ethiopic by Malan in 1882. It was initially translated by Dillmann (Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes, 1853), and the Ethiopic book was first edited by Trump (Abh. d. Münch. Akad. xv., 1870-1881). (v.) A Syriac work titled Die Schalzhöhle was translated by Bezold from three Syriac manuscripts in 1883 and later edited in Syriac in 1888. This work shares close ties with (iv.) but is considered by Dillmann to be more original. (vi.) Armenian texts on the Death of Adam (Uncanonical Writings of O.T. pp. 84 sqq., 1901, translated from Armenian), Creation and Transgression of Adam (op. cit. 39 sqq.), Expulsion of Adam from Paradise (op. cit. 47 sqq.), and Penitence of Adam and Eve (op. cit. 71 sqq.) are primarily later writings from Christian authors.

Returning to the question of the Jewish origin of i., ii., iii., we have already observed that these spring from a common original. As to the language of this original, scholars are divided. The evidence, however, seems to be strongly in favour of Hebrew. How otherwise are we to explain such Hebraisms (or Syriacisms) as ἐνᾦ ῥέει τὸ ἔλαιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ (§ 9), οῦ εῖπεν ... μὴ φαγεῖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (§ 21). For others see §§ 23, 33. Moreover, as Fuchs has pointed out, in the words ἔσῃ ἐν ματαίοις addressed to Eve (§ 25) there is a corruption of םילבח into םילבה. Thus the words were: “Thou shalt have pangs.” In fact, Hebraisms abound throughout this book. (See Fuchs, Apok. u. Pseud, d. A.T. ii. 511; Jewish Encyc. i. 179 sq.)

Returning to the question of the Jewish origin of i., ii., iii., we have already noted that these come from a common original. As for the language of this original, scholars are split. However, the evidence seems to strongly support Hebrew. How else can we explain such Hebraisms (or Syriacisms) as where the oil flows from it (§ 9), He said ... not to eat from it. (§ 21)? For others, see §§ 23, 33. Moreover, as Fuchs has pointed out, in the words you will be in vain addressed to Eve (§ 25), there is a corruption of ילחם into הבלימ. Thus the original words were: “You shall have pangs.” In fact, Hebraisms are everywhere in this book. (See Fuchs, Apok. u. Pseud, d. A.T. ii. 511; Jewish Encyc. i. 179 sq.)

Jannes and Jambres.—These two men are referred to in 2 Tim. iii. 8 as the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses. The book which treats of them is mentioned by Origen (ad Matt. xxiii. 37 and xxvii. 9 [Jannes et Mambres Liber]), and in the Gelasian Decree as the Paenitentia Jamnis et Mambre. The names in Greek are generally Ίαννῆς καὶ Ίαμβρῆς (= םירבמיו םיני) as in the Targ.-Jon. on Exod. i. 15; vii. ii. In the Talmud they appear as ארממו ינחוי. Since the western text of 2 Tim. iii. 8 has Μαμβρῆς, Westcott and Hort infer that this form was derived from a Palestinian source. These names were known not only to Jewish but also to heathen writers, such as Pliny and Apuleius. The book, therefore, may go back to pre-Christian times. (See Schürer3 iii. 292-294; Ency. Biblica, ii. 2327-2329.)

Jannes and Jambres.—These two figures are mentioned in 2 Tim. iii. 8 as the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses. The text that discusses them is referenced by Origen (ad Matt. xxiii. 37 and xxvii. 9 [Jannes et Mambres Liber]), and in the Gelasian Decree as the Paenitentia Jamnis et Mambre. Their names in Greek are usually Ίαννῆς and Ίαμβρῆς (= ניו בבית) as seen in the Targ.-Jon. on Exod. i. 15; vii. 11. In the Talmud, they are referred to as ארממו ינחוי. Since the western text of 2 Tim. iii. 8 uses Mambris, Westcott and Hort conclude that this version likely came from a Palestinian source. These names were recognized not only by Jewish writers but also by non-Jewish authors like Pliny and Apuleius. Thus, the text may date back to pre-Christian times. (See Schürer3 iii. 292-294; Ency. Biblica, ii. 2327-2329.)

Joseph and Asenath.—The statement in Gen. xli. 45, 50 that Joseph married the daughter of a heathen priest naturally gave offence to later Judaism, and gave rise to the fiction that Asenath was really the daughter of Shechem and Dinah, and only the foster-daughter of Potipherah (Targ.-Jon. on Gen. xli. 45; Tractat. Sopherim, xxi. 9; Jalkut Shimoni, c. 134. See Oppenheim, Fabula Josephi et Asenethae, 1886, pp. 2-4). Origen also was acquainted with some form of the legend (Selecta in Genesin, ad Gen. xli. 45, ed. Lommatzsch, viii. 89-90). The Christian legend, which is no doubt in the main based on the Jewish, is found in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic and Medieval Latin. Since it is not earlier than the 3rd or 4th century, it will be sufficient here to refer to Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. i. 176-177; Hastings’ Bible Dict. i. 162-163; Schürer, iii. 289-291.

Joseph and Asenath.—The mention in Gen. xli. 45, 50 that Joseph married the daughter of a pagan priest understandably offended later Jewish tradition, leading to the notion that Asenath was actually the daughter of Shechem and Dinah, and merely the adopted daughter of Potipherah (Targ.-Jon. on Gen. xli. 45; Tractat. Sopherim, xxi. 9; Jalkut Shimoni, c. 134. See Oppenheim, Fabula Josephi et Asenethae, 1886, pp. 2-4). Origen also knew of some version of the legend (Selecta in Genesin, ad Gen. xli. 45, ed. Lommatzsch, viii. 89-90). The Christian legend, which is largely based on the Jewish version, appears in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, and Medieval Latin. Since it dates no earlier than the 3rd or 4th century, it’s sufficient to refer to Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. i. 176-177; Hastings’ Bible Dict. i. 162-163; Schürer, iii. 289-291.

(d) Didactic or Sapiential.—The Pirke Aboth, a collection of sayings of the Jewish Fathers, are preserved in the 9th Tractate of the Fourth Order of the Mishnah. They are attributed to some sixty Jewish teachers, belonging for the most part to the years A.D. 70-170, though a few of them are of a much earlier date. The book holds the same place in rabbinical literature as the Book of Proverbs in the Bible. The sayings are often admirable. Thus in iv. 1-4, “Who is wise? He that learns from every man.... Who is mighty? He that subdues his nature.... Who is rich? He that is contented with his lot.... Who is honoured? He that honours mankind.” (See further Pirke Aboth.)

(d) Didactic or Sapiential.—The Pirke Aboth, a collection of sayings from Jewish sages, is found in the 9th Tractate of the Fourth Order of the Mishnah. These teachings are attributed to around sixty Jewish scholars, mostly from the years CE 70-170, though some date back earlier. This text holds a similar significance in rabbinical literature as the Book of Proverbs does in the Bible. The sayings are often remarkable. For example, in iv. 1-4, “Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.... Who is strong? He who controls his impulses.... Who is wealthy? He who is satisfied with what he has.... Who is respected? He who respects others.” (See further Pirke Aboth.)

2 (b). New Testament Apocryphal Literature:—

2 (b). New Testament Apocryphal Texts:—

(a). Gospels:—

Gospels:—

Uncanonical sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish writings.

Uncanonical sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish texts.

Gospel according to the Egyptians.

Gospel of the Egyptians.

Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Gospel of the Hebrews.

Protevangel of James. 179

Protevangelium of James. 179

Gospel of Nicodemus.

Gospel of Nicodemus.

Gospel of Peter.

Gospel of Peter.

Gospel of Thomas.

Gospel of Thomas.

Gospel of the Twelve.

Gospel of the Twelve.

Gnostic gospels of Andrew, Apelles, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Basilides, Cerinthus and some seventeen others.

Gnostic gospels of Andrew, Apelles, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Basilides, Cerinthus, and about seventeen others.

(b) Acts and Teachings of the Apostles:—

(b) Acts and Teachings of the Apostles:—

Acts of Andrew and later forms of these Acts.

Acts of Andrew and later versions of these Acts.

Acts of John.

Acts of John.

Acts of Paul.

Acts of Paul.

Acts of Peter.

Acts of Peter.

Preaching of Peter.

Peter's Preaching.

Acts of Thomas.

The Acts of Thomas.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

Teaching of the 12 Apostles.

Apostolic constitutions.

Apostolic guidelines.

(c) Epistles:—

Epistles:—

The Abgar Epistles.

The Abgar Letters.

Epistle of Barnabas.

Barnabas's Letter.

Epistle of Clement.

Clement's Letter.

“Clement’s” 2nd Epistle of the Corinthians.

“Clement’s” 2nd Letter to the Corinthians.

Clement’s Epistles on Virginity.

Clement's Letters on Virginity.

Clement’s Epistles to James.

Clement’s Letters to James.

Epistles of Ignatius.

Letters of Ignatius.

Epistle of Polycarp.

Letter of Polycarp.

Pauline Epp. to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

Pauline Epp. to the people of Laodicea and Alexandria.

3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.

3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.

(d) Apocalypses: see under Apocalyptic Literature.

(d) Apocalypses: see under Apocalyptic Literature.

(a) Gospels.—Uncanonical Sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish Sources.—Under the head of canonical sayings not found in the Gospels only one is found, i.e. that in Acts xx. 35. Of the rest the uncanonical sayings have been collected by Preuschen (Reste der ausserkanonischen Evangelien, 1901, pp. 44-47). A different collection will be found in Hennecke, NTliche Apok. 9-11. The same subject is dealt with in the elaborate volumes of Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, vols. i.-iii., 1893-1895).

(a) Gospels.—Uncanonical Sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish Sources.—In terms of canonical sayings not found in the Gospels, only one is present, i.e. that in Acts xx. 35. The remaining uncanonical sayings have been compiled by Preuschen (Reste der ausserkanonischen Evangelien, 1901, pp. 44-47). A different collection can be found in Hennecke, NTliche Apok. 9-11. The same topic is addressed in the detailed volumes by Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, vols. i.-iii., 1893-1895).

To this section belongs also the Fayum Gospel Fragment and the Logia published by Grenfell and Hunt.5 The former contains two sayings of Christ and one of Peter, such as we find in the canonical gospels, Matt. xxvi. 31-34, Mark xiv. 27-30. The papyrus, which is of the 3rd century, was discovered by Bickell among the Rainer collection, who characterized it (Z. f. kath. Theol., 1885, pp. 498-504) as a fragment of one of the primitive gospels mentioned in Luke i. 1. On the other hand, it has been contended that it is merely a fragment of an early patristic homily. (See Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 780-790; Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 4; Preuschen, op. cit. p. 19.) The Logia (q.v.) is the name given to the sayings contained in a papyrus leaf, by its discoverers Grenfell and Hunt. They think the papyrus was probably written about A.D. 200. According to Harnack, it is an extract from the Gospel of the Egyptians. All the passages referring to Jesus in the Talmud are given by Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud, with an appendix, “Die talmudischen Texte,” by G. Dalman (2nd ed. 1901). The first edition of this work was translated into English by A.W. Streane (Jesus Christ in the Talmud, 1893). In Hennecke’s NTliche Apok. Handbuch (pp. 47-71) there is a valuable study of this question by A. Meyer, entitled Jesus, Jesu Jünger und das Evangelium im Talmud und verwandten jüdischen Schriflen, to which also a good bibliography of the subject is prefixed.

This section also includes the Fayum Gospel Fragment and the Logia published by Grenfell and Hunt.5 The former features two sayings of Christ and one of Peter, similar to those found in the canonical gospels, Matt. xxvi. 31-34, Mark xiv. 27-30. The papyrus, dating back to the 3rd century, was found by Bickell in the Rainer collection, who described it (Z. f. kath. Theol., 1885, pp. 498-504) as a fragment of one of the early gospels mentioned in Luke i. 1. However, some argue that it is merely a fragment of an early church sermon. (See Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 780-790; Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 4; Preuschen, op. cit. p. 19.) The Logia (q.v.) refers to the sayings on a papyrus leaf, named by its discoverers Grenfell and Hunt. They believe the papyrus was likely written around CE 200. Harnack suggests it is an excerpt from the Gospel of the Egyptians. All passages mentioning Jesus in the Talmud are summarized by Laible in Jesus Christus im Talmud, with an appendix, “Die talmudischen Texte,” by G. Dalman (2nd ed. 1901). The first edition was translated into English by A.W. Streane (Jesus Christ in the Talmud, 1893). Hennecke’s NTliche Apok. Handbuch (pp. 47-71) includes a valuable study on this topic by A. Meyer titled Jesus, Jesu Jünger und das Evangelium im Talmud und verwandten jüdischen Schriften, which also features a solid bibliography on the subject.

Gospel according to the Egyptians.—This gospel is first mentioned by Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 6. 45; 9. 63, 66; 13. 92), subsequently by Origen (Hom. in Luc. i.) and Epiphanius (Haer. lxii. 2), and a fragment is preserved in the so-called 2 Clem. Rom. xii. 2. It circulated among various heretical circles; amongst the Encratites (Clem. Strom. iii. 9), the Naas-senes (Hippolyt. Philos. v. 7), and the Sabellians (Epiph. Haer. lxii. 2). Only three or four fragments survive; see Lipsius (Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 712, 713); Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 628-642; Preuschen, Reste d. ausserkanonischen Evangelien, 1901, p. 2, which show that it was a product of pantheistic Gnosticism. With this pantheistic Gnosticism is associated a severe asceticism. The distinctions of sex are one day to come to an end; the prohibition of marriage follows naturally on this view. Hence Christ is represented as coming to destroy the work of the female (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 9. 63). Lipsius and Zahn assign it to the middle of the 2nd century. It may be earlier.

Gospel according to the Egyptians.—This gospel is first referenced by Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 6. 45; 9. 63, 66; 13. 92), later by Origen (Hom. in Luc. i.) and Epiphanius (Haer. lxii. 2), with a fragment preserved in the so-called 2 Clem. Rom. xii. 2. It was circulated among different heretical groups, including the Encratites (Clem. Strom. iii. 9), the Naas-senes (Hippolyt. Philos. v. 7), and the Sabellians (Epiph. Haer. lxii. 2). Only three or four fragments are still available; see Lipsius (Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 712, 713); Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 628-642; Preuschen, Reste d. ausserkanonischen Evangelien, 1901, p. 2, which indicate that it originated from pantheistic Gnosticism. This pantheistic Gnosticism is linked to strict asceticism. The differences between sexes are expected to eventually vanish; thus, the prohibition of marriage follows logically from this viewpoint. Consequently, Christ is depicted as coming to eliminate the work of the female (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 9. 63). Lipsius and Zahn date it to the middle of the 2nd century, but it may be older.

Protevangel of James.—This title was first given in the 16th century to a writing which is referred to as The Book of James (ἡ βίβλος Ίακώβου) by Origen (tom. xi. in Matt.). Its author designates it as Ίστορία. For various other designations see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 1 seq. The narrative extends from the Conception of the Virgin to the Death of Zacharias. Lipsius shows that in the present form of the book there is side by side a strange “admixture of intimate knowledge and gross ignorance of Jewish thought and custom,” and that accordingly we must “distinguish between an original Jewish Christian writing and a Gnostic recast of it.” The former was known to Justin (Dial. 78, 101) and Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 16), and belongs at latest to the earliest years of the 2nd century. The Gnostic recast Lipsius dates about the middle of the 3rd century. From these two works arose independently the Protevangel in its present form and the Latin pseudo-Matthaeus (Evangelium pseudo-Matthaei). The Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae is a redaction of the latter. (See Lipsius in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 701-703.) But if we except the Zachariah and John group of legends, it is not necessary to assume the Gnostic recast of this work in the 3rd century as is done by Lipsius. The author had at his disposal two distinct groups of legends about Mary. One of these groups is certainly of non-Jewish origin, as it conceives Mary as living in the temple somewhat after the manner of a vestal virgin or a priestess of Isis. The other group is more in accord with the orthodox gospels. The book appears to have been written in Egypt, and in the early years of the 2nd century. For, since Origen states that many appealed to it in support of the view that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the book must have been current about A.D. 200. From Origen we may ascend to Clem. Alex. who (Strom. vi. 93) shows acquaintance with one of the chief doctrines of the book—the perpetual virginity of Mary. Finally, as Justin’s statements as to the birth of Jesus in a cave and Mary’s descent from David show in all probability his acquaintance with the book, it may with good grounds be assigned to the first decade of the 2nd century. (So Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 485, 499, 502, 504, 539; ii. 774-780.) For the Greek text see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 1-50; B.P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian erotic Fragment and other Papyri, 1896, pp. 13-17: for the Syriac, Wright, Contributions to Apocryphal Literature of the N.T., 1865, pp. 3-7; A.S. Lewis, Studia Sinaitica, xi. pp. 1-22. See literature generally in Hennecke, NT liche Apok. Handbuch, 106 seq.

Protevangel of James.—This title was first assigned in the 16th century to a document referred to as The Book of James (the Book of James) by Origen (tom. xi. in Matt.). The author refers to it as History. For various other titles, see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 1 seq. The story goes from the Conception of the Virgin to the Death of Zacharias. Lipsius points out that in the current version of the book, there exists a peculiar “mix of detailed knowledge and gross misunderstanding of Jewish thought and traditions,” and therefore, we need to “differentiate between an original Jewish Christian text and a Gnostic reinterpretation of it.” The original version was known to Justin (Dial. 78, 101) and Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 16), and it likely dates back to the earliest years of the 2nd century. Lipsius dates the Gnostic reinterpretation to around the mid-3rd century. From these two sources emerged the Protevangel in its current form and the Latin pseudo-Matthaeus (Evangelium pseudo-Matthaei). The Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae is a version of the latter. (See Lipsius in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 701-703.) However, aside from the Zachariah and John group of legends, it isn't necessary to assume the Gnostic reinterpretation of this work in the 3rd century as Lipsius does. The author had access to two different sets of legends about Mary. One of these sets is definitely non-Jewish in origin, as it depicts Mary living in the temple similar to a vestal virgin or a priestess of Isis. The other set aligns more closely with the orthodox gospels. The book seems to have been written in Egypt in the early years of the 2nd century. Origen mentions that many cited it to support the idea that Jesus' brothers were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, indicating the book was in circulation around A.D. 200. From Origen, we can trace back to Clem. Alex., who (Strom. vi. 93) demonstrates familiarity with one of the key teachings of the book—the perpetual virginity of Mary. Finally, since Justin’s remarks regarding the birth of Jesus in a cave and Mary’s lineage from David likely reflect his knowledge of the book, it can reasonably be dated to the first ten years of the 2nd century. (So Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 485, 499, 502, 504, 539; ii. 774-780.) For the Greek text, see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 1-50; B.P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian erotic Fragment and other Papyri, 1896, pp. 13-17; for the Syriac, Wright, Contributions to Apocryphal Literature of the N.T., 1865, pp. 3-7; A.S. Lewis, Studia Sinaitica, xi. pp. 1-22. See general literature in Hennecke, NT liche Apok. Handbuch, 106 seq.

Gospel of Nicodemus.—This title is first met with in the 13th century. It is used to designate an apocryphal writing entitled in the older MSS. ὑπομνήματα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ίησοῦ Χριστοῦ πραχθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου; also “Gesta Salvatoris Domini ... inventa Theodosio magno imperatore in Ierusalem in praetorio Pontii Pilati in codicibus publicis.” See Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 pp. 333-335. This work gives an account of the Passion (i.-xi.), the Resurrection (xii.-xvi.), and the Descensus ad Inferos (xvii.-xxvii.). Chapters i.-xvi. are extant, in the Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian versions. The two Latin versions and a Byzantine recension of the Greek contain i.-xxvii. (see Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha2, pp. 210-458). All known texts go back to A.D. 425, if one may trust the reference to Theodosius. But this was only a revision, for as early as 376 Epiphanius (Haer. i. 1.) presupposes the existence of a like text. In 325 Eusebius (H.E. ii. 2) was acquainted only with the heathen Acts of Pilate, and knew nothing of a Christian work. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin’s reference to the ῎Ακτα Πιλάτου (Apol. i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian’s mention of the Acta Pilati (Apol. 21), and on this evidence attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century. But these references have been denied by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot. Recently Schubert has sought to derive the elements 180 which are found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical gospels, from the original Acta Pilati, while Zahn exactly reverses the relation of these two works. Rendel Harris (1899) advocated the view that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess it, is merely a prose version of the Gospel of Nicodemus written originally in Homeric centones as early as the 2nd century. Lipsius and Dobschütz relegate the book to the 4th century. The question is not settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biography, ii. 708-709, and Dobschütz in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, iii. 544-547).

Gospel of Nicodemus.—This title first appeared in the 13th century. It refers to an apocryphal text known in older manuscripts as Memoranda of our Lord Jesus Christ that were carried out under Pontius Pilate; also “Gesta Salvatoris Domini ... discovered by the great Emperor Theodosius in Jerusalem in the praetorium of Pontius Pilate in public records.” See Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 pp. 333-335. This work describes the Passion (i.-xi.), the Resurrection (xii.-xvi.), and the Descensus ad Inferos (xvii.-xxvii.). Chapters i.-xvi. exist in Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian versions. The two Latin versions and a Byzantine version of the Greek include i.-xxvii. (see Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha2, pp. 210-458). All known texts date back to CE 425, assuming the reference to Theodosius is reliable. However, this was merely a revision, since Epiphanius mentioned a similar text as early as 376 (Haer. i. 1.). By 325, Eusebius (H.E. ii. 2) was only aware of the pagan Acts of Pilate and knew nothing about a Christian text. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin’s reference to the Akta Pilatou (Apol. i. 35, 48) and in Tertullian’s mention of the Acta Pilati (Apol. 21), and based on this they attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century. But these references have been disputed by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot. Recently, Schubert has attempted to derive elements found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical gospels, from the original Acta Pilati, while Zahn argues the opposite. Rendel Harris (1899) suggested that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we have it, is simply a prose version of the Gospel of Nicodemus originally written in Homeric centos in the 2nd century. Lipsius and Dobschütz assign the book to the 4th century. The matter is still unresolved (see Lipsius in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biography, ii. 708-709, and Dobschütz in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, iii. 544-547).

Gospel according to the Hebrews.—This gospel was cited by Ignatius (Ad Smyrnaeos, iii.) according to Jerome (Viris illus. 16, and in Jes. lib. xviii.), but this is declared to be untrustworthy by Zahn, op. cit. i. 921; ii. 701, 702. It was written in Aramaic in Hebrew letters, according to Jerome (Adv. Pelag. iii. 2), and translated by him into Greek and Latin. Both these translations are lost. A collection of the Greek and Latin fragments that have survived, mainly in Origen and Jerome, will be found in Hilgenfeld’s NT extra Canonem receptum, Nicholson’s Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879), Westcott’s Introd. to the Gospels, and Zahn’s Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons, ii. 642-723; Preuschen, op. cit. 3-8. This gospel was regarded by many in the first centuries as the Hebrew original of the canonical Matthew (Jerome, in Matt. xii. 13; Adv. Pelag. iii. 1). With the canonical gospel it agrees in some of its sayings; in others it is independent. It circulated among the Nazarenes in Syria, and was composed, according to Zahn (op. cit. ii. 722), between the years 135 and 150. Jerome identifies it with the Gospel of the Twelve (Adv. Pelag. iii. 2), and states that it was used by the Ebionites (Comm. in Matt. xii. 13). Zahn (op. cit. ii. 662, 724) contests both these statements. The former he traces to a mistaken interpretation of Origen (Hom. I. in Luc.). Lipsius, on the other hand, accepts the statements of Jerome (Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian Biography, ii. 709-712), and is of opinion that this gospel, in the form in which it was known to Epiphanius, Jerome and Origen, was “a recast of an older original,” which, written originally in Aramaic, was nearly related to the Logia used by St Matthew and the Ebionitic writing used by St Luke, “which itself was only a later redaction of the Logia.”

Gospel according to the Hebrews.—This gospel was mentioned by Ignatius (Ad Smyrnaeos, iii.) according to Jerome (Viris illus. 16, and in Jes. lib. xviii.), but Zahn claims this is unreliable, as noted in his work, op. cit. i. 921; ii. 701, 702. It was written in Aramaic using Hebrew letters, according to Jerome (Adv. Pelag. iii. 2), and was translated into Greek and Latin by him. Both translations have been lost. A collection of the surviving Greek and Latin fragments, mostly found in Origen and Jerome, can be seen in Hilgenfeld’s NT extra Canonem receptum, Nicholson’s Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879), Westcott’s Introd. to the Gospels, and Zahn’s Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons, ii. 642-723; Preuschen, op. cit. 3-8. Many people in the early centuries considered this gospel to be the Hebrew original of the canonical Matthew (Jerome, in Matt. xii. 13; Adv. Pelag. iii. 1). It agrees with the canonical gospel in some sayings, while in others, it stands alone. It was circulated among the Nazarenes in Syria and was composed, according to Zahn (op. cit. ii. 722), between the years 135 and 150. Jerome identifies it with the Gospel of the Twelve (Adv. Pelag. iii. 2) and states that it was used by the Ebionites (Comm. in Matt. xii. 13). Zahn (op. cit. ii. 662, 724) contests both of these claims. He attributes the former to a misinterpretation of Origen (Hom. I. in Luc.). On the other hand, Lipsius accepts Jerome's statements (Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian Biography, ii. 709-712) and believes that this gospel, as known to Epiphanius, Jerome, and Origen, was “a revised version of an older original,” which was initially written in Aramaic and closely related to the Logia used by St. Matthew and the Ebionitic writing used by St. Luke, “which itself was just a later version of the Logia.”

According to the most recent investigations we may conclude that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites as early as 100-125, since Ignatius was familiar with the phrase “I am no bodiless demon”—a phrase which, according to Jerome (Comm. in Is. xviii.), belonged to this Gospel.

According to the latest research, we can conclude that the Gospel of the Hebrews was in use among the Nazarenes and Ebionites around 100-125, since Ignatius recognized the phrase “I am no bodiless demon”—a phrase that, according to Jerome (Comm. in Is. xviii.), was part of this Gospel.

The name “Gospel according to the Hebrews” cannot have been original; for if it had been so named because of its general use among the Hebrews, yet the Hebrews themselves would not have used this designation. It may have been known simply as “the Gospel.” The language was Western Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus and his apostles. Two forms of Western Aramaic survive: the Jerusalem form of the dialect, in the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra; and the Galilean, in isolated expressions in the Talmud (3rd century), and in a fragmentary 5th century translation of the Bible. The quotations from the Old Testament are made from the Massoretic text.

The title “Gospel according to the Hebrews” likely wasn’t the original name; if it were called that due to its common use among the Hebrews, then the Hebrews themselves wouldn’t have referred to it this way. It might have been simply known as “the Gospel.” The language was Western Aramaic, the native language of Jesus and his apostles. Two versions of Western Aramaic still exist: the Jerusalem dialect found in the Aramaic sections of Daniel and Ezra, and the Galilean dialect represented in scattered phrases in the Talmud (3rd century) and in a fragmentary 5th-century Bible translation. The quotes from the Old Testament are taken from the Massoretic text.

This gospel must have been translated at an early date into Greek, as Clement and Origen cite it as generally accessible, and Eusebius recounts that many reckoned it among the received books The gospel is synoptic in character and is closely related to Matthew, though in the Resurrection accounts it has affinities with Luke. Like Mark it seems to have had no history of the birth of Christ, and to have begun with the baptism. (For the literature see Hennecke, NTliche Apok. Handbuch, 21-23.)

This gospel must have been translated into Greek early on, since Clement and Origen refer to it as widely available, and Eusebius notes that many considered it one of the accepted texts. The gospel is similar to Matthew in nature but shares connections with Luke in the Resurrection narratives. Like Mark, it appears to lack a story of Christ's birth and starts with the baptism. (For the literature see Hennecke, NTliche Apok. Handbuch, 21-23.)

Gospel of Peter.—Before 1892 we had some knowlege of this gospel. Thus Serapion, bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203) found it in use in the church of Rhossus in Cilicia, and condemned it as Docetic (Eusebius, H.E. vi. 12). Again, Origen (In Matt. tom. xvii. 10) says that it represented the brethren of Christ as his half-brothers In 1885 a long fragment was discovered at Akhmim, and published by Bouriant in 1892, and subsequently by Lods, Robinson, Harnack, Zahn, Schubert, Swete.

Gospel of Peter.—Before 1892, we knew a bit about this gospel. Serapion, the bishop of Antioch (CE 190-203), found it being used in the church of Rhossus in Cilicia and condemned it as Docetic (Eusebius, H.E. vi. 12). Additionally, Origen (In Matt. tom. xvii. 10) noted that it depicted the brothers of Christ as his half-brothers. In 1885, a long fragment was discovered at Akhmim and published by Bouriant in 1892, followed by Lods, Robinson, Harnack, Zahn, Schubert, and Swete.

Gospel of Thomas.—This gospel professes to give an account of our Lord’s boyhood. It appears in two recensions. The more complete recension bears the title Θωμᾶ Ίσραηλίτου Φιλοσόφου ῥητὰ εἰς τὰ παιδικὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, and treats of the period from the 7th to the 12th year (Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha2, 1876, 140-157). The more fragmentary recension gives the history of the childhood from the 5th to the 8th year, and is entitled Σύγγραμμα τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Θωμᾶ περὶ τῆς παιδικῆς ἀναστροφῆς τοῦ Κυρίου (Tischendorf, op. cit. pp. 158-163). Two Latin translations have been published in this work by the same scholar—one on pp. 164-180, the other under the wrong title, Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, on pp. 93-112. A Syriac version, with an English translation, was published by Wright in 1875. This gospel was originally still more Docetic than it now is, according to Lipsius. Its present form is due to an orthodox revision which discarded, so far as possible, all Gnostic traces. Lipsius (Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 703) assigns it to the latter half of the 2nd century, but Zahn (Gesch. Kan. ii. 771), on good grounds, to the earlier half. The latter scholar shows that probably it was used by Justin (Dial. 88). At all events it circulated among the Marcosians (Irenaeus, Haer. i. 20) and the Naasenes (Hippolytus, Refut. v. 7), and subsequently among the Manichaeans, and is frequently quoted from Origen downwards (Hom. I. in Luc.). If the stichometry of Nicephorus is right, the existing form of the book is merely fragmentary compared with its original compass. For literature see Hennecke, NTliche Apokryphen Handbuch, 132 seq.

Gospel of Thomas.—This gospel claims to recount our Lord’s childhood. It exists in two versions. The more complete version is titled Thomas, a philosopher of Israel, has said specific things about the childhood of the Lord., and covers the years from age 7 to 12 (Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha2, 1876, 140-157). The more fragmented version details the childhood from age 5 to 8, and is titled The writings of the holy apostle Thomas about the childhood of the Lord. (Tischendorf, op. cit. pp. 158-163). Two Latin translations have been published in this work by the same scholar—one on pp. 164-180, the other mistakenly titled Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium, on pp. 93-112. A Syriac version, along with an English translation, was published by Wright in 1875. According to Lipsius, this gospel was originally even more Docetic than it is now. Its current version is a result of an orthodox revision that removed, as much as possible, all Gnostic elements. Lipsius (Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 703) dates it to the latter half of the 2nd century, but Zahn (Gesch. Kan. ii. 771), with good reason, assigns it to the earlier half. The latter scholar indicates that it was likely used by Justin (Dial. 88). In any case, it circulated among the Marcosians (Irenaeus, Haer. i. 20) and the Naasenes (Hippolytus, Refut. v. 7), and later among the Manichaeans, frequently cited from Origen onward (Hom. I. in Luc.). If Nicephorus's stichometry is accurate, the existing version of the book is merely a fragment of its original extent. For further literature, see Hennecke, NTliche Apokryphen Handbuch, 132 seq.

Gospel of the Twelve.—This gospel, which Origen knew (Hom. I. in Luc.), is not to be identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see above), with Lipsius and others, who have sought to reconstruct the original gospel from the surviving fragments of these two distinct works. The only surviving fragments of the Gospel of the Twelve have been preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 13-16, 22: see Preuschen, op. cit. 9-11). It began with an account of the baptism. It was used by the Ebionites, and was written, according to Zahn (op. cit. ii. 742), about A.D. 170.

Gospel of the Twelve.—This gospel, which Origen was aware of (Hom. I. in Luc.), should not be confused with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see above), contrary to Lipsius and others, who have tried to piece together the original gospel from the remaining fragments of these two separate works. The only remaining fragments of the Gospel of the Twelve have been preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 13-16, 22: see Preuschen, op. cit. 9-11). It started with a description of the baptism. It was utilized by the Ebionites and was written, according to Zahn (op. cit. ii. 742), around A.D. 170.

Other Gospels Mainly Gnostic and almost all Lost.— Gospel of Andrew.—This is condemned in the Gelasian Decree, and is probably the gospel mentioned by Innocent (1 Ep. iii. 7) and Augustine (Contra advers. Leg. et Proph. i. 20).

Other Gospels, mostly Gnostic, and nearly all lost..— Gospel of Andrew.—This is condemned in the Gelasian Decree, and is likely the gospel referenced by Innocent (1 Ep. iii. 7) and Augustine (Contra advers. Leg. et Proph. i. 20).

Gospel of Apelles.—Mentioned by Jerome in his Prooem. ad Matt.

Gospel of Apelles.—Referenced by Jerome in his Prooem. ad Matt.

Gospel of Barnabas.—Condemned in the Gelasian Decree (see under Barnabas ad fin.).

Gospel of Barnabas.—Rejected in the Gelasian Decree (see under Barnabas ad fin.)

Gospel of Bartholomew.—Mentioned by Jerome in his Prooem. ad Matt. and condemned in the Gelasian Decree.

Gospel of Bartholomew.—Referred to by Jerome in his Prooem. ad Matt. and rejected in the Gelasian Decree.

Gospel of Basilides.—Mentioned by Origen (Tract. 26 in Matt. xxxiii. 34, and in his Prooem. in Luc.); by Jerome in his Prooem. in Matt. (See Harnack i. 161; ii. 536-537; Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 763-774.)

Gospel of Basilides.—Referenced by Origen (Tract. 26 in Matt. xxxiii. 34, and in his Prooem. in Luc.); by Jerome in his Prooem. in Matt. (See Harnack i. 161; ii. 536-537; Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 763-774.)

Gospel of Cerinthus.—Mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer. li. 7).

Gospel of Cerinthus.—Referenced by Epiphanius (Haer. li. 7).

Gospel of the Ebionites.—A fragmentary edition of the canonical Matthew according to Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 13), used by the Ebionites and called by them the Hebrew Gospel.

Gospel of the Ebionites.—A partial version of the canonical Matthew according to Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 13), used by the Ebionites and referred to by them as the Hebrew Gospel.

Gospel of Eve.—A quotation from this gospel is given by Epiphanius (Haer. xxvi. 2, 3). It is possible that this is the Gospel of Perfection (Εὐαγγέλιον τελειώσεως) which he touches upon in xxvi. 2. The quotation shows that this gospel was the expression of complete pantheism.

Gospel of Eve.—A quote from this gospel is mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer. xxvi. 2, 3). It's possible that this refers to the Gospel of Perfection (Gospel of Completion) that he mentions in xxvi. 2. The quote indicates that this gospel expressed a total pantheism.

Gospel of James the Less.—Condemned in the Gelasian Decree.

Gospel of James the Less.—Rejected in the Gelasian Decree.

Wisdom of Jesus Christ.—This third work contained in the Coptic MS. referred to under Gospel of Mary gives cosmological disclosures and is presumably of Valentinian origin.

Wisdom of Jesus Christ.—This third work included in the Coptic manuscript mentioned under Gospel of Mary provides insights into the cosmos and is likely of Valentinian origin.

Apocryph of John.—This book, which is found in the Coptic MS. referred to under Gospel of Mary and contains cosmological disclosures of Christ, is said to have formed the source of Irenaeus’ account of the Gnostics of Barbelus (i. 29-31). Thus this work would have been written before 170.

Apocryph of John.—This book, which is found in the Coptic manuscript mentioned under Gospel of Mary and contains Christ's cosmological revelations, is believed to have been the source for Irenaeus’ description of the Gnostics of Barbelus (i. 29-31). Therefore, this work would have been written before 170.

Gospel of Judas Iscariot.—References to this gospel as in use among the Cainites are made by Irenaeus (i. 31. 1); Epiphanius (xxxviii. 1. 3).

Gospel of Judas Iscariot.—Irenaeus (i. 31. 1) and Epiphanius (xxxviii. 1. 3) mention this gospel being used among the Cainites.

181

181

Gospel, The Living (Evangelium Vivum).—This was a gospel of the Manichaeans. See Epiphanius, Haer. lxvi. 2; Photius, Contra Manich. i.

Gospel, The Living (Evangelium Vivum).—This was a gospel of the Manichaeans. See Epiphanius, Haer. lxvi. 2; Photius, Contra Manich. i.

Gospel of Marcion.—On this important gospel see Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 585-718.

Gospel of Marcion.—For details on this significant gospel, refer to Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 585-718.

Descent of Mary (Γέννα Μαρίας).—This book was an anti-Jewish legend representing Zacharias as having been put to death by the Jews because he had seen the God of the Jews in the form of an ass in the temple (Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 12).

Descent of Mary (Maria's birth).—This book was an anti-Jewish legend depicting Zacharias as having been killed by the Jews because he encountered the God of the Jews in the form of a donkey in the temple (Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 12).

Questions of Mary (Great and Little).—Epiphanius (Haer. xxvi. 8) gives some excerpts from this revolting work.

Questions of Mary (Great and Little).—Epiphanius (Haer. xxvi. 8) provides some excerpts from this disturbing work.

Gospel of Mary.—This gospel is found in a Coptic MS. of the 5th century. According to Schmidt’s short account, Sitzungsberichte d. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu. Berlin (1896), pp. 839 sqq., this gospel gives disclosures on the nature of matter (ὕλη) and the progress of the Gnostic soul through the seven planets.

Gospel of Mary.—This gospel is found in a Coptic manuscript from the 5th century. According to Schmidt’s brief overview in Sitzungsberichte d. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu. Berlin (1896), pp. 839 sqq., this gospel reveals insights about the nature of matter (matter) and the journey of the Gnostic soul through the seven planets.

Gospel of Matthias.—Though this gospel is attested by Origen (Horm. in Luc. i.), Eusebius, H.E. iii. 25. 6, and the List of Sixty Books, not a shred of it has been preserved, unless with Zahn ii. 751 sqq. we are to identify it with the Traditions of Matthias, from which Clement has drawn some quotations.

Gospel of Matthias.—Although this gospel is confirmed by Origen (Horm. in Luc. i.), Eusebius, H.E. iii. 25. 6, and the List of Sixty Books, not a single piece of it has been saved, unless we, along with Zahn ii. 751 sqq., consider it to be the same as the Traditions of Matthias, from which Clement has taken some quotes.

Gospel of Perfection (Evangelium perfectionis).—Used by the followers of Basilides and other Gnostics. See Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 2.

Gospel of Perfection (Evangelium perfectionis).—Used by the followers of Basilides and other Gnostics. See Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 2.

Gospel of Philip.—This gospel described the progress of a soul through the next world. It is of a strongly Encratite character and dates from the 2nd century. A fragment is preserved in Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 13. In Preuschen, Reste, p. 13, the quotation breaks off too soon. See Zahn ii. 761-768.

Gospel of Philip.—This gospel outlines the journey of a soul in the afterlife. It has a distinctly ascetic vibe and originates from the 2nd century. A fragment is found in Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 13. In Preuschen, Reste, p. 13, the quote ends abruptly. See Zahn ii. 761-768.

Gospel of Thaddaeus.—Condemned by the Gelasian Decree.

Gospel of Thaddaeus.—Rejected by the Gelasian Decree.

Gospel of Thomas.—Of this gospel only one fragment has been preserved in Hippolytus, Philos. v. 7, pp. 140 seq. See Zahn, op. cit. i. 746 seq.; ii. 768-773; Harnack ii. 593-595.

Gospel of Thomas.—Only one fragment of this gospel has survived in Hippolytus, Philos. v. 7, pp. 140 seq. See Zahn, op. cit. i. 746 seq.; ii. 768-773; Harnack ii. 593-595.

Gospel of Truth.—This gospel is mentioned by Irenaeus i. 11. 9, and was used by the Valentinians. See Zahn i. 748 sqq.

Gospel of Truth.—This gospel is mentioned by Irenaeus i. 11. 9, and was used by the Valentinians. See Zahn i. 748 sqq.

(b) Acts and Teachings of the Apostles.—Acts of Andrew.—These Acts, which are of a strongly Encratite character, have come down to us in a fragmentary condition. They belong to the earliest ages, for they are mentioned by Eusebius, H.E. iii. 25; Epiphanius, Haer. xlvii. 1; lxi. 1; lxiii. 2; Philaster, Haer. lxviii., as current among the Manichaeans and heretics. They are attributed to Leucius, a Docetic writer, by Augustine (c. Felic. Manich. ii. 6) and Euodius (De Fide c. Manich. 38). Euodius in the passage just referred to preserves two small fragments of the original Acts. On internal grounds the section recounting Andrew’s imprisonment (Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 38-45) is also probably a constituent of the original work. As regards the martyrdom, owing to the confusion introduced by the multitudinous Catholic revisions of this section of the Acts, it is practically impossible to restore its original form. For a complete discussion of the various documents see Lipsius, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichte, i. 543-622; also James in Hastings’ Bible Dict. i. 92-93; Hennecke, NT. Apokryphen, in loc. The best texts are given in Bonnet’s Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1898, II. i. 1-127. These contain also the Acts of Andrew and Matthew (or Matthias) in which Matthew (or Matthias) is represented as a captive in the country of the anthropophagi. Christ takes Andrew and his disciples with Him, and effects the rescue of Matthew. The legend is found also in Ethiopic, Syriac and Anglo-Saxon. Also the Acts of Peter and Andrew, which among other incidents recount the miracle of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. This work is preserved partly in Greek, but in its entirety in Slavonic.

(b) Acts and Teachings of the Apostles.—Acts of Andrew.—These Acts, which have a strong Encratite influence, have survived in fragments. They date back to the earliest times, as they are referenced by Eusebius, H.E. iii. 25; Epiphanius, Haer. xlvii. 1; lxi. 1; lxiii. 2; and Philaster, Haer. lxviii., as known among the Manichaeans and heretics. They are attributed to Leucius, a Docetic writer, by Augustine (c. Felic. Manich. ii. 6) and Euodius (De Fide c. Manich. 38). Euodius, in the referenced passage, preserves two small fragments of the original Acts. Based on internal evidence, the section describing Andrew’s imprisonment (Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 38-45) is likely part of the original work. Concerning the martyrdom, due to the confusion caused by numerous Catholic revisions of this section of the Acts, it's almost impossible to restore its original form. For a thorough discussion of the various documents, see Lipsius, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichte, i. 543-622; also James in Hastings’ Bible Dict. i. 92-93; Hennecke, NT. Apokryphen, in loc. The best texts can be found in Bonnet’s Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1898, II. i. 1-127. These also include the Acts of Andrew and Matthew (or Matthias), where Matthew (or Matthias) is shown as a captive in the land of the cannibals. Christ takes Andrew and his disciples with Him and rescues Matthew. This legend is also found in Ethiopic, Syriac, and Anglo-Saxon. Additionally, there are the Acts of Peter and Andrew, which recount various incidents, including the miracle of a camel going through the eye of a needle. This work is preserved partly in Greek but completely in Slavonic.

Acts of John.—Clement of Alexandria in his Hypotyposes on 1 John i. 1 seems to refer to chapters xciii. (or lxxxix.) of these Acts. Eusebius (H.E. iii. 25. 6), Epiphanius (Haer. xlvii. 1) and other ancient writers assign them to the authorship of Leucius Charinus. It is generally admitted that they were written in the 2nd century. The text has been edited most completely by Bonnet, Acta Apostol. Apocr., 1898, 151-216. The contents might be summarized with Hennecke as follows:—Arrival and first sojourn of the apostle in Ephesus (xviii.-lv.); return to Ephesus and second sojourn (history of Drusiana, lviii.-lxxxvi.); account of the crucifixion of Jesus and His apparent death (lxxxvii.-cv.); the death of John (cvi.-cxv.). There are manifest gaps in the narrative, a fact which we would infer from the extent assigned to it (i.e. 2500 stichoi) by Nicephorus. According to this authority one-third of the text is now lost. Many chapters are lost at the beginning; there is a gap in chapter xxxvii., also before lviii., not to mention others. The encratite tendency in these Acts is not so strongly developed as in those of Andrew and Thomas. James (Anecdota, ii. 1-25) has given strong grounds for regarding the Acts of John and Peter as derived from one and the same author, but there are like affinities existing between the Acts of Peter and those of Paul. For a discussion of this work see Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 856-865; Lipsius, Apok. Apostelgesch. i. 348-542; Hennecke, NT. Apokryphen, 423-432. For bibliography, Hennecke, NT. Apok. Handbuch, 492 sq.

Acts of John.—Clement of Alexandria in his Hypotyposes on 1 John i. 1 seems to refer to chapters xciii. (or lxxxix.) of these Acts. Eusebius (H.E. iii. 25. 6), Epiphanius (Haer. xlvii. 1) and other ancient writers attribute them to Leucius Charinus. It's commonly accepted that they were written in the 2nd century. The text has been most thoroughly edited by Bonnet, Acta Apostol. Apocr., 1898, 151-216. The contents might be summarized with Hennecke as follows:—Arrival and first stay of the apostle in Ephesus (xviii.-lv.); return to Ephesus and second stay (history of Drusiana, lviii.-lxxxvi.); account of the crucifixion of Jesus and His apparent death (lxxxvii.-cv.); the death of John (cvi.-cxv.). There are clear gaps in the narrative, which we can infer from the extent assigned to it (i.e. 2500 stichoi) by Nicephorus. According to this source, one-third of the text is now missing. Many chapters are lost at the beginning; there is a gap in chapter xxxvii., also before lviii., not to mention others. The encratite tendency in these Acts is not as strongly developed as in those of Andrew and Thomas. James (Anecdota, ii. 1-25) has provided strong reasons to consider the Acts of John and Peter as coming from the same author, but there are similar connections between the Acts of Peter and those of Paul. For a discussion of this work see Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 856-865; Lipsius, Apok. Apostelgesch. i. 348-542; Hennecke, NT. Apokryphen, 423-432. For bibliography, Hennecke, NT. Apok. Handbuch, 492 sq.

Acts of Paul.—The discovery of the Coptic translation of these Acts in 1897, and its publication by C. Schmidt (Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift herausgegeben, Leipzig, 1894), have confirmed what had been previously only a hypothesis that the Acts of Thecla had formed a part of the larger Acts of Paul. The Acts therefore embrace now the following elements:—(a) Two quotations given by Origen in his Princip. i. 2. 3 and his comment on John xx. 12. From the latter it follows that in the Acts of Paul the death of Peter was recounted, (b) Apocryphal 3rd Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul. These two letters are connected by a short account which is intended to give the historical situation. Paul is in prison on account of Stratonice, the wife of Apollophanes. The Greek and Latin versions of these letters have for the most part disappeared, but they have been preserved in Syriac, and through Syriac they obtained for the time being a place in the Armenian Bible immediately after 2 Corinthians. Aphraates cites two passages from 3 Corinthians as words of the apostle, and Ephraem expounded them in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles. They must therefore have been regarded as canonical in the first half of the 4th century. From the Syriac Bible they made their way into the Armenian and maintained their place without opposition to the 7th century. On the Latin text see Carrière and Berger, Correspondance apocr. de S.P. et des Corinthiens, 1891. For a translation of Ephraem’s commentary see Zahn ii. 592-611 and Vetter, Der Apocr. 3. Korinthien, 70 sqq., 1894. The Coptic version (C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli, pp. 74-82), which is here imperfect, is clearly from a Greek original, while the Latin and Armenian are from the Syriac. (c) The Acts of Paul and Thecla. These were written, according to Tertullian (De Baptismo, 17) by a presbyter of Asia, who was deposed from his office on account of his forgery. This, the earliest of Christian romances (probably before A.D. 150), recounts the adventures and sufferings of a virgin, Thecla of Iconium. Lipsius discovers Gnostic traits in the story, but these are denied by Zahn (Gesch. Kanons, ii. 902). See Lipsius, op. cit. ii. 424-467; Zahn (op. cit. ii. 892-910). The best text is that of Lipsius, Acta Apostol. Apocr., 1891, i. 235-272. There are Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic and Slavonic versions. As we have seen above, these Acts are now recognized as belonging originally to the Acts of Paul. They were, however, published separately long before the Gelasian Decree (496). Jerome also was acquainted with them as an independent work. Thecla was most probably a real personage, around whom a legend had already gathered in the 2nd century. Of this legend the author of the Acts of Paul made use, and introduced into it certain historical and geographical facts, (d) The healing of Hermocrates of dropsy in Myra. Through a comparison of the Coptic version with the Pseudo-Cyprian writing “Caena,” Rolffs (Hennecke, NT. Apok. 361) concludes that this incident formed originally a constituent of our book, (e) The strife with beasts at Ephesus. This event is mentioned by Nicephorus Callistus (H.E. ii. 25) as recounted in the περίοδοι of Paul. The identity of this work with the Acts of Paul is confirmed by a remark of Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel iii. 29. 4, 182 ed. Bonwetsch 176 (so Rolffs). (f) Martyrdom of Paul. The death of Paul by the sentence of Nero at Rome forms the close of the Acts of Paul. The text is in the utmost confusion. It is best given by Lipsius, Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 104-117.

Acts of Paul.—The finding of the Coptic translation of these Acts in 1897 and its publication by C. Schmidt (Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift herausgegeben, Leipzig, 1894) have confirmed what was previously just a hypothesis: that the Acts of Thecla were part of the larger Acts of Paul. The Acts now include the following elements:—(a) Two quotes from Origen in his Princip. i. 2. 3 and his commentary on John xx. 12. From the latter, it can be inferred that the death of Peter was mentioned in the Acts of Paul, (b) Apocryphal 3rd Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul. These two letters are connected by a brief narrative meant to outline the historical context. Paul is in prison because of Stratonice, the wife of Apollophanes. The Greek and Latin versions of these letters are mostly lost, but they have been preserved in Syriac, and through Syriac, they temporarily found a place in the Armenian Bible right after 2 Corinthians. Aphraates cites two excerpts from 3 Corinthians as words of the apostle, and Ephraem commented on them in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles. They must have been considered canonical in the first half of the 4th century. They made their way from the Syriac Bible into the Armenian and remained there without challenge until the 7th century. For the Latin text, see Carrière and Berger, Correspondance apocr. de S.P. et des Corinthiens, 1891. For a translation of Ephraem’s commentary, see Zahn ii. 592-611 and Vetter, Der Apocr. 3. Korinthien, 70 sqq., 1894. The Coptic version (C. Schmidt, Acta Pauli, pp. 74-82), which is incomplete here, is clearly based on a Greek original, while the Latin and Armenian versions are based on the Syriac. (c) The Acts of Paul and Thecla. According to Tertullian (De Baptismo, 17), these were written by a presbyter of Asia who was removed from his position for forgery. This earliest Christian romance (likely before AD 150) tells the story of the adventures and struggles of a virgin named Thecla from Iconium. Lipsius finds Gnostic elements in the narrative, but Zahn disputes this (Gesch. Kanons, ii. 902). See Lipsius, op. cit. ii. 424-467; Zahn (op. cit. ii. 892-910). The best edition is by Lipsius, Acta Apostol. Apocr., 1891, i. 235-272. Versions also exist in Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Slavonic. As noted earlier, these Acts are now acknowledged as originally part of the Acts of Paul. However, they were published separately long before the Gelasian Decree (496). Jerome was also familiar with them as an independent text. Thecla was likely a real figure around whom a legend had developed by the 2nd century. The author of the Acts of Paul used this legend, incorporating certain historical and geographical facts, (d) The healing of Hermocrates from dropsy in Myra. By comparing the Coptic version with the Pseudo-Cyprian text “Caena,” Rolffs (Hennecke, NT. Apok. 361) concludes that this incident was originally part of our book, (e) The conflict with wild beasts at Ephesus. This event is referenced by Nicephorus Callistus (H.E. ii. 25) as described in the periods of Paul. The identity of this work with the Acts of Paul is supported by a comment from Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel iii. 29. 4, 182 ed. Bonwetsch 176 (according to Rolffs). (f) The Martyrdom of Paul. Paul’s execution by Nero in Rome closes the Acts of Paul. The text is highly disordered. The best version is provided by Lipsius, Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 104-117.

Notwithstanding all the care that has been taken in collecting the fragments of these Acts, only about 900 stichoi out of the 3600 assigned to them in the Stichometry of Nicephorus have as yet been recovered.

Notwithstanding all the effort put into gathering the fragments of these Acts, only about 900 stichoi out of the 3600 listed in the Stichometry of Nicephorus have been recovered so far.

The author was, according to Tertullian (De Baptism. 17), a presbyter in Asia, who out of honour to Paul wrote the Acts, forging at the same time 3 Corinthians. Thus the work was composed before 190, and, since it most probably uses the martyrdom of Polycarp, after 155. The object of the writer is to embody in St Paul the model ideal of the popular Christianity of the 2nd century. His main emphasis is laid on chastity and the resurrection of the flesh. The tone of the work is Catholic and anti-Gnostic. For the bibliography of the subject see Hennecke, NT. Apok. 358-360.

The author was, according to Tertullian (De Baptism. 17), a presbyter in Asia who, out of respect for Paul, wrote the Acts while also creating 3 Corinthians. This means the work was created before 190, and since it likely references the martyrdom of Polycarp, which occurred after 155. The writer's goal is to present St. Paul as the ideal representation of popular Christianity in the 2nd century. The main focus is on chastity and the resurrection of the body. The overall tone of the work is Catholic and anti-Gnostic. For the bibliography on the subject, see Hennecke, NT. Apok. 358-360.

Acts of Peter.—These acts are first mentioned by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 3) by name, and first referred to by the African poet Commodian about A.D. 250. Harnack, who was the first to show that these Acts were Catholic in character and not Gnostic as had previously been alleged, assigns their composition to this period mainly on the ground that Hippolytus was not acquainted with them; but even were this assumption true, it would not prove the non-existence of the Acts in question. According to Photius, moreover, the Acts of Peter also were composed by this same Leucius Charinus, who, according to Zahn (Gesch. Kanons, ii. 864), wrote about 160 (op. cit. p. 848). Schmidt and Ficker, however, maintain that the Acts were written about 200 and in Asia Minor. These Acts, which Ficker holds were written as a continuation and completion of the canonical Acts of the Apostles, deal with Peter’s victorious conflict with Simon Magus, and his subsequent martyrdom at Rome under Nero. It is difficult to determine the relation of the so-called Latin Actus Vercellenses (which there are good grounds for assuming were originally called the Πράξεις Πέτρου) with the Acts of John and Paul. Schmidt thinks that the author of the former made use of the latter, James that the Acts of Peter and of John were by one and the same author, but Ficker is of opinion that their affinities can be explained by their derivation from the same ecclesiastical atmosphere and school of theological thought. No less close affinities exist between our Acts and the Acts of Thomas, Andrew and Philip. In the case of the Acts of Thomas the problem is complicated, sometimes the Acts of Peter seem dependent on the Acts of Thomas, and sometimes the converse.

Acts of Peter.—These acts are first mentioned by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 3) by name and were first referred to by the African poet Commodian around CE 250. Harnack, who was the first to demonstrate that these Acts were Catholic in nature and not Gnostic as previously claimed, dates their composition to this period mainly because Hippolytus was unfamiliar with them; however, even if this assumption is accurate, it wouldn’t prove that the Acts in question didn’t exist. Furthermore, according to Photius, the Acts of Peter were also written by Leucius Charinus, who, as Zahn states (Gesch. Kanons, ii. 864), wrote around 160 (op. cit. p. 848). Schmidt and Ficker, however, argue that the Acts were written around 200 in Asia Minor. These Acts, which Ficker believes were written as a continuation and completion of the canonical Acts of the Apostles, focus on Peter’s triumphant struggle with Simon Magus and his subsequent martyrdom in Rome under Nero. It is difficult to determine the relationship of the so-called Latin Actus Vercellenses (which there’s good reason to believe were originally called the Acts of Peter) with the Acts of John and Paul. Schmidt suggests that the author of the former utilized the latter, while James believes that the Acts of Peter and John were written by the same author, but Ficker thinks their similarities can be explained by their shared ecclesiastical context and theological school of thought. There are also strong similarities between our Acts and the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and Philip. In the case of the Acts of Thomas, the issue is complicated; sometimes the Acts of Peter appear to depend on the Acts of Thomas, and other times it seems the other way around.

For the relation of the Actus Vercellenses to the “Martyrdom of the holy apostles Peter and Paul” (Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 118-177) and to the “Acts of the holy apostles Peter and Paul” (Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 178-234) see Lipsius ii. 1. 84 sqq. The “Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena,” first edited by James (Texts and Studies, ii. 3. 1893), and assigned by him to the middle of the 3rd century, as well as the “Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, and the Heresiarch Manes” (“Acta Disputationis Archelai Episcopi Mesopotamiae et Manetis Haeresiarchae,” in Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae2, v. 36-206), have borrowed largely from our work.

For the relationship between the Actus Vercellenses and the “Martyrdom of the holy apostles Peter and Paul” (Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 118-177) and the “Acts of the holy apostles Peter and Paul” (Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 178-234), see Lipsius ii. 1. 84 sqq. The “Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena,” first published by James (Texts and Studies, ii. 3. 1893) and dated by him to the mid-3rd century, as well as the “Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus, bishop of Mesopotamia, and the Heresiarch Manes” (“Acta Disputationis Archelai Episcopi Mesopotamiae et Manetis Haeresiarchae,” in Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae2, v. 36-206), have heavily drawn from our work.

The text of the Actus Vercellenses is edited by Lipsius, Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 45-79. An independent Latin translation of the “Martyrdom of Peter” is published by Lipsius (op. cit. i. 1-22), Martyrium beati Petri Apostoli a Lino episcopo conscriptum. On the Coptic fragment, which Schmidt maintains is an original constituent of these Acts, see that writer’s work: Die alten Petrusakten im Zusammenhang der apokryphen Apostelliteratur nebst einem neuentdeckten Fragment, and Texte und Untersuch. N.F. ix. 1 (1903). For the literature see Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen Handbuch, 395 sqq.

The text of the Actus Vercellenses is edited by Lipsius, Acta Apostol. Apocr. i. 45-79. An independent Latin translation of the “Martyrdom of Peter” is published by Lipsius (op. cit. i. 1-22), Martyrium beati Petri Apostoli a Lino episcopo conscriptum. Regarding the Coptic fragment, which Schmidt argues is an original part of these Acts, refer to that author's work: Die alten Petrusakten im Zusammenhang der apokryphen Apostelliteratur nebst einem neuentdeckten Fragment, and Texte und Untersuch. N.F. ix. 1 (1903). For the literature, see Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen Handbuch, 395 sqq.

Preaching of Peter.—This book (Πέτρου κήρυγμα) gave the substance of a series of discourses spoken by one person in the name of the apostles. Clement of Alexandria quotes it several times as a genuine record of Peter’s teaching. Heracleon had previously used it (see Origen, In Evang. Johann. t. xiii. 17). It is spoken unfavourably of by Origen (De Prin. Praef. 8). It was probably in the hands of Justin and Aristides. Hence Zahn gives its date as 90-100 at latest; Dobschütz, as 100-110; and Harnack, as 110-130. The extant fragments contain sayings of Jesus, and warnings against Judaism and Polytheism.

Preaching of Peter.—This book (Peter's sermon) presents the core of a series of talks delivered by one individual on behalf of the apostles. Clement of Alexandria references it multiple times as a true record of Peter’s teachings. Heracleon had previously referenced it (see Origen, In Evang. Johann. t. xiii. 17). Origen criticizes it unfavorably (De Prin. Praef. 8). It was likely known to Justin and Aristides. Therefore, Zahn suggests its date as 90-100 at the latest; Dobschütz suggests 100-110; and Harnack proposes 110-130. The existing fragments include sayings of Jesus and warnings against Judaism and Polytheism.

They have been edited by Hilgenfeld: Nov. Test. extra Can., 1884, iv. 51-65, and by von Dobschütz, Das Kerygma Petri, 1893. Salmon (Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 329-330) thinks that this work is part of a larger work, A Preaching of Peter and a Preaching of Paul, implied in a statement of Lactantius (Inst. Div. iv. 21); but this view is contested by Zahn, see Gesch. Kanons, ii. 820-834, particularly pp. 827-828; Chase, in Hastings’ Bible Dict. iv. 776.

They have been edited by Hilgenfeld: Nov. Test. extra Can., 1884, iv. 51-65, and by von Dobschütz, Das Kerygma Petri, 1893. Salmon (Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 329-330) believes that this work is part of a larger work, A Preaching of Peter and a Preaching of Paul, suggested by a statement from Lactantius (Inst. Div. iv. 21); however, this view is challenged by Zahn, see Gesch. Kanons, ii. 820-834, especially pp. 827-828; Chase, in Hastings’ Bible Dict. iv. 776.

Acts of Thomas.—This is one of the earliest and most famous of the Gnostic Acts. It has been but slightly tampered with by orthodox hands. These Acts were used by the Encratites (Epiphanius, Haer. xlvii. 1), the Manichaeans (Augustine, Contra Faust. xxii. 79), the Apostolici (Epiphanius lxi. 1) and Priscillianists. The work is divided into thirteen Acts, to which the Martyrdom of Thomas attaches as the fourteenth. It was originally written in Syriac, as Burkitt (Journ. of Theol. Studies, i. 278 sqq.) has finally proved, though Macke and Nöldeke had previously advanced grounds for this view. The Greek and Latin texts were edited by Bonnet in 1883 and again in 1903, ii. 2; the Greek also by James, Apoc. Anec. ii. 28-45, and the Syriac by Wright (Apocr. Acts of the Gospels, 1871, i. 172-333). Photius ascribes their composition to Leucius Charinus—therefore to the 2nd century, but Lipsius assigns it to the early decades of the 3rd. (See Lipsius, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, i. 225-347; Hennecke, N.T. Apokryphen, 473-480.)

Acts of Thomas.—This is one of the earliest and most well-known Gnostic texts. It has been only slightly altered by mainstream religious authorities. These Acts were utilized by the Encratites (Epiphanius, Haer. xlvii. 1), the Manichaeans (Augustine, Contra Faust. xxii. 79), the Apostolici (Epiphanius lxi. 1), and the Priscillianists. The work is divided into thirteen Acts, to which the Martyrdom of Thomas is attached as the fourteenth. It was originally written in Syriac, as Burkitt (Journ. of Theol. Studies, i. 278 sqq.) has definitively shown, although Macke and Nöldeke had previously argued for this view. The Greek and Latin texts were edited by Bonnet in 1883 and again in 1903, ii. 2; the Greek was also edited by James, Apoc. Anec. ii. 28-45, and the Syriac by Wright (Apocr. Acts of the Gospels, 1871, i. 172-333). Photius attributes their authorship to Leucius Charinus—therefore dating it to the 2nd century, but Lipsius places it in the early decades of the 3rd. (See Lipsius, Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, i. 225-347; Hennecke, N.T. Apokryphen, 473-480.)

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē).—This important work was discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in Constantinople and published in 1883. Since that date it has been frequently edited. The bibliography can be found in Schaff’s and in Harnack’s editions. The book divides itself into three parts. The first (i.-vi.) contains a body of ethical instruction which is founded on a Jewish and probably pre-Christian document, which forms the basis also of the Epistle of Barnabas. The second part consists of vii.-xv., and treats of church ritual and discipline; and the third part is eschatological and deals with the second Advent. The book is variously dated by different scholars: Zahn assigns it to the years A.D. 80-120; Harnack to 120-165; Lightfoot and Funk to 80-100; Salmon to 120. (See Salmon in Dict. of Christ. Biog. iv. 806-815, also article Didachē.)

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē).—This significant work was discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in Constantinople and published in 1883. Since then, it has been frequently edited. You can find the bibliography in Schaff’s and Harnack’s editions. The book is divided into three parts. The first part (i.-vi.) includes a set of ethical teachings based on a Jewish and likely pre-Christian document, which also serves as the foundation for the Epistle of Barnabas. The second part consists of vii.-xv., focusing on church rituals and discipline; and the third part is eschatological, discussing the second coming. Different scholars date the book differently: Zahn places it between CE 80-120; Harnack suggests 120-165; Lightfoot and Funk date it to 80-100; and Salmon dates it to 120. (See Salmon in Dict. of Christ. Biog. iv. 806-815, also article Didachē.)

Apostolical Constitutions.—For the various collections of these ecclesiastical regulations—the Syriac Didascalia, Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles, &c.—see separate article.

Apostolical Constitutions.—For the different collections of these church regulations—the Syriac Didascalia, Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles, etc.—see separate article.

(c) Epistles.—The Abgar Epistles.—These epistles are found in Eusebius (H.E. i. 3), who translated them from the Syriac. They are two in number, and purport to be a petition of Abgar Uchomo, king of Edessa, to Christ to visit Edessa, and Christ’s answer, promising after his ascension to send one of his disciples, who should “cure thee of thy disease, and give eternal life and peace to thee and all thy people.” Lipsius thinks that these letters were manufactured about the year 200. (See Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 878-881, with the literature there mentioned.) The above correspondence, which appears also in Syriac, is inwoven with the legend of Addai or Thaddaeus. The best critical edition of the Greek text will be found in Lipsius, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1891, pp. 279-283. (See also Abgar.)

(c) Letters.—The Abgar Epistles.—These letters are found in Eusebius (H.E. i. 3), who translated them from Syriac. There are two letters, which claim to be a request from Abgar Uchomo, the king of Edessa, asking Christ to visit Edessa, and Christ’s reply, promising that after his ascension, he would send one of his disciples to "heal you of your illness and grant eternal life and peace to you and all your people." Lipsius believes these letters were created around the year 200. (See Dict. Christ. Biog. iv. 878-881, along with the mentioned literature.) This correspondence, which also appears in Syriac, is intertwined with the legend of Addai or Thaddaeus. The best critical edition of the Greek text is found in Lipsius, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1891, pp. 279-283. (See also Abgar.)

Epistle of Barnabas.—The special object of this epistle was to guard its readers against the danger of relapsing into Judaism. The date is placed by some scholars as early as 70-79, by others as late as the early years of the emperor Hadrian, 117. The text has been edited by Hilgenfeld in 1877, Gebhardt and Harnack in 1878, and Funk in 1887 and 1901. In these works will be found full bibliographies. (See further Barnabas.)

Epistle of Barnabas.—The main purpose of this letter was to warn its readers against the risk of falling back into Judaism. Some scholars date it as early as 70-79, while others suggest it was written in the early years of Emperor Hadrian, around 117. The text was edited by Hilgenfeld in 1877, Gebhardt and Harnack in 1878, and Funk in 1887 and 1901. These editions contain complete bibliographies. (See further Barnabas.)

Epistle of Clement.—The object of this epistle is the restoration of harmony to the church of Corinth, which had been vexed by internal discussions. The epistle may be safely ascribed to the years 95-96. The writer was in all probability the bishop of Rome of that name. He is named an apostle and his work was reckoned as canonical by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 17. 105), and as late as the time of Eusebius (H.E. iii. 16) it was still read in some of the churches. Critical editions have been published by Gebhardt and Harnack, Patr. Apost. Op., 1876, 183 and in the smaller form in 1900, Lightfoot2, 1890, Funk2, 1901. The Syriac version has been edited by Kennet, Epp. of St Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac, 1899, and the Old Latin version by Morin, S. Clementis Romani ad Corinthios epistulae versio Latina antiquissima, 1894.

Epistle of Clement.—The purpose of this epistle is to restore harmony to the church of Corinth, which had been troubled by internal disputes. It can be safely dated to the years 95-96. The author was likely the bishop of Rome with that name. He is referred to as an apostle, and his work was recognized as canonical by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 17. 105), and as late as Eusebius’s time (H.E. iii. 16), it was still being read in some churches. Critical editions have been published by Gebhardt and Harnack, Patr. Apost. Op., 1876, 183 and in smaller form in 1900, Lightfoot2, 1890, Funk2, 1901. The Syriac version has been edited by Kennet, Epp. of St Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac, 1899, and the Old Latin version by Morin, S. Clementis Romani ad Corinthios epistulae versio Latina antiquissima, 1894.

Clement’s2nd Ep. to the Corinthians.—This so-called letter of Clement is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius (H. E. iii. 38. 4). It is not a letter but really a homily written in Rome about the middle of the 2nd century. The writer is a Gentile. Some of his citations are derived from the Gospel to the Egyptians.

Clement’s2nd Ep. to the Corinthians.—This letter attributed to Clement is not referenced by any author prior to Eusebius (H. E. iii. 38. 4). It's not a letter but actually a homily written in Rome around the middle of the 2nd century. The author is a Gentile. Some of his quotes come from the Gospel of the Egyptians.

Clement’s Epistles on Virginity.—These two letters are preserved only in Syriac which is a translation from the Greek. They are first referred to by Epiphanius and next by Jerome. Critics have assigned them to the middle of the 2nd century. They have been edited by Beelen, Louvain, 1856.

Clement’s Epistles on Virginity.—These two letters are only preserved in Syriac, which is a translation from Greek. They were first mentioned by Epiphanius and later by Jerome. Scholars have dated them to the middle of the 2nd century. They were edited by Beelen, Louvain, 1856.

Clement’s Epistles to James.—On these two letters which are found in the Clementine Homilies, see Smith’s Dict. of Christian Biography, i. 559, 570, and Lehmann’s monograph, Die Clementischen Schriften, Gotha, 1867, in which references will be found to other sources of information.

Clement’s Letters to James.—For information on these two letters included in the Clementine Homilies, refer to Smith’s Dict. of Christian Biography, i. 559, 570, and Lehmann’s study, Die Clementischen Schriften, Gotha, 1867, where you'll find references to additional sources.

Epistles of Ignatius.—There are two collections of letters bearing the name of Ignatius, who was martyred between 105 and 117. The first consists of seven letters addressed by Ignatius to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. The second collection consists of the preceding extensively interpolated, and six others of Mary to Ignatius, of Ignatius to Mary, to the Tarsians, Antiochians, Philippians and Hero, a deacon of Antioch. The latter collection is a pseudepigraph written in the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th. The authenticity of the first collection also has been denied, but the evidence appears to be against this contention. The literature is overwhelming in its extent. See Zahn, Patr. Apost. Op., 1876; Funk2, Die apostol. Väter, 1901; Lightfoot2, Apostolic Fathers, 1889.

Epistles of Ignatius.—There are two collections of letters attributed to Ignatius, who was martyred between 105 and 117. The first collection includes seven letters written by Ignatius to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp. The second collection consists of the previous letters significantly altered, along with six other letters: from Mary to Ignatius, from Ignatius to Mary, and to the Tarsians, Antiochians, Philippians, and Hero, a deacon from Antioch. The latter collection is a pseudepigraph, written in the 4th century or the early 5th century. The authenticity of the first collection has also been disputed, but the evidence seems to support its validity. The volume of literature on this topic is extensive. See Zahn, Patr. Apost. Op., 1876; Funk2, Die apostol. Väter, 1901; Lightfoot2, Apostolic Fathers, 1889.

Epistle of Polycarp.—The genuineness of this epistle stands or falls with that of the Ignatian epistles. See article in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 423-431; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, i. 629-702; also Polycarp.

Epistle of Polycarp.—The authenticity of this letter depends on the authenticity of the Ignatian letters. See the article in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 423-431; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, i. 629-702; also Polycarp.

Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians.— The first of these is found only in Latin. This, according to Lightfoot (see Colossians3, 272-298) and Zahn, is a translation from the Greek. Such an epistle is mentioned in the Muratorian canon. See Zahn, op. cit. ii. 566-585. The Epistle to the Alexandrians is mentioned only in the Muratorian canon (see Zahn ii. 586-592).

Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians.— The first of these exists only in Latin. According to Lightfoot (see Colossians3, 272-298) and Zahn, it is a translation from the Greek. This epistle is referenced in the Muratorian canon. See Zahn, op. cit. ii. 566-585. The Epistle to the Alexandrians is only mentioned in the Muratorian canon (see Zahn ii. 586-592).

For the Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul, see under “Acts of Paul” above.

For the Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and the Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul, refer to “Acts of Paul” above.

(R. H. C.)

1 Judaism was long accustomed to lay claim to an esoteric tradition. Thus though it insisted on the exclusive canonicity of the 24 books, it claimed the possession of an oral law handed down from Moses, and just as the apocryphal books overshadowed in certain instances the canonical scriptures, so often the oral law displaced the written in the regard of Judaism.

1 Judaism has historically embraced an esoteric tradition. While it emphasized the exclusive authority of the 24 books, it also asserted that there was an oral law passed down from Moses. Just as the apocryphal books sometimes took precedence over the canonical scriptures, the oral law frequently took precedence over the written texts in the eyes of Judaism.

2 See Porter in Hastings’ Bible Dict. i. 113

2 See Porter in Hastings’ Bible Dict. i. 113

3 The New Testament shows undoubtedly an acquaintance with several of the apocryphal books. Thus James i. 19 shows dependence on Sirach v. 11, Hebrews i. 3 on Wisdom vii. 26, Romans ix. 21 on Wisdom xv. 7, 2 Cor. v. 1, 4 on Wisdom ix. 15, &c.

3 The New Testament clearly demonstrates familiarity with several apocryphal books. For example, James 1:19 shows reliance on Sirach 5:11, Hebrews 1:3 on Wisdom 7:26, Romans 9:21 on Wisdom 15:7, and 2 Corinthians 5:1, 4 on Wisdom 9:15, etc.

4 Thus some of the additions to Daniel and the Prayer of Manasses are most probably derived from a Semitic original written in Palestine, yet in compliance with the prevailing opinion they are classed under Hellenistic Jewish literature. Again, the Slavonic Enoch goes back undoubtedly in parts to a Semitic original, though most of it was written by a Greek Jew in Egypt.

4 So, some of the additions to Daniel and the Prayer of Manasseh likely come from a Semitic original written in Palestine, but according to common belief, they are categorized as Hellenistic Jewish literature. Similarly, the Slavonic Enoch undoubtedly has parts that originate from a Semitic original, although most of it was written by a Greek Jew in Egypt.

5 These editors have discovered (1907) a gospel fragment of the 2nd century which represents a dialogue between our Lord and a chief priest—a Pharisee.

5 These editors discovered (1907) a fragment of the gospel from the 2nd century that shows a conversation between our Lord and a chief priest—a Pharisee.


APODICTIC (Gr. ἀποδεικτικός, capable of demonstration), a logical term, applied to judgments which are necessarily true, as of mathematical conclusions. The term in Aristotelian logic is opposed to dialectic, as scientific proof to probable reasoning. Kant contrasts apodictical with problematic and assertorical judgments.

APODICTIC (Gr. demonstrative, capable of demonstration), a logical term, refers to judgments that are necessarily true, like mathematical conclusions. In Aristotelian logic, the term is contrasted with dialectic, highlighting the difference between scientific proof and probable reasoning. Kant distinguishes apodictical judgments from problematic and assertorical judgments.


APOLDA, a town of Germany, in the grand-duchy of Saxe-Weimar, near the river Ilm, 9 m. E. by N. from Weimar, on the main line of railway from Berlin via Halle, to Frankfort-On-Main. Pop. (1900) 20,352. It has few notable public buildings, but possesses three churches and monuments to the emperor Frederick III. and to Christian Zimmermann (1759-1842), who, by introducing the hosiery and cloth manufacture, made Apolda one of the most important places in Germany in these branches of industry. It has also extensive dyeworks, bell foundries, and manufactures of steam engines, boilers and bicycles.

APOLDA,, a town in Germany, in the grand duchy of Saxe-Weimar, located near the river Ilm, 9 miles E by N from Weimar, on the main railway line from Berlin via Halle to Frankfurt am Main. Population (1900) 20,352. It has few remarkable public buildings but features three churches and monuments to Emperor Frederick III and Christian Zimmermann (1759-1842), who made Apolda one of the key locations in Germany for hosiery and cloth manufacturing. The town also has extensive dye works, bell foundries, and produces steam engines, boilers, and bicycles.


APOLLINARIS, “the Younger” (d. A.D. 390), bishop of Laodicea in Syria. He collaborated with his father Apollinaris the Elder in reproducing the Old Testament in the form of Homeric and Pindaric poetry, and the New after the fashion of Platonic dialogues, when the emperor Julian had forbidden Christians to teach the classics. He is best known, however, as a warm opponent of Arianism, whose eagerness to emphasize the deity of Christ and the unity of His person led him so far as a denial of the existence of a rational human soul (νοῦς) in Christ’s human nature, this being replaced in Him by a prevailing principle of holiness, to wit the Logos, so that His body was a glorified and spiritualized form of humanity. Over against this the orthodox or Catholic position maintained that Christ assumed human nature in its entirety including the νοῦς, for only so could He be example and redeemer. It was held that the system of Apollinaris was really Docetism (see Docetae), that if the Godhood without constraint swayed the manhood there was no possibility of real human probation or of real advance in Christ’s manhood. The position was accordingly condemned by several synods and in particular by that of Constantinople (A.D. 381). This did not prevent its having a considerable following, which after Apollinaris’s death divided into two sects, the more conservative taking its name (Vitalians) from Vitalis, bishop of Antioch, the other (Polemeans) adding the further assertion that the two natures were so blended that even the body of Christ was a fit object of adoration. The whole Apollinarian type of thought persisted in what was later the Monophysite (q.v.) school.

APOLLINARIS, “the Younger” (d. A.D. 390), was the bishop of Laodicea in Syria. He worked alongside his father, Apollinaris the Elder, to present the Old Testament as Homeric and Pindaric poetry and the New Testament in the style of Platonic dialogues when Emperor Julian banned Christians from teaching classical literature. However, he is most recognized as a passionate opponent of Arianism. His strong desire to emphasize the divinity of Christ and the unity of His person led him to deny the existence of a rational human soul (Mind) in Christ’s human nature, claiming instead that it was replaced by a dominant principle of holiness, specifically the Logos, meaning that His body was a glorified and spiritualized version of humanity. In contrast, the orthodox or Catholic view argued that Christ took on the full human nature, including the mind, because only then could He be an example and redeemer. It was believed that Apollinaris's system was essentially Docetism (see Docetae), contending that if the divine nature constrained the human nature, there would be no real human struggle or growth in Christ's humanity. Consequently, his position was condemned by several synods, notably the one in Constantinople (A.D. 381). Despite this, it maintained a significant following, which after Apollinaris's death split into two sects: the more traditional group, named the Vitalians after Vitalis, bishop of Antioch, and the other group, the Polemeans, which further claimed that the two natures were blended to the extent that even the body of Christ was worthy of adoration. The entire Apollinarian line of thought continued in what later became the Monophysite (q.v.) school.

Although Apollinaris was a prolific writer, scarcely anything has survived under his own name. But a number of his writings are concealed under the names of orthodox Fathers, e.g. ἡ κατὰ μέρος πίστις, long ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus. These have been collected and edited by Hans Lietzmann.

Although Apollinaris wrote a lot, very few works have survived under his name. However, several of his writings are hidden under the names of orthodox Fathers, e.g. the faith in parts, which has long been attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus. These have been compiled and edited by Hans Lietzmann.

He must be distinguished from the bishop of Hierapolis who bore the same name, and who wrote one of the early Christian “Apologies” (c. 170). See A. Harnack, History of Dogma, vols. iii. and iv. passim; R.L. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation; G. Voisin, L’Apollinarisme (Louvain, 1901); H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule (Tubingen, 1905).

He should be distinguished from the bishop of Hierapolis who had the same name and who wrote one of the early Christian “Apologies” (c. 170). See A. Harnack, History of Dogma, vols. iii. and iv. passim; R.L. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation; G. Voisin, L’Apollinarisme (Louvain, 1901); H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule (Tubingen, 1905).


APOLLINARIS, SULPICIUS, a learned grammarian of Carthage, who flourished in the 2nd century A.D. He taught Pertinax—himself a teacher of grammar before he was emperor,—and Aulus Gellius, who speaks of him in the highest terms (iv. 17). He is the reputed author of the metrical arguments to the Aeneid and to the plays of Terence and (probably) Plautus (J.W. Beck, De Sulpicio Apollinari, 1884).

APOLLINARIS, SULPICIUS, was a knowledgeable grammarian from Carthage who thrived in the 2nd century CE He taught Pertinax—who was a grammar teacher before becoming emperor—and Aulus Gellius, who praises him highly (iv. 17). He is believed to be the author of the metrical summaries for the Aeneid and the plays of Terence and (probably) Plautus (J.W. Beck, De Sulpicio Apollinari, 1884).


APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS, CAIUS SOLLIUS (c. 430-487 or 488), Christian writer and bishop, was born in Lyons about A.D. 430. Belonging to a noble family, he was educated under the best masters, and particularly excelled in poetry and polite literature. He married (about 452) Papianilla, the daughter of Avitus, who was consul and afterwards emperor. But Majorianus, in the year 457, having deprived Avitus of the empire and taken the city of Lyons, Apollinaris fell into the hands of the enemy. The reputation of his learning led Majorianus to treat him with the greatest respect. In return Apollinaris composed a panegyric in his honour (as he had previously done for Avitus), which won for him a statue at Rome and the title of count. In 467 the emperor Anthemius rewarded him for the panegyric which he had written in honour of him by raising him to the post of prefect of Rome, and afterwards to the dignity of a patrician and senator. In 472, more for his political than for his theological abilities, he was chosen to succeed Eparchius in the bishopric of Arverna (Clermont). On the capture of that city by the Goths in 474 he was imprisoned, as he had taken an active part in its defence; but he was afterwards restored by Euric, king of the Goths, and continued to govern his bishopric as before. He died in A.D. 487 or 488. His extant works are his Panegyrics on different emperors (in which he draws largely upon Statius, Ausonius and Claudian); and nine books of Letters and Poems, whose chief value consists in the light they shed on the political and literary history of the 5th century. The Letters, which are very stilted, also reveal Apollinaris as a man of genial temper, fond of good living and of pleasure. The best edition is that in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1887), which gives a survey of the manuscripts.

APOLLINARIS SIDONIUS, CAIUS SOLLIUS (c. 430-487 or 488), a Christian writer and bishop, was born in Lyon around A.D. 430. Coming from a noble family, he received an education from top teachers and particularly excelled in poetry and literature. He married Papianilla, the daughter of Avitus, who was a consul and later became emperor, around 452. However, in 457, Majorianus overthrew Avitus and took Lyon, leading to Apollinaris falling into enemy hands. His scholarly reputation prompted Majorianus to treat him with great respect. In gratitude, Apollinaris wrote a praise piece for him (just as he had for Avitus), which earned him a statue in Rome and the title of count. In 467, Emperor Anthemius rewarded him for his complimentary writing with a promotion to prefect of Rome, and later to patrician and senator. In 472, primarily due to his political skills rather than theological ones, he was chosen to succeed Eparchius as the bishop of Arverna (Clermont). When the Goths captured the city in 474, he was imprisoned for actively defending it; however, he was later released by Euric, the king of the Goths, and continued to lead his bishopric. He died in AD 487 or 488. His surviving works include his Panegyrics on various emperors (which heavily reference Statius, Ausonius, and Claudian) and nine books of Letters and Poems, which are valuable for their insights into the political and literary history of the 5th century. The Letters, though quite formal, also show Apollinaris as a person with a friendly nature who enjoyed good food and pleasure. The best edition is found in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1887), which provides an overview of the manuscripts.

Apollinaris Sidonius (the names are commonly inverted by the French) is the subject of numerous monographs, historical and literary. See, for bibliography, A. Molinier, Sources de l’histoire de France, no. 136 (vol. i.). S. Dill, Roman Society in the Fifth Century, and T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (vol. vii.), contain interesting sections on Apollinaris. See also Teuffel and Ebert’s histories of Latin literature.

Apollinaris Sidonius (the names are usually reversed by the French) is the focus of many historical and literary studies. For bibliography, refer to A. Molinier, Sources de l’histoire de France, no. 136 (vol. i.). S. Dill, Roman Society in the Fifth Century, and T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (vol. vii.), have interesting sections on Apollinaris. Also, check out Teuffel and Ebert’s histories of Latin literature.


184

184

APOLLO (Gr. Άπόλλων, Άπέλλων), in Greek mythology, one of the most important and many-sided of the Olympian divinities. No satisfactory etymology of the name has been given, the least improbable perhaps being that which connects it with the Doric ἀπέλλα (“assembly”)1 so that Apollo would be the god of political life (for other suggested derivations, ancient and modern, see C. Wernicke in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie). The derivation of all the functions assigned to him from the idea of a single original light- or sun-god, worked out in his Lexikon der Mythologie by Roscher, who regards it as “one of the most certain facts in mythology,” has not found general acceptance, although no doubt some features of his character can be readily explained on this assumption.

APOLLO (Gr. Apollo, Apollon), in Greek mythology, is one of the most significant and versatile Olympian gods. There hasn't been a satisfactory explanation for the name's origins, but the least unlikely may be its connection to the Doric ἀπέλλα (“assembly”), suggesting that Apollo represents the god of political life (for other proposed origins, both ancient and modern, see C. Wernicke in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie). The idea that all his functions stem from the concept of a single original light or sun god, elaborated in his Lexikon der Mythologie by Roscher, who considers it “one of the most certain facts in mythology,” has not gained widespread acceptance, although some aspects of his character can indeed be explained by this theory.

In the legend, as set forth in the Homeric hymn to Apollo and the ode of Callimachus to Delos, Apollo is the son of Zeus and Leto. The latter, pursued by the jealous Hera, after long wandering found shelter in Delos (originally Asteria), where she bore a son, Apollo, under a palm-tree at the foot of Mount Cynthus. Before this, Delos—like Rhodes, the centre of the worship of the sun-god Helios, with whom Apollo was wrongly identified in later times—had been a barren, floating rock, but now became stationary, being fastened down by chains to the bottom of the sea. Apollo was born on the 7th day (ἑβδομαγενής) of the month Thargelion according to Delian, of the month Bysios according to Delphian, tradition. The 7th and 20th, the days of the new and full moon, were ever afterwards held sacred to him. In Homer Apollo appears only as the god of prophecy, the sender of plagues, and sometimes as a warrior, but elsewhere as exercising the most varied functions. He is the god of agriculture, specially connected with Aristaeus (q.v.), which, originally a mere epithet, became an independent personality (see, however, Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, iv. 123). This side of his character is clearly expressed in the titles Sitalcas (“protector of corn”); Erythibius (“preventer of blight”); Parnopius (“destroyer of locusts”); Smintheus (“destroyer of mice”), in which, however, some modern inquirers see a totemistic significance (e.g. A. Lang, “Apollo and the Mouse,” in Custom and Myth, p. 101; against this, W.W. Fowler, in Classical Review, November 1892); Erithius (“god of reapers”); and Pasparius (“god of meal”). He is further the god of vegetation generally—Nomios, “god of pastures” (explained, however, by Cicero, as “god of law”), Hersos, “sender of the fertilizing dew.” Valleys and groves are under his protection, unless the epithets Napaeus and Hylates belong to a more primitive aspect of the god as supporting himself by the chase, and roaming the glades and forests in pursuit of prey. Certain trees and plants, especially the laurel, were sacred to him. As the god of agriculture and vegetation he is naturally connected with the course of the year and the arrangement of the seasons, so important in farming operations, and becomes the orderer of time (Horomedon, “ruler of the seasons”), and frequently appears on monuments in company with the Horae.

In the legend, as described in the Homeric hymn to Apollo and Callimachus's ode to Delos, Apollo is the son of Zeus and Leto. Leto, chased by the jealous Hera, eventually found refuge on Delos (originally Asteria), where she gave birth to Apollo under a palm tree at the base of Mount Cynthus. Before this, Delos—similar to Rhodes, the center of worship for the sun god Helios, with whom Apollo was mistakenly identified later—had been a barren, floating rock but became anchored to the seabed. Apollo was born on the 7th day (seven-generation) of the month Thargelion according to Delian tradition, or the month Bysios according to Delphian tradition. The 7th and 20th days, which mark the new and full moons, were thereafter considered sacred to him. In Homer, Apollo is mostly seen as the god of prophecy, the bringer of plagues, and occasionally as a warrior, but in other contexts, he takes on a wide range of roles. He is the god of agriculture, closely linked to Aristaeus (q.v.), which started as a mere title but developed into a distinct figure (see, however, Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, iv. 123). This aspect of his character is illustrated by titles like Sitalcas (“protector of corn”); Erythibius (“preventer of blight”); Parnopius (“destroyer of locusts”); Smintheus (“destroyer of mice”), which some modern scholars interpret as having totemic significance (e.g. A. Lang, “Apollo and the Mouse,” in Custom and Myth, p. 101; contrasted by W.W. Fowler, in Classical Review, November 1892); Erithius (“god of reapers”); and Pasparius (“god of meal”). He is also the god of vegetation in general—Nomios, “god of pastures” (which Cicero explained as “god of law”), Hersos, “sender of the fertilizing dew.” Valleys and groves are under his care, unless the titles Napaeus and Hylates represent an earlier version of the god who sustained himself by hunting and roamed the glades and forests in search of prey. Certain trees and plants, especially the laurel, were sacred to him. As the god of agriculture and vegetation, he is naturally tied to the yearly cycle and the change of seasons, which are vital for farming, and he becomes the organizer of time (Horomedon, “ruler of the seasons”), often depicted on monuments alongside the Horae.

Apollo is also the protector of cattle and herds, hence Poimnius (“god of flocks”), Tragius (“of goats”), Kereatas (“of horned animals”). Carneius (probably “horned”) is considered by some to be a pre-Dorian god of cattle, also connected with harvest operations, whose cult was grafted on to that of Apollo; by others, to have been originally an epithet of Apollo, afterwards detached as a separate personality (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 131). The epithet Maleatas, which, as the quantity of the first vowel (ă) shows,2 cannot mean god of “sheep” or “the apple-tree,” is probably a local adjective derived from Malea (perhaps Cape Malea), and may refer to an originally distinct personality, subsequently merged in that of Apollo (see below). Apollo himself is spoken of as a keeper of flocks, and the legends of his service as a herdsman with Laomedon and Admetus point in the same direction. Here probably also is to be referred the epithet Lyceius, which, formerly connected with λυκ- (“shine”) and used to support the conception of Apollo as a light-god, is now generally referred to λύκος (“wolf”) and explained as he who keeps away the wolves from the flock (cf. λυκόεργος, λυκοκτόνος). In accordance with this, the epithet λυκηγενής will not mean “born of” or “begetting light,” but rather “born from the she-wolf,” in which form Leto herself was said to have been conducted by wolves to Delos. The consecration of the wolf to Apollo is probably the relic of an ancient totemistic religion (Farnell, Cults, i. 41; W. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, new ed., 1894, p. 226).

Apollo is also the guardian of cattle and herds, hence Poimnius (“god of flocks”), Tragius (“of goats”), Kereatas (“of horned animals”). Some consider Carneius (likely meaning “horned”) to be a pre-Dorian god of cattle, also associated with harvest activities, whose worship was combined with that of Apollo; while others think it was originally a title of Apollo, later separated into a distinct entity (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 131). The title Maleatas, which, based on the pronunciation of the first vowel (ă), cannot mean god of “sheep” or “the apple-tree,” is probably a local adjective derived from Malea (possibly Cape Malea), and may refer to an originally separate figure that was later absorbed into Apollo's identity (see below). Apollo is referred to as a shepherd, and the stories of his time as a herdsman with Laomedon and Admetus support this idea. Perhaps the title Lyceius should also be considered here, which, once associated with λυκ- (“shine”) to depict Apollo as a light-god, is now mostly linked to wolf (“wolf”) and understood as one who protects the flock from wolves (cf. λυκόεργος, λυκοκτόνος). Accordingly, the title wolf-born does not mean “born of” or “begetting light,” but rather “born from the she-wolf,” in which form Leto was said to have been guided by wolves to Delos. The dedication of the wolf to Apollo is likely a remnant of an ancient totemic religion (Farnell, Cults, i. 41; W. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, new ed., 1894, p. 226).

With the care of the fruits of the earth and the lower animals is associated that of the highest animal, man, especially the youth on his passage to manhood. As such Apollo is κουροτρόφος (“rearer of boys”) and patron of the palaestra. In many places gymnastic contests form a feature of his festivals, and he himself is proficient in athletic exercises (ἐναγώνιος). Thus he was supposed to be the first victor at the Olympic games; he overcomes Hermes in the foot-race, and Ares in boxing.

With the care for the fruits of the earth and the lower animals comes the care for the highest animal, man, especially the youth transitioning to adulthood. In this role, Apollo is shepherd (“rearer of boys”) and the patron of the gymnasium. In many places, athletic competitions are a key part of his festivals, and he himself excels in sports (enslaved). Thus, he was believed to be the first winner at the Olympic games; he beats Hermes in a footrace and Ares in boxing.

The transition is easy to Apollo as a warlike god; in fact, the earlier legends represent him as engaged in strife with Python, Tityus, the Cyclopes and the Aloidae. He is Boëdromios (“the helper”), Eleleus (“god of the war-cry”), and the Paean was said to have been originally a song of triumph composed by him after his victory over Python. In Homer he frequently appears on the field, like Ares and Athene, bearing the aegis to frighten the foe. This aspect is confirmed by the epithets Argyrotoxos (“god of the silver bow”), Hecatebolos (“the shooter from afar”), Chrysaoros (“wearer of the golden sword”), and his statues are often equipped with the accoutrements of war.3

The transition is smooth for Apollo as a god of war; in fact, earlier legends depict him battling Python, Tityus, the Cyclopes, and the Aloidae. He is Boëdromios (“the helper”), Eleleus (“god of the war-cry”), and the Paean was said to have originally been a victory song he composed after defeating Python. In Homer, he often appears on the battlefield, like Ares and Athene, carrying the aegis to intimidate the enemy. This version is supported by his titles Argyrotoxos (“god of the silver bow”), Hecatebolos (“the shooter from afar”), Chrysaoros (“wearer of the golden sword”), and his statues are often adorned with war gear.3

The fame of the Pythian oracle at Delphi, connected with the slaying of Python by the god immediately after his birth, gave especial prominence to the idea of Apollo as a god of prophecy. Python, always represented in the form of a snake, sometimes nameless, is the symbol of the old chthonian divinity whose home was the place of “enquiry” (πυθέσθαι). When Apollo Delphinius with his worshippers from Crete took possession of the earth-oracle Python, he received in consequence the name Pythius. That Python was no fearful monster, symbolizing the darkness of winter which is scattered by the advent of spring, is shown by the fact that Apollo was considered to have been guilty of murder in slaying it, and compelled to wander for a term of years and expiate his crime by servitude and purification. Possibly at Delphi and other places there was an old serpent-worship ousted by that of Apollo, which may account for expiation for the slaying of Python being considered necessary. In the solar explanation, the serpent is the darkness driven away by the rays of the sun. (On the Delphian cult of Apollo and its political significance, see Amphictyony, Delphi, Oracle; and Farnell, Cults, iv. pp. 179-218.) Oracular responses were also given at Claros near Colophon in Ionia by means of the water of a spring which inspired those who drank of it; at Patara in Lycia; and at Didyma near Miletus through the priestly family of the Branchidae. Apollo’s oracles, which he did not deliver on his own initiative but as the mouthpiece of Zeus, were infallible, but the human mind was not always able to grasp their meaning; hence he is called Loxias (“crooked,” “ambiguous”). To certain favoured mortals he communicated the gift of prophecy (Cassandra, the Cumaean sibyl, Helenus, Melampus and Epimenides). Although his favourite method was by word of mouth, yet signs were sometimes used; thus Calchas interpreted the flight of birds; burning offerings, sacrificial barley, the arrow of the god, dreams and the lot, all played their part in communicating the will of the gods.

The fame of the Pythian oracle at Delphi, linked to the slaying of Python by the god right after his birth, highlighted Apollo's role as a god of prophecy. Python, often depicted as a snake and sometimes without a name, symbolizes the ancient chthonic deity whose domain was the site of "inquiry" (πυθέσθαι). When Apollo Delphinius and his followers from Crete took over the earth-oracle Python, he earned the title Pythius. Python wasn't just a terrifying monster representing the winter darkness that vanishes with spring; in fact, Apollo was seen as having committed murder by killing it, forcing him to wander for many years and atone for his crime through servitude and purification. It's possible that at Delphi and other locations, there was an ancient serpent-worship that was replaced by that of Apollo, which might explain why atonement for the slaying of Python was considered necessary. In the interpretation of sunlight, the serpent stands for the darkness banished by the sun's rays. (For more on the Delphian cult of Apollo and its political significance, see Amphictyony, Delphi, Oracle; and Farnell, Cults, iv. pp. 179-218.) Oracular responses were also provided at Claros near Colophon in Ionia through the water of a spring that inspired those who drank it; at Patara in Lycia; and at Didyma near Miletus through the priestly family of the Branchidae. Apollo’s oracles, which he relayed not on his own but as the messenger of Zeus, were infallible, though the human mind didn't always grasp their meanings; hence he’s called Loxias (“crooked,” “ambiguous”). To certain favored individuals, he granted the gift of prophecy (such as Cassandra, the Cumaean sibyl, Helenus, Melampus, and Epimenides). While his preferred method was verbal communication, signs were sometimes utilized; for example, Calchas interpreted birds' flight; burning offerings, sacrificial barley, the god's arrow, dreams, and casts were all part of conveying the gods' will.

Closely connected with the god of oracles was the god of the healing art, the oracle being frequently consulted in cases of sickness. These two functions are indicated by the titles Iatromantis (“physician and seer”) and Oulios, probably meaning “health-giving” (so Suidas) rather than “destructive.” This side of Apollo’s character does not appear in Homer, where Paieon is mentioned as the physician of the gods. Here again, as in the case of Aristaeus and Carneius, the question arises 185 whether Paean (or Paeon) was originally an epithet of Apollo, subsequently developed into an independent personality, or an independent deity merged in the later arrival (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 234). According to Wilamowitz-Möllendorff in his edition of Isyllus, the epithet Maleatas alluded to above is also connected with the functions of the healing god, imported into Athens in the 4th century B.C. with other well-known health divinities. In this connexion, it is said to mean the “gentle one,” who gave his name to the rock Malion or Maleas (O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, ii. 1442) on the Gortynian coast. Apollo is further supposed to be the father of Asclepius (Aesculapius), whose ritual is closely modelled upon his. The healing god could also prevent disease and misfortune of all kinds: hence he is ἀλεξίκακος (“averter of evil”) and ἀποτρόπαιος. Further, he is able to purify the guilty and to cleanse from sin (here some refer the epithet ἰατρόμαντις, in the sense of “physician of the soul”). Such a task can be fitly undertaken by Apollo, since he himself underwent purification after slaying Python. According to the Delphic legend, this took place in the laurel grove of Tempe, and after nine years of penance the god returned, as was represented in the festival called Stepterion or Septerion (see A. Mommsen, Delphika, 1878). Thus the old law of blood for blood, which only perpetuated the crime from generation to generation, gave way to the milder idea of the expiatory power of atonement for murder (cf. the court called τὸ ἐπὶ Δελφινίῳ at Athens, which retained jurisdiction in cases where justifiable homicide was pleaded).

Closely linked to the god of oracles was the god of healing, as the oracle was often consulted for health issues. These two roles are reflected in the titles Iatromantis (“physician and seer”) and Oulios, likely meaning “health-giving” (according to Suidas) rather than “destructive.” This aspect of Apollo's character isn't mentioned in Homer, where Paieon is referred to as the physician of the gods. Once again, like with Aristaeus and Carneius, the question arises 185 whether Paean (or Paeon) was originally an epithet of Apollo, later evolving into an independent figure, or whether he was a separate god who merged with Apollo (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 234). According to Wilamowitz-Möllendorff in his edition of Isyllus, the aforementioned epithet Maleatas is also related to the functions of the healing god, introduced to Athens in the 4th century BCE alongside other well-known health deities. In this context, it is thought to mean the “gentle one,” who lent his name to the rock Malion or Maleas (O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie, ii. 1442) on the Gortynian coast. Apollo is also believed to be the father of Asclepius (Aesculapius), whose rituals closely mirror his own. The healing god could also avert disease and various misfortunes: hence he is called Noxious (“the one who averts evil”) and unlucky. Additionally, he has the ability to purify the guilty and cleanse them of sin (some associate the epithet doctor divination with “physician of the soul”). This duty suits Apollo well since he himself underwent purification after killing Python. According to the Delphic legend, this occurred in the laurel grove of Tempe, and after nine years of penance, the god returned, as was depicted in the festival called Stepterion or Septerion (see A. Mommsen, Delphika, 1878). Thus, the old law of blood for blood, which only continued the cycle of crime, was replaced by the gentler concept of expiation for murder (cf. the court called the one at Delphinion in Athens, which maintained jurisdiction in cases where justifiable homicide was claimed).

The same element of enthusiasm that affects the priestess of the oracle at Delphi produces song and music. The close connexion between prophecy and song is indicated in Homer (Odyssey, viii. 488), where Odysseus suggests that the lay of the fall of Troy by Demodocus was inspired by Apollo or the Muse. The metrical form of the oracular responses at Delphi, the important part played by the paean and the Pythian nomos in his ritual, contributed to make Apollo a god of song and music, friend and leader of the Muses (μουσαγέτης). He plays the lyre at the banquets of the gods, and causes Marsyas to be flayed alive because he had boasted of his superior skill in playing the flute, and the ears of Midas to grow long because he had declared in favour of Pan, who contended that the flute was a better instrument than Apollo’s favourite, the lyre.

The same enthusiasm that impacts the priestess of the oracle at Delphi also generates song and music. The close connection between prophecy and song is highlighted in Homer (Odyssey, viii. 488), where Odysseus suggests that Demodocus's tale of the fall of Troy was inspired by Apollo or the Muse. The structured nature of the oracular responses at Delphi, along with the key role played by the paean and the Pythian nomos in his rituals, helped make Apollo a god of song and music, as well as a friend and leader of the Muses (μουσαγέτης). He plays the lyre at the gods' banquets and has Marsyas flayed alive for bragging about being better at the flute, and he makes Midas's ears grow long for siding with Pan, who claimed that the flute was a better instrument than Apollo’s favorite, the lyre.

A less important aspect of Apollo is that of a marine deity, due to the spread of his cult to the Greek colonies and islands. As such, his commonest name is Delphinius, the “dolphin god,” in whose honour the festival Delphinia was celebrated in Attica. This cult probably originated in Crete, whence the god in the form of a dolphin led his Cretan worshippers to the Delphian shore, where he bade them erect an altar in his honour. He is Epibaterius and Apobaterius (“embarker” and “disembarker”), Nasiotas (“the islander”), Euryalus (“god of the broad sea”). Like Poseidon, he looks forth over his watery kingdom from lofty cliffs and promontories (ἀκταῖος, and perhaps ἀκρίτας).

A less significant aspect of Apollo is his role as a marine deity, which came about because of the spread of his worship to the Greek colonies and islands. His most common name is Delphinius, the "dolphin god," in whose honor the festival Delphinia was held in Attica. This worship likely started in Crete, where the god, in the form of a dolphin, guided his Cretan followers to the Delphian shore, instructing them to build an altar in his honor. He is known as Epibaterius and Apobaterius (“embarker” and “disembarker”), Nasiotas (“the islander”), Euryalus (“god of the broad sea”). Like Poseidon, he surveys his watery domain from high cliffs and headlands (ἀκταῖος, and possibly scrub).

These maritime cults of Apollo are probably due to his importance as the god of colonization, who accompanied emigrants on their voyage. As such he is ἀγήτωρ (“leader”), οἰκίστης (“founder”), δωματίτης (“god of the home”). As Agyieus (“god of streets and ways”), in the form of a stone pillar with painted head, placed before the doors of houses, he let in the good and kept out the evil (see Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 150, who takes Agyieus to mean “leader”); on the epithet Prostaterius, he who “stands before the house,” hence “protector,” see G.M. Hirst in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxii. (1902). Lastly, as the originator and protector of civil order, Apollo was regarded as the founder of cities and legislation. Thus, at Athens, Apollo Patroös was known as the protector of the lonians, and the Spartans referred the institutions of Lycurgus to the Delphic oracle.

These maritime cults of Apollo likely stem from his significance as the god of colonization, who accompanied settlers on their journey. In this role, he is leader (“leader”), οικονόμος (“founder”), and bedroom (“god of the home”). As Agyieus (“god of streets and ways”), represented by a stone pillar with a painted head placed at the entrance of homes, he welcomed the good and kept out the evil (see Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 150, who interprets Agyieus as “leader”); regarding the epithet Prostaterius, meaning “he who stands before the house,” which implies “protector,” see G.M. Hirst in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxii. (1902). Lastly, as the originator and guardian of civic order, Apollo was viewed as the founder of cities and laws. Therefore, in Athens, Apollo Patroös was recognized as the protector of the Ionians, and the Spartans attributed the institutions of Lycurgus to the Delphic oracle.

It has been mentioned above that W.H. Roscher, in the article “Apollo” in his Lexikon der Mythologie, derives all the aspects and functions of Apollo from the conception of an original light- and sun-god. The chief objections to this are the following. It cannot be shown that on Greek soil Apollo originally had the meaning of a sun-god; in Homer, Aeschylus and Plato, the sun-god Helios is distinctly separated from Phoebus Apollo; the constant epithet Φοῖβος, usually explained as the brightness of the sun, may equally well refer to his physical beauty or moral purity; λυκηγενής has already been noticed. It is not until the beginning of the 5th century B.C. that the identification makes its appearance. The first literary evidence is a fragment of Euripides (Phaëthon), in which it is especially characterized as an innovation. The idea was taken up by the Stoics, and in the Roman period generally accepted. But the fact of the gradual development of Apollo as a god of light and heaven, and his identification with foreign sun-gods, is no proof of an original Greek solar conception of him. Apollo-Helios must be regarded as “a late by-product of Greek religion” (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 136; Wernicke in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencydopädie). For the manner in which the solar theory is developed, reference must be made to Roscher’s article, but one legend may here be mentioned, since it helps to trace the spread of the cult of the god. It was said that Apollo soon after his birth spent a year amongst the Hyperboreans, who dwelt in a land of perpetual sunshine, before his return to Delphi. This return is explained as the second birth of the god and his victory over the powers of winter; the name Hyperboreans is explained as the “dwellers beyond the north wind.” This interpretation is now, however, generally rejected in favour of that of H.L. Ahrens,—that Hyperborei is identical with the Perphereës (“the carriers”), who are described as the servants of Apollo, carriers of cereal offerings from one community to another (Herodotus iv. 33). This would point to the fact that certain settlements of Apolline worship along the northernmost border of Greece (Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia) were in the habit of sending offerings to the god to a centre of his worship farther south (probably Delphi), advancing by the route from Tempe through Thessaly, Pherae and Doris to Delphi; while others adopted the route through Illyria, Epirus, Dodona, the Malian gulf, Carystus in Euboea, and Tenos to Delos (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 100).

It has been mentioned above that W.H. Roscher, in the article “Apollo” in his Lexikon der Mythologie, derives all the aspects and functions of Apollo from the idea of an original light- and sun-god. The main objections to this are the following. It cannot be proven that on Greek soil Apollo originally meant a sun-god; in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato, the sun-god Helios is clearly distinguished from Phoebus Apollo; the constant epithet Φοῖβος, usually interpreted as the brightness of the sun, could just as easily refer to his physical beauty or moral purity; wolf-born has already been noted. It isn’t until the early 5th century B.C. that this identification appears. The first literary evidence is a fragment of Euripides (Phaëthon), where it is specifically noted as an innovation. The Stoics picked up this idea, which became generally accepted during the Roman period. However, the gradual development of Apollo as a god of light and heaven, and his association with foreign sun-gods, does not prove that there was an original Greek solar concept of him. Apollo-Helios must be seen as “a late by-product of Greek religion” (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 136; Wernicke in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencydopädie). For the way the solar theory is developed, refer to Roscher’s article, but one legend may be mentioned here since it helps trace the spread of the god’s cult. It was said that Apollo spent a year among the Hyperboreans—who lived in a land of eternal sunshine—soon after his birth, before returning to Delphi. This return is interpreted as the god’s second birth and his victory over the forces of winter; the name Hyperboreans means “dwellers beyond the north wind.” However, this interpretation is now generally rejected in favor of H.L. Ahrens’ view—that Hyperborei is the same as the Perphereës (“the carriers”), who are described as the servants of Apollo, bringing cereal offerings from one community to another (Herodotus iv. 33). This suggests that certain settlements of Apolline worship along the northernmost border of Greece (Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia) would send offerings to the god at a center of his worship further south (probably Delphi), traveling through Tempe, Thessaly, Pherae, and Doris to Delphi; while others took the route through Illyria, Epirus, Dodona, the Malian gulf, Carystus in Euboea, and Tenos to Delos (Farnell, Cults, iv. p. 100).

The most usual attributes of Apollo were the lyre and the bow; the tripod especially was dedicated to him as the god of prophecy. Among plants, the bay, used in expiatory sacrifices and also for making the crown of victory at the Pythian games, and the palm-tree, under which he was born in Delos, were sacred to him; among animals and birds, the wolf, the roe, the swan, the hawk, the raven, the crow, the snake, the mouse, the grasshopper and the griffin, a mixture of the eagle and the lion evidently of Eastern origin. The swan and grasshopper symbolize music and song; the hawk, raven, crow and snake have reference to his functions as the god of prophecy.

The most common symbols of Apollo were the lyre and the bow; the tripod, in particular, was dedicated to him as the god of prophecy. Among plants, the bay, used in purifying sacrifices and also for making the victory crown at the Pythian games, and the palm tree, where he was born in Delos, were sacred to him. Among animals and birds, the wolf, roe deer, swan, hawk, raven, crow, snake, mouse, grasshopper, and the griffin, a mix of the eagle and the lion and clearly of Eastern origin, were associated with him. The swan and grasshopper represent music and song; the hawk, raven, crow, and snake relate to his role as the god of prophecy.

The chief festivals held in honour of Apollo were the Carneia, Daphnephoria, Delia, Hyacinthia, Pyanepsia, Pythia and Thargelia (see separate articles).

The main festivals celebrated in honor of Apollo were the Carneia, Daphnephoria, Delia, Hyacinthia, Pyanepsia, Pythia, and Thargelia (see separate articles).

Among the Romans the worship of Apollo was adopted from the Greeks. There is a tradition that the Delphian oracle was consulted as early as the period of the kings during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, and in 430 a temple was dedicated to Apollo on the occasion of a pestilence, and during the Second Punic War (in 212) the Ludi Apollinares were instituted in his honour. But it was in the time of Augustus, who considered himself under the special protection of Apollo and was even said to be his son, that his worship developed and he became one of the chief gods of Rome. After the battle of Actium, Augustus enlarged his old temple, dedicated a portion of the spoil to him, and instituted quinquennial games in his honour. He also erected a new temple on the Palatine hill and transferred the secular games, for which Horace composed his Carmen Saeculare, to Apollo and Diana.

Among the Romans, the worship of Apollo was adopted from the Greeks. There's a tradition that the Delphian oracle was consulted as early as the time of the kings during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus. In 430, a temple was dedicated to Apollo due to a plague, and during the Second Punic War (in 212), the Ludi Apollinares were established in his honor. However, it was during the time of Augustus, who considered himself under the special protection of Apollo and was even said to be his son, that the worship of Apollo flourished and he became one of the main gods of Rome. After the battle of Actium, Augustus expanded the old temple, dedicated a portion of the spoils to him, and initiated quinquennial games in his honor. He also built a new temple on the Palatine Hill and moved the secular games, for which Horace wrote his Carmen Saeculare, to Apollo and Diana.

Apollo was represented more frequently than any other deity in ancient art. As Apollo Agyieus he was shown by a simple conic pillar; the Apollo of Amyclae was a pillar of bronze surmounted by a helmeted head, with extended arms carrying lance and bow. There were also rude idols of him in wood (xoana), in which the human form was scarcely recognizable. In the 6th century, his statues of stone were naked, stiff and rigid in attitude, shoulders square, limbs strong and broad, hair falling 186 down the back. In the riper period of art the type is softer, and Apollo appears in a form which seeks to combine manhood and eternal youth. His long hair is usually tied in a large knot above his forehead. The most famous statue of him is the Apollo Belvidere in the Vatican (found at Frascati, 1455), an imitation belonging to the early imperial period of a bronze statue representing him, with aegis in his left hand, driving back the Gauls from his temple at Delphi (279 B.C.), or, according to another view, fighting with the Pythian dragon. In the Apollo Citharoedus or Musagetes in the Vatican, he is crowned with laurel and wears the long, flowing robe of the Ionic bard, and his form is almost feminine in its fulness; in a statue at Rome of the older and more vigorous type he is naked and holds a lyre in his left hand; his right arm rests upon his head, and a griffin is seated at his side. The Apollo Sauroctonus (after Praxiteles), copied in bronze at the Villa Albani in Rome and in marble at Paris, is a naked, youthful, almost boyish figure, leaning against a tree, waiting to strike a lizard climbing up the trunk. The gigantic statue of Helios (the sun-god), “the colossus of Rhodes,” by Chares of Lindus, celebrated as one of the seven wonders of the world, is unknown to us. Bas-reliefs and painted vases reproduce the contests of Apollo with Tityus, Marsyas, and Heracles, the slaughter of the daughters of Niobe, and other incidents in his life.

Apollo was depicted more often than any other god in ancient art. As Apollo Agyieus, he was represented by a simple conic pillar; the Apollo of Amyclae was a bronze pillar topped with a helmeted head, with arms outstretched carrying a lance and a bow. There were also crude wooden idols of him (xoana), where the human form was barely recognizable. In the 6th century, his stone statues were naked, stiff, and rigid in posture, with square shoulders, strong and broad limbs, and hair falling down his back. During the more developed period of art, the style became softer, and Apollo appeared in a form that sought to combine manhood and eternal youth. His long hair was usually tied in a large knot above his forehead. The most famous statue of him is the Apollo Belvidere in the Vatican (found at Frascati, 1455), which is a copy of a bronze statue that depicted him with an aegis in his left hand, driving back the Gauls from his temple at Delphi (279 BCE), or, according to another interpretation, battling the Pythian dragon. In the Apollo Citharoedus or Musagetes at the Vatican, he is crowned with laurel and wears the long, flowing robe of the Ionic bard, with his form appearing almost feminine in its fullness; in a statue in Rome of the older and more vigorous type, he is naked and holds a lyre in his left hand, while his right arm rests on his head, with a griffin seated at his side. The Apollo Sauroctonus (after Praxiteles), replicated in bronze at the Villa Albani in Rome and in marble in Paris, shows a naked, youthful, almost boyish figure leaning against a tree, poised to strike a lizard climbing up the trunk. The gigantic statue of Helios (the sun-god), “the colossus of Rhodes,” by Chares of Lindus, celebrated as one of the seven wonders of the world, is unknown to us. Bas-reliefs and painted vases depict the contests of Apollo with Tityus, Marsyas, and Heracles, the slaughter of the daughters of Niobe, and other episodes from his life.

Authorities.—F.L.W. Schwartz, De antiquissima Apollinis Natura (Berlin, 1843); J.A. Schönborn, Über das Wesen Apollons (Berlin, 1854); A. Milchhöfer, Über den attischen Apollon (Munich, 1873); T. Schreiber, Apollon Pythoktonos (Leipzig, 1879); W.H. Roscher, Studien zur vergleichenden Mythologie der Griechen und Romer, i. (Leipzig, 1873); R. Hecker, De Apollinis apud Romanos Cultu (Leipzig, 1879); G. Colin, Le Culte d’Apollon pythien à Athènes (1905); L. Dyer, The Gods in Greece (1891); articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie, W.H. Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie, and Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionnaire des antiquités; L. Preller, Griechische und römische Mythologie (4th ed. by C. Robert); J. Marquardt, Römische Staalsverwaltung, iii.; G. Wissowa Religion und Kultus der Romer (1902); D. Bassi, Saggio di Bibliografia mitologica, i. Apollo (1896); L. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, iv. (1907); O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, ii. (1906). In the article Greek Art, fig. 9 represents a bearded Apollo, playing on the lyre, in a chariot drawn by winged horses; fig. 55 (pl. ii.) Apollo of the Belvidere; fig. 76 (pl. v.) a nude and roughly executed colossal figure of the god.

Authorities.—F.L.W. Schwartz, The Very Ancient Nature of Apollo (Berlin, 1843); J.A. Schönborn, On the Essence of Apollo (Berlin, 1854); A. Milchhöfer, On the Athenian Apollo (Munich, 1873); T. Schreiber, Apollo Pythoktonos (Leipzig, 1879); W.H. Roscher, Studies in Comparative Mythology of the Greeks and Romans, i. (Leipzig, 1873); R. Hecker, On the Cult of Apollo among the Romans (Leipzig, 1879); G. Colin, The Cult of Pythian Apollo in Athens (1905); L. Dyer, The Gods in Greece (1891); articles in Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopedia, W.H. Roscher’s Dictionary of Mythology, and Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionary of Antiquities; L. Preller, Greek and Roman Mythology (4th ed. by C. Robert); J. Marquardt, Roman State Administration, iii.; G. Wissowa Religion and Cult of the Romans (1902); D. Bassi, Essay on Mythological Bibliography, i. Apollo (1896); L. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, iv. (1907); O. Gruppe, Greek Mythology and History of Religion, ii. (1906). In the article Greek Art, fig. 9 shows a bearded Apollo playing the lyre in a chariot pulled by winged horses; fig. 55 (pl. ii.) depicts the Apollo of the Belvedere; fig. 76 (pl. v.) shows a nude and roughly made colossal figure of the god.

(J. H. F.)

1 Hesychius; who also gives the explanation σηκός (“fold”), in which case Apollo would be the god of flocks and herds.

1 Hesychius; who also explains σηκός (“fold”), making Apollo the god of flocks and herds.

2 The authority for the quantity is Isyllus.

2 The source for the amount is Isyllus.

3 Hence some have derived “Apollo” from ἀπολλὕναι, “to destroy.”

3 So, some have taken “Apollo” from ἀπολλύνη, “to destroy.”





        
        
    
Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!