Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 3, Slice 7 - "Bible" to "Bisectrix"
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 3, Slice 7 - "Bible" to "Bisectrix"" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
      printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
      underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
      paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
      inserted.

(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
      letters.



          ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

  A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
           AND GENERAL INFORMATION

              ELEVENTH EDITION


           VOLUME III, SLICE VII

             Bible to Bisectrix



ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:


  BIBLE                             BILNEY, THOMAS
  BIBLE, ENGLISH                    BILOXI
  BIBLE CHRISTIANS                  BILSTON
  BIBLE SOCIETIES                   BILTONG
  BIBLIOGRAPHY AND BIBLIOLOGY       BIMANA
  BIBLIOMANCY                       BIMETALLISM
  BIBRACTE                          BIMLIPATAM
  BIBULUS                           BIN
  BICE                              BINAN
  BICESTER                          BINARY SYSTEM
  BICHAT, MARIE FRANÇOIS XAVIER     BINCHOIS, EGIDIUS
  BICHROMATES AND CHROMATES         BINGEN
  BICKER                            BINGERBRÜCK
  BICKERSTAFFE, ISAAC               BINGHAM, JOSEPH
  BICKERSTETH, EDWARD               BINGHAMTON
  BICYCLE                           BINGLEY
  BIDA                              BINIOU
  BIDDEFORD                         BINMALEY
  BIDDER, GEORGE PARKER             BINNACLE
  BIDDERY                           BINNEY, EDWARD WILLIAM
  BIDDING-PRAYER                    BINNEY, HORACE
  BIDDLE, JOHN                      BINNEY, THOMAS
  BIDDLE, NICHOLAS                  BINOCULAR INSTRUMENT
  BIDEFORD                          BINOMIAL
  BIDPAI, FABLES OF                 BINTURONG
  BIEKKICH                          BINYON, LAURENCE
  BIEDERMANN, FRIEDRICH KARL        BIO-BIO (river of Chile)
  BIEL, GABRIEL                     BIO-BIO (province of Chile)
  BIELEFELD                         BIOGENESIS
  BIELITZ                           BIOGRAPHY
  BIELLA                            BIOLOGY
  BIENNE                            BION (Greek poet)
  BIENNE, LAKE OF                   BION (Greek philosopher)
  BIERSTADT, ALBERT                 BIOT, JEAN BAPTISTE
  BIFROST                           BIOTITE
  BIGAMY                            BIPARTITE
  BIGELOW, JOHN                     BIPONT EDITIONS
  BIGGAR                            BIQUADRATIC
  BIGGLESWADE                       BIQUINTILE
  BIGHT                             BIRBHUM
  BIGNON, JÉRÔME                    BIRCH, SAMUEL
  BIGNON, LOUIS PIERRE ÉDOUARD      BIRCH, THOMAS
  BIGOD, HUGH                       BIRCH
  BIGOT                             BIRCH-PFEIFFER, CHARLOTTE
  BIG RAPIDS                        BIRD
  BIGSBY, JOHN JEREMIAH             BIRD-LOUSE
  BIHARI                            BIRD'S-EYE
  BIHARI-LAL                        BIRDSNESTING
  BIJAPUR                           BIRDS OF PARADISE
  BIJAWAR                           BIRDWOOD, SIR GEORGE MOLESWORTH
  BIJNOR                            BIREJIK
  BIKANIR                           BIREN, ERNST JOHANN
  BILASPUR                          BIRETTA
  BILBAO                            BIRGER
  BILBEIS                           BIRIBI
  BILBERRY                          BIRJEND
  BILBO                             BIRKBECK, GEORGE
  BILDERDIJK, WILLEM                BIRKENFELD
  BILEJIK                           BIRKENHEAD
  BILFINGER, GEORG BERNHARD         BIRMINGHAM (Alabama, U.S.A.)
  BILGE                             BIRMINGHAM (England)
  BILHARZIOSIS                      BIRNEY, JAMES GILLESPIE
  BILIN                             BIRON, ARMAND DE GONTAUT
  BILL                              BIRR
  BILLAUD-VARENNE, JACQUES NICOLAS  BIRRELL, AUGUSTINE
  BILLET                            BIRTH
  BILLETING                         BIRUNI
  BILLIARDS                         BISALTAE
  BILLINGTON, ELIZABETH             BISCAY
  BILLITON                          BISCAY, BAY OF
  BILL OF EXCHANGE                  BISCEGLIE
  BILL OF RIGHTS                    BISCHOFSWERDA
  BILL OF SALE                      BISCHWEILER
  BILLROTH, ALBERT THEODOR          BISCUIT
  BILMA                             BISECTRIX



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


(A) OLD TESTAMENT

1. _Canon._

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

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

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

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

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

2. The "Prophets," consisting of eight books, divided into two groups:--

  (a) The "Former Prophets"; Joshua, Judges, Samuel; Kings.[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


2. _Texts and Versions._

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


  Massoretic text.

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

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


    Samaritan.

  _Versions._--In point of age the Samaritan Pentateuch furnishes the
  earliest external witness to the Hebrew text. It is not a version, but
  merely that text of the Pentateuch which has been preserved by the
  Samaritan community since the time of Nehemiah (Neh. xiii. 23-31),
  i.e. about 432 B.C.[10] It is written in the Samaritan script, which
  is closely allied to the old Hebrew as opposed to the later "square"
  character. We further possess a Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch
  written in the Samaritan dialect, a variety of western Aramaic, and
  also an Arabic translation of the five books of the law; the latter
  dating perhaps from the 11th century A.D. or earlier. The Samaritan
  Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint version in many passages, but
  its chief importance lies in the proof which it affords as to the
  substantial agreement of our present text of the Pentateuch, apart
  from certain intentional changes,[11] with that which was promulgated
  by Ezra. Its value for critical purposes is considerably discounted by
  the late date of the MSS., upon which the printed text is based.


    Aramaic.

  The Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Old Testament
  (see TARGUM), date from the time when Hebrew had become superseded by
  Aramaic as the language spoken by the Jews, i.e. during the period
  immediately preceding the Christian era. In their written form,
  however, the earlier Targums, viz. those on the Pentateuch and the
  prophetical books, cannot be earlier than the 4th or 5th century A.D.
  Since they were designed to meet the needs of the people and had a
  directly edificatory aim, they are naturally characterized by
  expansion and paraphrase, and thus afford invaluable illustrations of
  the methods of Jewish interpretation and of the development of Jewish
  thought. The text which they exhibit is virtually identical with the
  Massoretic text.


    Septuagint.

  The earliest among the versions as well as the most important for the
  textual criticism of the Old Testament is the Septuagint. This version
  probably arose out of the needs of the Greek-speaking Jews of
  Alexandria in the 3rd century B.C. According to tradition the law was
  translated into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus
  (284-247 B.C.), and, though the form (viz. the _Letter of Aristeas_)
  in which this tradition has come down to us cannot be regarded as
  historical, yet it seems to have preserved correctly both the date and
  the locality of the version. The name Septuagint, strictly speaking,
  only applies to the translation of the Pentateuch, but it was
  afterwards extended to include the other books of the Old Testament as
  they were translated. That the interval which elapsed before the
  Prophets and the Hagiographa were also translated was no great one is
  shown by the prologue to Sirach which speaks of "the Law, the Prophets
  and the rest of the books," as already current in a translation by 132
  B.C. The date at which the various books were combined into a single
  work is not known, but the existence of the Septuagint as a whole may
  be assumed for the 1st century A.D., at which period the Greek version
  was universally accepted by the Jews of the Dispersion as Scripture,
  and from them passed on to the Christian Church.


    Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion.

  The position of the Septuagint, however, as the official Greek
  representative of the Old Testament did not long remain unchallenged.
  The opposition, as might be expected, came from the side of the Jews,
  and was due partly to the controversial use which was made of the
  version by the Christians, but chiefly to the fact that it was not
  sufficiently in agreement with the standard Hebrew text established by
  Rabbi Aqiba and his school. Hence arose in the 2nd century A.D. the
  three new versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. Aquila was a
  Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and since he was a disciple of Rabbi Aqiba
  (d. A.D. 135), and (according to another Talmudic account) also of
  Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the immediate predecessors of Aqiba,
  his version may be assigned to the first half of the 2nd century. It
  is characterized by extreme literalness, and clearly reflects the
  peculiar system of exegesis which was then in vogue among the Jewish
  rabbis. Its slavish adherence to the original caused the new
  translation to be received with favour by the Hellenistic Jews, among
  whom it quickly superseded the older Septuagint. For what remains of
  this version, which owing to its character is of the greatest value to
  the textual critic, we have until recently been indebted to Origen's
  _Hexapla_ (see below); for, though Jerome mentions a _secunda editio_,
  no MS. of Aquila's translation has survived. Fragments[12], however,
  of two codices were discovered (1897) in the genizah at Cairo, which
  illustrate more fully the peculiar features of this version.

  The accounts given of Theodotion are somewhat conflicting. Both
  Irenaeus and Epiphanius describe him as a Jewish proselyte, but while
  the former calls him an Ephesian and mentions his translation before
  that of Aquila, the latter states that he was a native of Pontus and a
  follower of Marcion, and further assigns his work to the reign of
  Commodus (A.D. 180-192); others, according to Jerome, describe him as
  an Ebionite. On the whole it is probable that Irenaeus has preserved
  the most trustworthy account.[13] Theodotion's version differs from
  those of Aquila and Symmachus in that it was not an independent
  translation, but rather a revision of the Septuagint on the basis of
  the current Hebrew text. He retained, however, those passages of which
  there was no Hebrew equivalent, and added translations of the Hebrew
  where the latter was not represented in the Septuagint. A peculiar
  feature of his translation is his excessive use of transliteration,
  but, apart from this, his work has many points of contact with the
  Septuagint, which it closely resembles in style; hence it is not
  surprising to find that later MSS. of the Septuagint have been largely
  influenced by Theodotion's translation. In the case of the book of
  Daniel, as we learn from Jerome (_praefatio in Dan._), the translation
  of Theodotion was definitely adopted by the Church, and is accordingly
  found in the place of the original Septuagint in all MSS. and
  editions.[14] It is interesting to note in this connexion that
  renderings which agree in the most remarkable manner with Theodotion's
  version of Daniel are found not only in writers of the 2nd century but
  also in the New Testament. The most probable explanation of this
  phenomenon is that these renderings are derived from an early Greek
  translation, differing from the Septuagint proper, but closely allied
  to that which Theodotion used as the basis of his revision.

  Symmachus, according to Eusebius and Jerome, was an Ebionite;
  Epiphanius represents him (very improbably) as a Samaritan who became
  a Jewish proselyte. He is not mentioned by Irenaeus and his date is
  uncertain, but probably his work is to be assigned to the end of the
  2nd century. His version was commended by Jerome as giving the sense
  of the original, and in that respect it forms a direct contrast with
  that of Aquila. Indeed Dr Swete[15] thinks it probable that "he wrote
  with Aquila's version before him, (and that) in his efforts to recast
  it he made free use both of the Septuagint and of Theodotion."


    Origen's 'Hexapla.'

  As in the case of Aquila, our knowledge of the works of Theodotion and
  Symmachus is practically limited to the fragments that have been
  preserved through the labours of Origen. This writer (see ORIGEN)
  conceived the idea of collecting all the existing Greek versions of
  the Old Testament with a view to recovering the original text of the
  Septuagint, partly by their aid and partly by means of the current
  Hebrew text. He accordingly arranged the texts to be compared in
  six[16] parallel columns in the following order:--(1) the Hebrew text;
  (2) the Hebrew transliterated into Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4)
  Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; and (6) Theodotion. In the Septuagint
  column he drew attention to those passages for which there was no
  Hebrew equivalent by prefixing an obelus; but where the Septuagint had
  nothing corresponding to the Hebrew text he supplied the omissions,
  chiefly but not entirely from the translation of Theodotion, placing
  an asterisk at the beginning of the interpolation; the close of the
  passage to which the obelus or the asterisk was prefixed was denoted
  by the metobelus. That Origen did not succeed in his object of
  recovering the original Septuagint is due to the fact that he started
  with the false conception that the original text of the Septuagint
  must be that which coincided most nearly with the current Hebrew text.
  Indeed, the result of his monumental labours has been to impede rather
  than to promote the restoration of the genuine Septuagint. For the
  Hexaplar text which he thus produced not only effaced many of the most
  characteristic features of the old version, but also exercised a
  prejudicial influence on the MSS. of that version.


    Hesychius, Lucian.

  The _Hexapla_ as a whole was far too large to be copied, but the
  revised Septuagint text was published separately by Eusebius and
  Pamphilus, and was extensively used in Palestine during the 4th
  century. During the same period two other recensions made their
  appearance, that of Hesychius which was current in Egypt, and that of
  Lucian which became the accepted text of the Antiochene Church. Of
  Hesychius little is known. Traces of his revision are to be found in
  the Egyptian MSS., especially the Codex Marchalianus, and in the
  quotations of Cyril of Alexandria. Lucian was a priest of Antioch who
  was martyred at Nicomedia in A.D. 311 or 312. His revision (to quote
  Dr Swete) "was doubtless an attempt to revise the [Greek: koinae] (or
  'common text' of the Septuagint) in accordance with the principles of
  criticism which were accepted at Antioch." To Ceriani is due the
  discovery that the text preserved by codices 19, 82, 93, 108, really
  represents Lucian's recension; the same conclusion was reached
  independently by Lagarde, who combined codex 118 with the four
  mentioned above.[17] As Field (_Hexapla_, p. 87) has shown, this
  discovery is confirmed by the marginal readings of the _Syro-Hexapla_.
  The recension (see Driver, _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
  Samuel_, p. 52) is characterized by the substitution of synonyms for
  the words originally used by the Septuagint, and by the frequent
  occurrence of double renderings, but its chief claim to critical
  importance rests on the fact that "it embodies renderings not found in
  other MSS. of the Septuagint which presuppose a Hebrew original
  self-evidently superior in the passages concerned to the existing
  Massoretic text."


    Vulgate.

  _Latin Versions._--Of even greater importance in this respect is the
  Old Latin version, which undoubtedly represents a Greek original prior
  to the _Hexapla_. "The earliest form of the version" (to quote Dr
  Kennedy[18]) "to which we can assign a definite date, namely, that
  used by Cyprian, plainly circulated in Africa." In the view of many
  authorities this version was first produced at Carthage, but recent
  writers are inclined to regard Antioch as its birthplace, a view which
  is supported by the remarkable agreement of its readings with the
  Lucianic recension and with the early Syriac MSS. Unfortunately the
  version is only extant in a fragmentary form, being preserved partly
  in MSS., partly in quotations of the Fathers. The non-canonical books
  of the Vulgate, however, which do not appear to have been revised by
  Jerome, still represent the older version. It was not until after the
  6th century that the Old Latin was finally superseded by the Vulgate
  or Latin translation of the Old Testament made by Jerome during the
  last quarter of the 4th century. This new version was translated from
  the Hebrew, but Jerome also made use of the Greek versions, more
  especially of Symmachus. His original intention was to revise the Old
  Latin, and his two revisions of the Psalter, the Roman and the
  Gallican, the latter modelled on the _Hexapla_, still survive. Of the
  other books which he revised according to the Hexaplar text, that of
  Job has alone come down to us. For textual purposes the Vulgate
  possesses but little value, since it presupposes a Hebrew original
  practically identical with the text stereotyped by the Massoretes.

  _Syriac Versions._--The Peshito (P'shitta) or "simple" revision of the
  Old Testament is a translation from the Hebrew, though certain books
  appear to have been influenced by the Septuagint. Its date is unknown,
  but it is usually assigned to the 2nd century A.D. Its value for
  textual purposes is not great, partly because the underlying text is
  the same as the Massoretic, partly because the Syriac text has at
  different times been harmonized with that of the Septuagint.


    Syro-Hexaplar.

  The Syro-Hexaplar version, on the other hand, is extremely valuable
  for critical purposes. This Syriac translation of the Septuagint
  column of the _Hexapla_ was made by Paul, bishop of Tella, at
  Alexandria in A.D. 616-617. Its value consists in the extreme
  literalness of the translation, which renders it possible to recover
  the Greek original with considerable certainty. It has further
  preserved the critical signs employed by Origen as well as many
  readings from the other Greek versions; hence it forms our chief
  authority for reconstructing the _Hexapla_. The greater part of this
  work is still extant; the poetical and prophetical books have been
  preserved in the _Codex Ambrosianus_ at Milan (published in
  photolithography by Ceriani, _Mon. Sacr. et Prof._), and the remaining
  portions of the other books have been collected by Lagarde in his
  _Bibliothecae Syriacae_, &c.

  Of the remaining versions of the Old Testament the most important are
  the Egyptian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Gothic and Armenian, all of which,
  except a part of the Arabic, appear to have been made through the
  medium of the Septuagint.

  AUTHORITIES.--Wellhausen-Bleek, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_
  (4th ed., Berlin, 1878, pp. 571 ff., or 5th ed., Berlin, 1886, pp. 523
  ff.); S.R. Driver, _Notes on Samuel_ (Oxford, 1890), Introd. §§3 f.;
  W. Robertson Smith, _Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd ed.,
  1895); F.G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the Ancient MSS._ (London, 1896);
  T.H. Weir, _A Short History of the Hebrew Text_ (London, 1896); H B.
  Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ (Cambridge, 1900);
  F. Buhl, _Kanon u. Text des A.T._ (English trans., Edinburgh, 1892);
  E. Schürer, _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes_ (3rd ed., 1902), vol.
  iii. § 33; C.H. Cornill, _Einleitung in das alte Testament_ (4th ed.,
  1896), and _Prolegomena to Ezechiel_ (Leipzig, 1886); H.L. Strack,
  _Einleitung in das alte Testament, Prolegomena Critica in Vet. Test._
  (Leipzig, 1873); A. Loisy, _Histoire critique du texte et des versions
  de la bible_ (Amiens, 1892); E. Nestle, _Urtext und Übersetzungen der
  Bibel (Leipzig, 1897); Ed. König, _Einleitung in das alte Testament
  (Bonn, 1893); F. Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt_, &c.; A.
  Dillmann and F. Buhl, article on "Bibel-text des A.T." in _P.R.E._³
  vol. ii.; Ch. D. Ginsburg, _Introduction to the Massoretico-critical
  edition of the Bible_ (London, 1897) and _The Massorah_ (London,
  1880-1885).     (J. F. St.)


3. _Textual Criticism._

  Distinction between Textual and Higher Criticism.

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

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

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


  Growth of criticism.

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

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

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

  1. Ignorance gave place to knowledge of the languages in which the Old
  Testament was written. In 1506 the distinguished humanist, Johann
  Reuchlin, who had begun the study of Hebrew under a Jewish teacher
  about 1492, published a work entitled _De Rudimentis Hebraicis_
  containing a Hebrew lexicon and a Hebrew grammar. In 1504 Konrad
  Pellikan (Pellicanus), whose study of Hebrew had profited from
  intercourse with Reuchlin, had published a brief introduction to the
  language. In 1514 the Complutensian Polyglott began to be printed and
  in 1522 was published. Various Jewish editions of the Hebrew Bible had
  already been printed--in part since 1477, entire since 1488; but this
  work contained the first Christian edition of the text. Certainly the
  editors did not intend hereby to exalt the original above the
  versions; for they placed the Vulgate in the centre of the page with
  the Hebrew on one side, the Greek on the other, i.e. as they
  themselves explained it, the Roman Church between the synagogue and
  the Greek Church, as Christ crucified between two thieves. Yet even so
  the publication of the Hebrew text by Christian scholars marks an
  important stage; henceforth the study of the original enters
  increasingly into Christian Biblical schojarship; it already underlay
  the translations which form so striking a feature of the 16th century.
  Luther's German version (Pentateuch, 1523) and Tyndale's English
  version (Pentateuch, 1530) were both made from the Hebrew. At first,
  and indeed down to the middle of the 17th century, Jewish traditions
  and methods in the study of Hebrew dominated Christian scholars; but
  in the 17th and 18th centuries the study of other Semitic languages
  opened up that comparative linguistic study which was systematized and
  brought nearer to perfection in the 19th century (which also
  witnessed the opening up of the new study of Assyrian) by scholars
  such as Gesenius, Ewald, Olshausen, Renan, Nöldeke, Stade and Driver.
  This has done much to render possible a more critical interpretation
  of the Old Testament.

  2. An increasing stress was laid on the _literal_ sense of Scripture.
  The leading Reformers--Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon--frequently
  expressed themselves against the prevailing view of the manifold sense
  of Scripture, and in particular questioned the legitimacy of
  allegorical interpretation--except for purposes of popular and
  practical exposition. The effort to get at and abide by the literal
  sense is characteristic of Calvin's extensive exegetical works. True,
  practice did not always keep pace with theory, and the literal sense
  had to yield if it came into conflict with the "Faith": the
  allegorical method for long obscured the meaning of the _Song of
  Songs_, and any departure from it was severely condemned; just as
  Theodore of Mopsuestia drew down on himself for maintaining the
  literal sense of the _Song_ the condemnation of the Second Council of
  Constantinople (A.D. 553), so Sebastian Castellio owed (in part) to
  the same indiscretion his expulsion from Geneva in 1544. Even in the
  16th and 17th centuries scholars like Grotius and Michaelis met with
  violent opposition for the same cause.

  But, however slowly and irregularly, the new conditions and the new
  spirit affected the study of the Old Testament. It became subject to
  the same critical methods which since the Renaissance have been
  applied to other ancient literatures. Biblical criticism is part of a
  wider critical movement, but it is noticeable how, from stage to
  stage, Biblical scholars adopted the various critical methods which as
  applied to other literatures have been proved valid, rather than
  themselves initiated them. The textual criticism of the classical
  literatures made way before the textual criticism of the Old
  Testament: Bentley's _Phalaris_ (1699) preceded any thorough or
  systematic application of Higher Criticism to any part of the Old
  Testament; Niebuhr's _History of Rome_ (1811) preceded Ewald's
  _History of Israel_ (1843-1859).


  Conditions of Textual Criticism in the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  Results of Criticism.

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

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

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


4. _Higher Criticism._

We now pass on to consider the growth of literary and historic
criticism, which constitute the _Higher Criticism_ as already explained.
Down to the Reformation conditions were unfavourable to such criticism;
the prevailing dogmatic use of Scripture gave no occasion for inquiry
into the human origins or into the real purport and character of the
several books. Nevertheless we find some sporadic and tentative critical
efforts or questions. The most remarkable of these was made _outside_
the Church--a significant indication of the adverse effect of the
conditions within; the Neo-platonist philosopher Porphyry[20] in the 3rd
century A.D., untrammelled by church tradition and methods, anticipated
one of the clearest and most important conclusions of modern criticism:
he detected the incorrectness of the traditional ascription of Daniel to
the Jewish captivity in Babylon and discerned that the real period of
its composition was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, four centuries later.
In the mind even of Augustine (_Locutio in Jos. vi. 25_) questions were
raised by the occurrence of the formula "until this day" in Jos. iv. 9,
but were stilled by a rather clever though wrong use of Jos. vi. 25;
Abelard (_Heloissae Problema_, xli.) considers the problem whether the
narrative of Moses's death in Deut. contains a prophecy by Moses or is
the work of another and later writer, while the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra
(Abenezra), in a cryptic note on Deut. i. 1, which has been often quoted
of late years, gathers together several indications that point, as he
appears to perceive, to the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. Even
rarer than these rare perceptions of the evidence of the
quasi-historical books to their origin are such half-perceptions of the
literary origin of the prophetical books as is betrayed by Ibn Ezra, who
appears to question the Isaianic authorship of Is. xl.-lxvi., and by
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century, who, according
to Diestel (_Gesch. des A. T._, 169), raises the question why the sixth
chapter of Isaiah, containing the inaugural vision, does not stand at
the beginning of the book.


  The Reformers.

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


  Hobbes.

It would be impossible to refer here even briefly to all these, and it
may be more useful to select for somewhat full description, as showing
what could be achieved by, and what limitations beset, even a critical
spirit in the 17th century, the survey of the origin of the Old
Testament given by one such individual--Thomas Hobbes in his
_Leviathan_[21] (published 1651) c. xxxiii. As far as possible this
survey shall be cited verbatim:--

  "Who were the original writers of the several books of Holy Scripture
  has not been made evident by any sufficient testimony of other
  history, which is the only proof of matter of fact; nor can be, by any
  argument of natural reason: for reason serves only to convince the
  truth, not of fact, but of consequence. The light therefore that must
  guide us in this question, must be that which is held out unto us from
  the books themselves: and this light, though it shew us not the author
  of every book, yet it is not unuseful to give us knowledge of the time
  wherein they were written."

  "And first, for the Pentateuch. ... We read (Deut. xxxiv. 6)
  concerning the sepulchre of Moses 'that no man knoweth of his
  sepulchre to this day'; that is, to the day wherein those words were
  written. It is therefore manifest that these words were written after
  his interment. For it were a strange interpretation to say Moses spake
  of his own sepulchre, though by prophecy, that it was not found to
  that day wherein he was yet living." The suggestion that the last
  chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written later, is met by
  Hobbes by reference to Gen. xii. 6 ("the Canaanite was then in the
  land") and Num. xxi. 14 (citation from a book relating the acts of
  Moses at the Red Sea and in Moab) and the conclusion reached that "the
  five books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after
  is not so manifest."

  "But though Moses did not compile those books entirely, and in the
  form we have them, yet he wrote all that which he is there said to
  have written: as, for example, the volume of the Law" contained "as it
  seemeth" in Deut. xi.-xxvii, "and this is that Law which ... having
  been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah and sent to King
  Josias (2 Kings xxii. 8)."

  The books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel are proved much later than
  the times recorded in them by the numerous passages which speak of
  customs, conditions, &c., remaining "unto this day," and _Judges_ in
  particular by xviii. 30, "where it said that 'Jonathan and his sons
  were priests to the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity of
  the land.'"

  As for _Kings_ and _Chronicles_, "besides the places which mention
  such monuments as, the writer saith, remained till his own days"
  (Hobbes here cites thirteen from Kings, two from Chron.), "it is
  argument sufficient that they were written after the captivity in
  Babylon, that the history of them is continued till that time. For the
  facts registered are always more ancient than the register; and much
  more ancient than such books as make mention of and quote the
  register, as these books do in divers places."

  Ezra and Nehemiah were written after, Esther during, or after, the
  captivity; Job, which is not a history but a philosophical poem, at an
  uncertain date. The Psalms were written mostly by David, but "some of
  them after the return from the captivity, as the 137th and 126th,
  whereby it is manifest that the psalter was compiled and put into the
  form it now hath, after the return of the Jews from Babylon." The
  compilation of Proverbs is later than any of those whose proverbs are
  therein contained; but Ecclesiastes and Canticles are wholly Solomon's
  except the titles. There is little noticeable in Hobbes' dating of the
  prophets, though he considers it "not apparent" whether Amos wrote, as
  well as composed, his prophecy, or whether Jeremiah and the other
  prophets of the time of Josiah and Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai and
  Zechariah, who lived in the captivity, _edited_ the prophecies
  ascribed to them. He concludes: "But considering the inscriptions, or
  titles of their books, it is manifest enough that the whole Scripture
  of the Old Testament was set forth in the form we have it after the
  return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon and before the time
  of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus."

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

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

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


  Astruc.

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

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


  Lowth.

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


  Eichhorn.

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

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


  De Wette.

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


  Ewald.

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


  Vatke; Reuss.

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


  Graf; Kuenen; Wellhausen; Colenso.

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

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

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


  Influence of Criticism.

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

From 1869 T.K. Cheyne worked indefatigably as a resourceful pioneer, but
for many years, in view of the prevailing temper, with "extreme
self-suppression" and "willingness to concede to tradition all that
could with any plausibility be conceded." (Cheyne, _Origin of the
Psalter_, p. 15); more especially is his influence observable after
1890, when he published his Bampton Lectures, the _Origin of the
Psalter_, a work of vast learning and keen penetration, without
restraint on the freedom of his judgment--always stimulating to students
and fellow-workers, though by no means always carrying large numbers
with him. From about 1880 the prevailing temper had changed; within a
decade of this date the change had become great; since then the
influence of Old Testament criticism has grown with increased
acceleration. The change in the former period with regard to a single
point, which is however typical of many, is briefly summed up by Dr
Cheyne: "In 1880 it was still a heresy to accept with all its
consequences the plurality of authorship of the Book of Isaiah; in 1890
to a growing school of church-students this has become an indubitable
fact" (_Origin of the Psalter_, xv.). By 1906 this plurality of
authorship had become almost a commonplace of the market. Many,
particularly of late, have contributed to the wide distribution, if not
of the critical spirit itself, yet at least of a knowledge of its
conclusions. To two only of the most influential is it possible to make
more definite reference--to W. Robertson Smith and S.R. Driver. From
1875 onwards Smith contributed to the 9th edition of the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_ a long series of important articles, which, together with
the articles of Cheyne, Wellhausen and others, made that work an
important factor in the change which was to pass over English thought in
regard to the Bible; in 1878, by his pleadings in the trial for heresy
brought against him on the ground of these articles, he turned a
personal defeat in the immediate issue into a notable victory for the
cause which led to his condemnation; and subsequently (in 1880), in two
series of lectures, afterwards published[23] and widely read, he gave a
brilliant, and, as it proved, to a rapidly increasing number a
convincing exposition of the criticism of the literature, history and
religion of Israel, which was already represented in Germany by
Wellhausen and in Holland by Kuenen. In 1891 Dr Driver published his
_Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_ (6th ed., 1897);
less popular in form than Smith's lectures, it was a more systematic and
comprehensive survey of the whole field of the literary criticism of the
Old Testament. The position of the author as regius professor of Hebrew
at Oxford and canon of Christ Church in succession to Pusey, and his
well-established reputation as a profound Hebrew scholar, commanded wide
attention; the qualities of the book itself--its marked sobriety, its
careful discrimination between the differing degrees of probability
attaching to various conclusions and suggestions, and in general its
soundness of method--rapidly extended the understanding of what Old
Testament criticism is and commanded acceptance of the well-established
conclusions.

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

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

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


  Archeology and Criticism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  LITERATURE.--Much of the details and results of criticism and the
  special literature will be found in the articles in the present work
  on the several books of the Old Testament. To the works already
  mentioned we may add L. Diestel, _Geschichte des Alten Testaments in
  der Christlichen Kirche_ (1869); C.A. Briggs, _General Introduction to
  the Study of Holy Scripture_ (1889); G.A. Smith, _Modern Criticism and
  the Preaching of the Old Testament_ (1901)--these for the history of
  Criticism (or more generally of Old Testament study); T.K. Cheyne,
  _Founders of Old Testament Criticism_ (pp. 1-247, biographical
  sketches of critical scholars since the middle of the 18th century;
  pp. 248-372, criticism of Driver's _Introduction_). As already
  indicated, the exposition of Literary Criticism in English is Driver's
  _Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_. For the general
  principles of Historical Criticism see Ch. V. Langlois and Ch.
  Seignobos, _Introduction to the Study of History_ (Eng. trans., 1898),
  with which it is interesting to compare De Wette's brief discussion
  referred to in the article.     (G. B. G.*)


5. _Old Testament Chronology._

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

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

  (1) _From the Creation of Man to the Flood_ (Gen. v. and vii. 11).

  +--------------------------+-----------------------------+
  |                          |Age of each at birth of next.|
  |                          +---------+---------+---------+
  |                          |   Heb.  |   Sam.  |   LXX.  |
  +--------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
  | Adam (930)               |   130   |   130   |  230    |
  | Seth (912)               |   105   |   105   |  205    |
  | Enosh (905)              |    90   |    90   |  190    |
  | Kenan (910)              |    70   |    70   |  170    |
  | Mahalalel (895)          |    65   |    65   |  165    |
  | Jared (962)              |   162   |    62   |  162    |
  | Enoch (365)              |    65   |    65   |  165    |
  | Methuselah (969)         |   187   |    67   |  187[26]|
  | Lamech (777)             |   182   |    53   |  188    |
  | Noah (950); age at Flood |   600   |   600   |  600    |
  |                          +---------+---------+---------+
  | Total from the Creation  |  1656   |  1307   | 2262    |
  |   of Man to the Flood    |         |         |         |
  +--------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

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

  (2) _From the Flood to the Call of Abraham_ (Gen. xi.).

  +---------------------------------+--------------------------------+
  |                                 |  Age of each at birth of next. |
  |                                 +----------+----------+----------+
  |                                 |   Heb.   |   Sam.   |   LXX.   |
  +---------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
  | Arphaxad (438)[27]              |   35[28] |   135    |   135    |
  | Cainan (460) [cf. Luke iii. 27] |   ..     |    ..    |   130    |
  | Shelah (433)                    |   30     |   130    |   130    |
  | Eber (464)                      |   34     |   134    |   134    |
  | Peleg (239)                     |   30     |   130    |   130    |
  | Reu (239)                       |   32     |   132    |   132    |
  | Serug (230)                     |   30     |   130    |   130    |
  | Nahor (148)                     |   29     |    79    |    79    |
  | Terah (205)                     |   70     |    70    |    70    |
  | Abraham (175); age at Call      |          |          |          |
  |     (Gen. xii. 4)               |   75     |    75    |    75    |
  |                                 +----------+----------+----------+
  | Total from the Flood to         |  365     |  1015    |  1145    |
  |     the Call of Abraham.        |          |          |          |
  +---------------------------------+----------+----------+----------+

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

  The Babylonians, according to Berossus, supposed that there were ten
  antediluvian kings, who they declared had reigned for the portentous
  period of 432,000 years: 432,000 years, however, it has been
  ingeniously pointed out by Oppert (_Gott. Gel. Nachrichten_, 1877, p.
  205 ff.) = 86,400 _lustra_, while 1656 years (the Heb. date of the
  Flood) = 86,400 _weeks_ (1656 = 72 × 23; and 23 years being = 8395
  days + 5 intercalary days = 8400 days = 1200 weeks); and hence the
  inference has been drawn that the two periods have in some way been
  developed from a common basis, the Hebrews taking as their unit a
  week, where the Babylonians took a _lustrum_ of 5 years.

  (3) _From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus._

    From the Call of Abraham to the birth of Isaac
      (Abraham being then aged 100, Gen. xxi. 5).          25 years
    Age of Isaac at the birth of Esau and Jacob
      (Gen. xxv. 26)                                       60   "
    Age of Jacob when he went down into Egypt
      (Gen. xlvii. 9)                                     130   "
                                                         ----
    The period of the Patriarchs' sojourn in Canaan
      was thus                                            215   "
    But the period of the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt,
      according to Ex. xii. 40, 41, was                   430   "

  We thus get--

    From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus (Heb. text)
                                              215 + 430 = 645 years
    From the Flood to the Call of Abraham (Heb. text)     365   "
    From the Creation of Man to the Flood (Heb. text)    1656   "
                                                         ----
    From the Creation of Man to the Exodus (Heb. text)   2666   "

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

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

  Alternative dates for Ramses II.: Maspero, _The Struggle of the
  Nations_ (1897), p. 449, c. 1320-1255; Breasted (1906), 1292-1225;
  Meyer (1909), 1310-1244. Attempts have been made to identify the
  Khabiri, who are mentioned often in the Tel el-Amarna letters as foes,
  threatening to invade Palestine and bring the Egyptian supremacy over
  it to an end, with the Hebrews. The Exodus, it has been pointed out,
  might then be placed under Amen-hotep II. (1448-1420 B.C., Breasted;
  1449-1423, Petrie), the successor of Thothmes, and more time would be
  allowed for the events between the Exodus and the time of David (c.
  1000), which, if the date given above be correct, have been thought to
  be unduly compressed (see Orr in the _Expositor_, March 1897, p. 161
  ff.); but there are difficulties attaching to this view, and it has
  not been adopted generally by scholars. There may be some ultimate
  connexion between the Khabiri and the Hebrews; but the Khabiri of the
  Tel el-Amarna letters cannot be the Hebrews who invaded Canaan under
  Joshua.

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

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

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

  The following are examples of the standing formulae used by the
  compiler for the purpose:--"In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of
  Israel began Asa to reign over Judah. And forty and one years reigned
  he in Jerusalem" (1 Kings xv. 9, 10). "In the third year of Asa king
  of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in
  Tirzah (and reigned) twenty and four years" (_ibid._ ver. 33).

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

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


  CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

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

  +-----------+------------------+-------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
  |           |                  |                   |                Events in Contemporary History.                |
  |Chronology |  Probable Real   |  Biblical Events. +--------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
  | of Ussher.|      Dates.      |                   |     Babylonia.     |      Assyria.      |     Egypt.[38]      |
  +-----------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
  |   4004    |Indeterminable,   |Creation of Man    |                    |                    |                     |
  |[4157][36] |but much before   |                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | 7000 B.C.        |                   |7-6000.[37] Temple  |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | of Bel at Nippur   |                    |4777. Menes, the     |
  |           |                  |                   | founded.           |                    | first king of the   |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | First Egyptian      |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | Dynasty             |
  |           |                  |                   |c. 4000.[37] lugal- |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | zaggisi, king of   |                    |3998-3721. Fourth    |
  |           |                  |                   | Uruk (Erech, Gen.  |                    | Dynasty.            |
  |           |                  |                   | x. 10)             |                    |3969-3908. Cheops.   |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | The Great Pyramid   |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | built               |
  |           |                  |                   |3800.[39] Sargon of |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | Agade, who carries |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | his arms as far as |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | the Mediterranean  |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | Sea.               |                    |                     |
  |   2348    |                  |The Deluge         |c. 2800.[41] Ur-bau |                    |                     |
  |[2501][40] |                  |                   | and Dungi, kings of|                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | Uru (Ur, Gen. xi.  |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | 28, 31)            |c. 2300. Ushpia,    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | priest of Ashur,   |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | builder of temple  |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | in the city of     |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Ashur.             |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |c. 2225. Ilu-shuma, |                     |
  | 1996-1821 |c. 2100 (if, as is|Abraham            |c. B.C. 2130-2088.  | first king of      |                     |
  |[2211-2036]| probable, the    |                   | [42] Khammurabi    | Assyria at present |                     |
  |    [40]   | Amraphel of Gen. |                   | unifies Babylonia  | (1909) known.[43]  |                     |
  |           | xiv. 1 is        |                   | and constructs in  |                    |                     |
  |           | Khammurabi.)     |                   | it many great works|                    |2098-1587. Rule of   |
  |           |                  |                   | (see art.          |                    | the Hyksos.         |
  |           |                  |                   | BABYLONIA)         |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    |1587-1328. Eighteenth|
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | Dynasty.            |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    |1503-1449. Thothmes  |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | (Tethmosis) III.    |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | (leads victorious   |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | expeditions into    |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    |   Asia.)            |
  |           |                  |                   | c. 1400.           |                    |1414-1483. Amen-hotep|
  |           |                  |                   |  Burnaburiash. Tel |                    | (Amenophis) III.    |
  |           |                  |                   |  el-Amarna         |                    |1383-1365. Amen-hotep|
  |           |                  |                   |  correspondence    |                    | IV.                 |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    |1328-1202. Nineteenth|
  |           |                  |                   |                    |c. 1300. Shalmaneser| Dynasty.            |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | I. (builder of     |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Calah, Gen. x. 11.)|1300-1234. Ramses II.|
  |   1491    | c. 1230          | The Exodus        |         ..         |          ..        |1234-1214. Merenptab |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | II.                 |
  | 1099-1058 | c. 1025-1010[44] | Saul (2)[45]      |                    |                    |                     |
  | 1058-1017 | c. 1010-970      | David (40)        |                    |                    |                     |
  | 1017-977  | c. 970-933       | Solomon (40)      |                    |                    |952-749 (al. 945-    |
  |           |  /--------------------------------\  |                    |                    | 745). Twenty-second |
  |           | /   _Judah._     |     _Israel._   \ |                    |                    | Dynasty 952-930[46] |
  |    977    |933. Rehoboam (17)|933. Jeroboam I.   |                    |                    | (Breasted 945-924). |
  |    959    |916. Abijah (3)   | (22)              |                    |                    | Sheshonq (Shishak). |
  |    956    |913. Asa (41)     |                   |                    |                    | Shishak invades     |
  |    956    |        ..        |912. Nadab (2)     |                    |                    | Judah in the fifth  |
  |    954    |        ..        |911. Baasha (24)   |                    |                    | year of Rehoboam    |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |                    | (1 Ki. xiv. 25 f.)  |
  |    930    |        ..        |888. Elah (2)      |                    |885-860. Asshur-    |                     |
  |    929    |        ..        |887. Zimri (7 days)|                    | nazir-abal         |                     |
  |    929    |        ..        |887. Omri (12)     |                    |860-825. Shalmaneser|                     |
  |    918    |        ..        |876. Ahab (22)     |                    | II.                |                     |
  |    914    |873. Jehoshaphat  |                   |                    |                    |                     |
              | (25)             |                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |    898    |        ..        |854. Ahaziah (2)   |                    |854. Ahab mentioned |                     |
  |    896    |        ..        |853. Jehoram (12)  |                    | at the battle of   |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Karkar             |                     |
  |    892    |849. Jehoram (8)  |                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |    885    |842. Ahaziah (1)  |                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |    884    |842. Athalia (6)  |842. Jehu (28)     |                    |842. Jehu pays      |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | tribute to         |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Shalmaneser II.    |                     |
  |    878    |836. Jehoash (40) |                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |    856    |        ..        |814. Jehoahaz (17) |                    |                    |                     |
  |    841    |        ..        |798. Jehoash (16)  |                    |825-812. Shamshi-   |                     |
  |           |                  |      ..           |                    |  Adad (Hadad)      |                     |
  |    839    |797. Amaziah (29) |      ..           |                    |812-783. Adad-      |                     |
  |    823    |        ..        |783. Jeroboam II.  |                    |  Nirari IV.        |                     |
  |           |                  | (41)              |                    |                    |                     |
  |    810    |779. Uzziah(52)   |      ..           |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |c. 750. Jotham    |                   |                    |                    |                     |                 | |
  |           | (16) as regent   |                   |747-733. Nabonassar |745-727. Tiglath-   |                     |
  |           | (2 Ki. xv. 5)    |                   |                    | Pileser IV.        |                     |
  |    773    |                  |743. Zecharia (6   |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                  | mo.)              |                    |                    |                     |
  |    772    |        ..        |743. Shallum       |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |     (1 mo.)       |                    |                    |                     |
  |    772    |        ..        |743. Menahem (10)  |                    |                    |                     |
  |    758    |740. Jotham, sole |                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | ruler            |                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |    761    |        ..        |738. Pekabiah(2)   |         ..         |738.Menahem pays    |                     |
  |    759    |        ..        |737. Pekah(20)     |                    | tribute to Tiglath-|                     |
  |    742    |736.[47] Ahaz (16)|                   |                    | pileser IV. (cf. 2 |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Ki. xv. 19)        |                     |
  |    730    |                  |733. (or 732)      |                    |733 (or 732). Assas-|                     |
  |           |                  | Hoshea (9)        |                    | sination of Pekah, |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | and succession of  |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Hoshea mentioned by|                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Tiglath-pileser    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | III.               |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    |732.Capture of      |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Damascus by        |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | Tiglath-pileser IV.|                     |
  |           |                  |                   |                    | (2 Ki. xvi. 9; cf. |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |729-724. Tiglath-   | Is. viii. 4, xvii. |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | pileser, under     | 1)                 |                     |
  |    726    |728. Hezeiah (29) |                   | the name of  Pulu  |727-722. Shalmaneser|                     |
  |           |  [47]            |                   | (cf. 2 Ki. xv. 19),| IV.                |                     |
  |           |                  |                   | king of Babylon.   |                    |                     |
  |           |                  |                   |         ..         |722-705. Sargon     |                     |
  |    721    |                  |722. Fall of       |                    |722. Capture of     |                     |
  |           |                  | Samaria and end of|                    | Samaria in Sargon's|                     |
  |           |                  | northern kingdom. |721-710. The        | accession-year     |                     |
  |           |                                      | Chaldaean prince,  |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Merodach-baladan,  |                    |                     |                     |
  |           |                                      | king of Babylon    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12|                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | = Is. xxxix. 1)    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |715-663. Twenty-fifth|
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | (Ethiopian) Dynasty |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |715.[48] Sabako      |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | (Shabaka)           |
  |           |                                      |                    |711. Siege and      |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | capture of Ashdod. |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | (cf. Is. xx. 1)    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |705-681. Sennacherib|                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | 707.[48] Shabataka  |
  |           |                                      |                    |701. Campaign       |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |against Phoenicia,  |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | Philistia and Judah|                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | (2 Kings xviii. 13-|                     |
  |    698    |698. Manasseh (55)                    |                    |                    |693.[48] Taharqa     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | (Tirhakah, Is.      |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | xxxvii. 9)          |
  |           |                                      |681-668. Esarhaddon |                    |                     |
  |           |           Biblical Events.           |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |  /--------------------------------\  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | /                                  \ |                    |670. Esarhaddon     |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |  conquers Egypt    |664-525. Twenty-sixth|
  |           |                                      |                    |668-626 Asshur-     | Dynasty.            |
  |           |                                      |                    | banipal (Assur-    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | bani-pal           |664. Psammetichus I. |
  |           |                                      |                    | (Assur-bani-pal)   |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |663. Asshur-banipal |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | invades Egypt, and |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | sacks Thebes       |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | (Nah. iii. 8-10)   |                     |
  |    643    |641. Amon (2)                         |                    |                    |                     |
  |    641    |639. Josiah (31)                      |                    |                    |                     |
  |    629    |626. Call of the prophet Jeremiah in  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Josiah's 13th year. (Jer. i. 2, xxv. |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |  3)                                  |  Chaldaean Dynasty |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |625. Nabopolassar   |                    |                     |
  |    624    |621. Discovery of the Book of the Law |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | (Deuteronomy) in Josiah's 18th year  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | (2 Kings xxiii. 3 ff.)               |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |610. Necho           |
  |    610    |608. Jehoahaz (3 mo.)                 |         ..         |         ..         |608. Battle of       |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | Megiddo, and death  |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | of Josiah. (2 Kings |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | xxiii. 29)          |
  |    610    |608. Jehoiakim (11)                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |607. Destruction of |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | Nineveh by the     |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | Medes, and end of  |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | the empire of      |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    | Assyria.           |                     |
  |           |                                      |605. Defeat of      |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Egyptians by Nebuc-|                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | hadrezzar (as his  |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | father's general)  |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | at Carchemish (Jer.|                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | xlvi. 2)           |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |604. Nebuchadrezzar |                    |                     |
  |    599    |597. Jehoiachin (3 mo.) First         |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | deportation of captives (including   |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Jehoiachin) to Babylonia, in the 8th |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv.|                    |                    |                     |
  |           | 12-16)                               |                    |                    |                     |
  |    599    |597. Zedekiah (11)                    |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |594. Psammetichus II.|
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | (Psammis)           |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |589. Apries (Hophra, |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | Jer.  xliv. 30)     |
  |    588    |586. Destruction of Jerusalem by the  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Chaldaeans in the 19th year of 19th  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | 8). Second deportation of captives to|                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Babylonia (2 Kings xxv. 4-21)        |568. Nebuchadrezzar |                    |570. Amasis II.      |
  |           |                                      | invades Egypt (cf. |                    |(jointly with Apries)|
  |           |                                      | Jer. xliii. 8-13)  |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |564. Amasis alone    |
  |    562    |561. Jehoiachin released from prison  |561. Amel-marduk    |                    |                     |
  |           | by Evil-merodach in the 37th year of | (Evil-merodach, 2  |                    |                     |
  |           | his captivity (2 Kings xxv. 27-30)   | Ki. xxv. 27)       |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |559. Nergal-sharuzur|                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | (Neriglissar)      |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |555. (9 months)     |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Labashi-marduk     |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | (Laboriso-archod)  |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |555. Nabu-na'id     |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |  (Nabon-nedus,     |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |  Nabonidus)        |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |539. Capture of     |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |  Babylon by Cyrus. |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |Judah a province of the Persian Empire|   Persian Kings.   |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |                     |
  |    536    |538. Edict of Cyrus, permitting the   |538. Cyrus          |                    |                     |
  |           | Jews to return to Palestine. Many    |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | return under the leadership of       |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Zerubbabel (Ezra i.-ii.)             |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |529. Cambyses       |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |526. Psammetichus    |                     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | III.                |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    |525. Conquest of     |
  |           |                                      |                    |                    | Egypt by Cambyses.  |
  |           |                                      |522. (7 mo.) Gaumata|                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | (Pseudo-Smerdis)   |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |522. Darius         |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Hystaspis          |                    |                     |
  |    515    |516. Completion of the second Temple  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | in the 6th year of Darius (Ezra vi.  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | 15)                                  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |490. Battle of      |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Marathon           |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |485. Xerxes         |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |480. Battles of     |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Thermopylae and    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Salamis            |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |465. Artaxerxes.    |                    |                     |
  |    457    |458. Return of exiles with Ezra, in   |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii.|                    |                    |                     |
  |           | 7)                                   |                    |                    |                     |
  |    445    |445. Nehemiah's first visit to        |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Jerusalem (Neh. i. 1, ii. 1)         |                    |                    |                     |
  |    434    |432. Nehemiah's second visit to       |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 6)             |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |423. Darius II.     |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |  (Nothus)          |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |404. Artaxerxes II. |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |  (Mnemon)          |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |359. Artaxerxes III.|                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |  (Ochus)           |                    |                     |
  |           |c. 350. Many Jews carried away captive|                    |                    |                     |
  |           | to Hyrcania and Babylonia, probably  |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | on account of a revolt against the   |                    |                    |                     |
  |           | Persians                             |                    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |338. Arses          |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |336. Darius III.    |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | (Codomannus)       |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      |333. Persian Empire |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | overthrown by      |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Alexander the      |                    |                     |
  |           |                                      | Great              |                    |                     |
  +-----------+--------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------------+---------------------+


  _Palestine now becomes a province, first of the empire of Alexander,
  and afterwards of that of one or other of Alexander's successors._

  332. The Jews submit to Alexander the Great.

  323. Death of Alexander in Babylon.

  322. Alexander's general, Ptolemy Lagi, becomes Satrap of Egypt.

  320. Ptolemy Lagi gains possession of Palestine, which, with short
    interruptions, continues in the hands of the Ptolemies till 198.

  312. Beginning of the era of the Seleucidae (reckoned from the time
    when Seleucus Nicator, Alexander's former heavy cavalry officer,
    finally established himself in the satrapy of Babylonia. He founded
    Antioch as his capital, 300 B.C.).

  305. Ptolemy Lagi assumes the title of king.

  198. Antiochus the Great, king of Syria (223-187), defeats Ptolemy
    Epiphanes at Panias (Baniyas, near the sources of the Jordan), and
    obtains possession of Palestine.

  175-164. Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (Dan. xi. 21-45).

  168. Antiochus's attempt to suppress the religion of the Jews (1
    Macc. i. 41-63; cf. Dan. vii. 8, 21, 24-26, viii. 9-14, xii. 10-12).
    Public worship suspended in the Temple for three years. 167. Rise of
    the Maccabees (1 Macc. ii.).

  166-165. Victories of Judas Maccabaeus over the generals of Antiochus
    (1 Macc. iii.-iv.).

  165. Re-dedication of the Temple on 25th Chisleu (December), 1 Macc.
    iv. 52-61.

  160. Death of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. ix. 1-22).

  160-142. Jonathan, younger brother of Judas, leader of the loyal Jews
    (1 Macc. ix. 23-xii. 53).

  142-135. Simon, elder brother of Judas (1 Macc, xiii.-xvi.).

  135-105. John Hyrcanus, son of Simon.

  105-104. Aristobulus I. (son of Hyrcanus), king.

  104-78. Alexander Jannaeus (brother of Aristobulus), king.

  78-69. Salome (Alexandra), widow of Alexander Jannaeus.

  69. Aristobulus II. (son of Alexandra).

  65. Capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. Palestine becomes a part of the
    Roman province of Syria.

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

                                       Dates according   Dates according
                                         to Ussher's       to Assyrian
                                         Chronology.       Inscription.
                                             B.C.              B.C.

  Reign of Ahab                            918-897
    Ahab mentioned at the battle of
    Karkar                                                     854

  Reign of Jehu                            884-856
    Jehu pays tribute to Shalmancser II.                       842

  Reign of Menahem                         772-761
    Menahem mentioned by Tiglath-pileser
    IV.                                      ..                738

  Reign of Pekah                           759-739

  Reign of Hoshea                          730-721
    Assassination of Pekah and succession
      of Hoshea, mentioned by Tiglath-
      pileser IV.                            ..         733 (or 732)[51]
    Capture of Samaria by Sargon in
      Hezekiah's Hezekiah's sixth year
      (2 Kings xviii. 10)                  721                722

  Invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in
    Hezekiah's fourteenth year (_ibid._
    ver. 13)                               713                701

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

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

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

  See, for further information on the subject, the article CHRONOLOGY,
  and the same heading in the _Encyclopedia Biblica_, cols. 773-799,
  with the literature referred to on col. 819 (especially the writings
  of Nöldeke, Wellhausen, and Kamphausen there mentioned).     (S. R. D.)


(B) NEW TESTAMENT.

1. _Canon._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The development of doctrine in St Paul's epistles is due in part to the
gradual subsiding of the eschatological temper, but even more to the
growth of controversy. A crisis had arisen in Galatia owing to the
invasion of the churches, which St Paul had founded there, by
reactionary Jews. This called forth a letter[53] from St Paul, who felt
himself compelled to grapple at close quarters with teaching which he
saw cut at the very root of his own. He was thus led both to clear up
for himself and to state for the sake of others his whole conception of
soteriology--his answer to the question how was man to be set right
before God. That was a large part, and at the moment the most crucial
part, of the whole problem of religion.

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

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

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

  The above sketch of the growth and general character of the Pauline
  Epistles is based upon the hypothesis that all thirteen are genuine.
  But some discrimination should be made in detail. The scepticism which
  challenges the whole collection may be set aside as radically perverse
  and unreasonable. Apart from this, the keen criticism of modern times
  has fastened especially upon two groups:--2 Thessalonians; Colossians
  with Philemon, Ephesians and the Pastorals. The present writer would
  accept without any real hesitation the first of these classes; and the
  second he would also himself accept, though in regard to this class he
  would think it right to speak with rather more reserve. This may be
  said to be the position generally taken up by the leading English
  scholars; it differs slightly in a conservative direction, but not
  widely, from that of Harnack, a little more from that of Jülicher, and
  again a little more from that of von Soden.

  2 Thessalonians is still questioned by scholars of some note; but when
  Jülicher can say that no question could be raised if it were not for
  the existence of 1 Thessalonians (assumed to be genuine), this is
  practically giving up the whole case, because the objections drawn
  from 1 Thessalonians are, at least to the present writer, only an
  example of faulty criticism. Still less is there any valid argument
  against Philemon. It is a mark of the improved methods now current in
  Germany that, whereas in 1886 this epistle was rejected by a scholar
  as able and sober as Weizsäcker, Jülicher now pronounces it "among the
  most assured possessions of the apostle" (_Einl._ 5th ed., p. 112).

  But there is an arguable case of some real weight against Colossians,
  Ephesians, Pastorals--least against Colossians and perhaps most
  against the Pastorals. Colossians is strongly vouched for by its
  connexion with Philemon. And the objections to Ephesians are
  considerably reduced when it is taken as a circular letter. But it
  should be admitted that, especially in regard to Ephesians and
  Pastorals, there is a perceptible difference, (a) in style, and (b) in
  characteristic subject matter, from the standard epistles. If these
  later epistles are really the work of St Paul, the difference must be
  accounted for (a) by a somewhat unusual range of variation in style
  and thought on his part, and (b) by different environment and
  different purpose. The question is whether these explanations are
  adequate. The writer of this is inclined to think that they are. St
  Paul was in any case an unusual writer, by no means facile or with
  ready command of expression; still, he could by an effort express what
  he wanted, and new situations called up new words and new minor ideas.
  He was also a writer in whom the physical wear and tear must have been
  enormous. It might well be believed that the change in the so-called
  Epistles of the Imprisonment from the earlier epistles was due in part
  to the physical effects of prolonged confinement, as compared with the
  free, varied and open life and exciting controversies of earlier
  years. There is also the uncertain element that may possibly be due to
  the use of different amanuenses. An argument in favour of the
  genuineness of the epistles may be derived from the fact that each of
  the doubtful epistles is connected with others that are not doubtful
  by subtle links both of style and thought. If the reasons suggested
  above are not adequate, then we must set down the questioned epistles
  to some disciple of St Paul, who has carried the ideas and principles
  of his master a step farther or has applied them to a different set of
  problems and conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The situation as to the Fourth Gospel has been altered in recent years
  by the statement attributed to Papias that the two sons of Zebedee
  (and not only one) were slain by the Jews--a statement which becomes
  more difficult to put aside as the evidence for it increases (full
  details in Burkitt, _Gosp. Hist_. pp. 252-255; E. Schwartz, _Über d.
  Tod d. Söhne Zebedaci_, Berlin, 1904). But this statement does not
  affect the historical character of John of Ephesus, who is also
  expressly described by Papias as "a disciple of the Lord" (Eus. _H.E_.
  iii. 39. 4). On the other hand, the theory that the Gospel is a
  thorough-going allegory must be hard to maintain in view of the
  frequent appeals to "witness" which is several times denned as
  eye-witness (John i. 15, 32, iii. 11, xix. 35, xxi. 24; 1 John i. 1-3;
  cf. John v. 36, x. 25). This is borne out by Ignatius with his strong
  emphasis on the reality of the Gospel history (_Eph_. xx. 2; _Trall_,
  x.; _Smyrn_. i. 1, 2, ii., iii. 1-3, v. 2). If the writer of the
  Gospel were simply inventing his facts, they would be no proof of his
  thesis (John xx. 31). It is a paradox that he should be invoked "to
  prove the reality of Jesus Christ" (as against Docetism), and yet that
  it should be contended at the same time that for him "ideas, and not
  events, were the true realities."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Harnack raises an interesting question (_Reden u. Aufsätze_. ii. 239
  ff.), how it came about that Four Gospels were recognized, and not
  only one. There are many indications early in the 2nd century of a
  tendency towards the recognition of a single Gospel; for instance,
  there are the local Gospels according to Hebrews, according to
  Egyptians; Marcion had but one Gospel, St Luke, the Valentinians
  preferred St John and so on; Tatian reduced the Four Gospels to one by
  means of a Harmony, and it is possible that something of the kind may
  have existed before he did this. There is probably some truth in the
  view that the Church clung to its Four Gospels as a weapon against
  Gnosticism; it could not afford to reduce the number of its documents.
  But, over and above this, there was probably something in the
  circumstances in which the canonical Gospels were composed, and in
  their early history, which gave them a special prestige in the eyes of
  the faithful. The story which Eusebius quotes from Clement of
  Alexandria (_H.E_. vi. 14) seems to point to something of the kind.

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

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

  (a) _Public Reading._--From the first the way in which the Epistles of
  Paul were brought to the knowledge of the churches to which they were
  addressed was by reading in the public assemblies for worship. This
  was done by the direction of the apostle himself (1 Thess. v. 27; Col.
  iv. 16). At first any writing that was felt to be useful for
  edification was read in this way, especially if it had local
  associations (cf. Dionysius of Corinth, _ap._ Eus. _H.E._ iv. 23. 11).
  But, as worship became more thoroughly organized, it was invested with
  increasing solemnity; the freedom of choice was gradually restricted;
  and inasmuch as lections were regularly taken from the Old Testament,
  it was only natural that other lections read alongside of them should
  gradually be placed upon the same footing.

  (b) _Authority of Christ and the Apostles._--As the words of prophets
  and lawgivers had from the first carried their own authority with them
  under the Old Covenant, so from the first the words of Christ needed
  no commendation from without under the New. And what applied to words
  of Christ soon came also to apply in their degree to words of the
  apostles. The only difference was that an authority at first
  instinctively assumed came to be consciously recognized and formally
  defined. There was also a natural tendency towards levelling up the
  different parts of books and groups of books. In other words, the
  somewhat vague sense of spiritual power and impressiveness hardened
  into the conception of sacred books united in a sacred volume.

  (c) _Controversy._--The process was accelerated by the demand for a
  standard or rule of faith and practice. At an early date in the 2nd
  century this demand was met by the composition of the oldest form of
  what we call the Apostles' Creed. But the Creed was but the condensed
  essence of the New Testament scriptures, and behind it there lay an
  appeal to these scriptures, which was especially necessary where (as
  in the case of the Valentinian Gnostics) the dissident bodies
  professed to accept the common belief of Christians. In its conflict
  with Gnostics, Marcionites and Montanists the Church was led to insist
  more and more upon its Bible, its own Bible, just as in its older
  controversy with the Jews it had to insist on the Bible which it
  inherited from them. This was a yet further cause of the equating of
  the two parts of the sacred volume, which went on with an
  imperceptible _crescendo_ through the first three quarters of the 2nd
  century, and by the last quarter was fairly complete.

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

  There are many interesting points about this list, which still shows
  considerable freshness of judgment, (i.) There are traces of earlier
  discussions about the Gospels, both in disparagement of the Synoptics
  as compared with St John, and in criticism of the latter as differing
  from the former, (ii.) There is a healthy tendency to lay stress on
  the historical value of narratives which proceed from eye-witnesses,
  (iii.) An over-ruling and uniting influence is ascribed to the Holy
  Spirit, (iv.) The writer is concerned to point out that letters
  addressed to a single church and even to an individual may yet have a
  wider use for the Church as a whole, (v.) The sense is not yet lost
  that the appeal of the Old Testament is as coming from men of
  prophetic gifts, and that of the New Testament as coming from
  apostles, (vi.) It is in accordance with this that a time limit is
  placed upon the books included in the New Testament, (vii.) Christians
  are to be on their guard against writings put forth in the interest of
  heretical sects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The separate articles on the various books of the New
  Testament may be consulted for detailed bibliographies. The object of
  the above sketch has been to embrace in constructive outline the
  ground usually covered analytically and on a far larger scale by
  Introductions to the New Testament, and by Histories of the New
  Testament Canon. In English there is a standard work of the latter
  class in Westcott's _General Survey of the History of the Canon of the
  New Testament_ (first published in 1855, important revision and
  additions in 4th ed. 1874, 7th ed. 1896), with valuable appendix of
  documents at the end. There was also a useful collection of texts by
  Prof. Charteris of Edinburgh, _Canonicity_ (1880), based on
  Kirchhofer, _Quellensammlung_ (1844), but with improvements. The
  leading documents are to be had in the handy and reliable _Kleine
  Texte_ (ed. Lietzmann, from 1902). On Introduction the ablest older
  English work was Salmon, _Historical Introduction to the Study of
  N.T._ (1st ed. 1885, 5th ed. 1891); but, although still possessing
  value as argument, this has been more distinctly left behind by the
  progress of recent years. England has made many weighty contributions
  both to Introduction and Canon, especially Lightfoot, _Essays on
  Supernatural Religion_ (collected in 1889); editions of Books of the
  New Testament and Apostolic Fathers; Westcott, editions; Hort,
  especially _Romans and Ephesians_ (posthumous, 1895); Swete, editions;
  Knowling and others. The Oxford Society of Historical Theology put out
  a useful _New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers_ in 1905, and Prof.
  Stanton of Cambridge, _The Gospels as Historical Documents_ (part i.
  in 1903). Prof. Burkitt's _Gospel History and its Transmission_
  appeared in 1906. For introductory matter the student will do well to
  consult the _Dictionary of the Bible_ (ed. Hastings, 5 vols.,
  1898-1904) and _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ (ed. Cheyne and Black, 4 vols.,
  1899-1903). Dr Hastings and his contributors belong more to the right
  wing of criticism, and Dr Cheyne and his to the left. The systematic
  Introduction is a characteristic production of Germany and has done
  excellent service in its day, though there are signs that the analytic
  method hitherto mainly practised is beginning to give place to
  something more synthetic or constructive. The pioneer work in this
  latter direction is Weizsäcker's skilful and artistic _Apostolisches
  Zeitalter_ (1st ed. 1886, 3rd ed. 1901; Eng. trans. 1894-1895);
  somewhat similar on a smaller scale is von Soden, _History of Early
  Christian Literature_ (trans., 1906). Special mention should be made
  of Wellhausen on the Synoptic Gospels (1903-1905), and Harnack,
  _Beiträge z. Einleitung in d. N.T._ (part i. 1906, part ii. 1907). The
  most important recent works on Introduction and Canon have been those
  of H.J. Holtzmann (1st ed. 1885, 3rd ed. 1902), B. Weiss (1st ed.
  1886, 3rd ed. 1897); a series of works by Th. Zahn, almost colossal in
  scale and exhaustive in detail, embracing _Gesch. d. neut. Kanöns_ (2
  vols., 1888-1892, third to follow), _Forschungen z. Gesch. d. neut.
  Kan._ (7 parts, 1881-1907), _Einleitung_ (2 vols., 1897-1899),
  _Grundriss d. Gesch. d. neut. Kan._ (1st ed. 1901, 2nd ed. 1904); A.
  Jülicher, _Einleitung_ (1st and 2nd ed. 1894, 5th and 6th ed. 1906;
  Eng. trans. by Miss Janet Ward, 1904). Zahn and Jülicher may be said
  to supplement and correct each other, as they write from very
  different points of view, and on Jülicher's side there is no lack of
  criticism of his great opponent. Zahn's series is monumental in its
  way, and his _Grundriss_ is very handy and full of closely packed and
  (in statements of facts) trustworthy matter. Jülicher's work is also
  highly practical, very complete and well proportioned in scale, and up
  to a certain point its matter is also excellent. The _History of the
  Canon_, by the Egyptologist Joh. Leipoldt (Leipzig, 1907), may also be
  warmly recommended; it is clear and methodical, and does not make the
  common mistake of assigning too much to secondary causes; the author
  does not forget that he is dealing with a sacred book, and that he has
  to show why it was held sacred.     (W. Sa.)


2. _Texts and Versions_.

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

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

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

[Illustration: PLATE I.

  FIG. 1.--_Codex Vaticanus (From facsimile ed. by J. Cozza-Luzi_,
  1889-1890.)

  FIG. 2.--_Codex Sinaiticus (From facsimile published by Palaeographical
  Soc._ 1873.)

  FIG. 3.--_Codex Alexandrinus._ (_British Museum._)

  FIG. 4.--From a probable Northumbrian Copy of the _Codex Amiatinus._
  (_British Museum._)

  FIG. 5.--_Pentateuch_ in Hebrew, 9th Century. (_British Museum._)

  FIG. 6.--Vulgate. (_From MS written for the monastery of Ste Marie de
  Parco, Louvain_, A.D. 1148. _British Museum._)]

[Illustration: Plate II.

  FIG. 7.--13th Century Latin Bible. (_From copy belonging to Robert de
  Bello, abbot of St Augustine's, Canterbury. British Museum._)

  FIG. 8.--Early Wycliffite Version. (_From copy belonging to Thomas of
  Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, written towards the end of 14th
  century. British Museum._)

  FIG. 9.--The 42-Line Bible. (_Printed at Mainz, 1452-6. British
  Museum._)

  FIG. 10.--Tyndale's Quarto Edition of New Testament. (_Printed by P.
  Quentel, Cologne, 1525, from the only remaining fragment, in British
  Museum._)

  FIG. 11.--First printed English Bible, 1535. (_British Museum._)

  FIG. 12.--First Edition of the Authorized Version, 1611. (_British
  Museum._)]


  +------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+-----+------+
  |     Century      | IV.| V. | VI.|VII.|VIII.| IX.| X. | XI.|XII.|XIII.|XIV.| XV.|XVIf.|Total.|
  +------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+-----+------+
  | New Testaments   |  2 |  2 |  1 | .. |   1 |  2 |  2 | 16 | 24 |  44 | 47 | 19 |  7  |  167 |
  | Gospels          |  3 | 10 | 26 | 10 |  19 | 26 | 82 |188 |282 | 260 |218 |107 | 46  | 1277 |
  | Act and Epistles |  1 |  1 | .. |  1 |   1 |  4 | 19 | 55 | 49 |  52 | 56 | 31 |  8  |  278 |
  | Acts and         |    |    |    |    |     |    |    |    |    |     |    |    |     |      |
  |   Catholic Epp.  | .. | .. |  1 |  4 |  .. | .. | .. | .. |  2 |  .. |  3 |  2 |  5  |   25 |
  | Pauline Epp.     | .. |  4 |  7 |  1 |  .. |  5 |  4 | .. |  1 |  .. |  4 |  3 |  3  |   32 |
  | Apocalypse       | .. | .. | .. | .. |  .. | .. |  1 |  2 |  3 |   5 |  5 | 21 |  6  |   43 |
  +------------------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+-----+------+

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

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

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

  [The full details of this subject can be found in E. Miller's edition
  of Scrivener's _Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_
  (George Bell, 1894); C.R. Gregory's _Prolegomena_ to Tischendorf's
  _Novum Testamentum Graece, Ed. VIII. critica major_ (Leipzig, 1894);
  C.R. Gregory's _Textkritik_ (Leipzig, 1900); H. von Soden's _Die
  Schriften des neuen Testaments_ (Berlin, Band i., 1902-1907); F.G.
  Kenyon's _Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_
  (London, 1901), especially valuable for a clear account of the Papyri
  fragments.]

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


    Codex Vaticanus.

  UNCIALS.--_Codex Vaticanus_ (Vat. Gr, 1209), Greg. B, v. Soden
  [delta]1; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It is written in three
  columns and has forty-two lines to the column. It originally contained
  the whole Bible, but in the New Testament Heb. ix. 14, xiii. 25, 1 and
  2 Tim., Tit., Philemon, Apoc., are now missing. It was written by
  three scribes of whom the writer of the New Testament was identified
  by Tischendorf as the scribe D of [Hebrew: alef] (_cod. Sinaiticus_).
  The text has been corrected by two scribes, one (the [Greek:
  diorthotaes]) contemporary with the original writer, the other
  belonging to the 10th or 11th century. The latter probably also
  re-inked the whole of the MS. and introduced a few changes in the
  text, though some critics think that this was done by a monk of the
  15th century who supplied the text of the lacuna in Heb. and of the
  Apocalypse from a MS. belonging to Bessarion. The text is the best
  example of the so-called Neutral Text, except in the Pauline epistles,
  where it has a strong "Western" element. How this MS. came to be in
  the Vatican is not known. It first appears in the catalogue of 1481
  (Bibl. Vat. MS. Lat. 3952 f. 50), and is not in the catalogue of 1475,
  as is often erroneously stated on the authority of Vercellone. It was,
  therefore, probably acquired between the years 1475 and 1481. The
  problem of its earlier history is so entangled with the similar
  questions raised by [chi] that the two cannot well be discussed
  separately. [Phototypic editions have been issued in Rome in 1889-1890
  and in 1905.]


    Sinaiticus.

  _Codex Sinaiticus_ (St Petersburg, Imperial library), Greg. [Hebrew:
  alef], von Soden [delta]2; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It was
  found in 1844 by C. Tischendorf (q.v.) in the monastery of St
  Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and finally acquired by the tsar in 1869. It
  is written on thin vellum in four columns of forty-eight lines each to
  a page. It contained originally the whole Bible, and the New Testament
  is still complete. At the end it also contains the Ep. of Barnabas and
  the _Shepherd_ of Ilermas, unfortunately incomplete, and there was
  probably originally some other document between these two. The text
  was written, according to Tischendorf, by four scribes, of whom he
  identified one as also the scribe of _cod. Vaticanus_. It was
  corrected many times, especially in the 6th century, by a scribe known
  as [Hebrew: alef]^a and in the 7th by [Hebrew: alef]^c. It has, in the
  main, a Neutral text, less mixed in the Epistles than that of B, but
  not so pure in the Gospels. The corrections of [Hebrew: alef]^c are
  important, as they are based (according to a note by that scribe, at
  the end of Esther) on an early copy which had been corrected by
  Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen, friend of Eusebius and founder of a
  library at Caesarea.

  [The text of [Hebrew: alef] was published in Tischendorf's _Bibliorum
  codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus_ (vol. iv.,1862), and separately in
  his _Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum_ (1863); in 1909 it was published in
  collotype by the Clarendon Press, Oxford. The relations of [Hebrew:
  alef]^c to Pamphilus are studied by Bousset in "Textkritische Studien
  zum N.T." (in _Texte u. Untersuchungen_, xi. 4).]

  If Tischendorf was right in identifying the scribe of B with that of
  part of [Hebrew: alef], it is obvious that these MSS. probably come
  from the same place. He was probably wrong, but there are some
  indications of relationship to justify the same view. The two most
  probable places seem to be Caesarea and Alexandria. The case for
  Caesarea is that the colophon written by [Hebrew: alef]^c at the end
  of Esther, and also of Ezra, shows that [Hebrew: alef] was then in the
  library of Caesarea, and that a chapter division in Acts found both in
  [Hebrew: alef] and B can also be traced to the same library. This is a
  fairly strong case, but it falls short of demonstration because it
  cannot be shown that the MS. corrected by Pamphilus was still at
  Caesarea when it was used by [Hebrew: alef], and because it is not
  certain either that the chapter divisions in Acts were added by the
  original scribes, or that [Hebrew: alef] and B were at that time in
  their original home, or that the chapter divisions were necessarily
  only to be found at Caesarea. The case for Alexandria depends partly
  on the orthography of B, which resembles Graeco-Coptic papyri, partly
  on the order of the Pauline epistles. At present, both in [Hebrew:
  alef] and B, Hebrews is placed after 2 Thess., but in B there is also
  a continuous numeration of sections throughout the epistles, according
  to which 1 to 58 cover Romans to Galatians, but Ephesians, the next
  epistle, begins with 70 instead of 59, and the omitted section numbers
  are found in Hebrews. Obviously, the archetype placed Hebrews between
  Galatians and Ephesians, but the scribe altered the order and put it
  between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., though without changing the section
  numbers. This older order of the epistles is only found elsewhere in
  the Sahidic version of the New Testament, and it was probably
  therefore the old Egyptian or Alexandrian order. Moreover, we know
  from the Festal letter of A.D. 367 (according to the Greek and Syriac
  texts, but not the Sahidic), that Athanasius then introduced the order
  of the epistles which is now given in [Hebrew: alef] B. This is strong
  evidence for the view that the archetype of B came from Alexandria or
  the neighbourhood, and was older than the time of Athanasius, but it
  scarcely proves that B itself is Alexandrian, for the order of
  epistles which it gives is also that adopted by the council of
  Laodicea in A.D. 363, and may have been introduced elsewhere, perhaps
  in Caesarea. A further argument, sometimes based upon and sometimes in
  turn used to support the foregoing, is that the text of [Hebrew: alef]
  B represents that of Hesychius; but this is extremely doubtful (see
  the section _Textual Criticism_ below).

  [The question of the provenance of [Hebrew: alef] and B may best be
  studied in J. Rendel Harris, _Stichometry_ (Cambridge, 1893), pp.
  71-89; J. Armitage Robinson, "Euthaliana," _Texts and Studies_, iii. 3
  (Cambridge, 1895), esp. pp. 34-43 (these more especially for the
  connexion with Caesarea); A. Rahfls, "Alter und Heimat der
  vatikanischer Bibelhandschrift," in the _Nachrichten der Gesell. der
  Wiss. zu Göttingen_ (1899), vol. i. pp. 72-79; and O. von Gebhardt in
  a review of the last named in the _Theologische Literaturzeitung_
  (1899), col. 556.]


    Bezae.

  _Codex Bezae_ (Cambridge Univ. Nu. 2, 41), Greg. D, von Soden [delta]
  5; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. not later than the 6th century and
  probably considerably earlier. The text is written in one column to a
  page, the Greek on the left hand page and the Latin on the right. It
  was given to the university of Cambridge in 1581, but its early
  history is doubtful. Beza stated that it came from Lyons and had been
  always preserved in the monastery of St Irenaeus there. There is no
  reason to question Beza's _bona fides_, or that the MS. was obtained
  by him after the sack of Lyons in 1562 by des Adrets, but there is
  room for doubt as to the accuracy of his belief that it had been for a
  long time in the same monastery. His information on this point would
  necessarily be derived from Protestant sources, which would not be of
  the highest value, and there are two pieces of evidence which show
  that just previously the MS. was in Italy. In the first place it is
  certainly identical with the MS. called [eta] which is quoted in the
  margin of the 1550 edition of Robert Stephanus' Greek Testament; this
  MS. according to Stephanus' preface was collated for him by friends in
  Italy. In the second place it was probably used at the council of
  Trent in 1546 by Gul. a Prato, bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, and in
  the last edition of the _Annotationes_ Beza quotes his MS. as
  _Claromontanus_, and not as _Lugdunensis_. These points suggest that
  the MS. had only been a short time at Lyons when Beza obtained it. The
  still earlier history of the MS. is equally doubtful. H. Quentin has
  produced some interesting but not convincing evidence to show that the
  MS. was used in Lyons in the 12th century, and Rendel Harris at one
  time thought that there were traces of Gallicism in the Latin, but the
  latter's more recent researches go to show that the corrections and
  annotations varying in date between the 7th and 12th centuries point
  to a district which was at first predominantly Greek and afterwards
  became Latin. This would suit South Italy, but not Lyons. The text of
  this MS. is important as the oldest and best witness in a Greek MS. to
  the so-called "Western" text. (See the section _Textual Criticism_
  below.)

  [The following books and articles are important for the history, as
  apart from the text of the MS. _Codex Bezae ... phototypice
  repraesentatus_ (Cambridge, 1899); Scrivener, _Codex Bezae_
  (Cambridge, 1864); J. Rendel Harris, "A Study of _Cod. Bezae_," _Texts
  and Studies_, i. 1 (Cambridge, 1891); J. Rendel Harris, _The
  Annotators of Cod. Bezae_ (London, 1901); F.E. Brightman and K. Lake,
  "The Italian Origin of Codex Bezae," in _Journal of Theol. Studies_,
  April 1900, pp. 441 ff.; F.C. Burkitt, "The Date of _Codex Bezae_," in
  the _Journal of Theol. Studies_, July 1902, pp. 501 ff.; D.H. Quentin,
  "Le Codex Bezae à Lyon, &c.," _Revue Bénédictine_, xxxiii. 1, 1906.]


    Alexandrinus.

  _Codex Alexandrinus_ (G. M. reg. ID v.-viii.), Greg. A. von Soden 84;
  an uncial MS. of the 5th century. It was given by Cyril Lucar,
  patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. in 1621. It appears
  probable that Cyril Lucar had brought it with him from Alexandria, of
  which he had formerly been patriarch. A note by Cyril Lucar states
  that it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt, but this is
  probably merely his interpretation of an Arabic note of the 14th
  century which states that the MS. was written by Thecla, the martyr,
  an obviously absurd legend; another Arabic note by Athanasius
  (probably Athanasius III., patriarch c. 1308) states that it was given
  to the patriarchate of Alexandria, and a Latin note of a later period
  dates the presentation in 1098. So far back as it can be traced it is,
  therefore, an Alexandrian MS., and palaeographical arguments point in
  the same direction. Originally, the MS. contained the whole of the Old
  and New Testaments, including the Psalms of Solomon in the former and
  1 and 2 Clement in the latter. It has, however, suffered mutilation in
  a few places. Its text in the Old Testament is thought by some
  scholars to show signs of representing the Hesychian recension, but
  this view seems latterly to have lost favour with students of the
  Septuagint. If it be true, it falls in with the palaeographic
  indications and suggests an Alexandrian provenance. In the New
  Testament it has in the gospels a late text of Westcott and Hort's
  "Syrian" type, but in the epistles there is a strongly marked
  "Alexandrian" element. [Cod. A was published in photographic facsimile
  in 1879-1880.]


    Ephraemi Syri.

  _Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus_ (Paris Nat. Gr. 9), Greg. C, von
  Soden [delta] 3; an uncial palimpsest (the top writing being that of
  Ephraem) of the 5th century. It was formerly the property of Catherine
  de' Medici, and was probably brought from the east to Italy in the
  16th century. Hort (_Introduction_, p. 268) has shown from a
  consideration of displacements in the text of the Apocalypse that it
  was copied from a very small MS., but this, of course, only holds good
  of the Apocalypse. It is usually said that this MS., like A, came
  originally from Egypt, but this is merely a palaeographical guess, for
  which there is no real evidence. Originally, it contained the whole
  Bible, but only sixty-four leaves of the Old Testament remain, and 145
  (giving about two-thirds of the whole) of the New Testament. The
  character of the text is mixed with a strong "Alexandrian" element.
  [Published in facsimile by Tischendorf (1843). Discussed by Lagarde in
  his _Ges. Abhandlungen_, p. 94.]


    Claromontanus.

  _Codex Claromontanus_ (Paris Nat. Gr. 107), Greg. D^{paul}, von Soden
  [alpha] 1026; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. of the 6th century. This MS.
  also belonged to Beza, who "acquired" it from the monastery of
  Clermont, near Beauvais. After his death it passed through various
  private hands and was finally bought for the French royal library
  before 1656. It contains the whole of the Pauline epistles with a few
  _lacunae_, and has a famous stichometric list of books prefixed in
  another hand to Hebrews. It is probably the best extant witness to the
  type of Greek text which was in use in Italy at an early time. It is
  closely connected with _cod. Sangermanensis_ (a direct copy) at St
  Petersburg, Greg. E^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1027; _cod. Augiensis_
  (Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B xvii. i), Greg. F^{paul}, von Soden [alpha]
  1029; and _cod. Boernerianus_ (Dresden K Bibl.), Greg. G^{paul}, von
  Soden [alpha] 1028. [The text is published in Tischendorf's _Codex
  Claromontanus_ (1852). Its relations to EFG are best discussed in
  Westcott and Hort's _Introduction_, §§ 335-337.]

  There are no other uncials equal in importance to the above. The next
  most valuable are probably _cod. Regius_ of the 8th century at Paris,
  Greg. L, von Soden [epsilon] 56, containing the Gospels; _cod.
  Laudianus_ of the 7th century at Oxford, Greg. E, von Soden [alpha]
  1001, a Latino-Greek MS. containing the Acts; _cod. Coislinianus_ of
  the 6th century in Paris, Turin, Kiev, Moscow and Mt. Atohs, Greg.
  H^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1022, containing fragments of þhe Pauline
  epistles; and _cod. Augiensis_ of the 9th century in Trinity College,
  Cambridge, Greg. F^{paul}, von Soden [alpha] 1029, a Graeco-Latin MS.
  closely related to _cod. Claromontanus_. [Further details as to these
  MSS. with bibliographies can be found in Gregory's _Prolegomena_ to
  Tischendorf's _N.T._ ed. maj. viii.]

  MINUSCULES.--Very few of these are of real importance. The most
  valuable are the following:--

  1. _The Ferrar Group_; a group of eight MSS. known in Gregory's
  notation as 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, or in von Soden's as
  [epsilon] 368, [delta] 505, [epsilon] 1211, [epsilon] 226, [epsilon]
  257, [epsilon] 1033, [epsilon] 218, [epsilon] 219, all which, except
  69, in spite of the dating implied by von Soden's notation were
  probably written in the 12th century in Calabria. They have a most
  peculiar text of a mainly "Western" type, with some special affinities
  to the Old Syriac and perhaps to the Diatessaron. They are known as
  the Ferrar group in memory of the scholar who first published their
  text, and are sometimes quoted as [Phi] (which, however, properly is
  the symbol for _Codex Beratinus_ of the Gospels), and sometimes as
  _fam.¹³_.

  2. _Cod. 1 and its Allies_; a group of four MSS. known in Gregory's
  notation as 1, 118, 131, 209, and in von Soden's as [delta] 50,
  [epsilon] 346, [delta] 467 and [delta] 457. The dating implied by the
  latter notation is wrong, as 1 certainly belongs to the 12th, not to
  the 10th century, and 118 is probably later than 209. It is sometimes
  quoted as _fam.¹. Fam.¹_ and _fam.¹³_ probably have a common archetype
  in Mark which is also represented by codd. 28 ([epsilon] 168), 565
  ([epsilon] 93, quoted by Tischendorf and others as 2^pe) and 700
  ([epsilon] 133, quoted by Scrivener and others as 604). It seems to
  have had many points of agreement with the Old Syriac, but it is
  impossible to identify the locality to which it belonged. Other
  minuscules of importance are cod. 33 ([delta] 48) at Paris, which
  often agrees with [Hebrew: alef] BL and is the best minuscule
  representative of the "Neutral" and "Alexandrian" types of text in the
  gospels; cod. 137 ([alpha] 364) at Milan, a valuable "Western" text of
  the Acts; [alpha] 78 (not in Gregory) in the Laura on Mt. Athos, a MS.
  of the Acts and epistles, with an early (mixed) type of text and
  textual comments and notes from Origen.

  [The text of the Ferrar group was published after Ferrar's death by
  T.K. Abbott, _A Collation of Four Important MSS. of the Gospels_
  (Dublin, 1877). It is best discussed by Rendel Harris's books, _The
  Origin of the Leicester Codex_ (1887), _The Origin of the Ferrar
  Group_ (1893), and _The Ferrar Group_ (1900), all published at
  Cambridge; the text of _fam.¹_ with a discussion of its textual
  relations is given in K. Lake's "Codex 1 and its Allies" (_Texts and
  Studies_, vii. 3, 1902); 565 was edited by J. Belsheim in _Das Evang.
  des Marcus nach d. griech. Cod. Theodorae_, &c. (Christiania, 1885),
  many corrections to which are published in the appendix to H.S.
  Cronin's "Codex Purpureus," _Texts and Studies_, v. 4; 700 was
  published by H.C. Hoskier in his collation of cod. Evan. 604, London,
  1890; [alpha] 78 is edited by E. von der Goltz in _Texte und
  Untersuchungen_, N.F. ii. 4.]

(B) _The Versions._--These are generally divided into ([alpha])
_primary_ and ([beta]) _secondary_; the former being those which
represent translation made at an early period directly from Greek
originals, and the latter being those which were made either from other
versions or from late and unimportant Greek texts.

  ([alpha]) The _primary_ versions are three--Latin, Syriac and
  Egyptian.


    Old Latin.

  _Latin Versions._--1. The Old Latin. According to Jerome's letter to
  Pope Damasus in A.D. 384, there was in the 4th century a great variety
  of text in the Latin version, "_Tot enim exemplaria pene quot
  codices._" This verdict is confirmed by examination of the MSS. which
  have pre-Hieronymian texts. It is customary to quote these by small
  letters of the Latin alphabet, but there is a regrettable absence of
  unanimity in the details of the notation. We can distinguish two main
  types, African and European. The African version is best represented
  in the gospels by _cod. Bobiensis_ (k) of the 5th (some say 6th)
  century at Turin, and _cod. Palatinus_ (e) of the 5th century at
  Vienna, both of which are imperfect, especially k, which, however, is
  far the superior in quality; in the Acts and Catholic epistles by
  _cod. Floriacensis_ (f, h. or reg.) of the 6th century, a palimpsest
  which once belonged to the monks of Fleury, and by the so-called
  _speculum_ (m) or collection of quotations formerly attributed to
  Augustine but probably connected with Spain. This scanty evidence is
  dated and localized as African by the quotations of Cyprian, of
  Augustine (not from the gospels), and of Primasius, bishop of
  Hadrumetum (d. c. 560), from the Apocalypse. It is still a disputed
  point whether Tertullian's quotations may be regarded as evidence for
  a Latin version or as independent translations from the Greek, nor is
  it certain that this version is African in an exclusive sense; it was
  undoubtedly used in Africa and there is no evidence that it was known
  elsewhere originally, but on the other hand there is no proof that it
  was not. The European version is best represented in the gospels by
  _cod. Vercellensis_ (a) of the 5th century and _cod. Veronensis_ (b)
  of the same date (the latter being the better), and by others of less
  importance. It is possible that a later variety of it is found in
  _cod. Monacensis_ (q) of the 7th century, and _cod. Brixianus_ (f) of
  the 6th century, and this used to be called the Italic version, owing
  (as F.C. Burkitt has shown) to a misunderstanding of a remark of
  Augustine about the "Itala" which really refers to the Vulgate. In the
  Acts the European text is found in _cod. Gigas_ (g or gig) of the 13th
  century at Stockholm, in a Perpignan MS. of the 12th century (p),
  published by S. Berger, and probably in _cod. Laudianus_ (e) of the
  7th century at Oxford. In the Catholic epistles it is found in _cod.
  Corbeiensis_ (f or ff) of the 10th century at St Petersburg. In the
  Pauline epistles it is doubtful whether it is extant at all, though
  some have found it in the _cod. Claromontanus_ (d) and its allies. In
  the Apocalypse it is found in _cod. Gigas._

  The main problem in connexion with the history of the African and
  European versions is whether they were originally one or two. As they
  stand at present they are undoubtedly two, and can be distinguished
  both by the readings which they imply in the underlying Greek, and by
  the renderings which they have adopted. But there is also a greater
  degree of similarity between them than can be explained by accidental
  coincidence, and there is thus an _a priori_ case for the theory that
  one of the two is a revision of the other, or that there was an older
  version, now lost, which was the original of both. If one of the two
  is the original it is probably the African, for which there is older
  evidence, and of which the style both in reading and rendering seems
  purer. The chief argument against this is that it seems paradoxical to
  think of Africa rather than Rome as the home of the first Latin
  version; but it must be remembered that Roman Christianity was
  originally Greek, and that the beginnings of a Latin church in Rome
  seem to be surprisingly late.

  [Editions of Old Latin MSS. are to be found in _Old Latin Biblical
  Texts_, i.-iv. (Oxford); in Migne's _Patrologia Latina_, tom. xii.;
  and their history is treated especially in F.C. Burkitt's "Old Latin
  and the Itala" (_Texts and Studies_, iv. 3), as well as in all books
  dealing with Textual Criticism generally; other important books are
  Rönsch's _Itala und Vulgata_ (1875); Corssen's _Der cyprianische Text
  der Acta Apostolorum_ (Berlin, 1892); Wordsworth and Sanday on the
  "Corbey S. James" in _Studia Biblica_, i. (1885); the article on the
  "Old Latin Version," in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_. For the
  textual character and importance of these versions see the section
  _Textual Criticism_ below.]


    Vulgate

  2. The Vulgate or Hieronymian version. To remedy the confusion
  produced by the variations of the Latin text Pope Damasus asked Jerome
  to undertake a revision, and the latter published a new text of the
  New Testament in A.D. 384 and the rest of the Bible probably within
  two years. This version gradually became accepted as the standard
  text, and after a time was called the "Vulgata," the first to use this
  name as a title being, it is said, Roger Bacon. In the Old Testament
  Jerome made a new translation directly from the Hebrew, as the Old
  Latin was based on the LXX., but in the New Testament he revised the
  existing version. He did this fully and carefully in the gospels, but
  somewhat superficially in the epistles. He seems to have taken as the
  basis of his work the European version as it existed in his time,
  perhaps best represented by _cod. Monacensis_ (q) of the 7th century,
  and by the quotations in _Ambrosiaster_, to which _cod. Brixianus_ (f)
  of the 6th century would be added if it were not probable that it is
  merely a Vulgate MS. with intrusive elements. This type of text he
  revised with the help of Greek MSS. of a type which does not seem to
  correspond exactly to any now extant, but to resemble B more closely
  than any others.

  Of Jerome's revision we possess at least 8000 MSS., of which the
  earliest may be divided (in the gospels at all events) into groups
  connected with various countries; the most important are the
  Northumbrian, Irish, Anglo-Irish and Spanish, but the first named
  might also be called the Italian, as it represents the text of good
  MSS. brought from Italy in the 7th century and copied in the great
  schools of Wearmouth and Jarrow. One of the most important, _cod.
  Amiatinus_, was copied in this way in the time of Ceolfrid, Benedict
  Biscop's successor, as a present for Pope Gregory in 716. From these
  MSS. the original Hieronymian text may be reconstructed with
  considerable certainty. The later history of the version is
  complicated, but fairly well known. The text soon began to deteriorate
  by admixture with the Old Latin, as well from the process of
  transcription, and several attempts at a revision were made before the
  invention of printing. Of these the earliest of note were undertaken
  in France in the 9th century by Alcuin in 801, and almost at the same
  time by Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (787-821). In the 11th century a
  similar task was undertaken by Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury
  (1069-1089); in the 12th century by Stephen Harding (1109), third
  abbot of Citeaux, and by Cardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria (1150), whose
  corrected Bible is preserved in the public library at Dijon. But these
  were not successful, and in the 13th century, instead of revisions,
  attempts were made to fix the text by providing _correctoria_, or
  lists of correct readings, which were the equivalent of critical
  editions; of these the chief are the Parisian, the Dominican (prepared
  under Hugo de S. Caro about 1240), and the Vatican. In the 15th
  century the history of the printed Vulgates begins. The earliest is
  the Mentz edition of 1452-1456 (the _Mazarin_ or "42-line" Bible), but
  the earliest of a critical nature were those of Robert Étienne in 1528
  and 1538-1540. In 1546 the council of Trent decided that the Vulgate
  should be held as _authentica_, and in 1590 Pope Sixtus V. published a
  new and authoritative edition, which was, probably at the instigation
  of the Jesuits, recalled by Pope Clement VIII. in 1592. In the same
  year, however, the same pope published another edition under the name
  of Sixtus. This is, according to the Bull of 1592, the authoritative
  edition, and has since then been accepted as such in the Latin Church.
  The critical edition by J. Wordsworth (bishop of Salisbury) and H.J.
  White probably restores the text almost to the state in which Jerome
  left it.

  [The text of the Vulgate may be studied in Wordsworth and White,
  _Novum Testamentum Latine_; Corssen, _Epistula ad Galatas_. Its
  history is best given in S. Berger's _Histoire de la Vulgate_ (Paris,
  1893), in which a good bibliography is given on pp. xxxii.-xxxiv. The
  section in Kenyon's handbook to the _Textual Criticism of the New
  Testament_ is particularly clear and full.]


    Old Syriac.

  Syriac Versions.--1. The Old Syriac. This is only known to us at
  present through two MSS. of the gospels, containing the _Evangelion
  da-Mepharreshe_, or separated gospel, probably so called in
  distinction to Tatian's _Diatessaron_. These MSS. are known as the
  Curetonian and Sinaitic. The Curetonian is a MS. of the 5th century.
  The fragments of it which we possess are MS. Brit. Mus. addit. 14.451,
  which was brought in 1842 from the monastery of St. Mary in the
  Nitrian desert, and was edited by Cureton in 1858; and three leaves in
  Berlin (MS. Orient. Quart. 528) which were bought in Egypt by H.
  Brugsch and published by A. Roediger in 1872. It was given to the
  monastery of St. Mary in the 10th century, but its earlier history is
  unknown. It contained originally the four gospels in the order Mt.,
  Mk., Jo., Lc. It is generally quoted as Syr^cur or Syr C. The Sinaitic
  was discovered in 1892 by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson in the library of
  St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai, where it still remains, and
  was published in 1894 by R.L. Bensly, J. Rendel Harris and F.C.
  Burkitt, with an introduction by Mrs Lewis. It is a palimpsest MS.,
  and the upper writing (lives of saints), dated A.D. 778, is the work
  of "John, the anchorite of Beth Mari Qanon, a monastery of Ma'arrath
  Mesren city in the district of Antioch." This town is between Antioch
  and Aleppo; though the monastery is otherwise unknown, it seems
  probable that it was the source of many of the MSS. now at Sinai. The
  under writing seems to be a little earlier than that of the
  Curetonian; it contains the gospels in the order Mt., Mc., Lc., Jo.
  with a few _lacunae_. There is no evidence that this version was ever
  used in the Church services: the Diatessaron was always the normal
  Syriac text of the gospels until the introduction of the Peshito. But
  the quotations and references in Aphraates, Ephraem and the Acts of
  Judas Thomas show that it was known, even if not often used. It seems
  certain that the Old Syriac version also contained the Acts and
  Pauline epistles, as Aphraates and Ephraem agree in quoting a text
  which differs from the Peshito, but no MSS. containing this text are
  at present known to exist.

  [The text of this version is best given, with a literal English
  translation, in F.C. Burkitt's _Evangelion da Mepharreshe_ (Cambridge,
  1904).]


    Peshito.

  2. The Peshito (Simple) Version. This is represented by many MSS.
  dating from the 5th century. It has been proved almost to
  demonstration by F.C. Burkitt that the portion containing the gospels
  was made by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411), to take the place of the
  Diatessaron, and was based on the Greek text which was at that time in
  current use at Antioch. The Old Testament Peshito is a much older and
  quite separate version. The exact limits of Rabbula's work are
  difficult to define. It seems probable that the Old Syriac version did
  not contain the Catholic epistles, and as these are found in the
  Peshito they were presumably added by Rabbula. But he never added 2
  Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, or the Apocalypse, and the text of these
  books, which is sometimes bound up with the Peshito, really is that of
  the Philoxenian or of the Harklean version. A comparison of the
  Peshito with quotations in Aphraates and Ephraem shows that Rabbula
  revised the text of the Acts and Pauline epistles, but in the absence
  of MSS. of the Old Syriac for these books, it is difficult to define
  the extent or character of his work. The Peshito is quoted as Syr P,
  Pesh., and Syrsch (because Tischendorf followed the edition of
  Schaaf).

  [The best text of the Peshito is by G.H. Gwilliam, _Tetraevangelium
  Sanctum_ (Oxford, 1901); its relations to Rabbula's revision are shown
  by F.C. Burkitt, "S. Ephraim's quotations from the Gospel" (_Texts and
  Studies_, vii. 2, Cambridge, 1901), which renders out of date F.H.
  Woods's article on the same subject in _Studia Biblica_, iii. pp.
  105-138.]


    Philoxenian.

  3. The Philoxenian Version. This is known, from a note extant in MSS.
  of the Harklean version, to have been made in A.D. 508 for Philoxenus,
  bishop of Hierapolis, by Polycarpus, a chorepiscopus. No MSS. of it
  have survived except in 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John and the
  Apocalypse. The four former are found in some MSS. of the Peshito, as
  the Philoxenian was used to supply these epistles which were not in
  the older version, and the Apocalypse was published in 1892 by Dr
  Gwynn from a MS. belonging to Lord Crawford.

  [This version may be studied in Isaac H. Hall's _Williams MS._
  (Baltimore, 1886); in the European editions of the Syriac Bible so far
  as the minor Catholic epistles are concerned; in _Hermathena_, vol.
  vii. (1890), pp. 281-314 (article by Gwynn); in _Zeitschrift für
  Assyriologie_, xii. and xiii. (series of articles by Merx); in Gwynn's
  _The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version_ (Dublin, 1897).]


    Harklean.

  4. The Harklean Version. This is a revision of the Philoxenian made in
  616 by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea), bishop of Hierapolis. It was
  apparently an attempt to replace the literary freedom of the
  Philoxenian by an extreme literalness. It represents in the main the
  text of the later Greek MSS., but it has important textual notes, and
  has adopted a system of asterisks and obeli from the Hexaplar LXX. The
  source of these notes seems to have been old MSS. from the library of
  the Enaton near Alexandria. The marginal readings are therefore
  valuable evidence for the Old Alexandrian text. This version is quoted
  as Syr H (and when necessary Syr Hc* or Syr H^mg) and by Tischendorf
  as Syr^p (= Syra posterior). It should be noted that when Tischendorf
  speaks of Syr^utr he means the Peshito and the Harklean.

  [There is no satisfactory critical edition of this version, nor have
  the Philoxenian and the Harklean been disentangled from each other.
  The printed text is that published in 1778-1803 by J. White at Oxford
  under the title _Versio Philoxenia_; for the marginal notes see esp.
  Westcott and Hort, _Introduction_, and for Acts, Pott's
  _Abendländische Text der Apostelgesch._ (Leipzig, 1900).]


    Palestinian.

  5. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Version. This is a lectionary which
  was once thought to have come from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, but
  has been shown by Burkitt to come from that of Antioch. It was
  probably made in the 6th century in connexion with the attempts of
  Justinian to abolish Judaism. Usually quoted as SyrPa and by
  Tischendorf as Syr^hier.

  [The text may be found in Lewis and Gibson's _The Palestinian Syriac
  Lectionary_ (London, 1899), (Gospels), and in _Studia Sinaitica_, part
  vi. (Acts and Epistles); its origin is discussed best by F.C. Burkitt
  in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, vol. ii. (1901), pp.
  174-183.]

  6. The Karkaphensian. This is not a version, but a Syriac "Massorah"
  of the New Testament, i.e. a collection of notes on the texts.
  Probably emanates from the monastery of the Skull. Little is known of
  it and it is unimportant.

  [See Gwilliam's "Materials for the Criticism of the Peshito N.T." in
  _Studia Biblica_, in. esp. pp. 60-63.]


    Tatian's "Diatessaron."

  7. Tatian's _Diatessaron._ This is something more than a version. It
  was originally a harmony of the four goepels made by Tatian, the pupil
  of Justin Martyr, towards the end of the 2nd century. In its original
  form it is no longer extant, but it exists in Arabic (published by
  Ciasca) and Latin (_cod. Fuldensis_) translations, in both of which
  the text has unfortunately been almost entirely conformed to the
  ordinary type. These authorities are, therefore, only available for
  the reconstruction of the order of the selections from the gospels,
  not for textual criticism properly so called. For the latter purpose,
  however, we can use an Armenian translation of a commentary on the
  Diatessaron by Ephraem, and the quotations in Aphraates. The
  Diatessaron appears to have been the usual form in which the gospels
  were read until the beginning of the 5th century, when the Peshito was
  put in its place, and a systematic destruction of copies of the
  Diatessaron was undertaken.

  [The Diatessaron may be studied in Zahn, "Evangelien-harmonie,"
  article in the _Protestantische Realencyklopädie_ (1898); J.H. Hill,
  _The Earliest Life of Christ_ (Edinburgh, 1893); J. Rendel Harris,
  _Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraim the Syrian_ (London, 1895);
  F.C. Burkitt, _Evangelion da Mepharreshe_ (Cambridge, 1904, vol.
  ii.).]

  _Inter-relation of Syriac Versions._--The relations which subsist
  between the various Syriac versions remain to be discussed. There is
  little room for doubt that the Harklean was based on the Philoxenian,
  and the Philoxenian was based on the Peshito, the revision being made
  in each case by the help of the Greek MSS. of the day, but the
  relations which subsist between the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron and
  the Peshito are a more difficult question. There are now but few, if
  any, scholars who think that the Peshito is an entirely separate
  version, and the majority have been convinced by Burkitt and recognize
  (1) that the Peshito is based on a knowledge of the Old Syriac and the
  Diatessaron; (2) that it was made by Rabbula with the help of the
  contemporary Greek text of the Antiochene Church. But there is not yet
  the same degree of consensus as to the relations between the Old
  Syriac and the Diatessaron. Here it is necessary to distinguish
  between the original text of the Old Syriac and the existing MSS. of
  it--Cur. and Sin. There is no question that many passages in these
  show signs of Diatessaron influence, but this is only to be expected
  if we consider that from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the
  5th century the Diatessaron was the popular form of the gospels. A
  large discount has therefore to be made from the agreements between
  Diatessaron and Syr. S and C. Still, it is improbable that this will
  explain everything, and it is generally conceded that the original
  Diatessaron and the original Old Syriac were in some way connected.
  The connexion is variously explained, and efforts have been made to
  show on which side the dependence is to be found. The most probable
  theory is that of Burkitt. He thinks that the first Syriac translation
  was that of Tatian (c. A.D. 175), who brought the Diatessaron from
  Rome and translated it into Syriac. There, in the last days of the 2nd
  century, when Serapion was bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203), a new
  start was made, and a translation of the "separated Gospels"
  (_Evangelion da Mepharreshe_) was made from the MSS. which was in use
  at Antioch. Probably the maker of this version was partly guided,
  especially in his choice of renderings, by his knowledge of the
  Diatessaron. Nevertheless, the Diatessaron remained the more popular
  and was only driven out by Theodoret and Rabbula in the 5th century,
  when it was replaced by the Peshito. If this theory be correct the
  Syriac versions represent three distinct Greek texts:--(1) the
  2nd-century Greek text from Rome, used by Tatian; (2) the 2nd-century
  Greek text from Antioch, used for the Old Syriac; (3) the 2nd-century
  Greek text from Antioch, used by Rabbula for the Peshito.

  [The best discussion of this point is in vol. ii. of Burkitt's
  _Evangelion da Mepharreshe._]


    Coptic.

  _Egyptian Versions._--Much less is known at present about the history
  of the Egyptian versions. They are found in various dialects of
  Coptic, the mutual relations of which are not yet certain, but the
  only ones which are preserved with any completeness are the Bohairic,
  or Lower Egyptian, and Sahidic, or Upper Egyptian, though it is
  certain that fragments of intermediate dialects such as Middle
  Egyptian, Fayumic, Akhmimic and Memphitic also exist. The Bohairic has
  been edited by G. Horner. It is well represented, as it became the
  official version of the Coptic Church; its history is unknown, but
  from internal evidence it seems to have been made from good Greek MSS.
  of the type of [Hebrew: alef]BL, but the date to which this points
  depends largely on the general view taken of the history of the text
  of the New Testament. It need not, but may be earlier than the 4th
  century. The Sahidic is not so well preserved. G. Homer's researches
  tend to show that the Greek text on which it was based was different
  from that represented by the Bohairic, and probably was akin to the
  "Western" text, perhaps of the type used by Clement of Alexandria.
  Unfortunately none of the MSS. seems to be good, and at present it is
  impossible to make very definite use of the version. It is possible
  that this is the oldest Coptic version, and this view is supported by
  the general probabilities of the spread of Christianity in Egypt.
  which suggest that the native church and native literature had their
  strength at first chiefly in the southern parts of the country. It
  must be noted that Westcott and Hort called the Bohairic Memphitic,
  and the Sahidic Thebaic, and Tischendorf called the Bohairic Coptic.

  [See G. Horner's _The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the
  Northern Dialect_ (Oxford); Scrivener's _Introduction_ (ed. Miller),
  vol. ii. pp. 91-144; and especially an article on "Egyptian Versions"
  in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. by Forbes Robinson.]

  ([beta]) Among the _secondary_ versions the only one of real
  importance is the Armenian.


    Armenian.

  The Armenian Version.--The early history of this version is obscure,
  but it seems probable that there were two translations made in the 4th
  century: (1) by Mesrop with the help of Hrofanos (Rufinus?) based on a
  Greek text; (2) by Sahak, based on Syriac. After the council of
  Ephesus (A.D. 430) Mesrop and Sahak compared and revised their work
  with the help of MSS. from Constantinople. The general character of
  the version is late, but there are many places in which the Old Syriac
  basis can be recognized, and in the Acts and Epistles, where the Old
  Syriac is no longer extant, this is sometimes very valuable evidence.

  [See Scrivener (ed. Miller) vol. ii. pp. 148-154; Hastings'
  _Dictionary of the Bible_, article on "The Armenian Versions of the
  New Testament," by F.C. Conybeare; J.A. Robinson, "Euthaliana" (_Texts
  and Studies_, iii. 3), cap. 5; on the supposed connexion of Mark xvi.
  8 ff. with Aristion mentioned in this version, see esp. Swete's _The
  Gospel according to St Mark_ (London, 1902), p. cxi.]

  Other secondary versions which are sometimes quoted are the Gothic,
  Ethiopic, Georgian, Arabic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish and Persic. None has
  any real critical importance; details are given in Gregory's
  _Prolegomena_ and in Scrivener's _Introduction_.

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

  All writers earlier than the 5th century are valuable, but
  particularly important are the following groups:--(1) Greek writers in
  the West, especially Justin Martyr, Tatian, Marcion, Irenaeus and
  Hippolytus; (2) Latin writers in Italy, especially Novatian, the
  author of the _de Rebaptismate_ and Ambrosiaster; (3) Latin writers in
  Africa, especially Tertullian and Cyprian; (4) Greek writers in
  Alexandria, especially Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius and
  Cyril; (5) Greek writers in the East, especially Methodius of Lycia
  and Eusebius of Caesarea; (6) Syriac writers, especially Aphraates and
  Ephraem; it is doubtful whether the Diatessaron of Tatian ought to be
  reckoned in this group or in (1). None of these groups bears witness
  to quite the same text, nor can all of them be identified with the
  texts found in existing MSS. or versions, but it may be said with some
  truth that group 2 used the European Latin version, group 3 the
  African Latin, and group 6 the Diatessaron in the gospels and the Old
  Syriac elsewhere, while group I has much in common with _cod. Bezae_,
  though the difference is here somewhat greater. In group 4 the
  situation is more complex; Clement used a text which has most in
  common with _cod. Bezae_, but is clearly far from identical; Origen in
  the main has the text of [Hebrew: alef] B; Athanasius a somewhat later
  variety of the same type, while Cyril has the so-called Alexandrian
  text found especially in L. Group 4 has a peculiar text which cannot
  be identified with any definite group of MSS. For further treatment of
  the importance of this evidence see the section _Textual Criticism_
  below.

  [There is as yet but little satisfactory literature on this subject.
  Outstanding work is P.M. Barnard's "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical
  Text" (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5), 1899; Harnack's "Eine Schrift
  Novatians," in _Texte und Untersuchungen_, xiii. 4; Souter's
  "Ambrosiaster" in _Texts and Studies_, vii. 4; the Society of
  Historical Theology's _New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers_; an
  article by Kostschau, "Bibelcitate bei Origenes," in the _Zeitschrift
  f. wissenschaftliche Theologie_ (1900), pp. 321-378; and on the
  general subject especially Nestle's _Einführung in das griechische
  Neue Testament_ (Göttingen, 1909), pp. 159-167.]     (K. L.)


3. _Textual Criticism._

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

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

  The _Complutensian._--The first printed text of the Greek Testament is
  known as the Complutensian, because it was made under the direction of
  Cardinal Ximenes of Alcalá (Lat. _Complutum_). It was printed in 1514,
  and is thus the first printed text, but is not the first published, as
  it was not issued until 1522. It is not known what MSS. Ximenes used,
  but it is plain from the character of the text that they were not of
  great value. His text was reprinted in 1569 by Chr. Plantin at
  Antwerp.

  _Erasmus._--The first _published_ text was that of Erasmus. It was
  undertaken at the request of Joannes Froben (Frobenius), the printer
  of Basel, who had heard of Cardinal Ximenes' project and wished to
  forestall it. In this he was successful, as it was issued in 1516. It
  was based chiefly on MSS. at Basel, of which the only really good one
  (_cod. Evan. 1_) was seldom followed. Erasmus issued new editions in
  1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535, and the Aldine Greek Testament, printed at
  Venice in 1518, is a reproduction of the first edition.

  _Stephanus._--Perhaps the most important of all early editions were
  those of Robert Étienne, or Stephanus, of Paris and afterwards of
  Geneva. His two first editions (1546, 1549) were based on Erasmus, the
  Complutensian, and collations of fifteen Greek MSS. These are 16mo
  volumes, but the third and most important edition (1550) was a folio
  with a revised text. It is this edition which is usually referred to
  as _the_ text of Stephanus. A fourth edition (in 16mo) published at
  Geneva in 1551 is remarkable for giving the division of the text into
  verses which has since been generally adopted.

  _Beza._--Stephanus' work was continued by Theodore Beza, who published
  ten editions between 1565 and 1611. They did not greatly differ from
  the 1550 edition of Stephanus, but historically are important for the
  great part they played in spreading a knowledge of the Greek text, and
  as supplying the text which the Elzevirs made the standard on the
  continent.

  _Elzevir._--The two brothers, Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir,
  published two editions at Leiden in 1624 and 1633, based chiefly on
  Beza's text. In the preface to the second edition the first is
  referred to as "textum... nunc ab omnibus receptum," and this is the
  origin of the name "Textus Receptus" (or T.R.) often given to the
  ordinary Greek Text. The Elzevir text has formed the basis of all
  non-critical editions on the continent, but in England the 1550
  edition of Stephanus has been more generally followed. The importance
  of both the Stephanus and Elzevir editions is that they formed a
  definite text for the purposes of comparison, and so prepared the way
  for the next stage, in which scholars busied themselves with the
  investigation and collation of other MSS.

  _Walton's Polyglot._--The first to begin this work was Brian Walton,
  bishop of Chester, who published in 1657 in the 5th and 6th volumes of
  his "polyglot" Bible the text of Stephanus (1550) with the readings of
  fifteen new MSS. besides those employed by Stephanus himself. The
  collations were made for him by Archbishop Ussher.

  _John Fell._--In 1675 John Fell, dean of Christ Church, published the
  Elzevir text with an enlarged apparatus, but even more important was
  the help and advice which he gave to the next important editor--Mill.

  _John Mill_, of Queen's College, Oxford, influenced by the advice, and
  supported by the purse of John Fell until the latter's death,
  published in 1707 a critical edition of the New Testament which has
  still a considerable value for the scholar. It gives the text of
  Stephanus (1550) with collations of 78 MSS., besides those of
  Stephanus, the readings of the Old Latin, so far as was then known,
  the Vulgate and Peshito, together with full and valuable prolegomena.

  _Bentley._--A little later Richard Bentley conceived the idea that it
  would be possible to reconstruct the original text of the New
  Testament by a comparison of the earliest Greek and Latin sources; he
  began to collect material for this purpose, and issued a scheme
  entitled "Proposals for Printing" in 1720, but though he amassed many
  notes nothing was ever printed.

  _W. Mace._--Fairness forbids us to omit the name of William (or
  Daniel?) Mace, a Presbyterian minister who published _The New
  Testament in Greek and English_, in 2 vols. in 1729, and really
  anticipated many of the verdicts of later critics. He was, however,
  not in a position to obtain recognition, and his work has been
  generally overlooked.

  _J.J. Wetstein_, one of Bentley's assistants, when living in Basel in
  1730, published "Prolegomena" to the Text, and in 1751-1752 (at
  Amsterdam) the text of Stephanus with enlarged Prolegomena and
  apparatus criticus. His textual views were peculiar; he preferred to
  follow late MSS. on the ground that all the earlier copies had been
  contaminated by the Latin--almost reversing the teaching of Bentley.
  His edition is historically very important as it introduced the system
  of notation which, in the amplified form given to it by Gregory, is
  still in general use.

  _J.A. Bengel_, abbot of Alpirspach (a Lutheran community), published
  in 1734, at Tübingen, an edition of the New Testament which marks the
  beginning of a new era. For the first time an attempt was made to
  group the MSS., which were divided into African and Asiatic. The
  former group contained the few old MSS., the latter the many late
  MSS., and preference was given to the African. This innovation has
  been followed by almost all critics since Bengel's time, and it was
  developed by Griesbach.

  _J.J. Griesbach_, a pupil at Halle of J.S. Semler (who in 1764
  reprinted Wetstein's Prolegomena, and in comments of his own took over
  and expounded Bengel's views), collated many MSS., and distinguished
  three main groups:--the Alexandrian or Origenian (which roughly
  corresponded to Bengel's African), found in ABCL, the Egyptian version
  and Origen; the Western, found in D and Latin authorities; and the
  Constantinopolitan (Bengel's Asiatic), found in the later MSS. and in
  Byzantine writers. His view was that the last group was the least
  valuable; but, except when internal evidence forbade (and he thought
  that it frequently did so), he followed the text found in any two
  groups against the third. His first edition was published in
  1774-1775, his second and improved edition in 1796 (vol. i.) and 1806.
  For the second edition he had the advantage not merely of his own
  collection of material (published chiefly in his _Symbolae Criticae_,
  1785-1793), but also of many collations by Birch, Matthaei and Adler,
  and an edition with new collations by F.K. Alter.

  _J.L. Hug_, Roman Catholic professor of theology at Freiburg,
  published (Stuttgart and Tübingen) his _Einleitung in die Schriften
  des N. T._ (1808); he is chiefly remarkable for the curious way in
  which he introduced many critical ideas which were not appreciated at
  the time but have since been revived. He accepted Griesbach's views as
  a whole, but starting from the known recensions of the LXX. he
  identified Griesbach's Alexandrian text with the work of Hesychius,
  and the Constantinopolitan with that of Lucian, while he described
  Griesbach's Western text as the [Greek: koinae ekdosis].

  _J.M.A. Scholz_, a pupil of Hug, inspected and partially collated
  nearly a thousand MSS. and assigned numbers to them which have since
  been generally adopted. His work is for this reason important, but is
  unfortunately inaccurate.

  _K. Lachmann_, the famous classical scholar, opened a new era in
  textual criticism in 1842-1850, in his _N.T. Graece et Latine_. In
  this great book a break was made for the first time with the
  traditional text and the evidence of the late MSS., and an attempt was
  made to reconstruct the text according to the oldest authorities. This
  was a great step forward, but unfortunately it was accompanied by a
  retrogression to the pre-Griesbachian (or rather pre-Bengelian) days;
  for Lachmann rejected the idea of grouping MSS., and having selected a
  small number of the oldest authorities undertook always to follow the
  reading of the majority.

  _C. Tischendorf_, the most famous follower of Lachmann, besides
  editions of many MSS. and the collation of many more, published
  between 1841 and 1869-1872 eight editions of the New Testament with
  full critical notes. The eighth edition, which for the first time
  contained the readings of [Hebrew: alef], has not yet been equalled,
  and together with the Prolegomena, supplied by C.R. Gregory after
  Tischendorf's death, is the standard critical edition which is used by
  scholars all over the world. At the same time it must be admitted that
  it gradually became antiquated. Fresh collations of MSS., and
  especially fresh discoveries and investigations into the text of the
  versions and Fathers, have given much new information which entirely
  changed the character of the evidence for many readings, and rendered
  a new edition necessary (see SODEN, H. VON). As a collector and
  publisher of evidence Tischendorf was marvellous, but as an editor of
  the text he added little to the principles of Lachmann, and like
  Lachmann does not seem to have appreciated the value of the
  Griesbachian system of grouping MSS.

  _S.P. Tregelles_, an English scholar, like Tischendorf, spent almost
  his whole life in the collection of material, and published a critical
  edition, based on the earliest authorities, at intervals between 1857
  and 1872. His work was eclipsed by Tischendorf's, and his critical
  principles were almost the same as the German scholar's, so that his
  work has obtained less recognition than would otherwise have been the
  case. Tischendorf and Tregelles finished the work which Lachmann
  began. They finally exploded the pretensions of the _Textus Receptus_
  to be the original text; but neither of them gave any explanation of
  the relations of the later text to the earlier, nor developed
  Griesbach's system of dealing with groups of MSS. rather than with
  single copies.

  _B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort_ (commonly quoted as WH), the Cambridge
  scholars, supplied the deficiencies of Lachmann, and without giving up
  the advantages of his system, and its development by Tischendorf,
  brought back the study of the text of the New Testament to the methods
  of Griesbach. Their great work was published in 1881 under the title
  of _The New Testament in the Original Greek_. Their view of the
  history of the text is that a comparison of the evidence shows that,
  while we can distinguish more than one type of text, the most clearly
  discernible of all the varieties is first recognizable in the
  quotations of Chrysostom, and is preserved in almost all the later
  MSS. Though found in so great a number of witnesses, this type of text
  is shown not to be the earliest or best by the evidence of all the
  oldest MS. versions and Fathers, as well as by internal evidence.
  Moreover, a comparison with the earlier sources of evidence shows that
  it was built up out of previously existing texts. This is proved by
  the "conflations" which are found in it. For instance in Mark ix. 38
  the later MSS. read [Greek: os ouk akolouthei haemin, kai ekolusamen
  auton oti ouk akolouthei haemin], a clumsy sentence which is clearly
  made up out of two earlier readings, [Greek: kai ekoluomen auton oti
  ouk aekolouthei haemin], found in [Hebrew: alef] BCL boh., and [Greek:
  os ouk akolouthei meth' haemon, kai ekoluomen auton], found in DX
  _fam._^1, _fam._^13 28 latt. It is impossible, in face of the fact
  that the evidence of the oldest witnesses of all sorts is constantly
  opposed to the longer readings, to doubt that WH were right in arguing
  that these phenomena prove that the later text was made up by a
  process of revision and conflation of the earlier forms. Influenced by
  the use of the later text by Chrysostom, WH called it the Syrian or
  Antiochene text, and refer to the revision which produced it as the
  Syrian revision. They suggested that it might perhaps be attributed to
  Lucian, who is known to have made a revision of the text of the LXX.
  The earlier texts which were used for the Syrian revision may,
  according to WH, be divided into three:--(1) the Western text, used
  especially by Latin writers, and found also in _cod. Bezae_ and in Syr
  C; (2) the Alexandrine text used by Cyril of Alexandria and found
  especially in CL [Xi] 33; and (3) a text which differs from both the
  above mentioned and is therefore called by WH the Neutral text, found
  especially in [Hebrew: alef] B and the quotations of Origen. Of these
  three types WH thought that the Neutral was decidedly the best. The
  Alexandrian was clearly a literary recension of it, and WH strove to
  show that the Western was merely due to the non-literary efforts of
  scribes in other parts to improve the narrative. The only exception
  which they allowed to this general rule was in the case of certain
  passages, especially in the last chapters of Luke, where the "Western"
  authorities omit words which are found in the Neutral and Alexandrian
  texts. Their reason was that omission seems to be contrary to the
  genius of the Western text, and that it is therefore probable that
  these passages represent interpolations made in the text on the
  Neutral side after the division between it and the Western. They might
  be called Neutral interpolations, but WH preferred the rather clumsy
  expression "Western non-interpolations." Having thus decided that the
  Neutral text was almost always right, it only remained for WH to
  choose between the various authorities which preserved this type. They
  decided that the two best authorities were [Hebrew: alef] and B, and
  that when these differed the reading of B, except when obviously an
  accidental blunder, was probably right. The great importance of this
  work of WH lies in the facts that it not merely condemns but explains
  the late Antiochene text, and that it attempts to consider in an
  objective manner all the existing evidence and to explain it
  historically and genealogically. Opinions differ as to the correctness
  of the results reached by WH, but there is scarcely room for doubt
  that as an example of method their work is quite unrivalled at present
  and is the necessary starting-point for all modern investigations.

  Since Westcott and Hort no work of the same importance appeared up
  till 1909. Various useful texts have been issued, among which those of
  Nestle (_Novum Testamentum Graece_, Stuttgart, 1904), based on a
  comparison of the texts of Tischendorf, WH and Weiss, and of Baljon
  (_Novum Testamentum Graece_, Groningen, 1898), are the best. The only
  serious attempt as yet published to print a complete text
  independently of other editors is that of B. Weiss (_Das Neue
  Testament_, Leipzig, 1894-1900), but the method followed in this is so
  subjective and pays so little attention to the evidence of the
  versions that it is not likely to be permanently important. The text
  reached is not widely different from that of WH. The new work in
  course of preparation by von Soden at Berlin, which promises to take
  the place of Tischendorf's edition, must certainly do this so far as
  Greek MSS. are concerned, for the whole field has been reinvestigated
  by a band of assistants who have grouped and collated specimens of all
  known MSS.

  Besides these works the chief efforts of textual critics since WH have
  been directed towards the elucidation of minor problems, and the
  promulgation of certain hypotheses to explain the characteristics
  either of individual MSS. or of groups of MSS. Among these the works
  of Sanday, Corssen, Wordsworth, White, Burkitt and Harris on the
  history of the Old Latin and Vulgate, and especially the work of
  Burkitt on the Old Syriac, have given most light on the subject. These
  lines of research have been described in the preceding section on the
  _apparatus criticus_. Other noteworthy and interesting, though in the
  end probably less important, work has been done by Blass, Bousset,
  Schmidtke, Rendel Harris and Chase. The outline of the chief works is
  as follows:--

  _F. Blass._--In his various books on the Acts and third gospel Blass
  has propounded a new theory as to the "Western" text. He was struck
  by the fact that neither the Western can be shown to be derived from
  the Neutral, nor the Neutral from the Western. He therefore conceived
  the idea that perhaps both texts were Lucan, and represented two
  recensions by the original writer, and he reconstructed the history as
  follows. Luke wrote the first edition of the Gospel for Theophilus
  from Caesarea; this is the Neutral text of the Gospel. Afterwards he
  went to Rome and there revised the text of the Gospel and reissued it
  for the Church in that city; this is the Western (or, as Blass calls
  it, Roman) text of the Gospel. At the same time he continued his
  narrative for the benefit of the Roman Church, and published the
  Western text of the Acts. Finally he revised the Acts and sent a copy
  to Theophilus; this is the Neutral text of the Acts. This ingenious
  theory met with considerable approval when it was first advanced, but
  it has gradually been seen that "Western" text does not possess the
  unity which Blass's theory requires it to have. Still, Blass's textual
  notes are very important, and there is a mass of material in his
  books.

  _Bousset and Schmidtke._--These two scholars have done much work in
  trying to identify smaller groups of MSS. with local texts. Bousset
  has argued that the readings in the Pauline epistles found in [Hebrew:
  alef]^c H and a few minuscules represent the text used by Pamphilus,
  and on the whole this view seems to be highly probable. Another group
  which Bousset has tried to identify is that headed by B, which he
  connects with the recension of Hesychius, but this theory, though
  widely accepted in Germany, does not seem to rest on a very solid
  basis. To some extent influenced by and using Bousset's results,
  Schmidtke has tried to show that certain small lines in the margin of
  B point to a connexion between that MS. and a Gospel harmony, which,
  by assuming that the text of B is Hesychian, he identifies with that
  of Ammonius. If true, this is exceedingly important. Nestle, however,
  and other scholars think that the lines in B are merely indications of
  a division of the text into sense-paragraphs and have nothing to do
  with any harmony.

  _Rendel Harris_ and _Chase._--Two investigations, which attracted much
  notice when they were published, tried to explain the phenomena of the
  Western text as due to retranslation from early versions into Greek.
  Rendel Harris argued for the influence of Latin, and Chase for that of
  Syriac. While both threw valuable light on obscure points, it seems
  probable that they exaggerated the extent to which retranslation can
  be traced; that they ranked _Codex Bezae_ somewhat too highly as the
  best witness to the "Western" text; and that some of their work was
  rendered defective by their failure to recognize quite clearly that
  the "Western" text is not a unity. At the same time, however little of
  Rendel Harris's results may ultimately be accepted by the textual
  critics of the future, his work will always remain historically of the
  first importance as having done more than anything else to stimulate
  thought and open new lines of research in textual criticism in the
  last decade of the 19th century.

  The time has not yet come when any final attempt can be made to bring
  all these separate studies together and estimate exactly how far they
  necessitate serious modification of the views of Westcott and Hort;
  but a tentative and provisional judgment would probably have to be on
  somewhat the following lines. The work of WH may be summed up into two
  theorems:--(1) The text preserved in the later MSS. is not primitive,
  but built up out of earlier texts;. (2) these earlier texts may be
  classified as Western, Alexandrian and Neutral, of which the Neutral
  is the primitive form. The former of these theorems has been generally
  accepted and may be taken as proved, but the second has been closely
  criticized and probably must be modified. It has been approached from
  two sides, according as critics have considered the Western or the
  Neutral and Alexandrian texts.

  _The Western Text._--This was regarded by WH as a definite text, found
  in D, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac; and it is an essential part of
  their theory that in the main these three witnesses represent one
  text. On the evidence which they had WH were undoubtedly justified,
  but discoveries and investigation have gone far to make it impossible
  to hold this view any longer. We now know more about the Old Latin,
  and, thanks to Mrs Lewis' discovery, much more about the Old Syriac.
  The result is that the authorities on which WH relied for their
  Western text are seen to bear witness to two texts, not to one. The
  Old Latin, if we take the African form as the oldest, as compared with
  the Neutral text has a series of interpolations and a series of
  omissions. The Old Syriac, if we take the Sinaitic MS. as the purest
  form, compared in the same way, has a similar double series of
  interpolations and omissions, but neither the omissions nor the
  interpolations are the same in the Old Latin as in the Old Syriac.
  Such a line of research suggests that instead of being able, as WH
  thought, to set the Western against the Neutral text (the Alexandrian
  being merely a development of the latter), we must consider the
  problem as the comparison of at least three texts, a Western
  (geographically), an Eastern and the Neutral. This makes the matter
  much more difficult; and an answer is demanded to the problem afforded
  by the agreement of two of these texts against the third. The obvious
  solution would be to say that where two agree their reading is
  probably correct, but the followers of WH maintain that the agreement
  of the Western and Eastern is often an agreement in error. It is
  difficult to see how texts, geographically so wide apart as the Old
  Latin and Old Syriac would seem to be, are likely to agree in error,
  but it is certainly true that some readings found in both texts seem
  to have little probability. Sanday, followed by Chase and a few other
  English scholars, has suggested that the Old Latin may have been made
  originally in Antioch, but this paradoxical view has met with little
  support. A more probable suggestion is Burkitt's, who thinks that many
  readings in our present Old Syriac MSS. are due to the Diatessaron,
  which was a geographically Western text. It may be that this
  suggestion will solve the difficulty, but at present it is impossible
  to say.

  _The Neutral and Alexandrian Texts._--WH made it plain that the
  Alexandrian text was a literary development of the Neutral, but they
  always maintained that the latter text was not confined to, though
  chiefly used in Alexandria. More recent investigations have confirmed
  their view as to the relation of the Alexandrian to the Neutral text,
  but have thrown doubt on the age and wide-spread use of the latter.
  Whatever view be taken of the provenance of _Codex Vaticanus_ it is
  plain that its archetype had the Pauline epistles in a peculiar order
  which is only found in Egypt, and so far no one has been able to
  discover any non-Alexandrian writer who used the Neutral text.
  Moreover, Barnard's researches into the Biblical text of Clement of
  Alexandria show that there is reason to doubt whether even in
  Alexandria the Neutral text was used in the earliest times. We have no
  evidence earlier than Clement, and the text of the New Testament which
  he quotes has more in common with the Old Latin or "geographically
  Western" text than with the Neutral, though it definitely agrees with
  no known type preserved in MSS. or versions. This discovery has put
  the Neutral text in a different light. It would seem as though we
  could roughly divide the history of the text in Alexandria into three
  periods. The earliest is that which is represented by the quotations
  in Clement, and must have been in use in Alexandria at the end of the
  2nd and beginning of the 3rd century. It is unfortunately not found in
  any extant MS. The second stage is that found in the quotations of
  Origen which is fairly well represented in [Hebrew: alef] B, though
  Origen seems at times to have used MSS. of the earlier type. The third
  stage is WH's Alexandrian, found in the quotations of Cyril of
  Alexandria and a few MSS. (esp. CL [Xi] [Delta] [Psi]). It is clearly
  a revision of the second stage, as WH saw, but we can now add that it
  was not merely a literary revision but was influenced by the tendency
  to revive readings which are found in the first stage but rejected in
  the second.

  It thus seems probable that WH's theory must be modified, both as
  regards the "Western" text, which is seen not to be a single text at
  all, and as regards the "Neutral" text, which seems to be nothing more
  than the second stage of the development of the text in Alexandria.
  But the importance of these modifications is something more than the
  doubt which they have thrown on WH's theories: they have really
  shifted the centre of gravity of the textual problem.

  Formerly the Greek uncials, which go back to the 4th century, were
  regarded as the most important source of evidence, and were supposed
  to have the decisive vote; but now it is becoming plain that still
  more important, though unfortunately much less complete, is the
  evidence of the versions and of quotations by early writers. Both of
  these point to the existence in the 3rd and even 2nd century of types
  of text which differ in very many points from anything preserved in
  Greek MSS. Yet there is no doubt that both of them ultimately
  represent Greek MSS. which are no longer extant. The question,
  therefore, is whether we ought not to base our text on the versions
  and ecclesiastical quotations rather than on the extant Greek MSS. Two
  positions are possible: (1) We may defend a text based on the best
  existing Greek MSS. by the argument that these represent the text
  which was approved by competent judges in the 4th century, and would
  be found to exist in earlier MSS. if we possessed them. The weak point
  of this argument is the lack of evidence in support of the second
  part. The only possible sources of evidence, apart from the discovery
  of fresh MSS., are the versions, and they do not point to existence in
  the 2nd or 3rd century of texts agreeing with the great uncials. It is
  also possible to argue, as WH did, on the same side, that the purest
  form of text was preserved in Alexandria, from which the oldest
  uncials are directly or indirectly derived, but this argument has been
  weakened if not finally disposed of by the evidence of Clement of
  Alexandria. It is, of course, conceivable that Clement merely used bad
  MSS., and that there were other MSS. which he might have used,
  agreeing with the great uncials, but there is no evidence for this
  view. (2) If we reject this position we must accept the evidence as
  giving the great uncials much the same secondary importance as
  Westcott and Hort gave to the later MSS., and make an attempt to
  reconstruct a text on the basis of versions and Fathers. The adoption
  of this view sets textual critics a peculiarly difficult task. The
  first stage in their work must be the establishment of the earliest
  form of each version, and the collection and examination of the
  quotations in all the early writers. This has not yet been done, but
  enough has been accomplished to point to the probability that the
  result will be the establishment of at least three main types of
  texts, represented by the Old Syriac, the Old Latin and Clement's
  quotations, while it is doubtful how far Tatian's Diatessaron, the
  quotations in Justin and a few other sources may be used to
  reconstruct the type of Greek text used in Rome in the 2nd century
  when Rome was still primarily a Greek church. The second stage must
  be the comparison of these results and the attempt to reconstruct from
  them a Greek text from which they all arose.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The literature of textual criticism of the New
  Testament is so great that only a few of the more important modern
  books can be mentioned here: H. von Soden, _Die Schriften des Neuen
  Testaments_ (i. 1902-1907); E. Nestle, _Einführung in das griechische
  Neue Testament_ (Göttingen, 1909); F.G. Kenyon, _Handbook to the
  Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London, 1901); C.R. Gregory,
  _Textkritik des Neuen Testament_ (Leipzig, 1900-1902), and _Die
  griech. Handschr. des N.T._ (Leipzig, 1908); Westcott and Hort,
  _Introduction_ (vol. ii. of their _New Testament in Greek_, Cambridge,
  1882). The history of criticism is dealt with in all the
  above-mentioned books, and also in F.H. Scrivener, _Introduction to
  the Criticism of the New Testament_ (London, 1894). For other points
  especially important (besides books mentioned in the preceding
  section) see F. Blass, _Acta Apostolorum_ (Göttingen, 1895; and an
  editio minor, with a valuable preface, Leipzig, 1896); Rendel Harris,
  _Four Lectures on the Western Text_ (Cambridge, 1894); F. Chase, _The
  Syro-Latin Text_ (London, 1895); W. Bousset, _Textkritische Studien_
  (Leipzig, 1894); B. Weiss, _Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte_
  (Leipzig, 1897); A. Pott, _Der abendländische Text d.
  Apostelgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1900); G. Salmon, _Some Thoughts on
  Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London, 1897); Schmidtke,
  _Die Evangelien eines alien Unzialcodex_ (Leipzig, 1903).     (K. L.)


4. _Higher Criticism._

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


  Erasmus.

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


  The Reformers.

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


  Influence of textual criticism.

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


  Rationalists.

  Strauss.

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


  Tübingen school.

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


  Later views.

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

Literary criticism of the Gospels points to a similar conclusion. A
hundred years' study of the synoptic problem, i.e. the causes which make
the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke at once so much alike
and so different, has resulted in the demonstration of the priority of
Mark, which "was known to Matthew and Luke in the same state and with
the same contents as we have it now."[56] This Gospel may be dated a
very few years after A.D. 70. Luke and Matthew appear to have been
published between 80 and 100.[57] Besides the Gospel of Mark these
Evangelists made use of another document, now lost, which contained many
sayings of Jesus and some narratives not found in Mark. This document is
by many scholars identified with the "Logia," mentioned by Papias
(Eusebius, _Ch. Hist_. in. 39) as being the work of Matthew the Apostle,
but the identification is not certain.

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

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

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See the separate bibliographies to the separate
  articles on the books of the New Testament. The selection here given
  of the vast literature of the subject has been drawn up with the idea
  of setting the student on his way. 1. _General and
  Historical._--Jerome's _Prefaces_ (to be found in any R.C. edition of
  the Vulgate); Luther's _Prefaces_ (to be found in German-printed
  editions of Luther's Bible); F. Seebohm, _The Oxford Reformers_ (3rd
  ed., London, 1887)--for Erasmus; M. Creighton, "Chillingworth" in the
  _Dict. of Nat. Biogr_.; Chr. Schrempf, _Lessing als Philosoph_
  (Stuttgart, 1906); J. Estlin Carpenter, _The Bible in the 19th
  Century_ (London, 1903); A. Schweitzer, _Von Reimarus zu Wrede_
  (Tübingen, 1906). 2. _For the Synoptic Gospels._--W.G. Rushbrooke,
  _Synopticon_ (London, 1880), (trans. in _The Common Tradition of the
  Synoptic Gospels_ by E.A. Abbott and W.G. Rushbrooke, London, 1884),
  Sir J.C. Hawkins, _Horae Synopticae_ (Oxford, 1899); Prof. Julius
  Wellhausen, _Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien_ (Berlin, 1905),
  _Das Evangelium Marci_ (1903), _Das Ev. Matthaei_ (1904), _Das Ev.
  Lucae_ (1904)--these four books make one work; Prof. A. Harnack,
  _Lukas der Arzt_ (Berlin, 1905). 3. _For the Fourth Gospel._--K.G.
  Bretschneider, _Probabilia_ (Leipzig, 1820); Matthew Arnold's _God and
  the Bible_, chaps, v., vi. (still the best defence in English of a
  Johannine kernel, new ed., 1884); W. Sanday, _Criticism of the Fourth
  Gospel_ (Oxford, 1905); A. Loisy, _Le Quatrième Évangile_ (Paris,
  1903); Prof. P.W. Schmiedel, _Das vierte Evangelium gegenüber den drei
  ersten_ (Halle, 1906). 4. _For the Semitic Elements in the
  N.T._--Prof. G. Dalman, _Die Worte Jesu_ (Leipzig, 1898), (Eng.
  trans., _The Words of Jesus_, 1905); Prof. Johannes Weiss, _Die
  Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes_ (1st ed. 1892, 2nd ed. 1900). The
  Protestant view of the New Testament in Prof. A. Harnack, _Das Wesen
  des Christentums_ (Berlin, 1900), (Eng. trans., _What is
  Christianity?_, London, 1901) may be compared with the Liberal
  Catholic view in A. Loisy, _L'Évangile et l'Église_ (2nd ed., 1903).
       (F. C. B.)


5. _New Testament Chronology._

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


_The Chronology of the Gospels._

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The interval between the Nativity and the Baptism.

_Evidence of St Luke's Gospel_ (iii. 23).--At the time of his baptism
Jesus was [Greek: archomenos osei etoi triakonta], of which words two
opposite misinterpretations must be avoided: (i.) [Greek: archomenos]
does not mean (as Valentinian interpreters thought, Iren. 11. xxii. 5
[xxxiii. 3]; so also Epiphanius, _Haer._ li. 16) "beginning to be thirty
years" in the sense of "not yet quite thirty," but "at the beginning of
His ministry," as in Luke xxiii. 5; Acts i. 22, x. 37; (ii.) [Greek:
osei etoi triakonta] does not mean "on attaining the full age of thirty,
before which he could not have publicly taught," for if there was by
Jewish custom or tradition any minimum age for a teacher, it was not
thirty, but forty (_Bab. Talm_. ed. 1715, fol. 19 _b_; Iren. _loc
cit_.). St Luke's phrase is a general one, "about thirty years old," and
cannot be so pressed as to exclude some latitude in either direction.

3. The date of the Baptism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (i.) _Readings_ ([alpha]) v. 1. [Greek: eortae] A B D, Origen,
  Epiphanius, Chrysostom, _Paschal Chronicle_; [Greek: ae eortae]
  [Hebrew: alef]CL[Delta] 1-118, 33, the Egyptian versions, Eusebius,
  Cyril-Alex. (Irenaeus?). The balance of internal evidence--copyists
  being more likely to accentuate than to diminish the precision of a
  note of time--inclines, like the balance of external evidence, against
  the article, ([beta]) vi. 4, [Greek: to pascha] is read by all known
  MSS. and versions; but it has been argued by Hort (in Westcott's and
  Hort's _New Testament in Greek_, appendix, pp. 77-81) that four
  ancient authorities omitted the words, and that their omission
  simplifies the whole chronology, since "the feast" which was "near" in
  vi. 4 would then be identical with the feast of Tabernacles mentioned
  in vii. 2, and all the time-notices of the Gospel could be arranged to
  fall within the space of a single year, between the Passover of ii. 13
  and the Passover of xi. 55. But of the four authorities alleged,
  Irenaeus (11. xxii. 3 [xxxiii. i]) and the Alogi (_ap_. Epiphanius,
  _Haer._ li. 22) were giving catalogues of Passovers "observed" by
  Christ (at Jerusalem), and therefore naturally omitted a mere
  chronological reference like vi. 4: Cyril of Alexandria, in so far as
  his evidence is adverse to the words, appears to be incorporating a
  passage from the _Commentary_ of Origen, not extant _in loc_.; and the
  only writer who perhaps really did omit the words--with the view, no
  doubt, of reconciling the witness of the fourth Gospel with the then
  widely spread tradition of the single-year ministry--is Origen
  himself.

  (ii.) _Interpretation_ ([alpha]) iv. 35: which is to be taken
  literally, the "four months to harvest" (about January), or the
  "fields white to harvest" (about May)? It does not seem possible to
  rule out either interpretation; the choice between them will follow
  from the view taken of the general chronological arrangement of the
  Gospel. ([beta]) v. i.: if "the feast" is read, a choice remains
  between Passover and Tabernacles (the definite article would not be
  very definite after all); if the more probable "a feast," the greater
  feasts are presumably excluded, but a choice remains between, at any
  rate, Pentecost (May), Trumpets (September), Dedication (December) and
  Purim (February). Here again the decision will follow on the general
  chronological arrangement which may be adopted.

  (iii.) _Arrangement._--So far the amount of possible latitude left is
  not so great as to obscure the main outline of the chronology. For a
  first (ii. 13, 20), second (vi. 4), and third (xi. 55) Passover are
  established, with two indeterminate notices (iv. 35, v. 1) between the
  first and second, and two determinate notices (vii. 2 Tabernacles in
  October, x. 22 Dedication in December) between the second and third.
  But of late years an increasing desire has been manifested, especially
  in Germany and America, to manipulate the fourth Gospel on grounds of
  internal evidence, at first only in the way of particular
  transpositions of more or less attractiveness, but latterly also by
  schemes of thorough-going rearrangement. The former class of proposals
  will as a rule hardly affect the chronology of the Gospel; the latter
  will affect it vitally. The distinction here drawn may be illustrated
  from the earliest instance of the former and one of the latest of the
  latter. In 1871 Archdeacon J.P. Norris (_Journal of Philology_) wished
  to transpose chapters v. and vi.--ch. vi. was, like ch. xxi., a
  Galilean appendix, and was inserted by mistake at somewhat too late a
  point in the body of the Gospel--and to read "the feast" in v. 1,
  identifying it with the Passover which was near in vi. 4: in any case,
  whether "the feast" = Passover, or "a feast" = Pentecost, were read in
  v. 1, the transposition would not affect the two years' ministry. In
  1900 Professor B.W. Bacon (_American Journal of Theology_, p. 770)
  proposed a rearrangement of the whole Gospel, according to which the
  time-notices would occur in the following order: vi. 4, Passover is
  near; iv. 35, the fields white to harvest = May; v. 1, "a feast" =
  Pentecost; vii. 2, Tabernacles; x. 22, Dedication; xi. 55, Passover is
  near; xii. 1, Jesus at Bethany six days before Passover; ii. 13,
  Passover is near and Jesus goes up to Jerusalem (ii. 23, an
  interpolation) for the Passover of the Crucifixion; and the ministry
  would thus be reduced to a single year. Such a scheme does not lend
  itself to discussion here; but as far as evidence is at present
  obtainable, the conclusion that the fourth evangelist drew up his
  narrative on the basis of a two years' rather than a one year's
  ministry appears to be irrefragable.

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

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

5. The date of the Crucifixion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  A.D. 28     Sat. Mar. 27    Mar. 28    Mar. 30
   "   29     Th. Mar. 17     Mar. 17    Mar. 19
              F. Ap. 15       Ap. 16     Ap. 18
   "   30     Tu. Ap. 4       Ap. 5      Ap. 7
   "   31     Sat. Mar. 24    Mar. 25    Mar. 27
   "   32     Sat. Ap. 12     Ap. 12     Ap. 14
   "   33     W. Ap. 1        Ap. 1-2    Ap. 3 or 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


_The Chronology of the Apostolic Age._

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

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

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

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

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

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

  _Arguments for the Later Date, A.D. 60 or 61._--([alpha]) St Paul, at
  the time of his arrest, two years before Felix's recall, addresses him
  as "for many years past a judge for this nation" (Acts xxiv. 10, 27).
  It is certain that Felix succeeded Cumanus in A.D. 52, for Tacitus
  mentions Cumanus's recall under that year, Josephus immediately before
  the notice of the completion of Claudius's twelfth year [January, A.D.
  53], Eusebius probably under Claudius II, that is, between September
  51 and September 52 (for the meaning of the regnal years in the
  _Chronicle_ of Eusebius see the present writer's article in _Journal
  of Theological Studies_, January 1900, pp. 188-192). It is argued that
  "many years" cannot mean less than six or seven, so that St Paul must
  have been speaking at earliest in 58 or 59, and Felix will have left
  Judaea at earliest in 60 or 61. But this argument overlooks the fact
  that Felix had been in some position which might properly be described
  as that of "judge for this nation" before he became governor of all
  Palestine in A.D. 52. In the words of Tacitus, Felix was at the time
  of that appointment _iampridem Iudaeae impositus_ (_Annals_, xii. 54);
  he certainly supposes Felix to have been already governor of Samaria,
  and apparently of Judaea too, and only recognizes Cumanus as governor
  of Galilee; and Josephus, though he says nothing of this, and treats
  Cumanus as the sole procurator down to A.D. 52, implies that Felix had
  been in some position where the Jewish authorities could judge of his
  fitness when he tells us that the high priest Jonathan used to press
  on Felix, as a reason for urging him to govern well, the fact he that
  had asked for his appointment to the procuratorship (_Ant._ xx. viii.
  5). If Felix had acted in some position of responsibility in Palestine
  before 52 (perhaps for some time before), St Paul could well have
  spoken of "many years" at least as early as 56 or 57.

  ([beta]) Josephus enumerates after the accession of Nero (October 54)
  a long catalogue of events which all took place under the
  procuratorship of Felix, including the revolt of "the Egyptian" which
  was already "before these days" at the time of St Paul's arrest, two
  years from the end of Felix's tenure. This suggests, no doubt, that
  the Egyptian rebelled at earliest in 54-55, and makes it probable that
  St Paul's arrest did not take place before (the Pentecost of) A.D. 56;
  and it implies certainly that the main or most important part of
  Felix's governorship fell, in Josephus's view, under Nero. But as two
  years only of Felix's rule (52-54) fell under Claudius, this procedure
  would be quite natural on Josephus's part if his recall were dated in
  58 or 59, so that four or five years fell under Nero. And there is no
  need at all to suppose that all the incidents which the historian
  masses under his account of Felix were successive: events in Emesa,
  Chalcis, Caesarea and Jerusalem may easily have been synchronous.

  The arguments, then, brought forward in favour of A.D. 60 or 61 do not
  do more than bring the rule of Felix down to 58 or 59.

  _Arguments for an Early Date, A.D. 55 or 56._--([alpha]) Eusebius's
  _Chronicle_ places the arrival of Festus in Nero 2, October 55-56, and
  Eusebius's chronology of the procurators goes back probably through
  Julius Africanus (himself a Palestinian) to contemporary authorities
  like the _Jewish kings_ of Justus of Tiberias. But (i.) Nero 2 is
  really September 56-September 57; (ii.) it is doubtful whether
  Eusebius had any authority to depend on here other than Josephus, who
  gives no precise year for Festus--Julius Africanus is hardly probable,
  since we know that his chronicle was very jejune for the Christian
  period--and if so, Eusebius had to find a year as best he could.[60]

  ([beta]) Felix, on his return to Rome, was prosecuted by the Jews for
  misgovernment, but was acquitted through the influence of his brother
  Pallas. Pallas had been minister and favourite of Claudius, but was
  removed from office in the winter following Nero's accession, 54-55.
  Felix must therefore have been tried at the very beginning of Nero's
  reign. But this argument would make Felix's recall--if Festus came in
  summer, as Acts xxv. 1, xxvii. 1, 9, seem to prove--to fall actually
  under Claudius. And, in fact, it would be a mistake look upon Pallas's
  retirement as a disgrace. He stipulated that no inquiry should be made
  into his conduct in office, and was left for another seven years
  unmolested in the enjoyment of the fortune he had amassed. There is,
  therefore, every likelihood that he retained for some years enough
  influence to shield his brother.

  Of these arguments, then, the first, so far as it is valid, is an
  argument for the summer, not of A.D. 55 or 56, but of A.D. 57 as that
  of the recall, while the second will apply to any of the earlier years
  of Nero's reign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  AUTHORITIES.--The views stated in this article are in general (though
  with some modifications) the same as those which the present writer
  worked out with more fulness of detail in Hastings' _Dictionary of the
  Bible_, i. (1898) 403-424. Of older books should be
  mentioned:--Ideler, _Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen
  Chronologie_ (2 vols., 1825); Wieseler, _Chronologie des apostolischen
  Zeitalters_ (1848); Lewin's _Fasti Sacri_ (1865). Important modern
  contributions are to be found in Prof. (Sir) W.M. Ramsay's various
  works, and in Harnack's _Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur
  bis Eusebius_, i. 233-244. Mention should also be made of an article,
  containing much useful astronomical and Talmudical information, by Mr
  J.K. Fotheringham, "The Date of the Crucifixion," in the _Journal of
  Philology_, xxix. 100-118 (1904). Mr Fotheringham is of opinion that
  the evidence from Christian sources is too uncertain, and that the
  statements of the Mishnah must be the starting-point of the inquiry:
  taking then the phasis of the new moon as the true beginning of Nisan,
  he concludes that Friday cannot have coincided with Nisan 14 in any
  year, within the period A.D. 28-35, other than A.D. 33 (April 3rd).
  But in one of the two empirical tests of the value of these
  calculations that he was able to obtain (_loc. cit._ p. 106, n. 2),
  the new moon was seen a day earlier than his rules allowed. This being
  so, it would be premature to disregard the convergent lines of
  historical evidence which tell against A.D. 33. Among the latest
  German works may be cited the chapter on New Testament chronology in
  the _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte_ of Dr Oscar Holtzmann (2nd ed.,
  1906), pp. 117-147: regarded as a collection of historical material
  this deserves every praise, but the mass is undigested and the
  treatment of the evidence arbitrary. As might be expected, Dr
  Holtzmann's conclusions are clear-cut, and alternatives are rigidly
  excluded: the Crucifixion is dated on the 7th of April A.D. 30, and St
  Paul's arrest (with the older writers) at Pentecost A.D. 58.
       (C. H. T.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] The books of Samuel, Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah, and Chronicles,
    were by the Jews each treated (and written) as one book, and were not
    divided by them into two till the 16th century, through Christian
    influence.

  [2] For a discussion of the word "Massoretes" see W. Bacher (_J.Q.R._
    vol. iii. pp. 785 f.), who maintains that the original pronunciation
    of these words was [Hebrew: masoreth] and [Hebrew: momarah].

  [3] The actual date of the introduction of vowel points is not known,
    but it must in any case have been later than the time of Jerome, and
    is probably to be assigned to the 7th century. Of the systems of
    punctuation which are known to us, the more familiar is the Tiberian,
    or sublinear, which is found in all printed editions of the Hebrew
    Bible. The other system, the Babylonian or superlinear, is chiefly
    found in certain Yemen MSS. For yet a third system of vocalization
    see M. Friedländer, _J.Q.R._, 1895, pp. 564 f., and P. Kahle in
    _Z.A.T.W._ xxi. (1901), pp. 273 f. Probably the idea of providing
    vowel points was borrowed from the Syrians.

  [4] This represents the Western tradition as opposed to the Eastern
    text of ben Naphtali. For the standard copies such as the _Codex
    Hillelis_ referred to by later writers see H.L. Strack, _Proleg.
    Critica_, pp. 14 f.

  [5] Cf. F.C. Burkitt, _Fragments of the Books of Kings according to
    the Translation of Aquila_.

  [6] The Talmudic story of the three MSS. preserved in the court of
    the temple (_Sopherim_, vi. 4) sufficiently illustrates the tentative
    efforts of the rabbis in this direction.

  [7] W. Robertson Smith, _Old Testament and the Jewish Church_, pp. 69
    f.

  [8] For these _Tiqqune Sopherim_ or "corrections of the scribes" see
    Geiger, _Urschrift_, pp. 308 f.; Strack, _Prolegomena Critica_, p.
    87; Buhl, _Canon and Text of the Old Testament_, pp. 103 f. In the
    _Mekilta_ (Exod. xv. 7) only eleven passages are mentioned. Less
    important are the _Itture Sopherim_, or five passages in which the
    scribes have omitted a _waw_ from the text.

  [9] _Text of the Books of Samuel_, pp. xxxix. f.

  [10] According to Josephus (_Ant._ xi. 7. 8) the temple on Mt.
    Gerizim was set up by Manasseh in the reign of Darius Codomannus,
    i.e. about 332 B.C. It is possible that he is correct in placing the
    building of the temple at the later date, but probably he errs in
    connecting it with the secession of Manasseh, which, according to
    Nehemiah, occurred a century earlier; it has been suggested that he
    has confused Darius Codomannus with his predecessor, Darius Nothus.

  [11] e.g. Ex. xx. 17, 19 ff.; Num. xx. f.; Deut. xxvii. 4.

  [12] 1 Kings xx. 7-17; 2 Kings xxiii. 12-17, ed. by Mr (now
    Professor) F.C. Burkitt in _Fragments of the Books of Kings according
    to the Translation of Aquila_ (Cambridge, 1897), and Ps. xc. 6-13;
    xci. 4-10, and parts of Ps. xxiii. by Dr C. Taylor in _Sayings of the
    Jewish Fathers_ (2nd ed., 1897).

  [13] On the question of Theodotion's date, Schürer (_Geschichte des
    jüdischen Volkes_, Bd. iii. p. 324) argues very plausibly for his
    _priority_ to Aquila on the grounds, (1) that Irenaeus mentions him
    before Aquila, and (2) that, after Aquila's version had been adopted
    by the Greek Jews, a work such as that of Theodotion would have been
    somewhat superfluous. Theodotion's work, he suggests, formed the
    first stage towards the establishment of a Greek version which should
    correspond more closely with the Hebrew. Moreover, this theory
    affords the simplest explanation of its disappearance from Jewish
    tradition.

  [14] Only one MS. of the Septuagint version of Daniel has survived,
    the _Codex Chisianus_.

  [15] _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, p. 51.

  [16] Hence the name _Hexapla_. In some books, especially the
    poetical, the columns were increased to eight by the addition of the
    _Quinta_ and _Sexta_, but the _Octapla_, as the enlarged work was
    called, was not apparently a distinct work. The _Tetrapla_, on the
    other hand, was a separate edition which did not contain the first
    two columns of the _Hexapla_.

  [17] Lagarde's projected edition of the Lucianic recension was
    unfortunately never completed; the existing volume contains Genesis-2
    Esdras, Esther. It may be noted here that the Complutensian Polyglott
    represents a Lucianic text.

  [18] Hastings's _Dict. of the Bible_, iii. pp. 54 ff.

  [19] _The Old Testament in Greek_, by A.E. Brooke and N. McLean, vol.
    i. pt. 1 (1906)

  [20] His arguments are stated briefly (and in order to be refuted) by
    Jerome in his commentary on _Daniel_.

  [21] In what follows the actual quotations are from his English work;
    some of the summaries take account of the brief expansions in his
    later Latin version.

  [22] See particularly B. Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_
    (1887-1888); J. Wellhausen, _Die Kleinen Propheten_ (1892); B.I.
    Duhm, _Jesaia_ (1892); T.K. Cheyne, _Introduction to the Book of
    Isaiah_ (1895); K. Marti, _Jesaja_ (1900), and _Das Dodekapropheton_
    (1904).

  [23] _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (1881); _The Prophets
    of Israel_ (1882).

  [24] For details see an article in the _Zeitschr. für d. altest.
    Wissenschaft_ for 1889, pp. 246-302, on "Alttestamentliche Studien in
    Amerika," by G.F. Moore, who has himself since done much
    distinguished and influential critical work.

  [25] To avoid any possibility of overstating the case, it is
    necessary to refer here to the fact that Tethmosis (Thothmes) III. in
    the 16th century B.C. mentions two Palestinian places named
    respectively Jacobel and Josephel, and Sheshonk in the both century
    B.C. mentions another called "The field of Abram." From these names
    alone it is impossible to determine whether the places derived their
    names from individuals or tribes.

  [26] Or according to some MSS., 167.

  [27] Shem, the father of Arphaxad, is aged 100 at the time of the
    Flood, and lives for 600 years.

  [28] Disregarding the "two years" of Gen. xi. 10; see v. 32, vii. 11.

  [29] Taking account of the reading of LXX. in Ex. xii. 40.

  [30] See further Driver's essay in Hogarth's _Authority and
    Archaeology_ (1899), pp. 32-34; or his _Book of Genesis_ (1904, 7th
    ed., 1909), p. xxxi. ff.

  [31] 1 Petrie, _Hist. of Egypt_, i. (ed. 5, 1903), p. 251; iii.
    (1905), p. 2.

  [32] See Merenptah's account of the defeat of these invaders in
    Maspero, op. cit. pp. 432-437; or in Breasted's _Ancient Records of
    Egypt_ (Chicago, 1906), iii. 240-252.

  [33] Namely, 40 years in the wilderness; Joshua and the elders
    (Judges ii. 7), x years; Othniel (iii. 11), 40 years; Ehud (iii. 30),
    80 years; Barak (v. 31), 40 years; Gideon (viii. 28), 40 years;
    Jephthah and five minor judges (x. 2, 3, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14), 76
    years; Samson (xvi. 31), 20 years; Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), 40 years;
    Samuel (vii. 2), 20 years; Saul, y years; David, 40 years; and
    Solomon's first four years--in all 440 + x + y years.

  [34] Namely, Moses (in the wilderness), Joshua, Othniel, Ehud,
    Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul and David.

  [35] The "300 years" of Judges xi. 26 agrees very nearly with the sum
    of the years (namely, 319) given in the preceding chapters for the
    successive periods of oppression and independence. The verse occurs
    in a long insertion (xi. 12-28) in the original narrative; and the
    figure was most probably arrived at by computation upon the basis of
    the present chronology of the book.

  [36] The real Biblical date, Ussher in Gen. xi. 26 interpolating 60
    years, because it is said in Acts vii. 4 that Abraham left Haran
    _after_ his father Terah's death (Gen. xi. 32), and also (as
    explained above) interpreting wrongly Ex. Xii. 40.

  [37] Hilprecht's dates (_The Bab. Expedition of the University of
    Pennsylvania_, vol. i. pt. i. 1893, pp. 11, 12; pt. ii. 1896, pp. 23,
    24, 43, 44).

  [38] Petrie's dates, _Hist. of Egypt_, vol. i. (ed. 5, 1903), pp. 20,
    30, 233, 251, 252; vol. iii. (1905), pp. 2, 235, 261-7, 296-360.
    Other authorities, however, assign considerably lower dates for the
    dynasties prior to the 18th. Thus Breasted (_Hist. of Egypt_, 1906,
    pp. 22 ff., 221, 597) agrees with Ed. Meyer in giving, for reasons
    which cannot be here explained, for the beginning of the 1st dynasty
    c. B.C. 3400, for the 4th dynasty c. B.C. 2900-2750, and for the rule
    of the Hyksos c. B.C. 1680-1580; and in his _Researches in Sinai_,
    1906, p. 175, Petrie proposes for Menes B.C. 5510, and for the 4th
    dynasty B.C. 4731-4454. See EGYPT (_Chronology_).

  [39] So Sayce, Rogers (_Hist. of Bab. and Ass._, 1900, i. 318 f.) and
    others. The date rests upon a statement of Nabu-na'id's, that
    Sargon's son, Naram-Sin, reigned 3200 years before himself. Lehmann
    holds that there are reasons for believing that the engraver, by
    error, put a stroke too many, and that 2200 should be read instead of
    3200.

  [40] The real Biblical date.

  [41] Rogers, i. 373-375. Many monuments and inscriptions of other
    kings in Babylonia, between 4000 and 2000 B.C., are also known.

  [42] The lists of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings are not
    continuous; and before 1907, from the data then available (see the
    discussion in Rogers, op. cit. i. 312-348), Khammurabi, the sixth
    king of the first Babylonian dynasty, was commonly referred to such
    dates as 2376-2333 B.C. (Sayce) or 2285-2242 B.C. (Johns). But
    inscriptions recently discovered, by showing that the second dynasty
    was partly contemporaneous with the first and the third, have proved
    that these dates are too high; see L.W. King, _Chronicles Concerning
    Early Bab. Kings_ (1907), i. 93-110; and the article BABYLONIA,
    _Chronology_. The data B.C. 2130-2088 is that adopted by
    Thureau-Dangin, after a discussion of the subject, in the _Journal
    des Savants_, 1908, p. 199; and by Ungnad in the _Orient.
    Litt.-zeitung_, 1908, p. 13, and in Gressmann's _Altorientalische
    Texte und Bilder zum A.T._ (1909), p. 103.

  [43] King, op. cit. i. 116, ii. 14.

  [44] The dates of the kings are, in most cases, those given by
    Kautzsch in the table in his _Outline of the Hist. of the Literature
    of the O.T._ (tr. by Taylor, 1898), pp. 167 ff.; see also A.R.S.
    Kennedy, "Samuel" in the _Century Bible_ (1906), p. 31. The dates
    given by other recent authorities seldom differ by more than three or
    four years.

  [45] The figures after a king's name indicate the number of years
    assigned to his reign in the O.T. For Saul, see 1 Sam. xiii. 1, R.V.

  [46] The date of Sheshonq depends on that fixed for Rehoboam. Petrie
    places the accession of Rehoboam in 937 B.C.

  [47] If these dates are correct, there must be some error in the ages
    assigned to Ahaz and Hezekiah at their accession, viz. 20 and 25
    respectively, for it would otherwise follow from them that Ahaz,
    dying at the age of [20 + 8 =] 28, left a son aged 25! The date 728
    for Hezekiah's accession rests upon the assumption that of the two
    inconsistent dates in 2 Kings xviii. 10, 13, the one in ver. 10
    (which places the fall of Samaria in Hezekiah's 6th year) is correct;
    but some scholars (as Wellhausen, Kamphausen, and Stade) suppose that
    the date in ver. 10 (which places Sennacherib's invasion in
    Hezekiah's 14th year) is correct, and assign accordingly Hezekiah's
    accession to 715. This removes, or at least mitigates, the difficulty
    referred to, and leaves more room for the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz;
    but it requires, of course, a corresponding reduction in the reigns
    of the kings succeeding Ahaz.

  [48] Breasted's dates for these three kings (_Hist. of Egypt_, 1906,
    p. 601) are: Shabaka 712-700; Shabataka 700-688; Taharqa 688-663.

  [49] See George Smith, _The Assyrian Eponym Canon_ (1875), pp. 29
    ff., 57 ff.; Schrader, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_
    (transcriptions and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian
    inscriptions), i. (1889), pp. 204 ff.

  [50] It may be explained here that the dates of the Assyrian and
    Babylonian kings can be reduced to years B.C. by means of the
    so-called "Canon of Ptolemy," which is a list of the Babylonian and
    Persian kings, with the lengths of their reigns, extending from
    Nabonassar, 747 B.C., to Alexander the Great, drawn up in the 2nd
    century A.D. by the celebrated Egyptian mathematician and geographer
    Ptolemy; as the dates B.C. of the Persian kings are known
    independently, from Greek sources, the dates B.C. of the preceding
    Babylonian kings can, of course, be at once calculated by means of
    the Canon. The recently-discovered contemporary monuments have fully
    established the accuracy of the Canon.

  [51] Or, in any case, between 734 and 732; see Rost, _Die
    Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-pilesers III._, 1893, pp. xii., 39, 81, with
    the discussion, pp. xxxii.-xxxiv., xxxv.-xxxvi.

  [52] This interval does not depend upon a mere list of Eponym years;
    we have in the annals of Sargon and Sennacherib full particulars of
    the events in all the intervening years.

  [53] The date of this epistle is rather uncertain. Something depends
    upon the vexed question as to the identity of the Galatian churches.
    The epistle may be placed conjecturally early in the stay at Ephesus
    (c. A.D. 52-53). It is to be noted that the chronological grouping of
    the epistles by minute comparison of style is apt to be deceptive;
    resemblances of this kind are due more to similarity of subject than
    to proximity in date.

  [54] E.g. from the preface to the Acts: "Dionysius, bishop of the
    Corinthians, a very ancient writer, quoted by Eusebius, writes that
    Peter and Paul obtained the crown of martyrdom by the command of Nero
    on the same day." And again: "Some industrious critics have added (to
    the narrative of Acts) that Paul was acquitted at his first trial by
    Nero .... This conjecture they make from the 2nd Ep. to Timothy...."

  [55] The phrase is Chillingworth's (1637), who may be described as a
    Broad High-churchman.

  [56] J. Wellhausen, _Einl. in die drei ersten Evangelien_ (1905), p.
    57.

  [57] If Luke used Josephus, as F.C. Burkitt and others believe, the
    later date must be taken; otherwise the earlier date is more
    probable, as in any case it must fall within the lifetime of a
    companion of St Paul.

  [58] It is a curious coincidence that a medieval Jew, R. Abarbanel
    (Abrabanel), records that the conjunction of these particular planets
    in this particular constellation was to be a sign of Messiah's
    coming. It is just conceivable that his statement may ultimately
    depend on some such ancient tradition as may have been known to
    Chaldaean magi.

  [59] If the Passover celebration could be anticipated by one day in a
    private Jewish family (and we know perhaps too little of Jewish rules
    in the time of Christ to be able to exclude this possibility), the
    evidence of the synoptic Gospels would no longer conflict with that
    of St John.

  [60] Dr C. Erbes (_Texte and Untersuchungen_, new series, iv. 1)
    attempts to interpret the evidence of Eusebius in favour of the later
    date for Festus as follows: Eusebius's date for Festus is to be found
    in Nero 1, by striking a mean between the Armenian, Claudius 12, and
    the Latin, Nero 2; it is really to be understood as reckoned, not by
    years of Nero, but by years of Agrippa; and as Eusebius erroneously
    antedated Agrippa's reign by five years, commencing it with A.D. 45
    instead of A.D. 50, his date for Festus is five years too early also,
    and should be moved to Nero 6, A.D. 59-60. The whole of this theory
    appears to the present writer to be a gigantic mare's nest: see
    _Journal of Theological Studies_ (October 1901), pp. 120-123.

  [61] This date appears to be satisfactorily established by Ramsay, "A
    Second Fixed Point in the Pauline Chronology," _Expositor_, August
    1900.



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


  Cædmon.

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


  Bede.

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


  9th and 10th century glosses.

The 9th century is characterized by _interlinear glosses on the Book of
Psalms_, and towards its close by a few attempts at independent
translation. Of these "glossed Psalters" twelve MSS. are known to exist,
and they may be ranged into two groups according to the Latin text they
represent. The _Roman Psalter_ is glossed in the following MSS.: (1)
Cotton Vesp. A. 1 (_Vespasian Psalter_); (2) Bodl. Junius 27; (3) Univ.
Libr. Camb. Ff. 1. 23; (4) Brit. Mus. Reg. 2. B. 5; (5) Trin. Coll.
Camb. R. 17. 1 (_Eadwine's Psalter_); (6) Brit. Mus. Add. 37517. The
_Gallican Psalter_ in the following: (1) Brit. Mus. Stowe 2 (Spelman's
text); (2) Cotton Vitell. E. 18; (3) Cotton Tib. C. 16; (4) Lambeth 48;
(5) Arundel 60; (6) Salisbury Cath. 150.[1]

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

      _Roman Text._                    _Gallican Text._

    MS. Vespasian. A. 1.                MS. Stowe. 2.

  Wynsumiað gode, all eorðe        Drymað drihtne, eall eorðe;
  ðiowiad Dryhtne in blisse;       ðeowiað drihtne on blisse;
  ingað in gesihðe his in          infarað on gesyhðe hys
  wynsumnisse.                     on bliðnysse.

  _Jubilate Deo, omnis terra;      _Jubilate Domino, omnis terra;
  servite Domino in laetitia;      Servite Domino in laetitia;
  intrate in conspectu eius in     introite in conspectu eius
  exultatione._                    in exultatione._


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


  Lindisfarne Gospels.

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

  _Lindisfarne Gospels._

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

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

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

          J in eorðo.
         et in terra.

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

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

          usum.
        _nostris._

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


  Rushworth Version.

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


  West-Saxon Gospels.

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

The Lord's Prayer is rendered in the following way in these gospels:--

  _West-Saxon Gospels.--MS Corpus 140._

  Matthew vi. 9. Eornustlice gebiddað eow ðus; Fæder úre þu þe. eart on
  heofonum; si þin nama gehalgod (10) to-becume þin ríce; gewurþe ðin
  willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. (11) úrne gedæghwamlican hlaf
  syle us to dæg, (12) J forgyf us úre gyltas swa swa wé forgyfað úrum
  gyltendum. (13) J ne gelaéd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele
  soþlice.


  Ælfric.

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

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

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

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


  Anglo-Norman Period.

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


  14th-century renderings.

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

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

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

  _MS. British Mus. Add. 17376._

  (i. 1.) _Beatus uir, qui non abijt in consilio impiorum, & in uia
  peccatorum non stetit, et in cathedra ·i· iudicio pestilencie ·i·
  falsitatis non sedit._ Blesced be þe man þat yede nouyt in þe counseil
  of wicked, ne stode nouyt in þe waie of sinyeres, ne sat nouyt in fals
  iugement. (2) _Set in lege domini uoluntas eius, & in lege eius
  meditabitur die ac nocte._ Ac hijs wylle was in þe wylle of oure Lord,
  and he schal þenche in hijs lawe boþe daye and nyyt.


  Richard Rolle.

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

    _MS. Univ. Coll. 64._               _MS. Reg. 18 B. 21_
  (i. 1.) Blisful man þe whilk        Blessed is þat man þat haþ
  oway ged noght in þe counsaile      not gone in þe counsell of wicked
  of wicked, and in þe way of         men, and in þe weye of sinfull
  synful stode noght, & in þe         men haþ not stonde, and in þe
  chaiere of pestilens he noght       chaire of pestilence sat not.
  sate. (2) Bot in laghe of lord þe   2. But in þe lawe of our lorde
  will of him; and in his laghe       is þe will of him; and [in] his
  he sall thynke day & nyght.         lawe we shall þinke day and
                                      nyght.

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

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

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

  _MS. Camb. Univ. Libr. Ii. 2. 12._

  (iii. 1.) In þo dayes come Ihone baptist prechand in desert of þe
  Iewry, & seyand, (2) Do ye penaunce; forwhy þe kyngdome of heuyne sal
  come negh. (3) Þis is he of whome it was seide be Isay þe prophete,
  sayand, "þe voice of þe cryand in þe desert, redye ye þe way of God,
  right made ye þe lityl wayes of him." (4) & Ihone his kleþing of þe
  hoerys of camels, & a gyrdyl of a skyn about his lendys; & his mete
  was þe locust & hony of þe wode.

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

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

It is noteworthy that these early versions from Anglo-Saxon times
onwards were perfectly orthodox, executed by and for good and faithful
sons of the church, and, generally speaking, with the object of
assisting those whose knowledge of Latin proved too scanty for a proper
interpretation and understanding of the holy text. Thus Richard Rolle's
version of the Psalms was executed for a nun; so was in all likelihood
the southern version of the epistles referred to above. Again the
earliest MS. (Harl. 874) of the Commentary on the Apocalypse gives the
owner's name in a coeval hand as "Richard Schepard, _presbiter_," and
the Catholic Epistles of MS. Douce 250[10] were probably glossed for the
benefit of men in religious orders, if one may judge from a short
Commentary to James ii. 2, "& þerfore if eny man come into youre siyt,
_þat is, into youre cumpenye þat beþ Godes religiouse men in what degre
so ye be_." Nor do any of the remaining works contain anything but what
is strictly orthodox.


  The Wycliffite Versions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  For these resons and orhere ... a symple creature hath translatid the
  bible out of Latyn into English. First, this symple creature hadde
  myche traueile, with diuerse felawis and helperis, to gedere manie
  elde biblis, and othere doctouris, and comune glosis, and to make oo
  Latyn bible sumdel trewe; and thanne to studie it of the newe, the
  text with the glose, and othere doctouris, as he miyte gete, and
  speciali Lire on the elde testament, that helpide ful myche in this
  work; the thridde tyme to counseile with elde gramariens, and elde
  dyuynis, of harde wordis, and harde sentencis, hou tho miyten best be
  vndurstonden and translatid; the iiij tyme to translate as cleerli as
  he coude to the sentence, and to haue manie gode felawis and kuonynge
  at the correcting of the translacioun.

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

    _Early Version._                      _Late Version._

  (Psalm i. 1.) Blisful the man,        (i. 1.) Blessid _is_ the man, that
  that went not awei in the counseil    yode not in the councel of wickid
  of vnpitouse, and in the wei          men; and stood not in the
  off sinful stod not; and in the       weie of synneris, and sat not in
  chayer of pestilence sat not.         the chaier of pestilence. (2)
  (2) But in the lawe of the Lord his   But his wille _is_ in the lawe of
  wil; and in the lawe of hym he        the Lord; and he schal bithenke
  shal sweteli thenke dai and nyyt.     in the lawe of hym dai and nyyt.

  (Matthew iii. 1.) In thilke           (iii. 1.) In tho daies Ioon
  days came Ioon Baptist, prechynge     Baptist cam, and prechide in
  in the desert of Iude,                the desert of Iudee, and seide,
  sayinge, (2) Do ye penaunce,          (2) Do ye penaunce, for the
  for the kyngdom of heuens shal        kyngdom of heuenes shal neiye.
  neiy, _or cume niye_. (3) Forsothe    (3) For this is he, of whom it is
  this is he of whome it is said by     seid bi Ysaie, the prophete,
  Ysaye the prophet. A voice of         seyinge, A vois of a crier in
  a cryinge in desert, Make ye redy     desert, Make ye redi the weies
  the wayes of the Lord;  Make ye       of the Lord; make ye riyt the
  riytful the pathes of hym. (4)        pathis of hym. (4) And this
  Forsothe that ilk Ioon hadde cloth    Ioon hadde clothing of camels
  of the heeris of cameylis, and a      heeris, and a girdil of skynne
  girdil of skyn aboute his leendis;    aboute his leendis; and his mete
  sothely his mete weren locustis,      was honysoukis and hony of the
  and hony of the wode.                 wode.


  The Lollards.

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

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

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

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

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

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


  William Tyndale.

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

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

In 1531 the _Book of Jonah_ appeared with an important and highly
interesting prologue, the only copy known of which is in the British
Museum.[22]

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

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

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

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

The following specimens may prove of interest:--

  _The thryde Chapter._

  (Matthew iii. 1-4.) In those dayes Ihon the baptyser cam and preached
  in the wyldernes of Iury, saynge, Repent, the kyngedom of heven ys at
  hond. Thys ys he of whom it ys spoken be the prophet Isay, whych
  sayth: the voice of a cryer in wyldernes, prepaire ye the lordes waye,
  and make hys pathes strayght. Thys Ihon had hys garment of camelles
  heere, and a gyrdyll of a skynne about hys loynes. Hys meate was
  locustes * and wyldhe ony.

  * "Locustes are more then oware greshoppers, souche men vse to eate in
  divres parties of the est" (marginal note).

  (Matthew vi. 9-13.) O oure father which art in heven, halewed be thy
  name. Let thy kingdom come. Thy wyll be fulfilled, as well in erth, as
  hit ys in heven. Geve vs this daye oure dayly breade. And forgeve vs
  oure treaspases, even as we forgeve them whych treaspas vs. Lede vs
  nott in to temptacion, but delyvre vs from yvell. Amen. (Grenville
  12179.)


  Miles Coverdale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  _The first psalme._

  (i. 1-2.) Blessed is þe man, þe goeth not in the councell of þe
  ungodly: þe abydeth not in the waye off synners, & sytteth not in þe
  seate of the scornefull. But delyteth in the lawe of þe Lorde, &
  exercyseth himself in his lawe both daye and night.

  _The gospell of S. Mathew._

  (iii. 1-4.) In those dayes Ihon the Baptyst came and preached in the
  wildernes of Jury, saynge: Amende youre selues, the kyngdome of heuen
  is at honde. This is he, of whom it is spoken by the prophet Esay,
  which sayeth: The voyce of a cryer in þe wyldernes, prepare the
  _Lordes_ waye, and make his pathes straight. This Ihon had his garment
  of camels heer, and a lethren gerdell aboute his loynes. Hys meate was
  locustes and wylde hony.

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


  Matthew's Bible.

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


  Taverner.

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


  The Great Bible, 1539.

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

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

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

  (Matthew iii. 1-4.) In those dayes came Iohn the Baptyst, preaching in
  the wyldernes of Iewry, saying, Repent of the life that is past, for
  the kyngdome of heauen is at hande, For thys is he, of whom the
  prophet Esay spake, which sayeth, the voyce of a cryer in the
  wyldernes, prepare ye the waye of the lorde: make hys pathes strayght.
  Thys Iohn had hys garment of camels heer And a gyrdell of a skynne
  aboute hys loynes. His meate was locustes and wylde hony.

  (Matthew vi. 9-13.) Oure father which art in heauen, halowed be thy
  name. Let thy kingdome come. Thy will be fulfilled, as well in erth,
  as it is in heuen. Geue vs this daye oure dayly bred. And forgeue vs
  oure dettes, as we forgeue oure detters. And leade vs not into
  temptation: but delyuer vs from euyll. For thyne is the kyngdom and
  the power, and the glorye for euer. Amen.

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


  William Whittingham.

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


  The Genevan Bible.

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

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


  The Bishops' Bible.

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

  The rules upon which they proceeded were these:--

  1. "To follow the common English translation used in the churches, and
  not to recede from it, but where it varieth manifestly from the Hebrew
  or Greek original. 2. To use sections and divisions in the text as
  Pagnine in his translation useth, and for the verity of the Hebrew to
  follow the said Pagnine and Münster specially, and generally others
  learned in the tongues. 3. To make no bitter notes upon any text, or
  yet to set down any determination in places of controversy. 4. To note
  such chapters and places as contain matters of genealogies, or other
  such places not edifying, with some strike or note, that the reader
  may eschew them in his public reading. 5. That all such words as sound
  in the old translation to any offence of lightness or obscenity be
  expressed with more convenient terms and phrases."

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


  The Reims and Douai Version.

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

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

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

  (Matthew iii. 1-4.) And in those dayes cometh Iohn the Baptist
  preaching in the desert of Ievvrie, saying. Doe penance: for the
  Kingdom of heauen is at hand. For this is he that vvas spoken of by
  Esay the Prophet, saying, A voyce of one crying in the desert, prepare
  ye the way of our Lord, make straight his pathes. And the sayd Iohn
  had his garment of camels heare, & a girdle of a skinne about his
  loynes: and his meate was locustes & vvilde honie.

  (Matthew vi. 9-13.) Ovr Father which art in heauen, sanctified be thy
  name. Let thy Kingdom come. Thy wil be done, as in heauen, in earth
  also. Giue vs to day our supersubstantial bread. And forgiue vs our
  dettes, as we also forgiue our detters. And leade vs not into
  tentation. But deliuer vs from evil. Amen.

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


  The Authorized Version, 1611.

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

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

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

  The following list[43] is drawn up in such a way as to show the
  academical or other position which each of them occupied, and the
  particular part of the work on which they were engaged.

  Genesis-2 Kings.

  Westminster.

    Dr Lancelot Andrewes, dean of Westminster.
    Dr John Overall, dean of St Paul's.
    Dr Hadrian de Saravia, canon of Canterbury.
    Dr Richard Clark, fellow of Christ's Coll., Camb.
    Dr John Layfield, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.
    Dr Robert Teigh, archdeacon of Middlesex.
    Mr Francis Burleigh, Pemb. Hall, Camb., D.D., 1607.
    Mr Geoffrey King, fellow of King's Coll., Camb.
    Mr Thompson, Clare Hall, Camb.
    Mr William Bedwell, St John's Coll., Camb.

  1 Chron.-Eccles.

  Cambridge.

    Mr Edward Lively, fellow of Trin. Coll.
    Mr John Richardson, afterwards master of Trin. Coll.
    Mr Laurence Chatterton, master of Emm. Coll.
    Mr Francis Dillingham, fellow of Christ's Coll.
    Mr Thomas Harrison, vice-master of Trin. Coll.
    Mr Roger Andrewes, afterwards master of Jesus Coll.
    Mr Robert Spalding, fellow of St John's.
    Mr Andrew Byng, fellow of St Peter's Coll.

  Isaiah-Malachi.

  Oxford.

    Dr John Harding, pres. of Magd. Coll.
    Dr John Reynolds, pres. of Corpus Christi Coll.
    Dr Thomas Holland, afterwards rector of Ex. Coll.
    Mr Richard Kilbye, rector of Lincoln Coll.
    Dr Miles Smith, Brasenose Coll.
    Dr Richard Brett, fellow of Lincoln Coll.
    Mr Richard Fairclough, fellow of New Coll.

  The Apocrypha.

  Cambridge.

    Dr John Duport, master of Jesus Coll.
    Dr William Branthwait, master of Caius Coll.
    Dr Jeremiah Radcliffe, fellow of Trin. Coll.
    Dr Samuel Ward, afterwards master of Sid. Coll.
    Mr Andrew Downes, fellow of St John's Coll.
    Mr John Bois, fellow of St John's Coll.
    Mr Robert Ward, fellow of King's Coll.

  The Four Gospels, Acts, Apocalypse.

  Oxford.

    Dr Thomas Ravis, dean of Christ Church.
    Dr George Abbot, dean of Winchester.
    Dr Richard Eedes, dean of Worcester.
    Dr Giles Thompson, dean of Windsor.
    Mr (Sir Henry) Saville, provost of Eton.
    Dr John Perin, fellow of St John's Coll.
    Dr Ravens [fellow of St John's Coll.]
    Dr John Harmer, fellow of New Coll.

  Romans-Jude.

  Westminster.

    Dr William Barlow, dean of Chester.
    Dr William Hutchinson, archdeacon of St Albans.
    Dr John Spencer, pres. of Corp. Chr. Coll., Ox.
    Dr Roger Fenton, fellow of Pemb. Hall, Camb.
    Mr Michael Rabbett, Trin. Coll., Camb.
    Mr Thomas Sanderson, Balliol Coll., Oxford, D.D., 1605.
    Mr William Dakins, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.

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

  "(1) The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called 'the
  Bishops' Bible,' to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of
  the original will permit. (2) The names of the prophets and the holy
  writers, with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as
  may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. (3) The old
  ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word _Church_ not to be
  translated _Congregation_, &c. (4) When a word hath divers
  significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by
  the most of the ancient fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of
  the place and the analogy of the faith. (5) The division of the
  chapters to be altered either not at all or as little as may be, if
  necessity so require. (6) No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but
  only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot,
  without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the
  text. (7) Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall
  serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another. (8) Every
  particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters;
  and having translated or amended them severally by himself where he
  thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and
  agree for their parts what shall stand. (9) As any one company hath
  dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest
  to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for his majesty is very
  careful in this point. (10) If any company, upon the review of the
  book so sent, doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word
  thereof, note the place, and withal send the reasons; to which if they
  consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting,
  which is to be of the chief persons of each company at the end of the
  work. (11) When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters
  to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for
  his judgment of such a place. (12) Letters to be sent from every
  bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of his translation
  in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the
  tongues and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular
  observations to the company either at Westminster, Cambridge or
  Oxford. (13) The directors in each company to the deans of Westminster
  and Chester for that place; and the king's professors in the Hebrew or
  Greek in either university. (14) These translations to be used when
  they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible; viz.
  Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. (15) Besides
  the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the most ancient
  and grave divines in either of the universities, not employed in
  translating, to be assigned by the vice-chancellor upon conference
  with [the] rest of the heads to be overseers of the translations, as
  well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule
  above specified."

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

  "Neither did we run ouer the worke with that posting haste that the
  _Septuagint_ did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they
  finished it in 72 days.... The worke hath... cost the workemen, as
  light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seuen times seuentie two
  dayes and more... Truly (good Christian Reader), we neuer thought from
  the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet
  to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or
  out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to be
  excepted against.... To that purpose there were many chosen, that were
  greater in other mens eyes than in their owne, and that sought the
  truth rather than their own praise.... Neither did wee thinke much to
  consult the Translators or Commentators, _Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian,
  Greeke_, or _Latine_, no mor the _Spanish, French, Italian_ or _Dutch_
  [German]; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done,
  and to bring back to the anuitl that which we had hammered: but hauing
  and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for
  slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length,
  through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that
  passe that you see."

From the above it appears that the actual work of revision occupied
about two years and nine months, an additional nine months being
required for the final preparation for press. The edition appeared at
length in 1611, the full title being as follows: The Holy Bible,
conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the
Originall tongues, & with the former Translations diligently compared
and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall comandement. Appointed to be read
in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings
most Excellent Maiestie. _Anno Dom_. 1611.[45] Since that time many
millions of this revised translation have been printed, and the general
acceptance of it by all English-speaking people of whatever denomination
is a testimony to its excellence.

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


  The Revised Version.

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

  These companies consisted of the following:--1. For the Old
  Testament:--([alpha]) _Appointed by Convocation._--Connop Thirlwall,
  bishop of St David's (d. 1875); Alfred Ollivant (1798-1882), bishop of
  Llandaff; E. Harold Browne (1811-1891), bishop of Ely; Christopher
  Wordsworth, bishop of Lincoln; and Lord Arthur Hervey (1808-1894),
  bishop of Bath and Wells; Archdeacon H.J. Rose (d. 1873); William
  Selwyn (1806-1875), canon of Ely and Lady Margaret professor at
  Cambridge; Dr John Jebb (1805-1886), canon of Hereford; and Dr William
  Kay (1820-1886). ([beta]) _Invited._--Dr William Lindsay Alexander
  (1808-1884), congregational minister; Thomas Chenery (1826-1884),
  professor of Arabic at Oxford, and afterwards (1877) editor of _The
  Times_; Frederick Charles Cook (1810-1889), canon of Exeter; Professor
  A.B. Davidson; Dr Benjamin Davies (1814-1875), professor of oriental
  and classical languages at Stepney Baptist College; the Rev. A.M.
  Fairbairn, congregationalist; the Rev. Frederick Field (1801-1885),
  fellow of Trinity, Cambridge; Dr C.D. Ginsburg; the Rev. Dr Gotch of
  Bristol; Archdeacon Benjamin Harrison (1808-1887), Hebraist; the Rev.
  Stanley Leathes (1830-1900), professor of Hebrew at King's College,
  London; Professor M'Gill; Canon Robert Payne Smith (1819-1895), regius
  professor of divinity at Oxford, dean of Canterbury (1870); Professor
  J.J.S. Perowne, afterwards bishop of Worcester; the Rev. Edward Hayes
  Plumtre (1821-1891), professor of exegesis at King's College, London,
  afterwards dean of Wells; Canon E. Bouverie Pusey; William Wright
  (1830-1889), the orientalist; W. Aldis Wright, Cambridge. Of these
  Canons Cook and Pusey declined to serve, and ten members died during
  the progress of the work. The secretary of the company was Mr W. Aldis
  Wright, fellow of Trinity, Cambridge.

  2. For the New Testament:--([alpha]) _Appointed by
  Convocation._--Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Winchester; Charles J.
  Ellicott, bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; and George Moberly, bishop
  of Salisbury; Dr Edward Bickersteth (1814-1892), prolocutor of the
  lower house of convocation; Henry Alford, dean of Canterbury, and
  Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, dean of Westminster; Joseph Williams Blakesley
  (1808-1885), canon of Canterbury, and (1872) dean of Lincoln. ([beta])
  _Invited._--The Rev. Dr Joseph Angus, president of the Stepney Baptist
  College; Dr David Brown; Richard Chenevix Trench, archbishop of
  Dublin; the Rev. Dr John Eadie (1810-1876), Presbyterian; the Rev.
  F.J.A. Hort; the Rev. W.G. Humphry (1815-1886), vicar of St
  Martin-in-the-Fields, London; the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, canon of
  Ely; William Lee (1815-1883), archdeacon of Dublin, and professor of
  ecclesiastical history in the university; J.B. Lightfoot, afterwards
  bishop of Durham; Professor William Milligan; the Rev. William
  Fieldian Moulton (1835-1898), Wesleyan biblical scholar; Dr J.H.
  Newman; the Rev. Samuel Newth (1821-1898), congregationalist,
  professor of ecclesiastical history at, and afterwards president of,
  New College, London; Dr A. Roberts; the Rev. G. Vance Smith; Dr Robert
  Scott; the Rev. F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891), rector of St Gerrans,
  Cornwall; Charles Wordsworth, bishop of St Andrews; Dr W.H. Thompson;
  Dr S.P. Tregelles; Dr C.J. Vaughan; Canon Westcott. Of these, Dr
  Thompson and Dr Newman declined to serve. Dean Alford, Dr Tregelles,
  Bishop Wilberforce and Dr Eadie were removed by death. Only the first
  vacancy was filled up. Dean Merivale was co-opted, and on his
  resignation Professor, afterwards Archdeacon, Edwin Palmer. The Rev.
  J. Troutbeck, minor canon of Westminster, acted as secretary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The principal works dealing with the separate versions
  have been referred to in the text of the article. The following
  authorities may also be cited:

  For the version as a whole: J.R. Dore, _Old Bibles_ (2nd ed., 1888);
  J. Eadie, _The English Bible: an External and Critical History of the
  various English Translations of Scripture_ (2 vols., 1876: the most
  complete account); A. Edgar, _The Bibles of England_ (1889); H.W.
  Hoare, _The Evolution of the English Bible_ (2nd ed., 1902: gives
  historical setting of the Versions); F.G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the
  Ancient Manuscripts_ (1895); J.H. Lupton, article on "English
  Versions," in Hastings' _Dict. of the Bible_ (extra vol.); R. Lovett,
  _The Printed English Bible, 1525-1885_ (1894); G. Milligan, _The
  English Bible, a Sketch of its History_ (1895); J.I. Mombert, _English
  Versions of the Bible_ (1883); F. Moulton, _The History of the English
  Bible_ (2nd ed., 1884); T.H. Pattison, _History of the English Bible_
  (1894); J. Stoughton, _Our English Bible, its Translations and
  Translators_ [1878].

  For the earlier history: J. Lewis, _History of English Translations of
  the Bible_ (1818); the historical accounts prefixed to Bagster's issue
  of _The English Hexapla_ and of Forshall and Madden's edition of the
  _Wycliffite Versions_ (Oxford, 1850). These are all to a great extent
  antiquated, their errors being repeated in almost all subsequent
  accounts of the subject. The only trustworthy authority on the
  Anglo-Saxon Bible is A.S. Cook's "Introduction on Old English
  Translations of the Bible," in _Biblical Quotations in Old English
  Prose-writers_.

  For the 14th and 15th centuries: See A.C. Paues, _The Bible in the
  Fourteenth Century_.

  For the early printed Bibles: H. Cotton, _List of Editions of the
  Bible_ (1852), _Rhemes and Doway_ (1855); F. Fry, _The Bible by
  Coverdale_ (1867); _Description of the Great Bible, 1539_ (1865);
  _Bibliographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament_
  (1878); N. Pocock, "On the Bishops' and Genevan Bible,"
  (_Bibliographer_, vols. i.-iv.); Prime Wendell, _Fifteenth-Century
  Bibles_ (1888); John Wright, _Early Bibles of America_ (1893).

  For the Authorized Version: F.H.A. Scrivener, _The Authorized Edition
  of the English Bible_ (1884). See also R. Gell, _Essay toward the
  Amendment of the Authorized Version_ (1659); W. Kilburne, _Dangerous
  Errors in ... Bibles_ (1659); R.C. Trench, _On the Authorized Version
  of the New Testament in connexion with some recent proposals for its
  revision_ (2nd ed., 1859).

  For the Revised Version: J.B. Lightfoot, _On a Fresh Revision of the
  English New Testament_ (London, 1871; 3rd ed. 1891); Westcott, _Some
  Lessons of the Revised Version_ (London, 1897); Kennedy, _Ely
  Lectures on the Revised Version_ (London, 1882). The Revisers fully
  explained their principles and methods in the Preface. The American
  Committee of Revision issued an historical account of their work (New
  York, 1885). The case against the Revisers is ably stated in _The
  Revision Revised_, by Dean Burgon (London, 1883). The literary defects
  of the Version are elaborately exhibited by G. Washington Moon in two
  works: _The Revisers' English_ (London, 1882), and _Ecclesiastical
  English_ (London, 1886). See also _Some Thoughts on the Textual
  Criticism of the New Testament_, by G. Salmon, D.D. (London, 1897);
  Bishop Ellicott's _Charge_ (1901). The Greek Text of the New Testament
  adopted by the Revisers was edited for the Clarendon Press by
  Archdeacon Palmer (Oxford, 1881). Parallel editions of the Bible,
  showing both the Authorized and Revised Versions, a large-type edition
  for public use, a reference edition, and (1900) a "Two Version"
  edition, have been issued by one or both the University Presses.
       (A. C. P.; H. H. H.*)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] See A.S. Cook, _Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose
    Writers_, with an introduction on _Old English Biblical Versions_
    (London, 1898-1903), vol. i. pp. xxvi. ff.; H. Sweet, _The Vespasian
    Psalter_ in "Oldest English Texts" (E.E.T.S., No. 83, London, 1885);
    F. Harsley, _Eadwine's Canterbury Psalter_ (E.E.T.S., No. 92, London,
    1892); John Spelman, _Psalterium Davidis Latino-Saxonicum Vetus_
    (London, 1640); Fr. Roeder, _Der altengl. Regius Psalter_ (Reg. II.
    B. 5, Halle, 1904).

  [2] Benjamin Thorpe, _Libri Psalmorum versio Antiqua Latina cum
    paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica_ (Oxford, 1835); cf. J.D. Bruce, _The
    Anglo-Saxon Version of the Book of Psalms ... known as the Paris
    Psalter_ (Baltimore, 1894).

  [3] K.W. Bouterwek, _Die vier Evangelien in alt-nordh. Sprache_
    (Gütersloh, 1857), _id. Screadunga_ (Elberfeld, 1858, prefaces to the
    Gospels); J. Stevenson and E. Waring, _The Lindisfarne and Rushworth
    Gospels_ (Surtees Soc., 1854-1865); W.W. Skeat, _The Holy Gospels in
    Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian Versions_ (Cambridge,
    1871-1887).

  [4] See Stevenson, Waring and Skeat, op. cit.

  [5] W.W. Skeat, _The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, &c._ (Cambridge,
    1871-1887); J.W. Bright, _The Gospel of Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon_
    (Oxford, 1893); for earlier editions see Cook, op. cit, p. lx.

  [6] C.W.M. Grein, _Ælfrik de vetero et novo Testamento, &c._--Bibl.
    d. Angels. Prosa (Cassel and Göttingen, 1872), p. 6; E. Thwaites,
    _Heptateuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi; Anglo-Saxonice_
    (Oxon., 1698).

  [7] K.D. Bülbring, _The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter_
    (E.E.T.S., No. 97), part i. (London, 1891); cf. A.C. Paues, _A
    Fourteenth-Century Engl. Bibl. Version_ (Upsala Diss.) (Cambridge,
    1902), p. lvi.

  [8] H.R. Bramley, _The Psalter and Certain Canticles... by Richard
    Rolle of Hampole_ (Oxford, 1884); cf. H. Middendorff, _Studien uber
    Richard Rolle van Hampole unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner
    Psalmen-Commentare_ (Magdeburg, 1888).

  [9] A.C. Paues, _A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version_
    (Cambridge, 1904), pp. xxiv. ff.

  [10] See Paues, _op. cit._ p. 210.

  [11] For a different view as to the authorship of the Wycliffite
    versions, see F.A. Gasquet, _The Old English Bible and Other Essays_
    (London, 1897), pp. 102 ff.

  [12] Sir F. Madden and Rev. J. Forshall, _The Holy Bible... made from
    the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His Followers_ (4 vols.,
    Oxford, 1850), pp. xix., xxiv.

  [13] Cf. A.C. Paues, _The English Bible in the Fourteenth Century_.

  [14] See Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, iv. 135 ff. (ed. Townsend,
    1846).

  [15] Wilkin's _Concilia_, iii. 317.

  [16] T.G. Law, _The New Testament in Scots_, being Purvey's Revision
    of Wycliffe's version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet, c. 1520
    (Scot. T.S., Edinburgh, 1901-1905).

  [17] B.F. Westcott, _History of the English Bible_ (3rd ed.), revised
    by W. Aldis Wright (London, 1905), p. 25.

  [18] _Pref. to Genesis_, p. 396 (Parker Soc.).

  [19] Photo lithographed by Edw. Arber (London, 1871).

  [20] Reprinted by G. Offor (London, 1836); reproduced in facsimile by
    Francis Fry (Bristol, 1862).

  [21] Reprinted with an introduction by J.T. Mombert (New York, 1884).

  [22] Reproduced in facsimile by Francis Fry (1863).

  [23] Cf. H. Bradshaw, _Bibliographer_ (1882-1881), i. 3 ff.
    (reprinted 1886).

  [24] See F. Jenkinson, _Early English Printed Books in the Univ.
    Libr. Cambridge_, iii. (1730).

  [25] See _Biographical Description of the Editions of the New
    Testament, Tyndale's Version, in English_ (1878).

  [26] _Epistle to the Reader_ in the New Testament of 1526, reprinted
    by G. Offor; cf. _Parker Soc._ (1848), p. 390.

  [27] Westcott, op. cit. p. 57 note.

  [28] See Dr Ginsburg's information to Mr Tedder, _D.N.B._ xii. 365.

  [29] Cf. H. Stevens, _Catalogue of the Caxton Exhibition_ (1877) p.
    88.

  [30] _Remains_, Parker Soc., pp. II f.

  [31] Westcott, op. cit. p. 172 note.

  [32] Cranmer's _Works_, letter 194 (Parker Soc.).

  [33] See examples in Westcott, op. cit. pp. 208 f.

  [34] Burnet's _Ref._, ed. Pococke, 1865.

  [35] Westcott, op. cit. pp. 180 f.

  [36] _Remains_ (Parker Soc.), p. 493; cf. J.A. Kingdon, _Incidents in
    the Lives of Thomas Poyntz and Richard Grafton_ (1895).

  [37] Cf. Burnet's _Ref._ i. 584.

  [38] Printed in Bagster's _Hexapla_, 1841, reprinted separately in
    1842.

  [39] See "Address to the Reader." The division into verses of the New
    Testament was first found in R. Stephanus' Greek-Latin New Testament
    (4th ed., 1551), whereas these divisions already existed in the
    Hebrew Old Testament.

  [40] See T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule, _Historical Catal. of the
    Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Libr. of the Brit, and
    Foreign Bible Soc._ (London, 1903).

  [41] See J.G. Carleton, _The Part of Rheims in the Making of the
    English Bible_ (Oxford, 1902).

  [42] Barlow, _Sum and Substance of the Conference ..._ in Cardwell's
    _History of Conferences_, pp. 187 f.

  [43] Compiled chiefly from the list found in Cardwell's _Synodalia_
    (ed. 1844), ii. 145-146, a reprint from Burnet's _Doc. Annals_, ii.
    106 ff., "who himself took his list from a copy belonging originally
    to Bishop Ravis." The list is correct for the year 1604; cf.
    Westcott, op. cit. pp. 112 f.

  [44] Quoted from G. Burnet's _Hist. of Reformation_, ii. p. 368
    (1861).

  [45] A reprint of this edition has been published by the Clarendon
    Press (Oxford, 1833).



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

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

  In doctrine the Bible Christians did not differ from the other
  Methodists. In constitution they differed only slightly. There was an
  annual conference with full legislative power, and ability to hold and
  dispose of property, composed of an equal number of lay and
  ministerial representatives meeting together. The local churches were
  grouped into circuits governed representatively by a quarterly
  meeting. The quarterly or circuit meetings were in turn organized into
  twelve districts, eleven in England and one in China. In 1906 the
  statistics showed 218 ministers, 32,549 members and 652 chapels, with
  47,301 scholars in Sunday-schools. These figures include nearly 1400
  full and probationary members in the China mission, the first-fruits
  of two years' labour amongst the Miao tribe. In the various colonial
  Methodist unions the Bible Christians have contributed a total of 159
  ministers, 14,925 members and 660 chapels.

  The community supported a regular ministry from the beginning. Its
  members have been keen evangelists, trusting largely to "revivals" for
  their success, staunch Radicals in politics and total abstainers to a
  man. Both ministers and people entered with interest and sympathy into
  the scheme for union between themselves, the Methodist New Connexion
  and the United Methodist Free Church, which was successfully
  accomplished in 1906. See METHODISM.



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

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

  Thus, the Revised French Geneva Bible of 1588, which was issued in
  folio, quarto and octavo, and became a standard text, bears the
  following note on the verso of the title: _"Les frais de cet ouvrage,
  imprimé en trois diuerses formes en mesme temps, pour la commodité et
  contentement de toutes sortes de personnes, ont esté liberalemet
  fournis par quelques gens de bien, qui n'ont cherché gagner pour leur
  particulier, mais seulement de servir à Dieu et à son Église."_ The
  Corporation for the Promoting and Propagating of the Gospel of Jesus
  Christ in New England (founded in 1649) bore the expense of printing
  both the New Testament and the Bible as a whole (Cambridge, Mass.,
  1663--the earliest Bible printed in America), which John Eliot, one of
  the Pilgrim Fathers, translated into "the language of the
  Massachusetts Indians," whom he evangelized. In Arnauld's _Defence_
  (1669) of the famous Port Royal version of the New Testament in French
  (issued, 1667), he states that it had been printed in many forms and
  sizes, including very cheap editions for the poor, and goes on to
  describe how its circulation was promoted by _"les sacrifices que
  s'imposaient les pieux solitaires pour faire participer les plus
  indigents au bienfait de leur entreprise. Dès que leur traduction fut
  prête, ils envoyèrent de Paris un grand nombre de colporteurs chargés
  de la vendre au prix de revient et même, dans certaines circonstances,
  à des prix réduits; et ils couvrirent la dépense par des dons
  volontaires"_ (E. Pétavel, _La Bible en France_, p. 152).

  To meet the cost of publishing the Finn Bible in 1685, the editor, J.
  Gezelius, bishop of Åbo, obtained an order from the Swedish government
  for the appropriation of certain corn-tithes, still known as _Bibel
  Tryck-Tunnan_. When the Finnish Bible Society began to publish
  editions of the Scriptures, the tsar Alexander I. contributed 5000
  roubles from his privy purse, and ordered that these corn-tithes
  should again be appropriated to this purpose for five years from 1812.
  In 1701 at Frankfort-On-Main there appeared a quarto edition of the
  Ethiopic Psalter, whose editor, H. Ludolf, writes in his preface:
  _"Quamobrem nullum gratius officium Christianae huic nationi a me
  praestari posse putavi, quam si Psalterium Aethiopicum, quod apud
  illos non aliter quam in membrana manuscriptum habetur, et caro satis
  venditur, typis mandari, ejusque plurima exemplaria nomine Societatis
  Indicae in Habessinia gratis distribui curarem."_

  In 1719 appeared the first of numerous editions of the French New
  Testament, connected with the name of the Abbé de Barneville, a priest
  of the Oratory at Paris. Impressed by the popular ignorance of the
  Scriptures, he himself translated, or caused others to translate, the
  New Testament into French from the Vulgate, and formed an association
  to distribute copies systematically at low prices. The prefaces to his
  various editions contain details as to the methods of this
  association, and repeatedly insist on the importance of reading the
  Scriptures. (On this _Société biblique catholique française_ see O.
  Douen, _Histoire de la société biblique protestante de Paris_, Paris,
  1868, pp. 46-51.)

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

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

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

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

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

  The society's advance was chequered by several controversies. (a) Its
  fundamental law to circulate the Bible alone, without note or comment,
  was vehemently attacked by Bishop Marsh and other divines of the
  Church of England, who insisted that the Prayer Book ought to
  accompany the Bible. (b) Another more serious controversy related to
  the circulation--chiefly through affiliated societies on the
  continent--of Bibles containing the Deutero-canonical books of the Old
  Testament. In 1826 the society finally resolved that its fundamental
  law be fully and distinctly recognized as excluding the circulation
  "of those Books, or parts of Books, which are usually termed
  Apocryphal." This step, however, failed to satisfy most of the
  society's supporters in Scotland, who proceeded to form themselves
  into independent organizations, grouped for the most part round
  centres at Edinburgh and Glasgow. These were finally amalgamated in
  1861 into the National Bible Society of Scotland. (c) A third dispute
  turned upon the admissibility of non-Trinitarians to the privilege of
  co-operation. The refusal of the society to alter its constitution so
  as formally to exclude such persons led to the formation (1831) of the
  Trinitarian Bible Society, which is still in existence. (d) A fourth
  controversy arose out of the restrictive renderings of the term
  "baptize" and its cognate terms, adopted by William Carey and his
  colleagues in their famous "Serampore Versions," towards publishing
  which the society had contributed up to 1830 nearly £30,000. Protests
  from other Indian missionaries led the society to determine that it
  could circulate only such versions as gave neutral renderings for the
  terms in question. As a sequel, the Bible Translation Society was
  founded in 1839 to issue versions embodying distinctively Baptist
  renderings.

  By one of its original laws the British and Foreign Bible Society
  could circulate no copies of the Scriptures in English other than King
  James's Version of 1611. In 1901 this law was widened to include the
  Revised English Version of 1881-1885.

  From its foundation the society has successfully laboured to promote
  new and improved versions of the Scriptures. In 1804 the Bible, or
  some part of it, had been printed in about fifty-five different
  tongues. By the year 1906 versions, more or less complete, had been
  published in more than 530 distinct languages and dialects, and in 400
  of these the work of translation, printing or distribution had been
  promoted by the society. Translations or revisions in scores of
  languages are still being carried on by companies of scholars and
  representative missionaries in different parts of the world, organized
  under the society's auspices and largely at its expense. New versions
  are made, wherever practicable, from the original Hebrew or Greek
  text, and the results thus obtained have a high philological value and
  interest. The society's interdenominational character has commonly
  secured--what could hardly otherwise have been attained--the
  acceptance of the same version by missions of different churches
  working side by side. The society supplies the Scriptures to missions
  of every Reformed Communion on such terms that, as a rule, the books
  distributed by the missions involve no charge on their funds. Except
  under special circumstances, the society does not encourage wholesale
  free distribution, but provides cheap editions at prices which the
  poorest can pay. On the whole it receives from sales about 40% of what
  it expends in preparing, printing and circulating the books.

  During the year 1905-1906 the society's circulation reached the
  unprecedented total of 5,977,453 copies, including 968,683 Bibles and
  1,326,475 Testaments. Of the whole 1,921,000 volumes were issued from
  the Bible House, London, and 1,331,000 were in English or Welsh,
  circulating chiefly in England and the British colonies. The other
  main fields of distribution were as follows:--France, 203,000 copies;
  Central Europe, 679,000; Italy, 117,000; Spain and Portugal, 120,000;
  the Russian empire, 595,000; India, Burma and Ceylon, 768,000; Japan,
  286,000; and China, 1,075,000 (most of these last being separate
  gospels).

  The society spends £10,000 a year in grants to religious and
  philanthropic agencies at home. Outside the United Kingdom it has its
  own agencies or secretaries in twenty-seven of the chief cities of the
  world, and maintains depots in 200 other centres. It employs 930
  Christian colporteurs abroad, who sold in 1905-1906 over 2,250,000
  volumes. It supports 670 native Christian Bible-women in the East, in
  connexion with forty different missionary organizations. The centenary
  festival in 1904 was celebrated with enthusiasm by the Reformed
  Churches and their foreign missions throughout the world. Messages of
  congratulation came from the rulers of every Protestant nation in
  Christendom, and a centenary thanksgiving fund of 250,000 guineas was
  raised for extending the society's work. During the year 1905-1906 the
  society expended £238,632, while its income was £231,964 (of which
  £98,204 represented receipts from sales). Up to the 31st of March 1906
  the society had expended altogether £14,686,072, and had issued
  198,515,199 copies of the Scriptures--of which more than 78,000,000
  were in English.

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

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

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

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

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

  The circulation of the Scriptures by German Bible Societies during
  1905 was estimated as follows:--The Prussian Bible Society (Berlin),
  182,000 copies; the Württemberg Bible Institute (Stuttgart), 247,000;
  the Berg Bible Society (Eberfeld), 142,000; the Saxon Bible Society
  (Dresden), 44,000; the Central Bible Association (Nuremberg), 14,000;
  the Canstein Bible Institute (Halle), the Schleswig-Holstein Bible
  Society, the Hamburg-Altona Bible Society and others, together 56,000.

  During 1905, nine cantonal Bible societies in Switzerland circulated
  altogether 71,000 copies; the Netherlands Bible Society reported a
  circulation of 54,544 volumes, 48,137 of which were in Dutch; the
  Danish Bible Society circulated 45,289 copies; the Norwegian Bible
  Society circulated 67,058 copies; and in Sweden the Evangelical
  National Society distributed about 110,000 copies.

  In Italy, by a departure from the traditional policy of the Roman
  Church, the newly formed "Pious Society of St Jerome for the
  Dissemination of the Holy Gospels" issued in 1901 from the Vatican
  press a new Italian version of the Four Gospels and _Acts_. By the end
  of 1905 the society announced that over 400,000 copies of this volume
  had been sold at 2d. a copy.

  In France, the _Société biblique protestante de Paris_, founded in
  1818, with generous aid from the British and Foreign Bible Society,
  had a somewhat restricted basis and scope. In 1833 the _Société
  biblique française et étrangère_ was formed on wider lines; after its
  dissolution in 1863, many of its supporters joined the _Société
  biblique de France_, which dates from 1864, and represents chiefly
  members of the _Église libre_, and kindred French Evangelicals. During
  1905 its issues were 34,475 copies, while the _Société biblique
  protestante de Paris_ issued 8061 copies.

  Of these non-British societies the most noteworthy was established in
  Russia. In December 1812, while "the last shattered remnants of
  Napoleon's Grand Army struggled across the ice of the Niemen," the
  tsar Alexander I. sanctioned plans for a Bible society, which was
  promptly inaugurated at St Petersburg under the presidency of Prince
  Galitzin. Through the personal favour of the tsar, it made rapid and
  remarkable progress. Nobles and ministers of state, with the chief
  ecclesiastics not only of the Russian Church but of the Roman, the
  Uniat, the Armenian, the Greek, the Georgian and the Lutheran
  Churches, found themselves constrained to serve on its committees. By
  the close of 1823 the Russian Bible Society had formed 289
  auxiliaries, extending eastwards to Yakutsk and Okhotsk; and had
  received altogether £145,640. In 1824, however, Prince Galitzin ceased
  to be procurator of the Holy Synod, and Seraphim, metropolitan of St
  Petersburg, became president of the Russian Bible Society. And in
  1826, soon after his accession, the tsar Nicholas I. issued a _ukase_
  suspending the society's operations--after it had printed the
  Scriptures in thirty different languages, seventeen of which were new
  tongues, and had circulated 600,000 volumes from the Caucasus to
  Kamchatka. In 1828 Nicholas I. sanctioned the establishment of a
  Protestant Bible Society, which still exists, to supply the Scriptures
  only to Protestant subjects of the tsar (cf. Th. Schiemann,
  _Geschichte Russlands unter Nikolaus I._ vol. i. chap. ix.). In 1839
  St Petersburg became the headquarters of an agency of the British and
  Foreign Bible Society, which enjoys special facilities in Russia, and
  now annually circulates about 600,000 copies of the Scriptures, in
  fifty different languages, within the Russian empire.

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

  AUTHORITIES.--Besides the published reports of the societies in
  question, the following works may be mentioned: J. Owen, _History of
  the First Ten Years of the British and Foreign Bible Society_ (London,
  1816-1820); G. Browne, _History of the Bible Society_ (London, 1859);
  Bertram, _Geschichte der Cansteinschen Bibelanstalt_ (Halle, 1863); E.
  Pétavel, _La Bible en France_ (Paris, 1864); O. Douen, _Histoire de la
  société biblique protestante de Paris_ (Paris, 1868); G. Borrow, _The
  Bible in Spain_ (London, 1849); W. Canton, _The History of the British
  and Foreign Bible Society_ (London, 1904 foll.); J. Ballinger, _The
  Bible in Wales_ (London, 1906); T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule,
  _Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture_
  (London, vol. i. 1903, vol. ii. 1908).     (T. H. D.)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (a) In transcribing the title-page and other parts of the book it is
  desirable not to omit intermediate words; if an omission is made it
  should be indicated by three dots placed close together. The end of a
  line should be indicated by an upright stroke.[1] It is a considerable
  gain to indicate to the eye in what types the words transcribed are
  printed, i.e. whether in roman, gothic letter, or italic, and in each
  case whether in majuscules or minuscules ("upper or lower case"). To
  do this, however, adds greatly not only to the cost of printing, but
  also to the liability of error. If roman minuscules are used
  throughout, or roman for the text and italic for the imprint of
  colophon, the method of transliteration which the printer himself
  would have used should be adopted. Many of the best modern catalogues
  and bibliographies are disfigured by the occurrence in them of such
  forms as "qvinqve," "qveen," "Evrope," due to an unintelligent
  transliteration of the forms QVINQVE, QVEEN, EVROPE, as they occur on
  title-pages at a date when "V" was the majuscule form of both "v" and
  "u." If it is desired to retain the V forms the words should be
  printed in majuscules. If minuscules are used, the words should be
  transliterated as quinque, queen, Europe, according to the practice of
  the old printers themselves.

  A troublesome question often arises as to what notice should be taken
  in reproducing the misprints which frequently occur in the original
  titles. Bibliographers who have satisfied themselves (and their
  readers) of their own accuracy may reproduce them in silence, though
  it will need constant watchfulness to prevent the printer from
  "setting them right." Transcribers of only average accuracy will
  consult their happiness by indicating the misprint in some way, and
  the frequent use of (_sic_), more especially when printed in italics,
  or of the German (!), being ugly, probably the simplest plan is to add
  a note at the end stating that the misprints in question occur in the
  original.

  (b) The "size" of a book is a technical expression for the relation of
  the individual leaves to the sheet of paper of which they form a part.
  A book in-folio means one in which the paper has been folded once, so
  that each sheet has made two leaves. In a book in-quarto, each sheet
  has been folded twice so as to make four leaves. In an octavo another
  fold has produced eight leaves, and so on for books in 16mo, 32mo and
  64mo. For books in twelves, twenty-fours, &c., the paper has at some
  stage to be folded in three instead of in two, and there will be some
  difference in form according to the way in which this is done. The
  size of a book printed on handmade paper "is very simply recognized by
  holding up a page to the light. Certain white lines, called
  wire-lines, will be noticed, occurring as a rule about an inch apart,
  and running at right angles to the fine lines. These wire-lines are
  perpendicular in a folio, octavo, 32mo, and horizontal in a quarto and
  16mo. In a 12mo, as the name implies, the sheet is folded in twelve;
  and in the earlier part at least of the 16th century this was done in
  such a way that the wire-lines are perpendicular, the height of the
  sheet forming two pages, as is the case in an octavo, while the width
  is divided into six instead of into four as in an octavo. The later
  habit has been to fold the sheet differently, the height of the sheet
  forming the width of four pages, and the width of the sheet the height
  of three pages, consequently the wire-lines are horizontal" (E.G.
  Duff, _Early Printed Books_, pp. 206-207).

  The recognition of what is meant by the size of a book has been
  obscured by the erroneous idea that the quires or gatherings of which
  books are made up necessarily consist of single sheets.[2] If this
  were so all folios would be in gatherings of two leaves each; all
  quartos in gatherings of four leaves; all octavos in gatherings of
  eights. In the case of books printed on handmade paper, this is
  generally true of octavos, but to reduce the amount of sewing the
  earliest folios were usually arranged in tens, i.e. in gatherings of
  five sheets or ten leaves, while in Shakespeare's time English folios
  were mostly in sixes. In the same way quartos are often found made up
  in eights, and on the other hand the use of a half-sheet produces a
  gathering of only two leaves.

  When a manuscript or early printed book was being prepared for
  binding, it was usual for the order in which the quires or gatherings
  were to be arranged to be indicated by signing them with the letters
  of the alphabet in their order, the alphabet generally used being the
  Latin, in which I stands for both I and J; V for both U and V, and
  there is no W. If more than twenty-three letters were needed the
  contractions for _et, con, rum_ and (less often) that for _us_, were
  used as additional signs, and for large books minuscules were used as
  well as majuscules, and the letters were doubled. In 1472 printed
  signatures came into use. If the quires or gatherings in the book to
  be described are signed in print, the signatures used should be quoted
  without brackets. If they are not signed, the order of the gatherings
  should be noted by the letters of the alphabet in square brackets. In
  each case the number of leaves in each gathering should be shown by
  index-figures. Thus, six gatherings of eight leaves followed by one of
  four should be represented by the symbols A-F^8 G^4. The "make-up" of
  an old book in original binding is usually sufficiently shown by the
  strings in the middle of each quire. In books which have been rebound
  help may sometimes be obtained from the fact that between (roughly)
  1750 and 1850, a period during which there was much rebinding of early
  books, the gatherings before being put into their new quires were
  mostly separately pressed, with the result that the outer pages of
  each gathering are much smoother than the rest. But the only safe
  guide to the make-up of an old book without printed signatures is a
  collation by means of the watermarks, i.e. the devices with which the
  papermaker as a rule marked each sheet (see PAPER). In a folio book
  one of every pair of leaves should have a watermark in the middle of
  the paper. In a quarto some pairs of leaves will have no watermark; in
  others it will be found divided by the fold of the paper. As the great
  majority of books without printed signatures are in folio or quarto,
  the sequence of watermarked and un-watermarked leaves, if carefully
  worked out, will mostly reveal the "make-up" of the successive
  gatherings.

  After the size and sequence of the gatherings has been stated, the
  total number of leaves should be noted, with a mention of any
  numeration of them given in the book. Any discrepancy between the
  total of the leaves assigned to the successive gatherings and the
  total as separately counted of course points to an error, and the
  reckonings must be repeated till they tally. Errors in the printed
  enumeration of the leaves of old books are common, and it is seldom
  necessary to point them out in detail. When reference has to be made
  to a particular page of an old book, the printed signatures offer the
  readiest means, an index number placed below the letter indicating the
  number of the leaf in the gathering and the addition of "recto" or
  "verso" marking the upper or under page of the leaf. Thus "X4 recto"
  (some bibliographers prefer the rather clumsier form "X 4 recto")
  stands for the first page of the fourth leaf of the gathering signed
  X. Where there are no printed signatures the leaf-number may be given,
  the letters "a" and "b" above the numeral taking the place of "recto"
  and "verso" (leaf 99^a). Where some leaves of a book are numbered and
  others not, if the reference is to the printed numeration this should
  be stated. Printed leaf numeration is found as early as 1470, and
  became common about ten years later. Printed pagination did not become
  common till nearly the middle of the 16th century.

  The foregoing details are all directed to showing which leaves of a
  book would be printed by the same pull of the press, how it was made
  up for binding, and how imperfections in any copy may be detected.
  They give little or no indication of the dimensions of the book. In
  the case of modern editions this may be done by adding one of the
  trade epithets, pott, foolscap, crown, &c., to the name of the size,
  which when thus qualified denotes paper of a particular measurement
  (see PAPER). As, however, these measurements are not easily
  remembered, it is better to give the actual measurements in inches or
  millimetres of a page of an uncut copy. In old books uncut copies are
  not easily found, and it is useful instead of this to give the
  measurement in millimetres of the printed portion of the page
  (technically called the "type-page"), although this is subject to a
  variation of about 3% in different copies, according to the degree to
  which they were damped for printing. To this is added a statement of
  the number of lines in the page measured. The character of the type
  (roman, gothic or italic) is next mentioned, and in the case of
  15th-century books, its number in the sequence of founts used by the
  printer (see INCUNABULA). Finally a reference to any authoritative
  description already printed completes this portion of the entry. Thus
  the description of the collation of the first-dated book printed at
  Augsburg, the _Meditationes_ of S. Bonaventura, printed by Günther
  Zainer in 1468, should read: Folio (a^10, b-d^8, e-g^10, h^8) 72
  leaves. Type-page ([3]) 202 × 120 mm.; 35 lines. Type 1 (gothic
  letter). Hain 3557.

  (c) While many books, and this is especially true of early ones,
  contain little or nothing beyond the bare text of a well-known work,
  others are well provided, not only with commentaries which are almost
  sure to be mentioned on the title-page, or in the colophon (which the
  editor himself often wrote), but also with dedicatory letters,
  prefaces, complimentary verses, indexes and other accessories, the
  presence of which it is desirable to indicate. In these cases it is
  often convenient to show the entire contents of the book in the order
  in which they occur, noting the leaves or pages on which each begins.
  Thus in the first edition (1590) of the first three books of Spenser's
  _Faerie Queene_, the literary contents, their order, and the space
  they occupy can be concisely noted by taking the successive gatherings
  according to their signatures and showing what comes on each page.
  Thus: A1, recto, title; verso, dedication, "To the Most Mightie and
  Magnificent Empresse Elizabeth"; A2-Oo8, text of books i.-iii.; Pp1,
  letter dated the 23rd of January 1589 [1590] to Sir Walter Raleigh
  expounding the intention of the work; Pp3 verso, commendatory verses
  signed W. R[aleigh], Hobynoll (Gabriel Harvey), R.S., H.B., W.L. and
  Ignoto; Pp5-8, complimentary sonnets severally inscribed to Sir C.
  Hatton, the earls of Essex, Oxford, Northumberland and Ormond, Lord
  Ch. Howard, Lord Grey of Wilton and Sir W. Raleigh, and to Lady Carew
  and to the Ladies in the Court; and "Faults escaped in the print";
  Qq(1-4), fifteen other sonnets.

  Some bibliographers prefer to reverse the order of notation, (title,
  A1, recto; dedication, A1, verso, &c.), and no principle is sacrificed
  in doing so, though the order suggested usually works out the more
  neatly.

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

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

  The most recent of these bibliographies of bibliographies naturally
  take over all that is of any value in their predecessors, and it may
  suffice therefore to make special mention of the
  following:--_Bibliotheca bibliographica. Kritisches Verzeichniss der
  das Gesammtgebiet der Bibliographie betreffenden Litteratur des In-
  und Auslandes, in systematisches Ordnung bearbeitet von Dr Julius
  Petzholdt. Mit alphabetischen Namen und Sachregister_ (Leipzig, 1866),
  8vo, pp. xii. 940; _Manuel de bibliographie générale_, par Henri Stein
  (Paris, 1898), 8vo, pp. xx. 896; _Manuel de bibliographie historique_,
  par Ch. V. Langlois (Paris, 1901), 12mo, pp. xi. 623; _A Register of
  National Bibliography. With a selection of the chief bibliographical
  works and articles printed in other Countries_, by W.P. Courtney
  (London, 1905), 8vo, pp. viii. 631.

  It should also be noted that the _List of Books of Reference in the
  Reading-Room of the British Museum_, first published in 1889, and the
  _Subject-index of the Modern Works added to the Library of the British
  Museum in the years 1881-1900_, edited by G.K. Fortescue (supplements
  published every five years), include entries of a vast number of
  bibliographical works, and that an eclectic list, with a valuable
  introduction, will be found in Professor Ferguson's _Some Aspects of
  Bibliography_ (Edinburgh, 1900).     (A. W. Po.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Some bibliographers prefer to use double strokes to avoid
    confusion with the old-fashioned long commas. Others use a single
    stroke to indicate the space between two lines and increase the
    number of strokes where the space left is wider than this.

  [2] It may be noted that some confusion is caused in descriptions of
    books by the word "sheet," which should be restricted to the original
    sheet of paper which by folding becomes folio, quarto, &c., being
    applied also to the double-leaf of four pages. A word specially
    appropriated to this is greatly needed, and as gatherings of two,
    three, four, &c., of such double-leaves are known technically as
    duernions, ternions, quaternions, &c., the double-leaf itself might
    well be called a "unit."

  [3] Here specify the page measured.



BIBLIOMANCY (from the Gr. [Greek: biblion], a book, and [Greek:
manteia], prophecy), a form of divination (q.v.) by means of the Bible
or other books. The method employed is to open the Bible haphazard and
be guided by the first verse which catches the eye. Among the Greeks and
Romans the practice was known under the name of _sortes Homericae_ or
_sortes Virgilianae_, the books consulted being those of Homer or
Virgil.



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

  See Bulliot, _Fouilles de Beuvray_; Déchelette, _Oppidum de Bibracte_;
  also references s.v. AEDUI.



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



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



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

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

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

  See J.C. Blomfield, _History of the Deanery of Bicester_ (London,
  1882-1894); John Dunkin, _History of Bicester_ (London, 1816).



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

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



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

      M2CrO4       M2Cr2O7     M2Cr3O10 &c.     (M = one atom of a
  normal chromate  bichromate  trichromate      monovalent metal.)

  _Chromates._--The alkaline chromates are usually obtained by fusion of
  a chromium compound with an alkaline carbonate and an oxidizing agent,
  such for example as potassium nitrate or chlorate. The native
  chrome-ironstone (Cr2O3·FeO) may be used in this way as a source of
  such compounds, being fused in a reverberatory furnace, along with
  soda-ash and lime, the oxidizing agent in this case being atmospheric
  oxygen. They may also be prepared by oxidizing chromium salts (in
  alkaline solution) with hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, bleaching powder,
  potassium permanganate and manganese dioxide. The majority of the
  chromates are yellow in colour, and many of them are isomorphous with
  the corresponding sulphates. The alkaline chromates are soluble in
  water, those of most other metals being insoluble. By the addition of
  mineral acids, they are converted rapidly into bichromates. They are
  easily reduced in acid solution by sulphuretted hydrogen, and also by
  sulphur dioxide to chromium salts. The chromates are stable towards
  heat; they are poisonous, and may be recognized by the yellow
  precipitates they give with soluble barium and lead salts.

  Potassium chromate, K2CrO4, may be prepared by neutralizing a solution
  of potassium bichromate with potassium carbonate or with caustic
  potash. It crystallizes in yellow rhombic prisms, and is readily
  soluble in water, the solution having a bitter taste and an alkaline
  reaction. When heated in a current of sulphuretted hydrogen, or carbon
  bisulphide, it yields a mixture of chromium sesquioxide and sulphide.
  When heated with sulphur it yields chromium sesquioxide. Sodium
  chromate, Na2CrO4·10(H2O), forms pale yellow crystals isomorphous with
  hydrated sodium sulphate, Na2SO4·10(H2O). It is deliquescent, and
  melts at 23° C. (M. Berthelot). By evaporation of its aqueous solution
  at temperatures above 30° C. it may be obtained in the anhydrous
  condition. Lead chromate, PbCrO4, occurs native as the mineral
  crocoisite, and may be obtained as an amorphous pale yellow solid by
  precipitating a soluble lead salt by an alkaline chromate. It is used
  as a pigment under the name "chrome yellow." When digested for some
  time with a caustic alkali it is converted into a basic salt,
  PbCrO4·PbO, a pigment known as "chrome red." It melts readily, and on
  cooling resolidifies to a brown mass, which at moderately high
  temperatures gives off oxygen and leaves a residue of a basic lead
  salt; for this reason fused lead chromate is sometimes made use of in
  the analysis of organic compounds. Silver chromate, Ag2CrO4 is a dark
  red amorphous powder obtained when silver nitrate is precipitated by
  an alkaline chromate. It is decomposed by the addition of caustic
  alkalis, forming silver oxide and an alkaline chromate.

  _Bichromates._--The bichromates are usually of a red or reddish-brown
  colour, those of the alkali metals being readily soluble in water.
  They are readily decomposed by heat, leaving a residue of the normal
  chromate and chromium sesquioxide, and liberating oxygen; ammonium
  bichromate, however, is completely decomposed into chromium
  sesquioxide, water and nitrogen. Sulphuretted hydrogen and sulphur
  dioxide reduce them in acid solution to the condition of chromium
  salts.

  Potassium bichromate, K2Cr2O7, is obtained by fusing chrome ironstone
  with soda ash and lime (see above), the calcium chromate formed in the
  process being decomposed by a hot solution of potassium sulphate.
  After the calcium sulphate has settled, the potassium chromate
  solution is converted into bichromate by the action of sulphuric acid,
  and the salt is allowed to crystallize. It forms large triclinic
  prisms of specific gravity 2.6-2.7, which are moderately soluble in
  cold water and readily soluble in hot water. The solution is strongly
  acid in reaction and is very poisonous. Potassium bichromate finds
  extensive application in organic chemistry as an oxidizing agent,
  being used for this purpose in dilute sulphuric acid solution, K2Cr2O7
  + 4H2SO4 = KaSO4 + Cr2(SO4)3 + 4H2O + 3O. On the addition of
  concentrated sulphuric acid to a cold saturated solution of the salt,
  red crystals of chromium trioxide, CrO3, separate (see CHROMIUM),
  whilst when warmed with concentrated hydrochloric acid and a little
  water, potassium chlorochromate is produced. When heated with
  phosphorus trichloride in a sealed tube to 160° C., potassium
  chlorochromate, phosphorus oxychloride, potassium chloride, and a
  complex chromium oxide (possibly Cr3O6) are produced (A. Michaelis,
  _Jour. prak. Chem._, 1871, ii. 4, p. 452). Potassium bichromate finds
  application in photography, in calico-printing and in the preparation
  of bichromate cells. Sodium bichromate, Na2Cr2O7.2{H2O}, may be
  obtained by the addition of the requisite quantity of chromium
  trioxide to a solution of sodium chromate. It crystallizes in
  hyacinth-red prisms, which are very hygroscopic and melt at 320° C.

  _Trichromates._--The trichromates are obtained by the addition of
  nitric acid (of specific gravity about 1.2) to solutions of the
  bichromates. They form rhombic crystals of a red or brown red or brown
  red colour and are readily decomposed by warm water, with formation of
  the bichromate.

  _Perchromic Acid._--By the addition of hydrogen peroxide to a solution
  of chromic acid, a fine blue coloration due to a perchromic acid is
  produced which is readily absorbed by shaking out with ether. The
  following formulae have been assigned to the compound:--H2O2·CrO3 (H.
  Moissan, _Comptes rendus_, 1883, 97, p. 96); H2O2·2HCrO4 (M.
  Berthelot, _Comptes rendus_, 1889, 108, p. 25); Cr2O7·xH2O (L.C.A.
  Barreswil, _Ann. chim. et phys._, 1847 [3], 20, p. 364), and
  CrO6·3{H2O} (T. Fairley, _Chem. News_, 1876, 33, p. 237). The more
  recent investigations of H.G. Byers and E.E. Reed (_Amer. Chem.
  Jour._, 1904, 32, p. 503) show that if metallic potassium be added to
  an ethereal solution of the blue compound at -20° C., hydrogen is
  liberated and a purple black precipitate of the perchromate, of
  composition KCrO4 or K2Cl2O8, is produced; this compound is very
  unstable, and readily decomposes into oxygen and potassium bichromate.
  Similar sodium, ammonium, lithium, magnesium, calcium, barium and zinc
  salts have been obtained. It is shown that the blue solution most
  probably contains the acid of composition, H2Cr2O8, whilst in the
  presence of an excess of hydrogen peroxide more highly oxidized
  products probably exist.



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



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

  A full account of his dramatic productions is given in _Biographia
  Dramatica_, edited by Stephen Jones (1812).



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

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



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

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

[Illustration: Fig 1.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 2.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 3.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 4. ]

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 5.]

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 6. ]

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 7.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 8.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 9.]

  _Chain-wheels._--The pitch line of the chain-wheel is polygonal (fig.
  9), _a, b, c, d_ being centres of adjacent joints of the chain when
  lying in contact with the wheel. The path of the joint _a_ of the
  chain, relative to the chain-wheel as it enters on to and leaves the
  chain-wheel, is evidently the curve _a3 a2 a a'1 a'2_ made up of a
  series of circular arcs having centres _d, c, b, b', c'_,
  respectively. Similarly for the path of the adjacent joint _b_. The
  fullest possible form of the tooth is that between the two parallel
  curves, of radii less by an amount equal to the radius of the roller,
  as indicated in fig. 9. But since it is neither necessary nor
  desirable that the roller should roll along the whole length of the
  tooth, the radii of curvature of the tooth outline may be less than
  shown in fig. 9. A good arrangement of tooth form is shown in fig. 10.

  [Illustration: FIG. 10.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 11.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 12.--Eadie Two-speed Coaster Hub]

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

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG 13: Sunbeam Two-Speed Gear.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG 14:]

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

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

  [Illustration: Fig. 15.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 16.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 17.]

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

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



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

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



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



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

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

His son, GEORGE PARKER BIDDER, Junr. (1836-1896), who inherited much of
his father's calculating power, was a successful parliamentary counsel
and an authority on cryptography.



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



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



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



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

His son, CHARLES JOHN BIDDLE (1819-1873), served in the Mexican War as a
captain of infantry, earning the brevet of major at Chapultepec;
practised law in Philadelphia; was a representative in Congress in
1861-1863; was long editor-in-chief of the Philadelphia _Age_; and
published "The Case of Major André, with a Review of the Statement of
it in Lord Mahon's History of England," in the _Memoirs of the
Historical Society of Pennsylvania_ (1858).

  The best account of Nicholas Biddle's administration of the bank may
  be found in an excellent work, by Ralph C.H. Catterall, _The Second
  Bank of the United States_ (Chicago, 1903).



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

  Bideford (Bedeford, Bydyford, Budeford, Bytheford) is not mentioned in
  pre-Conquest records, but according to Domesday it rendered geld for
  three hides to the king. From the time of the Conquest down to the
  18th century, Bideford remained in the possession of the Grenville
  family, and it first appears as a borough in an undated charter
  (probably of the reign of Edward I.) from Richard de Grenville,
  confirming a charter from his grandfather, Richard de Grenville,
  fixing the rent and services due from the burgesses and granting them
  liberties similar to those in use at Breteuil and a market every
  Monday. Another charter, dated 1271, confirms to Richard de Grenville
  and his heirs a market every Monday and five days' fair yearly at the
  feast of St Margaret (20th of July). In 1573 Elizabeth granted a
  charter creating Bideford a free borough corporate, with a common
  council consisting of a mayor, 5 aldermen and 7 chief burgesses,
  together with a recorder, town-clerk and 2 serjeants-at-mace. This
  charter also granted the Tuesday market, which is still held, and
  three annual fairs in February, July and November, now discontinued. A
  later charter from James I. in 1610 added the right to have a town
  seal, 7 aldermen instead of 5, and 10 chief burgesses instead of 7,
  and continued in force until the Municipal Corporations Act of 1873,
  which established 4 aldermen and 12 common councillors. In the 16th
  century Sir Richard Grenville, the famous Virginian settler, did much
  to stimulate the commercial development of Bideford, which long
  maintained a very considerable trade with America, Spain and the
  Mediterranean ports, the import of tobacco from Maryland and Virginia
  being especially noteworthy. From the beginning of the 18th century
  this gradually declined and gave place to a coasting trade in timber
  and coal, chiefly with Wales and Ireland. The silk industry which
  flourished in the 17th century is extinct.

  See John Watkins, _History of Bideford_ (Exeter, 1792).



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

  See Wilson's analysis of the Pancha Tantra, in the _Mem. of the Royal
  Asiat. Soc._ i.; Silvestre de Sacy's introduction to his edition of
  the _Kalilah and Dimna_ (1816); articles by the same in _Notices et
  Extr. des MSS. de la Bib. du Roi_, vols. ix. and x.; German
  translation by Philipp Wolff, _Bidpai's Fabeln_ (2 vols., 2nd ed.,
  Stuttgart, 1839); the _Anvar-i Suheili_, Persian version of the
  Fables, translated by E.B. Eastwick (Hertford, 1854); Benfey,
  _Pantscha Tantra_, German translation with important introduction (2
  vols., Leipzig, 1859); other editions, by L. Fritze (ib. 1884) and R.
  Schmidt (ib. 1901); Max Müller, _Essays_ (Leipzig, 1872), vol. iii.
  pp. 303, &c.; J. Jacobs' edition of Sir T. North's _Morall Philosophie
  of Doni_, the earliest English version of the fables (London, 1888);
  J.G.N. Keith-Falconer, _Kalilah and Dimnah, or the Fables of Bidpai_
  (Cambridge, 1895), their history, with a translation of the later
  Syriac version and notes; Léopold Hervieux, _Les Fabulistes Latins_,
  &c. v. _Jean de Capoue et ses dérivés_ (1899); E.G. Browne, _Persian
  Literat._ (1906), ii. 350.



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



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



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

  See Linsenmann, in _Theologischen Quartalschrift_ (Tübingen, 1865);
  Stockl, _Phil. d. Mittelalt._ ii. § 269; H. Plitt, _Gabriel Biel als
  Prediger_ (Erlangen, 1879); art. s.v. by P. Tschackert in
  Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopädie_, vol. iii. (1897); W. Roscher, _Ges.
  d. Nationalokonomik_ (Munich. 1874), pp. 21-28; and works quoted under
  SCHOLASTICISM.



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

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



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



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



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

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

  See C.A. Bloesch, _Geschichte der Stadt Biel_ (to 1854), (3 vols.,
  Biel, 1855-1856).     (W. A. B. C.)



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  See Stephen, _History of Criminal Law_; Dicey, _Conflict of Laws;
  Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage Laws_ (1868).



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



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



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

  Biggleswade (Bichelswade, Beckeleswade, Bickleswade) is an ancient
  borough by prescription which has never returned representatives to
  parliament. The borough court was held by the lord of the manor. At
  the time of Edward the Confessor, Archbishop Stigand owned the manor,
  which according to Domesday passed to Ralf de Insula. Henry I. granted
  it to the bishop of Lincoln, under whose protection the borough
  evidently grew up. In 1547 the bishop surrendered his rights to the
  king, and in the 17th century Biggleswade formed part of the jointure
  of the queens of England. Owing to its important position on the Roman
  road to the north the town became an agricultural centre for the
  surrounding district. In 1335 Edward III. renewed the bishop's licence
  to hold a Monday market, and annual fairs were held here from very
  early times. Those for horses are mentioned as famous by Camden. In
  addition to agriculture, Biggleswade was formerly engaged in
  straw-plaiting and lace manufacture.



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



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



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

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

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

  See Mignet, _Notice historique sur la vie et les ouvrages de M.
  Bignon_ (1848).



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

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

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

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

  See W. Stubbs, _Constitutional History_, vols. i. and ii. (1896-1897);
  J.R. Planche, "The Earls of East Anglia" (_Brit. Arch. Ass._, vol.
  xxi., 1865); and G.E. C(okayne), _Complete Peerage_, vol. vi. (1895).



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

  "Moult on Franchois Normans laidis
   et de meffais et de mesdis.
   Souvent lor dient reproviers,
   et claiment Bigos et Draschiers."

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



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



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



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

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

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

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


  Language.

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

  (Abbreviations: Mth. = Maithili, Mg. = Magahi, Bh. = Bhojpuri, B. =
  Bihari, Bg. = Bengali. Skr. = Sanskrit, Pr. = Prakrit. Mg. Pr. =
  Magadhi Prakrit.)

  _Vocabulary._--The Bihari vocabulary calls for few remarks.
  _Tatsamas_, or words borrowed in modern times from Sanskrit (see
  INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES), are few in number, while all the dialects are
  replete with honest home-born _tadbhavas_, used (unlike Bengali) both
  in the literary and in the colloquial language. Very few words are
  borrowed from Persian, Arabic or other languages.

  _Phonetics._--The stress-accent of Bihari follows the usual rules of
  modern Indo-Aryan vernaculars. In words of more than one syllable it
  cannot fall on the last, whether the vowel of that syllable be long or
  short, pronounced, half-pronounced, or not pronounced. With this
  exception, the accent always falls on the last long syllable. If there
  are no long syllables in the word, the accent is thrown back as far as
  possible, but never farther than the syllable before the
  antepenultimate. Thus, _ki-sa'-n(a)_ (final a not pronounced);
  _pa'ni_, _há-m^a-ra_; _dé-kh^a-là-h^u_. In the last word there is a
  secondary accent on the penultimate, owing to the following imperfect
  vowel (see below). When the first syllable of a word has not the main
  stress-accent, it also takes a secondary one, as in
  _dè-kh^a-li-ai-nh'_. When the letter a follows a syllable which has
  the accent (secondary or primary) it is only half pronounced, and is
  here denoted by a small ^a above the line. In Mth. (but not in Mg. or
  Bh.) a final short _i_ or _u_ is often similarly very lightly
  pronounced, and is then represented by the same device. Before such an
  "imperfect" ^i or ^u the preceding syllable has a secondary accent, if
  it has not already got the main one.

  When a word ends in _a_ preceded by a single uncompounded consonant,
  the _a_ is not pronounced; thus, _kisana_, sounded _kisan_. This vowel
  is sometimes pronounced with a drawl, like the _a_ in "ball," and is
  then transliterated _å_. When _a_ has this sound it can end a word,
  and in this position is common in the second person of verbs; thus,
  _dekhå_, see thou. This sound is very frequently heard in Bhojpuri,
  and gives a peculiar tone to the whole dialect, which at once strikes
  the casual hearer. The usual short form of the letter _a_ is _a_, but
  when this would lead to confusion it is shortened in Mth. and Mg. to a
  sound like that of _a_ in the German _Mann_, and is then
  transliterated _a_. In Bh. it is always shortened to _a_. As an
  example, from _pani_, water, is formed the word _paniya_, but (in Mth.
  and Mg.) from the word _marab_, to strike, we have Mth. _mar^ali_, Mg.
  _mar^ali_, I struck, because _mar^ali_ (_-li_) would mean "I died." In
  Bh. _mar^ali_ actually has both these meanings. The letters _e_ and
  _o_ may be either long (_e, o_) or short (_e, o_). In Skr. the
  diphthongs _ai_ and _au_ (here transliterated _ai, au_) are much
  longer than the Bihari _ai_ and _au_, which are contractions of only
  _a + i_ and _a + u_ respectively. We may compare the Sanskrit, or
  _tatsama, ai_ with the English "aye," and the _tadbkava ai_ with the
  English "I." In counting syllables in Bihari, _ai_ and _au_ count each
  as two syllables, not each as one long syllable. The Skr. _r_ appears
  only in _tatsamas_. Nasalization of vowels is extremely frequent. In
  this article it is represented by the sign ~ over the vowel, as in
  _muh, mar^ali_ and _dekh^alah^u_.

  As regards consonants, _d_ and _dh_, when medial, are pronounced as
  strongly burred _r_ and _rh_, and are then transliterated as here
  shown. There is a constant tendency to change these to an ordinary
  dental _r_ and _rh_; thus, _ghoda_, pronounced _ghora_ or _ghora_. The
  semivowels _y_ and _v_ are always pronounced like _j_ and _b_
  respectively, unless they are simply euphonic letters put in to bridge
  the hiatus between two concurrent vowels; thus _yauvana_ pronounced
  _jauban_, and _maliya_ for _mali-a, ghor^awa_ for _ghor^a-a_. The
  sibilants _s_ and _s_ are both pronounced as a dental _s_, but (a
  relic of the old Mg. Pr.) are both invariably written as a palatal _s_
  in the Kaithi character. Thus, the English word "session" (_sesun_) is
  written _sesan_ and pronounced _sesan_. The cerebral _s_, when
  uncompounded, is pronounced _kh_. When compounded, it generally has
  its proper sound. Thus, _sastha_, sixth, is pronounced _khasth_. As a
  general statement we may say that Bihari spelling is not fixed, and
  that there are often many ways of writing, and sometimes two or three
  ways of pronouncing, the same word.

  The main typical characteristics of Mg. Pr. are that western Pr. _s_
  becomes _s_, and that western Pr. _r_ becomes _l_. We have seen that
  the change of _s_ to _s_ occurs in Bengali but not in Bihari, and have
  given reasons for the change back to _s_ in the latter language,
  although the Mg. Pr. _s_ is retained in writing. In both Bengali and
  Bihari, a western _r_ is not now represented by _l_, but is
  represented by _r_. This deviation from the Mg. Pr. rule is only
  apparent, and is due to the letter _r_ representing two distinct
  sounds. In Skr., in the western Prakrits, and in the modern western
  languages, _r_ is a cerebral letter, with a cerebral sound. In the
  modern eastern languages, _r_ is a dental letter, with a dental sound.
  Everywhere, both in old times and at the present day, _l_ was and is a
  dental letter. The meaning, therefore, of the change from western Pr.
  _r_ to Mg. Pr. _l_ was that the western _r_ lost its cerebral sound,
  and became a dental letter, like _l_. That dental character is
  preserved in the _r_ of the modern eastern languages. In fact, in
  Bihari _r_ and _l_ are frequently confounded together, or with _n_,
  another dental letter. Thus, we have _kali_ or _kari_, black; _phar_
  or _phal_, fruit; Skr. _rajju-_, B. _leju-ri_, a string; _Lakhnaur_,
  the name of a town, quite commonly pronounced _Nakhlaul_; and the
  English names Kelly and Currie both pronounced indifferently _kari_ or
  _kali_. Compare Assamese _saril_ for _Skr. sarira-_.

  The genius of the Bihari language is adverse to the existence of a
  long vowel in a _tadbhava_ word, when it would occupy a position more
  than two syllables from the end. Thus, _ghora_, but _ghor^awa_;
  _marel_, but _mar^ali_. This is subject to various subsidiary rules
  which will be found in the grammars. The principle is a most important
  one, and, indeed, pervades all Indo-Aryan vernaculars of the present
  day, but it is carried out with the greatest thoroughness and
  consistency in Bihari. The whole system of declension and conjugation
  is subject to it. When _a_ preceding _i_ or _e_ is shortened, the two
  together become _ai_, and similarly a shortened _a + u_ or _o_ become
  _au_.

  _Declension._--Bihari has a stronger sense of gender than the other
  languages of the Eastern Group. In the modern language the distinction
  is in the main confined no animate beings, but in the older poetry the
  system of grammatical, as distinct from sexual, gender is in full
  swing. Except in the case of the interrogative pronoun, there is no
  neuter gender--words which in Skr. and Pr. were neuter being
  generally, but not always, treated as masculine. The plural can
  everywhere be formed by the addition of some noun of multitude to the
  singular, and this is the universal rule in Mth., but in Mg. and Bh.
  it is generally made by adding _n_ or (in Bh.) _nh_ or _ni_ to the
  singular, before all of which a final vowel is shortened. Thus
  _ghora_, a horse, _ghoran_, horses.

  As for cases, the Apabhramsa locative--_hi_ (_-hi_) and the ablative
  _-hu_ (see PRAKRIT) terminations have survived in poetry, proverbs and
  the like, and each of them can now be used for any oblique case; but
  in ordinary language and in literature _-hi_ and _-hi_ have become
  contracted to _e_ and _e_, the former of which is employed for the
  instrumental and the latter for the locative case. Thus, _ghar_,
  house; _ghare_, by a house; _ghare_, in a house. The old termination
  _-hu_ has also survived in sporadic instances, under the form _o_,
  with an ablative sense. Cases are, however, usually formed, as
  elsewhere, by suffixing postpositions to a general oblique case (see
  INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES). The oblique case in Bihari is generally the
  same as the nominative, but nouns ending in _n, b, l or r_, and some
  others, form it by adding _a_ (a relic of the old Mg. Pr. genitive in
  _aha_). Thus, _maral_, the act of striking, obl. _mar^ala_ (Mg. Pr.
  _mari-allaha_). Another set of verbal nouns forms the oblique case in
  _ai_, _e_ or _a_, thus, Bh. _mar_, the ace of striking, _mare-la_, for
  striking, to strike. In Mg. every noun ending in a consonant may have
  its oblique form in _e_; thus, _ghar_, a house, _ghar-ke_ or
  _ghare-ke_, of a house. The _ai-_ or _e-_ termination is another relic
  of the Apabhrarhsa _-hi_, and the _a_ is a survival of the Ap. _-hu_.

  The usual genitive postposition is _k_, which has become a suffix, and
  now forms part of the word to which it is attached, a final preceding
  vowel being frequently shortened. Thus, _ghora_, gen. _ghorak_. Other
  genitive postpositions are _ke_, _kar_ and _ker_. These, and all other
  postpositions, are still separate words, and have not yet become
  suffixes. The more common postpositions are[1] Acc.-Dat. _ke_;
  Instr.-Abl. _så, se_; Loc. _må., me_. The genitive does not change to
  agree with the gender of the governing noun, as in Hindostani, but in
  Bh. (not in Mth. or Mg.), when the governing noun is not in the
  nominative singular, the genitive postposition takes the oblique form
  _ka_; thus, _raja-ke mandir_, the palace of the king; but _raja-ka
  mandir-me_, in the palace of the king. In Mth. and Mg. pronouns have a
  similar oblique genitive in _a_. There is no case of the agent, as in
  Hindostani; the subject of all tenses of all verbs being always in the
  nominative case.

  Every noun can have three forms, a short, a long and a redundant. The
  short form is sometimes weak and sometimes strong. Occasionally both
  weak and strong forms occur for the same word; thus, short weak,
  _ghor_; short strong, _ghora_; long, _ghor^awa_; redundant,
  _ghorauwa_. This superfluity of forms is due to the existence of the
  pleonastic suffix _-ka-_ in the Prakrit stage of the language (see
  PRAKRIT). In that stage the _k_ of the suffix was already elided, so
  that we have the stages:--Skr. _ghota-ka-s_, Pr. _ghod-a-u_, B.
  _ghora_ (by contraction) or _ghor^a-wa_ (with insertion of a euphonic
  _w_). The redundant form is a result of the reduplication of the
  suffix, which was allowed in Pr. Thus. Skr. _*ghota-ka-ka-s_, Pr.
  _ghoda-a-a-u_, B. _ghorauwa_ (contracted from _ghor^a-wa-wa-a_). The
  long and redundant forms are mainly used in conversation. They are
  familiar and often contemptuous. Sometimes they give a definite force
  to the word, as _ghor^awa_, the horse. In the feminine they are much
  used to form diminutives.

  As in other languages of the Eastern Group, the singulars of the
  personal pronouns have fallen into disuse. The plurals are used
  politely for the singulars, and new forms are made from these old
  plurals, to make new plurals. The old singulars survive in poetry and
  in the speech of villagers, but even here the nominative has
  disappeared and new nominatives have been formed from the oblique
  bases. All the pronouns have numerous optional forms. As a specimen of
  pronominal declension, we may give the most common forms of the first
  personal pronoun.

    +------------+----------------+--------------+------------+
    |            |    Maithili.   |    Magahi.   |  Bhojpuri. |
    +------------+----------------+--------------+------------+
    | Sing. Nom. | ham            | ham          | ham        |
    |       Gen. | hamar          | hamar        | hamar      |
    |       Obl. | ham^ara        | ham^ara      | ham^ara    |
    |            |                |              |            |
    | Plur. Nom. | ham^ara sabh   | ham^arani    | ham^ani-ka |
    |       Gen. | ham^ara sabhak | ham^arani-ke | ham^ani-ke |
    |       Obl. | ham^ara sabh   | ham^arani    | ham^a ni   |
    +------------+----------------+--------------+------------+

  The important point to note in the above is that the oblique form
  singular is formed from the genitive. It is the oblique form of that
  case which is also used when agreeing with another noun in an oblique
  case. Thus, _hamar ghar_, my house; _ham^ara ghar-me_, in my house;
  _ham^ara-ke_, to me. In Mth. the nominative plural is also the oblique
  form of the genitive singular, and in Bh. and Mg. it is the oblique
  form of the genitive plural. In Bengali the nominative plural of nouns
  substantive is formed in the same way from the genitive singular (see
  BENGALI). The usual forms of the pronouns are _ham_, I; _to_, _tu_,
  thou; Mth. _ap^anah_, Bh. _raura_, Your Honour; _i_, this; _o_, that,
  he; _je_, who; _se_, he; _ke_, who? Mth. _ki_, Mg., Bh. _ka_, what?
  _keo, keu_, any one; Mth. _kicch^u_, Mg. _kuchu_, Bh. _kachu_,
  anything. The oblique forms of these vary greatly, and must be learned
  from the grammars.

  _Conjugation in Maithili and Magahi._--It is in the conjugation of the
  verb that the amazing complexity of the Mth. and Mg. grammars appears.
  The conjugation of the Bhojpuri verb is quite simple, and will be
  treated separately. In all three dialects the verb makes little or no
  distinction of number, but instead there is a distinction between
  non-honorific and honorific forms. In Mth. and Mg. this distinction
  applies not only to the subject but also to the object, so that for
  each person there are, in the first place, four groups of forms,
  viz.:--

      I. Subject non-honorific, object non-honorific.
     II. Subject honorific, object non-honorific.
    III. Subject non-honorific, object honorific.
     IV. Subject honorific, object honorific.

  +-------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
  |       |                                  Object: non-honorific                               |     Object: honorific.    |
  +-------+----------------------------+----------------------------+----------------------------+--------------+------------+
  |Person.|          Short Form        |          Long Form         |       Redundant Form.      |              |            |
  |       +--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+              |            |
  |       |   Group I.   |  Group II.  |   Group I.   |  Group II.  |   Group I.   |  Group II.  |  Group III.  |  Group IV. |
  |       |(Subject: non-| (Subject:   |(Subject: non-| (Subject:   |(Subject: non-| (Subject:   |(Subject: non-| (Subject:  |
  |       | honorific)   | honorific)  |  honorific)  | honorific)  |  honorific)  | honorific)  |  honorific)  | honorific) |
  +-------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+------------+
  |       |                            |       _mar^aliai_ Or       |      _mar^aliaik_ Or       |                           |
  |   1   | _mar^ali_ or _mar^ulak^u_  | (with object in 2nd person)| (with object in 2nd person)|      _mar^aliainh^i_      |
  |       |                            |        _mar^aliau_         |        _mar^aliauk_        |                           |
  |       +--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
  |       |              |             |              |Same as 1st  |              |Same as 1st  |               |           |
  |       |              | Same as 1st |              |person, but  |              |person, but  |               |Same as 1st|
  |   2   |  _mar^ale_   |   person.   |  _mar^alah_  |no forms for | _mur^alahak_ |no forms for |_mar^alukunh^i_| person.   |
  |       |              |             |              |object in    |              |object in    |               |           |
  |       |              |             |              |2nd person.  |              |2nd person.  |               |           |
  +-------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
  |       |              |             | maral^ukai Or|             |maral^akaik Or|             |               |           |
  |   3   |  _mar^alak_  |_mar^alunh^i_| (with object |   Wanting   | (with object |   Wanting   | maral^akainh^i|_maral^at- |
  |       |              |             |in 2nd person)|             |in 2nd person)|             |               |  hinh^i_  |
  |       |              |             | _maral^akau_ |             |_maral^akauk_ |             |               |           |
  +-------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+

  In Mth. all the forms in which the object is honorific end in -_nh^i_.
  Mg. closely follows this, but the forms are more abraded.

  Forms in which the object is non-honorific may be, as in the case of
  nouns, short, long or redundant. The long forms are made by adding
  _ai_ (or in the second person -_ah_) to the short forms, and the
  redundant forms by adding _k_ to the long forms. Again, if the
  _object_ is in the second person, the _ai_ of the long and redundant
  forms is changed to _au_. Finally, in the first person the
  non-honorific and honorific forms depending on the subject are the
  same, and are also identical with those forms of the second person in
  which the subject is honorific. We thus get the following paradigm of
  the Mth. past tense of the verb _marab_, to strike. The Mg. forms are
  very similar. Besides the above there are numerous optional forms.
  Moreover, these are only masculine forms. The feminine gender of the
  subject introduces new complications. It is impossible here to go into
  all these _minutiae_, interesting as they are to philologists. They
  must be learnt from the regular grammars. On the present occasion we
  shall confine ourselves to describing the formation of the principal
  parts of the verb.

  In Mth. the usual verb substantive and auxiliary verb is, as in
  Bengali, based on the root _ach_ (Skr. _rcchati_), the initial vowel
  being generally dropped, as in _chi_, I am; _chalah^u_, I was; but
  _ach^i_, he is. In Mg. we have _hi_ or _hiki_, I am; _halu_, I was.
  The finite verb has three verbal nouns or infinitives, viz. (from the
  root _mar_, strike), Mth. _mar^i_ or Mg. _mar_; _marab_; and _maral_.
  All three are fully declined as nouns, the oblique forms being _marai_
  or _mare_, _mar^aba_, and _mar^ala_, respectively. There are two
  participles, a present (Mth. _marait_ = Pr. _marentu_) and a past
  (Mth. _maral_ = Pr. _mari-allu_). The Mg. forms are very similar. The
  old Mg. Pr. present and imperative have survived, but all other tenses
  are made from verbal nouns or participles. The past tense (of which
  the conjugation for a Maithili transitive verb is given above) is
  formed by adding pronominal suffixes to the past participle. Thus,
  _maral+i_, struck + by-me, becomes _mar'li_, I struck. In the case of
  intransitive verbs, the suffixes may represent the nominative and not
  the instrumental case of the pronoun, and hence the conjugation is
  somewhat different. The future is a mixed tense. Generally speaking,
  the first two persons are formed from the verbal noun in _b_, which is
  by origin a future passive participle, and the third person is formed
  from the present participle. Thus, _marab + ah^u_, about-to-be-struck
  + by-me, becomes _mar^abah^u_, I shall strike, and _marait + ah_,
  striking + he, becomes _mar^atah_, he will strike (compare the English
  "he's going," for "he is on the point of going"). A past conditional
  is also formed by adding similar suffixes to the present participle,
  as in _maritah^u_, (if) I had struck. This use of the present
  participle already existed in the Pr. age (cf. Hema-candra's
  _Grammar_, in. 180). In Mth. the present definite and the imperfect
  are formed by conjugating the present or past tense respectively of
  the auxiliary verb with the present participle; thus _marait chi_, I
  am striking. Mg. (like vulgar English) substitutes the oblique form of
  the verbal noun for the present participle, as in _mare hi_, I am
  a-striking. The perfect is usually formed by adding the word for "is"
  to the past; thus, Mth. _mar^ali ach^i_, I have struck, lit.
  struck-by-me it-is. A pluperfect is similarly formed with the past
  tense of the auxiliary verb.

  There are numerous irregular verbs. Most of the irregularities are due
  to the root ending in a vowel or in a weak consonant such as _b_ (=
  Pr. _v_). Thus root _pab_, obtain, past participle _paol_, first
  singular, past tense, _pauli_. More definitely irregular are a few
  roots like _kar_, do, past participle _kail_. These last instances are
  cases in which the past participle is independently derived from a
  Skr. past participle, and is not formed as usual by adding the
  pleonastic suffix -_al_ or -_il_ (Skr., Pr., _-alla-_, _-illa_-, see
  PRAKRIT) to the Bihari root. Thus, Skr. _krta-s_, Pr. _kaa-u,
  ka-ill-u_, B. _kail_, instead of _kar-al_.

  There is a long series of transitive verbs formed from intransitives
  and of causal verbs formed from transitives, generally by adding _ab_
  (Skr. _apaya_-, Pr. _ave_-). Compound verbs are numerous. Noteworthy
  is the desiderative compound formed by adding the root _cah_, wish, to
  the dative of a verbal noun. Thus, _ham dekha-ke cahait-chi_, I am
  wishing for the seeing, I wish to see.

  _Conjugation in Bhojpuri._--The Bh. conjugation is as simple as that
  of Mth. and Mg. is complex. In the first and second persons the plural
  is generally employed for the singular, but there is no change in the
  verb corresponding to the person or honour of the object. The usual
  verb substantive and auxiliary verb is derived in the present from the
  root _bat_ or _bar_, be, as in _bate_ or _bare_ (Skr. _vartate_, Pr.
  _vattai_), he is. The past is derived from the root _rah_ (Skr.
  _rahati_, Pr. _rahai_), as in _rah^ali_ or (contracted) _rahi_, I was.
  The verbal nouns and participles are nearly the same as in Mth.-Mg.,
  the first verbal noun and the present participle being _mar_ and
  _marat_, as in Mg. The old present and imperative, derived from the
  Mg. Pr. forms, are also employed in Bh. Thus, _mare_ (Pr. _marei_), he
  strikes. This tense is often used as a present conditional. When it is
  wished to emphasize the sense of a present indicative, the syllable
  -_la_ is suffixed. The same suffix is employed in Rajasthani, Naipali
  and Marathi to form the future, and in Bh. it is often also used with
  a future sense. The past tense is formed, as in Mth.-Mg., by adding
  pronominal suffixes to the past participle; thus, _mar^ali_ (_mara +
  li_), I struck, as explained above. Similarly, for the first and
  second persons of the future we have _mar^abi_, I shall strike, and so
  on, but the third person is _mari_ (Pr. _marehi_), he will strike,
  _marihen_ (Pr. _marehinti_), they will strike. The periphrastic tenses
  are formed on the same principles as in Mth. As an example of Bh.
  conjugation we give the present, past and future tenses in all
  persons. There are a few additional optional forms, but nothing like
  the multiplicity of meanings which we find in Mth. and Mg.

    +---------+----------+----------+----------+
    |         | Present. |   Past.  |  Future. |
    +---------+----------+----------+----------+
    | Sing. 1 | Not used | Not used | Not used |
    |       2 | mare-le  | mar^alas | mar^abe  |
    |       3 | mare-la  | mar^ale  | mari     |
    |         |          |          |          |
    | Plur. 1 | mari-la  | mar^ali  | mar^abi  |
    |       2 | mara-la  | mar^ala  | mar^aba  |
    |       3 | mare-le  | mar^alen | marihen  |
    +---------+----------+----------+----------+

  It will be observed that the termination of the present changes in
  sympathy with the old present to which it is attached. In some parts
  of the Bh. area, especially in the district of Saran, _u_ is
  substituted for _^al_ in the past. Thus, _marui_, I struck. The
  _maru_- is merely the past participle without the pleonastic
  termination _-alla-_ which is used in Bihari, as explained under the
  Mth.-Mg. conjugation.

  Irregular verbs, the formation of transitive and causal verbs, and the
  treatment of compound verbs, are on the same lines as in Mth.


  Literature.

_Bihari Literature._--In all three dialects there are numerous
folk-epics transmitted by word of mouth. Several have been published at
various times in the _Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_ and in
the _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_. The only
dialect which has any real literature is Maithili. The earliest writer
of whom we have any record is Vidyapati Thakkura (Bidyapati Thakur), who
lived at the court of Raja Siva Simha of Sugaona in Tirhut in the 15th
century. He was a voluminous Sanskrit writer, but his fame rests chiefly
on his dainty lyrics in Maithili dealing with the loves of Radha and
Krishna. These have exercised an important influence on the religious
history of eastern India. They were adopted and enthusiastically recited
by the reformer Caitanya (16th century), and through him became the
home-poetry of the Bengali-speaking Lower Provinces. Their language was
transformed (we can hardly say translated) into Bengali, and in that
shape they have had numerous imitators. A collection of poems by the old
Master-singer in their Maithili dress has been published by the present
writer in his _Chrestomathy_ of that language. The most admired of
Vidyapati's successors is Manbodh Jha, who died in 1788. He composed a
_Haribans_, or poetical life of Krishna, which has great popularity.
Many dramas have been composed in Mithila. The fashion is to write the
body of the work in Sanskrit and Prakrit, but the songs in Maithili. Two
dramas, the _Parijata-harana_ and the _Rukmini-parinaya_, are attributed
to Vidyapati. Among modern writers in the dialect, we may mention
Harsanatha, an elegant lyric poet and author of a drama entitled
_Usa-harana_, and Candra Jha, whose version of the Ramayana and
translation of Vidyapati's Sanskrit _Purusa-pariksa_ are deservedly
popular.

  AUTHORITIES.--_The Linguistic Survey of India_, vol. v. part ii.
  (Calcutta, 1903), gives a complete conspectus of Bihari in all its
  dialects and sub-dialects. See also G.A. Grierson, _Seven Grammars of
  the Dialects and Sub-dialects of the Bihari Language_, parts i. to
  viii. (Calcutta, 1883-1887--these deal with every form of Bihari
  except standard Maithili); and S.H. Kellogg, _A Grammar of the Hindi
  Language, in which are treated High Hindi... also the Colloquial
  Dialects of ... Bhojpur, Magadha, Maithila, &c._ (2nd ed., London,
  1893).

  For Maithili, see G.A. Grierson, _An Introduction to the Maithili
  Language of North Bihár, containing a Grammar, Chrestomathy and
  Vocabulary_; part i. _Grammar_ (Calcutta, 1881; 2nd ed., 1909); part
  ii. _Chrestomathy and Vocabulary_ (Calcutta, 1882). For Vidyapati
  Thakkura, see J. Beames, "The Early Vaishnava Poets of Bengal," in
  _Indian Antiquary_, ii. (1873), pp. 37 ff.; the same, "On the Age and
  Country of Vidyapati," _ibid_. iv. (1875), pp. 299 ff.; anon, article
  in the _Banga Darsana_, vol. iv. (1282 B.S.), pp. 75 ff.; Saradacarana
  Maitra, Introduction to _Vidyapatir Padavali_ (2nd ed., Calcutta, 1285
  B.S.); C.A. Grierson, _Chrestomathy_, as above; "Vidyapati and his
  Contemporaries," _Indian Antiquary_, vol. xiv. (1885), pp. 182 ff.;
  "On some Mediaeval Kings of Mithilâ," _ibid_. vol. xxviii. (1899), pp.
  57 ff.

  For Bhojpuri, see J. Beames, "Notes on the Bhojpuri Dialect of Hindi
  spoken in Western Bihár," in _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_,
  vol. iii. N.S., 1868, pp. 483 ff.; A.F.R. Hoernle, _A Grammar of the
  Eastern Hindi compared with the other Gaudian Languages_ (here
  "Eastern Hindi" means "Western Bhojpuri"), (London, 1880); J.R. Reid,
  _Report on the Settlement Operations in the District of Azamgarh_
  (Allahabad, 1881--contains in appendices full grammar and vocabulary
  of Western Bhojpuri).

  No special works have been written about Magahi.     (G. A. Gr.)


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] The origin of the postpositions is discussed in the article
    HINDOSTANI.



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

Little is known of the author beyond what he himself tells us. He was
born in Gwalior, spent his boyhood in Bundelkhand, and on his marriage
settled in his father-in-law's household in Mathura. His father was
named Kesab Ray; he was a twiceborn (_Dwija_) by caste, which is
generally understood to mean that he was a Brahman, though some assert
that he belonged to the mixed caste, now called Ray, sprung from the
offspring of a Brahman father by a Kshatriya mother. A couplet in the
_Sat-sai_ states that it was completed in A.D. 1662. It is certain that
his patron, whom he calls Jai Shah, was the Raja of Amber or Jaipur,
known as Mirza Jai Singh, who ruled from 1617 to 1667 during the reigns
of the emperors Jahangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. A couplet (No. 705)
appears to refer to an event which occurred in 1665, and in which Raja
Jai Singh was concerned. For this prince the couplets were composed, and
for each _doha_ the poet is said to have received a gold piece worth
sixteen rupees.

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

  The best-known commentary is that of Lallu-ji-Lal, entitled the
  _Lala-chandrika_. The author was employed by Dr Gilchrist in the
  College of Fort William, where he finished his commentary in 1818. A
  critical edition of it has been published by Dr G.A. Grierson
  (Calcutta, government of India Press, 1896).     (C. J. L.)



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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



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



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



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

A picture of the Bilderdijk household is given in the letters (vol. v.,
1850) of Robert Southey, who stayed some time with Bilderdijk in 1825.
Madame Bilderdijk had translated _Roderick_ into Dutch (1823-1824). For
his work as a poet see DUTCH LITERATURE. His many-sided activity showed
itself also in historical criticism--_Geschiedenis des Vaderlands_
(1832-1851, 13 vols.), a conservative commentary on Wagenaar's
_Vaderlandsche Historie_; in translations from Sophocles (1779 and
1789), of part of the _Iliad_, of the hymns and epigrams of Callimachus,
and from the Latin poets; in philology--_Taal en Dichtkundige
Verscheidenheden_ (1820-1825, 4 vols.); and in drama--the tragedies,
_Floris de Vijfde_ (1808), _Willem I. van Holland_ (1808), and others.
His most important poetical works are the didactic poem, _De Ziekte der
geleerden_ ("The Disease of the Learned"), 2 vols., 1807; a descriptive
poem in the manner of Delille in _Het Buitenleven_ (1803); and his
fragmentary epic, _De Ondergang der eerste wereld_ (1820). Other volumes
were _Mijne Verlustigung_ (Leiden, 1781), _Bloemtjens_ (1785),
_Mengel-poezij_ (1799, 2 vols.), _Poezij_ (1803-1807, 4 vols.),
_Mengelingen_ (1804-1808, 4 vols.), _Nieuwe Mengelingen_ (1806, 2
vols.), _Hollands Verlossing_ (1813-1814, 2 vols.), _Vaderlandsche
Uitboezemingen_ (Leiden, 1815), _Winterbloemen_ (1811, 2 vols.), &c., in
some of which his wife collaborated.

  His poetical works were collected by I. da Costa (Haarlem, 1856-1859,
  16 vols.), with a biography of the poet. See also "Mijne
  Levensbeschrijving" in _Mengelingen en Fragmenten_ ... (1834); his
  _Brieven_ (ed. 1836-1837) by I. da Costa and W. Messchert; Dr R.A.
  Kollewijn, _Bilderdijk, Zijn Leven en werken_ ... (2 vols., 1891).



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



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

Beside the _Dilucidationes_, he wrote:--_De harmonia animi et corporis
humani commentatio_ (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1735; Tübingen, 1741); _De
origine et permissione mali_ (1724), an account of the Leibnitzian
theodicy.

  For his life and times see Tafinger, _Leichenrede_ (Stuttgart, 1750);
  Prof. Abel in Moser's _Patriot. Archiv._, 1788, 9, p. 369; Spittler,
  _Verm. Schriften_, 13, p. 421; G. Schwab in _Morgenblatt_ (1830). For
  his philosophy, see R. Wahl, "Bilfinger's _Monadologie_" (_Zeitschrift
  für Philos._ vol. 85, pp. 66-92, 202-231 (Leipzig, 1884), E. Zeller,
  _Geschichte d. deutsch. Philos. seit Leibnitz_, pp. 283 foll., 294).



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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  See also ADVENTURE, ATTAINDER, INDEMNITY, LETTER OF CREDIT, BILL OF
  EXCHANGE, BILL OF RIGHTS and BILL OF SALE; for a _bill of lading_ see
  AFFREIGHTMENT.     (T. A. I.)

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



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

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

  In 1821 were published the _Mémoires de Billaud-Varenne écrits à
  Port-au-Prince_ (Paris, 2 vols.), but they are probably forgeries. An
  interesting autobiographical sketch of his youth, _Tableau du premier
  âge_, composed in 1786, was published in 1888 in the review, _La
  Révolution française_. The facts of such a life need no comment. See,
  in addition to histories of the Revolution, F.A. Aulard, _Les Orateurs
  de la législative et de la convention_ (2nd ed., 1906).     (R. A.*)



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

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



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



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

  "Let us to billiards: come, Charmian."
                         _Ant. and Cleo._ Act ii. sc. 5.

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

The game was at one time played on a lawn, lik e modern croquet.[2] Some
authorities consider that in this form it was introduced into Europe
from the Orient by the Crusaders. The ball was rolled or struck with a
mallet or cue (with the latter, if Strutt's allusion to "inconveniences"
is correct) through hoops or rings, and these were reproduced for indoor
purposes on a billiard-table, as well as a "king" or pin which had to be
struck. In the original tables, which were square, there was one pocket,
a hole in the centre of the table, as on a bagatelle board, the hoop or
ring being retained. Then came similar pockets along one of the side
cushions sunk in the bed of the table; and eventually the modern table
was evolved, a true oblong or double-square, with pockets opening in the
cushions at each corner and in the middle of each long side. The English
tables are of this type, small bags of netting being attached to the
pockets. The French and American game of billiards is played on a
pocketless table. We shall deal first with the English game.


ENGLISH BILLIARDS

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

[Illustration:

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

  The three spots are on the centre line of the table, and are usually
  marked by small circular pieces of black tissue paper or court
  plaster; sometimes they are specially marked for the occasion in
  chalk. The _baulk_ line and the D are marked either with chalk,
  tailors' pipeclay, or an ordinary lead pencil; no other marks appear
  on the table. Smaller tables provide plenty of practice and amusement,
  provided that the relation of the length to the breadth be observed.
  On these tables full-sized balls may be used, the pockets being made
  slightly smaller than in the full-size table.

  In the early part of the 19th century the bed of the table was made of
  wood, occasionally of marble or stone; green baize was used to cover
  both the bed and the cushions, the latter made of layers of list. Then
  as now the cushions proper were glued to a wooden framework which is
  screwed on to the bed of the table. The old list cushions possessed so
  little resilience that about 1835 india-rubber was substituted, the
  value of the improvement being somewhat modified by the fact that in
  cold weather the rubber became hard and never recovered its
  elasticity. Vulcanite resisted the cold, but was not "fast" enough,
  i.e. did not permit the ball to rebound quickly; but eventually a
  substance was invented, practically proof against cold and
  sufficiently elastic for all purposes. Late in the 19th century
  pneumatic cushions were tried, tubes into which air could be pumped,
  but they did not become popular, though the so-called " vacuum
  "cushions give good results. The shape of the face of the cushion has
  gone through many modifications, owing to the difficulty experienced
  in the accurate striking of the ball when resting against the cushion
  with only a small fraction of it's surface offered to the cue; but low
  cushions are now made which expose nearly half of the upper part of
  the ball.

  On the size and shape of the pockets depends the ease with which the
  players score. The mouth of the pocket, known as the "fall" or "drop,"
  is part of the arc of a circle, the circle being larger in the case of
  the corner pockets than in that of the middle pockets; the cushions
  are cut away to admit the passage of the ball. The corner pockets are
  measured by the length of the tangent drawn at the outside point of
  the arc to the cushion on either side. The middle pockets are measured
  at the points where the arc terminates in the cushions. The fall of
  the middle pockets, i.e. the outside point of the arc, is on the line
  of the outside face of the cushion; that of the corner pockets is half
  way down the passage cut in the cushions.

  From 1870 to 1885 matches for the championship were played on
  "Championship Tables," the pockets measuring only 3 in. at the "fall."
  The tables in ordinary use have 3-5/8-in. or 3¾-in. pockets, but in
  the "Standard Association Tables," introduced by the Billiard
  Association at the end of the 19th century, the 3-5/8-in. pocket was
  adopted for all matches, while the fall of the middle pocket was
  withdrawn slightly from the cushion-line. Further, as the shape of the
  shoulders of the cushion at the pockets affects the facility of
  scoring, the Association adopted a much rounder shoulder than that
  used in ordinary tables, thereby requiring greater accuracy on the
  part of the player. In the championship tables the baulk line was only
  28 in. from the cushion, and the radius of the D was reduced to 9½ and
  afterwards to 10 in., the spot being 12½ in. from the top cushion.

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

  Three balls are used in billiards proper, two white and one red. One
  of the white balls has a black spot at each end of an imaginary
  diameter, to distinguish it from the other, the white balls being
  known as spot-white (or "spot") and "plain." They should be
  theoretically perfect spheres, of identical size and weight, and of
  equal durability in all parts. The size that is generally used in
  matches has a diameter of 2-1/16 in., and the weight about 4-2/3 oz.
  It is exceedingly difficult to get three such ivory balls (the best
  substance for elasticity) except by cutting up many tusks, and when
  procured the halls soon lose their perfection, partly because ivory is
  softer in one part than another, partly because it is very susceptible
  to changes of weather and temperature, and unequally susceptible in
  different parts; it is also liable to slight injury in the ordinary
  course of play. Various substitutes have, therefore, been tried for
  ivory (q.v.), such as crystalate, or bonzoline (a celluloid compound),
  and even hollow steel; but their elasticity is inferior to that of
  ivory, so that the ball rebounds at a wider angle when it strikes. The
  price of a first-rate set of ivory balls is from four to six guineas;
  the composition balls cost about half a guinea apiece.

  The cue is a rounded rod of seasoned ash about 4 ft. 9 in. in length,
  tapering from the butt, which is about 1½ in. in diameter, to the tip,
  which varies in size according to the fancy of the player. The average
  tip is, however, ½ in. in diameter. The cue weighs generally between
  14 and 18 oz. The tip of the cue is usually a leather cap or pad,
  which, being liable to slip along the surface of the ball in striking,
  is kept covered with chalk. To the leather tip, the invention of a
  Frenchman named Mingin (about 1820), and to the control which it gives
  the player over the ball, the science of modern play is entirely due.
  The butt of the cue is generally spliced with ebony or some other
  heavy wood, since a shaft of plain ash is too light for its purpose,
  and is furthermore liable to warp. At one time it was lawful to use
  the butt of the cue or even a special instrument with a squared
  spoon-shaped end called a mace (or mast), in making strokes or giving
  misses, but now all strokes must be made with the point. The cue is
  held in one hand, and with the other the player makes a "bridge" by
  placing wrist and finger-tips on the table, and extending his thumb so
  as to make a passage along which to slide his cue and to strike the
  ball. As it is not always possible to reach the ball in this way,
  longer cues (the "half-butt" and "long butt") are required; they are
  used with a "rest," a shaft of wood at the end of which, perpendicular
  to the axis, is fastened an × of wood or metal, the cue being rested
  on the upper half while the lower is on the cloth. A "long rest,"
  about 6 ft. long, is used with the long cues, the "short rest" (or
  "jigger") about 4 ft. long, with the ordinary cue. A marking-board and
  stands or racks for rests and butts, with iron and brush for the
  table, and a cover for the table when not in use, complete the
  billiard "furniture" of the room, apart from its seating
  accommodation.

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

  The game commences by stringing for the lead and choice of balls. The
  players standing behind the baulk line, strike each a ball from the
  semicircle up to the top cushion, and he whose ball on its return
  stops nearest the bottom cushion has the choice of lead and balls. The
  red ball is placed on the spot at the commencement of the game, and
  the first player must "break the balls." The balls are said to be
  "broken" when the first player has struck the red or given a miss; and
  the opponent's ball when off the table is said to be "in hand."
  Breaking the balls thus takes place whenever the position, as at the
  beginning of the game, recurs. The first player (or the player at any
  stage of the game when he plays after being "in hand") must place his
  own ball in any part of the D, or on the lines that form the D, and
  must play into the part of the table outside the baulk line, for he
  may not hit direct any ball that is "in baulk," i.e. on or behind the
  baulk-line; if he wishes to play at it he must first strike a cushion
  out of baulk (or, as it is called, _bricole_). If a player fails to
  score, the adversary plays, as soon as all the balls are at rest,
  either from baulk (if "in hand") or from the place where his own ball
  has stopped. If by the same stroke a player makes two scores, i.e. a
  cannon and a hazard for instance, or a winning and a losing hazard, he
  scores for each of them. Thus if he pockets the red ball and the
  cue-ball, he scores six, or if he makes a cannon and holes the red
  ball, five. In the case of a cannon and a losing hazard, made by the
  same stroke, the value of the hazard depends on the ball first struck.
  Thus if the cue-ball strikes the red, cannons on to the white, and
  runs into a pocket, the stroke counts five points, but only one cannon
  can be made by the same stroke, even if the cue-ball strikes each of
  the others twice. If both object-balls are struck simultaneously it is
  considered that the red is struck first. Ten points are the most that
  can be scored by a single stroke with the cue, namely by striking the
  red ball first and then the white, and holing all three. If the white
  ball be struck first and the same series occurs, the value of the
  stroke is nine points. When the cue-ball and object-ball are
  _touching_, whatever the position, the red ball is spotted, the white
  object-ball put on the centre-spot, and the player plays from baulk.

  There are various subtleties in the art of striking, which may be
  indicated, though only practice can really teach them; the simple
  stroke being one delivered slightly above the centre of the ball.

  The _side-stroke_ is made by striking the object-ball on the side with
  the point of the cue. The effect of such a mode of striking the ball
  is to make it travel to the right or to the left, according as it is
  struck, with a winding or slightly circular motion; and its purpose is
  to cause the ball to proceed in a direction more or less slanting than
  is usual, or ordinary, when the ball is struck in or about the centre
  of its circumference. Many hazards and cannons, quite impossible to be
  made with the central stroke, are accomplished with ease and certainty
  by the side-stroke. It was the invention of the leather tip which made
  _side_ possible. The _screw_, or twist, is made by striking the ball
  low down, with a sharp, sudden blow. According as the ball is struck
  nearer and nearer to the cushion, it stops dead at the point of
  concussion with the object-ball, or recoils by a series of reverse
  revolutions, in the manner familiar to the schoolboy in throwing
  forward a hoop, and causing it to return to his hand by the twist
  given to its first impetus.

  The _follow_ is made by striking the ball high, with a flowing or
  following motion of the cue. Just as the low stroke impedes the motion
  of the ball, the follow expedites it.

  In the _drag_ the ball is struck low without the sudden jerk of the
  screw, and with less than the onward push of the follow.

  The _spot-stroke_ is a series of winning hazards made by pocketing the
  red ball in one of the corners from the spot. The great art is, first,
  to make sure of the hazard, and next, to leave the striking ball in
  such a position as to enable the player to make a similar stroke in
  one or other of the corner pockets. To such perfection was the
  spot-stroke brought, that at the end of the 19th century it was
  necessary to bar it out of the professional matches, and the
  "spot-barred" game became consequently the rule for all players. The
  leading English professionals so completely mastered the difficulties
  of the stroke and made such long successions of hazards that they
  practically killed all public interest in billiards, the game being
  little more than a monotonous series of spot-strokes. In 1888 W.J.
  Peall made 633 "spots" in succession, and in 1890 in a break of
  3304--the longest record--no less than 3183 of the points were scored
  through spot-stroke breaks. J.G. Sala, by use of the screw-back, made
  186 successive hazards in one pocket, but C. Memmott is said to have
  made as many as 423 such strokes in succession. The spot-stroke was
  known and used in 1825, when a run of twenty-two "spots" caused quite
  a sensation. The player, whose name was Carr, offered to play any man
  in England, but though challenged by Edwin Kentfield never met him, so
  the latter became champion. Kentfield, however, did not regard the
  spot-stroke as genuine billiards, rarely played it himself, and had
  the pocket of his tables reduced to 3 in., and the billiard-spot moved
  nearer to the top of the table, so as to make the stroke exceedingly
  difficult. John Roberts, sen., who succeeded Kentfield as champion in
  1849, worked hard at the stroke, but never made, in public, a longer
  run than 104 in succession. But W. Cook, John Roberts, jun., and
  others, assisted by the improvements made in the implements of the
  game, soon outdid Roberts, sen., only to be themselves outdone by W.
  Peall and W. Mitchell, who made such huge breaks by means of the
  stroke that it was finally barred, the Association rules providing
  that only two "spots" may be made in succession unless a cannon is
  combined with a hazard, and that after the second hazard the red ball
  be placed on the centre-spot.

  _Top-of-the-Table Play._--When the spot-stroke was dying, many leading
  players, headed by John Roberts, jun., assiduously cultivated another
  form of rapid scoring, known as "top-of-the-table-play," the first
  principle of which is to collect the three balls at the top of the
  table near the spot. The balls are then manipulated by means of red
  winning hazards and cannons, the winning hazard not being made till
  the object-white can be left close to the spot.

  _The Push-stroke._--Long series of cannons were also made along the
  edge of the cushion, mainly by means of the "push-stroke," and with
  great rapidity, but eventually the push-stroke too was barred as
  unfair. It was usually employed when cue-ball and object-ball were
  very close together and the third ball was in a line, or nearly in a
  line with them; then by placing the tip of the cue very close to the
  cue-ball and pushing gently and carefully, not striking, the
  object-ball could be pushed aside and the cue-ball directed on ball 3.

  _Balls Jammed in Pockets._--If the two object-balls get jammed, either
  by accident or design, in the jaws of a corner pocket, an almost
  interminable series of cannons may be made by a skilful player. T.
  Taylor made as many as 729 cannons in 1891, but the American champion,
  Frank C. Ives, in a match with John Roberts, jun., easily beat this in
  1893, by making 1267 cannons, before he deliberately broke up the
  balls. In Ives's case the balls, however, were just outside the jaws,
  which were skilfully used to keep the balls close together; but in
  this game, which was a compromise between English and American
  billiards, {2¼}-in. balls and {3¼}-in. pockets were used. Under the
  aegis of the Billiard Association a tacit understanding was arrived at
  that the position must be broken up, should it occur. A similar
  position came into discredit in 1907, in the case of the
  "cradle-double-kiss" or "anchor" cannon, where the balls were not
  actually jammed, but so close on each side of a pocket that a long
  series of cannons could be made without disturbing the position--a
  stroke introduced by Lovejoy and carried to extremes by him, T. Reece
  and others (see below).

  _The Quill or Feather Stroke._--This stroke was barred early in the
  game's history. It could only be made when the cue-ball was in hand
  and the object-ball just outside that part of the baulk-line that
  helps to form the D. The cue-ball was set so close to the object-ball
  as only not to touch it, and was then pushed very gently into the
  pocket, grazing the other so slightly as just to shake it, and no
  more. A number of similar strokes could thus be made before the
  object-ball was out of position.

  A _jenny_ is a losing hazard into one of the (generally top) pockets
  when the object-ball is close to the cushion along which the pocket
  lies: it requires to be played with the side required to turn the ball
  into the pocket. Long jennies to the top pockets are a difficult and
  pretty stroke: short jennies are into the middle pockets.

  _Massé and Piqué._--A _massé_ is a difficult stroke made by striking
  downwards on the upper surface of the cue-ball, the cue being held
  nearly at right angles to the table, and the point not being directed
  towards the centre of the ball. It is generally used to effect a
  cannon when the three balls are more or less in a line, the cue-ball
  and the object-ball being close together. The term _massé_ is often
  used irregularly for _piqué_, made when the object-ball is as close to
  the cue-ball as the latter to the cushion, or the third ball, or to
  make screwing impossible; the cue is then raised to an angle of almost
  45° or 50° and its axis directed to the centre of the cue-ball, so
  that backward rotation is set up. Vignaux, the French player, says,
  "_Le massé est un piqué_." _Massé_ is in fact _piqué_ combined with
  side.

  The perfection of billiards is to be found in the nice combination of
  the various strokes, in such fashion as to leave the balls in a
  favourable position after each individual hazard and cannon; and this
  perfection can only be attained by the most constant and unremitting
  practice. When the cue-ball is so played that its centre is aimed at
  the extreme edge of the object-ball, the cue-ball's course is diverted
  at what is called the "_natural_" or "_half-ball_" angle. If the balls
  were flat discs instead of spheres the edge of one ball would touch
  the centre of the other. The object-ball is struck at "three-quarter
  ball" or "quarter-ball" according as the edge of the cue-ball appears
  to strike mid-way between the half-ball point and the centre or edge
  respectively of the object-ball. The half-ball angle is regarded as
  the standard angle for billiards, other angles being sometimes termed
  rather vaguely as "rather more or less than half-ball." The angle of
  the cue-ball's new course would be about 45°, were the object-ball
  fixed, but as the object-ball moves immediately it is struck, the
  cue-ball is not actually diverted more than 33° from the prolongation
  of its original course, it being conventional among players to regard
  the prolongation of the course and not the original track when
  calculating the angle. The natural angle, and all angles, may be
  modified by side and screw; the use of strength also makes the ball go
  off at a wider angle.

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

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

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

  +-------+-------------------+--------------------------------+-----+
  |Points.|       Date.       |             Players.           | Won |
  |       |                   |                                | by. |
  +-------+-------------------+--------------------------------+-----+
  | 1200  | Feb. 11, 1870     | Cook b. Roberts, sen.          | 117 |
  | 1000  | April 14, 1870    | Roberts, jun., b. Cook         | 478 |
  | 1000  | May 30, 1870      | Roberts, jun., b. Bowles       | 246 |
  | 1000  | Nov. 28, 1870     | Jos. Bennett b. Roberts, jun.  |  95 |
  | 1000  | Jan. 30, 1871     | Roberts, jun., b. Bennett      | 363 |
  | 1000  | May 25, 1871      | Cook b. Roberts, jun.          |  15 |
  | 1000  | Nov. 21, 1871     | Cook b. Jos. Bennett           |  58 |
  | 1000  | March 4, 1872     | Cook b. Roberts, jun.          | 201 |
  | 1000  | Feb. 4, 1874      | Cook b. Roberts, jun.          | 216 |
  | 1000  | May 24, 1875      | Roberts, jun., b. Cook         | 163 |
  | 1000  | Dec. 20, 1875     | Roberts, jun., b. Cook         | 135 |
  | 1000  | May 28, 1877      | Roberts, jun., b. Cook         | 223 |
  | 1000  | Nov. 8, 1880      | Jos. Bennett b. Cook           |  51 |
  | 1000  | Jan. 12, 13, 1881 | Jos. Bennett b. Taylor         |  90 |
  | 3000  | March 30, 31, and |                                |     |
  |       |   April 1, 1885   | Roberts, jun., b. Cook         |  92 |
  | 3000  | June 1, 2, 3, 4,  |                                |     |
  |       |   1885            | Roberts, jun., b. Jos. Bennett |1640 |
  +-------+-------------------+--------------------------------+-----+

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

  _Records._--Record scores at billiards have greatly altered since W.
  Cook's break of 936, which included 292 spots, and was made in 1873.
  Big breaks are in some degree a measure of development; but too much
  weight must not be given to them, for tables vary considerably between
  easy and difficult ones, and comparisons are apt to mislead. Peall's
  break of 3304 (1890) is the largest "all-in" score on record; and in
  the modern spot-barred and push-barred game with a championship table,
  H.W. Stevenson in April 1904 made 788 against C. Dawson. In January
  1905 John Roberts, however, made 821 in fifty minutes, in a match with
  J. Duncan, champion of Ireland; but this was not strictly a "record,"
  since the table had not been measured officially by the Billiard
  Association. A break of 985 was made by Diggle in 1895 against
  Roberts, on a "standard table" (before the reduction in size of the
  pockets). On the 5th of March 1907 T. Reece began beating records by
  means of the "anchor" stroke, making 1269 (521 cannons), and he made
  an unfinished 4593 with the same stroke (2268 cannons) on the 23rd of
  March. Further large breaks followed, including 23,769 by Dawson on
  the 20th of April 1907, and even more by Reece; and towards the end of
  the year the Billiard Association ruled the stroke out.

  _Handicapping._--The obvious way of handicapping unequal players is
  for the stronger player to allow his opponent an agreed number of
  points by way of start. Or he may "owe" points, i.e. not begin to
  reckon his score till he has scored a certain number. A good plan is
  for the better player to agree to count no breaks that are below a
  certain figure. The giver of points scores all forfeits for misses,
  &c. If A can give B 20 points, and B can give C 25 points, the number
  of points that A can give C is calculated on the following formula,

              20 x 25
    20 + 25 - ------- = 40.
                100

  The handicap of "barring" one or more pockets to the better player, he
  having only four or five sockets to play into, has been abolished in
  company with other methods that tended to make the game tedious.

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

  Pyramids is a game entirely of winning hazards, and he who succeeds in
  pocketing the greatest number of balls wins. Usually the pyramid is
  made of fifteen red or coloured balls, with the striking ball white.
  This white ball is common to both players. Having decided on the lead,
  the first player, placing his ball in the baulk-semicircle, strikes it
  up to the pyramid, with a view either to lodge a ball in a pocket or
  to get the white safely back into baulk. Should he fail to pocket a
  red ball, the other player goes on and strikes the white ball from the
  place at which it stopped. When either succeeds in making a winning
  hazard, he plays at any other ball he chooses, and continues his break
  till he ceases to score; and so the game is continued by alternate
  breaks until the last red ball is pocketed. The game is commonly
  played for a stake upon the whole, and a proportionate sum upon each
  ball or life--as, for instance, 3s. game and 1s. balls. The player
  wins a life by pocketing a red ball or forcing it over the table; and
  loses a life by running his own, the white, ball into a pocket,
  missing the red balls, or intentionally giving a miss. In this game
  the baulk is no protection; that is to say, the player can pocket any
  ball wherever it lies, either within or without the baulk line, and
  whether the white be in hand or not. This liberty is a great and
  certain advantage under many circumstances, especially in the hands of
  a good player. It is not a very uncommon occurrence for an adept to
  pocket six or eight balls in a single break. Both Cook and Roberts
  have been known, indeed, to pocket the whole fifteen. If four persons
  play at pyramids, the rotation is decided by chance, and each plays
  alternately--partners, as in billiards, being allowed to advise each
  other, each going on and continuing to play as long as he can, and
  ceasing when he misses a hazard. Foul strokes are reckoned as in
  billiards, except as regards balls touching each other. If two balls
  touch, the player proceeds with his game and scores a point for every
  winning hazard. When all the red balls but one are pocketed, he who
  made the last hazard plays with the white and his opponent with the
  red; and so on alternately, till the game terminates by the holing of
  one or other ball. The pyramid balls are usually a little smaller than
  the billiard balls; the former are about 2 in. in diameter, the latter
  2-1/16 in. to 2-1/8 in.

  _Losing Pyramids_, seldom played, is the reverse of the last-named
  game, and consists of losing hazards, each player using the same
  striking ball, and taking a ball from the pyramid for every losing
  hazard. As in the other game, the baulk is no protection. Another
  variety of pyramids is known as _Shell-out_, a game at which any
  number of persons may play. The pyramid is formed as before, and the
  company play in rotation. For each winning hazard the striker receives
  from each player a small stake, and for each losing hazard he pays a
  like sum, till the game is concluded, by pocketing the white or the
  last coloured ball.

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

  The order of play is usually as follows:--The white ball is spotted;
  red plays upon white; yellow upon red; then blue, brown, green, black,
  and spot-white follow in the order of succession named, white playing
  on spot-white. The order is similar for a larger number, but it is not
  common for more than seven or eight to join in a pool. The player
  _wins_ a life for every ball pocketed, and receives the sum agreed on
  for each life from the owner of that ball. He _loses_ a life to the
  owner of the ball he plays on and misses; or by making a losing hazard
  after striking such ball; by playing at the wrong ball, by running a
  coup; or by forcing his ball over the table. Rules governing the game
  provide for many other incidents. A ball in baulk may be played at by
  the striker whose ball is in hand. If the striker's ball be
  angled--that is, so placed in the jaws of the pocket as not to allow
  him to strike the previously-played ball--he may have all the balls
  except his own and the object ball removed from the table to allow him
  to try bricole from the cushion. In some clubs and public rooms an
  angled ball is allowed to be moved an inch or two from the corner; but
  with a ball so removed the player must not take a life. When the
  striker loses a life, the next in rotation plays at the ball nearest
  his own; but if the player's ball happen to be in hand, he plays at
  the ball nearest to the centre spot on the baulk line, whether it be
  in or out of baulk. In such a case the striker can play from any part
  of the semicircle. Any ball lying in the way of the striker's ball,
  and preventing him from taking fair aim and reaching the object-ball,
  must be removed, and replaced after the stroke. If there be any doubt
  as to the nearest ball, the distance must be measured by the marker or
  umpire; and if the distance be equal, the ball to be played upon must
  be decided by chance. If the striker first pocket the ball he plays on
  and then runs his own into a pocket, he loses a life to the player
  whose ball he pocketed, which ball is then to be considered in hand.
  The first player who loses all his three lives can "star"; that is, by
  paying into the pool a sum equal to his original stake, he is entitled
  to as many lives as the lowest number on the marking board. Thus if
  the lowest number be 2, he stars 2; if 1, he stars 1. Only one star is
  allowed in a pool; and when there are only two players left in, no
  star can be purchased. The price of each life must be paid by the
  player losing it, immediately after the stroke is made; and the stake
  or pool is finally won by the player who remains longest in the game.
  In the event, however, of the two players last left in the pool having
  an equal number of lives, they may either play for the whole or divide
  the stake. The latter, the usual course, is followed except when the
  combatants agree to play out the game. When three players are left,
  each with one life, and the striker makes a miss, the two remaining
  divide the pool without a stroke--this rule being intended to meet the
  possible case of two players combining to take advantage of a third.
  When the striker has to play, he may ask which ball he has to play at,
  and if being wrongly informed he play at the wrong ball, he does not
  lose a life. In clubs and public rooms it is usual for the marker to
  call the order and rotation of play: "Red upon white, and yellow's
  your player"; and when a ball has been pocketed the fact is
  notified--"Brown upon blue, and green's your player, in hand"; and so
  on till there are only two or three players left in the pool.

  There are some varieties of the game which need brief mention.

  _Single Pool_ is the white winning hazard game, played for a stake and
  so much for each of three or more lives. Each person has a ball,
  usually white and spot-white. The white is spotted, and the other
  plays on it from the baulk-semicircle; and then each plays
  alternately, spotting this ball after making a hazard. For each
  winning hazard the striker receives a life; for each losing hazard he
  pays a life; and the taker of the three lives wins the game. No star
  is allowed in single pool. The rules regulating pool are observed.

  _Nearest-Ball Pool_ is played by any number of persons with the
  ordinary coloured balls, and in the same order of succession. All the
  rules of pool are followed, except that the baulk _is_ a protection.
  The white is spotted, and the red plays on it; after that each striker
  plays upon the ball nearest the upper or outer side of the baulk-line;
  but if the balls lie within the baulk-line, and the striker's ball be
  in hand, he must play up to the top cushion, or place his ball on the
  spot. If his ball be not in hand, he plays at the nearest ball,
  wherever it may lie.

  _Black Pool._--In this game, which lasts for half-an-hour, there are
  no lives, the player whose ball is pocketed paying the stake to the
  pocketer. Each player receives a coloured ball and plays in order as
  in "Following Pool," the white ball being spotted; there is, in
  addition, however, a black ball, which is spotted on the centre-spot.
  When a player has taken a life he may--in some rooms and clubs
  _must_--play on the black ball. If he pockets it he receives a stake
  from each player, paying a stake all round if he misses it, or commits
  any of the errors for which he would have to pay at "Following Pool."
  The black ball cannot be taken in consecutive strokes. Sometimes a
  pink ball, spotted on the pyramid spot, is added and a single stake is
  paid all round to the man who pockets it, and a double stake on the
  black; it is also permitted in some rooms to take blacks and pinks
  alternately without pocketing a coloured ball between the strokes.
  Again it is the custom in certain rooms to let a player, after the
  first round, play on any ball. The game is more amusing when as much
  freedom is allowed as possible, so that the taking of lives may be
  frequent. At the end of the half-hour the marker announces at the
  beginning of the round that it is the last round. White, who lost a
  stroke at the beginning by being spotted, has the last stroke. If a
  player wishes to enter the game during its progress his ball is put on
  the billiard-spot just before white plays, and he takes his first
  stroke at the end of the round.

  _Snooker Pool._--This is a game of many and elaborate rules. In
  principle it is a combination of pyramids and pool. The white ball is
  the cue-ball for all players. The pyramid balls, set up as in
  pyramids, count one point each, the yellow ball two points, green ball
  three, and so on. The black is put on the billiard-spot, the pink on
  the centre-spot, blue below the apex ball of the pyramid; brown, green
  and yellow on the diameter of the semicircle, brown on the middle
  spot, green on the right corner spot of the D, yellow on the left. The
  players, having decided the order of play, generally by distributing
  the pool balls from the basket, and playing in the order of colours as
  shown on the marking board, are obliged to strike a red ball first. If
  it is pocketed, the player scores one and is at liberty to play on any
  of the coloured balls; though in some clubs he is compelled to play on
  the yellow. If he pockets a coloured ball he scores the number of
  points which that ball is worth, and plays again on a red ball, the
  coloured ball being replaced on its spot, and so on; but a red ball
  must always be pocketed before a more valuable ball can be played at.
  When all the red balls have been pocketed--none are put back on the
  table as at pyramids--the remaining balls _must_ be pocketed in the
  pool order and are not replaced. The penalties for missing a ball,
  running into a pocket, &c., are deducted from the player's score; they
  correspond to the values of the balls, one point if the red be missed,
  two if the yellow be missed, &c. If, before hitting the proper ball,
  the player hits one of a higher value, the value of that ball is
  deducted from his score, but there is no further penalty. A player is
  "snookered" if his ball is so placed that he cannot hit a ball on
  which he is compelled to play. In this case he is allowed in some
  rooms to give a miss, but in such a way that the next player is not
  snookered; in others he must make a _bona fide_ attempt to hit the
  proper ball off the cushion, being liable to the usual penalty if in
  so doing he hits a ball of higher value. In some rooms it is
  considered fair and part of the game to snooker an opponent
  deliberately; in others the practice is condemned. The rules are so
  variable in different places that even the printed rules are not of
  much value, owing to local by-laws.

  Among other games of minor importance, being played in a less serious
  spirit than those mentioned, are _Selling Pool, Nearest Ball Pool,
  Cork Pool_ and _Skittle Pool_. The directions for playing them may be
  found in _Billiards_ (Badminton Library series).

_French and American Billiards._--French and American billiards is
played on a pocketless table, the only kind of table that is used in
France, though the English table with six pockets is also occasionally
to be found in America. For match purposes the table used measures 10
ft. by 5 ft., but in private houses and clubs 9 ft. by 4¼ ft. is the
usual size, while tables 8 ft. by 4 ft. are not uncommon. The balls,
three in number as in English billiards, measure from 2¼ to 2-3/8 in.,
the latter being "match" size. Since they are both larger and heavier
than the English balls, the cues are somewhat heavier and more powerful,
so that better effects can be produced by means of "side," masses, &c.
Only cannons (called in America "caroms," in French _caramboles_) are
played, each counting one point.

  The three-ball carom game is the recognized form of American
  billiards. The table is marked with a centre-spot, "red" spot and
  "white" spot. The first is on the centre of an imaginary line dividing
  the table longitudinally into halves; the red (for the red ball) and
  white spots are on the same line, half-way between the centre-spot and
  the end cushions, the white spot being on the string-line
  (corresponding to the English baulk-line). The right to play first is
  decided, as in England, by "stringing." The opponent's white ball and
  the red ball being spotted, the player plays from within the imaginary
  baulk-line. Each carom counts one point; a miss counts one to the
  opponent. A ball is re-spotted on its proper spot if it has been
  forced off the table. Should red be forced off the table and the red
  spot be occupied, it is placed on the white spot. White under similar
  conditions is set on the red spot. The centre spot is only used when,
  a ball having been forced off the table, both spots are occupied. If a
  carom be made, and the ball afterwards jumps off the table, it is
  spotted and the count allowed. If the striker moves a ball not his own
  before he strikes, he cannot count but may play for safety. If he does
  so after making a carom the carom does not count, he forfeits one, and
  his break is ended. If he touches his own ball before he plays, he
  forfeits a point, and cannot play the stroke. Should he, however,
  touch his ball a second time, the opponent has the option of having
  the balls replaced as exactly as possible, or of playing on them as
  they are left. It is a foul stroke to play with the wrong ball, but if
  the offence is not detected before a second stroke has been made, the
  player may continue.

  Such long runs of caroms, chiefly "on the rail" along the cushion,
  have been made by professional players (H. Kerkau, the German
  champion, making 7156 caroms in 1901 at Zürich), that various schemes
  have been devised to make the game more difficult. One of these is
  known as the "continuous baulk-line." Lines are drawn, 8, 14, 18 or
  even 22 in. from the rails, parallel to the side of the table, forming
  with them eight compartments. Of these 14 and 18 are the most general.
  Only one, two or three caroms, as previously arranged, are allowed to
  be made in every space, unless one at least of the object-balls is
  driven over a line. In the space left in the middle of the table any
  number of caroms may be made without restriction. In the case of the
  _Triangular Baulk-line_, lines are drawn at the four corners from the
  second "sight" on the side-rails to the first sight on the end-rails,
  forming four triangles within which only a limited number of caroms
  may be made, unless one object-ball at least be driven outside one of
  the lines. The _Anchor Baulk-lines_ were devised to checkmate the
  "anchor" shot, which consisted in getting the object-balls on the
  rail, one on either side of a baulk-line, and delicately manipulating
  them so as to make long series of caroms; each ball being in a
  different compartment, neither had to be driven over a line. The
  "anchor baulk-lines" form a tiny compartment, 6 in. by 3, and are
  drawn at the end of a baulk-line where it touches the rail and so
  divides the compartment into two squares. Only one shot is allowed in
  this "anchor-space," unless a ball be driven out of it. By these
  methods, "crotching" (getting them jammed in a corner) the balls, and
  long series of rail-caroms were abolished. The push-stroke is strictly
  forbidden.

  The _Cushion Carom_ game is a variety of the ordinary three-ball game,
  in which no carom counts unless the cue-ball touches a cushion before
  the carom is completed. There is also _Three-Cushion Carom_, which is
  explained by its title, and the _Bank-Shot_ game, in which the
  cue-ball must touch a cushion before it strikes either ball. The
  cushion carom games are often used in handicapping, other methods of
  which are for the better player to make a certain number of caroms "or
  no count," and for the weaker to receive a number of points in the
  game.

  In France billiards was played exclusively by the aristocracy and the
  richer middle class until the first part of the 17th century, when the
  privilege of keeping billiard-rooms was accorded to the _billardiers
  paulmiers_, and billiards became the principal betting game and
  remained so until the time of Louis Philippe. The most prominent
  French player of late years is Maurice Vignaux. The French game became
  the accepted one in the United States about 1870, and the best
  American players have proved themselves superior to the French masters
  with the exception of Vignaux. The best-known American masters have
  been M. Daly, Shaafer, Slosson, Carter, Sexton and Frank C. Ives,
  doubtless the most brilliant player who ever lived. His record for the
  18-in. baulk-line game was an average of 50, with a high run of 290
  points. In cushion-caroms he scored a run of 85.

  The four-ball game, the original form of American billiards, is
  practically obsolete. It was formerly played on an English six-pocket
  table, with a dark-red and a light-red ball and two white ones. At
  present when played an ordinary table is used, the rules being
  identical with those of the three-ball game.

  _Pool_ is played in America on a six-pocket table with fifteen balls,
  each bearing a number. There are several varieties of the game, the
  most popular being _Continuous Pool_, an expanded form of
  _Fifteen-Ball Pool_, in which the balls are set up as in English
  pyramids, the game being won by the player pocketing the majority of
  the fifteen balls, each ball counting one point, the numbers being
  used only to distinguish them, as a player must always name, or
  "call," the ball he intends to pocket and the pocket into which he
  will drive it. The player who "breaks" (plays first) must send at
  least two balls to the cushion or forfeit three points. The usual
  method is to strike a corner ball just hard enough to do this but not
  hard enough to break up the balls, as in that case the second player
  would have too great an advantage. Balls pocketed by chance in the
  same play in which a called ball has been legitimately put down are
  counted; all others pocketed by accident are replaced on the table. In
  Fifteen-Ball Pool each frame (fifteen balls) constitutes a game. In
  Continuous Pool the game is for a series of points, generally 100, the
  balls being set up again after each frame and the player pocketing the
  last ball having the choice whether to break or cause his opponent to
  do so.

  The balls in Fifteen-Ball Pool are generally all of one colour,
  usually red. In _Pyramid Pool_ they are parti-coloured as well as
  numbered, and the game, which usually consists of a single frame, is
  won by the player who, when all fifteen balls have been pocketed, has
  scored the greatest aggregate of the numbers on the balls. In _Chicago
  Pool_ each frame constitutes a game and is won by the player scoring
  the highest aggregate of numbers on the balls, which are set up round
  the cushion opposite the diamond sights, the 1 being placed in the
  middle of the top cushion, opposite the player, with the odd-numbered
  balls on the player's left and those with even numbers on his right.
  The arrangement of the balls, however, varies and is not important.
  Each player must strike the lowest-numbered ball still on the table,
  forfeiting the number of points represented by the ball should his
  ball first hit any other ball, or should he pocket his own ball. If he
  pockets the proper ball all others that fall into pockets on that play
  count for him also. Missing the ball played at forfeits three points
  (sometimes the number on the ball played at), as well as fouls of all
  kinds. _Bottle Pool_ is played with a cue-ball, the 1 and 2 pool-balls
  and the leather pool-bottle, which is stood upon its mouth in the
  middle of the table. A carom on two balls counts 2 points; pocketing
  the 1-ball counts 1; pocketing the 2-ball counts 2; upsetting bottle
  from carom counts 5; upsetting bottle to standing position counts 10,
  or, in many clubs, the game is won when this occurs. Otherwise the
  game is for 31 points, which number must be scored exactly, a player
  scoring more than that number being "burst," and having to begin over
  again. There are many penalties of one point, such as missing the
  object-ball, foul strokes, forcing a ball or the bottle off the table,
  pocketing one's own ball and upsetting the bottle without hitting a
  ball. The game of _Thirty-Four_ is played without a bottle, the
  scoring being by caroms or pocketing the two object-balls. Exactly 34
  must be scored or the player is "burst."

  _High-Low-Jack-Game_ is played with a set of pyramid balls by any
  number of players, the order of starting being determined by
  distributing the small balls from the pool-bottle. The 15-ball is
  High, the 1 Low, the 9 Jack, and the highest aggregate of numbers is
  the game, each of these four counting one point, the game consisting
  of seven points, and therefore lasting at least for two frames. The
  balls are set up with the three counting balls in the centre and
  broken as in pyramids, although balls accidentally falling into
  pockets count for the player, on which account the balls are sometimes
  broken as violently as possible. When two or more players have the
  same score the High ball wins before the Low, &c., as in the card game
  of the same title.

  _Pin Pool_ is played with two white balls, one red and five small pins
  set up in diamond form in the centre of the table with the pin
  counting 5 (the king-pin) in the middle, the pins being 3 in. apart.
  Each player is given a small ball from the bottle and this he keeps
  secret until he is able to announce that his points, added to the
  number on his small ball, amount to exactly 31. If he "bursts" he must
  begin again. Points are made only by knocking down pins, which are
  numbered 1 to 5. Should a player knock down with one stroke all four
  outside pins, leaving the 5-pin-standing, it is a "natural" and he
  wins the game.

  Besides these common varieties of pool there are many others which are
  played in different parts of America, many of them local in character.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The scientific features of billiards have been
  discussed at more or less length in several of the following older
  works:--E. White, _Practical Treatise on the Game of Billiards_
  (1807), this was partly a translation of a French treatise, published
  in 1805, and partly a compilation from the article in the _Académie
  universelle des jeux_, issued in the same year, and since frequently
  re-edited and reprinted; _Le Musée des jeux_ (Paris, 1820); Monsieur
  Mingaud, _The Noble Game of Billiards_ (Paris, 1834); a translation of
  the same, by John Thurston (London, 1835); Kentfield, _On Billiards_
  (London, 1839), founded principally on the foregoing works: Edward
  Russell Mardon, _Billiards, Game 500 up_ (London, 1849); Turner, _On
  Billiards_, a series of diagrams with instructions (Nottingham, 1849);
  Captain Crawley, _The Billiard Book_ (London, 1866-1875); Roberts, _On
  Billiards_ (1868); Fred. Hardy, _Practical Billiards_, edited by W.
  Dufton (1867); Joseph Bennett (ex-champion), _Billiards_ (1873). These
  older books, however, are largely superseded by such modern
  authorities as the following:--J. Roberts, _The Game of Billiards_
  (London, 1898); W. Cook, _Billiards_ (Burroughes & Watts); J.P.
  Buchanan, _Hints on Billiards_ (Bell & Sons); _Modern Billiards_ (The
  Brunswick--Balke--Collender Co., New York); Broadfoot, _Billiards_,
  Badminton Library (Longmans); Locock, _Side and Screw_ (Longmans); M.
  Vignaux, _Le Billiard_ (Paris, 1889); A. Howard Cady, _Billiards and
  Pool_ (Spalding's Home Library, New York); Thatcher, _Championship
  Billiards, Old and New_ (Chicago, 1898). For those interested in the
  purely mathematical aspect of the game, Hemming, _Billiards
  Mathematically Treated_, (Macmillan).


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] In 1907 an oval table was introduced in England by way of a
    change, but this variety is not here considered.

  [2] A later form of "lawn-billiards" again enjoyed a brief popularity
    during the latter half of the 19th century. It was played on a lawn,
    in the centre of which was a metal ring about 5½ in. in diameter,
    planted upright in such a manner as to turn freely on its axis on a
    level with the ground. The players, two or more, were provided with
    implements resembling cues about 4 ft. long and ending in wire loops
    somewhat smaller in diameter than the wooden balls (one for each
    player), which were of such a size as barely to pass through the
    ring. In modern times such games as billiards have afforded scope for
    various imitations and modifications of this sort.



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



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



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

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

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

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

      £100                               LONDON, _1st January_ 1901.

  Three months after date pay to the order of Mr J. Jones the sum
  of one hundred pounds for value received.

                                                   BROWN & Co.
  To Messrs. Smith & Sons, Liverpool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  Cheques.

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


  Promissory notes.

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


  Foreign laws.

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

  The ordinary text-books on the law of bills of exchange are constantly
  re-edited and brought up to date. The following among others may be
  consulted:--Byles, _Bills of Exchange_; Chalmers, _Bills of Exchange_;
  Daniel, _Law of Negotiable Instruments_ (United States); Nouguier,
  _Des lettres de change et des effets de commerce_ (France); Thorburn,
  _Bills of Exchange Act_ 1882 (Scotland); Story, _Bills of Exchange_
  (United States); Hodgins, _Bills of Exchange Act_ 1890 (Canada).
       (M. D. Ch.)


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] This is also the definition given in the United States, by § 126
    of the general act relating to negotiable instruments, prepared by
    the conference of state commissioners on uniform legislation, and it
    has been adopted in the leading states.



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

  "(1) That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution
  of laws by regal authority without consent of parliament is illegal.
  (2) That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution
  of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of
  late, is illegal. (3) That the commission for erecting the late court
  of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, and all other commissions
  and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious. (4) That
  levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretence of
  prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time or in other
  manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal. (5) That it
  is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments
  and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. (6) That the
  raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of
  peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law. (7)
  That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their
  defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law. (8) That
  elections of members of parliament ought to be free. (9) That the
  freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not
  to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
  (10) That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
  imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (11) That jurors
  ought to be duly impanelled and returned and jurors which pass upon
  men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders. (12) That all
  grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons
  before conviction are illegal and void. (13) And that for redress of
  all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of
  the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently. And they do claim,
  demand and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their
  undoubted rights and liberties."

The further provisions of the act were concerned with the settlement of
the crown upon the prince and princess of Orange, with the exception of
§ 12, which negatived the right of dispensation by _non obstante_[1] to
or of any statute or any part thereof, unless a dispensation be allowed
in the statute itself or by bill or bills to be passed during the then
session of parliament.

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


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] _Non obstante_ (notwithstanding) means a licence from the crown
    to do that which could not be lawfully done without it.



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

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

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

  _Absolute Bills._--Absolute bills of sale must be duly attested by a
  solicitor, and the attestation must state that before execution the
  effect of it was explained to the grantor by the attesting solicitor.
  The consideration must be truly stated. The bill of sale, and all
  schedules and inventories annexed to or referred to in the bill, and
  also a true copy of the bill and of every schedule and inventory and
  of every attestation, together with an affidavit stating the time of
  making or giving the bill, its due execution and attestation and the
  residence and occupation of the grantor, and every attesting witness,
  must be presented to, and the copies filed by, the registrar within
  seven clear days. In the case of absolute bills the effect of
  non-compliance does not affect the validity of the bill as between the
  parties to it, but makes it void as against the trustee in bankruptcy
  and execution creditors of the grantor.

  _Bills by Way of Security._--All bills of sale given by way of
  security for the repayment of money must be made in accordance with
  the form given in the schedule to the act of 1882, and they must not
  depart from the statutory form in anything which is not merely a
  matter of verbal difference. The form given in the schedule to the act
  is as follows:--

  This Indenture made the ___ day of ___ between A. B. of ___ of the one
  part and C. D. of ___ of the other part, witnesseth that in
  consideration of the sum of £ ___ now paid to A. B. by C. D, the
  receipt of which the said A. B. hereby acknowledges, he the said A. B.
  doth hereby assign unto C. D. his executors, administrators and
  assigns all and singular the several chattels and things specifically
  described in the schedule hereto annexed by way of security for the
  payment of the sum of £ ___ and interest thereon at the rate of ___ %
  per annum. And the said A. B. doth further agree and declare that he
  will duly pay to the said C. D. the principal sum aforesaid together
  with the interest then due, by equal ___ payments of £ ___ on the ___
  day of ___ And the said A. B. doth also agree with the said C. D. that
  he will (_here insert terms as to insurance, payment of rent, &c.,
  which the parties may agree to for the maintenance or defeasance of
  the security_). Provided always that the chattels hereby assigned
  shall not be liable to seizure or to be taken possession of by the
  said C. D. for any cause other than those specified in § 7 of the
  Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882.

  In witness, &c.

  Signed and sealed by the said A. B. in the presence of me E. F. (_add
  witness's name, address and description_).

  Non-compliance with the requirement of the statute as to form renders
  a bill of sale void even as between the parties. The bill of sale must
  have annexed to it an inventory of the chattels comprised in it, and
  is void, except as against the grantor, in respect of any personal
  chattels not specifically described. It must be duly attested by one
  or more credible witnesses (not necessarily by a solicitor, as in the
  case of absolute bills). Every witness must sign his name and add his
  address and description. It must be duly registered within seven clear
  days after the execution thereof, or if it is executed in any place
  out of England then within seven clear days after the time at which it
  would in the ordinary course of post arrive in England if posted
  immediately after the execution. It must truly set forth the
  consideration. The grantor must be the true owner of the goods
  described in the schedule; as to any personal chattels of which he is
  not the true owner, the bill is void, except as against the grantor.
  Every bill of sale made or given in consideration of any sum under £30
  is void. By § 7 of the act personal chattels shall only be liable to
  be seized or taken possession of in the following cases:--(1) If the
  grantor make default in payment of the debt or in the performance of
  any covenant or agreement contained in the bill and necessary for
  maintaining the security; (2) if the grantor becomes a bankrupt or
  suffers the goods to be distrained for rent, rates or taxes; (3) if
  the grantor fraudulently removes the goods from the premises; (4) if
  the grantor does not, without reasonable excuse, upon demand in
  writing by the grantee, produce to him his last receipts for rent,
  rates or taxes; (5) if execution is levied against the goods of the
  grantor under any judgment. By § 13 personal chattels seized or taken
  possession of under a bill must not be removed or sold until after the
  expiration of five clear days from the date of seizure, and, if the
  goods have been wrongly seized, the grantor may within the five days
  apply to the High Court or a judge in chambers for an order to
  restrain the grantee from removing or selling the goods. The Bills of
  Sale Acts 1878 and 1882 do not apply to Scotland or Ireland. According
  to Scots law no security or charge can be created over moveable
  property without delivery of possession. The Irish statutes
  corresponding to the English acts are the Bills of Sale (Ireland) Act
  1879 and the Amendment Act 1883.

  The stamp duties payable on an absolute bill of sale are 2s. 6d. on
  every £25 secured up to £300; over £300, 5s. on every £50. On bills of
  sale by way of security, 1s. 3d. for every £50 up to £300 secured;
  over £300, 2s. 6d. for every £100. The fees payable on filing a bill
  of sale are, 5s. where the consideration (including further advances)
  does not exceed £100; above £100 and not exceeding £200, 10s.; above
  £200, £1.

  The various trade protection papers always publish the registration of
  a bill of sale, and the usual effect is, therefore, to destroy the
  credit of any person giving one.     (T. A. I.)



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



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



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

  See _Letters and Papers of Henry VIII._ vols. iv.-v.; Foxe's _Acts and
  Monuments_; Gairdner's _History of the Church_; Pollard's _Henry
  VIII_.     (A. F. P.)



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.-On the bimetallic side, Nicholson, _Money and Monetary
  Problems_ (6th ed., 1903); F.A. Walker, _International Bimetallism_
  (1896); Barbour, _The Theory of Bimetallism_ (1885); Lord Aldenham
  (H.H. Gibbs), _A Colloquy on Currency_ (1900); and the numerous
  pamphlets and leaflets of the Bimetallic League. Opposed to
  bimetallism, Giffen, _The Case against Bimetallism_ (1892); Laughlin,
  _History of Bimetallism in the United States_ (4th ed., 1897); Lord
  Farrer, _Studies in Currency_ (1898), _The Gold Standard_
  (1898)--papers issued by the Gold Standard Defence Assoc. Leonard
  Darwin's _Bimetallism_ aims at a judicial summary. See also MONEY,
  MONETARY CONFERENCES.     (C. F. B.)



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

The scale of the biniou is usually [Illustration][1] and the single
drone is tuned to the lower octave of the first hole [Illustration].

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

The word biniou or bignou (a Gallicized form), often erroneously derived
from _bigno, se renfler beaucoup_--an etymology not supported by Breton
dictionaries--is the Breton plural form of _benvek_, instrument, tool,
_i.e. binviou, binvijou_.[3] The word is also found in the phrase,
"_Sac'h ar biniou_" (a biniou bag), a bag used by weavers to hold their
tools, spindles, &c. The biniou is still the traditional and popular
instrument of the Breton peasants of Cornouailles and Morbihan, and is
almost inseparable from the bombard (q.v.), which is no other than a
survival of the medieval musette, hautbois or chalémie, formerly
associated with the bag-pipe in western Europe (see OBOE). At all
festivals, at the _pardons_, wedding feasts and threshing dances, the
two traditional musicians or _sonneurs_ give out in shrill penetrating
tones the ancient Breton _rondes_[4] and melodies.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] See Victor Mahillon, _Catalogue descriptif_, vol. ii. (Ghent,
    1896), p. 353, No. 1126; and Captain C.R. Day, _Descriptive Catalogue
    of Musical Instruments_ (London, 1891), p. 62, No. 135.

  [2] See N. Quellien, _Chansons et danses des Bretons_ (Paris, 1889),
    p. 39, and note, where the description of the instrument is not
    technical.

  [3] See Le Gonidec, _Dictionnaire breton-français_, ed. by T. Hersart
    de la Villemarque; and N. Quellien, _op. cit_. p. 37, note.

  [4] For examples of these see N. Quellien, _op. cit_. part ii.



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



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



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



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

  See the _Life of Horace Binney_ (Philadelphia, 1904), by his grandson,
  C.C. Binney.



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

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



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

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

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]


  Telescope.

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

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 3.]

[Illustration: FIG. 4.]

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]


  Microscope.

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

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

[Illustration: FIG. 7.]

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

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

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]


  Simple microscope.

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

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


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] The term binocular (from the Lat. _bini_, two at a time, and
    _oculi_, eyes) was originally an adjective used to describe things
    adapted for the simultaneous use of both eyes, as in "binocular
    vision," "a binocular telescope or microscope"; now "a binocular" is
    used as a noun, meaning a binocular microscope, a field-glass, &c.

  [2] The first part appeared in 1838.



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

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

                                 n·(n-1)
  (x + a)^n  = x^n + nax^(n-1) + ------- a²x^(n-2)
                                   1·2

                 n·(n-1)·(n-2)
               + -------------a³x^(n-3) ... + a^n.
                     1·2·3

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

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

                             m       m - n      m - 2n
  (p + pq)^(m/n) = p^(m/n) + -- aq + ----- bq + ------ cq ... &c.,
                             n        2n          3n

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

                   m          (m - n)
  a = p^(m/n), b = -- aq, c = ------- bq, and so on.
                   n            2n

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

  "In the beginning of my mathematical studies, when I was perusing the
  works of the celebrated Dr Wallis, and considering the series by the
  interpolation of which he exhibits the area of the circle and
  hyperbola (for instance, in this series of curves whose common base or
  axis is x, and the ordinates respectively (1 - xx)^(0/2), (1 - xx)^½,
  (1 - xx)^(2/2), (1 - xx)^(3/2), &c), I perceived that if the areas of
  the alternate curves, which are x, x - (1/3)x³, x - (2/3)x³ +
  (1/5)x^5, x - (3/3)x³ + (3/5)x^5 - (1/7)x^7, &c., could be
  interpolated, we should obtain the areas of the intermediate ones, the
  first of which (1 - xx)^{½} is the area of the circle. Now in order to
  [do] this, it appeared that in all the series the first term was x;
  that the second terms (0/3)x³, (1/3)x³, (2/3)x³, &c., were in
  arithmetical progression; and consequently that the first two terms of
  all the series to be interpolated would be

        (½)x³      (3/2)x³      (5/2)x³
    x - -----, x - -------, x - -------, &c.
          3           3            3

  "Now for the interpolation of the rest, I considered that the
  denominators 1, 3, 5, &c., were in arithmetical progression; and that
  therefore only the numerical coefficients of the numerators were to be
  investigated. But these in the alternate areas, which are given, were
  the same with the figures of which the several powers of 11 consist,
  viz., of 11°, 11¹, 11², 11³, that is, the first 1; the second, 1, 1;
  the third, 1, 2, 1,; the fourth 1, 3, 3, 1; and so on. I enquired
  therefore how, in these series, the rest of the terms may be derived
  from the first two being given; and I found that by putting m for the
  second figure or term, the rest should be produced by the continued
  multiplication of the terms of this series

    m - 0   m - 1   m - 2
    ----- × ----- × ----- ..., &c ...
      1       2       3

  This rule I therefore applied to the series to be interpolated. And
  since, in the series for the circle, the second term was (½x³)/3, I
  put m = ½.... And hence I found the required area of the circular
  segment to be

        ½x³   (1/8)x^5   (1/16)x^7
    x - --- - -------- - ---------, &c. ...
         3       5           7

  And in the same manner might be produced the interpolated areas of
  other curves; as also the area of the hyperbola and the other
  alternates in this series (1 + xx)^(0/2), (1 + xx)^½, (1 + xx)^(2/2),
  &c. ... Having proceeded so far, I considered that the terms (1 -
  xx)^(0/2), (1 - xx)^(2/2), (1 - xx)^(4/2), (1 - xx)^(6/2), &c., that
  is 1, 1 - x², 1 - 2x² + x^4, 1 - 3x² + 3x^4, - x^6, &c., might be
  interpolated in the same manner as the areas generated by them, and
  for this, nothing more was required than to omit the denominators 1,
  3, 5, 7, &c., in the terms expressing the areas; that is, the
  coefficients of the terms of the quantity to be interpolated (1 -
  xx)^½ or (1 - xx)^(3/2), or generally (1 - xx)^m will be produced by
  the continued multiplication of this series

        m - 1   m - 2   m - 3
    m × ----- × ----- × ----- ... &c.
          2       3       4

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

The _multi_- (or _poly_-) _nomial theorem_ has for its object the
expansion of any power of a multinomial and was discussed in 1697 by
Abraham Demoivre (see COMBINATORIAL ANALYSIS).

  REFERENCES.--For the history of the binomial theorem, see John
  Collins, _Commercium Epistolicum_ (1712); S.P. Rigaud, _The
  Correspondence of Scientific Men of the 17th Century_ (1841); M.
  Cantor, _Geschichte der Mathematik_ (1894-1901).



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



BINYON, LAURENCE (1869-   ), English poet, born at Lancaster on the 10th
of August 1869, was educated at St Paul's school, London, and Trinity
College, Oxford, where he won the Newdigate prize in 1890 for his
_Persephone_. He entered the department of printed books at the British
Museum in 1893, and was transferred to the department of prints and
drawings in 1895, the _Catalogue of English Drawings in the British
Museum_ (1898, &c.) being by him. As a poet he is represented by _Lyric
Poems_ (1894), _Poems_ (Oxford, 1895), _London Visions_ (2 vols.,
1895-1898), _The Praise of Life_ (1896), _Porphyrion and other Poems_
(1898), _Odes_ (1900), _The Death of Adam_ (1903), _Penthesilea_ (1903),
_Dream come true_ (1905), _Paris and Oenone_ (1906), a one-act tragedy,
and _Attila_, a poetical drama (1907); as an art critic by monographs on
the 17th-century Dutch etchers, on John Crome and John Sell Cotman,
contributed to the _Portfolio_, &c. In 1906 he published the first
volume of a series of reproductions from William Blake, with a critical
introduction.

  See also R.A. Streatfeild, _Two Poets of the New Century_ (1901), and
  W. Archer, _Poets of the Younger Generation_ (1902).



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



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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

These distinctive properties of living matter are--


  The properties of living matter.

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

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

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

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

3. Its _tendency to undergo cyclical changes_.

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

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


  Life conditioned by moisture.

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


  Life conditioned by temperature.

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

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


  Life and organization.

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

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


  Classification of the phenomena of life.

Living matter, or protoplasm and the products of its metamorphosis, may
be regarded under four aspects:--

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

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

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

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

In correspondence with these four aspects of its subject, biology is
logically divisible into four chief subdivisions--I. MORPHOLOGY;
II. DISTRIBUTION; III. PHYSIOLOGY; IV. AETIOLOGY.

Various accidental circumstances, however, have brought it about that
the actual distribution of scientific work does not correspond with the
logical subdivisions of biology. The difference in technical methods and
the historical evolution of teaching posts (for in all civilized
countries the progress of biological knowledge has been very closely
associated with the existence of institutions for the diffusion of
knowledge and for professional education) have been the chief
contributory causes to this practical confusion. Details of the
morphology of plants will be found in the articles relating to the chief
groups of plants, those of animals in the corresponding articles on
groups of animals, while the classification of animals adopted in this
work will be found in the article ZOOLOGY. Distribution is treated of
under ZOOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION, PLANKTON, PALAEONTOLOGY and PLANTS:
_Distribution_. PHYSIOLOGY and its allied articles deal with the subject
generally and in relation to man, while the special physiology of plants
is dealt with in a section of the article PLANTS. Aetiology is treated
of under the heading EVOLUTION. But practical necessity has given rise
to the existence of many other divisions; see CYTOLOGY, for the
structure of cells; EMBRYOLOGY, for the development of individual
organisms; HEREDITY and REPRODUCTION, for the relations between parents
and offspring.     (T. H. H.; P. C. M.)



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

  Bion and Moschus have been edited separately by G. Hermann (1849) and
  C. Ziegler (Tübingen, 1869), the _Epitaphios Adonidos_ by H.L. Ahrens
  (1854) and E. Hiller in _Beiträge zur Textegeschichte der griechischen
  Bukoliker_ (1888). Bion's poems are generally included in the editions
  of Theocritus. There are English translations by J. Banks (1853) in
  Bohn's _Classical Library_, and by Andrew Long (1889), with Theocritus
  and Moschus; there is an edition of the text by U.
  Wilamowitz-Möllendorff in the Oxford _Scriptorum Classicorum
  Bibliotheca_ (1905). On the date of Bion see F. Bücheler in
  _Rheinisches Museum_, xxx. (1875), pp. 33-41; also G. Knaack in
  Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopädie_, s.v.; and F. Susemihl, _Geschichte
  der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit_, i. (1891), p.
  233.



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

  See Hoogvliet, _De Vita, Doctrina, et Scriptis Bionis_ (1821);
  Rossignol, _Fragmenta Bionis Borysthenitae_ (1830); Heinze, _De
  Horatio Bionis Imitatore_ (1889).



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

Biot was an extremely prolific writer, and besides a great number of
scientific memoirs, biographies, &c., his published works include:
_Analyse de la mécanique céleste de M. Laplace_ (1801); _Traité
analytique des courbes et des surfaces du second degré_ (1802);
_Recherches sur l'intégration des équations différentielles partielles
et sur les vibrations des surfaces_ (1803); _Traité de physique_ (1816);
_Recueil d'observations géodésiques, astronomiques et physiques
exécutées en Espagne et Écosse_, with Arago (1821); _Mémoire sur la
vraie constitution de l'atmosphère terrestre_ (1841); _Traité
élementaire d'astronomie physique_ (1805); _Recherches sur_ _plusieurs
points de l'astronomie égyptienne_ (1823); _Recherches sur l'ancienne
astronomie chinoise_ (1840); _Études sur l'astronomie indienne et sur
l'astronomie chinoise_ (1862);