_________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2: Assizes-Browne Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916) Print Basis: 1907-1913 Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by permission CCEL Subjects: All; Reference LC Call no: BX841.C286 LC Subjects: Christian Denominations Roman Catholic Church Dictionaries. Encyclopedias _________________________________________________________________ Assizes of Jerusalem Assizes of Jerusalem The signification of the word assizes in this connection is derived from the French verb asseoir, whose past participle is assis. Asseoir means "to seat", "to place one on a seat". Hence the idea of putting something into its place, determining it to something. Thus assise came to mean an enactment, a statute. Assize is the English form of the word, and used in the plural, assizes, it denotes a court. The "Assizes of Jerusalem" (les assises de Jerusalem) are the code of laws enacted by the Crusaders for the government of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. They are a collection of legal regulations for the courts of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus. Thus we have the "Assizes of Antioch", the "Assizes of Rumania", legal regulations for the Latin principality of Antioch and for the Latin Empire of Constantinople. It is erroneous to ascribe the "Assizes of Jerusalem" to Godfrey de Bouillon on the presumption that as he was King of Jerusalem he enacted its laws. The "Assizes of Jerusalem" were compiled in the thirteenth century, not in the eleventh; not in Jerusalem, but after its fall; not by any ruler, but by several jurists. Not even the names of these are all known, though two of them were the well-known John of Ibelin, who composed, before 1266, the "Livre des Assises de la Cour des Barons", and Philippe de Navarre, who, about the middle of the thirteenth century, compiled the "Livre de forme de plait en la Haute Cour." There are nine treatises in the "Assizes of Jerusalem", and they concern themselves with two kinds of law: Feudal Law, to which the Upper Court of Barons was amenable; and Common Law which was applied to the court of Burgesses. The latter is the older of the two and was drawn up before the fall of the Jerusalem. It deals with questions of civil law, such as contracts, marriage, and property, and touches on some which fall within the province of special courts, such as the "Ecclesiastical Court" for canonical points, the "Cour de la Fonde" for commerce, and the "Cour de la Mer" for admiralty cases. It deals rather with what the law enjoins in these several fields than with determining penalties for transgressions. The celebrated "Livre de la Haute Cour" of Ibelin was adopted, after revision (1359), as the official code of the Court of Cyprus, which kingdom succeeded to the title and regulations of Jerusalem. We possess only the official text of this, which is not much older than the works of French lawyers of Rouen and Orlèans. But the superiority of the "Assizes of Jerusalem" is that it reflects the genuine character of feudal law, whereas the works of the French feudalists betray something of the royal influence which affected those sections after the revival of the Roman law. No other work dwells so insistently on the rights of the vassal towards his lord, no other throws such a light on the resolution of the disputed point by an appeal to arms, its challenge, its champions, its value as evidence. In brief, the "Assizes of Jerusalem" give us a faithful and vivid picture of the part played by the law in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. CH. MOELLER Ignaz Assmayer Ignaz Assmayer An Austrian musician, born at Salzburg, 11 February, 1790; died in Vienna, 31 August, 1862. He studied under Brunmayr and Michael Haydn, and later, when he went to Vienna, he received further instruction from Eybler. In 1808 he was organist at St. Peter's in his native town, and here he wrote his oratorio "Die Sündfluth" (The Deluge) and his cantata "Worte der Weihe". Some time after his removal to Vienna, in 1815, he became choirmaster at the Schotten kirche, and in 1825 was appointed imperial organist. After having served eight years as vice-choirmaster, he received in 1846 the appointment of second choir-master to the Court, as successor to Weigl. His principal oratorios, "Das Gelübde", "Saul und David", and "Sauls Tod", were repeatedly performed by the Tonkünstler-Societät, of which he was conductor for fifteen years. He also wrote fifteen masses, two requiems, a Te Deum, and various smaller church pieces. Of these two oratorios, one mass, the requiems, and Te Deum, and furthermore sixty secular compositions, comprising symphonies, overtures, pastorales, etc., were published. As to his style Grove calls it correct and fluent, but wanting in both invention and force. J.A. VÖLKER Right of Voluntary Association Right of Voluntary Association I. LEGAL RIGHT A voluntary association means any group of individuals freely united for the pursuit of a common end. It differs, therefore, from a necessary association in as much as its members are not under legal compulsion to become associated. The principal instances of a necessary association are a conscript military body and civil society, or the State, the concept of voluntary association covers organizations as diverse as a manufacturing corporation and a religious sodality. The legal right of voluntary association--the attitude of civil authority toward bodies of this nature--has varied in different ages and still varies in different countries. Under the rule of Solon the Athenians seem to have been free to institute such societies as they pleased, so long as their action did not conflict with the public law. The multitude of societies and public gatherings for the celebration of religious festivals and the carrying on of games, or other forms of public recreation and pleasure, which flourished for so many centuries throughout ancient Greece, indicates that a considerable measure of freedonn of association was quite general in that country. The Roman authorities were less liberal. No private association could be formed without a special decree of the senate or of the emperor. And yet voluntary societies or corporations were numerous from the earliest days of the Republic. There existed collegia for the proper performance of religious rites, collegia to provide public amusements, collegia of a political nature, collegia in charge of cemeteries, and collegia made up of workers in the various trades and occupations. In Judea the Pharisees and Sadducees--though these were schools, or sects, rather than organized associations--and the Essenes were not seriously interfered with by the Roman governors. With the union of Church and State in 325 there came naturally an era of freedom and prosperity for associations of a religious nature, especially for the religious orders. During the period of political chaos that followed the fall of the Empire, liberty of association was as extensive as could be expected among populations whose civil rulers were not sufficiently powerful either to repress or to protect the formation of voluntary unions. Indeed, the "minor, obscure isolated, and incoherent societies", to use the words of Guizot, that erected themselves on the ruins of the old political organization and became in time the feudal system, were essentially private associations. As the needs, culture, and outlook of men extended, there sprang into being a great number and variety of associations, religious, charitable, educational, and industrial. Instances are the great religious orders, the societies for the relief of poverty and sickness, the universities, and the guilds which arose and flourished between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries. All of these associations were instituted either under the active direction of the Church, or with her warm encouragement and as a rule without any serious opposition on the part of the civil power. Some of them, in fact, performed important political functions; others secured a measure of social peace that the civil authorities were unable to enforce while as a whole they constituted a considerable check to the exercise of arbitrary power by sovereigns. Thus, the merchant and craft guilds governed trade and industry with a series of regulations that had all the force and authority of legal statutes; the associations instituted to enforce the "Truce of God", helped greatly to lessen petty warfare between different lords and different sections of the same country; while "the monarch was . . . hemmed in on all sides . . . by universities, corporations, brotherhoods, monastic orders; by franchises and privileges of all kinds, which in greater or less degree existed all over Europe". With the rise and extension of political absolutism in most of the countries of Europe in the seventeenth century, freedom of association became everywhere greatly restricted. It was frequently subjected to unreasonable conditions in the last century and it is still withheld by some governments. From 1820 to 1824 labour unions were absolutely prohibited in Great Britain. Up to the year 1901 non-industrial associations consisting of more than twenty persons could not be formed in France without authorization by a public official whose power in the matter was almost arbitrary. At present, authorization is required in the case of associations composed of Frenchmen and foreigners: associations whose supreme head resides outside of France; and associatons whose members live in common. Owing partly to the terms of the law and partly to the course pursued by the officials charged with its enforcement, almost all the religious congregations have been driven out of France. In Prussia and in most of the other German states political associations are subject to close inspection, and can be dissolved by the public authorities in case they go outside of certain well-defined limits. Most other societies pursuing reasonable ends can obtain existence and recognition by the becoming registered according to a general law of the empire. The law of Austria empowers magistrates to forbid the formation of any association that either in aim or personnel seems contrary to law, and to dissolve any society that is no longer conducted in accordance with the legal conditions to which it is subject. In Russia participation in any association not expressly authorized by the Government is a penal offence. Speaking generally, it may be said that with the exception of France, Russia, and Turkey, European governments exhibit today a liberal attitude toward associations pursuing reasonable ends. In the United States associations whose purpose is pecuniary gain, and all other societies that desire a corporate existence and civil personality, must, of course, comply with the appropriate laws of incorporation. Unincorporated societies may be instituted without legal authorization, and may pursue any aim whatever, so long as their members do not engage in actions that constitute conspiracy or some other violation of public order. Even in these contingencies the members will not be liable to legal prosecution for the mere set of forming the associations. Under the present fairly liberal attitude of governments, and owing to the great increase in the number and complexity of human interests, the number and variety of associations in the Western world have grown with great rapidity. We may enumerate at least nine distinct types, namely: religious, charitable, intellectual, moral, political, mutual-benevolent, labour, industrial, and purely social. The largest increase has taken place in the three classes devoted to social intercourse and enjoyment, such as clubs and "secret" societies; to industry and commerce, such as manufacturing and mercantile corporations, and to the interests of the wage earner, such as trade unions. Probably the great majority of the male adults in the cities of the United States have some kind of membership in one or other of these three forms of association. II. THE MORAL RIGHT Like all other moral rights, that of voluntary association is determined by the ends that it promotes, the human needs that it supplies. The dictum of Aristotle that man is a "political" animal, expresses more than the fact that man naturally and necessarily becomes a participant in that form of association known as the State. It means that man cannot effectively pursue happiness nor attain to a reasonable degree of self-perfection unless he unites his energies with those of his fellows. This is particularly true of modern life, and for two reasons. First, because the needs of men have greatly increased, and second, because the division of labour has made the individual more and more dependent upon other individuals and groups of individuals. The primitive, isolated family that knows only a few wants, and is able in rude fashion to supply all these, may enjoy a certain measure of contentment, if not of culture, without the aid of any other association than that inherent in its own constitution. For the family of today such conditions are unsatisfying and insufficient. Its members are constrained to pursue many lines of activity and to satisfy many wants that demand organized and associated effort. Since the individual is dependent upon so many other individuals for many of those material goods that are indispensable to him, he must frequently combine with those of his neighbours who are similarly placed if he would successfully resist the tendency of modern forces to overlook and override the mere individual. A large proportion of the members of every industrial community cannot make adequate provision for the needs that follow in the train of misfortune and old age unless they utilize such agencies as the mutual benefit society, the insurance company, or the savings bank. Workingmen find it impossible to obtain just wages or reasonable conditions of employment without the trade union. On the other hand, goods could not be produced or distributed in sufficient quantities except through the medium of associations. Manufacturing, trade, transportation, and finance necessarily far more and more under the control of partnerships and stock companies. Turning now from the consideration of these material needs, we find that association plays a no less important part in the religious, moral, intellectual, political and purely social departments of life. Men cannot give God due worship except in a public, social way. This implies at least the universal Church and the parish, and ordinarily it supposes devotional and other associations, such as sodalities, altar societies, church-fund societies, etc. Select souls who wish to embrace the life of perfection described by the evangelical counsels must become organized in such a way that they can lead a common life. In every community there are persons who wish to do effective work on behalf of good morals, charity, and social reform of various kinds. Hence we have purity leagues, associated charities, temperance societies, ethical culture societies, social settlements. Since large numbers of parents prefer private and religious schools for the education of their children, the need arises for associations whose purpose is educational. Literary and scientific associations are necessary to promote original research, deeper study, and wider culture. Good government, especially in a republic, is impossible without political associations which strive vigilantly and constantly for the removal of abuses and the enactment of just laws. In the purely social order men desire to enroll themselves in clubs, "secret" societies, amusement associations, etc., all of which may be made to promote human contentment and human happiness. Many of the forms of association just enumerated are absolutely necessary to right human life; none of them is entirely useless. Finally, voluntary associations are capable of discharging many of the tasks that otherwise would devolve upon the State. This was an important feature of their activity in the Middle Ages, and it is very desirable today when the functions of government are constantly increasing. Chief among the organizations capable of limiting State activity are those concerned with and the improvement of working classes. In so far as these can perform their several tasks on resonable terms and without injury to the State or to any class of its citizens, the public welfare is better served by them than it would be if they were supplanted by the Government. Individual liberty and individual opportunity have a larger scope, individual initiative is more readily called into play and the danger of Government despotism is greatly lessened. The right of voluntary association is, therefore, a natural right. It is an endowment of man's nature, not a privilege conferred by civil society. It arises out of his deepest needs, is an indispensable means to reasonable life and normal self-development. And it extends even to those associations that are not in themselves necessary for these ends--that is, so long as the associations do not contravene good morals or the public weal. For the State has no right to prohibit any individual action, be it ever so unnecessary which is, from the public point of view, harmless. Although it is not essential to his personal development that the citizens should become a member of an association that can do him neither good nor harm, it is essential to his happiness and his self-respect that he should not be prevented from doing so by the State. The moment that the State begins to practise coercion of this kind it violates individual rights. The general right of voluntary association is well stated by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical, "Rerum Novarum": To enter into private societies is a natural right of man, and the State must protect natural rights, not destroy them. If it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence; for both they and it exist in virtue of the same principle, namely, the natural propensity of man to live in society. Nor is the State justified in prohibiting voluntary associations on the ground that they may become inimical to public welfare. An institution should not be utterly condemned because it is liable to abuse; otherwise an end must be made of all institutions that are erected and conducted by human beings. The State has ample power to protect itself against all the abuses to which liberty of association is liable. It can forbid societies that aim at objects contrary to good morals or the public welfare, lay down such reasonable restrictions as are required to define the proper spheres of the various associations, punish those societies that go beyond their legitimate fields, and, in extreme cases, dissolve any particular organization that proves itself to be incorrigible. Through these measures the State can provide itself with all the security that is worth having; any further interference with individual liberty should be a greater social evil than the one that is sought to be remedied. The formality of legal authorization, or registration is not in itself unreasonable, but it ought not to be accompanied by unreasonable conditions. The procedure ought to be such that any society formed in accordance with the appropriate law of association could demand authorization, or registration, as a civil right, instead of being compelled to seek it as a privilege at the hands of an official clothed with the power to grant or refuse it at his own discretion. The difference between these two methods is the difference between the reign of law and the reign of official caprice, between constitutional liberty and bureaucratic despotism. Precisely this sort of arbitrary power is at present exercised by French officials over religious congregations. The result is that Frenchmen and French women who wish to live in associations of this nature are denied the right to do so. Speaking generally of religious congregations, we may justly say in the words of Pope Leo XIII, that they have "the sanction of the law of nature", that is, the same natural right to exist on reasonable conditions as any other morally lawful association, and, "on the religious side they rightly claim to be responsible to the Church alone". When the State refuses them the right to exist it violates not merely the natural moral law but the supernatural Divine law. For these associations are an integral part of the life of the Church, and as such, lie within her proper sphere. Within this sphere she is independent of the State, as independent as one sovereign civil power is of another. Abuses that may grow out of religious associations can be met by the State in the ways outlined above. Treasonable acts can be punished; excessive accumulation of property can be prevented; in fact, every action, circumstance, tendency that constitutes a real danger to the public welfare can be successfully dealt with by other methods than that of denying these associations the right of existence. JAMES A. RYAN Association of Ideas Association of Ideas (1) a principle in psychology to account for the succession of mental states, (2) the basis of a philosophy known as Associationism. The fact of the association of ideas was noted by some of the earliest philosophers; Aristotle (De mem. et rem., 2) indicates the three laws of association which have been the basis of nearly all later enumerations. St. Thomas, in his commentary on Aristotle, accepts and illustrates them at some length. Hamilton (Notes on Reid) gives considerable credit to the Spanish Humanist, Vives (1492-1540), for his treatment of the subject. Association of ideas is not, therefore, a discovery of English psychology, as has often been asserted. It is true, however, that the principle of association of ideas received in English psychology an interpretation never given to it before. The name is derived from Locke who placed it at the head of one of the chapters of his "Essay", but used it only to explain peculiarities of character. Applied to mental states in general, the name is too restricted, since ideas, in the English sense, are only cognitive processes. The association theory held by Hobbes, Berkeley, Hume, and Hamilton, but it received its widest interpretation at the hands of the Associationists, Hartley, Priestley, James Mill, John Sruart Mill, Bain, and Spencer. They regarded it as a principle capable of explaining all mental phenomena. For them it is in the subjective world what the principle of gravitation is in the physical World. Association of ideas, though variously explained, is accepted by all modern psychologists. Sully, Maudsley, James, Hoffding, Munsterberg, Ebbinghaus, Ziehen, Taine, Ribot, Luys, and many others accept it more or less in the spirit of the Associationists. The traditional laws of association, based on Aristotle, are: 1. Similarity 2. Contrast 3. Contiguity in time or space. In the course of time, efforts were rnade to reduce them to more fundamental laws. Contrast has been resolved into similarity and contiguity. Contrasts, to recall each other, suppose generic similarity, as white recalls black. Yet this alone will not suffice, since this gives us no reason for the fact that white recalls black in preferenee to green or blue; hence experience, based on the fact that nature works in contrasts, is called into aid. Spencer, Hoffding, and others try to reduce all the laws of association to that of similarity, while Wundt and his school believe that all can be reduced to experience and hence to contiguity. Bain, who has analyzed the laws of association most thoroughly, holds both similarity and contiguity to be elementary principles. To these he adds certain laws of compound association. Oriental states easily recall one another when they have several points of contact. And in fact, considering the complexity of mental life, it would seem probable that simple associatlons, by similarity or contiguity alone, never occur. Besides these primary laws of association, various secondary laws are enumerated, such as the laws of frequency, vividness, recentness, emotional congruity, etc. These determine the firmness of the association, and consequently the preference given to one state over another, in the recall. Association of ideas is a fact of everyday experience which furnishes an important basis for the science of psychology, yet it must be remembered that the laws of association offer no ultimate explanation of the facts observed. In accounting for the facts of association we must, in the first place, reject as insufficient the purely physical theory proposed by Ribot, Richet, Maudsley, Carpenter, and others, who seek an explanation exclusively in the association of brain processes. Psychology thus becomes a chapter of physiology and machanics. Aside from the fact that this theory can give no satisfactory explanation of association by similarity which implies a distinctly mental factor, it neglects evident facts of consciousness. Consciousness tells us that in reminiscence we can voluntarily direct the sequence of our mental states, and it is in this that voluntary recall differs from the succession of images and feelings in dream and delirium. Besides, one brain-process may excite another, but this is not yet a state of consciousness. Equally unsatisfactory is the theory of the ultra-spiritualists, who would have us believe that association ot ideas has nothing to do with the bodily organism, but is wholly mental. Thus Hamilton says that all physiological theories are too contemptible for serious criticism. Reid and Bowne reject all traces of perception left in the brain substance. Lotze admits a concomitant oscillation of the brain elements, but considers them quite secondary and as exercising no influence on memory and recall. Like the purely physical theory, this also fails to explain the facts of consciousness and experience. The localization of activities in the various brain-centres, the facts of mental disease in consequence of injury lo the brain, the dependence of memory on the healthy condition of the central organ, etc. have in this theory no rational meaning. We must, then, seek an explanation in a theory that does justice to both the mental and the physical side of the phenomena. A mere psychophysical parallelism, proposed by some, will not, however, suffice, as it offers no explanation, but is a mere restatement of the problem. The Scholastic doctrine, that the subject of sensory activity is neither the body alone nor the soul alone, but the unitary being compounded of body and soul, alone, but the best solution. As sense perception is not purely physiological nor purely mental, but proceeds from a faculty of the soul intrinsically united to an organ, so the association of these perception proceeds from a principle which is at the same time mental and physical. No doubt purely spiritual ideas also associate; but, as St. Thomas teaches, the most spiritual idea is not devoid of its physiological basis, and even in making use of the spiritual ideas which it has already acquired, the intellect has need of images stored in the brain. It requires these organic processes in the production of its abstract ideas. In its basis, the association of ideas is physiological, but it is more than this, as it does not folow the necessary laws of matter. The higher faculties of the mind can command and direct the process. The Scholastic theory does justice to the fact of the dependence of mental activities upon the organism, and yet leaves room for the freedom of the will attested by consciousness and experience. English Associationism, while claiming to be neither idealistic nor materialistic, and disvowing metaphysics, has erected the principle of association of ideas into a metaphysical principle to explain all mental activity. James Mill enunciated the principle of indissoluble associations: Sensations or ideas occuring together frequently, and never apart, suggest one another with irresistable force, so that we combine them necessarily. This principle is employed to explain necessary judgments and metaphysical concepts. Bain applied the principles of association to logic and ethics. Spencer interpreted them in an evolutionistic sense. Certain beliefs and rnoral principles are such that the associations of the individual are not sufficient to explain them; they are the associations of successive generations handed down by heredity. The whole process is governed by necessary laws. Mental states associate passively, and mental life is but a process of "mental chemistry". Later Associationists, like Sully, have come to recognize that the mind exerts activity in attention, discrimination, judgment, reasoning. With this admission there should logically come also the admission of a soul-substance that attends, discriminates, judges, and reasons; but as they have not come to this conclusion, the soul is for them a "train of thoughts", a "stream of consciousness", or some other series veiled in metaphorical language. Association of ideas can never explain necessary judgments, conclusions drawn from premises, moral ideas and laws; these have their causes deeper in the nature of things. EDMUND J. WIETH. Association of Priestly Perseverance Association of Priestly Perseverence A sacerdotal association founded in 1868 at Vienna, and at first confined to that Archdiocese. In 1879, chiefly through the influence of its periodical organ, "La Correspondance", it spread into other dioceses and countries, and in 1903 counted 14,919 living members, belonging to 150 dioceses in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries. This organization is very similar to that of the Apostolic Union of Secular Priests. JOSEPH H. MCMAHON Pious Associations Pious Associations Under this term are comprehended all those organizations, approved and indulgenced by Church authority, which have been instituted especially in recent times, for the advancement of various works of piety and charity. Other terms used with the same meaning are: pious union, pious work, league, society, etc. Pious associations are distinguished, on the one hand, from ordinary, societies composed of Catholics by having an explicitly religious purpose, by enjoying indulgences and other spiritual benefits, and by possessing ecclesiastical approbation. They are distinguished, on the other hand, from confraternities and sodalities. The latter distinction is not determined by the name and is not always apparent. In general, pious associations have simpter rules than confraternities; they do not require canonical erection, and though they have the approbation of authority, they are not subject to as strict legislation as confraternities; they have no fixed term of probation for new members, no elaborate ritual, no special costumes; they are not obliged to meet for common religious practices, and, as a rule they make the help of others more prominent than the improvement of self. Of all these differences, only that of canonical erection seems essential. Some authorities, however, declare that the practices in common constitute the trait which distinguishes a confraternity from a pious association. Some well-known pious associations are: Society of St. Vincent de Paul; Society of the Propagation of Faith; Apostleship of Prayer; known as the League of the Sacred Heart of Jesus; Holy Childhood League; Priests' Eucharistic League; Cacilienverein, an association especially developed in Germany for the advancements of religious music. F.P. DONNELLY Assuerus Assuerus The name of two different persons in the Bible: I. In I Esdr., iv, 6, and Esth., i, 17, it corresponds to the Hebrew 'Achashwerosh, and the Sept. 'Assoueros (in Esth. 'Artazerxes), and denotes Xerxes I, the King of Persia. It was to him that the Samaritans addressed their complaints against the inhabitants of Jerusalem soon after 485 B.C., i.e. in the beginning of his reign. Intent upon his pleasures and a war with Egypt, the king seems to have disregarded these charges. The report of Herodotus (VII, viii) that Xerxes convoked a council of his nobles, in the third year of his reign to deliberate about the war against Greece agrees with Esth, i, 3, telling of the great feast given by the king to his nobles in the third year of his reign. In the seventh year of his reign, after the return of Xerxes from his war against Greece, Esther was declared queen. In the twelfth year of the king's reign Esther saved the Jews from the national ruin contemplated by Aman. II. Another Assuerus occurs in the Greek text of Tob., xiv, 15 ('Asyeros), in conjunction with Nabuchodonosor; the taking of Ninive is ascribed to these two. In point of fact, Assyria was conquered by Cyaxares I, the king of Media, and Nabopolassar, the King of Babylonia, and father of Nabuchodonosor. Hence the Assuerus of Tob., xiv, 15, is Cyaxares I; his name is coupled with Nabuchodonosor because the latter must have led the troops of his father in the war against Assyria. The same Cyaxares I is probably the Assuerus ('Achashwerosh) mentioned in Dan., ix, 1, as the father of Darius the Mede. Most probably Darius the Mede is Cyaxares II, the son of Astyages, the King of Media. The inspired writer of Dan., ix, 1 represents him as a son of Cyaxares I, or Assuerus, instead of Astyages, on account of the glorious name of the former. This could be done without difficulty, since, in genealogies, the name of the grandson was often introduced instead of that of the son. A.J. MAAS Little Sisters of the Assumption Little Sisters of the Assumption A congregation whose work is the nursing of the sick poor in their own homes. This labour they perform gratuitously and without distinction of creed. The congregation was founded in Paris in 1865, by the Rev. Etienne Pernet, A.A. (b. 23 July, 1824, d. 3 April, 1899), and Marie Antoinette Tage, known in religion as Mother Marie de Jésus (b. 7 Nov., 1824; d. I8 Sept.,1883). Both had long been engaged in charitable work, Father Pernet while a professor in the College of the Assumption at Nimes, and MIIe. Tage as a member of the Association of Our Lady of Good Council in Paris. They met in Paris and Father Pernet placed her in charge of the work of nursing the sick poor which he had inaugurated. Out of this movement the sisterhood grew, Mother Marie de Jesus being the first superior. The nursing of the sick poor is not the only or even the chief purpose of the Little Sisters. They endeavour to bring about conversions, to regularize illicit unions, to have children baptized, sent to school, and prepared for first Communion and Confirmation. They form societies among their clients and enlist the aid of laymen and laywomen of education and means to further the work of regeneration. The congregation has established houses in Italy, Spain, Belgium, England, Ireland, and the United States of America. The papal Brief approving the congregation was issued in 1897. The sisters take simple vows and are governed by a mother-general, who resides in Paris. THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE Sisters of the Assumption Sisters of the Assumption A congregation of French nuns devoted to the teaching of young girls. It was founded in 1839 by Eugénie Milleret de Bron, in religion Mère Marie-Eugénie de Jesus (b. 1817; d. 1898), under the direction of the Abbe Combalot, a well-known orator of the time, who had been inspired to establish the institute during a pilgrimage to the shrine of Sainte-Anne d'Auray in 1825. The foundress, who had previously made a short novitiate with the Sisters of the Visitation at Cote Saint-Andre, was admirably adapted for the undertaking, and had the co-operation of three companions, each especially fitted to undertake the direction of some one of the activities of the order. Much of the initial success was due to the stanch friendship of Monseigneur Affre, Archbishop of Paris. The motto of the congregation is "Thy Kingdom Come", and the aim to combine with a thorough secular education a moral and religious training which will bear fruit in generations to come. The habit of the sisters is violet with a white cross on the breast and a violet cincture. The veil is white. On certain occasions a mantle of white with a violet cross on the shoulder is worn in the chapel. Since its foundation the congregation has spread beyond France to England, Italy, Spain and Nicaragua. Several communities devote themselves to the work of Perpetual Adoration and the instruction of poor children. The mother-house is situated at Auteuil, a suburb of Paris, in a former chateau, rich in historical associations. The daughters of many distinguished European families have studied at Auteuil, as well as many English and Americans, who receive a special training in the French language. F.M. RUDGE Feast of the Assumption The Feast of the Assumption The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August; also called in old liturgical books Pausatio, Nativitas (for heaven), Mors, Depositio, Dormitio S. Mariae. This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin. THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem. The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous. THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis. According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). In Egypt and Arabia, however, it was kept in January, and since the monks of Gaul adopted many usages from the Egyptian monks (Baeumer, Brevier, 163), we find this feast in Gaul in the sixth century, in January [ mediante mense undecimo (Greg. Turon., De gloria mart., I, ix)]. The Gallican Liturgy has it on the 18th of January, under the title: Depositio, Assumptio, or Festivitas S. Mariae (cf. the notes of Mabillon on the Gallican Liturgy, P. L., LXXII, 180). This custom was kept up in the Gallican Church to the time of the introduction of the Roman rite. In the Greek Church, it seems, some kept this feast in January, with the monks of Egypt; others in August, with those of Palestine; wherefore the Emperor Maurice (d. 602), if the account of the "Liber Pontificalis" (II, 508) be correct, set the feast for the Greek Empire on 15 August. In Rome (Batiffol, Brev. Rom., 134) the oldest and only feast of Our Lady was 1 January, the octave of Christ's birth. It was celebrated first at Santa Maria Maggiore, later at Santa Maria ad Martyres. The other feasts are of Byzantine origin. Duchesne thinks (Origines du culte chr., 262) that before the seventh century no other feast was kept at Rome, and that consequently the feast of the Assumption, found in the sacramentaries of Gelasius and Gregory, is a spurious addition made in the eighth or seventh century. Probst, however (Sacramentarien, 264 sqq.), brings forth good arguments to prove that the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary, found on the 15th of August in the Gelasianum, is genuine, since it does not mention the corporeal assumption of Mary; that, consequently, the feast was celebrated in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome at least in the sixth century. He proves, furthermore, that the Mass of the Gregorian Sacramentary, such as we have it, is of Gallican origin (since the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary, under the influence of the apocryphal writings, is older in Gaul than in Rome), and that it supplanted the old Gelasian Mass. At the time of Sergius I (700) this feast was one of the principal festivities in Rome; the procession started from the church of St. Hadrian. It was always a double of the first class and a Holy Day of obligation. The octave was added in 847 by Leo IV; in Germany this octave was not observed in several dioceses up to the time of the Reformation. The Church of Milan has not accepted it up to this day (Ordo Ambros., 1906). The octave is privileged in the dioceses of the provinces of Sienna, Fermo, Michoacan, etc. The Greek Church continues this feast to 23 August, inclusive, and in some monasteries of Mount Athos it is protracted to 29 August (Menaea Graeca, Venice, 1880), or was, at least, formerly. In the dioceses of Bavaria a thirtieth day (a species of month's mind) of the Assumption was celebrated during the Middle Ages, 13 Sept., with the Office of the Assumption (double); to-day, only the Diocese of Augsburg has retained this old custom. Some of the Bavarian dioceses and those of Brandenburg, Mainz, Frankfort, etc., on 23 Sept. kept the feast of the "Second Assumption", or the "Fortieth Day of the Assumption" (double) believing, according to the revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165) and of St. Bertrand, O.C. (d. 1170), that the B.V. Mary was taken up to heaven on the fortieth day after her death (Grotefend, Calendaria 2, 136). The Brigittines kept the feast of the "Glorification of Mary" (double) 30 Aug., since St. Brigitta of Sweden says (Revel., VI, l) that Mary was taken into heaven fifteen days after her departure (Colvenerius, Cal. Mar., 30 Aug.). In Central America a special feast of the Coronation of Mary in heaven (double major) is celebrated 18 Aug. The city of Gerace in Calabria keeps three successive days with the rite of a double first class, commemorating: 15th of August, the death of Mary; 16th of August, her Coronation. At Piazza, in Sicily, there is a commemoration of the Assumption of Mary (double second class) the 20th of February, the anniversary of the earthquake of 1743. A similar feast (double major with octave) is kept at Martano, Diocese of Otranto, in Apulia, 19th of November. [ Note: By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that "the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things (n. 59)."] FREDERICK G. HOLWECK Assur Assur (Or Assuræ.) A titular see of Proconsular Africa, now Henchir-Zenfour. Its episcopal list (251-484) is given in Gams (p. 464). Ruins of its temples and theatres and other public buildings are still visible. Assur Assur (Sept., Assour.) (1) The name used in the Old Testament to designate the Assyrian land and nation. (See ASSYRIA.) (2) The name of one of the sons of Sem, mentioned in Gen., x., 22. In verse 11 of the same chapter, the Douay version has: "Out of that land came forth Assur". Here the name in the original refers not to a person, but to the country, as above, and the reading: ". . . he (Nimrod) went forth into the Assyria (Assur)" is preferable. Another Assur, or Ashur, "father of Thecua", is mentioned in I Paral., ii, 24, and iv, 5. (3) The national god of the Assyrians (in the cuneiform inscriptions Assuhr, Ashur). The religion of the Assyrians, like their language and their arts, was in all essential particulars derived from the Babylonians. But together with the preponderance of the Assyrian power over the southern provinces came a corresponding exaltation of the local tutelary deity. Asshur, who was originally the eponymic god of the capital of Assyria (also called Asshur), thus became a national god, and was place at the head of the Assyrian pantheon. In his name, and to promote his interests, the Assyrian monarchs claim to undertake their various military expeditions. He is styled King among the gods; the god who created himself. Differently from the other deities, Asshur is not represented as having a consort or posterity. His Symbolic representation is ordinarily a winged disc, sometimes accompanied by the figure of a human bust. (See ASSYRIA.) GABRIEL OUSSANI Assyria Assyria In treating of Assyria it is extremely difficult not to speak at the same time of its sister, or rather mother country, Babylonia, as the peoples of these two countries, the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians, are both ethnographically and linguistically the same race, with identical religion, language, literature, and civilization. Hence Assyro-Babylonian religion, mythology, and religious literature especially in their relation to the Old Testament will be treated in the article BABYLONIA, while the history of the modern explorations and discoveries in these two countries will be given in the present article. GEOGRAPHY Geographically, Assyria occupies the northern and middle part of Mesopotamia, situated between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris; while the southern half, extending as far south as the Persian Gulf, constitutes the countries of Babylonia and Chaldea. Assyria originally occupied but a scant geographical area, comprising the small triangular shaped land lying between the Tigris and Zab Rivers, but in later times, owing to its wonderful conquests its boundaries extended as far north as Armenia to Media on the east; to northern Syria, and to the country of the Hittites, on the west and to Babylonia and Elam on the south and southeast, occupying almost the entire Mesopotamian valley. By the Hebrews it was known under the name of Aram-Naharaim, i.e. "Aram [or Syria] of the two rivers" to distinguish it from Syria proper, although it is doubtful whether the Hebrew name should be read as dual, or rather as a plural, i.e. Aram-Naharîm (Aram of the many rivers or "Of the great river" -- Euphrates. In later Old Testament times, it was known under the name of Asshur. By the Greeks and Romans it was called Mesopotamia, and Assyria; by the Aramaeans, Beth-naharim, "the country of the rivers"; by the Egyptians Nahrina; by the Arabs, Athûr, or Al-Gezirah, "the island", or Bain-al-nahrain, "the country between the two rivers" -- Mesopotamia. Whether the name Assyria is derived from that of the god Asshur, or vice versa, or whether Asshur was originally the name of a particular city and afterwards applied to the whole country cannot be determined. The area of Assyria is about fifty thousand square miles. In physical character it is mountainous and well watered, especially in the northern part. Limestone and, in some places, volcanic rock form the basis of its fertile soil. Its southern part is more level, alluvial, and fertile. Its principal rivers are the Tigris and the Euphrates, which have their source in the Armenian mountains and run almost parallel as far south as Babylonia and Chaldea, flowing into the Persian Gulf. There are other minor rivers and tributaries, such as the Khabur; the Balikh, the Upper and Lower Zab, the Khoser the Turnat, the Radanu, and the Subnat. Assyria owes to these rivers, and especially to the Tigris and Euphrates, somewhat as Egypt owes to Nile, its existence, life, and prosperity. The principal cities of Assyria are: + Asshur whose site is now marked by the mound of Kalah-Shergat, on the right bank of the Tigris. + Calah, the eastern bank of the Tigris and at its junction with the Upper Zab, a city built (c.1280 B.C.) by Shalmaneser I, who made it the capital of Assyria in place of Asshur. Its site is nowadays marked by the ruins of Nimroud. + Nineveh (in the Douay Version, Ninive), represented by the villages and ruins of the modern Kujunjik and Nebi-Yunus, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, opposite Mosul. Nineveh was undoubtedly one of the most ancient cities of Assyria, and in the time of Sennacherib (7th cent. B.C.) it became the capital of the empire, and the centre of the worship of Ishtar, the Assyro-Babylonian Venus, who was called Ishtar of Nineveh, to distinguish her from Ishtar of Arbela. In the Old Testament the city of Nineveh is well known in connection with the prophets, and especially as the theatre of Jonah's mission. + Dur-Sharrukin, or Dur-Sargon (i.e. Sargonsburg) built by Sargon II (8th cent. B.C.), the founder of the famous Sargonid dynasty. It was made first the royal residence of Sargon, and afterwards became the rival of Nineveh. Its site is represented by the modern Khorsabad. + Arhailu, or Arbela, famous in Greek and Persian annals for the decisive victory won by Alexander the Great over the formidable army of Darius, King of Persia and Babylon (331 B.C.). + Nasibina, or Nisibis, famous in the annals of Nestorian Christianity. + Harran, well known for the worship of Sin, the moon-god. + Ingur-Bel, corresponding to the modern Tell-Balawât. + Tarbis, corresponding to the modern Sherif-Khan. The sites and ruins of all these cities have been explored. SOURCES OF ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN HISTORY These may be grouped as: (1) the Old Testament; (2) the Greek, Latin, and Oriental writers, and (3) the monumental records and remains of the Assyrians and Babylonians themselves. In the first division belong the Fourth (in Authorized Version, Second) Book of Kings, Paralipomenon (Chronicles), the writings of the prophets Isaias, Nahum, Jeremias, Jonas, Ezechiel, and Daniel, as well as the Iaconic but extremely valuable fragments of information contained in Genesis, x, xi, and xiv. To the second group of sources belong the Chaldeo-Babylonian priest and historian Berosus, who lived in the days of Alexander the great (356-323 B.C.) and continued to live at least as late as Antiochus I, Soter (280-261 B.C.). He wrote in Greek a great work on Babylonian history, under the title of "Babyloniaca", or "Chaldaica". This valuable work, which was based on contemporary Babylonian monuments and inscriptions has unfortunately perished, and only a few excerpts from it have been preserved in later Greek and Latin writers. Then we have the writings of Polyhistor, Ctesias, Herodotus, Abydenus, Apollodorus, Alexander of Miletus, Josephus, Georgius Syncellus, Diodorus Siculus, Eusebius, and others. With the exception of Berosus, the information derived from all the above-mentioned historians is mostly legendary and unreliable, and even their quotations from Berosus are to be used with caution. This is especially true in the case of Ctesias, who lived at the Persian court in Babylonia. To the third category belong the numerous contemporary monuments and inscriptions discovered during the last fifty years in Babylonia, Assyria, Elam, and Egypt, which form an excellent and a most authoritative collection of historical documents. For the chronology of Assyria we have some very valuable means information. These are + The "Eponym List" which covers the entire period from the reign of Ramman-nirari II (911-890 B.C.) down to that of Asshurbanipal (669-625 B.C.). The eponyms, or limmu, were like the eponymous archons at Athens and the consuls at Rome. They were officers, or governors, whose term of office lasted but one year, to which year they gave their name; so that if any event was to be recorded, or a contract drawn in the year e.g., 763 B.C., the number of the year would not be mentioned, but instead we are told that such and such an event took place in the year of Pur-Shagli, who was the limmu, or governor, in that year. + Another source is found in the chronological notices scattered throughout the historical inscriptions, such as Sennacherib's inscription engraved on the rock at Bavian, in which he tells us that one of his predecessors, Tiglath-pileser (Douay Version, Theglathphalasar) reigned about 418 years before him, i.e. about 1107 B.C.; or that of Tiglath-pileser himself, who tells us that he rebuilt the temple of Anu and Ramman, which sixty years previously had been pulled down by King Asshurdan because it had fallen into decay in the course of the 64I years since its foundation by King Shamshi-Ramman. This notice, therefore, proves that Asshur-dan must have reigned about the years 1170 or 1180 B.C. So also Sennacherib tells us that a seal of King Tukulti-Ninib l had been brought from Assyria to Babylon, where after 600 years he found it on his conquest of that city. As Sennacherib conquered Babylon twice, once in 702 and again in 689 B.C., it follows that Tukulti-Ninib I must have reigned over Assyria in any case before 1289 B.C., and possibly a few years before 1302 B.C. + Another chronological source is to be found in the genealogies of the kings, which they give of themselves and of their ancestors and predecessors. + Further valuable help may be obtained from the so-called "Synchronous History" of Babylonia and Assyria, which consists of a brief summary of the relations between the two countries from the earliest times in regard to their respective boundary lines. The usefulness of this document consists mainly in the fact that it gives the list of many Babylonian and Assyrian kings who ruled over their respective countries contemporaneously. ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN EXPLORATION As late as 1849, Sir Henry Layard, the foremost pioneer of Assyro-Babylonian explorations, in the preface to his classical work entitled "Nineveh and Its Remains" remarked how, previously, with the exception of a few cylinders and gems preserved elsewhere, a case, hardly three feet square, in the British Museum, enclosed all that remained not only of the great city, Nineveh, but of Babylon itself. At that time few indeed would have had the presumption even to imagine that within fifty years the exploration of Assyria and Babylonia would have given us the most primitive literature of the ancient world. What fifty years ago belonged to the world of dreams is at the present time a striking reality; for we now in possession of the priceless libraries of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians, of their historical annals, civil and military records, State archives, diplomatic correspondences, textbooks and school exercises, grammers and dictionaries, hymns, bank accounts and business transactions, laws and contracts; and extensive collection of geographical, astronomical, mythological, magical, and astrological texts and inscriptions. These precious monuments are actually scattered in all the public and private museums and art collections of Europe, America, and Turkey. The total number of tablets, cylinders, and cuneiform inscriptions so far discovered is approximately estimated at more than three hundred thousand, which, if published, would easily cover 400 octavo volumes of 400 pages each. Unfortunately, only about one-fifth of all the inscriptions discovered have been published so far; but even this contains more than eight times as much literature as is contained in the Old Testament. The British Museum alone has published 440 folio, and over 700 quarto, pages, about one-half as much more has appeared in various archaeological publications. The British Museum has more than 40, 000 cuneiform tablets, the Louvre more than 10, 000, the Imperial Museum of Berlin more than 7, 000, that of the University of Pennsylvania more than 20, 000, and that of Constantinople many thousands more, awaiting the patient toil of our Assyriologists. The period of time covered by these documents is more surprising than their number. They occur from prehistoric times, or about 5000 B.C., down to the first century before the Christian Era. But this is not all, for, according to the unanimous opinion of all Assyriologists, by far the largest part of the Assyro-Babylonian literature and inscriptions are still buried under the fertile soil of these wonderful regions, which have ever been the land of surprises, awaiting further explorers and decipherers. As has already been remarked, the meagre and often unreliable information concerning Assyria and Babylonia which has come down to us through the Persian, Greek, Latin, and Arabic writers -- historians and geographers -- has contributed little or nothing to the advancement of our knowledge of these wonderful countries. The early European travellers in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates valley such as Benjamin of Tudela (1160), John Eldred (1583), Anthony Shirley (1599), Pietro della Valle (1614-26), John Cartwright (1610), Gasparo Balbi (1590), John Otter (1734), Niebuhr (1765), Beauchamp, Olivier, Hagers, and others at the end of the eighteenth century, have left us a rather vague and superficial account of their personal visits and impressions. Later travellers, however, such as Claudius James Rich (1811, 1821-22), J.S. Buckingham (1816), Sir Robert Ker Porter (1817-20), Captain Robert Mignan (1826-28), G. Baillie-Fraser (1834-35), the Euphrates Expedition under Colonel Chesney (1835-47), James Felix Jones, Lynch, Selby, Collingwood, Bewsher, and others of the first half of the nineteenth century made a far more searching and scientific study of the Mesopotamian region. But the real founders and pioneers of Assyro-Babylonian explorations are Emile Rotta (1842-45), Sir Henry Austen Layard (1840-52), Victor Place (1851-55), H. Rassam (1850, 1878-82), Loftus (1850), Jules Oppert, Fresnel and Thomas (1851-52), Taylor (1851), Sir Henry Rawlinson, G. Smith, and others who have not only opened, but paved, the way for future researches and explorations. The first methodical and scientific explorations in Babylonia, however, were inaugurated and most successfully carried out by the intrepid French consul at Bassora and Bagdad, M. de Sarzec, who, from about 1877 with 1899, discovered at Tello some of the earliest and most precious remains and inscriptions of the pre-Semitic and Semitic dynasties of Southern Babylonia. Contemporaneously with de Sarzec there came other explorers, such as Rassam, already mentioned above, who was to continue George Smith's excavations; the American Wolf expedition, under the direction of Dr. Ward, of New York (1884-85); and above all, the various expeditions to Nippur, under Peters, Hayes, and Hilprecht, respectively, sent by the University of Pennsylvania (1888-1900). The Turkish Government itself has not altogether stood aloof from this praiseworthy emulation, sending an expedition to Abu Habba, or Sippar, under the direction of the well-known Dominican scholar, Father F. Scheil of Paris, in 1894 and the following years. Several German, French, and American expeditions have later been busily engaged in excavating important mounds and ruins in Babyloma. One of these is the German expedition under Moritz and Koldewey, with the assistance of Dr. Meissner, Delitzsch, and others, at Shurgul, El-Hibba, Al-Kasr, Tell-ibrahim, etc. The expedition of the University of Chicago, under the direction of Dr. Banks, at Bismaya, in South Babylonia, came unfortunately to an early termination. THE LANGUAGE AND CUNEIFORM WRITING All these wonderful archaeological researches and discoveries would have been useless and destitute of interest, had not the language of Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions been deciphered and studied. These inscriptions were all written in a language, and by means of characters, which seemed for a while to defy all human skill and ingenuity. The very existence of such a language had been forgotten, and its writing seemed so capricious and bewildering that the earlier European travellers mistook the characters for fantastic and bizarre ornamental decorations; their dagger- or arrow-headed shape (from which their name of cuneiform) presenting a difficult puzzle. However, the discovery, and tentative decipherment, of the old Persian inscriptions (especially those of Persepolis and of the Behistun rock, not far from Hamadan, in Persia), by Grotefend, Heeren, the Abbe Saint Martin, Rask, Bournouf, Lassen, Westergaard, de Saulcy, and Rawlinson, all taking place at about the end of the first half of the nineteenth century, opened the way for the decipherment of the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions. The principal credit unquestionably belongs to Rawlinson, Norris, J. Oppert, Fox Talbot, and especially to Dr. Hinks of Dublin. The acute and original researches of these scholars were successfully carried out by other Semitic scholars and linguists no less competent, such as E. Schrader and Fred. Delitzsch, in Germany; Ménant, Halévy, and Lenormant, in France; Sayce and G. Smith, in England. The Assyro-Babylonian language belongs to the so-called Semitic family of languages, and in respect to grammar and lexicography offers no more difficulty to the interpreter than either Hebrew or Aramaic, or Arabic. It is more closely allied to Hebrew and Aramaic than to Arabic and the other dialects of the South-Semitic group. The principal difficulty of Assyrian Consists in its extremely complicated system of writing. For, unlike all other Semitic dialects, Assyrian is written not alphabetically, but either syllabically or ideographically, which means that Assyrian characters represent not consonants, but syllables, open or closed, simple or compound, and ideas or words, such as ka, bar, ilu, zikara, etc. These same characters may also have both a syllabic and an ideographic value, nearly always more than one syllabic value and as many as five or six; so that a sign like the following (=|) may be read syllabically as ud, ut, u, tu, tam, bir, par, pir, lah, lih, hish, and his; ideographically as umu, "day"; pisu "white"; Shamash, the Sungod; etc. The shape of these signs is that of a wedge, hence the name cuneiform (from the Latin cuneus, "a wedge"). The wedges, arranged singly or in groups, either are called "ideograms" and stand for complete ideas, or then stand for syllables. In course of time the same ideographic signs came to have also the phonetic value of syllables, without losing however, their primitive ideographic value, as can be seen from the example quoted above. This naturally caused a great difficulty and embarrassment even to the Assyro-Babylonians themselves and is still the principal obstacle to the correct and final reading of many cuneiform words and inscriptions. To remedy this great inconvenience, the Assyro-Babylonians themselves placed other characters (called determinatives) before many of these signs in order to determine their use and value in certain particular cases and sentences. Before all names of gods, for example, either a sign meaning "devine being" was prefixed, or a syllabic character (phonetic complement), which indicated the proper phonetic value with which the word in question should end, was added after it. In spite of these and other devices, many signs and collocations of signs have so many possible syllabic values as to render exactness in the reading very difficult. There are about five hundred of these different signs used to represent words or syllables. Their origin is still a subject of discussion among scholars. The prevailing theory is that they were originally picture-signs, representing the ideas to be conveyed; but at present only about sixty of these 500 signs can be with certainty traced back to their original picture-meanings. According to the majority of Assyriologists, the cuneiform system of writing originated with the Sumerians, the primitive non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia, from whom it was borrowed by the Semitic Babylonians and Assyrians, and applied to their own language. In the same way the Greeks adopted the Semetic Phoenician alphabet, and the Germans adopted the Latin. The Semitic language of Babylonia and Assyria was, therefore, written in Sumerian characters, just as Hebrew can be written in English letters, or Turkish in Armenian, or Arabic in Syriac (Karshuni). This same cuneiform system of writing was afterwards adopted by the Medians, Persians, Mitannians, Cappadocians, ancient Armenians, and others. Hence five or six dlfferent styles of cuneiforrn writings may be distinguished. The "Persian" style, which is a direct, but simplified, derivative of the Babylonian, was introduced in the times of the Achaemenians. "Instead of a combination of as many as ten and fifteen wedges to make one sign, we have in the Persian style never more than five, and frequently only three; and instead of writing words by syllables, sounds alone were employed, and the syllabary of several hundred signs reduced to forty-two, while the ideographic style was fractionally abolished." The second style of cuneiform generally known as "Median", or "Susian", is, again, a slight modification of the "Persian". Besides these two, there is a third language (spoken in the northwestern district of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Orontes), known as 'Mitanni', the exact status of which has not been clearly ascertained, but which has been adapted to cuneiform characters. A fourth variety, found on tablets from Cappadocia, represents again modification of the ordinary writing met with in Babylonia. In the inscriptions of Mitanni, the writing is a mixture of ideographs and syllables, just as in Mesopotamia, while the so-called 'Cappadocian' tablets are written in a corrupt Babylonian, corresponding in degree to the ' corrupt ' forms that the signs take on. In Mesopotamia itself quite a number of signs exist, some due to local influences, others the result of changes that took place in the course of time. In the oldest period known, that is, from 4000 to 3000 B.C., the writing is linear rather than wedge-shaped. The linear writing is the modification that the original pictures underwent in being adapted for engraving on stone; the wedges are the modification natural to the use of clay, though when once the wedges became the standard method, the greater frequency with which clay, as against stone came to be used led to an imitation of the wedges by those who cut out the characters on stone. In consequence, there developed two varieties of wedge-writing: the one that may be termed lapidary, used for the stone inscriptions, the official historical records, and such legal documents as were prepared with especial care; the other cursive, occurring only on legal and commercial clay tablets, and becoming more frequent as we approach the latest period of Babylonian writing, which extends to within a few decades of our era. In Assyria, finally, a special variety of cuneiform developed that is easily distinguished from the Babylonian by its greater neatness and the more vertical position of its wedges. (Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, p. 20). The material on which the Assyro-Babylonians wrote their inscriptions was sometimes stone or metal, but usually clay of a fine quality most abundant in Babylonia, whence the use spread all over Western Asia. The clay was very carefully prepared, sometimes ground to an exceeding fineness, moistened, and moulded into various forms, ordinarily into a tablet whose average size is about six by two and one-half inches in superficial area by one inch in thickness, its sides curving slightly outwards. On the surface thus prepared, and while still soft, the characters were impressed with a stylus, the writing often standing in columns, and carried over upon the back and sides of the tablet. The clay was quite frequently moulded also into cones and barrel-shaped cylinders, having from six to ten sides on which writing could be inscribed. These tablets were then dried in the sun, or baked in a furnace -- a process which rendered the writing practically indestructible, unless the tablet itself was shattered. (G.S. Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, p. 28). Unlike all other Semitic systems of writing (except the Ethiopic, which is an adaptation of the Greek), that of the Assyro-Babylonians generally runs from left to right in horizontal lines, although in some very early inscriptions the lines run vertically from top to bottom like the Chinese. These two facts evidence the non-Semitic origin of the cuneiform system of writing. VALUE OF ASSYRIOLOGY FOR STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT The part played by these Assyro-Babylonian discoveries in the exegesis and interpretation of the Old Testament has been important in direct proportion to the immense and hitherto unsuspected influence exercised by the Assyro-Babylonian religion, civilization, and literature upon the origin and gradual development of the literature and the religious and social institutions of the ancient Hebrews. This Babylonian influence, indeed, can be equally traced in its different forms and manifestations through all western Asia, many centuries before that conquest of Palestine by the twelve Israelitish tribes which put an end to the Canaanitish dominion and supremacy. The triumph of Assyriology, consequently, must be regarded as a triumph for Biblical exegesis and criticism, not in the sense that it has strikingly confirmed the strict veracity of the Biblical narratives, or that it has demonstrated the fallacies of the "higher criticism", as Sayce, Hommel, and others have contended, but in the sense that it has opened a new and certain path whereby we can study the writings of the Old Testament with their correct historical background, and trace them through their successive evolutions and transformations. Assyriology, in fact, has given us such excellent and unexpected results as to completely revolutionize our former exegetical methods and conclusions. The study, it is true, has been often abused by ultra-radical and enthusiastic Assyriologists and critics. These have sought to build up groundless theories and illogical conclusions, they have forced the texts to say what they do not say, and to support conclusions which they do not support; but such an abuse, which is due to a perfectly natural enthusiasm and scientific ardour, can never vitiate the permanent value of sober Assyriological researches, which have demonstrably provided sources of the first importance for the study of the Old Testament. These few abuses can be discerned and in due time corrected by a more temperate and judicious criticism. If the value of Assyriology in its bearing upon the Old Testament has been too often exaggerated, the exaggeration is at least partly excusable, considering the comparatively recent date of these researches and their startling results in the way of discovery. On the other hand, that school of critics and theologians which disregards the genuine merits and the great value of Assyriological researches for the interpretation of the 0ld Testament is open to the double charge of unfairness and ignorance. HISTORY OF ASSYRIA TO THE FALL OF NINEVEH (c. 2000-606 B.C.) The origin of the Assyrian nation is involved in great obscurity. According to the author of the tenth chapter of Genesis, the Assyrians are the descendants of Assur (Asshur) one of the sons of Sem (Shem -- Gen., x, 22). According to Gen., x, 11, "Out of that land [Sennaar] came forth Assur, and built Ninive, and the streets of the city, and Chale. Resen also between Ninive and Chale", where the Authorized Version reads: "builded Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah". Till quite recently the most commonly accepted interpretation of this passage was that Assur left Babylonia, where Nemrod (Nimrod) the terrible was reigning, and settled in Assyria, where he built the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth, Chale (Calah), and Resen. Nowdays, however, this interpretation, which is mainly based on the Vulgate version, is abandoned in favour of the more probable one, according to which Nemrod himself, the beginning of whose kingdom was Babylon (Babel), Arach (Erech), Achad (Accad), and Chalanne (Calneh), in Southern Babylonia (Gen., x, 10), went up to Assyria (Assur in this case being a geographical name, i.e., Assyria, and not ethnographical or personal), and there he built the four above-mentioned cities and founded the Assyrian colony. Whichever of these two interpretations be held as correct, one thing is certain: that the Assyrians are not only Semites, but in all probability an offshoot of the Semitic Babylonians, or a Babylonian colony; although, on account of their apparently purer Semitic blood, they have been looked upon by some scholars as an independent Semitic offshoot, which at the time of the great Semitic migration from Arabia (c. 3000-2500 B.C.), migrated and settled in Assyria. Assyrian rulers known to us bore the title of Ishshaku (probably "priest-prince", or "governor") and were certainly subject to some outside power, presumably that of Babylonia. Some of the earliest of these Ishshaki known to us are Ishmi-Dagan and his son Shamshi-Adad I (or Shamshi-Ramman). The exact date of these two princes is uncertain, although we may with reasonable certainty place them about 1840-1800 B.C. Other Ishshaki are Igur-Kapkapu, Shamshi-Adad II, Khallu, and Irishum. The two cities of Nineveh and Assur were certainly in existence at the time of Hammurabi (c. 2250 B.C.) for in one of his letters he makes mention of them. It is significant, however, that in the long inscription (300 lines) of Agumkakrime, one of the Kassic rulers of Babylonia (c. 1650 B.C.), in which he enumerates the various countries over which his rule extended, no mention is made of Assyria. Hence, it is probable that the beginning of an independent Assyrian kingdom may be placed towards the seventeenth century B.C. According to an inscription of King Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.), the first Assyrian Ishshaku to assume the title of King was a certain Bel-bani, an inscription of whom, written in archaic Babylonian, was found by Father Scheil. His date, however, cannot be determined. Towards the fifteenth century B.C. we find Egytian supremacy extended over Syria and the Mesopotamian valley: and in one of the royal inscriptions of Thothmes III of Egypt (1480-1427 B.C.), we find Assyria among his tributary nations. From the Tel-el-Amarna letters also we know that diplomatic negotiations and correspondences were frequent among the rulers of Assyria, Babylonia, Syria, Mitanni, and the Egyptian Pharaohs, especially Amenhotep IV. Towards this same period we find also the Kings of Assyria standing on an equal footing with those of Babylonia, and successfully contesting with the latter for the boundary-lines of their Kingdom. About 1450 B.C. Asshr-bel-nisheshu was King of Assyria. He settled the boundary-lines of his kingdom with his contemporary Karaindash, King of Babylonia. The same treaty was concluded again between his successor, Puzur-Asshur, and Burnaburiash I, King of Babylon. Puzur-Asshur was succeeded by Asshur-nadin-Ahhe, who is mentioned by his successor, Asshur-uballit, in one of his letters to Amenhotep IV, King of Egypt, as his father and predecessor. During most of the long reign of Asshur-uballit, the relations between Assyria and Babylonia continued friendly, but towards the end of that reign the first open conflict between the two sister-countries broke out. The cause of the conflict was as follows: Asshur-uballit, in sign of friendship, had given his daughter, Muballitat-sherua, for wife to the King of Babylonia. The son born of this royal union, Kadashman-Charbe by name, succeeded his father on the throne, but was soon slain by a certaln Nazi-bugash (or Suzigash), the head of the discontented Kassite party, who ascended the throne in his stead. To avenge the death of his grandson the aged and valiant monarch, Asshur-uballit, invaded Babylonia, slew Nazi-bugash, and set the son of Kadashman-Charbe, who was still very young on the throne of Babylonia, as Kurigalzu II. However, towards the later part of his reign (c. 1380 B.C.), Kerizalu II became hostile to Assyria; in consequence of which, Belnirari, Assyhur-uballit's successor on the throne of Assyria, made war against him and defeated him at the city of Sugagu, annexing the northern part of Babylonia to Assyria. Belnirari was succeeded by his son, Pudi-ilu (c. 1360 B.C.), who undertook several successful military expeditions to the east and southeast of Assyria and built various temples, and of whom we possess few, but important, inscriptions. His successor was Ramman-nirari, who not only strengthened the newly-conquered territories of his two predecessors, but also made war and defeated Nazi-Maruttash, King of Babylonia, the successor of Kurigalzu II, adding a considerable Babylonian territory to the newly arisen, but powerful, Assyrian Empire. Towards the end of the fourteenth century B.C. (about 1330-1320 B.C.,) Ramman-nirari was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser I. During, or about the time of this ruler, the once powerful Egyptian supremacy over Syria and Mesopotamia, thanks to the brilliant military raids and resistance of the Hittites, a powerful horde of tribes in Northern Syria and Asia Minor, was successfully withstood and confined to the Nile Valley. With the Egyptian pressure thus removed from Mesopotamia, and the accession of Shalmaneser I, an ambitious and energetic monarch, to the throne of Assyria, the Assyrian empire began to extend its power westwards. Following the course of the Tigris, Shalmaneser I marched northwards and subjugated many northern tribes; then, turning westwards, invaded part of northeastern Syria and conquered the Arami, or Aramaeans, of Western Mesopotamia. From there he marched against the land of Musri, in Northern Arabia, adding a considerable territory to his empire. For strategic reasons he transferred the seat of his kingdom from the city of Asshur to that of Kalkhi (the Chale, or Calah, of Genesis) forty miles to the north, on the eastern bank of the Tigris, and eighteen miles south of Nineveh. Shalmaneser I was succeeded by his son Tukulti-Ninib (c. 1290 B.C.) whose records and inscriptions have been collected and edited by L.W. King of the British Museum. He was a valiant warrior and conqueror, for he not only preserved the integrity of the empire but also extended it towards the north and northwest. He invaded and conquered Babylonia, where he established the seat of his government for fully seven years, during which he became obnoxious to the Babylonians, who plotted and rebelled against him, proclaiming a certain Ramman shur-usur king in his stead. The Assyrians themselves also became dissatisfied on account of his long absence from Assyria, and he was slain by his own nobles, who proclaimed his son, Asshur-nasir-pal, king in his stead. After the death of this prince, two kings, Asshur-narrara and Nabudayan by name, reigned over Assyria, of whom, however, we know nothing. Towards 1210-1200 B.C. we find Bel-Kudur-usur and his successor, Ninib-pal-Eshara, reigning over Assyria. These, however, were attacked and defeated by the Babylonians who thus regained possession of a considerable part of their former territory. The next Assyrian monarch was Asshur-dan, Ninib-pal-Eshara's son. He avenged his father's defeat by invading Babylonia and capturing the cities of Zaban, lrria, and Akarsallu. In 1150 B.C., Asshur-dan was succeeded by his son, Mutakkil-Nusku; in 1140 B.C., by the latter's son Asshur-resb-ishi, who subjugated the peoples of Ahlami, Lullumi, Kuti (or Guti) and other countries, and administered a crushing defeat to his rival and contemporary, Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) I, King of Babylonia. About 1120-1110 B.C. Asshur-resh-ishi was succeeded by his son, Tiglath-pileser I, one of the greatest Assyrian monarchs, under whose reign of only ten years duration Assyria rose to the apex of its military success and glory. He has left us a very detailed and circumstantial account of his military achievements, written on four octagonal cylinders which he placed at the four corners of the temple built by him to the god Ramman. According to these, he undertook, in the first five years of his reign, several successful military expeditions against Mushku, against the Shubari, against the Hittites, and into the mountains, of Zagros, against the people of Nairi and twenty-three kings, who were chased by him as far north as Lake Van in Armenia; against the people of Musri in Northern Arabia, and against the Aramaens, or Syrians. "In all", he tells us, forty-two countries and their kings, from beyond the Lower Zab, from the border of the distant mountains as far as the farther side of the Euphrates, up to the land of Hatti [Hittites] and as far as the upper sea of the setting sun [i.e. Lake Van], from the beginning of my sovereignty until my fifth year, has my hand conquered. I carried away their possessions, burned their cities with fire, demanded from their hostages tribute and contributions, and laid on them the heavy yoke of my rule." He crossed the Euprates several times, and even reached the Mediterranean, upon the waters of which he embarked. He also invaded Babylonia, inflicting a heavy blow on the Babylonian king, Marduk-nadin-ahhe and his army, and capturing several important cities, such as Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar, Babylon, and Opis. He pushed his triumphal march even as far as EIam. Tiglath-pileser I was also a daring hunter, for in one of his campaigns, he tells us, he killed no fewer than one hundred and twenty lions on foot, and eight hundred with spears while in his chariot, caught elephants alive, and killed ten in his chariot. He kept at the city of Asshur a park of animals suitable for the chase. At Nineveh he had a botanical garden, in which he planted specimens of foreign trees gathered during his campaigns. He built also many temples, palaces, and canals. It may be of interest to add that his reign coincides with that of Heli (Eli), one of the ten judges who ruled over Israel prior to the establishment of the monarchy. At the time of Tiglath-pileser's death, Assyria was enjoying a period of tranquillity, which did not last, however, very long; for we find his two sons and successors, Asshur-bel-Kala and Shamshi-Ramman, seeking offensive and defensive alliances with the Kings of Babylonia. From about 1070 to 950 B.C., a gap of more than one hundred years presents itself in the history of Assyria. But from 950 B.C. down to the fall of Nineveh and the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire (606 B.C.) the history of Assyria is very completely represented in documents. Towards 950 B.C., Tiglath-pileser II was king over Assyria. In 930 B.C. he was succeeded by his son, Assuhr-dan II, and about 910 B.C. by the latter's son, Ramman-nirari II, who, in 890, was succeeded by his son, Tukulti-Ninib II. Kings of Babylonia. The last two monarchs appear to have undertaken several successful expeditions against Babylonia and the regions north of Assyria. Tukulti-Ninib's successor was his son Asshur-nasir-pal (885-860 B.C.), with whose accession to the throne began a long career of victory that placed Assyria at the head of the great powers of that age. He was a great conqueror, soldier, organizer, hunter, and builder, but fierce and cruel. In his eleven military campaigns he invaded, subdued, and conquered, after a series of devastations and raids, all the regions north, south, east, and west of Assyria, from the mountains of Armenia down to Babylon, and from the mountains of Kurdistan and Lake Urmi (Urum-yah) to the Mediterranean. He crossed the Euphrates and the Orontes, penetrated into the Lebanon region, attacked Karkemish, the capital of the Hittites, invaded Syria, and compelled the cities of the Mediterranean coast (such as Tyre, Sidon, Bylos, and Armad) to pay tribute. But the chief interest in the history of Asshur-nasir-pal lies in the fact that it was in his reign that Assyria first came into touch with Israel. In his expedition against Karkemish and Syria, which took place in 878 B.C., he undoubtedly exacted tribute from Amri (Omri), King of Israel; although the latter's name is not explicitly mentioned in this sense, either in Asshur-nasir-pal's inscriptions, or in the Old Testament. The fact, however, seems certain, for in the Assyrian incriptions from about this time down to the time of Sargon -- nearly 150 years -- land of Israel is frequently mentioned as the "land of Omri", and Jehu, a later King of Israel, but not of the dynasty of Amri, is also called the "son of Omri". This seems to show that the land of Israel was known to the Assyrians as the land of that king who happened to be reigning when they were first brought into political relations with it, and we know that this king was Amri, for in 878, the year of Asshur-nasir-pal's expedition to Syria, he had been king over Israel for some nine years. Asshur-nasir-pal was succeeded by his son, Shalmaneser II, who in the sixth year of his reign (854 B.C.) made an expedition to the West with the object of subduing Damascus. In this memorable campaign he came into direct touch with Israel and their king Achab (Ahab), who happened to be one of the allies of Benhadad, King of Damascus. In describing this expedition the Assyrian monarch goes on to say that he approached Karkar, a town to the southwest of Karkemish, and the royal residence of Irhulini. I desolated and destroyed, I burnt it: 1200 chariots, 1200 horsemen, 20,000 men of Biridri of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 horsemen, 10, 000 men of Irhulini of Hamath; 2,000 chariots, 10,000 men of Ahab of Israel . . . these twelve kings he [i.e. Irhulini] took to his assistance. To offer battle they marched against me. With the noble might which Asshur, the Lord, granted, with the powerful weapons which Nergal, who walks before me, gave, I fought with them, from Karkar into Gilzan I smote them. Of their soldiers I slew 14,000. The Old Testament is silent on the presence of Achab in the battle of Karkar, which took place in the same year in which Achab died fighting in the battle of Ramoth Galaad (III Kings, xxii). Eleven years after this event Jehu was proclaimed king over Israel, and one of his first acts was to pay tribute to Shalmaneser II. This incident is commemorated in the latter's well-known "black obelisk", in the British Museum, in which Jehu himself, "the son of Omri", is sculptured as paying tribute to the king. In another inscription the same king records the same fact, saying: At that time I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians, and Jehu the son of Omri". This act of homage took place in 842 B.C., in the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser's reign. After Shalmneser II came his son Shamshi-Ramman II (824 B.C.), who, in order to quell the rebellion caused by his elder son, Asshur-danin-pal, undertook four campaigns. He also fought and defeated the Babylonian King, Marduk-balatsuiqbi, and his powerful army. Shamshi-Ramman II was succeeded by his son, Ramman-nirari III (812 B.C.). This king undertook several expeditions against Media, Armenia, the land of Nairi, and the region around Lake Urmi, and subjugated all the coastlands of the West, including Tyre, Sidon, Edom, Philistia, and the "land of Omri", i.e. Israel. The chief object of this expedition was again to subdue Damascus which he did by compelling Mari', its king, to pay a heavy tribute in silver, gold, copper, and iron, besides quantities of cloth and furniture. Joachaz (Jehoahaz) was then king over Israel, and he welcomed with open arms Ramman-nirari's advance, in as much as this monarch's conquest of Damascus relieved Israel from the heavy yoke of the Syrians. Ramman-nirari III also claimed sovereignty over Babylonia. His name is often given as that of Adad-nirari, and he reigned from 812 to 783 B.C. In one of his inscriptions, which are unfortunately scarce and laconic, he mentions the name of his wife, Sammuramat, which is the only Assyrian or Babylonian name discovered so far having any phonetic resemblance to that of the famous legendary queen, Semiramis. The personal identity of the two queens, however, is not admissible. Ramman-ni-rari III was succeeded by Shalmaneser III (783-773 B.C.), and the latter by Asshurdan III (773-755 B.C.). Of these three kings we know little, as no adequate inscriptions of their reigns have come down to us. In the year 745 B.C. Tiglath-pileser III (in the Douay Version, Theglathphalasar) seized the throne of Assyria, at Nineveh. He is said to have begun life as gardener, to have distinguished himself as a soldier, and to have been elevated to the throne by the army. He was a most capable monarch, enterprising, energetic, wise, and daring. His military ability saved the Assyrian Empire from the utter ruin and decay which had begun to threaten its existence, and for this he is fitly spoken of as the founder of the Second Assyrian Empire. Tiglath-pileser's methods differed from those of his predecessors, who had been mere raiders and plunderers. He organized the empire and divided it into provinces, each of which had to pay a fixed tribute to the exchequer. He was thus able to extend Assyrian supremacy over almost all of Western Asia, from Armenia to Egypt, and from Persia to the Mediterranean. During his reign Assyria came into close contact with the Hebrews as is shown by his own inscriptions, as well as by the Old Testament records, where he is mentioned under the name of Phul (Pul). In the Assyrian inscriptions his name occurs only as that of Tiglath-pileser, but in the "List of Babylonian Kings" he is also called Pul, which settles his identity with the Phul, or Pul. of the Bible. He reigned for eighteen years (745-727 B.C.). In his annals he mentions the payment of tribute by several kings, among whom is "Menahem of Samaria", a fact confirmed by IV Kings, xv, 19. 20. During his reign, Achaz was king of Juda. This prince, having been hard pressed and harassed by Rasin (Rezin) of Damascus, and Phacee (Pekah) of Israel, entreated protection from (Tiglath-pileser) Theglath-phalasar, who, nothing loath, marched westward and attacked Rasin, whom he overthrew and shut up in Damascus. Two years later, the city surrendered. Rasin was slain, and the inhabitants were carried away captives (IV Kings, xvi, 7, 8, 9). Meanwhile Israel also was overrun by the Assyrian monarch, the country reduced to the condition of a desert, and the trans-Jordanic tribes carried into captivity. At the same time the Philistines, the Edomites, the Arabians, and many other tribes were subdued; and after the fall of Damascus, Tiglath-pileser held a durbar which was attended by many princes, amongst whom was Achaz himself. His next expedition to Palestine was in 734, the objective this time being Gaza, an important town on the sea-coast. Achaz hastened to make, or, rather, to renew his submission to the Assyrian monarch; as we find his name mentioned again with several other tributary kings on one of Tiglath-pileser's inscriptions. In 733 the Assyrian monarch carried off the population from large portions of the Kingdom of Israel, sparing, however the capital, Samaria. Tiglath-pileser was the first Assyrian king to come into contact with the Kingdom of Juda, and also the first Assyrian monarch to begin on a large scale the system of transplanting peoples from one country to another, with the object of breaking down their national spirit, unity, and independence. According to many scholars, it was during Tiglath-pilesar's reign that Jonas (Jonah) preached in Nineveh, although others prefer to locate the date of this Hebrew prophet a century later, i.e. in the reign of Asshurbanipal (see below). Tiglath-pileser III was succeeded by his son (?), Shalmaneser IV, who reigned but five years (727-722 B.C.). No historical inscriptions relating to this king have as yet been found. Nevertheless, the "Babylonian Chronicle" (which gives a list of the principal events occurring in Babylonia and Assyria between 744 and 688 B.C.) has the following statement: on the 25th of Thebet [December-January] Shalmaneser [in D.V. Salmanasar] ascended the throne of Assyria, and the city of Shamara'in [Samaria was destroyed. In the fifth year of his reign he died in the month of Thebet." The Assyrian "Eponym Canon" (see above) also informs us that the first two years of Shalmaneser's reign passed without an expedition, but in the remaining three his armies were engaged. In what direction the armies of Shalmaneser (Salmanasar) were engaged, the "Canon" does not say, but the "Babylonian Chronicle" (quoted above) and the Old Testament (IV Kings, xviii) explicitly point to Palestine, and particularly to Samaria, the capital of the Israelitish Kingdom. In the second or third year of Shalmaneser's reign, Osee (Hoshea) King of Israel, together with the King of Tyre, rebelled against Assyria; and in order to crush the rebellion the Assyrian monarch marched against both kings and laid siege to their capitals. The Biblical account (Douay Version IV Kings, xvii, 3 sqq.) of this expedition is as follows: Against him came up Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, and Osee became his servant, and paid him tribute. And when the king of the Assyrians found that Osee endeavouring to rebel had sent messengers to Sua the king of Egypt, that he might not pay tribute to the king of the Assyrians, as he had done every year, he besieged him, bound him and cast him into prison. And he went through all the land: and going up to Samaria, he besieged it three years. And in the ninth year of Osee, the king of the Assyrians took Samaria, and carried Israel away to Assyria; and he placed them in Hala and Habor by the river of Gozan, in the cities of the Medes. See also the parallel account in IV Kings, xviii, 9-11, which is one and the same as that here given. The two Biblical accounts, however, leave undecided the question, whether Shalmaneser himself or his successor conquered Samaria; while, from the Assyrian inscriptions it appears that Shalmaneser died, or was murdered, before he could personally carry his victory to an end. He was succeeded by Sargon II. Sargon, a man of commanding ability, was, notwithstanding his claim to royal ancestry, in all probability a usurper. He is one of the greatest figures in Assyrian history, and the founder of the famous Sargonid dynasty, which held sway in Assyria for more than a century, i.e. until the fall of Nineveh and the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire. He himself reigned for seventeen years (722-705 B.C.) and proved a most successful warrior and organizer. In every battle he was victor, and in every difficulty a man of resource. He was also a great builder and patron of the arts. His greatest work was the building of Dur-Sharrukin, or the Castle of Sargon, the modern Khorsabad, which was thoroughly explored in 1844-55 by Botta, Flandin, and Place. It was a large city, situated about ten miles from Nineveh, and capable of accommodating 80, 000 in habitants. His palace there was a wonder of architecture, panelled in alabaster, adorned with sculpture, and inscribed with the records of his exploits. In the same year in which he ascended the throne, Samaria fell (722 B.C.), and the Kingdom of Israel was brought to an end. "In the beginning of my reign", he tells us in his annals, "and in the first year of my reign . . . Samaria I besieged and conquered . . . 27, 290 inhabitants I carried off . . . I restored it again and made it as before. People from all lands, my prisoners, I settled there. My officials I set over them as governors. Tribute and tax I laid on them, as on the Assyrians." Sargon's second campaign was against the Elamites, whom he subdued. From Elam he marched westward, laid Hamath in ruins, and afterwards utterly defeated the combined forces of the Philistines and the Egyptians, at Raphia. He made Hanum, King of Gaza, prisoner, and carried several thousand captives, with very rich booty, into Assyria. Two years later, he attacked Karkemish, the capital of the Hittites, and conquered it, capturing its king, officers, and treasures, and deporting them into Assyria. He then for fully six years harassed, and finally subdued, all the northern and northwestern tribes of Kurdistan of Armenia (Urartu, or Ararat), and of Cilicia: the Mannai, the Mushki, the Kummukhi, the Milidi, the Kammani, the Gamgumi, the Samali, and many others who lived in those wild and inaccessible regions. Soon after this he subdued several Arabian tribes and, afterwards, the Medians, with their forty-two chiefs, or princes. During the first eleven years of Sargon's reign, the Kingdom of Juda remained peacefully subject to Assyria, paying the stipulated annual tribute. In 711 B.C., however, Ezechias (Hezekiah), King of Juda, partly influenced by Merodach-baladan, of Babylonia, and partly by promises of help from Egypt, rebelled against the Assyrian monarch, and in this revolt he was heartly joined by the Phoenicians, the Philistines, the Moabites, and tbe Ammonites. Sargon was ever quick to act; he collected a powerful army, marched against the rebels, and dealt them a crushing blow. The fact is recorded in Isaias, xx, 1, where the name of Sargon is expressly mentioned as that of the invader and conqueror. With Palestine and the West pacified and subdued Sargon, ever energetic and prompt, turned his attention to Babylonia, where Merodach-baladan ruling. The Babylonian army was easily routed and Merodach-balaclan himself abandoned Babylon and fled in terror to Beth-Yakin, his ancestral stronghold. Sargon entered Babylonia in triumph, and in the following year he pursued the fleeing king, stormed the city of Beth-Yakin, deported its people, and compelled all the Babylonias and Elamites, to pay him tribute, homage and obedience. In 705, in the flower of his age and at the zenith of his glory, Sargon was assassinated. He was succeeded by his son, Sennacherib (705 to 681 B.C.), whose name is so well known to Bible students. He was an exceptionally cruel, arrogant, revengeful, and despotic ruler, but, at the same time, a monarch of wonderful power and ability. His first military expedition was directed against Merodach-baladan, of Babylonia, who, at the news of Sargon's death, had returned to Babylonia, assuming the title of kings and murdering Merodach-zakir-shumi, the viceroy appointed by Sargon. Merodach-baladan was, however, easily routed by Sennacherib; fleeing again to Elam and hiding himself in the marshes, but always ready to take advantage of Sennacherib's absence to return to Babylon. In 701, Sennacherib marched eastward over the Zagros mountains and towards the Caspian Sea. There he attacked, defeated, and subdued the Medians and all the neighbouring tribes. In the same year he marched on the Mediterranean coast and received the submission of the Phoenicians, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Edomites. He conquered Sidon, but was unable to lay hands on Tyre, on account of its impregnable position. Thence he hurried down the coast road, captured Askalon and its king, Sidqa; turning to the north he struck Ekron and Lachish, and dispersed the Ethiopian-Egyptian forces, which had assembled to oppose his march. Ezechias (Hezekiah), King of Juda, who together with the above-mentioned kings had rebelled against Sennacherib, was thus completely isolated, and Sennacherib, finding his way clear, marched against Juda, dealing a terrific blow at the little kingdom. Here is Sennacherib's own amount of the event: But as for Hezekiah of Judah, who had not subsmitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong walled cities and the smaller cities round about them without number, by the battering of rams, and the attack of war-engines [?], by making breaches, by cutting through, the use of axes, I besieged and captured. Two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, small and great, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, and sheep without number I brought forth from their midst and reckoned as spoil. Himself [ Hezekiah] I shut up like a caged bird in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up fortifications against him, and whosoever came out of the gates of his city I punished. His cities, which I had plundered, I cut off from his land and gave to Mitinti, King of Ashdod, to Padi, King of Ekron, and to Cil-Bel, King of Gaza, and [thus] made his territory smaller. To the former taxes, paid yearly, tribute, a present for my lordship, I added and imposed on him. Hezekiah himself was overwhelmed by the fear of the brilliancy of my lordship, and the Arabians and faithful soldiers whom he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. Thirty talents of gold, eight hundred tatents of silver, precious stones, guhli daggassi, large lapis lazuli, couches of ivory, thrones of elephant skin and ivory, ivory, ushu and urkarinu woods of every kind, a heavy treasure, and his daughters, his palace women, male and female singers, to Nineveh, my lordship's city, I caused to be brought after me, and he sent his ambassador to give tribute and to pay homage. The same event is also recorded in IV Kings, xviii and xix, and in Isaias, xxxvi and xxxvii, but in somewhat different manner. According to the Biblical account, Sennacherib, not satisfied with the payment of tribute, demanded from Ezechias the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem, which the Judean king refused. Terrified and bewildered, Ezachias called the prophet Isaias and laid the matter before him, asking him for advice and counsel. The prophet strongly advised the vacillating king to oppose the outrageous demands of the Assyrian, promising him Yahweh's help and protection. Accordingly, Ezechias refused to surrender, and Sennacherib, enraged and revengeful, resolved to storm and destroy the city. Ezechias the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem, which the Judean king refused. Terrified and bewildered, Ezechias called the prophet Isaias and laid the matter before him, asking him for advice and counsel. The prophet strongly advised the vacillating king to oppose the outrageous demands of the Assyrian, promising him Yahweh's help and protection. Accordingly, Ezechias refused to surrender, and Sennacherib, enraged and revengeful, resolved to storm and destroy the city. But in that same night the whole Assyrian army, gathered under the walls of Jerusalem, was stricken by the angel of the Lord, who slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrian soldiers. At the sight of this terrible calamity, Sennacherib in terror and confusion, departed and returned to Assyria. The Assyrian and the Biblical accounts are prima facie conflicting, but many more or less plausible solutions have suggested. In the first place we must not expect to find in Sennacherib's own annals mention of, or allusion to, any reverse he may have suffered; such allusions would be clearly incompatible with the monarch's pride, as well as with the purpose of annals incribed only to glorify his exploits and victories. In the second place, it is not improbable that Sennacherib undertook two different campaigns against Juda: in the first, to which his annals refer, he contented himself with exacting and receiving submission and tribute from Ezechias (Hezekiah); but in a later expedition, which he does not mention, he insisted on the surrender of Jerusalem, and in this latter expedition he met with the awful disaster. It is to this expedition that the Biblical account refers. Hence there is no real contradiction between the two narratives, as they speak of two different events. Furthermore, the disaster which overtook the Assyrian army may have been, after all, quite a natural one. It may have been a sudden attack of the plague, a disease to which Oriental armies, from their utter neglect of sanitation, are extremely subject, and before which they quickly succumb. Josephus explicitly affirms that it was a flagellum prodigiosum (Antiq. Jud., X, i, n. 5); while according to an Egyptian tradition preserved to us by Herodotus (Lib. II, cxli), Sennacherib's army was attacked and destroyed by a kind of poisonous wild mice, which suddenly broke into the Assyrian camp, completely demoralizing the army. At any rate Sennacherib's campaign came to an abrupt end, and he was f'orced to retreat to Nineveh. It is noteworthy, however, that for the rest of his life Sennacherib undertook no more military expeditions to the West, or to Palestine. This fact, interpreted in the light of the Assyrian monuments, would be the light of the complete submission of Syria and Palestine: while in the light of the Biblical narrative it would signify that Sennacherib, after his disastrous defeat, dared not attack Palestine again. While laying siege to Jerusalem, Sennacherib received the disquieting news of Merodach-baladan's sudden appearance in Babylonia. A portion of the Assyrian army was detached and hurriedly sent to Babylonia against the restless and indomiable foe of Assyria. In a fierce battle Merodach-baladan was for the third time defeated and compelled to flee to Elam, where, worn and broken down by old age and misfortunes, he ended his troubled life, and Asshur-nadin-shum, the eldest son of Sennacherib, was appointed king over Babylonia. After his return from the West and after the final defeat of Merodach-baladan, Sennacherib began lengthy and active preparations for an effective expeditions against Babylonia, which was ever rebellious and restless. The expedition was as unique in its methods as it audacious in its conception. With a powerful army and navy, he moved southward and in a terrific battle near Khalulu, utterly routed the rebellious Chaldeans, Babylonians, and Elamites, and executed their two chiefs, Nergal-usezib and Musezib-Merodach. Elam was ravaged, "the smoke of burning towns obscuring the heavens". He next attacked Babylon, which was stormed, sacked burnt, flooded, and so mercilesslv punished that it was reduced to a mass of ruins, and almost obliterated. On his return to Assyria, Sennacherib appears to have spent the last years of his reign in building his magnificent palace at Nineveh, and in embellishing the city with temples, palaces, gardens, arsenals, and fortifications. After a long, stormy, and glorious reign, he died by the hand of one of his own sons (681 B.C.). The Bible tells us that "as he [Sennacherib] was worshipping in the temple of Nesroch his god, Adramelech and Sarasar his sons slew him with the sword, and they fled into the land of the Armenians, and Asarhaddon [Esarhaddon] his son reigned in his stead" (IV Kings, xix, 37). The "Babylonian Chronicle", however, has "on 20 Thebet [December-January] Sennacherib, King of Assyria, was slain by his son in a rebellion . . . years reigned Sennacherib in Assyria. From 20 Thebet to 2 Adar [March-April] was the rebellion in Assyria maintained (in to Adar his son, Esarhaddon, ascended the throne of Assyria." If the murderer of Sennacherib was, as the "Babylonian Chronicle" tells us, one of his own sons, no son of Sennacherib by the name of Adrammelech or Sharezer has as yet been found in the Assyrian monuments; and while the Biblical narrative seems to indicate that the murder took place in Nineveh, on the other hand an inscription of Asshur-banipal, Sennacherib's grandson, clearly affirms that the tragedy took place in Babylon, in the temple of Marduk (of which Nesroch, or Nisroch, is probably a corruption). Sennacherib was succeeded by his younger son, Esarhaddon, who reigned from 681 to 668 B.C. At the time of his father's death, Esarhaddon was in Armenia with the Assyrian army, but on hearing the sad news he promptly set out for Nineveh, first to avenge his father's death by punishing the perpetrators of the crime, and then to ascend the throne. On his way home he met the assassins and their army near Cappadocia, and in a decisive battle routed them with tremendous loss, thus becoming the sole and undisputed lord of Assyria. Esarhaddon's first campaign was against Babylonia, where a fresh revolt, caused by the son of the late Merodach-baladan, had broken out. The pretender was easily defeated and compelled to flee to Elam. Esarhaddon, unlike his father, determined to build up Babylon and to restore its ruined temples, 2 palaces, and walls he gave back to the people their property, which had been taken away from them as spoils of war during Sennacherib's destructive campaign, and succeeded in restoring peace and harmony among the people. He determined, furthermore, to make Babylon his residence for part of the year, thus restoring its ardent splendour and religious supremacy. Esarhaddon's second campaign was directed against the West, i.e. Syria, where a fresh rebellion, having for its centre the great maritime city of Sidon, had broken out. He captured the city and completely destroyed it, ordering a new city, with the name of Kar-Esarhaddon, to be built on its ruins. The king of Sidon was caught and beheaded, and the surrounding country devastated. Twenty-two Syrian princes, among them Manasses, King of Juda, surrendered and submitted to Esarhaddon. Scarcely, however, had he retired when these same princes, including Manasses, revolted. But the great Esarhaddon utterly crushed the rebellion, taking numerous cities, captives, and treasures, and ordering Manasses to be carried to Babylon, where the king was then residing. A few years later Esarhaddon had mercy on Manasses and allowed him to return to his own kingdom. In a third campaign, Esarhaddon blockaded the impregnable Tyre, and set out to conquer Egypt, which he successfully accomplished by defeating its king, Tirhakah. In order to effectively establish Assyrian supremacy over Egypt, he divided the country into twenty provinces, and over each of these he appointed a governor; sometimes a native, sometimes an Assyrian. He exacted heavy annual tribute from every one of these twenty provinces, and returned in triumph to Assyria. "As for Tarqu [Tirhakah], King of Egypt and Cush, who was under the curse of their great divinity, from Ishupri as far as Memphis, his royal city -- a march of fifteen days -- every day without exception. I killed his warriors in great number, and as for him, five times with the point of the spear I struck him with a deadly stroke. Memphis, his royal city, in half a day, by cutting through and scaling, I besieged, I conquered, I tore down, I destroyed, I burned with fire, and the wife of his palace, his palace women, Ushanahuru, his own son, and the rest of his sons, his daughters, his property and possessions, his horses, his oxen, his sheep without number, I carried away as spoiI to Assyria. I tore up the root of Cush frorn Egypt, a single one -- even to the suppliant -- I did not leave behind. Over all Egypt I appointed kings, prefects, governors, grain-inspectors, mayors, and secretaries. I instituted regular offerings to Asshur and the great gods, my lords, for all time. I placed on them the tribute and taxes of my lordship, regularly and without fail." Esarhaddon also invaded Arabia, penetrating to its very centre, through hundreds of miles of sandy lands which no other Assyrian monarch had penetrated before. Another important campaign was that directed against Cimmerians, near the Caucasus, and against rnany other tribes, in Armenia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Asia Minor, and Media. The monarch's last expedition was a second campaign against Egypt. Before leaving Assyria, however, i.e. in the month of Iyyar (April-May), 668 B.C., as if forecasting future events, he constituted his son Asshurbanipal co-regent and successor to the throne, leaving to his other son, Shamash-shum-ukin, Babylonia. But, while on his way to Egypt, he fell sick, and on the 10th of Marsheshwan (October), in the year 668, he died. Esarhaddon was a truly remarkable ruler. Unlike his father, he was religious, generous, forgiving, less harsh and cruel, and very diplomatic. He ruled the various conquered countries with wisdom and toletation, while he established a rigorous system of administration. A great temple-builder and lover of art he has left us many records and inscriptions. At Nineveh he rebuilt the temple of Ashur, and in Babylonia, the temples at Ukuk, Sippar, Dur-Ilu, Borsippa, and others, in all about thirty. In Nineveh he erected for himself a magnificent palace and arsenal, and at Kalkhi (Calah; Douay, Chale) another of smaller dimensions, which was still unfinished at the time of his death. Asshurbanipal, Esarhaddon's successor, was undoubtedly the greatest of all Assyrian monarchs. For generalship, military conquests, diplomacy, love of splendor and luxury, and passion for the arts and letters, he has neither superior nor equal in the annals of that empire. To him we owe the greatest part of our knowledge of Assyrian-Babylonian history, art, and civilization. Endowed with a rare taste for letters, he caused all the most important historical, religious, mythological, legal, astronomical, mathematical, grammatical, and lexicographical texts and inscriptions known to his day to be copied and placed in a magnificent library which he built in his own palace. "Tens of thousands of clay tablets systematically arranged on shelves for easy consultation contained, besides official dispatches and other archives the choicest religious, historical, and scientific literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian world. Under the inspiration of the king's literary zeal, scribes copied and translated the ancient sacred classics of primitive Babylonia for this library, so that, from its remains, can be reconstructed, not merely the details of the government and adminitration of the Assyria of his time, but the life and thought of the far distant Babylonian world." (G.H. Goodspeed, Hist. of the Babylonians and Assyrians, pp. 315, 316.) Of this library, which must have contained over forty thousand clay tablets, a part was discovered by G. Smith and H. Rassam, part has been destroyed, and part yet remains to be explored. Here G. Smith first discovered the famous Babylonian accounts of the Creation and of Deluge in which we find so many striking similarities with the parallel Biblical accounts. Asshur-banipal was also a great temple-builder -- in Nineveh, Arbela, Tarbish, Babylon, Borsippa, Sippar, Nippur, and Uruk. He fortified Nineveh, repaired, enlarged, and embellished Sennacherib's palace, and built next to it another palace of remarkable beauty. This he adorned with numerous magnificent statues, sculptures, bas-reliefs, inscriptions, and treasures. Assyrian art, especially sculpture and architecture, reached during his reign its golden age and its classical perfection, while Assyrian power and supremacy touched the extreme zenith of its height; for with Asshurbanipal's death Assyrian power and glory sank into the deepest gloom, and perished presumably, to rise no more. Asshurbanipal's military campaigns were very numerous. He ascended the throne in 668 B.C. and his first move was against Egypt, which he subdued, penetrating as far as Memphis and Thebes. On his way back, he exacted tribute from the Syrian and Phoenician kings, among whom was Manasses of Juda, who is expressly mentioned in one of the king's inscriptions. He forced Tyre to surrender, and subdued the Kings of Arvad, of Tabal, and of Cilicia. In 655, he marched against Babylonia and drove away from it a newly organized, but powerful coalition of Elamites, Chaldeans, and Arameans. He afterwards marched into the very heart of Elam, as far as Susa, and in a decisive battle he shattered the Elamite forces. In 625, Shamash-shum-ukin, Asshurbanipal's brother, who had been appointed by his father King of Babylonia, and who had till then worked in complete harmony with his brother, rebelled against Asshurbanipal. To this he was openly and secretly incited by many Babylonian, Elamite, and Arabian chiefs. Asshurbanipal, however, was quick to act. He marched against BabyIonia, shut off all the rebels in their own fortresses, and forced them to a complete surrender. His brother set fire to his own palace and threw himself into the flames. The cities and fortresses were captured, the rebels slain, and Elam completely devastated. Temples, palaces, royal tombs, and shrines were destroyed. Treasures and booty were taken and carried away to Assyria, and several thousands of people, as well as all the princes of the royal family, were executed, so that, a few years later Elam disappeared for ever front history. In another campaign, Asshurbanipal advanced against Arabia and subdued the Kedarenes, the Nabataeans, and a dozen other Arabian tribes, as far as Damascus. His attention was next attracted to Armenia, Cappadocia, Media, and the northwestern and northeastern regions. In all these he established his supremacy, so that from 640 till 626, the year of Asshurbanipal's death, Assyria was at peace. However, most scholars incline to believe that during the last years of the monarch's reign the Assyrian Empire began to decay. Asshurbanipal is probably mentioned once in the Old Testament (I Esdras, iv, 10) under the name of Asenaphar, or, better, Ashenappar (Ashenappal) in connection with his deportation of many troublesome populations into Samaria. He is probably alluded to by the Second Isaias and Nahum, in connection with his campaigns against Egypt and Arabia. According to G. Brunengo, S.J. (Nabuchodnossor di Giuditta, Rome, 1886) and other scholars, Assuhrbanipal is the Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) of the Book of Judith; others identify him with the Sardanapalus of greek historians. In view, however, of the conflicting characters of the legendary Sardanapalus and the Asshurbanipal of the cuneiform inscriptions, this last identification seems impossible. Besides, Asshurbanipal was not the last king of Assyria, as Sardanapalus is supposed to have been. Asshurbanipal was succeeded by his two sons, Asshur-etil-elani and Sin-shar-ishkun. Of their respective reigns and their exploits we know nothing, except that in their days Assyria began rapidly to lose its prestige and power. All the foreign provinces -- Egypt, Phoenicia, Chanaan, Syria, Arabia, Armenia, Media, Babylonia, and Elam -- broke away from Assyria, when the degenerate and feeble successors of the valiant Asshurbanipal proved unable to cope with the situation. They had probably abandoned themselves to effeminate luxury and debaucheries, caring little or nothing for military glory. In the meanwhile Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, and Cyaxares, King of Media, formed a family and political alliance, the latter giving his daughter in marriage to the formers's son, Nabuchodonossor (Nebuchadnezzar). At the head of a powerful army, these two kings together marched against Nineveh and laid siege to it for fully two years, after which the city surrendered and was completely destroyed and demolished (606 B.C.), and Assyria became a province of Babylonia and Media. RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION The religion and civilization of Assyria were almost identical with those of Babylonia, the former having been derived from the latter and developed along the same lines. For, although the Assyrians made notable contributions to architecture, art, science, and literature, these were with them essentially a Babylonian importation. Assyrian temples and palaces were modelled upon those of Babylonia, although in the building material stone was far more liberally employed. In sculptural decorations and in statuary more richness and originality were displayed by the Assyrians than by the Babylonians. It seems to have been a hobby of Assyrian rnonarchs to build colossal palaces, adorned with gigantic statues and an infinite variety of bas-reliefs and inscriptions showing their warlike exploits. Asshurbanipal's library shows that Assyrian religious literature was not only an imitation of that of Babylonia, but absolutely identical therewith. An examination of the religions of the two countries proves that the Assyrians adopted Babylonian doctrines, cults, and rites, with such slight modifications as were called for by the conditions prevailing in the northern country. The chief difference in the Assyrian pantheon, compared with that of Babylonia, is that, while in Semitic times the principal god of the latter was Marduk, that of the former was Asshur. The principal deities of both countries are: the three chief deities, Anu, the god of the heavenly expanse; Bel, the earth god and creator of mankind; Ea, the god of humanity par excellence, and of the water. Next comes Ishtar, the mother of mankind and the consort of Bel; Sin, firstborn son of Bel, the father of wisdom personified in the moon; Shamash, the sun-god; Ninib, the hero of the heavenly and earthly spirits; Nergal, chief of the netherworld and of the subterranean demons, and god of pestilence and fevers; Marduk, originally a solar deity, conqueror of storrns, and afterwards creator of mankind and the supreme god of Semitic Babylonia; Adad, or Ramman, the god of storms, thunders, and lighting; Nebo, the god of wisdorn, to whom the art of writing and sciences are ascribed; Girru-Nusku, or, simply, Nusku, the god of fire, as driving away demons and evil spirits; Asshur, the consort of Belit, and the supreme god of Assyria. Besides these there were other minor deities. GABRIEL OUSSANI Asterisk Asterisk (From the Greek aster, a star). This is a utensil for the Liturgy according to the Greek Rite, which is not used in Roman Rite at all. It consists of two curved bands, or slips, made of silver or gold which cross each other at right angles and thus form a double arch. It is used to place over the amnos or particles of blessed bread, when spread out upon the paten during the proskomide and earlier part of the Greek Liturgy, so as to prevent the veil from coming in contact with or disturbing these blessed but unconsecrated particles of bread in carrying the paten from the prothesis to the altar, or while it is standing at either place. It is laid aside after the Creed and is not ordinarily used again during the Liturgy. The asterisk is usually surmounted by a cross, and often has a tiny star suspended from the central junction, and in the Greek Orthodox is somewhat larger in size than in the Greek Catholic Church. When the priest in the proskomide service is those of blessed bread Iying upon the paten, he takes up the asterisk and incensing it says, "And the came forth and stood over where the child was." Then he puts it over the particles of bread upon the paten, and proceeds to cover it with the various veils and at conclusion of the proskomide, begins the celebration of the Liturgy. ANDREW J. SHIPMAN Asterius Asterius Name of several prominent persons in early Christian history. (1) Asterius of Petra, a bishop of Arabia, ill-treated by the Arian faction at the Council of Sardica (343) for withdrawing from them his support, and exiled to Upper Libya in Egypt, whence he was recalled in 362 by the edict of Julian that restored all the banished bishops. He took part in the Council of Alexandria (362), called, among other reasons, for the purpose of healing the Meletian schism that was rendering the Church of Antioch. He was one bearers of the letter addressed by the council to the stubborn Lucifer of Cagliari and the other bishops then at Antioch. These peaceful measures were, however, rendered useless by Lucifer's precipitancy in consecrating Paulinus as successor to Meletius of Antioch, whereby the schism gained a new lease of life. (2) Asterius of Amasea in Pontus (c. 400). The only fact in his life that is known is related by himself, viz. his education by a Scythian or Goth who had been sent in his youth to a schoolmaster of Antioch and thus acquired an excellent education and great fame among both Greeks and Romans. The extant writings of Asterius are twenty-one homilies, scriptural and panegyrical in content. The two on penance and "on the beginning of the fasts" were formerly is ascribed to St. Gregory of Nyssa (Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 1901, 267). A life of his predecessor, St. Basil, is ascribed to Asterius (Acta SS. 26 April). His works (P.G. XL) are described by Tillemont (Mem., X, 409). He was a student of Demosthenes and an orator of repute. Lightfoot says (Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I, 178) that his best sermons display "no inconsiderable skill in rhetoric great power of expression, and great earnestness of moral conviction; some passages are even strikingly eloquent." The homilies of Asterius, like those of Zeno of Verona, offer no little valuable material to the Christian archaeologist. [De Buck in Acta SS. 30 Oct. (Paris, 1883), XIII, 330-334.] (3) Asterius of Cappadocia, a Greek sophist, a friend of Arius, and also his fellow student in the school of Lucian of Antioch. St. Athanasius quotes more than once from a pro-Arian work of this writer. He wrote commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, the Gospels, the Psalms, and "many other works' (Jerome, De Vir. Ill., c. xciv), all of which have perished (Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha, l867, 68 sqq.) (4) Asterius, a Roman senator mentioned by Eusebius (His. Eccl., VII, 16) as a Christian distinguished for faith and charity. Rufinus says that he suffered martyrdom at Caesarea in Palestine in 262 (Baronius, An. Eccl. ad an. 262, sects. 81, 82). (5) Asterius Urbanus, a Montanist writer of the latter part of the second century, referred to in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. V, 16, 17); his work was probably a compilation of the pseudo-prophetic utterances of Montanus and his female companions Priscilla and Maximilla. THOMAS J. SHAHAN Diocese of Asti Diocese of Asti One of the divisions of the province of Alexandria, and suffragan of Turin. Asti is a very old town. It became Christian at an early period of the Christian Era. The first know bishop was Pastor in 451. After him, were Majoranus in 465, Benenatus in 680, and St. Evasius in 730. From 800 begins the regular list of bishops, though the seat was vacant from 1857 to 1867. There has been some controversy as to the beginning of the Diocese of Asti and the episcopate of St. Evasius, once placed by some at much earlier dates. Asti has 182,600 Catholics, 107 parishes, 300 secular priests, 12 regulars, 92 seminarists, 525 churches or chapels. Aston Aston The name of several English Catholics of prominence. Sir Arthur, member of an ancient and knightly family, an able military officer in the army of Charles I, governor of Oxford for the king, and made governor of Drogheda (Ireland) in 1649. He was killed September 10, 1640, at the siege of that town by the forces of Oliver Cromwell; his brains were dashed out with his wooden leg during the massacre that followed the capture (D. Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland, Dublin, 1897, p. 99). Herbert, an English poet, born at Chelsea, 1614, third son of Walter, first Lord Aston of Forfar, whom he accompanied to Madrid on his second embassy in 1635, author of "Tixall Poetry, Collected by the Hon. Herbert Aston, 1658" (ed. with notes and illustrations by Arthur Clifford, Esq., Edinburgh, 1813, 4to). Walter, father of the preceding and son of Sir Edward Aston, of Tixall in Staffordshire, educated under the direction of Sir Edward Coke, sent as one of the two ambassadors to Spain (1619) to negotiate a marriage treaty between Charles (I), Prince of Wales, and the Infanta, daughter of Philip 111. He became a convert to the Catholic Faith on this occasion, and on his return to England was made Lord of Forfar (Scotland). He had a decided taste for literature, and was the patron of Drayton, who dedicated to him (1598) his "Black Prince", and in his "Polyolbion" praises the Aston's "ancient seat" of Tixall. William, born April 22, 1735, educated at St.-Omer, entered the Society of Jesus in 1761, and taught for several years in the Society's colleges of St.-Omer, Watten, and Bruges, until the suppression in 1773; died at Liège, March 15, 1800, as canon of the cathedral. Among his writings are "Letters Ultramontaines" and "Le Cosmopolite." GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. of Engl. Catholics, 1, 76-82; FOLEY, Records of Engl. Province, S.J. THOMAS J. SHAHAN Diocese of Astorga Diocese of Astorga (ASTURIGA AUGUSTA.) Suffragan of Valladolid in Spain, dates it is said, from the third century. It was the principal church of the Asturias in 344, after a long eclipse was again an Episcopal see in 747, and exhibits since 841 a regular succession of bishops. It was at different times a suffragan of Braga and of Santiago. It includes the whole province of Leon and counts 300,115 Catholics, 990 parishes, and as many parish churches, 431 chapels and 1,183 priests. Astrology Astrology The supposed science which determines the influence of the stars, especially of the five older planets, on the fate of man (astrologia judiciaria; mundane, or judicial astrology) or on the changes of the weather (astrologia naturalis; natural astrology) according to certain fixed rules dependent upon the controlling position of stars (constallations aspects) at the time under consideration. Judicial astrology--more important branch of this occult art--depended for its predictions upon the position of the planets in the "twelve houses" at the moment of the birth of a human being. The calculations necessary to settle these positions were casting the horoscope or the diagram of the heavens (thema coeli) at the nativity. Starting with the point that was rising just at the moment of birth, the celestical equator was divided into twelve equal parts, six above, and six below the horizon, and circles were drawn through these points and the intersecting points of the horizon and the meridian. Thus the heavens were divided into twelve houses. The first house (horoscopus) begins with the point of the ecliptic that is just rising (ascendens). The twelve houses are divided into cardinal houses, also called anguli, succeeding houses (succedentes, anaphora) and declining or cadent houses (cadentes, cataphora). The houses symbolize respectively: life, personal property, consanguinity, riches, children and jewels, health, marriage and course of life, manner of death and inheritance, intellect and disposition (also long journeys), position in life and dignities, friends and success, enemies and misfortune. In the horoscope all these symbolic meanings are considered in their relation to the newly born. A Latin hexameter thus sums up the meaning of the twelve houses: Vita, lucrum, fratres, genitor, nati, valetudo, Uxor, mors, sapiens, regnans benefactaque, daemon. The position of the planets and the sun and moon in the twelve houses at the moment of birth is decisive. The planets vary as to meaning. They are divided into day-stars (Saturn, Jupiter, and also the sun) and night-stars (the moon, Mars, and Venus); Mercury belongs both to day and night. The sun, Jupiter, and Mars are masculine; the moon and Venus are feminine, Mercury belongs both to day and night. The sun, Jupiter, and Mars are masculine; the moon and Venus are feminine, Mercury belonging again to both classes. Jupiter (fortuna major) and Venus (fortuna minor) are good planets; Saturn (infortuna major) and Mars (infortuna minor) are malignant planets. The sun, moon, and Mercury have a mixed character. Each of the planets known to antiquity, including sun and moon, ruled a day of the week; hence the names still used to designate the various days. Judicial astrology also took into consideration the position of the sun in the zodiac at the moment of birth; the signs of the zodiac also had a special astrological significance in respect to the weal and woe of the newborn, particularly his health. In medical astrology every sign of the zodiac ruled some special part of the body, as for example: Aries, the Ram, the head: its diseases; Libra, the Balance, the intestines. Judicial astrology postulates the acceptance of the earth as the centre of the solar system. Natural astrology predicts the weather from the positions of the planets, especially the moon. Many of its theories are not to be rejected a priori, since the question of the moon's meteorological influence still awaits a solution which must depend upon the progress of human knowledge as to ether waves and cognate matters. HISTORY The history of astrology is an important part of the history of the development of civilization, it goes back to the early days of the human race. The unchangeable, harmonious course of the heavenly bodies, the profound impression made on the souI of man by the power of such heavenly phenomena as eclipses, the feeling of dependence on the sun, the giver of daylight--all these probably suggested in the early ages of the the human race, the question whether the fate of man was not dependent on these majestic manifestations of Divine power. Astrology was, therefore the foster-sister of astronomy, the science of the investigation of the heavens. From the start astrology was employed for the needs and benefit of daily life; the astrologers were astronomers only incidentally and in so far as astronomy assisted astrology in the functions which the latter had to perform in connection with religious worship. According to the belief of the early civilized races of the East, the stars were the source and at the same time the heralds of everything that happened, and the right to study the "godlike science" of astrology was a privilege of the priesthood. This was the case in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the oldest centres of civilization known to us in the East. The most ancient dwellers on the Euphrates the Akkado-Sumerians were believers in judicial astrology which was closely Interwoven with their worship of the stars. The same is true of their successors, the Babylonians and Assyrians, who were the chief exponents of astrology in antiquity. The Babylonians and Assyrians developed astrology, especially judicial, to the status of a science, and thus advanced in pure astronomical knowledge by a circuitous course through the labyrinth of astrological predictions. The Assyro-Babylonian priests (Chaldeans) were the professional astrologers of classic antiquity. In its origin Chaldaic astrology also goes back to the worship of stars; this is proved by the religious symbolism of the most ancient cuneiform texts of the zodiac. The oldest astrological document extant is the work called "Namar-Beli" (Illumination of Bel) composed for King Sargon I (end of the third millennium B.C.) and contained in the cuneiform library of King Asurbanipal (668-626 B.C.). It includes astronomical observations and calculations of solar and lunar eclipses combined with astrological predictions, to which the interpretation of dreams already belonged. Even in the time of Chaldean, which should be called Assyrian, astrology, the five planets, together with the sun and moon, were divided according to their character and their position in the zodiac as well as according to their position in the twelve houses. As star of the sun, Saturn was the great planet and ruler of the heavens. The weather, as far back as this time, was predicted from the colour of the planets and from their rising and setting. Classical antiquity looked upon Berosus, priest of the temple of Bel at Babylon, as the oldest writer on astrology; and according to Vitruvius Berosus founded a school of astrology at Cos. Seneca says that a Greek translation, made by Berosus, of the "Namar-Beli" from the library the Asurbanipal was known to classical antiquity. The Egyptians and Hindus were as zealous astrologers as the nations on the Euphrates and Tigris. The dependence of the early Egyptian star (sun) worship (the basis of the worship of Osiris) upon early Chaldaic influences belongs to the still unsettled question of the origin of early Egyptian civilization. But undoubtly the priest of the Pharaohs were the docile pupils in astrology of the old Chaldean priests. The mysterious Taauth (Thoth), the Hermes Trismegistus of antiquity, was regarded the earliest teacher of astrology in Egypt. He is reputed to have laid the foundation of astrology in the "Hermetic Books"; the division of the zodiac into the twelve signs is also due to him. In classic antiquity many works on astrology or on occult sciences in general were ascribed to this mythical founder of Egyptian astrology. The astrological rule of reckoning named after him, "Trutina Hermetis" made it possible to calculate the position of the stars at the time of conception from tbe diagram of the heavens at the time of birth. The Egyptians developed astrology to a condition from which it varies but little today. The hours of the day and night received special planets as their rulers, and high and low stood under the determinative influence of the stars which proclaimed through the priestly caste the coming fate of the land and its inhabitants. It is significant that in ancient Egypt astronomy, as well as astrology, was brought to an undoubtedly high state of cultivation. The astoundingly daring theories of the world found in the Egyptian texts, which permit us to infer that their authors were even acquainted with the helio-centric conception of the universe, are based entirely on astrologico-theosophic views. The astrology of the ancient inhabitants of India was similar, though hardly so comptetely developed; they also regarded the planets as the rulers of the different hours. Their division of the zodiac into twenty-eight houses of the moon is worthy of notice; this conception like all the rest of the fundamental beliefs of Hindu astrology, is to be found in the Rig-Veda. In India both astrology and the worship of the gods go back to the worship of the stars. Even today, the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, are considered the best authorities on astrology and the most skilful casters of horoscopes. India influenced and aided the development of astrology in ancient China, both India and Mesopotamia that of the Medes and Persians. The Assyro-Babylonian and Egyptian priests were the teachers of the Greek astrologers. Both of these priestly castes were called Chaldeans, and this name remained the designation of all astrologers and astronomers in classic antiquity and in the period following. It speaks well for the sound sense of the early Grecian philosophers that they seperated the genuine astronomic hypotheses and facts from the confused mass of erroneous astrological teaching which the Egyptian priests had confided to them. At the same time it was through the old Hellenic philosophers that the astrological secrets of the Oriental priestly castes reached the profane world. The earliest mention of the art of astrological prediction in early classical literature is found in the "Prometheus Vinctus" of Æschylus (line 486 sqq.) a comparatively late date. The often quoted lines of the Odyssey (Bk. XVIII, 136 sqq.) have nothing to do with astrology. Astrology was probably cultivated as an occult science by the Pythagorean school which maintained the exclusiveness of a caste. The teaching of Pythagoras on the "harmony of the spheres" points to certain astrological hypotheses of the Egyptian priests. It is a striking fact that Greek astrology began to flourish when the glory of the early classical civilization had begun to wane. It was in the age of Euripides, who refers to astrological predictions in a little comedy, that the belief in astrology began to grow popular in Greece. After the overthrow of the Assyro-Babylonian Empire, the priests of those regions found refuge in Greece and spread their astrological teachings by word of mouth and writing. In this way astrology lost the characler of occult science. Astronomy and astrology remained closely united, and both sciences were represented by the so-called Chaldeans, Mathematici, and Genethliacs. Astrology proper, from the time of Posidonius, was called apotelesmatika (rendered into English, "apotelesmatics" in order to indicate more clearly the influence of the stars upon man's final destiny; apo, "from", and telos, "end"). Astrology soon permeated the entire philosophical conception of the nature among the Greeks, and rapidly attained a commanding position in religious worship. Plato was obliged to take astrology into consideration as a "philosophical doctrine", and his greatest disciple, Aristotle, was the first to separate the science of astrology from that of meteorology, which was reserved for the phenomena of the atmosphere. The Stoics who encouraged all forms of divination were active promoters of astrology. The more plainly the influence of Oriental teaching manifested itself in Greek civilization, and the more confused the political conditions and religious ideas of the Greek States became, the greater was the influence of astrologers in public, and the more mischievous their activity in private life. Every professional astronomer was at the same time an astrologer. Eudoxus of Cnidles, the author of the theory of concentric spheres, was perhaps the first to write in Greek on purely astrological topics, being led to select this subject by his studies in Egypt. Most of the Greek astronorners known to us followed in his footsteps, as, for instance, Geminus of Rhodes whose most important work treating of astronomy and astrology Eisagoge eis ta Phainomena (Introduction to Phenomena) was commented on even by Hipparchus. About 270 B.C. the poet Aratus of Soli in his didactic poem, "Phænomena", explained the system of Eudoxus, and in a poem called "Diosemeia", which was appended to the former, he interprets the rules of judicial and natural astrology that refer to the various changes of the stars. The poem of Aratus was greatly admired by both the Greeks and the Romans; Cicero translated it into Latin, and Hygius, Ovid's friend, wrote a commendary on it. In this age astrology was as highly developed as in its second period of prosperity, at the Renaissance. Medical astrology had also at this date secured a definite position. Hippocrates of Cos in his work "De Aere, Aqua et Locis", which shows the influence of the Pythagoreans, discusses at length the value of astrology and its prognostications for the whole domain of medicine. In the Alexandrine school of medicine, astrological prognosis, diagnosis, and hygiene soon covered with their rank growths the inherited scientific teachings that had been tested by practice. In this way "astrological" cures grew in favour. These forms of the art of healing are not without interest both for the history of suggestion and for that of human error. The diseases of the more important bodily organs were diagnosed according to the influence of the sign of the zodiac at the time, and a medicine applied which either acted by suggestion, or was wholly inoperative. In the division of the zodiac according to its medical effect on the different parts of the body the first sign taken was the Ram (Aries), which ruled the head, and the last of the series was the Fishes (Pisces) which controlled the health or ailments of the feet. As the appetite of the Greeks for the mysterious wisdom of astrology grew keener, the Egyptian and Chaldean astrologers continually drew out still more mystical but, at the same time, more dubious treasures from their inexhaustible store-house. The newly founded city of Alexandria, where the later Hellenic culture flourished was a centre for all astrologers and practitioners of the occult arts. From time to time books appeared here, professing to have had their origin in the early days of Egytian civilization, which contained the secret knowledge pertaining to astrological and mystical subjects. These writings seems to meet the aspirations of ordinary men for the ideal, but all they offered was a chaotic mass of theories concerning astrology and divination, and the less they were understood they more they were applauded. In the Renaissance these pseudo-scientific works of antiquity were eagerly studied. It suffices here to mention the books of Nechopso-Petosiris which were believed by the neo-Platonists to be most the ancient Egyptian authority on astrology but which, probably were written in Alexandria about 150 B.C. About this same time, in all probability, Manetho, an Egyptian priest and traveller mentioned by Ptolemy, wrote on astrology. In order to meet the exigencies which arose, each degree of the heavens in late Egyptian astrology was assigned to some special human activity and some one disease. Besides this, the "heavenly spheres", which play so important a part in the history of astronomy, were increased to 54, and even a higher number, and from astrological calculations made from the complicated movements of these spheres the fate both of men and nations was predicted. Thus arose in late classic times the sphoera barbarica (foreign sphere) which in the Middle Ages also had a controlling influence over astrology. It was to be expected that the sober-minded, practical Romans would soon be dissatisfied with the mystical and enigmatical doctrines of Alexandrian astrology. Cato uttered warnings against the mischievous activity of the Chaldeans who had entered Italy along with Greek culture. In the year 139 B.C. the Praetor Cneius Cornelius Hispallus drove all astrologers out of Italy; but they returned, for even the Roman people could not begin an important undertaking without the aid and auspices. It is only necessary to recall the greatest man of ancient Rome, Julius Caesar. Cicero, who in his younger days had busied with astrology, protested vigorously, but without success, against it in his work "De Divinatione". The Emperor Augustus, on the other hand, believed in astrology and protected it. The first Roman work on astrology was dedicated to him; it was the "Astronomica" written about 45 B.C. by Marcus Manilius, who was probably a Chaldean by birth. In five books this poem gives an outline of the astrology of the zodiac and constellations. The fifth book is devoted to the sphoera barbarica. It is a curious fact that the poem does not take up the astrology of the planets. In spite of repeated attempts to suppress it, as in the reigns of Claudius and Vespasian, astrology maintained itself in the Roman Empire as one of the leading forms of culture. The lower the Romans sank in religion and morals the more astrology became entwined with all action and belief. Under Tiberius and Nero the two astrologers named Thrasyllus who were father and son held high political positions. The most distinguished astronomer of antiquity, Claudius Ptolemaeus, was also a zealous astrologer. His "Opus Quadripartitum, seu de apotelesmatibus et judiciis astrorum, libri IV" is one of the chief treatises on astrology of earlier times and is a detailed account of astrological teachings. This work occupied in astology as important a position as that which the same author's Megale Euntaxis (also called "Almagest"), held in the science of astronorny before the appearance of the Copernican theory. It is a striking fact that Ptolemy sought, in the second book of the "Opus Quadripartitum" to bring the psychical and bodily differences of the various nations into relation with the phyical conditions of their native lands, and to make these conditions, in their turn, depend on the positions of the stars. The Roman astrologers wrote their manuals in imitation of Ptolemy, but with the addition of mystic phantasies and predictions. After the death for Marcus Aurelius, the Chaldeans were always important personages at the imperial court. As late as the time of Constantine the Great the imperial notary Julius Firmius Maternus, who later became a Christian, wrote on "Mathematics, or the power and the influence of the stars" eight books which were the chief authority in astrology until the Renaissance. With the overthrow of the old Roman Empire and the victory of Christianity, astrology lost its importance in the centres of Christian civilization in the West. The last known astrologer of the old world was Johannes Laurentius (sometimes called Lydus) of Philadelphia in Lydia, who lived A.D. 490-565. ASTROLOGY UNDER CHRISTIANITY From the start the Christian Church strongly opposed the false teachings of astrology. The Fathers energeticaly demanded the expulsion of the Chaldeans who did so much harm to the State and the citizens by employing a fantastic mysticism to play upon the ineradicable impulses of the common people, keeping their heathen conceptions alive and fostering a soul-perplexing cult which, with its fatalistic tendencies created difficulties in the discernment of right and wrong and weakened the moral foundations of all human conduct. There was no room in the early Christian Church for followers of this pseudo-science. The noted mathematician Aguila Ponticus was expelled from the Christian communion about the year 120, on account of his astrological heresies. The early Christians of Rome, therefore, regarded the astrological as their bitterest and, unfortunately, their too powerful enemies; and the astrologers probably did their part in stirring up the cruel persecutions of the Christians. As Christianity spread, the astrologers lost their influence and reputation, and gradually sank to the position of mere quacks. The conversion of Constantine the Great put an end to the importance of this so-called science, which for five hundred years had ruled the public life of Rome. In 321 Constantine issued an edict threatening all Chaldeans, Magi, and their followers with death. Astrology now disappeared for centuries from the Christian parts of Western Europe. Only the Arabic schools of learning, especially those in Spain after the Moors had conquered the Iberian peninsula, accepted this dubious inheritance from the wisdom of classic times, and among Arabs it became incentive to pure Astronomical research. Arabian and Jewish scholars were the representatives of astrology in the Middle Ages, while both Church and State in Christian countries rejected and persecuted this false doctrine and its heathen tendencies. Unfortunately, at the same time the development of astronony was checked, excepting so far as it was needed to establish certain necessary astronomic principles and to calculate the date of Easter. Yet early Christian legend dstinguished between astronomy and astrology by ascribing the introduction of the former to the good angels and to Abraham, while the latter was ascribed to Cham. In particular, St. Augustine ("De civitate Dei", VIII, xix, and in other places) fought against astrology and sought to prevent its amalgamation with pure natutal science. Once more the East prepared a second period of prosperity for astrology. The Jews, very soon after they were driven into Western Europe, busied themselves with astrological questions, being stimulated thereto by Talmud. Jewish scholars had, moreover, a knowlege of the most important works of classic times on astrology and they became the teachers of the Arabs. These latter, after the rapid spread of Mohammedanism in Western Asia and North Africa, and their defeat in Western Europe by Charles Martel, began to develop a civilization of their own. The mystical books which appeared in Jewish literature after the time of the Talmud, that is, the books called the "Sefer Zohar" and the "Sefer Yezirah" (Book of Creation), are full of rules of divination dealing especially with astrological meanings and calculations. The high reputation of the Talmud and Cabbala among the Jews in the Middle Ages explains their fondness for astrological speculations; but at a very early date, it should be noted, they distinguished between astronomy, "the science of reading the stars", and astrology, "the science of divination". Caliph Al-Mansur, the builder of Bagdad, was, like his son, the famous Harun-al-Rashid, a promoter of learning. He was the first caliph to call Jewish scholars around him in order to develop the study of the mathematical sciences, especially astronomy, in his empire. In the year 777 the learned Jew Jacob ben Tarik founded at Bagdad a school for the study of astronomy and astrology which soon had a high reputation; among those trained here was Alchindi (Alkendi), a noted astronomer. It was one of Alchindi's pupils, Abumassar (Abu Mashar), from Bath in Chorassan, born about the year 805, whom the Middle Ages regarded as of greatest of Arabian astrologers. Astrology being regarded by the caliphs as the practical application of astronomy, all the more important Arabic and Jewish astronomers who were attached to that court, or who taught in the Moorish schools were also astrologers. Among the noteworthy Jewish astrologers may be mentioned Sahl ben Bishr al-Israel (about 820); Rabban al-Taban, the well-known cabbalist and Talmudic scholar; Shabbethai Donalo (913-970), who wrote a commentary on the astrology of the "Sefer Yezirah" which Western Europe later regarded as a standard work; and, lastly, the Jewish lyric poet and mathematician Abraham ibn Ezrah. Among the noted Arabic astronomers were Massah Allah Albategnius, Alpetragius, and others. The Arabo-Judaic astrology of the Middle Ages pursued the path indicated by Ptolemy, and his teachings were apparently the immovable foundation of all astronomical and astrological activity. At the same time the "Opus Quadripartitum" of the great Alexandrian was corrupted with Talmudic subtleties and overlaid with mystical and allegorical meanings, which were taken chiefly from the Jewish post -Talmudic belief conceming demons. This deterioration of astrology is not surprising if we bear in rnind the strong tendency of all Semitic races to fatalism and their blind belief in an inevitable destiny, a belief which entails spiritual demoralization. The result was that every conceivable pursuit of mankind every disease and indeed every nation had a special "heavenly regent", a constellation of definitely assigned position from the course of which the most daring prophecies were deduced. Up to the time of the Crusades, Christian countries in general were spared any trouble from a degenerate astrology. Only natural astrology, the correctness of which the peasant thought he had recognized by experience secured a firm footing in spite of the prohibition of Church and State. But the gradually increasing influence of Arabic learning upon the civilization of the West, which reached its highest point at the time of the Crusades was unavoidably followed by the spread of the false theories of astrology. This was a natural result of the amalgamation of the teachings of pure astronomy with astrology at the Mohammedan seats of learning. The spread of astrology was also furthered by the Jewish scholars living in Christian lands, for they considered astrology as a necessary part of their cabalistic and Talmudic studies. The celebrated didactic poem "Imago Mundi", written by Gauthier of Metz in 1245, has a whole chapter on astrology. Pierre d'Ailly, the noted French theologian and astronomer, wrote several treatises on the subject. The public importance of astrology grew as the internal disorders of the Church increased and the papal and imperial power declined. Towards the close of the Middle Ages nearly every petty prince, as well as every ruler of importance, had his court astrologer upon whose ambiguous utterances the weal and the woe of the whole country often depended. Such a person was Angelo Catto, the astrologer of Louis XI of France. The revival of classical learning brought with it a second period of prosperity for astrology. Among the civilized peoples of the Renaissance period, so profoundly stirred by the all-prevailing religious, social and political ferment, the astrological teaching which had come to light with other treasures of ancient Hellenic learning found many ardent disciples. The romantic trend of the age and its highly cultivated sensuality were conditions which contributed to place this art in a position far higher than any it had attained in its former period of prosperity. The forerunners of Humanism busied themselves with astrology, and but few of them perceived the dangerous psychical effect of its teachings upon the masses. Towards the end of the the thirteenth century the Florentines employed Guido Bonatti as their official astrologer, and, although Florence then stood alone in this respect, it was scarcely a hundred years later when astrology had entered in earnest upon its triumphant course, and a Cecco d'Ascoli was already its devoted adherent. In Petrarch's day the questionable activity of the astrologers at the Italian courts had made such progress that this clear-sighted Humanist (De remed. utr. fortm. I, iii, sqq; Epist. rer. famil., III; 8, etc.) again and again attacked astrology and its representatives with the keenest weapons of his wit, though without success, and even without any following except the weak objections of Villani and the still more ineffectual polemics of Salutato in his didactic poem "De fato et fortunâ". Emperors and popes became votaries of astrology-- the Emperors Charles IV and V, and Popes Sixtus IV, Julius II, Leo X, and Paul III. When these rulers lived astrology was, so to say, the regulator of official life; it is a fact characteristic of the age, that at the papal and imperial courts ambassadors were not received in audience until the court astrologer had been consulted. Regiomontanus, the distinguished Bavarian mathematician, practised astrology, which from that time on assumed the character of the bread-winning profession, and as such was not beneath the dignity of so lofty an intellect as Kepler. Thus had astrology once more become the foster-mother of all astronomers. In the judgment of the men of the Renaissance -- and this was the age of a Nicholas Copernicus--the most profound astronomical researches and theories were only profitable in so far as they aided in the development of astrology. Among the zealous patrons of the art were the Medici. Catharine de' Medici made astrology popular in France. She erected an astrological observatory for herself near Paris, and her court astrologer was the celebrated "magician" Michel de Notredame (Nostradamus) who in 1555 published his principal work on astrology--a work still regarded as authoritative among the followers of his art. Another well-known man was Lucas Gauricus, the court astrologer of' Popes Leo X and Clement VII, who published a large number of astrological treatises. ln Germany Johann Stöffler, professor of mathematics at Tübingen, Matthias Landenberg, and, above all, Philip Melanchthon were zealous and distinguished defenders of astrology. In Pico della Mirandola (Adversus Astrologos libri XII) and Paolo Toscanelli astrology encountered its first successful antagonists; later in the Renaissance Johann Fischart and the Franciscan Nas were among its opponents (Cf. Philognesius, Practicarum, Ingolstadt, 1571). Gabotto's charming essay, "L'astrologia nel quattrocento" in "Rivisto di filosofia scientica", VIII, 378, sq., gives much information concerning astrology in the fifteenth century. A. Graf's "La fatalita nelle credenze del medio evo" (in "Nuovo Antologia", 3rd series, XXVIII, 201,sqq.) is also of value for astrology at the turning point of the Middle Ages. Some of the late Roman astrologers, among whom was probably Firmicus Maternus, thought to reform astrology by idealizing it and raising its moral tone. The same purpose animated Paolo Toscanelli, called Maistro Pagollo, a physician greatly respected for the piety of his life, who belonged to the learned and artistic circle which gathered around Brother Ambrosius Camaldulensis in the Monastery of the Angels. There were special professors of astrology, besides those for astronomy, at the Universities of Pavia, Bologna, and even at the Sapienza during the pontificate of Leo X, while at times these astrologers outranked the astronomers. The three intellectual centres of astrology in the most brilliant period of the Renaissance were Bologna, Milan, and Mantua. The work of J.A. Campanus, published at Rome in 1495, and often commented on, namely, "Oratio initio studii Perugiae habita" throws a clear light on the lack of comprehension shown by the Church Fathers in their attitude towards pagan fatalism. Among other things it is here said: "Quanquam Augustinus, sanctissimus ille vir quidem ac doctissimus, sed fortassis ad fidem religionemgue propensior, negat quicquam vel mali astrorum necessitate contingere". In the Renaissance, religion, also, was subordinated to the dictation of astrology. The hypothesis of an astrological epoch of the world for each religion was widely believed by Italian astrologers of the time, who obtained the theory from Arabo-Judaic sources. Thus it was said that the conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn permitted the rise of the Hebrew faith; that of Jupiter with Mars, the appearance of the Chaldaic religion; of Jupiter with the sun, the Egyptian religion; of Jupiter with Venus, Mohammedanism; and of Jupiter with Mercury, Christianity. At some future day the religion of Antichrist was to appear upon the conjunction of Jupiter with the moon. Extraordinary examples of the glorification of astrology in Italy during the Renaissance are the frescoes painted by Miretto in the Sala della Ragione at Pavia, and the frescoes in Borso's summer palace at Florence. Petrarch, as well, notwithstanding his public antagonism to astrology, was not, until his prime, entirely free from its taint. In this connection his relations with the famous astrologer, Mayno de Mayneri, are significant (Cf. Rajna, Giorn. stor., X, 101, sq.). Even the victorious progress of the Copernican system could not at once destroy confidence in astrology. The greatest astronomers were still obliged to devote their time to making astrological predictions at princely courts for the sake of gain; Tycho Brahe made such calculations for the Emperor Rudolph II, and Kepler himself, the most distinguished astronomer of the age, was the imperial court astrologer. Kepler was also obliged to cast horoscopes for Wallenstein, who later came completely under the influence of the alchemist and astrologer Giambattista Zenno of Genoa, the Seni of Schiller's "Wallenstein". The influence of the Copernican theory, the war of enlightened minds against pseudo-prophetic wisdom and the increasing perception of the moral and psychical damage wrought by astrological humbug at last brought about a decline in the fortunes of astrology, and that precisely in Wallenstein's time. At the same period astrological tracts were stil being written by the most celebrated of English astrologers, William Lilly of Diseworth, Leicestershire, who received a pension of 100 pounds from Cromwell's council of state, and who, in spite of some awkward incidents, had no little political influence with Charles II. Among his works was a frequently republished "Christian Astrology". Shakespeare (in King Lear) and Milton were acquainted with and advocated astrological theories, and Robert Fludd was a representative of the art at the royal court. Francis Bacon, it is true, sought to win adherents for a purified and reformed astrology in order to destroy the existing form of the art. It was Jonathan Swift who in his clever satire, "Prediction for the Year 1708 by Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq", which deserves to be read even at the present day, gave the deathblow to the belief of English society in astrology. The last astrologer of importance on the Continent was Jean-Baptiste Marin, who issued "Astrologia Gallica" (1661). The greatly misunderstood Swiss naturalist Theophrastus Paracelsus was an opponent of astrology, and not its advocate, as was formerly inferred from writings erroneously attributed to him. The rapid growth of experimental investigation in the natural sciences in those countries which had been almost ruined, socially and politically; by the Thirty Years War completely banished the astrological parasites from society. Once more astrology fell to the level of a vulgar superstition, cutting a sorry figure among the classes that still had faith in the occult arts. The peasant held fast to his belief in natural astrologist and to this belief the progress of the art of printing and the spread of popular education contributed largely. For not only were there disseminated among the rural poor "farmer's almanacs", which contained information substantiated by the peasant's own experience, but the printing-presses also supplied the peasant with a great mass of cheap and easily understood books containing much fantastic astrological nonsense. The remarkable physical discoveries of recent decades, in combination with the growing desire for an elevated philosophico-religious conception of the world and the intensified sensitiveness of the modern cultured man -- all these together have caused astrology to emerge from its hiding place among paltry superstitions. The growth of occultistic ideas, which should, perhaps, not be entirely rejected, is reintroducing astrology into society. This is especially true of judicial astrology, which, however, by its constant encouragement of fatalistic views unsettles the belief in a Divine Providence. At present Judicial astrology is not justified by any scientific facts. To put forward the theory of ether waves as an argument for astrological assertions is not in accord with the methods of sober science. Judicial astrology, therefore, can claim a place only in the history of human error, while, however, as an historical fact, it reflects much light upon the shadowy labyrinth of the human soul. ASTROLOGY AMONG THE ANCIENT JEWS The Bible is free from any base admixture of astrological delusions. There is no reason for dragging the passage Josue x, 12, into historito-astrological discussions; the facts there related --the standing still of the sun in the valley of Gabaon and of the moon in the valley of Ajalon--are of purely astronomical interest. Only a few indicatiors in the Old Testament suggest that, notwithstanding the Divine prohibitinn (Ex., xxii, 18, Deut, xviii, 10, etc.), the Jews, especially after they were exposed to the influence of Egyptian and BabyIonian errors, may have practised astrology in secret, along with other superstitions. The Prophets warned the people against the pernicious ascendancy of soothsayers and diviners of dreams (Jer., xxix, 8; Zach., X. 1-2), among whom astrologers were included. Thus in the Book of Wisdom (xiii, l-2) it is said: "All men are vain . . . who . . . have either . . . the swift air, or the circle of stars, or the great water, or the sun and the moon, to be the gods that rule the world." The Book of Job, a writing of importance in the history of astronomy and star nomenclature, is also free from astrological fatalism. But to this fatalism the Jews had a natural predisposition, when Hellenism gained footing in the Holy Land it was accompanied by the spread of astrology, largely among the learned, the "philosophers", at whom even in an ealier age the passage in Wisdom had probably been aimed. Again, Isaias (xlvii, 13-14) derides the Babylonian astrologers (Let now the astrologers, stand and save thee, they that gazed at the stars . . . Behold they are as stubble fire hath burnt them"), and Jeremias exclaims (x, 2): "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the heathen fear". After the Exile, however, astrology spread so rapidly, above all among the educated classes of Israel, that as early as the Hellenistic era a Jewish astrological literature existed, which showed a strong Persico-Chaldean influence. The prophets had been opponents of astrology and of a relapse into fatalism. If, when they were phophesying of the great events to come, the contemplation of nature, and especially of the stars, filled them with sympathetic enthusiasm, by reason of their poetic inspiration and power of divination, this had nothing to do with astrology. On the other hand it does not appear impossible that in Daniel's time exiled Jews practised astrology. Judging from Daniel, v, 7, 11, it is possible that the prophet himself held a high rank among the astrologers of the Babylonian court. After the Exile an attempt was made to separate astrology from sorcery and forbidden magical arts, by denying a direct Biblical prohibition of astrology and by pretending to find encouragement for such speculations in Genesis, i, 14. It is a characteristic fact that in ancient Israel astrology received no direct encouragement, but that its spread was associated with the relapse of many Jews into the old Semitic star-worship which was aided by Persico-Chaldean influence. For this Jeremias is a witness (vii, 18; xix, 13; xliv, 17-19, 25). Co-incident with the spread of old astrology in old Israel and the decline of the nation was the diffusion of demonology. The Jewish prayers to the planets, in the form in which they are preserved with others in Codex Paris, 2419 (folio 277r), came into existence at the time when Hellenism first flourished in the East, namely, the third and second centuries B.C. In these prayers special angels and demons are assigned to the different planets; the greatest and most powerful planet Saturn having only one angel, Ktetoel, and one demon, Beelzebub. These planetary demons regulated the destiny of men. The most notable witness for astrological superstitions in the era of the decadence of Israel is the apocryphal "Book of the Secrets of Henoch", which, notwithstanding its perplexing phantasies, is a rich treasure-house of information concerning cosmological and purely astronomical problems in the Hellenic East. The author of "Henoch" is said by a Samaritan writer to be the discoverer of astronomy, and the book contains valuable explanations in regard to astronomy and astrology at the time of the Machabean dynasty. The evidences for astrologic demonology in ancient Israel, when the nation was affected by Hellenism and Babylonian decadence, are found in the latter part of the "Book of the Secrets of Henoch"-- the "Book of the Course of the Lights of Heaven"-- as also previously in the fourth section which treats of Henoch's wanderings "through the secret the places of the world". This latter is perhaps the archetype of Dante's "Divine Comedy". According to the "Book of Henoch" the human race derived its knowledge of astrology and "lunar sorceries", together with all other forms of magic, from the seven or eight spirits from whom come the chief sins of mankind (Henoch, i, 8). It is, moreover, worthy of note that the "Book of Henoch" must be regarded as a witness to Jewish national prophecy. It does not betray the ascendancy of Hellenism in any such degree as do the verses of the "Sibylline Oracles", which were recorded in the old Ionic dialect during the reign of Ptolemy Physcon (145-112 B.C.) by Jewish scholars in Egypt, and probably at a later date in the Holy Land itself. The astrological demonology of the Jews was continually fed from Egyptian and Babylonian sources, and formed in its turn the basis for the astrology of certain neo-Platonic sects. Together with the Parsee astrology, it was the Gnostics and Priscillianists. The influence of Hellenistic Judaism is also plainly visible in the philosophic system of the Harranites, or Sabeans. It is only necessary to mention here the high honour paid by the Sabeans to the seven planetary gods who regulate the fate of man. According to the belief of the every planet is inhabited by a spirit as star-soul, and the deciphering of the figures of the conjunction and opposition of the planets made the prediction of future destiny possible. Other elements of late Judaic astrology were adopted by the earliest known Christian writer on astrology, the Byzantine court-astrologer, Hephaestion of Thebes. The didactic astrological poem of Johanes Kamteros (about the middle of the twelfth century), which was dedicated to the Byzantine Emperor Manual I, appears to have heen drawn from Judaeo-Gnostic sources. It is a striking fact that as "demonized astrology" gained ground in ancient Israel -- and this was a branch of astrology in great favour among the Jewish scholars of the age of the Ptolemies, and much practised by them--the worship of the stars ventured once more to show itself openly. It was not until the appearance of Christianity that the preposterous, and, in part, pathologically degenerate, teachings of the Judaic astrology were swept away. The lower the Jewish nation sank in the scale of religion and civilization the greater was the power gained by the erratic doctrines of astrology and the accompanying belief in demonology. The earthly labours of the Saviour purified this noxious atmosphere. The New Testament is the opponent of astrology, which, by encouraging an apathetic fatalisrn, prevents the development of and elevating and strengthening trust in a Divine Providence. The "Star of the Wise Men" (Matt., ii, 2, 7, 9, sq.) cannot be identified by astronomy; perhaps, according to Ideler (Handbuch der mathemat. und techn. Chron.), the conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn is meant. But this hypothesis, which would be of decisive importance in settling the year of the birth of Christ, still lacks convincing proof. It finds a curious support in Abrabanel's comment that, according to Jewish astrologers, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn was a sign of the Messias. It must, however, remain questionable whether and to what extent a prediction of Jewish astrologers, or Kere schamajim, is to be considered as realized in the "Star of the Wise Men" (Matt., ii, 2, etc). The first heralds of Christianity, the Twelve Apostles, at once began a bold war against the rank growths of superstition. They also battled with the propensity of the people for astrology and in its stead planted in the hearts of men a belief in the power and goodness of God. Supported by the teachings of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers became powerful opponents of astrology and attacked with determination the bewildering and demoralizing ascendancy of its devotees. The assertion therefore justified that the Book remained free from the taint of astrological delusion. The passion for astrology evinced by decadent Judaism, and preserved in the Bible, is only one more proof of the propensity of Semitic nations for fatalistic superstitions and of the purifying victorious power of the ethics of Christianity. Campbell Thompson's monumental work, "The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon" (London, 1902), may be consulted for the valuable facts which throw light upon the dependence of the astrology of the ancient Jews on the that of Babylon. "A special branch of astrology which was zealously cultivated in Babylon was medical astrology, or the astrological prognosis of disease." Medical astrology is important in regard to the question of astrology in the Bible. It was greatly favoured by the spread of empirical treatment of disease among the astrologers. The Bible itself gives very little information concerning this form of the science, but subordinate Jewish sources, above all the Talmud, allow conclusions to be drawn as to its importance. Medical astrology, derived from Arabo-Judaic sources, flourished again at the time of the Renaissance. Its professional representatives were then called "Iatromathematicians", after the mathernatical mode of arriving at conclusions in their "art of healing". [Cf. Karl Sudhoff, Jatromathematiker, vornehml. des XV. und XVI. Jahrhund., in Abhand. zur Geseh. der Medizin (Breslau, 1902), pt. II; Wilh. Ebstein, Die Medizin im Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1901); Gideon Precher, Das Tranzendentae, Magie im Talmud ((Vienna, 1850); Trasen, Sitten der alten Hebräer (Breslau, 1853).] The Babylonians, chiefly in relation to medical astrology, distinguished between a spherical method of calculation (from the point of view of the observer to the stars, i.e. subjectively), and a cosmical method (from the relative position of the stars, i.e. objectively). The former was used in the prognosis deduced from the observation of the twelve houses of the heavens; the latter in that drawn from the twelve signs of the Zodiac. MAX JACOBI Astronomy Astronomy (From Gr. astron, star; nemein, to distribute). A science of prehistoric antiquity, originating in the elementary needs of mankind. It is divided into two main branches, distinguished as astrometry and astrophysics; the former concerned with determining the places of the investigation of the heavenly bodies, the latter, with the investigation of their chemical and physical nature. But the division is of a quite recent date. The possibilities of antique science stopped short at fixing the apparent positions of the objects on the sphere. Nor was any attempt made to rationalize the observed facts until Greeks laboriously built up a speculative system, which was finally displaced by vast fabric of gravitational theory. Descriptive astronomy, meanwhile took its rise from the invention of the telescope, and the facilities thus afforded for the close scrutiny of the denizens of the sky; while practical astronomy gained continually in refinement with the improvement of optical and mechanical arts. At the present time, astrophysics may be said to have absorbed descriptive astronomy, and astrometry necessarily includes practical research. But mathematical astronomy, grounded on the law of gravitation keeps its place apart, though depending for the perfecting of its theories and the widening of its scope upon advances along the old, and explorations in new, directions. PREHISTORIC ASTRONOMY Formal systems of astronomical knowledge were early established by the Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, and BabyIonians. The Chinese were acquainted, probably in the third millenium B.C., with the cycle of nineteen years (rediscovered in 632 B.C. by Meton at Athens) by which, since it comprised just 235 lunations, the solar and lunar years were harmonized; they recorded cometary apparitions, observed eclipses, and employed effective measuring apparatus. European methods were introduced at Pekin by Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century. Indian astronomy contained few original elements. It assigned particular prominence to the lunar zodiac, called the nakshatras, or mansions of the moon, variously reckoned at twenty-seven or twenty-eight; and these, which were probably a loan from Chaldea, served mainly for superstitious purposes. In Egypt, on the other hand, considerable technical skill was attained and a constellational system of obscure derivation, came in use. The Babylonians alone, among the nations of the fore-time, succeeded in laying the foundations of a progressive science. Through the medium of the Greeks, they transmitted to the West their entire scheme of uranography, our familiar constellations having been substantially designed on the plain of Shinar about 2800 B.C. Here, too, at a remote epoch, the "Saros" became known. This is a cycle of eighteen years and ten or eleven days, which affords the means of predicting the recurrence of eclipses. The changing situations of the planets among the stars were, moreover, diligently recorded, and accurate acquaintance was secured with the movements of the sun and moon. The interpretation in 1889, by Fathers Epping and Strassmaier, of a collection of inscribed tablets preserved in the British Museum vividly illuminated the methods of official Babylonian astronomy in the second century B.C. They were perfectly effectual for the purpose chiefly in view, which was the preparation of yearly ephemerides announcing expected celestial events, and tracing in advance the paths of the heavenly bodies. Further analysis in 1899 by Father Kugler, S.J., of the tabulated data employed in computing the moon's place, disclosed the striking fact that the four lunar periods -- the synodic, sidereal, anomalistic, and draconitic months -- were substantially adopted by Hipparchus from his Chaldean predecessors. GREEK ASTRONOMY Astronomy, however, no sooner became a distinctively Greek science than it underwent a memorable transformation. Attempts began to be made to render the appearances of the sky intelligible. They were, indeed, greatly hampered by the assumption that movement in space must be conducted uniformly in circles, round an immobile earth; yet the problem was ostensibly solved by Appollonius of Perga (250-220 B.C.), and his solution, applied by Hipparchus to explain the movements of the sun and moon, was extended by Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) to the planets. This was the celebrated theory of eccentrics and epicycles, which, by the ingenuity of its elaboration, held its own among civilized men during fourteen centuries. Hipparchus, the greatest of ancient astronomers, observed at Rhodes (146-126 B.C.), but is considered as belonging to the Alexandrian school. He invented trignometry, and constructed a catalogue of 1080 stars, incited, according to Pliny's statement, by a temporary stellar outburst in Scorpio (134 B.C.). Comparing, as work progressed, his own results with those obtained 150 years earlier by Timocharis and Aristyllus, he detected the slow retrogression among the stars of the point of intersection of the celestial equator with the ecliptic, which constitutes the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes. The circuit is completed in 25,800 years; hence the tropical year, by which the seasons are regulated, is shorter than the sidereal year by just twenty-one minutes, the equinox shifting backward to meet the sun by the annual amount of 50.25 inches. Greek astronomy was embodied in Ptolerny's "Almagest" (the name is of mixed Greek and Arabic derivation), composed at Alexandria about the middle of the second century A. D. It was based upon the geocentric principle. The starry spere, with its contents, was supposed to resolve, once in twenty-four hours, about the fixed terrestrial globe, while the sun and moon, and the five planets, besides sharing the common movement, described variously conditioned orbits round the same centre. The body of doctrine it inculcated made part of the universal stock of knowledge until the sixteenth century. The formidable task of demonstrating its falsity, and of replacing it with a system corresponding to the true relations of the world, was undertaken by the active and exemplary ecclesiastic, Nicholas Copernicus, Canon of Frauenburg (1473-1543). The treatise in which it was accomplished, entitled "De Revolutione Orbium Coelestium", saw the light only when its author lay dying; but a dedication to Pope Paul III bespoke the protection of the Holy See for the new and philosophically subversive views which it propounded. Denounced as impious by Luther and Melanchton, they were, in fact, favourably received at Rome until theological discredit was brought upon them by the wild speculations of Giorano Bruno (1548-1600), and the imprudent utterances of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). DESCRIPTIVE ASTRONOMY Descriptive astronomy may be said to have originated with the invention of the telescope by Hans Lippershey in 1608. Its application to the scrutiny of the heavenly bodies, by Galileo and others, led at once to a crowd of striking discoveries. Jupiter's satellites, the phases of Venus, the mountains of the moon, the spots on the sun, Saturn's unique appendages, all descried with a little instrument resembling a uniocular opera-glass, formed, each in its way, a significant and surprising revelation; and the perception of the stellar composition of the Milky Way represented the first step in sidereal exploration. Johann Kepler (1571-1630) invented in 1611, and Father Scheiner of Ingolstadt (1575-1650) first employed, the modern refracting telescope; and the farther course of discovery corresponded closely to the development of its powers. Christian Huygens (1629-95) resolved, in 1656, the ansae of Saturn into a ring, divided into two by Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) in 1675. Titan, the Iargest of Saturn's moons, was detected by Huygens in 1655, and four additional members of the family by 1684. The Andremeda nebula was brought to notice by Simon Marius in 1612, the Orion nebula by J.B. Cysatus, a Swiss Jesuit, in 1618; and some few variable and multiple stars were recognized. THEORETICAL ASTRONOMY The theoretical, however, far outweighed the practical achievements of the seventeenth century. Kepler published the first two of the "Three Laws" in 1609, the third in 1619. The import of these great generalizations is: + that the planets describe ellipses of which the sun occupies one focus; + that the straight line joining each planet with the sun (its radius vector) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; + that the squares of the planetary periods are severally proportional to the cubes of their mean distances from the sun. The geometrical plan of movement in the solar system was thus laid down with marvellous intuition. But it was reserved for Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) to expound its significance by showing that the same uniformly acting force regulates celestial revolulions, and compels heavy bodies to fall towards the earth's surface. The law of gravity, published in 1687 in "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathamatica" is to the following effect: every particle of matter attracts every other with a force directly proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the squares of their distances apart. Its validlty was tested by comparing the amount of the moon's orbital deflection in a second with the orbital deflection in a second with the rate at which an apple (say) drops in an orchard. Allowance being made for the distance of the moon, the two velocities proved to tally perfectly, and the identity of terrestrial gravity with the force controlling the revolutions of the heavenly established. But this was only a beginning. The colossal work remained to be accomplished of calclulaIting the consequences of the law, in the minute details of its working, and of comparing them with the heavens. It was carried foreward first by Newton himself, and in the ensuing century, by Euler, Clairaut, d' Alembert, Lagrange, and Laplace. Urbain Leverrier (1811- 77) inherited from these men of genius a task never likely to be completed; and the intricacies of lunar theory have been shown, by the researches of John Cough Adams (1819-92), of Hansen and Delaunay, of Professors Hlll and Newcomb, and many more, to be fraught with issues of unexpected and varied interest. DISCOVERIES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM The extraordinary improvement of reflecting telescopes by Sir William Herschel (1738-1822) opened a fresh epoch of discovery. His recognition of the planet Uranus (13 March 1781) as a non-stellar object of old to the solar system; two Uranian moons, Oberon and Titania, were detected by him 11 January 1787, and the innermost Saturnian pair, Enceladus and Mimas, 28 August and 17 September of the same year. Saturn was, in 1906, known to possess ten satellites. Hyperion was descried by W.C. Bond at the observatory of Harvard College 16 September, 1848, and Professor W.H. Pickering, of the same establishment, discovered by laborious photographic researches, Phoebe in 1898, and Themis in 1905. In point of fact, an indefinite number of satellites are agglomerated in the rings of Saturn. Their constitution by separately revolving, small bodies, theoretically demonstrated by J. Clerk Maxwell in 1857, was spectroscopically confirmed by the late Professor Keeler in 1895. The system includes a dusky inner member, detected by Bond, 15 November, 1850. The discovery of the planet Neptune, 23 Sepember, 1846, was a mathematical, not an observational feat. Leverrier and Adams independently divined the existence of a massive body, revolving outside Uranus, and exercising over its movements disturbances the analysis of which led to its capture. Its solitary moon was noted by William Lassell of Liverpool in October, 1846; and he added, in 1851, two inner satellites to the remarkable system Uranus. With the great Washington refractor, 26 inches in aperture, Professor Asaph Hall discerned, 16 and 17 August,1877, Deimos and Phobos, the swiftly circling moonlets Mars; the Lick 36-ich enabled Professor Barnard to perceive, 9 September, 1892, the evasive inner satellite of Jupiter; and two exterior attendants on the same planet were photographically detected by Professor Perrine in 1904-05. The distances of the planets are visibly regulated by a method. They increase by an ordered progression, announced by Titius of Wittenberg in 1772, and since designated as "Bode's Law". But their succession was quickly seen to be interrupted by a huge gap between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter; and the conjecture was hazarded that here a new planet might be found to revolve. It was verified by the discovery of an army of asteiods. Ceres, their leader, was captured at Palermo, 1 January, 1801, by Giuseppe Piazzi, a Theatine monk (1746-1826); Pallas, in 1802 by Olbers (1758-1840), and Juno and Vesta in 1804 and 1807, by Harding and Olbers respectively. The original quartette of minor planets began in 1845 to be reinforced with companions, the known number of which now approximates to 600, and may be indefinitely increased. Their discovery has been immensely facilitated by Professor Max Wolf's introduction, in 1891, of the photographic method of discriminating them from stars through the effects of their motion on sensitive plates. The solar system, as at present known, consists of four interior planets, Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars; four exterior; and relatively colossal planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, the diffuse crowd of pygmy globes called asteroids, or minor planets, and an outlying array of comets with their attentant meteor-systems. All the planets rotate on their axes, though in very different periods. That of Mercury was determined by Signor Schiaparelli of Milan in 1889 to be 88 days, the identical time of his revolution round the sun, and Venus was, in the following year, shown by him to be, in all likelihood, similarly conditioned, the common period of rotation and circulation being, in her case, 225 days. This irnplies that both planets keep the same hemisphere always turned towards the sun, as the moon does towards the earth; nor can we doubt that the friction of tidal waves was, on the three bodies, the agency by which the observed synchronisrn was brought about. All the planets travel round the sun from west to east or counter clock-wise and most of the satellites move in the same direction round their primaries. But there are exceptions. Phoebe, Saturn's remotest moon, circulates oppositely to the other members of the system; the four moon of Uranus are retrograde, their plane of movement being inclined at more than a right angle to the ecliptic; and the satellite of Neptune travels quite definitely backward. These anomalies are of profound import to the theories of planetary origin. The "canals" of Mars were recognized by Schiaparelli in August 1877, he caught sight of some of them duplicted two years later. Their photographic registration at the Lowell observatory in 1905 proves them to be no optical illusion, but their nature remains enigmatical. COMETS AND METEORS The predicted return of Halley's comet in 1759 afforded the first proof that bodies of the kind are permanently attached to the sun. They accompany its march through space, traversing, in either direction indifferently, highly eccentric orbits inclined ecliptic. They are accordingly subject to violent, even subversive disturbances from planets. Jupiter, in particular, sways the movements of a group of over thirty "captured" comets, which had their periods curtailed, and their primitive velocities reduced by his influence. Schiaparelli announced in 1866 that the August shooting-stars, or Perseids, pursue the same orbit with a bright comet visible in 1862; and equally striking accordances of movement between three other comets and the Leonid, Lyraid, and Andromede meteor-swarms were soon afterwards established by Leverrior and Weiss. The obvious inference is that meteors are the disintegration-products of their cometary fellow-travellers. A theory of comets' tails, based upon the varying efficacy of electrical repulsion upon chemically different kinds of matter, was announced by Theodor Brédikhine of Moscow in 1882, and gave a satisfactory account of the appearances it was invented to explain. Latterly, however, the authority of Arrhenius of Stockholm has lent vogue to a "light-pressure" hypothesis, according to which, cometary appendages are formed of particles driven from the sun by the mechanical stress of his radiations. But the singular and rapid changes photograpically disclosed as taking place in the tails of comets, remain unassociated with any known cause. SIDEREAL ASTRONOMY Sir William Herschel's discovery, in 1802, of binary stars, imperfectly anticipated by Father Christian Mayer in 1778, was one of far-reaching scope. It virtually proved the realm of gravity to include sidereal regions; and the relations it intimated have since proved to be much more widely prevalent than could have been imagined beforehand. Mutually circling stars exist in such profusion as probably to amount to one in three or four of those unaccompanied. They are of limitless variety, some of the systems by them being exceedingly close and rapid, while others describe, in millennial periods, vastly extended orbits. Many, too, comprise three or more members; and the multiple stars thus constituted merge, by progressive increments of complexity, into actual clusters, globular and irregular. The latter class exemplified by the Pleiades and Hyades, by the Beehive cluster in Cancer, just visible to the naked eye, and by the double cluster in Perseus which makes a splendid show with an opera-glass. Globular clusters are compressed "balls" of minute stars, of which more than one hundred have been catalogued. The scale on which these marvellous systems are constructed remains conjectual, since their distances from the earth are entirely unknown. Variable stars are met with in the utmost diversity. Some are temporary apparitions which spring up from invisibility often to an astonishing pitch of spendor, then sink back more slowly to quasi-extinction. Nova Persei, which blazed 22 February, 1901, and was photographically studied by Father Sidgreaves at Stonyhurst, is the most noteworthy recent instance of the phenomenon. Stars, the vicissitudes of which are comprised in cycles of seven to twenty months, or more, are called "long-period variables". About 400 had been recorded down to 1906. They not uncommonly attain, at maximum, to 1,000 times their minimum brightness. Mira, the "wonderful" star in the Whale, discovered by David Fabricius in 1596, is the examplar of the class. The fluctuations of "short-period variables" take place in a few days or hours, and with far more punctuality. A certain proportion of them are "eclipsing stars" (about 35 have so far been recognized as such), which owe their regularly recurring failures of light to the interposition of large satellites. Algol in Perseus, the variations of which were perceived by Montanari in 1669, is the best-known specimen. Hundreds of rapid variables have been recently detected among the components of glabular clusters; but their course of change is of a totally different nature from that of eclipsing stars. Edmund Halley (1656-1742), the second Astronomer Royal, announced in 1718 that the stars, far from being fixed, move onward, each on its own account, across the sky. He arrived at this conclusion by comparing modern with antique observations; and stellar "proper motions" now constitute a wide and expansive field of research. A preliminary attempt to regularize them was made by Herschel's determination, in 1783, of the sun's line of travel. His success depended upon the fact that the apparent displacements of the stars include a common element, transferred by perpective from the solar advance. Their individual, or "peculiar" movements, however, show no certain trace of method. A good many stars, too, have been ascertained to travel at rates probably uncontrollable by the gravitational power of the entire sidereral system. Arcturus, with its portentous velocity of 250 miles a second, is one of these "runaway" stars. The sun's pace of about 12 miles a second, seems, by comparison, extremely sedate; and it is probably only half the average stellar speed. The apex of the sun's way, or the towards which its movement at present tends, is located by the best recent investigations near the bright star Vega. DISTANCES OF THE SUN AND STARS The distances of the heavenly bodies can only be determined (speaking generally) by measuring their parallaxes, in other words, their apparent changes of position when seen from different points of view. That of the sun is simply the angle subtended at his distance by the earth's semi-diameter. Efforts were made with indifferent success to fix its value by the transits of Venus in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The asteroids have proved more efficient auxiliaries and through the mediation of Iris, Sappho, and Victoria, in 1889-89, Sir David Gill assigned to the great unit of space a length of 92,800,000 miles, which the photographic measures of Eros, in 1900-01, bid fair to ratify. The stars, however, are so vastly remote that the only chance of detecting their perspective displacements is by observing them at intervals of six months, from opposite extremities of a base-line nearly 186,000 miles in extent. Thus, the annual parallax of a star means the angle under which the semi-diameter of the earth's orbit would be seen if viewed frorn its situation. This angle is in all cases, extremely minute, and in most cases, altogether evanescent; so that, from only about eighty stars (as at present known), the terrestrial orbit would appear to have sensible dimensions. Our nearest stellar neighbour is the splendid southern binary, Alpha Centauri; yet its distance is such that light needs four and one-third years to perform the journey thence. Thomas Henderson (1798-1844) announced his detection of its parallax in 1839, just after Bessel of Konigsberg (1784-1846) had obtained a similar, but smaller result for an insignificant double star designated 61 Cygni. CELESTIAL PHOTOGRAPHY The second half of the nineteenth century was signalized by a revolutionary change in the methods and purposes of astronomy. Experiments in lunar photography, begun in 1840 by J.W. Draper of New York, were continued in the fifties by W.C. Bond, Warren de la Rue, and Lewis M. Rutherfund. The first daguerreoype of the sun was secured at Paris in 1845, and traces of the solar corona appeared on a sensitized plate exposed at Konigsberg during the total eclipse of 28 July, 1851. But the epoch of effective solar photography opened with the Spanish eclipse of 18 July, 1860, when the pictures successively obtained by Father Angelo Secchi, S.J., and Waren de la Rue demonstrated the solar status of the crimson protuberances by rendering manifest the advance of the moon in front of them. At subsequent eclipses, the leading task of the camera has been the portrayal of the corona; and its importance was enhanced when A.C. Ranyard pointed out, in 1879, the correspondence of changes in its form with alterations of sunspots was published in 1851 by Schwabe of Dessau; and among the numerous associated phenomena of change, none are better ascertained than those affecting the shape of the silvery aureola seen to encompass the sun when the moon cuts off the glare of direct sunlight. At spot maxima the aureola spreads its beamy radiance round the disc. But at times of minimum, it consists mainly of two great wings, extended in the sun's equatorial plane. A multitude of photographs, taken during the eclipses of 1898, 1900, 1901 and 1905, attest with certainty the punctual recurrence of these unexplained vicissitudes. The fundamental condition for the progress of sidereal photography is the use of long exposures; since most of the objects to be delineated emit light so feebly that its chemical effects must accumulate before they become sensible. But long exposures were impracticable until Sir William Huggins, in 1876, adopted the dry-plate process; and this date, accordingly, marks the beginning of the wide-spreading serviceableness of the camera to astronomy. In nebular investigations above all, it far outranges the telescope. Halley described in 1716 six nebulae, which he held to be composed of a lucid medium collected from space. The Abbé Lacaille (1713-62) brought back with him from the Cape, in 1754, a list of forty-two such objects; and Charles Messier (1730-1817) enumerated in 1781, 103 nebulae and clusters. But this harvest was scanty indeed compared with the lavish yield of Herschel's explorations. Between 1786 and 1802 he communicated to the Royal Society catalogues of 2500 nebulae; he distinguished their special forms, classified them in order of brightness, and elaborated a theory of stellar development from nebulae, illustrated by selected instances of progressive condensation. The next considerable step towards a closer acquaintance with nebulae was made by Lord Rosse in 1845, when the prodigious light-grasp of his six-foot reflector afforded him the discovery of the great "Whirlpool" structure in Canes Venatici. It proved to be typical of the entire class of spiral nebulae, the large prevalence of which has been one of the revelations of photography. The superiority in nebula-portraiture of the chemical to the eye-and-hand method was strikingly manifested in a photograph of the Orion nebula taken b Dr. A. A. Common, 30 January, 1883. Its efficacy for discovery became evident through the disclosure, on plates exposed by Paul and Prosper Henry, and by Isaac Roberts in 1885- 86, of complex nebulous formations in the Pleides, almost wholly invisible optically. Professor Keeler (1857-1900) estimated at 120,000 the number of nebulae which the Crossley reflector of the Lick observatory would capable of recording in both hemispheres with an hour's exposure, while telescopically constructed catalogues include less than 10,000. But it is through the combination of photography with spectroscopy, constituting the spectrographic mode of research, that astrophysics has achieved its most signal triumphs. ASTROPHYSICS The fundamental principle of spectrum analysis, enunciated by Gustav Kirchhoff (1824-87), depends upon the equivalence of emission and absorption. This means that, if white light be transmitted through glowing vapours, they arrest just those minute sections of it with which they themselves shine. And if the source of the white light be hotter than the arresting vapour, there results a prismatic spectrum, interrupted by dark lines, distinctive of the chemical nature of the susbtance originating them. Now this is exactly the case of the sun and stars. The white radiance emanating from their photopheres is found, when dispersed into a spectrum, to be crossed by numerous dusky rays indicating absorption by gaseous strata, to the composition of which Kirchhoff's principle supplies the clue. Kirchhoff himself identified in 1861, as prominent solar constituents, sodium, iron magnesium, calcium, and chromium; by A.J. Angström (1814-74); helium by Sir Norman Lockyer in 1868; and about forty elementary substances are now known with approximate certainty to be common to the earth and sun. The chemistry of the stars is strictly analogous to that of the sun, although their spectra exhibit diversities symptomatic of a considerable variety in physical state. Father Angelo Secchi, S.J. (1818-78), based on these diversities in 1863-67 a classification of the stars into four orders, still regarded as fundamental and supplied by Dr. Vogel in 1874 with an evolutionary interpretation, according to which differences of spectral type are associated with various stages of progress from a tenuous and inchote towards a compact condition. Since 1879, when Sir William Huggins secured impressions of an extended range of ultra-violet white star light, stellar spectra have been mostly studied photographically, the results being, not only precise and permanent, but also more complete than those obtainable by visual means. The same eminent investigator discovered, in 1864, the bright-line spectra of certain classes of nebulae, by which they were known to be of gaseous composition, and recognized, as of carbonaceous origin, the typical coloured bands of the cometary spectrum, noted four years previously, though without specific identification, by G.B. Donati (1827-73) at Florence. Doppler's principle, by which light alters in refrangibility through the end-on motion of its source, was first made effective for astronomical reseach by 1868. The criterion of velocilty, whether of recession or approach, is afforded by the shifting of spectral lines from their standard places; and the method was raised to a high grade of accuracy through Dr. Vogel's adaptation, in 1888, of photography to its requirements. It has since proved extraordinarily fruitful. Its employment enabled Dr. Vogel to demonstrate the reality of AIgol's eclipses, by showing that the star revolved round an obscure companion in the identical period of light-change; and the first discoveries of non-eclipsing spectroscopic binaries were made at Harvard College in 1889. These interesting systems cannot be sharply distinguished from telescopic double stars, which are, indeed, believed to have developed from them under the influence of tidal friction; their periods vary from a few hours to several months; and their components are often of such unequal luminosity that only one leaves any legible impression on the sensitive plate. Their known number amounted, in 1905, to 140; and it may be indefinitely augmented. It probably includes all short-period variables, even those that escape eclipses; though the connection between their duplicity and luminous variations remains unexplained. The photography in daylight of solar prominences was attempted by Professor Young of Princeton in 1870, and the subject was prosecuted by Dr. Braun, S. J., in 1872. No genuine success was, however, achieved until 1891, when Professor Hale of Chicago and M. Deslandres at Paris independently built up pictures of those objects out of the calcium-ray in their dispersed light, sifted through a double slit onto moving photographic plates. Professor Hale's invention of the "spectroheliograph" enables him, moreover, to delineate the sun's disc in any selected of its light, with the result of disclosing vast masses of calcium and hydrogen flocculi, piled up at various heights above the solar surface. SIDEREAL CONSTRUCTION The investigation of the structure of the sideral heavens was the leading object of William Herschel's career. The magnitude of the task, however, which he attempted singlehanded grows more apparent with every fresh attempt to grapple with it; and it now engages the combined efforts of many astronomers, using methods refined and comprehensive to a degree unimagined by Herschel. An immense stock of materials for the purpose will be provided by the international photographic survey, at present advancing towards completion at eighteen observatories in both hemispheres. About thirty million stars will, it is estimated, appear on the chart-plates; and those precisely catalogued are unlikely to fall short of four millions. The labour of discussing these multitudinous data must be severe, but will be animated by the hope of laying bare some hidden spring of the sidereal mechanism. The prospect is indeed remote that the whole of its intricacies will ever be penetrated by science. We only perceive that the stars form a collection of prodigious, but limited, extent, showing strongly concentrative tendencies towards the plane of the Milky Way. Nor can the nebulae be supposed to form a separate scheme. The closeness of their relations, physical and geometrical, with stars excludes that supposition. Stars and nebulae belong to the same system, if such the sidereal world may properly be called in the absence of any sufficient evidence of its being in a state of dynamical equilibrium. We cannot be sure that it has yet reached the definitive term appointed for it by its instability and evanescence help us to realize that the heavens are, in very truth, the changing vesture of Him whose "years cannot fail". AGNES M. CLERKE Victor de Buck Victor De Buck Bollandist, born at Oudenarde, Flanders, 21 April, 1817; died 28 June, 1876. His family was one of the most distinguished in the city of Oudenarde. After a brilliant course in the humanities at the municipal college of Soignies and the petit séminaire of Roulers, and completed in 1835 at the college of the Society of Jesus at Alost, he entered this Society on 11 October of the same year. After two years in the novitiate, then at Nivelles, and a year at Tronchiennes reviewing and finishing his literary studies, he went to Namur in September, 1838, to study philosophy and natural science, closing these courses with a public defense of theses bearing on these subjects. The work of the Bollandists (q.v.) had just been revived, and in spite of his youth, Victor De Buck was summoned to act as assistant to the hagiographers. He remained at this work, in Brussels, from September, 1840, to September, 1845. After devoting four years to theological studies at Louvain, where he was ordained priest in 1848, and making his third year of probation in the Society of Jesus, he was permanently assigned to the Bollandist work in 1850, and was engaged upon it until the time of his death. He had already published in part second of Vol. VII of the October "Acta Sanctorum," which appeared in 1845, sixteen commentaries or notices that are easily distinguishable because they are without a signature, unlike those written by the Bollandists. Moreover, during the course of his theological studies which suffered thereby no interruption, and before becoming a priest, he composed, in collaboration with Antoine Tinnebroeck, who, like himself, was a scholastic, an able refutation of a book published by the professor of canon law at the University of Louvain, in which the rights of the regular clergy were assailed and repudiated. This refutation, which fills an octavo volume of 640 pages, abounding in learned dissertation, was ready for publication with four months. It was to have been supplemented by a second volume which was almost completed but could not be published because of the political disturbances of the year 1847 which were but the prelude to the revolution of 1848, and the work was never resumed. Father De Buck's literary activity was extraordinary. Besides the numerous commentaries in Vols. IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII of the October "Acta Sanctorum," which won the praise of those best qualified to judge, he published in Latin, French, and Flemish, a large number of little works of piety and dissertations on devotions to the saints, church history, and church archeology, the partial enumeration of which fills two folio columns of his eulogy, in the forepart of Vol. II of the November "Acta." Because of his extensive learning and investigative turn of mind, he was naturally bent upon probing abstruse and perplexing questions; naturally, also, his work was often the result of most urgent requests. Hence it was, in 1862, he was led to publish in the form of a letter to his brother Remi, then a professor of church history at the theological college of Louvain and soon afterwards his colleague on the Bollandist work, a Latin dissertation, "De solemnitate praecipue paupertatis religiosae," which was followed in 1863 and 1864 by two treatises in French, one under the title "Solution amiable de la question des couvents" and the other "De l'etat religieux," treating of the religious life in Belgium in the nineteenth century. At the solicitation chiefly of prelates and distinguished Catholic savants, he undertook the study of a particularly delicate question. In order to satisfy the many requests made to Rome by churches and religious communities for the relics of saints, it had become customary to take from the Roman catacombs the bodies of unknown personages believed to have been honored as martyrs in the early Church. The sign by which they were to be recognized was a glass vial sealed up in the plaster outside of the loculus that contained the body, and bearing traces of a red substance that had been enclosed and was supposed to have been blood. Doubts had arisen as to the correctness of this interpretation, and, after careful study, Father De Buck was convinced that it was false, and that what had been taken for blood was probably the sediment of consecrated wine which, owing to misguided piety, had been placed in the tomb near the bodies of the dead. This conclusion, together with its premises, was set forth in a dissertation in 1855 under the title "De phialis rubricatus quibus martyrum romanorum sepulcra dignosci dicuntur." Naturally it raised lively protestations, particularly on the part of those who were responsible for distributing the bodies of the saints, the more so, as after the discussion on the vials of blood, the cardinal vicar in 1861 strictly forbade any further transportation of these relics. The author of the dissertation "De phialis rubicatus," had but a few copies of his work struck off, these being intended for the cardinals and prelates particularly interested in the question, and as none were put on the market, it was rumored that De Buck's superiors had suppressed the publication of the book, and that all the copies printed, save five or six, had been destroyed. This, of course, was untrue; not one copy had been destroyed, and his superiors had laid no blame upon the author. Then, in 1863, a decree was obtained from the Congregation of Rites, renewing an older decree, whereby it was declared that a vial of blood placed outside of a sepucral niche in the catacombs was an unmistakable sign by which the tomb of a martyr might be known, and it was proclaimed that Victor De Buck's opinion was formally disapproved and condemned by Rome. This too was false, as Father de Buck had never intimated that the placing of a vial of blood did not indicate the resting-place of a martyr, when it could be proved that the vial contained genuine blood, such as was supposed by the decree of the congregation. Finally there appeared in Paris in 1867 a large quarto volume written by the Roman prelate Monsignor Sconamiglio, "Reliquiarum custode." It was filled with caustic criticism of the author of "De phialis rubricatis" and relegated him to the rank of notorious heretics who had combated devotion to the saints and the veneration of their relics. Father De Buck seemed all but insensible to these attacks and contented himself with opposing to Monsignor Sconamiglio's book a protest in which he rectified the more or less unconscious error of his enemies by proving that neither the decree of 1863 nor any other decision emanating from ecclesiastical authorities had affected his thesis. However, another attack about the same time touched him more deeply. The gravest and most direct accusations were made against him and reported to the Sovereign Pontiff himself; he was even credited with opinions which, if not formally heretical at least openly defied the ideas that are universally accepted and held in veneration by Catholics devoted to the Holy See. In a Latin letter addressed to Cardinal Patrizzi, and intended to come to the notice of the Supreme Pontiff, Father De Buck repudiated the calumnies in a manner that betrayed how deeply he had been affected, his protest being supported by the testimony of four of his principal superiors, former provincials, and rectors who eagerly vouched for the sincerity of his declarations and the genuineness of his religious spirit. With the fullest consent of his superiors he published this letter in order to communicate with those of his friends who might have been disturbed by an echo of these accusations. What might have invested these accusations with some semblance of truth and what certainly gave rise to them, were the amicable relations established, principally through correspondence, between Father De Buck and such men as Alexander Forbes, the learned Anglican bishop, the celebrated Edward Pusey in England, Montalembert, and Bishop Dupanloup in France, and a number of others whose names were distasteful to many ardent Catholics. These relations were brought about by the reputation for deep learning, integrity, and scientific independence that De Buck's works had rapidly earned for him, by his readiness to oblige those who addressed themselves to him in their perplexities, and by his remarkable earnestness and skill in elucidating the most difficult questions. Moreover, he was equipped with all the information that incessant study and a splendid memory could ensure. But it was not only great minds groping outside the true Faith or weakened by harassing doubts who thus appealed to his knowledge. The different papal nuncios who succeeded one another in Belgium during the course of his career as Bollandists, bishops, political men, members of learned bodies and journalists, ceased not to importune this gracious scholar whose answers often formed important memoranda which, although the result of several days and sometimes several nights of uninterrupted labor, were read only by those who called them forth or else appeared anonymously in some Belgian or foreign periodical. Although Father De Back had an unusually robust constitution and enjoyed exceptionally good health, constant and excessive work at length told upon him and he was greatly fatigued when Father Beckx, Father General of the Society, summoned him to Rome to act as official theologian at the Vatican Council. Father Victor assumed these new duties with his accustomed ardor, and, upon his return, showed the first symptoms of the malady arterio-sclerosis that finally carried him off. He struggled for some years longer against a series of painful attacks each of which left him decidedly weaker, until a final attack which lasted uninterruptedly for nearly four years, caused his death. Elogium P. Victoris De Buck in Acta SS., November, II. CH. DE SMEDT Astronomy in the Bible Astronomy in the Bible No systematic observations of the heavenly bodies were made by the Jews. Astral worship was rife in Palestine, and they could hardly have attended closely to its objects without yielding to its seductions. Astronomy was, under these circumstances, inseparable from astrolatry, and anathemas of the prophets were not carelessly uttered. As the most glorious works of the Almighty, the celestial luminaries were indeed celebrated in the Scriptures in passages thrilling with rapture; but the appeal to them for practical purposes was reduced to a minimum. Even the regulation of times and seasons was largely empirical. The Jews used a lunar year. It began, for religious purposes, with the new moon next after the spring equinox, and consisted normally of twelve months, or 354 days. The Jewish calendar, however, depended upon the course of the sun, since the festivals it appointed were in part agricultural celebrations. Some process of adjustment had then to be resorted to, and the obvious one was chosen of adding a thirteenth, or intercalary, month whenever the discrepancy between the ripening of the crops and the fixed dates of the commemorative feasts became glaringly apparent. Before the time of Solomon, the Jews appear to have begun their year in the autumn; and the custom, revived for civil purposes about the fifth century B.C., was adopted in the systematized religious calendar of the fourth century of our era. Both the ritual and civil day commenced in the evening, about half an hour after sunset. Its subdivisions were left indeterminate. The Old Testament makes no mention of what we call hours; and it refers to the measurement of time, if at all, only in the narrative of the miracle wrought by Isaias in connection with the sundial of Achaz (IV Kings, xx, 9-11). In the New Testament, the Roman practice of counting four night-watches has superseded the antique triple division, and the day, as among the Greeks, consists of twelve equal parts. These are the "temporary hours" which still survive in the liturgy of the Church. Since they spanned the interval from sunrise to sunset, their length varied with the season of the year, from 49 to 71 minutes. Corresponding nocturnal hours, too, seem to have been partially used in the time of the Apostles (Acts, xxiii, 23). As might have been expected, the Sacred Books convey no theory of celestial appearances. The descriptive phrases used in them are conformed to the elementary ideas naturally presenting themselves to a primitive people. Thus, the earth figures as an indefinitely extended circular disk, lying between the realm of light above and the abyss of darkness beneath. The word firmamentum, by which the Hebrew rakia is translated in the Vulgate, expressed the notion of a solid, transparent vault, dividing the "upper waters" from the seas, springs, and rivers far below. Through the agency of the flood-gates, however, the waters sustained by the firmament were, in due measure, distributed over the earth. The first visibility after sunset of the crescent moon determined the beginning of each month; and this was the only appeal to the skies made for the purposes of the Jewish ritual. Eclipses of the sun and moon are perhaps vaguely referred to among the signs of doom enumerated by the Prophets Joel and Amos, who may have easily have enhanced their imagery from personal experience, since modern calculations show solar totalities to have been visible in Patestine in the years 831, 824, and 763 B.C., and the moon reddened by immersion in the earth's shadow is not an uncommon sight in any part of the world. But the passages in question cannot be literally associated with mere passing phenomena. The prophets aimed at something higher than intimidation. An express warning against ignoble panic was indeed uttered by Jeremias in the words: "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven which the heavens fear", (x, 2). The stellar vault, conceived to be situated above the firmanent, is compared by Isaias to a tent stretched out by the Most High. ASTRONOMICAL ALLUSIONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT The "host of heaven", a frequently recurring Scriptural expression, has both a general and a specific meaning. It designates, in some passages, the entire array of stars; in others it particularly applies to the sun, moon, planets, and certain selected stars; the worship of which was introduced from Babylonia under the later kings of Israel. The Planets Venus and Saturn are the only planets expressedly mentioned in the Old Testament. Isaias (xiv, 12) apostrophizes the Babylonian Empire under the unmistakable type of Helal (Lucifer in the Vulgate), "son of the morning". Saturn is no less certainly represented by the star Kaiwan, adored by the reprobate Israelites in the desert (Amos, v, 26). The same word (interpreted to mean "steadfast") frequently designates, in the Babylonian inscriptions, the slowest-moving planet; while Sakkuth, the divinity associated with the star by the prophet, is an alternative appellation for Ninib, who, as a Babylonian planet-god, was merged with Saturn. The ancient Syrians and Arabs, too, called Saturn Kaiwan, the corresponding terms in the Zoroastrian Bundahish being Kevan. The other planets are individualized in the Bible only by implication. The worship of gods connected with them is denounced, but without any manifest intention of refering to the heavenly bodies. Thus, Gad and Meni (Isaias, lxv, 11) are, no doubt, the "greater and the lesser Fortune" typified throughout the the East by Jupiter and Venus; Neba, the tutelary deity of Borsippa (Isaias xlvi, 1), shone in the sky as Mercury, and Nergal, transplanted frorn Assyria to Kutha (IV Kings, xvii, 30), as Mars. Kimah and Kesil The uranograpy of the Jews is fraught with perplexity. Some half-dozen star-groups are named in the Scriptures, but authorities differ widely as to their identity. In a striking passage the Prophet Amos (v, 8) glorifies the Creator as "Him that made Kimah and Kesil", rendered in the Vulgate as Arcturus and Orion. Now Kimah certainly does not mean Arcturus. The word, which occurs twice in the Book of Job (ix, 9; xxxviii, 31), is treated in the Septuagint version as equivalent to Pleiades. This, also, is the meaning given to it in the Talmud and throughout Syrian literature; it is supported by etymological evidences, the Hebrew term being obviously related to the Arabic root kum (accumulate), and the Assyrian kamu (to bind); while the "chains of Kimah", referred to in the sacred text, not inaptly figure the coercive power imparting unity to a multiple object. The associated constellation Kesil is doubtless no other than our Orion. Yet, in the first of the passages in Job where it figures, the Septuagint gives Herper; in the second, the Vulgate quite irrelevantly inserts Arcturus; Karstens Niebuhr (1733-1815) understood Kesil to mean Sirius; Thomas Hyde (1636-1703) held that it indicated Canopus. Now kesil signifies in Hebrew "impious", adjectives expressive of the stupid criminality which belongs to the legendary character of giants; and the stars of Orion irresistibly suggest a huge figure striding across the sky. The Arabs accordingly named the constellation Al-gebbar, "the giant", the Syriac equivalent being Gabbara in old Syriac version of the Bible known as Peshitta. We may then safely admit that Kimah and Kesil did actually designate the Pleiades and Orion. But further interpretations are considerably more obscure. Ash In the Book of Job -- the most distinctively astronomical part of the Bible -- mention is made, with other stars, of Ash and Ayish, almost certainly divergent forms of the same word. lts signification remains an enigma. The Vulgate and Septuagint inconsistently render it "Arcturus" and Hesperus". Abenezra (1092-1167), however, the learned Rabbi of Toledo, gave such strong reasons for Ash, or Ayish, to mean the Great Bear, that the opinion, though probably erroneous, is still prevalent. lt was chiefly grounded on the resemblance between ash and the Arabic na 'ash, "a bier", applied to the four stars of the Wain, the three in front figuring as mourners, under the title of Benât na 'ash, "daughtters of the bier". But Job, too, speaks of the "children of Ayish", and the inference seems irresistible that the same star-group was similarly referred to in both cases. Yet there is large room for doubt. Modern philologists do not admit the alleged connection of Ayish with na 'ash, nor is any funereal association apparent in Book of Job. On the other hand, Professor Schiaparelli draws attention to the fact that ash denotes "moth" in the Old Testament, and that the folded wings of the insect are closely imitated in their triangular shape by the doubtly aligned stars of the Hyades. Now Ayish in the Peshitta is translated Iyutha, a constellation mentioned by St. Ephrem and other Syriac writers, and Schiaparelli's learned consideration of the various indications afforded by Arabic and Syriac literature makes it reasonably certain that Iyutha authentically signifies Aldebaran, the great red star in the head of the Bull, with its children, the rainy Hyades. It is true that Hyde, Ewald, other scholars have adopted Capella and the Kids as representative of Iyutha, and therefore of " Ayish and her children"; but the view involves many incongruities. Hadre Theman (Chambers of the South) The glories of the sky adverted to the Book of Job include a sidereal landscape vaguely described as "the chambers [i.e. penetralia] of the south". The phrase, according to Schiaparelli, refers to some assemblage of brilliant stars, rising 20 degrees at most above the southern horizon in Palestine about the year 750 B.C. (assumed as the date of the Patriarch Job), and, taking account of the changes due to precession, he points out the stellar pageant formed by the Ship, the Cross, and the Centaur meets the required conditions. Sirius, although at the date in question it culminated at an altitude of 41 degrees, may possibly have been thought of as belonging to the "chambers of the south"; otherwise, this spendid object would appear to be ignored in the Bible. Mezarim Job opposes to the "chambers of the south", as the source of cold, an asterism named Mezarim (xxxvii, 9). Both the Vugate and the Septuagint render this word by Arcturus, evidently in mistake (the blunder is not uncommon) for Arctos. The Great Bear circled in those days much more closely round the pole than it now does; its typical northern character survives in the Latin word septentrio (from septem triones, the seven stars of the Wain); and Schiaparelli concludes from the dual form of mezarim, that the Jews, like the Phoenicians, were acquainted with the Little, as well as with the Great, Bear. He identifies the word as the plural, or dual, of mizreh, "a winnowing-fan", an instrument figured by the seven stars of the Wain, quite as accurately as the Ladle of the Chinese or the Dipper of popular American parlance. Mazzaroth Perhaps the most baffling riddle in Biblical star-nomenclature is that presented by the word Mazzaroth or Mazzaloth (Job, xxxxiii, 31, 32; IV Kings, xxiii. 5) usually, though not unanimously admitted to be phonetic variants. As to their signification, opinions are hopelessly divergent. The authors of the Septuagint transcribed, without translating, the ambiguous expression; the Vulgate gives for its equivalent Lucifer in Job, the Signs of the Zodiac in the Book of Kings. St. John Chrysostom adopted the latter meaning, noting, however, that many of his contemporaries interpreted Mazzaroth as Sirius. But this idea soon lost vogue while the zodiacal explanation gained wide currency. It is, indeed, at first sight, extremely plausible. Long before the Exodus the Twelve Signs were established in Euphratean regions much as we know them now. Although never worshipped in a primary sense, they may well have been held sacred as the abode of deities. The Assyrian manzallu (sometimes written manzazu), "station", occurs in the Babylonian Creation tablets with the import "mansions of the gods"; and the word appears to be etymologically akin to Mazzaloth, which in rabbinical Hebrew signifies primarily the Signs of the Zodiac, secondarily the planets. The lunar Zodiac, too, suggests itself in this connection. The twenty-eight "mansions of the moon" (menazil al-kamar) were the leading feature of Arabic sky-lore, and they subserved astrological purposes among many Oriental peoples. They might, accordingly, have belonged to the apparatus of superstition used by the soothsayers who were extirpated in Judah, together with the worship of the Mazzaroth, by King Josias, about 621 B.C. Yet no such explanation can be made to fit in with the form of expression met with in the Book of Job (xxxviii, 32). Speaking in the person of the Almighty, the Patriarch asks, "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in its time?" -- clearly in allusion to a periodical phenomenon, such as the brilliant visibility of Lucifer, or Hesperus. Professor Schiaparelli then recurs to the Vulgate rendering of this passage. He recognizes in Mazzaroth the planet Venus in her double aspect of morning and evening star, pointing out that the luminary designated in the Book of Kings, with the sun and moon, and the "host of heaven" must evidently be next in brightness to the chief light-givers. Further, the sun, moon, and Venus constitute the great astronomical triad of Babylonia, the sculptured representations of which frequently include the "host of heaven" typified by a crowd of fantastic animal-divinities. And since the astral worship anathematized by the prophets of Israel was unquestionably of Euphratean origin, the designation of Mazzaroth as the third member of the Babylonian triad is a valuable link in the evidence. Still, the case remains one of extreme difficulty. Nachash Notwithstanding the scepticism of recent commentators, it appears fairly certain that the "fugitive serpent" of Job, xxvi, 13 (coluber tortuosus in the Vulgate) does really stand for the circumpolar reptile. The Euphratean constellation Draco is of hoary antiquity, and would quite probably have been familiar to Job. On the other hand, Rahab (Job, ix, 13; xxi, 12), translated "whale" in the Septuagint, is probably of legendary or symbolical import. Summary The subjoined list gives (largely on Schiaparelli's authority) the best-warranted interpretations of biblical star-names: + Kimah, the Pleiades; + the Kesil, Orion; + Ash, or Ayish, the Hyades; + Mezarim, the Bears (Great and Little); + Mazzaroth, Venus (Lucifer and Hesperus); + Hadre theman -- "the chambers of the south" -- Canopus, the Southern Cross, and a Centauri; + Nachash, Draco. ASTRONOMICAL ALLUSIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT The New Testament is virtually devoid of astronomical allusions. The "Star of the Magi" can scarcely be regarded as an objective phenomenon; it was, at least, inconspicuous to ordinary notice. Kepler, however, advanced, in 1606, the hypothesis that a remarkable of Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in May of the year 7 B.C., was the celestial sign followed by the Wise Men. Revived in 1821 by Dr. Münter, the Lutheran Bishop of Zealand, this opinion was strongly advocated in 1826 by C.L. Ideler (Handbuch der Chronologie, II, 399). But the late Dr. Pritchard's investigation (Smith's Dict. of the Bible, Memoirs Roy. Astr. Society, XXV, 119) demonstrated its inadequacy to fulfil the requirements of the Gospel narrative. AGNES M. CLERKE Paul-Therese-David d'Astros Paul-Thérèse-David D'Astros A French cardinal, b. At Tourves (Var.) in 1772; d. 29 September, 1851. He was a nephew of Portalis, a minister of Napoleon, and as such was engaged in the formulation of the Concordat of 1801. On its conclusion he was made vicar general of Archbishop (later, Cardinal) Belloy, of Paris, and after the latter's death (1808) administered the diocese until the nomination of Cardinal Maury. He received, and was accused of promulgating, the bull of Pius VII (10 June, 1809), excommunicating Napoleon. For this act he was imprisoned at Vincennes until 1814. After the Restoration he became bishop of Bayonne, and in 1830 Archbishop of Toulouse. At the request of Louis Napoleon, Pius IX created him cardinal, in 1850. He wrote "La vérité catholique démontrée; ou, Lettre aux Protestants d'Orthez" (2 v. 8°, Toulouse, 1833). He was one of the earliest opponents of Lamennais, against whom he wrote "Censure de divers écrits de La Mennais et de ses disciples per plusieurs évêques de France, et Lettres des mêmes évêques au souverain pontife, Grégoire XVI", etc. (Toulouse,1835) Jean Astruc Jean Astruc Born At Sauves, 19 March, 1684; died At Paris, 5 May, 1766. He was the son of a converted Protestant minister. After he had taught medicine at Montpellier, he became a member of the Medical Faculty at Paris. His medical writings, however numerous, are now forgotten, but a work published by him anonymously has secured for him a permanent reputation. This book was entitled: "Conjectures sure les memories originauz dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Génèse. Avec des remarques qui appuient ou qui éclairscissent ses conjectures" (Brussels). Astruc himself did not inted to deny the Mosaic authorship of Geniesis; but his work created an era in Biblical inquiry, occasioning the modern critical theories. Atahuallpa Atahuallpa Properly ATAU-HUALLPA (etymology usually given as from huallpa, the name of some indigenous bird). Son of the Inca war chief Huayna Capac and an Indian woman from Quito hence (descent being in the female line) not an Inca, but and Indian of Ecuador. The protracted wars, during which the Incas overpowered the Ecuadorian tribes, having brought about the permanent lodgment of Inca war parties in Ecuador, led to interformation of a new tribe and the descendants of Inca men with women and children from Quito. Collisions ensued between this tribe and the descendants of Inca women, and the strife, Atau-huallpa figured as the leader of the former, whilst the latter recognized Huascar, duly elected war chief at Cuzco. Atau-huallpa acted with great cruelty, nearly exterminating such Ecuardorian tribes as resisted. He finally prevailed, and sent his warriors southward along the backbone of the mountains, against Cuzco. When Pizarro landed at Tumbez (northern Peruvian coast) in 1532, the Quito people had already overthrown the Inca tribe at Cuzco, taken the settlement, and committed the most horrible cruelties, chiefly against the keepers of ancient traditions whom they attempted to exterminate, so as to wipe out the remembrance of the past of Cuzco and begin a new era. Atau-huallpa himself remained with a numerous war party at Caxamarca. There he awaited the whites, whom he despised. The Spaniards found Caxamarca deserted, and the warriors of Atau-hauallpa camping three miles from the place. Pizarro recognized that a trap had been set for him, and prepared for the worst. On the evening of the 16th of November, 1532, Atau-hauallpa entered the squared of Caxamarca with a great retinue of men carrying their weapons concealed. They packed the court densely. Pizarro had placed on the roof of the building his artillery (two pedereros) that could not be pointed except horizontally. When the Indians thronged into the square, a Dominican friar, Fray Vicente Valverde, was sent by Pizarro to inform Atau-huallpa, through an interpreter, of the motives of the Spaniards' appearance in the country. This embassy was received with scorn, and the friar, seeing the Indians ready to begin hostilities, warned Pizarro. His action has been unjustly criticized; Valverde did what was his imperative duty under the circumstances. Then, not waiting for the Indians to attack the Spaniards to the offensive. The sound of cannon and musketry, and the sight of the horses frightened the Indians so that they fled in dismay, leaving Atau-huallpa a prisoner in the hands of Pizarro, who treated him with proper regard. The stories of a terrible slaughter of the Indians are inordinate exaggerations. While a prisoner, Atau-huallpa caused the greater portion of the gold and silver at Cuzco to be turned over to the Spaniards and having them massacred. When this was discovered Pizarro had him executed, on the 9th of August, 1633. The execution was no unjustifiable. Atau-huallpa, at the time of his death, was about thirty years of age. AD. F. BANDELIER Juan Santos Atahualpa Juan Santos Atahualpa An Indian from Cuzco who, being in the service of a Jesuit, went to Spain with his master. Upon his return, having committed a murder at Guamanga (Ayachucho in Peru), he fled to the forests on the eastern slopes of the Andes. There, in 1742, he persuaded the Indians that he was a descendant of the Inca Head Chiefs and assumed the title of "Atahualpa Apu-Inca". He claimed to have been sent by God to drive the Spaniards from western South America. As he was able to read and writ Latin, as well as Spanish, he readily made the forest tribes believe him to be a powerful wizard and induced them to follow him, abandoning the towns which the Franciscans had established successfully at Ocopa and further east. To his influence was due the ruin of the prosperous missions throughout the Pampa del Sacramento in eastern Peru. Under his direction the forest tribes became very aggressive, and the missions were partly destroyed. Efforts against him proved a failure, owing partly to the natural obstacles presented by the impenetrable forests, partly to the inefficiency of the officers to whom the suppression of his revolt was entrusted. The uprising caused by his appeal to Indian superstition, was the severest blow dealt to the Christianization of the forest Indians in Peru, and took decades to sacrifice and toil to recover the territory lost. To this day, according to reliable testimony, the Indians included under the generic name of Chunchos (properly Campas) claim to the preserve the corpse of santos Atahualpa, hidden from the whites, in the wooden, or willow, casket, as their most precious fetish. AD. F. BANDELIER Atavism Atavism (Lat., atavus, a great-grandfather's grandfather, an ancestor). Duchesne introduced the word to designate those cases in which species revert spontaneously to what are presumably long-lost characters. Atavism and reversion are used by most authors in the same sense. I. The term atavism is employed to express the reappearance of characters, physical or psychical, in the individual, or in the race, which are supposed to have been possessed at one time by remote ancestors. Very often these suddenly reappearing characters are of the monstrous type, e.g. the three-toed horse. The appearance of such a monster is looked upon as a harking back to Tertiary times, when the ancestor of the modern horse possessed three toes. The threetoed condition of the monstrous horse is spoken of as atavistic. The employment of the term in connection with teratology is often abused; for many cases of so-called atavistic monstrosities have little to do with lost characters, e.g. the possession by man of supernumerary fingers and toes. II. Atavism is also used to express the tendency to revert to one of the parent varieties or species in the case of a hybrid; this is the atavism of breeders. Crossed breeds of sheep, for example, show a constant tendency to reversion to either one of the original breeds from which the cross was formed. De Vries distinguishes this kind of atavism as vicinism (Lat. vicinus, neighbour), and says that it "indicates the sporting of a variety under the influence of others in the vicinity." III. Atavism is employed by a certain school of evolutionistic psychologists to express traits in the individual, especially the child, that are assumed to be, as it were, reminiscences of past conditions of the human race or its progenitors. A child by its untruthfulness simply gives expression to a state that long since was normal to mankind. Also in the child's fondness for splashing about in water is exhibited a recrudescence of a habit that was quite natural to its aquatic ancestors; this latter is called water-atavism. Many such atavisms are distinguished, but it hardly needs to be said that they are in many instances highly fantastic. Atavism is commonly supposed to be a proof of the evolutlon of plants and animals, including man. Characters that were normal to some remote ancestor after having latent for thousands of generations suddenly reappear, thus give a clue to those sources to which the present living forms are to be traced back. That a character may lie dormant for several generations and then reappear, admits of no doubt; even ordinary observation tell us that a grandchild may resemble its grandparent more than either of its immediate parents. But the sudden appearance of a tailed man, for instance, cannot be said to prove the descent of man from tailed forms. Granting that man has descended from such ancestors, the phenomenon is more intelligible than it would be were no such connection admitted. But the proving force of atavism is not direct, because teratological phenomena are so difficult to interpret, and admit of several explanations. Darwin, pointing to the large canine teeth possessed by some men as a case of atavism, remarks: "He who rejects with scorn the belief that the shape of his canines, and their occasional great development in other men, are due to our early forefathers having been provided with these formidable weapons, will probably reveal, by sneering, the line of his own descent". Atavism is appealed to by modern criminologists to explain certain moral abberations, that are looked upon as having been at one time normal to the race. Accepting the doctrine that man has by low progress, come up to his present civilized state from brute conditions, all that is brutish in the conduct of criminals (also of the insane), is explained by atavism. According to this theory degeneracy is a case of atavism. The explanation offered for the sudden reappearnace of remote ancestral characters is so intimately connected with the whole system of heredity that it is impossible to do more than indicate that most writers on heredity seek this explanation in the transmission from generation to generation of unmodified heredity-bearing parts, gemmules (Darwin); pangenes (De Vries); determinants (Weisman). (See HEREDITY.) JOS. C. HERRICK Vicariate Apostolic of Athabasca Vicariate Apostolic of Athabasca (Northwest Territories). Suffragan of Saint Boniface; erected 8 April, 1862, by Pius IX. Bounded on the north by Vicariate of Mackenzie; on the east and southeast by the Vicariate of Saskatchewan; on the south by 55 N. lat.; on the west by the Rocky Mountains. The first vicar Apostolic was Bishop Henri Faraud, O.M.I., b. At Gigondas, France, 17 March, 1847; elected 8 May, 1862; d. At Saint Boniface, 26 Sept., 1890; ordained priest at Saint Boniface, 8 march, 1847; elected 8 may, 1862; consecrated at Tours, France, 30 Nov., 1964, titular Bishop of Anamur. He was succeeded by Bishop Emile Grouard, O.M.I., titular Bishop if Ibora; b. At Brulon, Mans, 2 Feb., 1840; ordained priest at Boucherville, 3 May, 1862, elected Bishop of Ibora, 18 Oct., 1890; consecrated at Saint Boniface, 1 Aug., 1891, and appointed vicar Apostolic. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate serve all the missions of Athabasca. There are 11 stations, 23 priest, 28 Soeurs de la Providence, 6 Soeurs Grises. Catholics, about 5,000. (see Saint Boniface.) JOHN J. A'BECKET The Athanasian Creed The Athanasian Creed One of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy, is a short, clear exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, with a passing reference to several other dogmas. Unlike most of the other creeds, or symbols, it deals almost exclusively with these two fundamental truths, which it states and restates in terse and varied forms so as to bring out unmistakably the trinity of the Persons of God, and the twofold nature in the one Divine Person of Jesus Christ. At various points the author calls attention to the penalty incurred by those who refuse to accept any of the articles therein set down. The following is the Marquess of Bute's English translation of the text of the Creed: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. For the past two hundred years the authorship of this summary of Catholic Faith and the time of its appearance have furnished an interesting problem to ecclesiastical antiquarians. Until the seventeenth century, the "Quicunque vult", as it is sometimes called, from its opening words, was thought to be the composition of the great Archbishop of Alexandria whose name it bears. In the year 1644, Gerard Voss, in his "De Tribus Symbolis", gave weighty probability to the opinion that St. Athanasius was not its author. His reasons may be reduced to the two following: + firstly, no early writer of authority speaks of it as the work of this doctor; and + secondly, its language and structure point to a Western, rather than to an Alexandrian, origin. Most modern scholars agree in admitting the strength of these reasons, and hence this view is the one generally received today. Whether the Creed can be ascribed to St. Athanasius or not, and most probably it cannot, it undoubtedly owes it existence to Athanasian influences, for the expressions and doctrinal colouring exhibit too marked a correspondence, in subject-matter and in phraseology, with the literature of the latter half of the fourth century and especially with the writings of the saint, to be merely accidental. These internal evidences seem to justify the conclusion that it grew out of several provincial synods, chiefly that of Alexandria, held about the year 361, and presided over by St. Athanasius. It should be said, however, that these arguments have failed to shake the conviction of some Catholic authors, who refuse to give it an earlier origin than the fifth century. An elaborate attempt was made in England, in 1871, by E.C. Ffoulkes to assign the Creed to the ninth century. From a passing remark in a letter written by Alcuin he constructed the following remarkable piece of fiction. The Emperor Charlemagne, he says, wished to consolidate the Western Empire by a religious, as well as a political, separation from the East. To this end he suppressed the Nicene Creed, dear to the Oriental Church, and substituted a formulary composed by Paulinus of Aquileia, with whose approval and that of Alcuin, a distinguished scholar of the time, he ensured its ready acceptance by the people, by affixing to it the name of St. Athanasius. This gratuitous attack upon the reputation of men whom every worthy historian regards as incapable of such a fraud, added to the undoubted proofs of the Creed's having been in use long before the ninth century, leaves this theory without any foundation. Who, then, is the author? The results of recent inquiry make it highly probable that the Creed first saw the light in the fourth century, during the life of the great Eastern patriarch, or shortly after his death. It has been attributed by different writers variously to St. Hilary, to St. Vincent of Lérins, to Eusebius of Vercelli, to Vigilius, and to others. It is not easy to avoid the force of the objections to all of these views, however, as they were men of world-wide reputation, and hence any document, especially one of such importance as a profession of faith, coming from them would have met with almost immediate recognition. Now, no allusions to the authorship of the Creed, and few even to its existence, are to be found in the literature of the Church for over two hundred years after their time. We have referred to a like silence in proof of non-Athanasian authorship. It seems to be similarly available in the case of any of the great names mentioned above. In the opinion of Father Sidney Smith, S.J., which the evidence just indicated renders plausible, the author of this Creed must have been some obscure bishop or theologian whose composed it, in the first instance, for purely local use in some provincial diocese. Not coming from an author of wide reputation, it would have attracted little attention. As it became better known, it would have been more widely adopted, and the compactness and lucidity of its statements would have contributed to make it highly prized wherever it was known. Then would follow speculation as to its author, and what wonder, if, from the subject-matter of the Creed, which occupied the great Athanasius so much, his name was first affixed to it and, unchallenged, remained. The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths. They are but the credal equivalent of Our Lord's words: "He that believeth not shall be condemned", and apply, as is evident, only to the culpable and wilful rejection of Christ's words and teachings. The absolute necessity of accepting the revealed word of God, under the stern penalties here threatened, is so intolerable to a powerful class in the Anglican church, that frequent attempts have been made to eliminate the Creed from the public services of that Church. The Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury has already affirmed that these clauses, in their prima facie meaning, go beyond what is warranted by Holy Scripture. In view of the words of Our Lord quoted above, there should be nothing startling in the statement of our duty to believe what we know is the testimony and teaching of Christ, nor in the serious sin we commit in wilfully refusing to accept it, nor, finally, in the punishments that will be inflicted on those who culpably persist in their sin. It is just this last that the damnatory clauses proclaim. From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundament truths with which it deals, is all we need to know. JONES, The Creed of St. Athanasius; JEWEL, Defence of the Apology (London, 1567); in Works (Cambridge, 1848), III, 254; VOSSIUS, Dissertationes de Tribus symbolis (Paris, 1693); QUESNEL, De Symbolo Athanasiano (1675); MONTFAUCON, Diatribe in symbolum Quicunque in P. G. XXVIII, 1567, MURATORI, Expositio Fidei Catholicae Fortunati with Disquisitio in Anecdota (Milan, 1698), II; WATERLAND, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed (Cambridge, 1724; Oxford, 1870); HARVEY, The History and Theology of the Three Creeds (London, 1854), II; FFOULKES, The Athanasian Creed (London, 1871); LUMBY, The History of the Creeds (Cambridge, 1887); SWAINSON, The Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed (London, 1875); OMMANNEY, The Athanasian Creed (London, 1875); IDEM, A Critical Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed (Oxford, 1897); BURN, The Athanasian Creed, etc., in ROBINSON, Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1896); SMITH, The Athanasian Creed in The Month (1904), CIV, 366; SCHAFF, History of the Christian Church (New York, 1903), III; IDEM, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1884), I, 34; TIXERONT, in Dict. de theol. cath.; LOOFS, in HAUCK, Realencyklopadie fur prot. Theol., s. v. See also the recent discussion by Anglican writers: WELLDON, CROUCH, ELIOT, LUCKOCK, in the Nineteenth Century (1904-06). JAMES J. SULLIVAN St. Athanasius St. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church; born c. 296; died 2 May, 373. Athanasius was the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of "Father of Orthodoxy", by which he has been distinguished every since. While the chronology of his career still remains for the most part a hopelessly involved problem, the fullest material for an account of the main achievements of his life will be found in his collected writings and in the contemporary records of his time. He was born, it would seem, in Alexandria, most probably between the years 296 and 298. An earlier date, 293, is sometimes assigned as the more certain year of his birth; and it is supported apparently by the authority of the "Coptic Fragment" (published by Dr. O. von Lemm among the Mémoires de l'académie impériale des sciences de S. Péterbourg, 1888) and corroborated by the undoubted maturity of judgement revealed in the two treatises "Contra Gentes" and "De Incarnatione", which were admittedly written about the year 318 before Arianism as a movement had begun to make itself felt. It must be remembered, however, that in two distinct passages of his writings (Hist. Ar., lxiv, and De Syn., xviii) Athanasius shrinks from speaking as a witness at first hand of the persecution which had broken out under Maximian in 303; for in referring to the events of this period he makes no direct appeal to his own personal recollections, but falls back, rather, on tradition. Such reserve would scarcely be intelligible, if, on the hypothesis of the earlier date, the Saint had been then a boy fully ten years old. Besides, there must have been some semblance of a foundation in fact for the charge brought against him by his accusers in after-life (Index to the Festal Letters) that at the times of his consecration to the episcopate in 328 he had not yet attained the canonical age of thirty years. These considerations, therefore, even if they are found to be not entirely convincing, would seem to make it likely that he was born not earlier than 296 nor later than 298. It is impossible to speak more than conjecturally of his family. Of the claim that it was both prominent and well-to-do, we can only observe that the tradition to the effect is not contradicted by such scanty details as can be gleaned from the saint's writings. Those writings undoubtedly betray evidences of the sort of education that was given, for the most part, only to children and youths of a better class. It began with grammar, went on to rhetoric, and received its final touches under some one of the more fashionable lecturers in the philosophic schools. It is possible, of course, that he owed his remarkable training in letters to his saintly predecessor's favour, if not to his personal care. But Athanasius was one of those rare personalities that derive incomparably more from their own native gifts of intellect and character than from the fortuitousness of descent or environment. His career almost personifies a crisis in the history of Christianity; and he may be said rather to have shaped the events in which he took part than to have been shaped by them. Yet it would be misleading to urge that he was in no notable sense a debtor to the time and place of his birth. The Alexandria of his boyhood was an epitome, intellectually, morally, and politically, of that ethnically many-coloured Graeco-Roman world, over which the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries was beginning at last, with undismayed consciousness, after nearly three hundred years of unwearying propagandism, to realize its supremacy. It was, moreover, the most important centre of trade in the whole empire; and its primacy as an emporium of ideas was more commanding than that of Rome or Constantinople, Antioch or Marseilles. Already, in obedience to an instinct of which one can scarcely determine the full significance without studying the subsequent development of Catholicism, its famous "Catechetical School", while sacrificing no jot or tittle or that passion for orthodoxy which it had imbibed from Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, had begun to take on an almost secular character in the comprehensiveness of its interests, and had counted pagans of influence among its serious auditors (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xix). To have been born and brought up in such an atmosphere of philosophizing Christianity was, in spite of the dangers it involved, the timeliest and most liberal of educations; and there is, as we have intimated, abundant evidence in the saint's writings to testify to the ready response which all the better influences of the place must have found in the heart and mind of the growing boy. Athanasius seems to have been brought early in life under the immediate supervision of the ecclesiastical authorities of his native city. Whether his long intimacy with Bishop Alexander began in childhood, we have no means of judging; but a story which pretends to describe the circumstances of his first introduction to that prelate has been preserved for us by Rufinus (Hist. Eccl., I, xiv). The bishop, so the tales runs, had invited a number of brother prelates to meet him at breakfast after a great religious function on the anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Peter, a recent predecessor in the See of Alexandria. While Alexander was waiting for his guests to arrive, he stood by a window, watching a group of boys at play on the seashore below the house. He had not observed them long before he discovered that they were imitating, evidently with no thought of irreverence, the elaborate ritual of Christian baptism. (Cf. Bunsen's "Christianity and Mankind", London, 1854, VI, 465; Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium" in verb.; Butler's "Ancient Coptic Churches", II, 268 et sqq.; "Bapteme chez les Coptes", "Dict. Theol. Cath.", Col. 244, 245). He therefore sent for the children and had them brought into his presence. In the investigation that followed it was discovered that one of the boys, who was no other than the future Primate of Alexandria, had acted the part of the bishop, and in that character had actually baptized several of his companions in the course of their play. Alexander, who seems to have been unaccountably puzzled over the answers he received to his inquiries, determined to recognize the make-believe baptisms as genuine; and decided that Athanasius and his playfellows should go into training in order to fit themselves for a clerical career. The Bollandists deal gravely with this story; and writers as difficult to satisfy as Archdeacon Farrar and the late Dean Stanley are ready to accept it as bearing on its face "every indication of truth" (Farrar, "Lives of the Fathers", I, 337; Stanley, "East. Ch." 264). But whether in its present form, or in the modified version to be found in Socrates (I, xv), who omits all reference to the baptism and says that the game was "an imitation of the priesthood and the order of consecrated persons", the tale raises a number of chronological difficulties and suggests even graver questions. Perhaps a not impossible explanation of its origin may be found in the theory that it was one of the many floating myths set in movement by popular imagination to account for the marked bias towards an ecclesiastical career which seems to have characterized the early boyhood of the future champion of the Faith. Sozomen speaks of his "fitness for the priesthood", and calls attention to the significant circumstance that he was "from his tenderest years practically self-taught". "Not long after this," adds the same authority, the Bishop Alexander "invited Athanasius to be his commensal and secretary. He had been well educated, and was versed in grammar and rhetoric, and had already, while still a young man, and before reaching the episcopate, given proof to those who dwelt with him of his wisdom and acumen" (Soz., II, xvii). That "wisdom and acumen" manifested themselves in a various environment. While still a levite under Alexander's care, he seems to have been brought for a while into close relations with some of the solitaries of the Egyptian desert, and in particular with the great St. Anthony, whose life he is said to have written. The evidence both of the intimacy and for the authorship of the life in question has been challenged, chiefly by non-Catholic writers, on the ground that the famous "Vita" shows signs of interpolation. Whatever we may think of the arguments on the subject, it is impossible to deny that the monastic idea appealed powerfully to the young cleric's temperament, and that he himself in after years was not only at home when duty or accident threw him among the solitaries, but was so monastically self-disciplined in his habits as to be spoken of as an "ascetic" (Apol. c. Arian., vi). In fourth-century usage the word would have a definiteness of connotation not easily determinable to- day. (See ASCETICISM). It is not surprising that one who was called to fill so large a place in the history of his time should have impressed the very form and feature of his personality, so to say, upon the imagination of his contemporaries. St. Gregory Nazianzen is not the only writer who has described him for us (Orat. xxi, 8). A contemptuous phrase of the Emperor Julian's (Epist., li) serves unintentionally to corroborate the picture drawn by kindlier observers. He was slightly below the middle height, spare in build, but well-knit, and intensely energetic. He had a finely shaped head, set off with a thin growth of auburn hair, a small but sensitively mobile mouth, an aquiline nose, and eyes of intense but kindly brilliancy. He had a ready wit, was quick in intuition, easy and affable in manner, pleasant in conversation, keen, and, perhaps, somewhat too unsparing in debate. (Besides the references already cited, see the detailed description given in the January Menaion quotes in the Bollandist life. Julian the Apostate, in the letter alluded to above sneers at the diminutiveness of his person -- mede aner, all anthropiokos euteles, he writes.) In addition to these qualities, he was conspicuous for two others to which even his enemies bore unwilling testimony. He was endowed with a sense of humour that could be as mordant -- we had almost said as sardonic -- as it seems to have been spontaneous and unfailing; and his courage was of the sort that never falters, even in the most disheartening hour of defeat. There is one other note in this highly gifted and many-sided personality to which everything else in his nature literally ministered, and which must be kept steadily in view, if we would possess the key to his character and writing and understand the extraordinary significance of his career in the history of the Christian Church. He was by instinct neither a liberal nor a conservative in theology. Indeed the terms have a singular inappropriateness as applied to a temperament like his. From first to last he cared greatly for one thing and one thing only; the integrity of his Catholic creed. The religion it engendered in him was obviously -- considering the traits by which we have tried to depict him -- of a passionate and consuming sort. It began and ended in devotion to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. He was scarcely out of his teens, and certainly not in more than deacon's orders, when he published two treatises, in which his mind seemed to strike the key-note of all its riper after-utterances on the subject of the Catholic Faith. The "Contra Gentes" and the "Oratio de Incarnatione" -- to give them the Latin appellations by which they are more commonly cited -- were written some time between the years 318 and 323. St. Jerome (De Viris Illust.) refers to them under a common title, as "Adversum Gentes Duo Libri", thus leaving his readers to gather the impression which an analysis of the contents of both books certainly seems to justify, that the two treatises are in reality one. As a plea for the Christian position, addressed chiefly to both Gentiles and Jews, the young deacon's apology, while undoubtedly reminiscential in methods and ideas of Origen and the earlier Alexandrians, is, nevertheless, strongly individual and almost pietistic in tone. Though it deals with the Incarnation, it is silent on most of those ulterior problems in defence of which Athanasius was soon to be summoned by the force of events and the fervour of his own faith to devote the best energies of his life. The work contains no explicit discussion of the nature of the Word's Sonship, for instance; no attempt to draw out the character of Our Lord's relation to the Father; nothing, in short, of those Christological questions upon which he was to speak with such splendid and courageous clearness in time of shifting formularies and undetermined views. Yet those ideas must have been in the air (Soz., I, xv) for, some time between the years 318 and 320, Arius, a native of Libya (Epiph., Haer., lxix) and priest of the Alexandrian Church, who had already fallen under censure for his part in the Meletian troubles which broke out during the episcopate of St. Peter, and whose teachings had succeeded in making dangerous headway, even among "the consecrated virgins" of St. Mark's see (Epiph. Haer., lxix; Soc., Hist. Eccl., I, vi), accused Bishop Alexander of Sabellianism. Arius, who seems to have presumed on the charitable tolerance of the primate, was at length deposed (Apol. c. Ar., vi) in a synod consisting of more than one hundred bishops of Egypt and Libya (Depositio Ar., 3). The condemned heresiarch withdrew first to Palestine and afterwards to Bithynia, where, under the protection of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his other "Collucianists", he was able to increase his already remarkable influence, while his friends were endeavouring to prepare a way for his forcible reinstatement as priest of the Alexandrian Church. Athanasius, though only in deacon's order, must have taken no subordinate part in these events. He was the trusted secretary and advisor of Alexander, and his name appears in the list of those who signed the encyclical letter subsequently issued by the primate and his colleagues to offset the growing prestige of the new teaching, and the momentum it was beginning to acquire from the ostentatious patronage extended to the deposed Arius by the Eusebian faction. Indeed, it is to this party and to the leverage it was able to exercise at the emperor's court that the subsequent importance of Arianism as a political, rather than a religious, movement seems primarily to be due. The heresy, of course, had its supposedly philosophic basis, which has been ascribed by authors, ancient and modern, to the most opposite sources. St. Epiphanius characterizes it as a king of revived Aristoteleanism (Haer., lxvii and lxxvi); and the same view is practically held by Socrates (Hist. Eccl., II, xxxv), Theodoret (Haer. Fab., IV, iii), and St. Basil (Adv. Eunom., I, ix). On the other hand, a theologian as broadly read as Petavius (De Trin., I, viii, 2) has no hesitation in deriving it from Platonism; Newman in turn (Arians of the Fourth Cent., 4 ed., 109) sees in it the influence of Jewish prejudices rationalized by the aid of Aristotelean ideas; while Robertson (Sel. Writ. and Let. of Ath. Proleg., 27) observes that the "common theology", which was invariably opposed to it, "borrowed its philosophical principles and method from the Platonists." These apparently conflicting statements could, no doubt, be easily adjusted; but the truth is that the prestige of Arianism never lay in its ideas. From whatever school it may have been logically derived, the sect, as a sect, was cradled and nurtured in intrigue. Save in some few instances, which can be accounted for on quite other grounds, its prophets relied more upon curial influence than upon piety, or Scriptural knowledge, or dialectics. That must be borne constantly in mind, if we would not move distractedly through the bewildering maze of events that make up the life of Athanasius for the next half century to come. It is his peculiar merit that he not only saw the drift of things from the very beginning, but was confident of the issue down to the last (Apol. c. Ar., c.). His insight and courage proved almost as efficient a bulwark to the Christian Church in the world as did his singularly lucid grasp of traditional Catholic belief. His opportunity came in the year 325, when the Emperor Constantine, in the hope of putting an end to the scandalous debates that were disturbing the peace of the Church, met the prelates of the entire Catholic world in council at Nicaea. The great council convoked at this juncture was something more than a pivotal event in the history of Christianity. Its sudden, and, in one sense, almost unpremeditated adoption of a quasi-philosophic and non-Scriptural term -- homoousion -- to express the character of orthodox belief in the Person of the historic Christ, by defining Him to be identical in substance, or co-essential, with the Father, together with its confident appeal to the emperor to lend the sanction of his authority to the decrees and pronouncements by which it hoped to safeguard this more explicit profession of the ancient Faith, had consequences of the gravest import, not only to the world of ideas, but to the world of politics as well. By the official promulgation to the term homoöusion, theological speculation received a fresh but subtle impetus which made itself felt long after Athanasius and his supporters had passed away; while the appeal to the secular arm inaugurated a policy which endured practically without change of scope down to the publication of the Vatican decrees in our own time. In one sense, and that a very deep and vital one, both the definition and the policy were inevitable. It was inevitable in the order of religious ideas that any break in logical continuity should be met by inquiry and protest. It was just as inevitable that the protest, to be effective, should receive some countenance from a power which up to that moment had affected to regulate all the graver circumstances of life (cf. Harnack, Hist. Dog., III, 146, note; Buchanan's tr.). As Newman has remarked: "The Church could not meet together in one, without entering into a sort of negotiation with the power that be; who jealousy it is the duty of Christians, both as individuals and as a body, if possible, to dispel" (Arians of the Fourth Cent., 4 ed., 241). Athanasius, though not yet in priest's orders, accompanied Alexander to the council in the character of secretary and theological adviser. He was not, of course, the originator of the famous homoösion. The term had been proposed in a non-obvious and illegitimate sense by Paul of Samosata to the Father at Antioch, and had been rejected by them as savouring of materialistic conceptions of the Godhead (cf. Athan., "De Syn.," xliii; Newman, "Arians of the Fourth Cent.," 4 ed., 184-196; Petav. "De Trin.," IV, v, sect. 3; Robertson, "Sel. Writ. and Let. Athan. Proleg.", 30 sqq.). It may even be questioned whether, if left to his own logical instincts, Athanasius would have suggested an orthodox revival of the term at all ("De Decretis", 19; "Orat. c. Ar.", ii, 32; "Ad Monachos", 2). His writings, composed during the forty-six critical years of his episcopate, show a very sparing use of the word; and though, as Newman (Arians of the Fourth Cent., 4 ed., 236) reminds us, "the authentic account of the proceedings" that took place is not extant, there is nevertheless abundant evidence in support of the common view that it had been unexpectedly forced upon the notice of the bishops, Arian and orthodox, in the great synod by Constantine's proposal to account the creed submitted by Eusebius of Caesarea, with the addition of the homoösion, as a safeguard against possible vagueness. The suggestion had in all probability come from Hosius (cf. "Epist. Eusebii.", in the appendix to the "De Decretis", sect. 4; Soc., "Hist. Eccl.", I, viii; III, vii; Theod. "Hist. Eccl.", I, Athan.; "Arians of the Fourth Cent.", 6, n. 42; outos ten en Nikaia pistin exetheto, says the saint, quoting his opponents); but Athanasius, in common with the leaders of the orthodox party, loyally accepted the term as expressive of the traditional sense in which the Church had always held Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. The conspicuous abilities displayed in the Nicaean debates and the character for courage and sincerity he won on all sides made the youthful cleric henceforth a marked man (St. Greg. Naz., Orat., 21). His life could not be lived in a corner. Five months after the close of the council the Primate of Alexandria died; and Athanasius, quite as much in recognition of his talent, it would appear, as in deference to the death-bed wishes of the deceased prelate, was chosen to succeed him. His election, in spite of his extreme youth and the opposition of a remnant of the Arian and Meletian factions in the Alexandrian Church, was welcomed by all classes among the laity ("Apol. c. Arian", vi; Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", II, xvii, xxi, xxii). The opening years of the saint's rule were occupied with the wonted episcopal routine of a fourth-century Egyptian bishop. Episcopal visitations, synods, pastoral correspondence, preaching and the yearly round of church functions consumed the bulk of his time. The only noteworthy events of which antiquity furnishes at least probable data are connected with the successful efforts which he made to provide a hierarchy for the newly planted church in Ethiopia (Abyssinia) in the person of St. Frumentius (Rufinus I, ix; Soc. I, xix; Soz., II, xxiv), and the friendship which appears to have begun about this time between himself and the monks of St. Pachomius. But the seeds of disaster which the saint's piety had unflinchingly planted at Nicaea were beginning to bear a disquieting crop at last. Already events were happening at Constantinople which were soon to make him the most important figure of his time. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had fallen into disgrace and been banished by the Emperor Constantine for his part in the earlier Arian controversies, had been recalled from exile. After an adroit campaign of intrigue, carried on chiefly through the instrumentality of the ladies of the imperial household, this smooth-mannered prelate so far prevailed over Constantine as to induce him to order the recall of Arius likewise from exile. He himself sent a characteristic letter to the youthful Primate of Alexandria, in which he bespoke his favour for the condemned heresiarch, who was described as a man whose opinions had been misrepresented. These events must have happened some time about the close of the year 330. Finally the emperor himself was persuaded to write to Athanasius, urging that all those who were ready to submit to the definitions of Nicaea should be re-admitted to ecclesiastical communion. This Athanasius stoutly refused to do, alleging that there could be no fellowship between the Church and the one who denied the Divinity of Christ. The Bishop of Nicomedia thereupon brought various ecclesiastical and political charges against Athanasius, which, though unmistakably refuted at their first hearing, were afterwards refurbished and made to do service at nearly every stage of his subsequent trials. Four of these were very definite, to wit: that he had not reached the canonical age at the time of his consecration; that he had imposed a linen tax upon the provinces; that his officers had, with his connivance and authority, profaned the Sacred Mysteries in the case of an alleged priest names Ischyras; and lastly that he had put one Arenius to death and afterwards dismembered the body for purposes of magic. The nature of the charges and the method of supporting them were vividly characteristic of the age. The curious student will find them set forth in picturesque detail in the second part of the Saint's "Apologia", or "Defense against the Arians", written long after the events themselves, about the year 350, when the retractation of Ursacius and Valens made their publication triumphantly opportune. The whole unhappy story at this distance of time reads in parts more like a specimen of late Greek romance than the account of an inquisition gravely conducted by a synod of Christian prelates with the idea of getting at the truth of a series of odious accusations brought against one of their number. Summoned by the emperor's order after protracted delays extended over a period of thirty months (Soz., II, xxv), Athanasius finally consented to meet the charges brought against him by appearing before a synod of prelates at Tyre in the year 335. Fifty of his suffragans went with him to vindicate his good name; but the complexion of the ruling party in the synod made it evident that justice to the accused was the last thing that was thought of. It can hardly be wondered at, that Athanasius should have refused to be tried by such a court. He, therefore, suddenly withdrew from Tyre, escaping in a boat with some faithful friends who accompanied him to Byzantium, where he had made up his mind to present himself to the emperor. The circumstances in which the saint and the great catechumen met were dramatic enough. Constantine was returning from a hunt, when Athanasius unexpectedly stepped into the middle of the road and demanded a hearing. The astonished emperor could hardly believe his eyes, and it needed the assurance of one of the attendants to convince him that the petitioner was not an impostor, but none other than the great Bishop of Alexandria himself. "Give me", said the prelate, "a just tribunal, or allow me to meet my accusers face to face in your presence." His request was granted. An order was peremptorily sent to the bishops, who had tried Athanasius and, of course, condemned him in his absence, to repair at once to the imperial city. The command reached them while they were on their way to the great feast of the dedication of Constantine's new church at Jerusalem. It naturally caused some consternation; but the more influential members of the Eusebian faction never lacked either courage or resourcefulness. The saint was taken at his word; and the old charges were renewed in the hearing of the emperor himself. Athanasius was condemned to go into exile at Treves, where he was received with the utmost kindness by the saintly Bishop Maximinus and the emperor's eldest son, Constantine. He began his journey probably in the month of February, 336, and arrived on the banks of the Moselle in the late autumn of the same year. His exile lasted nearly two years and a half. Public opinion in his own diocese remained loyal to him during all that time. It was not the least eloquent testimony to the essential worth of his character that he could inspire such faith. Constantine's treatment of Athanasius at this crisis in his fortunes has always been difficult to understand. Affecting, on the one hand, a show of indignation, as if he really believed in the political charge brought against the saint, he, on the other hand, refused to appoint a successor to the Alexandrian See, a thing which he might in consistency have been obliged to do had he taken seriously the condemnation proceedings carried through by the Eusebians at Tyre. Meanwhile events of the greatest importance had taken place. Arius had died amid startlingly dramatic circumstances at Constantinople in 336; and the death of Constantine himself had followed, on the 22nd of May the year after. Some three weeks later the younger Constantine invited the exiled primate to return to his see; and by the end of November of the same year Athanasius was once more established in his episcopal city. His return was the occasion of great rejoicing. The people, as he himself tells us, ran in crowds to see his face; the churches were given over to a kind of jubilee; thanksgivings were offered up everywhere; and clergy and laity accounted the day the happiest in their lives. But already trouble was brewing in a quarter from which the saint might reasonably have expected it. The Eusebian faction, who from this time forth loom large as the disturbers of his peace, managed to win over to their side the weak-minded Emperor Constantius to whom the East had been assigned in the division of the empire that followed on the death of Constantine. The old charges were refurbished with a graver ecclesiastical accusation added by way of rider. Athanasius had ignored the decision of a duly authorized synod. He had returned to his see without the summons of ecclesiastical authority (Apol. c. Ar., loc. cit.). In the year 340, after the failure of the Eusebian malcontents to secure the appointment of an Arian candidate of dubious reputation names Pistus, the notorious Gregory of Cappadocia was forcibly intruded into the Alexandrian See, and Athanasius was obliged to do into hiding. Within a very few weeks he set out for Rome to lay his case before the Church at large. He had made his appeal to Pope Julius, who took up his cause with a whole-heartedness that never wavered down to the day of that holy pontiff's death. The pope summoned a synod of bishops to meet in Rome. After a careful and detailed examination of the entire case, the primate's innocence was proclaimed to the Christian world. Meanwhile the Eusebian party had met a Antioch and passed a series of decrees framed for the sole purpose of preventing the saint's return to his see. Three years were passed at Rome, during which time the idea of the cenobitical life, as Athanasius had seen it practised in the deserts of Egypt, was preached to the clerics of the West (St. Jerome, Epistle cxxvii, 5). Two years after the Roman synod had published its decision, Athanasius was summoned to Milan by the Emperor Constans, who laid before him the plan which Constantius had formed for a great reunion of both the Eastern and Western Churches. Now began a time of extraordinary activity for the Saint. Early in the year 343 we find the undaunted exile in Gaul, whither he had gone to consult the saintly Hosius, the great champion of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for the Council of Sardica which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff's wishes. At this great gathering of prelates the case of Athanasius was taken up once more; and once more was his innocence reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared, once to the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, and the other to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, in which the will of the Council was made known. Meanwhile the Eusebian party had gone to Philippopolis, where they issued an anathema against Athanasius and his supporters. The persecution against the orthodox party broke out with renewed vigour, and Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Orders were given that if the Saint attempted to re-enter his see, he should be put to death. Athanasius, accordingly, withdrew from Sardica to Naissus in Mysia, where he celebrated the Easter festival of the year 344. After that he set out for Aquileia in obedience to a friendly summons from Constans, to whom Italy had fallen in the division of the empire that followed on the death of Constantine. Meanwhile an unexpected event had taken place which made the return of Athanasius to his see less difficult than it had seemed for many months. Gregory of Cappadocia had died (probably of violence) in June, 345. The embassy which had been sent by the bishops of Sardica to the Emperor Constantius, and which had at first met with the most insulting treatment, now received a favourable hearing. Constantius was induced to reconsider his decision, owing to a threatening letter from his brother Constans and the uncertain condition of affairs of the Persian border, and he accordingly made up his mind to yield. But three separate letters were needed to overcome the natural hesitation of Athanasius. He passed rapidly from Aquileia to Treves, from Treves to Rome, and from Rome by the northern route to Adrianople and Antioch, where he met Constantius. He was accorded a gracious interview by the vacillating Emperor, and sent back to his see in triumph, where he began his memorable ten years' reign, which lasted down to the third exile, that of 356. These were full years in the life of the Bishop; but the intrigues of the Eusebian, or Court, party were soon renewed. Pope Julius had died in the month of April, 352, and Liberius had succeeded him as Sovereign Pontiff. For two years Liberius had been favourable to the cause of Athanasius; but driven at last into exile, he was induced to sign an ambiguous formula, from which the great Nicene test, the homoöusion, had been studiously omitted. In 355 a council was held at Milan, where in spite of the vigorous opposition of a handful of loyal prelates among the Western bishops, a fourth condemnation of Athanasius was announced to the world. With his friends scattered, the saintly Hosius in exile, the Pope Liberius denounced as acquiescing in Arian formularies, Athanasius could hardly hope to escape. On the night of 8 February, 356, while engaged in services in the Church of St. Thomas, a band of armed men burst in to secure his arrest (Apol. de Fuga, 24). It was the beginning of his third exile. Through the influence of the Eusebian faction at Constantinople, an Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia, was now appointed to rule the see of Alexandria. Athanasius, after remaining some days in the neighbourhood of the city, finally withdrew into the deserts of upper Egypt, where he remained for a period of six years, living the life of the monks and devoting himself in his enforced leisure to the composition of that group of writings of which we have the rest in the "Apology to Constantius", the "Apology for his Flight", the "Letter to the Monks", and the "History of the Arians". Legend has naturally been busy with this period of the Saint's career; and we may find in the "Life of Pachomius" a collection of tales brimful of incidents, and enlivened by the recital of "deathless 'scapes in the breach." But by the close of the year 360 a charge was apparent in the complexion of the anti-Nicene party. The Arians no longer presented an unbroken front to their orthodox opponents. The Emperor Constantius, who had been the cause of so much trouble, died 4 November, 361, and was succeeded by Julian. The proclamation of the new prince's accession was the signal for a pagan outbreak against the still dominant Arian faction in Alexandria. George, the usurping Bishop, was flung into prison and murdered amid circumstances of great cruelty, 24 December (Hist. Aceph., VI). An obscure presbyter of the name of Pistus was immediately chosen by the Arians to succeed him, when fresh news arrived that filled the orthodox party with hope. An edict had been put forth by Julian (Hist. Aceph., VIII) permitting the exiled bishops of the "Galileans" to return to their "towns and provinces". Athanasius received a summons from his own flock, and he accordingly re-entered his episcopal capital 22 February, 362. With characteristic energy he set to work to re-establish the somewhat shattered fortunes of the orthodox party and to purge the theological atmosphere of uncertainty. To clear up the misunderstandings that had arisen in the course of the previous years, an attempt was made to determine still further the significance of the Nicene formularies. In the meanwhile, Julian, who seems to have become suddenly jealous of the influence that Athanasius was exercising at Alexandria, addressed an order to Ecdicius, the Prefect of Egypt, peremptorily commanding the expulsion of the restored primate, on the ground that he had never been included in the imperial act of clemency. The edict was communicated to the bishop by Pythicodorus Trico, who, though described in the "Chronicon Athanasianum" (xxxv) as a "philosopher", seems to have behaved with brutal insolence. On 23 October the people gathered about the proscribed bishop to protest against the emperor's decree; but the saint urged them to submit, consoling them with the promise that his absence would be of short duration. The prophecy was curiously fulfilled. Julian terminated his brief career 26 June, 363; and Athanasius returned in secret to Alexandria, where he soon received a document from the new emperor, Jovian, reinstating him once more in his episcopal functions. His first act was to convene a council which reaffirmed the terms of the Nicene Creed. Early in September he set out for Antioch, bearing a synodal letter, in which the pronouncements of this council had been embodied. At Antioch he had an interview with the new emperor, who received him graciously and even asked him to prepare an exposition of the orthodox faith. But in the following February Jovian died; and in October, 364, Athanasius was once more an exile. With the turn of circumstances that handed over to Valens the control of the East this article has nothing to do; but the accession of the emperor gave a fresh lease of life to the Arian party. He issued a decree banishing the bishops who has been deposed by Constantius, but who had been permitted by Jovian to return to their sees. The news created the greatest consternation in the city of Alexandria itself, and the prefect, in order to prevent a serious outbreak, gave public assurance that the very special case of Athanasius would be laid before the emperor. But the saint seems to have divined what was preparing in secret against him. He quietly withdrew from Alexandria, 5 October, and took up his abode in a country house outside the city. It was during this period that he is said to have spent four months in hiding in his father's tomb (Soz., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xii; Doc., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xii). Valens, who seems to have sincerely dreaded the possible consequences of a popular outbreak, gave order within a very few weeks for the return of Athanasius to his see. And now began that last period of comparative repose which unexpectedly terminated his strenuous and extraordinary career. He spent his remaining days, characteristically enough, in reemphasizing the view of the Incarnation which had been defined at Nicaea and which has been substantially the faith of the Christian Church from its earliest pronouncement in Scripture down to its last utterance through the lips of Pius X in our own times. "Let what was confessed by the Fathers of Nicaea prevail", he wrote to a philosopher-friend and correspondent in the closing years of his life (Epist. lxxi, ad Max.). That that confession did at last prevail in the various Trinitarian formularies that followed upon that of Nicaea was due, humanly speaking, more to his laborious witness than to that of any other champion in the long teachers' roll of Catholicism. By one of those inexplicable ironies that meet us everywhere in human history, this man, who had endured exile so often, and risked life itself in defence of what he believe to be the first and most essential truth of the Catholic creed, died not by violence or in hiding, but peacefully in his own bed, surrounded by his clergy and mourned by the faithful of the see he had served so well. His feast in the Roman Calendar is kept on the anniversary of his death. [ Note on his depiction in art: No accepted emblem has been assigned to him in the history of western art; and his career, in spite of its picturesque diversity and extraordinary wealth of detail, seems to have furnished little, if any, material for distinctive illustration. Mrs. Jameson tells us that according to the Greek formula, "he ought to be represented old, baldheaded, and with a long white beard" (Sacred and Legendary Art, I, 339).] All the essential materials for the Saint's biography are to be found in his writings, especially in those written after the year 350, when the Apologia contra Arianos was composed. Supplementary information will be found in ST. EPIPHANIUS, Hoer., loc. cit.; in ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, Orat., xxi; also RUFINUS, SOCRATES, SOZMEN, and THEODORET. The Historia Acephala, or Maffeian Fragment (discovered by Maffei in 1738, and inserted by GALLANDI in Bibliotheca Patrum, 1769), and the Chronicon Athanasianum, or Index to the Festal Letters, give us data for the chronological problem. All the foregoing sources are included in MIGNE, P. G. and P. L. The great PAPEBROCH'S Life is in the Acta SS., May, I. The most important authorities in English are: NEWMAN, Arians of the Fourth Century, and Saint Athanasius; BRIGHT, Dictionary of Christian Biography; ROBERTSON, Life, in the Prolegomena to the Select Writings and Letters of Saint Athanasius (re-edited in Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, New York, 1903); GWATKIN, Studies of Arianism (2d ed., Cambridge, 1900); MOHLER, Athanasius der Grosse; HERGENROTHER and HEFELE. CORNELIUS CLIFFORD Atheism Atheism (a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God). Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philisophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic. Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philisophical meaning; though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876): By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God. Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship. Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning. The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world. A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism; and may be furthur viewed as cosmological or psychological, according as it is motived, on the one hand, by a consideration of the paucity of actual data available for the arguments proving the existence of a super-sensible and spiritual God, or, what amounts to the same thing, the attributing of all cosmic change and development to the self-contained potentialities of an eternal matter; or, on the other hand, by an empiric or theoretic estimate of the powers of reason working upon the data furnished by sense-perception. From whichever cause this negative form of atheism proceeds, it issues in agnosticism or materialism; although the agnostic is, perhaps, better classed under this head than the materialist. For the former, professing a state of nescience, more properly belongs to a category under which those are placed who neglect, rather than explain, nature without a God. Moreover, the agnostic may be a theist, if he admits the existence of a being behind and beyond nature, even while he asserts that such a being is both unprovable and unknowable. The materialist belongs to this type so long as he merely neglects, and does not exclude from his system, the existence of God. So, too, does the positivist, regarding theological and metaphysical speculation as mere passing stages of thought through which the human mind has been journeying towards positive, or related empirical, knowledge. Indeed, any system of thought or school of philosophy that simply omits the existence of God from the sum total of natural knowlege, whether the individual as a matter of fact believes in Him or not, can be classed in this division of atheism, in which, strictly speaking, no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being. There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a "duty" only because it refers to an action that is morally good. Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theisitic interpretation of nature for its own justification. The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual, and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist, but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc. Lastly, a third type is generally, though perhaps wrongly, included in moral atheism. "Practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life" (R. Flint, Anti-theisitc Theories, Lect. I). This is more correctly called, as it is described, godlessness in conduct, quite irrespective of any theory of philosophy, or morals, or of religious faith. It will be noticed that, although we have included agnosticism, materialism, and pantheism, among the types of atheism, strictly speaking this latter does not necessarily include any one of the former. A man may be an agnostic simply, or an agnostic who is also an atheist. He may be a scientific materialist and no more, or he may combine atheism with his materialism. It does not necessarilly follow, because the natural cognoscibility of a personal First Cause is denied, that His existence is called in question: nor, when matter is called upon to explain itself, that God is critically denied. On the other hand, pantheism, while destroying the extra-mundane character of God, does not necessarily deny the existence of a supreme entity, but rather affirms such as the sum of all existence and the cause of all phenomena whether of thought or of matter. Consequently, while it would be unjust to class agnostics, materialists, or pantheists as necessarily also atheists, it cannot be denied that atheism is clearly perceived to be implied in certain phases of all these systems. There are so many shades and gradations of thought by which one form of a philosophy merges into another, so much that is opinionative and personal woven into the various individual expositions of systems, that, to be impartially fair, each individual must be classed by himself as atheist or theist. Indeed, more upon his own assertion or direct teaching than by reason of any supposed implication in the system he advocated must this classification be made. And if it is correct to consider the subject from this point of view, it is surprising to find to what an exceedingly small number the supposed atheistic ranks dwindle. In company with Socrates, nearly all the reputed Greek atheists strenuously repudiated the charge of teaching that there were no gods. Even Bion, who, according to Diogenes Laertius (Life of Aristippus, XIII, Bohn's tr.), adopted the scandalous moral teaching of the atheist Theodorus, turned again to the gods whom he had insulted, and when he came to die demonstrated in practice what he had denied in theory. As Laertius says in his "Life of Bion", he "who never once said, `I have sinned but spare me -- Then did this atheist shrink and give his neck To an old woman to hang charms upon; And bound his arms with magic amulets; With laurel branches blocked his doors and windows, Ready to do and venture anything Rather than die." Epicurus, the founder of that shcool of physics which limited all causes to purely natural ones and consequently implied, if he did not actually assert, atheism, is spoken of as a man whose "piety towards the gods and (whose) affection for his country was quite unspeakable" (ib., Life of Epicurus, V). And though Lucretius Carus speaks of the downfall of popular religion which he wished to bring about (De Rerum natura, I, 79-80), yet, in his own letter to Henaeceus (Laert., Life of Epicurus, XXVII), he states plainly a true theistic position: "For there are gods: for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of the character which people in general attribute to them." Indeed, this one citation perfectly illustrates the fundamental historic meaning of the term, atheism. The naturalistic pantheism of the Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) comes near to, if it is not actually a profession of, atheism; while Tomaso Campanella (1568-1639), on the contrary, in his nature-philosophy finds in atheism the one impossibility of thought, Spinoza (1632-77), while defending the doctrine that God certainly exists, so identifies Him with finite existence that it is difficult to see how he can be defended against the charge of atheism even of the first type. In the eighteenth century, and especially in France, the doctrines of materialsim were spread broadcast by the Encyclopedists. La Mettrie, Holbach, Fererbach, and Fleurens are usually classed among the foremost materialistic atheists of the period. Voltaire, on the contrary, while undoubtedly helping on the cause of practical atheism, distinctly held its theoretic contrary. He, as well as Rousseau, was a deist. Comte, it will be remembered, refused to be called an atheist. In the last century Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer, with others of the evolutionistic school of philosophy, were, quite erroneously, charged with positive atheism. It is a charge which can in no way be substantiated; and the invention andonism of Ernst Hackel, goes far towards forming an atheistic system of philosophy. But even the last named admits that there may be a God, though so limited and so foreign to the deity of theists that his admission can hardly remove the system from the first category of theoretic atheism. Among the unscientific and unphilosophical there have from time to time been found dogmatic atheists of the first type. Here again, however, many of those popularly styled atheists are more correctly described by some other title. There is a somewhat rare tract, "Atheism Refuted in a Discourse to prove the Existence of God by T.P." -- British Museum Catalogue, "Tom Paine", who was at one time popularly called an atheist. And perhaps, of the few who have upheld an indubitable form of positive theoretic atheism, none has been taken seriously enough to hav exerted any influence upon the trend of philosophic or scientific thought. Robert Ingersoll might be instanced, but though popular speakers and writers of this type may create a certain amount of unlearned disturbance, they are not treated seriously by thinking men, and it is extremely doubtful whether they deserve a place in any historical or philosophical exposition of atheism. REIMMAN, Historia atheismi et atheorum . . . (Hildesheim, 1725); TOUSSAINT in Dict. de theologie, s.v. (a good bibliography); JANET AND SEAILLES, History of the Problems of Philosophy (tr.,London, 1902), II; HETTINGER, Natural Religion (tr., New York, 1890); FLINT, Anti-theistic Theories (New York, 1894); LILLY, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892); DAURELLE, L Atheisme devant la raison humaine (Paris, 1883); WARD, Naturalism and Agnosticism (New York, 1899); LADD, Philosophy of Religion (New York, 1905); II; BOEDDER, Natural Theologh (New York, 1891); BLACKIE, Natural History of Atheism (New York, 1878); The Catholic World, XXVII, 471: BARRY, The End of Atheism in the Catholic World, LX, 333; SHEA, Steps to Atheism in The Am, Cath. Quart. Rev., 1879, 305; POHLE, lehrbuck d. Dogmatik (paderborn, 1907) I; BAUR in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s.v. See also bibliography under AGNOSTICISM, MATERIALISM, PANTHEISM, and THEISM. For the refuation of ATHEISM see the article GOD.) FRANCIS AVELING Louis Buglio Louis Buglio A celebrated missionary in China, mathematician, and theologian, born at Mineo, Sicily, 26 January, 1606; died at Peking, 7 October, 1682. He entered the Society of Jesus, 29 January, 1622, and, after a brilliant career as a professor of the humanities and rhetoric in the Roman College, asked to be sent to the Chinese mission. With great zeal and success Father Buglio preached the Gospel in the provinces of Su-Tchuen, Fu-kien, and Kiang-si. He suffered severely for the faith in the persecution which was carried on during the minority of the Emperor Kang-hi. Taken prisoner by one of the victorious Tartar chiefs, he was brought to Peking in 1648. Here, after a short captivity, he was left free to exercise his ministry. Father Buglio collaborated with Fathers Adam Schall, Verbiest, and Magalhaens in reforming the Chinese calendar, and shared with them the confidence and esteem of the emperor. At his death he was given a state funeral. Thoroughly acquainted with the Chinese language, Father Buglio both spoke and wrote it fluently. A list of his works in Chinese, more than eighty volumes, written for the most part to explain and defend the Christian religion, is given in Sommervogel. Besides Parts I and III of the "Summa" of St. Thomas, he translated into Chinese the Roman Missal (Peking, 1670) the Breviary and the Ritual (ibid, 1674 and 1675). These translations require a special notice, as they were part of a project which, from the beginning of their apostolate in China, the Jesuit missionaries were anxious to carry out. Their purpose was not merely to form a native clergy, but, in order to accomplish this more easily, to introduce a special liturgy in the Chinese tongue, for the use at least of native priests. This plan was approved by Paul V, who, 26 March 1615, granted to regularly ordained Chinese priests the faculty of using their own language in the liturgy and administrations of the sacraments. This faculty was never used. Father Philip Couplet, in 1681, tried to obtain a renewal of it from Rome, but was not successful. Acta SS., XIII, 123. Diss. xlviii; Sommervogel, Biblotheque de la c. de J., II, 363; Cordier, Bibliotheca Sinica (Paris, 1881), I, 514; Menologe S.J.: Assistance d'Italie JOSEPH M. WOODS The Abbey of Athelney The Abbey of Athelney The Abbey of Athelney, established in the County of Somerset, England, was founded by King Alfred, A.D. 888, as a religious house for monks of the Order of St. Benedict. Originally Athelney was a small island in the midst of dangerous morasses in what is now the parish of East Ling. It possessed scarcely more than two acres of firm land; was covered with alders and infested by wild animals, and was inaccessible except by boat (William of Malmesbury). Here Alfred found a refuge from the Danes; here he built the abbey dedicated to our Blessed Savior, St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Egelwine. He peopled it with foreign monks, drawn chiefly from France, with John of Saxony (known as Scotus) as their abbot. The original church was a small structure.consisting of four piers supporting the main fabric and surrounded by four circular chancels. Little is known of the history of the abbey from the eleventh century up to the time of its dissolution except that the monks of Glastonbury attempted to annex it or have it placed under the Glastonbury jurisdiction. It was not a rich community. An indulgence of thirty days was given in 1321 for those who should assist in the rebuilding of the church, and the monks humbly petitioned Edward I to remit "corrod" for which they were unable to find the means of payment. The last abbot was Robert Hamlyn. With eight monks of his community, he surrendered February, 8, 1540, receiving a pension of £50 per annum and retaining his prebend of Long Sutton. The revenues (26 Hen. VII) were £209. 0s. 3/4 d. DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum; ASSER, De Rebus Gestis Alfridi; HEARNE, Script. Hist. Angl. XXVIII (1731), 587-90. FRANCIS AVELING Athenagoras Athenagoras A Christian apologist of the second half of the second century of whom no more is known than that he was an Athenian philosopher and a convert to Christianity. Of his writings there have been preserved but two genuine pieces -- his "Apology" or "Embassy for the Christians" and a "Treatise on the Resurrection". The only allusions to him in early Christian literature are the accredited quotations from his "Apology" in a fragment of Methodius of Olympus (d. 312) and the untrustworthy biographical details in the fragments of the "Christian History" of Philip of Side (c. 425). It may be that his treatises, circulating anonymously, were for a time considered as the work of another apologist. His writings bear witness to his erudition and culture, his power as a philosopher and rhetorician, his keen appreciation of the intellectual temper of his age, and his tact and delicacy in dealing with the powerful opponents of his religion. The "Apology", the date of which is fixed by internal evidence as late in 176 or 177, was not, as the title "Embassy" (presbeia) has suggested, an oral defence of Christianity but a carefully written plea for justice to the Christians made by a philosopher, on philosophical grounds, to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, conquerors, "but above all, philosophers". He first complains of the illogical and unjust discrimination against the Christians and of the calumnies they suffer (i-iii), and then meets the charge of atheism (iv). He establishes the principle of monotheism, citing pagan poets and philosophers in support of the very doctrines for which Christians are condemned (v-vi), and demonstrates the superiority of the Christian belief in God to that of pagans (vii-viii). This first strongly reasoned demonstration of the unity of God in Christian literature is supplements by and able exposition of the Trinity (x). Assuming then the defensive, the apologist justifies the Christian abstention from worship of the national deities (xii-xiv) on grounds of its absurdity and indecency, quoting at length the pagan poets and philosophers in support of his contention (xv-xxx). Finally, he meets the charges of immorality by exposing the Christian ideal of purity, even in thought, and the inviolable sanctity of the marriage bond. The charge of cannibalism is refuted by showing the high regard for human life which leads the Christian to detest the crime of abortion (xxxi-xxxvi). The treatise on the "Resurrection of the Body", the first complete exposition of the doctrine in Christian literature, was written later than the "Apology", to which it may be considered as an appendix. Athenagoras brings to the defence of the doctrine the best that contemporary philosophy could adduce. After meeting the objections common to his time (i), he demonstrates the possibility of a resurrection in view either of the power of the Creator (ii-iii), or of the nature of our bodies (iv-viii). To exercise such powers is neither unworthy of God nor unjust to other creatures (ix-xi). He shows that the nature and end of man demand a perpetuation of the life of body and soul. March and Own, Douglass' Series of Christian, Greek and Latin Writers (New York, 1876), IV; Harnack History of Dogma, tr. Buchanan (Boston, 1903), II, 188-190. An English translation is found in Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York, 1903), II, 129-162; in vol. X (ibid.) pp. 36-38, is an extensive bibliography (to 1890). The best editions are those of Otto, corpus Apologetarum (Jena, 1857), Vii, and the Benedictine Maranus in P.G. (Paris, 1857), VI, 889-1024. See also Schwartz in Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1891), IV, 2; Harnack, Geschichte d. altchristlichen Literaute (Leipzig, 1893-1897), I, 256-258; II, 317-319; Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literature (Freiburg, 1902), I, 267-277; Idem, Patrologie (ibid., 1901) 57-58. JOHN B. PETERSON Athenry Athenry A small inland town in the county Galway, Ireland, anciently called Athnere, from Ath-na-Riagh, the king's ford, or the abode of the king. It was the first town established by the Anglo-Norman invaders or Connaught, and at a remote period became a place of importance. A Dominican monastery was completed there in 1216 on a site granted by Meyler de Bermingham. In time it became extensive and wealthy and was used as the chief burial place of the Earls of Ulster and the principal families of the adjoining territory. Indulgences for the benefit of the monastery were granted by the pope in 1400. The church was burned in 1423, and in 1427 two subordinate houses were established. In 1445 Pope Eugenius IV renewed the decree of Pope Martin V to encourage the repairing of the church, at which time there were thirty inmates in the monastery. A Franciscan friary was also founded there in 1464 by Thomas, Earl of Kildare, and chapels erected by his wife and the Earls of Desmond and O'Tully. The place was sacked in 1577 during the Elizabethan wars, but repaired in 1585. The northern Irish burned the town in 1596 but the abbey escaped. The Dominican establishment was revived in 1644 as a university, the town, however, never regained its ancient prestige. The Cromwellian period ruined the ecclesiastical buildings, of which the tower and east window remained in good condition to tell of the ancient extent and beauty of the foundation. The Board of Works in 1893 made extensive repairs to the ruins to preserve them. LEWIS, Topographical Dictionary of Ireland (Dublin, 1839). THOMAS F. MEEHAN Christian Athens Christian Athens Christianity was first preached in Athens by St. Paul. He came to Athens from Berœa of Macedonia, coming probably by water and landing in the Peiræevs, the harbour of Athens. This was about the year 53. Having arrived at Athens, he at once sent for Silas and Timotheos who had remained behind in Berœa. While awaiting the coming of these he tarried in Athens, viewing the idolatrous city, and frequenting the synagogue; for there were already Jews in Athens. He also frequented the agora, and there met and conversed with the men of Athens, telling them of the new truths which he was promulgating. Finally, at the Areopagos, he spoke to them the sermon which is preserved in the seventeenth chapter of the Acts. The Athenians did not enthusiastically accept this first preaching of Christianity. The Acts mention, however, that a few believed in Paul's teaching. Amongst these were Dionysios, a member of the Areopagite court, and Damaris, or Thamar possibly, who may have been a Jewess. A tradition asserts that St. Paul wrote from Athens his two letters to the Christians of Thessalonika. Even if this be so, his stay in Athens was not a protracted one. He departed by sea, and went to Korinth by way of Kenchreæ, its eastern harbour. It seems that a Christian community was rapidly formed, although for a considerable time it did not possess a numerous membership. The commoner tradition names the Areopagite as the first head and bishop of the Christian Athenians. Another tradition, however, gives this honour to Hierotheos the Thesmothete. The successors of the first bishop were not all Athenians by lineage. They are catalogued as Narkissos, Publius, and Quadratus. Narkissos is stated to have come from Palestine, and Publius from Malta. In some lists Narkissos is omitted. Quadratus is revered for having contributed to early Christian literature by writing an apology, which he addressed to the Emperor Hadrian. This was on the occasion of Hadrian's visit to Athens. Another Athenian who defended Christianity in writing at a somewhat later time was Aristeides. His apology was directed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Athenagoras also wrote an apology. In the second century there must have been a considerable community of Christians in Athens, for Hygeinos, Bishop of Rome, is said to have written a letter to the community in the year 139. It is probable that the early Church of Athens did not have many martyrs, although Dionysios himself graces the martyrs' list. Under Decius, we find recorded in the catalogue of martyrs the names of Herakleios, Benedimos, Pavlinos, and Leonides with his followers, the holy woman Charissa, and her companions. One reason why the martyrs were few is that the Christians were also few. Besides, the spirit of the Athenian pagans and philosophers was not one of blood; and it is probable that the persecutions in Athens were rather of the social and scholastic kind. This would account for the writings of the apologists who thus would defend themselves by weapons similar to those which their opponents used. The philosophers of the Athenian schools did not indeed admire Christianity, as they understood it; nevertheless there is some ground for believing that amongst the teachers who occupied the official and historic chairs of philosophy at Athens there later was at least one who was a Christian, Prohæresios, the sophist. Be this as it may, it is certain that the teaching of the philosophers was not rudely anti-Christian. Otherwise the presence of Christians amongst the students could not be understood. Sixtus II, or Xystos, who suffered martyrdom in Rome about a.d. 258, also may have studied in Athens and is called "the son of an Athenian philosopher". But the most noted men who frequented the schools here were Basil from Kæsareia, and Gregory from Nazianzos, about the middle of the fourth century. These schools of philosophy kept paganism alive for four centuries, but by the fifth century the ancient religion of Elevsis and Athens had practically succumbed. In the Council of Nikæa there was present a bishop from Athens. In 529 the schools of philosophy were closed. From that date Christianity had no rival in Athens. Down to the time of Constantine, and later, there were no large Christian temples in Athens. Like the Jews, whose synagogues in pagan towns were small and unpretentious, the first Christians did not erect sumptuous temples. With their worship they did not associate splendour of temple and sanctuary as indispensable. In the time of Basil and Gregory, there were surely numerous church edifices in Athens, but they were not spacious temples. They are called hieroi oikoi, and probably were not much larger than the ordinary dwelling-houses of the inhabitants. The first magnificent churches in Athens were, therefore, the Greek temples which, after the disappearance of paganism, were transferred to the use of the Christian rites. It must have been about Justinian's time when the most of the ancient temples were converted into churches. Churches or ruins of churches have been frequently found on the sites where pagan shrines or temples originally stood. This is in part due to the fact that the sites were first sanctified for Christian tradition by these pagan temples or sanctuaries being made into churches. It is also to some extent true that sometimes the saint whose aid was to be invoked at the Christian shrine bore some outward analogy to the deity previously hallowed in that place. Thus in Athens the shrine of the healer Asklepios, situated between the two theatres on the south side of the Akropolis, when it became a church, was made sacred to the two saints whom the Christian Athenians invoked as miraculous healers, Kosmas and Damian. Amongst the temples converted into churches were the Parthenon and the Erechtheion on the Akropolis, and the yet well-preserved Hephæsteion (or "temple of Theseus", as it is incorrectly called) near the ancient agora. The Hephæsteion was, in later times, sacred to St. George. Pittakis, a noted epigraphist of Athens in the early half of the last century, published an inscription which purports to state that in the year 630 the Parthenon was consecrated under the title of "the church of Divine Wisdom" (tes Hagias Sophias). But Pittakis was very careless or credulous at times in the copying of inscriptions. So we do not know with certainty what was the original title of this church. Possibly, from its first conversion the Parthenon had been dedicated to the Panagia. At least we learn from Michael Akominatos that in the twelfth century it was sacred to the Mother of God. On the columns of this church, and on its marble walls, especially around the doors, are numerous graffiti inscriptions which record various events, many of them important for sacred and profane history, such as the names and deaths of bishops, and public calamities. In these graffiti inscriptions, this church is called "the great church", "the church of Athens", and the cathedral church, or katholike ekklesia. All these appellations show that it was the metropolitan church of the city. In Greek usage, the name katholikon or katholike ekklesia, was a title applied to churches which were the sees of bishops or archbishops. That the Parthenon was a church as far back as the sixth century is proven by the cemetery which lay along its south side. This region was filled with Christian graves, in some of which were found coins of a date as early as the reign of Justinian. In order to fit the Parthenon for a church, changes had to be made in it; an apse was built at the east end, and a great entrance door was placed in the west end. The interior walls were covered with fresco paintings of saints. After the conversion of these Greek temples into churches, perhaps two or three centuries elapsed before the Athenians found it necessary to lavishly add to the number of large church edifices by erecting many new ones. Then they followed the styles of ecclcsiastical architecture which had been developed elsewhere, and had become prevalent throughout so much of the empire. From about the end of the eighth century they erected new churches more frequently. Perhaps the Empress Eirene, who was an Athenian, gave some impulse to this tendency. As years went on, Athens and the surrounding villages of Attika, and the fields were filled with churches, many of them veritable gems of Byzantine comeliness. The churches which were built in Athens and vicinity during the Middle Ages numbered hundreds. Likewise many monasteries were founded, both in Athens itself and in the country of Attika, especially on the slopes of the surrounding mountains of Hymettos, and Pentelikos, and Parnes. A complete list of the Bishops of Athens could not be made. But as time goes on, and seals and manuscripts and inscriptions are deciphered, the list of names will grow. Pistos, Bishop of Athens, was present at the Council of Nikæa in 325. Bishop Modestus was at the Council of Ephesos in 431. John, Bishop of Athens, was amongst the Fathers who signed the Acts of the Sixth Œcumenical Council. He was present as "Leggate of the Apostolic See of ancient Rome". From the graffiti on the Parthenon a number of other names and dates are already known. In these graffiti we read names of bishops prior to the exaltation of Athens to the rank of an archbishopric, then the names of archbishops, and finally those of metropolitans. The time of the elevation of this see to an archbishopric cannot yet be fixed. Gregory II, who was pastor of the Athenians during the first patriarchate of Photios, bore the title of archbishop. But it is not known whether or not he was the first who had that title. This was about 857-867. Shortly afterwards the archbishops received the higher title of metropolitan. Niketas who took part in the Eighth Œcumenical Council under Basil the Makedonian, which closed 28 February, 870, and who signed the acts of that council as "Niketas by the grace of God, Metropolitan of Athens", on his seals, or leaden bulls, simply places the inscription "Niketas, Bishop of Athens". Amongst the signatures to the acts of this council, that of Niketas stands twenty-second in order. But in a full assembly of metropolitans he would not rank so high. According to the list made by Emperor Leon the Wise (886-911), a list intended to show the relative rank of each ecclesiastical dignitary under the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Metropolitan of Athens is relegated to the twenty-eighth place. Just what sees were under the Archbishop of Athens prior to Photios is not easy to discover. After the changes brought about by Photios and his successors, the sees that were suffragan to Athens varied in number from time to time. But in general it may be stated that all of Attika belonged directly to the Archbishop of Athens, after the abolishing of the See of Marathon, about the middle of the ninth century. And under Athens were, besides other bishoprics, the Sees of Evripos, Oreos, Karystos, and Porthmos in Evbœa; Avlon; Diavleia in Phokis, and Koroneia in Bœotia; Andros, Skyros, Syros, and Seriphos of the islands; and, later, Keos and Ægina. From Photios down to the Franks the Metropolitans of Athens were all of the Greek rite, naturally. Likewise their sympathies were rather with Constantinople than with older Rome. Their metropolitan church continued to be the ancient Parthenon. It seems that the residence of the bishops was on the Akropolis, in the great Portals, or Propylæa, and that in these Propylæa they had a private episcopal chapel. In these days education was not held in very general esteem in Athens. No special erudition characterized the clergy. Even the inscriptions which decorated the seals and bulls of bishops and abbots were often most childishly misspelled. From the time of Photios to the Franks the most noted ecclesiastic was probably the last bishop, Michael Akominatos. He, however, was Athenian neither by birth nor by education. He came to Athens expecting great things in the city of ancient wisdom, but was disappointed. Still it is wrong to say that Athens of the Middle Ages produced no scholars and noted personages. Athenaïs, who became queen to Theodosios in 421, and Eirene, who became empress in 780, were Athenians. From the sixth to the thirteenth century Athens was out and out a provincial town, exercising no influence on the world at large, and almost unheard of in the politics of the day. Nevertheless, the Emperor Konstas on his way to Sicily in 662 spent the winter in Athens; and after his victories over the Bulgarians in 1018, Basil II visited this city to celebrate his triumphs. When, under Constantine, the Empire was divided into governmental dioceses, the close relations which then were created between the Church and the State caused the ecclesiastical divisions to be often identical with the civil. By this system all of Achaia, wherein was Athens, was included within the Diocese of Eastern Illyria, of which Thessalonika was the capital. All of this Diocese of Eastern Illyria was under the direct jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. And so it remained until the reign of Leo the Isavrian. This emperor, incensed at Pope Gregory III, because of his strong opposition to Leo's iconoclastic passion, retorted against the pope by transferring these countries of the Illyrian diocese from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to that of the See of Constantinople. This occurred in the year 732. In this great struggle between the iconoclasts and the adherents to the use of the icons, the Athenians placed themselves on the side of iconolatry. While accepting without any recorded protest their transference to the jurisdiction of the Eastern patriarch, they retained the images in their churches and continued to venerate them. All the inhabitants of Greece north of the Korinthiac Gulf, who then were called Helladikoi, or Helladians, were opposed to the iconoclasts. And their opposition was so determined that they fitted out an expedition and manned a fleet, intending to attack Constantinople, depose Leo, and place their leader, Kosmas, on the throne. In this expedition, in which the Athenians doubtlessly had an important part, assistance was given by the inhabitants of the Kyklad islands, who probably furnished most of the ships. The attempt, however, was futile. The fleet was easily destroyed by the imperial ships in April, 727. The mutual bitterness which was evinced in Constantinople by the contending parties of Photians and Anti-Photians was reflected here in Athens. Gregory II was archbishop when Ignatios was restored to his throne as Patriarch of Constantinople. Ignatios deposed him as being an adherent of Photios. His successor, Kosmas, was also later deposed. Then Niketas, a Byzantine, came to Athens as archbishop with the title of metropolitan. This Niketas was a supporter of Ignatios. His successor, Anastasios, was a follower of Photios. Sabbas, who succeeded Anastasios, was likewise a Photian and was one of those who signed the acts of the synod which closed in May, 880, by which Photios was again recognized as patriarch. A bull of his still exists, whereon he designates himself as "Metropolitan of Athens". Throughout the East there was a peculiar type of Panagia-icon, copies of which might be seen in monasteries and churches in many places. This was the Panagia Gorgoepekoos. This Panagia Gorgoepekoos seems to have been originally an Athenian icon, and was probably identical with an icon which was called the Panagia Athenœotissa. The Athenœotissa was the Madonna of the church in the Parthenon. This icon is mentioned by Michael Akominatos. After the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Europeans of the Fourth Crusade, in the partitionment which followed, Athens and the rest of Greece were given to Boniface, King of Thessalonika. Boniface gave Athens to one of his followers, Otho de ha Roche. At their coming to Athens the Franks found it small and insignificant. They chose Thebes to be the seat of civil power rather than Athens. Thebes was a more important trade centre than was Athens. Athens, however, was considered important enough to be continued as an archbishopric. It thus was ranked in equal dignity with the other larger cities of Greece, such as Thebes, within de la Roche's dominion, and Patræ and Korinth in the Morea. The conquest of Greece was accomplished in 1204 and 1205. The first Latin archbishop introduced the Latin ritual into the cathedral, the Parthenon, in the year 1206. This was Archbishop Berard. Thus after a lapse of centuries from the time of Leo the Isavrian, Greece and Athens were again placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. During the Frankish rule the archbishops of Athens were without exception of the Latin Rite, and were of Western lineage. Likewise the canons of the cathedral, in the Parthenon, were of Latin Rite, and were Franks. Their number was fixed by Cardinal Benedict, papal legate in Thessalonika, by order of Pope Innocent III. But the ritual of the common priests was not disturbed. The people continued to enjoy their own rites, celebrated by Greek priests in the Greek language. These Greek priests had, however, at least outwardly, to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Latin archbishop. Amongst the sees which were suffragan to the Archbishop of Athens were those of Chalkis, Thermopylæ (or Bodonitsa) Davleia. Avlon, Zorkon, Karystos, Koroneia, Andros, Skyros, Kea, and Megara The last bishop of the Greek Rite was the learned Michael Akominatos, who, when the Franks came, retired to the Island of Keos, after first visiting the cardinal legate of the pope in Thessalonika to impetrate certain favours for those formerly under his charge who wished to adhere to the Greek form of worship. In Keos he lived as a monk in the monastery of St. John the Baptist. To support the Latin archbishop, and the canons, and the cathedral church, a number of possessions were given to him. Amongst these was the monastic property of Kæsariane, and the island of Belbina, which Pope Innocent III gave to the Archbishop of Athens in 1208. The Frankish cavaliers lived in splendour in Thebes and Athens. The dignitaries of the Church lived in ease. Along with the coming of the Franks and the Latin Church there came also Latin monks. The Cistercians established themselves near Athens in 1208 in the beautiful monastery of Daphne, which previously was in the possession of Greek Basilian Fathers. The Franciscans were the most active religious order in Greece during this period. There were also Dominican convents. In the year 1311 another great change came over Athens. The Franks were defeated by the Catalans in the swamps of the Kephisos in Bœotia. Athens, with Thebes, became their possession. Under their sway, which lasted more than seventy-five years, the higher dignitaries of the Church continued naturally to be Latins. In these days there were fourteen suffragan sees under the Archbishopric of Athens, and at the cathedral there were eleven or twelve canons. In 1387 another change overtook Athens. The Catalonian possessions came under the ownership of the Acciajoli, Florentines who had risen to eminence as bankers. The Acciajoli retained possession of Athens until driven out by Omær Pasha, who in June of 1456 entered the city and, in 1458, took possession of the Akropolis for his Sultan, Mohammed II. The only notable change in ecclesiastical matters under the Acciajoli was that they permitted two archbishops to reside in Athens, a Greek dignitary for the Catholics of the Greek Rite, and a Latin for the Franks. In this way the defection of the Greeks of Athens from Roman jurisdiction was again a fact. The Latin archbishop lived in the Castro, that is, on the Akropolis, and the Greek prelate had his residence in the lower city. Franco Acciajoli was the last Duke of Athens. The last Latin archbishop was Nicholas Protimus. He died in 1483. After his death Rome continued to appoint titular Latin archbishops to the See of Athens. Under Turkish domination the Church and all its property again became Greek. All the suffragan sees were again filled by Greek bishops, and the monasteries were again occupied by Greek monks. The Parthenon, however, was appropriated by the conquerors, who converted it into a mosque. The Greek bishops continued to live in the lower town, and during the latter half of the Turkish supremacy they usually resided near the church of the Panagia Gorgoepekoos, which they used as a private chapel. They lived elsewhere at times, however, for Father Babin mentions Archbishop Anthimos as living near the church of St. Dionysios, which was at the foot of the Areopagos Hill. In Turkish times, as previously, the sees under Athens were not always the same in number. Nor were they all identical with those that had been under the Latin archbishops. Some of them were Koroneia, Salona, Bodonitsa, Davleia, Evripos, Oreos, Karystos, Porthmos, Andros, Syra, and Skyros. Amongst the religious orders that lived in Athens under Turkish rule were the Franciscans. They were there as early as 1658. But they had already been in Greece under the Franks. The Franciscans are to he mentioned with the Dominicans as being the first Western Europeans who sent students to Athens and other places in the East for the purpose of studying the language and literature of the Greeks. Another fact to the credit of the Franciscans of Athens is that, although not primarily interested in antiquities, they fruitfully contributed to the awakening of our interest in such studies. There appeared in Paris in the second half of the seventeenth century, a book by Guillet or "de la Guilletière", which is entirely based on information received from the Franciscans of Athens. Franciscans sketched the first plan of modern Athens. Considering how suspicious the Turks were of any kind of description of their possessions and castles, it was quite a feat for the Franciscans to have made so good a plan as they did. It was published by Guillet in his book, "Athènes, anciennes et nouvelles", 1675. In those days the Capuchins had a comfortable monastery in Athens, which they built on ground bought from the Turks in 1658, behind the choragic monument of Lysikrates. The monument itself served them as their little library. in this monastery many a traveller found hospitality. It was destroyed by fire in 1821, and the site is now owned by the French Government. The Jesuits were also active in Athens. They came in 1645. It must be noted that it was Father Babin, a Jesuit, who wrote the first careful account of the modern condition of the ruins of ancient Athens. This he did in a letter to the Abbé Pécoil, canon of Lyons. This letter was written 8 October, 1672. It was published with a commentary by Spon in 1674 under the title of "Relation de l'état présent de la ville d'Athènes". The Jesuits finally withdrew from Athens, leaving the entire field to the Franciscans. The Franciscans remained until the beginning of the war of the revolution. In the time of Babin and Spon there were about two hundred churches in Athens, all of the Greek Rite, except the chapels in the monasteries of the western monks. With the war of the insurrection, in 1821, ends the history of the older Church of Athens. A new Latin archbishopric has again its residence in Athens. (See ATHENS, MODERN DIOCESE OF.) Since 1833 the Church of the Greek Rife has undergone serious changes of jurisdiction, for it no longer recognizes the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople, but is a national autocephalous church. GREGOROVIUS, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter (Stuttgart, 1889), Greek tr. by LAMPROS, with additional notes and an appendix (Athens, 1904-06); HOPF, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit (Leipzig, 1870); GEORGIADES, Historia ton Athenon (Athens); NEROUTSOS, Christianikai Athenai (Athens, 1889 sqq.); LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus; MOMMSEN Athenœ Christianœ (Leipzig, 1868); ANTONIO RUBIO Y LLUCH, La Expedición y la Dominación de los Catalanos en Oriente (Barcelona, 1883); GULDEN-CRONE, L'Achaië féodale (Paris, 1886); KAMPOUROGLOS, Historia ton Athenon (Athens, 1889-93); PHILADELPHEVS, Historia ton Athenon epi Tourkokratias (Athens, 1904). DANIEL QUINN Modern Diocese of Athens Modern Diocese of Athens The Greeks have long regarded their religion as a national affair. This notion is so deep-rooted that they cannot understand how a citizen can well be a true Greek if he gives his allegiance to any religion which is not that of the Greek Church. At the present time the majority of Catholics who live within the Diocese of Athens are therefore foreigners, or of foreign descent. Of the foreigners who are Catholics, the greater part are of Italian nationality. Most of those who are of foreign descent have come into Athens and other portions of this diocese from the islands of the Aegean and Ionian seas. The Catholics of these islands are largely descendants of the Western conquers who held possession of the islands for two or three centuries, or even longer, beginning with the Fourth Crusade. As a rule, they are of Venetian and Genoese descent. In these islands some of the native Greeks, on account of the higher social and political standing of the foreign element, accepted the Catholic Faith and obedience. From these converted Greeks some Catholics in the Diocese of Athens are now descended. On three or four of the islands, outside of the Diocese of Athens, there are many such Catholics who are pure Greeks, being descended from converts to Catholicism in the time of the foreign feudal governments. These Catholics from the islands are the nucleus of the future prosperity of Catholicism in Greece, for gradually they are identifying themselves with the good of the country and its worthier ideals. Although they are still conscious of their foreign extraction, or former foreign sympathies, they now feel that their residence of centuries in Greek territory has made them Greeks. The real foreign element is made up of those Catholics who have migrated into Greece since it has become a free country. These are chiefly Italians and Maltese. Most of them are laborers who came to find employment on the railroads and other public works, or to live as fishermen or boatmen in the larger seaport towns. The exact number of Catholics cannot easily be estimated. Possibly in the entire Diocese of Athens there are about 10,000, of whom about one fourth attend church regularly. From amongst the members of the Greek Church no converts are made to Catholicity. At least, they are extremely rare. It is against the positive and explicit law of the State for any other church to make proselytes from the established Greek or Orthodox Church. In the first National Assembly, which was held at Epidavros in 1822, it was declared that the Orthodox Church is the State Church. This declaration was repeated in the Assembly at Troezen in 1827. Such has been the strict law ever since. But, except that propagandism is severely prohibited, the Catholic Church is perfectly free, it is fairly treated, and highly respected. Otho of Bavaria, the first king of regenerated Greece, was a Catholic. In his reign the Catholics were few. But arrangements were made that the Catholics could have a place of worship wherever they existed in sufficient numbers. After Athens became the seat of government, in 1834, an abandoned Turkish mosque was given to the Catholics as a place of worship. It is still used as a church, and is attended chiefly by Maltese and Italians who live in and around the Old Market, near the Tower of the Winds. Mass is said there on Sundays and Holy Days by a priest from the cathedral. After the lapse of some years, in 1876, an archbishopric was established in Athens. Those who have occupied this see are Archbishops Marangos, Zaffino, De Angelis, and Delendas. De Angelis was an Italian; Zaffino a native of Corfu; all the other archbishops were born in the Aegean Islands. Within the Diocese of Athens there are now eight churches. Of these two are in Athens, and there is one In each of the towns of Peiraevs (the harbor of Athens); Patrae, the chief town of the Peloponnesos; Volos, the seaport of Thessaly; Lavrion (Ergasteria), in the silver mines of Attica; Herakleion, a Bavarian settlement in Attica; and Navplion in the Argolid. Most of the Catholics, however, are concentrated at Athens, Peiraevs, and in Athens, one is the ancient mosque which Otho donated to the Catholics, and the other is the cathedral of St. Dionysios. It is a stone structure in basilica style, with a portico in front supported by marble columns. The interior is divided into three naves separated from each other by rows of columns of Tenian marble. The apse has been frescoed. This cathedral was built with money sent from abroad, especially from Rome. Besides the regular parishes there are missions here and there. Some years ago there were missions at Kalamata, Pyrgos, and Kalamaki. The only considerable one at present is at Lamis. Within the Diocese of Athens there are at present eleven priests engaged in parochial work: four at the cathedral in Athens, two at Patrae, and one at each of the churches of Peiraevs, Lavrion, Volos, Herskleion, and Navplion. All of them are secular priests. French sisters conduct schools for girls in Athens and at the Peiraevs, and Italian sisters have schools for girls at Patrae. They have boarders as well as day scholars. In the town of the Peiraevs there is a good school for boys conducted by French Salesian Fathers. Boarders and day scholars are accommodated, and both classical and commercial courses are given. But the most important school of the diocese is the Leonteion at Athens, founded by Pope Leo XIII, to supply ordinary and theological education for all Greek-speaking Catholics. It embraces a preparatory department, an intermediate or "hellenic" school a gymnasium or college, and an ecclesiastical seminary. The average number of pupils and students for the past five years is about 175. The faculty consists of both priests and laymen. In its character as seminary, the Leonteion receives students from other dioceses as well as from that of Athens. Previous to the establishment of the Leonteion, candidates for the priesthood were educated chiefly in the Propaganda, at Rome, and in a diocesan seminary which existed in the Aegean town of Syra. The seminary at Syra has been closed, and it is now intended that all clerical training be given in the Leonteion and the Propaganda. The only publication of note for the Catholics of this diocese is the "Harmonia," a periodical devoted to catholic interests. The "Harmonia"is supported chiefly by a subsidy from Rome. One does not expect to find a large number of noted scholars in so small a Catholic community. But all the clergy are men of wide education. Every one of them, with other accomplishments, speaks two or three other languages as well as the vernacular Greek of the country. Amongst the laymen special mention should be made of the brothers Kyparissos Stephanos and Klon Stephanos. Kyparissos, a mathematician whose fame extended far beyond the confines of Greece, was made a professor in the National University. His brother Klon, an anthropologist of repute, engaged in special historical, archeological, and anthropological researches, became director of the Anthropological Museum of Athens. There are in Greece no Uniat Greek Catholics. All are of the Latin Rite. This is because most of these Catholics are from the West, either by descent or by birth, and they have kept their own Western rite. It might be better for Catholicism in Greece if the Catholics were to adopt the native rite, and to have their liturgy in the liturgical language of the country. But many of the Catholics of Athens would never willingly accept such a change, which they would regard rather from a national than from a religious point of view, and would consider a denial of their Italian, or other Western, origin. DANIEL QUINN Joseph Athias Joseph Athias Born in Spain, probably in Cordova, at the beginning of the seventeenth century; died at Amsterdam, May 12, 1700. In 1661 and 1667 he issued two editions of the Hebrew Bible. Though carefully printed, they contain a number of mistakes in the vowel points and the accents. But as they were based on the earlier editions compared with the best manuscripts, they were the foundation of all the subsequent editions. The copious marginal notes added by Jean de Leusden, professor at Utrecht, are of little value. The 1667 edition was bitterly attacked by the Protestant savant, Samuel Desmarets; Athias answered the charges in a work whose title begins: "Caecus de coloribus". He published, also, some other works of importance, such as the "Tikkun Sepher Torah", or the "Order of the Book of the Law", and a Judeo-German translation of the Bible. The latter involved Athias in a competition with Uri Phoebus, a question that has been discussed but cannot be fully cleared up at this late date. HEURTEBIZE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible (Paris. 1895); The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London, 1903), II. A.J. MAAS Mount Athos Mount Athos Athos is a small tongue of land that projects into the Aegean Sea, being the eastern-most of the three strips in which the great mountainous peninsula of Chalcidice ends. It is almost cut off from the mainland, to which it is bound only by a narrow isthmus dotted with lakes and swamps interspersed with alluvial plains. It has been well called "a Greece in miniature", because of the varied contour of its coasts, deep bays and inlets, bold cliffs and promontories, steep wooded slopes, and valleys winding inland. Several cities existed here in pre-Christian antiquity, and a sanctuary of Zeus (Jupiter) is said to have stood on the mountain. The isthmus was famous for the canal (3,950 feet in length) which Xerxes had dug across it, in order to avoid the perilous turning of the limestone peak immemorially known as Mount Athos, in which the small peninsula ends, and which rises to a height of some 6,000 feet. From the summit of this peak on a clear day are visible the coasts of Macedonia and Thrace, even the entire Aegean from Mount Olympus in Thessaly to Mount Ida in Asia Minor. It is the mountain that the architect Dinocrates offered to turn into a statue of Alexander the Great with a city in one hand and in the other a perennially flowing spring. Medieval Greek tradition designated it as the "high mountain" from which Satan tempted Our Lord. Its chief modern interest lies in the fact that at least from the beginning of the Middle Ages it has been the home of a little monastic republic that still retains almost the same autonomy granted a thousand years ago by the Christian emperors of Constantinople. In 1905 the many fortified monasteries and hermitages of Athos contained 7,553 monks (including their numerous male dependents), members of the Orthodox Greek Church: Greeks, 3,207; Russians, 3,615; Bulgarians, 340; Rumanians, 288; Georgians, 53; Servians, 18; other nationalities 32. The principal monasteries bear the following names: Laura, Iviron, Vatopedi, Chilandarion, St. Dionysius, Coutloumousi, Pantocrator, Xiropotamos, Zographu, Docheiarion, Caracalla, Philotheos, Simopetra, St. Paul, Stauroniceta, Xenophon, Gregorios, Esphigmenon, St. Panteleimon, St. Anna (Rossicon), and Karyses. HISTORY The origins of monastic life on Mount Athos are obscure. It is probable that individual hermits sought its lonely recesses during the fourth and fifth centuries, and were numerous in the ninth century at the time of the first certain attempts at monastic organization. The nearest episcopal see was that of Hierissus, and in conformity with ancient law and usage its bishop claimed jurisdiction over the monks of the little peninsula. In 885 Emperor Basil the Macedonian emancipated them from the jurisdiction of the monastery of St. Colobos near Hierissus, and allotted to them Mount Athos as their property. Soon after, the oldest of the principal monasteries, Xiropotamos, was built and adopted the rule of St. Basil. Saracen pirates disturbed the monks in the ninth and tenth centuries, but imperial generosity always came to the aid of this domestic "holy land" of the Greeks. About 960 a far-reaching reform was introduced by the Anatolian monk Athanasius of Trebizond, later known as Athonites. With several companions from Asia Minor he founded by the seashore the monastery since known as Laura, where he raised the monastic life to a high degree of perfection. Eventually the new settlement was accepted as a model. With the help of the imperial authority of John Tzimisces (969-976) all opposition was set aside and the cenobitic or community life imposed on the hermits scattered in the valleys and forests. Athanasius was made abbot general or superior (Protos) of the fifty-eight monastic communities then on the mountain. From this period date the monasteries known as Iviron (Iberians), Vatopedi, and Esphigmenon. At this time, also, there arose a cause of internal conflict that has never been removed. Hitherto only one nationality, the Greek, was represented among the monks. Henceforth, Slavic faith and generosity, and later on Slavic interests, had to be considered. The newly converted Slavs sought and obtained admission into the recently opened monasteries; before long their princes in the Balkan Peninsula began to found independent houses for Slavic monks. In this way arose during the reign of Alexius I (1081-1118) the strictly Slavic monasteries of Chilandarion and Zographu. The Byzantine emperors never ceased to manifest their interest in the little monastic republic and even profited politically by the universal esteem that the religious brotherhood enjoyed throughout the Christian world. With the aid of the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1046, Constantine Monomachos regulated the domestic government of the monastery the administration of their temporal possessions, and their commercial activity. By the imperial document (typicon) which he issued, women are forbidden the peninsula, a prohibition so strictly observed since that time that even the Turkish aga, or official, who resides at Karyaes (Cariez) may not take his harem with him. About the year 1100 the monasteries of Mount Athos were 180 in number, and sheltered 700 monks, with their dependents. At this time there came into general use the term Hagion Oros (Holy Mountain, hagion oros, Monte Santo). Alexius I granted the monasteries immunity from taxation, freed them from all subjection to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and placed them under his immediate protection. They still depended, however, on the neighboring Bishop of Hierissus for the ordination of their priests and deacons. Alexius also chose to be buried on the Holy Mountain among the brethren (1118). A century later, after the capture of Constantinople (1204), the Latin Crusaders abused the monks, who thereupon appealed to Innocent III; he took them under his protection and in his letters (xiii, 40; xvi, 168) paid a tribute to their monastic virtues. However, with the restoration of Greek political supremacy the monks returned (1313) to their old allegiance to Constantinople. In the fourteenth century a pseudo-spiritualism akin to that of the ancient Euchites or Messalians, culminating in the famous Hesychast controversies (see HESYCHASM; PALAMAS), greatly disturbed the mutual harmony of Greek monasteries, especially those of Mount Athos, one of whose monks, Callistus, had become Patriarch of Constantinople (1350-54) and in that office exhibited great severity towards the opponents of Hesychasm. Racial and national discord between the Greeks and the Servians added fuel to the flames, and for a while the monks were again subjected to the immediate supervision of the Bishop of Hierissus. In the meantime the Palaeologi emperors at Constantinople and the Slav princes and nobles of the Balkan Peninsula continued to enrich the monasteries of Mount Athos, which received the greater part of their landed wealth during this period. Occasionally a Byzantine emperor took refuge among the monks in the hope of forgetting the cares and responsibilities of his office. Amid the political disasters of the Greeks, during the fourteenth century, Mount Athos appears as a kind of Holy Land, a retreat for many men eminent in Church and State, and a place where the spirit of Greek patriotism was cherished when threatened elsewhere faith ruin (Krumbacher, 1058-59). This period was also marked by the attempts of the monastery of Karyaes to secure a pre-eminence over the others, the final exclusion of the Bishop of Hierissus from the peninsula, fresh attacks from freebooters of all kinds, and the foundation of several new monasteries: Simopetra, Castamonitu, St. Paul and St. Dionysius. The Fall of Constantinople (1453) brought no modification of the conditions on the Holy Mountain. The monks, who had stubbornly opposed all attempts at reunion with the Apostolic See, submitted at once to the domination of the Osmanli, and, with rare exceptions, have never been interfered with by the Turkish authorities. The hospodars of Wallachia remained as ever their friends and benefactors. Though the monks sympathized with the Greeks in the War of Independence (1822-30), their estates on the Greek mainland were secularized by Capo d'Istria and a similar fate has overtaken their properties in the Danubian principal cities. They still hold numerous farms and properties in certain islands of the Archipelago and on the mainland (Kaulen in Kirchenlex., I, 1557-59; Bayet in Grande Encycl., s. v. Athos). CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT This monastic republic is governed by an assembly of 20 members one representative from each of the 20 principal monasteries; from among these is elected annually, and in due rotation, a committee of 4 presidents. The great seal of the united monasteries is in four pieces and is divided among the members of this committee. One of the members is chosen as chairman, or Protos. Meetings of the assembly are held weekly (Saturday), at Karyaes, and the assembly acts as a supreme parliament and tribunal, with appeal, however, to the patriarch at Constantinople. The Turkish Government is represented by an agent at Karyaes, the diminutive capital of the peninsula and the landing-place for visitors. A detachment of Christian soldiers is usually stationed there, and no one may land without permission of the monastic authorities. The monks have also an agent at Saloniki and another at Constantinople. Almost the only source of contention among them is the rivalry between the Greeks, inheritors of old traditions and customs, and the Russians of the great monastery of Rossicon (St. Anna), representative of the wealth, power, and interests of their church and country, and generously supported from St. Petersburg. In its present form the constitution of the monasteries dates from 1783. MONASTIC LIFE Each of the twenty great monasteries (twenty-one, including Karyaes) possesses its own large church and numerous chapels within and without its enclosure, which is strongly fortified, recalling the feudal burgs of the Middle Ages. The high walls and strong towers are reminders of the troubled times of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when corsairs abounded and self-defense was imperative. All of the great monasteries are on the Holy Mountain proper, and are most picturesquely situated from sea to summit, amid dense masses of oak, pine, and chestnut, or on inaccessible crags. To each of these monasteries is attached a certain number of minor monasteries (sketai, asceteria), small monastic settlements (kathismata), and hermitages (kellia, cellae). Every monastic habitation must be affiliated to one or the other of the great monasteries and is subject to its direction or supervision. All monasteries are dedicated to the Mother of God, the larger ones under some specially significant title. The ancient Greek Rule of St. Basil is still followed by all. In the observance of the Rule, however, the greater monasteries are divided into two classes, some following strictly the cenobitic life, while others permit a larger personal freedom. The latter are called "idiorhythmic"; in them the monks have a right of personal ownership and a certain share in the government of the monastery (Council of Elders); they take their meals apart, and are subject to less severe regulations. In the former, known as "cenobitic" (koinobion, coenobium, common life), there is a greater monastic rigor. The superior, or hegoumenos, has absolute authority, and all property is held in common. The chief occupation of the monks is that of solemn public prayer, by night and by day, i.e. recitation of the Divine Office, corresponding to the solemn choir-service of the Latin Church. (See GREEK RITE, BREVIARY, PSALMODY.) This leaves little time for agricultural, industrial, or intellectual labor. Some fish, or practice minor industries in aid of the common support, or administer the monastic estates located elsewhere; others go abroad occasionally to collect a part of the yearly tribute (about two dollars and a half) that each monk must pay to the Turkish Government. A portion of this is collected from the monks themselves; the rest is secured by the revenue of their farms or other possessions, and by contributions from affiliated monasteries in the Balkan Peninsula, Georgia, and Russia. The generosity of the Greek faithful is also a source of revenue, for Mount Athos is one of the most sacred pilgrimage sites of the entire Greek Church, and the feasts of the principal monasteries are always celebrated with great pomp. It may be added that the monks practice faithfully the monastic virtue of hospitality. The usual name for the individual monk here, as elsewhere in the Greek Orient, is Kalogeros (good old man). In their dress the monks do not differ from other communities of Greek Basilians. ARCHITECTURE AND THE ARTS Most of the buildings of Mount Athos are comparatively modern. Yet, because of the well-known conservative character of the monks, these edifices represent with much fidelity the Byzantine architecture, civil and religious, of the tenth to the fourteenth century. The churches are very richly adorned with columns and pavements of marble, frescoed walls and cupolas, decorated screens, etc.; there are not many mosaics. Some of the smaller oratories are said to be the oldest extant specimens of private architecture in the West, apart from the houses of Pompeii. The ecclesiastical art of the Greek Orient is richly represented here, with all its religious respect, though also with all its immobile conservatism and its stern refusal to interpret individual feeling in any other forms than those made sacred by a long line of almost nameless monastic painters like Panselinos and confided by his disciples to the famous "Painters' Book of Mount Athos" (see Didron, Manuel d'iconographie chrétienne, Paris, 1858). Though there is not in the 935 churches of the peninsula any art-work older than the sixteenth century (Bayet) their frescoes, small paintings on boards, gilt and jeweled metal work, represent with almost unswerving accuracy the principles, spirit, and details of medieval Byzantine art as applied to religious uses. LIBRARIES Each monastery possesses its own library, and the combined treasures make up a unique collection of ancient manuscripts (Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graeca, Paris, 1748, 441 sqq.). By far the richest in this respect is the Russian monastery of Saint Anna (Rossicon). Some of the more valuable classical Greek manuscripts have been purchased or otherwise secured by travelers (Neumann, "Serapeum", X, 252; Duchesne, "Mémoire sur une mission au Mont Athos", Paris, 1876; Lambros, "Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos", Cambridge, 1895, 1900). It was in this way that the text of Ptolemy first reached the West. Similarly, the oldest manuscript of the second-century Christian text known as "The Shepherd of Hermas" came from Mount Athos. The manuscripts now in possession of the monks have chiefly an ecclesiastical value; their number is said to be about 8,000. There are also in the library and archives of each monastery a great many documents (donations, privileges, charters) in Greek, Georgian, and Old-Slavonic, beginning with the ninth century, some of which are important for the historian of Byzantine law and of the medieval Greek Church (Miklosich and Müller, Zachariä von Linenthal, Uspenskij). The monks of Mount Athos are somewhat indifferent towards these treasures; nothing has been done to make them accessible, except the unsuccessful attempt of Archbishop Bulgaris of Corfu to found at Mount Athos, towards the close of the eighteenth century, a school of the classical languages. The monasteries conduct a few elementary schools for the teaching of reading and writing; nowhere, perhaps, is the intellectual stagnation of the Greek Schism more noticeable. The monks are chiefly devoted to the splendor of their religious services; the solitaries still cherish Hesychast ideas and an apocalyptic mysticism, and the whole monastic republic represents just such an intellectual decay as must follow on a total exclusion of all outside intercourse and a complete neglect of all intellectual effort (Kaulen). ATHELSTAN RILEY, Athos, the Mountain of the Monks (London, 1887); CURZON, Monasteries of the Levant (6th ed., London, 1881), LANGLOIS, Le Mont Athos et ses monastères (Paris, 1867); DE VOGÜÉ, Syrie, Palestine et Mont Athos (Paris, 1878), NEYRAC, L'Athos (Paris, 1880); KAULEN in Kirchenlex., I, 1555-63; MEYER in Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. (1890), XI, 395-435; KRUMBACHER, Gesch. der byzant Litt. (2nd ed., Munich, 1867), 511-515, 1058-59, SCEMIDTKE, Das Klosterland des Athos (1903); among older works, FALLMERAYER, Fragments aus dem Orient (2d ed., Stuttgart, 1877). For the art-treasures of Mount Athos see BROCKHAUS, Die Kunst in den Athos-Klötern (Leipzig, 1891); and for photographs of the principal sites, besides the above quoted works, Vom Fels zum Meer (1892), 19-20. THOMAS J. SHAHAN Juan de Atienza Juan de Atienza Born at Tordehumos, near Valladolid, in Spain, in the year 1546, eldest son of the royal Councillor of Castile, Bartolome de Atienza, a very distinguished Jurisconsult under Charles V. He studied law in the celebrated University of Salamanca, but in 1564 forsook the legal career in order to become a Jesuit. While in Spain, he already occupied distinguished positions. He was Prefect of the College of Avila, Procurator of the Province of his order, founder of the College of Villa Garcia, its rector and master of novices, and rector of the College of Valladolid. While thus honourably placed in his mother country, he became informed of a call for fifty Jesuits, to be sent to Peru in the interests of religion and of the Indians. Father Atienza at once asked perrnissiom to become one of their number. He reached Lima in 1581 and found there his appointment as rector of the College of San Pablo. In that capacity he was surrogate to the Provincial, Father Baltasar de Piñas, and founded, under the direction of the Company of Jesus, the College of San Martin, the first school of secular learning established at Lima. The foundation of that school was confirmed by Pope Sixtus V, in 1585, and Father Atienza became its first rector. In 1580 he was made Provincial of the Jesuits in Peru. He at once began to foster and extend the missions in Ecuador, the Gran Chaco, Tucuman and Paraguay. Out of these efforts the province of Paraguay was born in 1607. During that period a printing press was established by the Jesuits at the Indian village of Juli. Jointly with Father Jose de Acosta he directed the publication of catechisms and textbooks of Christian doctrine for the use of the Indians. These religious "primers" were printed between the years 1583 and 1590, at Lima. They are in Spanish, Quichua, and Aymará. AD. F. BANDELIER James Atkinson James Atkinson Catholic confessor, tortured to death in Bridewell prison in 1595. His pathetic and romantic story tells us nothing of his early life, but he is found in the Bridewell prison, one of the worst in London, and delivered over to Topcliffe, the notorious priest-hunter, who was trying to wring out from him, by torture, evidence on which he might accuse his master, Mr. Robert Barnes, who then held Mapledurham House, of having entertained priests, and in particular the future martyr, Venerable John Jones, O.S.F. Yielding to torment, Atkinson accused his master of having done so, but shortly after repented, and was lost in despair, knowing on the one hand that Topcliffe would torture him again, perhaps unto death, and on the other fearing that no priest could possibly come to confess and absolve him before his conflict. Unknown to him, however, a Jesuit Father happened to be in the same prison. This was Father William Baldwin (or Bawden), a man who afterwards filled important positions in his order. He had been arrested on suspicion while on shipboard, and had assumed the part of an Italian merchant unacquainted with the English language, and with such success that he was on the point of being exchanged for an English officer who had been captured by the Spaniards on board the Dainty. Atkinson's despair put Father Baldwin into a quandary. It was evident that he was at best a weakling, perhaps a traitor in disguise. To speak to such a one in English, and much more to own to him that he was a priest, would be to endanger his life. So he tried to comfort him, at first through a fellow-prisoner who knew Latin, and finally offered to bring him a priest. The poor sufferer's joy was so great that the missionary ventured to creep to his bedside that night and tell him that he was a priest. Then Atkinson held back, either out of suspicion or because, as he said, he was not prepared. Father Baldwin's fears were reawakened, but next night the penitent made his confession with evident contrition, was soon again tortured, and died under or shortly after the torment. Atkinson's cause has been proposed for Beatification, but evidence for his final perseverance, though very necessary, is naturally hard to find. CHALLONER, Missionary Priests (1864), II, 189; DODD Church History (TIERNEY ed.), III, ap. 204; FOLEY, Records S. J., III, 503; RECORD OFFICE, Treasurer of the Chamber's accounts for 1594, roll 196b. J.H. POLLEN Nicholas Atkinson Nicholas Atkinson Priest and martyr, probably to be identified with Venerable Thomas Atkinson. Dodd, who mentions Nicholas's death as having taken place at York in 1610, does not mention Thomas at all; yet all the facts which he relates of the one are certainly true of the other, while there is no corroboration for Dodd's date of Nicholas's martyrdom. It seems probable, however, there was an old Marian priest named Nicholas, or "Ninny", Atkinson (Gillow, 85). J.H. POLLEN Paul Atkinson of St. Francis Paul Atkinson of St. Francis One of the notable confessors of the English Church during the age which succeeded the persecution of blood. Having been condemned to perpetual imprisonment for his priesthood, about the year 1699, he died in confinement after having borne its pain more than thirty years. He was of a Yorkshire family and was called Mathew in baptism. He joined the English Franciscan convent at Douai in 1673, and had served with distinction on the English mission for twelve years, when he was betrayed by a maidservant for the 100 pound reward. One governor of his prison, Hurst Castle on the Solent, allowed him to walk outside the prison wall; but complaint was made of this and the leave was revoked. J.H. POLLEN Sarah Atkinson Sarah Atkinson Philanthropist and biographer, born at Athlone, Ireland, 13 October, 1823; died Dublin 8 July 1893. She was the eldest daughter of John and Anne Gaynor, who lived on the western bank of the Shannon, in that part of Athlone which is in the County Roscommon. At the age of fifteen, she removed with her family to Dublin, where her education was completed. At twenty-five, she married Dr. George Atkinson, part proprietor of the "Freeman's Journal". The loss of her only child in his fourth year so deeply affected Mrs. Atkinson that she resolved to spend the rest of her life in charitable and other good works. With her friend, Mrs. Ellen Woodlock, she interested herself in the female paupers of the South Dublin Union, and opened a home to which many were transferred and were made useful members of Society. Her house in Drumcondra soon became the rendezvous for the charitably disposed. It was even more a literary salon. Here she prepared her life of Mary Aikenhead which Mr. W.E.H. Lecky has warmly commended, and here she wrote her many valuable essays. For many years she translated into English the French "Annals of the Propagation of the Faith". Much of her time was devoted to visiting the hospitals and poor people at their homes, and to other beneficent purposes. To her is largely due the success of the Childrens' Hospital, Temple Street, Dublin. The management of the Sodality of the Children of Mary attached to the Church of St. Francis Xavier, was one of her particular pleasures. To the Hospice for the Dying, at Harold's Cross, she was a constant benefactress. Even her writings were made to serve the great objects of her life. In Duffy's "Hibernian Magazine", 1860-64, "The Month", 1864-65, "The Nation" 1869-70, the "Freeman's Journal", 1871, and in the "Irish Monthly" after its inception are to be found many important essays by her, chiefly biographical and historical. Some of her earliest and longest essays appeared in the "Irish Quarterly Review", the best of them are included in her volume of "Essays" (Dublin, l895). Her "Life of Mary Aikenhead", modestly published with her initial only, appeared in 1879, and is one of the best Catholic biographies in English. Her "Essays" include complete and learned dissertations on such divergent subjects as "St. Fursey's Life and Visions", "The Geraldines", "The Dittamondo", "Devorgilla", "Eugene O'Curry", "Irish Wool and Woolens", "St. Bridget", and excellent biographies of the Sculptors John Henry Foley and John Hogan, the best accounts yet written of those great artists. Indeed most of these essays are the best studies we have on the various subjects. Her "Citizen Saint" (St. Catherine of Siena) occupies a hundred pages, and is a most able summary. D.J. O'DONOGHUE Ven. Thomas Atkinson Ven. Thomas Atkinson Martyred at York, 11 March, l6l6. He was born in the East Riding of Yorkshire, was ordained priest at Reims, and returned to his native country in 1588. We are told that he was unwearied in visiting his flock especially the poor, and became so well known that he could not safely travel by day. He always went afoot until, hasting broken his leg, he had to ride a horse. At the age of seventy he was betrayed, and carried to York with his host, Mr. Vavasour of Willitoft, and some members of the family. A pair of beads, and the form of an indulgence were found upon him, and he was condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. He suffered "with wonderful patience, courage, and constancy, and signs of great comfort". PATRICK RYAN Atom Atom (Gr. a privative, and temno, cut; indivisible). Primarily, the smallest particle of matter which can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter, in physics, sometimes the smallest particle to which a substance can theoretically be reduced; in chemistry, the smallest particle of matter that can exist in combination with other atoms building up or constituting molecules. Two opposite doctrines of the constitution of matter were held by the ancient philosophers. One was that matter was infinitely divisible without losing its distinctive and individual properties. This is the doctrine of continuity or homoeomery. Anaxagoras is given as the founder of this view of the constitution of things. According to it any substance, such as wood or water, can by no process of subdivision, however far it might be carried, be made to be anything but a mass of wood or water. Infinite subdivision would not reach its limit of divisibility. Democritus and others held that there were ultimate particles of matter which were indivisible, and these were called atoms. This is the doctrine of atomacity, upheld by Epicurus, and enlarged on by Lucretius in his "De Rerum Natura". The early atomists held that the atoms were not in contact, but that voids existed between them, claiming that otherwise motion would be impossible. Among the moderns, Descartes and Spinoza adhered to continuity. Leibniz upheld atomicity, and Boscovich went to the last extreme of the theory, and defined atoms as centres of force denying them the attribute of impenetrability. MOLECULE AND ATOM Modern science holds that matter is not infinitely divisible, that there is an ultimate particle of every substance. If this particle is broken up that particular form of matter will be destroyed. This particle is the molecule. It is composed of another division of matter called the atom. Generally, probably always, a molecule consists of several atoms. The atoms unite to form molecules and cannot exist except as constituents of molecules. If a molecule of any substance were broken up, the substance would cease to exist and its constituent atoms would go to form or to enter into some other molecule or molecules. There is a tendency to consider the molecule of modern science as identical with the atom of the old philosophers but the modern atomic theory has given the molecule a different status from that of the old-time atom. Atom, as used in natural science, has a specific meaning based upon the theory of chemistry. This meaning is modified by recent work in the field of radioactivity, but the following will serve as a definition. It is the smallest partlcle of an element which can exist in a compound. An atom cannot exist alone as such. Atoms combine with each other to form molecules. The molecule is the smallest particle of matter which can exist without losing its distinctive properties. It corresponds pretty closely to the old Epicurean atom. The modern atom is an entirely new conception. Chemistry teaches that the thousands of forms of matter upon the earth, almost infinite in variety, can be resolved into eighty substances, unalterable by chemical processes and possessing definite spectra. These, substances are called elements. The metals, iron, gold, silver and others, sulphur, and carbon are familiar example of elements. A mass of an element is made up of a collection of molecules. Each molecule of an element as a rule is composed of two atoms. Elements combine to form compound substances of various numbers of atoms in the molecule. Water is an example of a compound substance, or chemical compound. Its molecule contains three atoms, two atoms of hydrogen, and one atom of oxygen. If a quantity of these two elements were mixed, the result would be a mechanical mixture of the molecules of the two. But if heat, or some other adequate cause were made to act, chemical action would follow and the molecules, splitting up, would combine atom with atom. Part of a molecule of oxygen--one atom--would combine with part of two atoms of hydrogen--two atoms. The result would be the production of a quantity of molecules of water. Each water molecule contains one atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen. The splitting-up of the elemental molecules into atoms is synchronous with their combining into molecules, so that an atom never exists alone. The molecules of the elements, oxygen and hydrogen, have disappeared, and in their places are molecules of water. There are about eighty kinds of atoms known, one kind for each element, and out of these the material world is made. INVARIABILITY OF COMPOSITION The invariability of composition by weight of chemical compounds is a fundamental law of chemistry. Thus water under all circumstances consists of 88.88% of oxygen and 11.11% of hydrogen. This establishes a relation between the weights of the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in the water molecule, which is 1:8. Oxygen and hydrogen are gaseous under ordinary conditions. If water is decomposed, and the vases collected and measured, there will always be two volumes of hydrogen to one of oxygen. This illustrates another fundamental law--the invariability of composition by gaseous volume of chemical compounds. From the composition by volume of water its molecule is taken as composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, on the assumption that in a given volume of any gas there is the same number of molecules. As there are two atoms in the molecules of both of these elements, the above may be put in a more popular way thus: the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen occupy the same space. The ratio spoken of above of 1:8, is therefore the ratio of two atoms of hydrogen to one of oxygen. It follows that the ratio of one atom of hydrogen to one atom of oxygen is 1:16. The numbers 1 and l6 thus determined, are the atomic weights of hydrogen and oxygen respectively. Strictly speaking they are not weights at all only numbers expressing the relation of weight. Atomic weights are determined for all the elements, based on several considerations, such as those outlined for the atoms of oxygen and hydrogen. Thus the term atom indicates not only the constituents of molecules but has a quantitative meaning, the proportional part of the element which enters into compounds. The sum of the weights of the atoms in a molecule is the molecular weight of the substance. Thus the molecular weight of water is the sum of the weights of two hydrogen atoms, which is two, and of one oxygen atom, which is sixteen, a total of eighteen. If we divide the molecular weight of a compound into atomic weight of the atoms of any element in its molecule, it will give the proportion of the element in the compound. Taking water again, if we divide the molecular weight, 18, into the weight of the atoms of hydrogen in its molecule, 2, we obtain the fraction 2/18, which express the proportion of hydrogen in water. The same process gives the proportion of oxygen in water as 16/18. Every element has its own atomic weight, and the invariability of the chemical composition by weight is explained by the invariability of the atomic weights of the elements. Tables of the atomic weights of the elements are given in all chemical text-books. The relations of the atomic weights to each other are several. The atom of lowest weight is the hydrogen atom. It is usually taken as one, which is very nearly its exact value if oxygen is taken as sixteen. On this basis one quarter of the other elements will have atomic weights that are whole numbers. This indicates a remarkable simplicity of relationship of weights, which is carried out by the close approach of the rest of the elements to the same condition, as regards their atomic weights. The range of the atomic weights is a narrow one. That of hydrogen is 1.008 -- that of uranium 238.5. The latter is the heaviest of all. Between these all the other atomic weights lie. Many of the elements resemble each other in their chemical relations. It might appear that those nearest to each other in atomic weight should be of similar properties. This is not the case. If the elements are written down in the order of their atomic weights, beginning with the lightest and ending with the heaviest, it will be found that the position of an element in the series will indicate pretty clearly its properties. The elements will be found to be so arranged in the list that any element will be related as regards its chemical properties to the element eight places removed from it. This relationship may be thus expressed: the properties of an element are a periodic function of its atomic weight. MENDELÉEFF'S TABLE This relation is called Mendeléeff's Law, from one of two chemists who independently developed it. The elements may, as before said, be written down in the order of their atomic weights, but in eight vertical columns. Along the top line the eight elements of lightest atomic weights are written in the order of their weights, followed on the second line by the next eight, also in the order of their atomic weights. This arrangement, obviously, when carried out brings the elements eight atomic weights apart, into vertical columns. It will be found that all the elements in any vertical column are of similar chemical properties. When Mendeléeff made out his table it was supposed that several elements were as yet undiscovered. The table also brought out clearly certain numerical relations of the atomic weights. These together with other factors caused him to leave blank spaces in his table, which none of the known elements could fill. For these places hypothetical elements were assumed, whose general properties and atomic weights were stated by him. One by one these elements have been discovered, so that Mendeléeff's Law predicted the existence of elements later to be discovered. These discoveries of predicted elements constitute one of the greatest triumphs of chemical science. Up to within a very recent period the atom was treated as the smallest division of matter, although the possibility of the transmutation of the elements in some way, or in some degree, has long been considered a possibility. It was conjectured that all the elements might be composed of some one substance, for which a name, protyle, meaning first material, was coined. This seemed to conflict with the accepted definition of the atom, as protyle indicated something anterior to or preceding it. The idea rested in abeyance, as there was little ground for building up a theory to include it. Recent discoveries have resuscitated this never quite abandoned theory; protyle seems to have been discovered, and the atom has ceased to hold its place as the ultimate division of matter. CORPUSCULES The most recent theory holds that the atom is composite, and is built up of still minuter particles, called corpuscules. As far as the ordinary processes of chemistry are concerned the atom remains as it was. But investigations in the field of radioactivity, largely physical and partly chemical, go to prove that the atom, built up of corpuscules as said above, depends for its atomic weight upon the number of corpuscules in it, and these corpuscules are all identical in nature. In these corpuscules we have the one first material, or protyle. It follows that the only difference between atoms of different elements is in the number corpuscules they contain. Any process which would change the number of corpuscules in the atoms of an element would change the element into another one, thus carrying out the transmutation of elements. So far one transmutation is accepted as effected experiments in radioactivity go to prove that some elements, notably radium project particles of in conceivable minuteness into space. These particles have sometimes one-half the velocity of light. They are called corpuscules. The corpuscule is sometimes defined as a particle of negative electricity, which, in the existing state of electrical knowledge, is a very imperfect definition. They are all negatively electrified, and therefore repel each other. The condition of equilibrium of groups of such particles, if held near to each other by another external force has been investigated by Prof. J.J. Thomson, and his investigations establish a basis for a theory on the constitution of atoms. Thus, assume an atom to consist of a number of corpuscules, not touching each other, negatively electrified so that they repel one another, and held within the limits of the atom by what may be termed a shell of attractive force. Professor Thomson shown that such particles, under the conditions outlined above, arrange themselves into groups of various arrangement, the latter depending on their number. If the number of particles in a group be progressively increased, a periodic recurrence of the groupings will occur. Assume a group of five particles. These will form a group of definite shape. If more particles are added to the group, the first additions will cause the five group to disappear, other groups taking the place, until the number reaches fifteen, when the original grouping of five will reappear, surrounded by the other ten particles. On adding more particles, the five and ten group disappear, to be succeeded by others, until the number of thirty is reached. At this point the original five group and the ten group reappear, with a new group of fifteen. The same recurrence of groupings takes place with forty-seven and sixty seven particles. This gives the outlines of an explanation of the periodic law. If any number of particles be taken they will show groupings, characteristic of the number, and subject to periodical reappearance of groupings is exactly comparable to the phenomena of the periodic law. It is the reappearance of the similar properties at periodic intervals. The corpucular theory also accounts for the variation of the elements in atomic weight. Corpuscules are supposed to be all like, so that the weight of an atom would depend on how many corpuscules were require to form it. Thus an atom of oxygen would contain sixteen times as many corpuscules as would an atom of hydrogen, weighing only one-sixteenth as much. The weight of an atom of hydrogen has been approximately calculated as expressed by the decimal, 34 preceded by thirteen ciphers, of a gram. This means that thirty-four thousand millions of millions of atoms of hydrogen would weigh in the aggregate one gram. These calculations are based on determination of the electric charge of corpuscules. Corpuscles are calculated as being one-thousandth of the mass of an atom of hydrogen. Professor Oliver Lodge gives the following comparison: if a church of ordinary size represent an atom, a thousand grains of sand dashing about its interior with enormous velocity would represent its constituent corpuscules. When atoms unite to form molecules, they are said to saturate each other. Elements vary in the saturating power of their atoms. The saturating power is called atomicity or valency. Some elements have a valency of one, and are termed monads. A monad can saturate a monad. Others are termed dyads, have a valency of two, two monads being required to saturate one dyad, while one dyad can saturate another dyad. Valencies run on through triads, tetrads, pentads, hexads, heptads, and octads, designating valencies of three, four, five, six, seven, and eight respectively. T. O'CONOR SLOANE Atomism Atomism Atomism [ a privative and temnein to cut, i. e. indivisible] is the system of those who hold that all bodies are composed of minute, indivisible particles of matter called atoms. We must distinguish between + atomism as a philosophy and + atomism as a theory of science. Atomism as a philosophy originated with Leucippus. Democritus (b. 460 B.C.), his disciple, generally considered the father of atomism, as practically nothing is known of Leucippus. The theory of Democritus may be summed up in the following propositions: 1. All bodies are composed of atoms and spaces between the atoms. 2. Atoms are eternal, indivisible, infinite in number, and homogeneous in nature; all differences in bodies are due to a difference in the size, shape or location of the atoms. 3. There is no purpose or design in nature, and in this sense all is ruled by chance. 4. All activity is reduced to local motion. The formation of the universe is due to the fact that the larger atoms fall faster, and by striking against the smaller ones combine with them; thus the whole universe is the result of the fortuitous concourse of atoms. Countless worlds are formed simultaneously and successively. Epicurus (342-270 B. C.) adopted the theory of Democritus, but corrected the blunder, pointed out by Aristotle, that larger atoms fall faster than smaller ones in vacuo. He substituted a power in the atoms to decline a little from the line of fall. Atomism is defended by Lucretius Carus (95-51 B.C.) in his poem, "De Rerum Naturâ." With the exception of a few alchemists in the Middle Ages, we find no representatives of atomism until Gassendi (1592-1655) renewed the atomism of Epicurus. Gassendi tried to harmonize atomism with Christian teaching by postulating atoms finite in number and created by God. With the application of atomism to the sciences, philosophic atomism also revived, and became for a time the most popular philosophy. Present-day philosophic atomic regards matter as homogeneous and explains all physical and chemical properties of bodies by a difference in mass of matter and local motion. The atom itself is inert and devoid of all activity. The molecule, taken over from the sciences, is but an edifice of unchangeable atoms. Philosophic atomism stands entirely on the basis of materialism, and, though it invokes the necessary laws of matter, its exclusion of final causes makes it in the last analysis a philosophy of chance. The atomic theory was first applied to chemistry by Dalton (1808), but with him it meant little more than an expression of proportions in chemical composition. The theory supplied a simple explanation of the facts observed before him: that elements combine in definite and multiple proportions. The discovery in the same year by Gay-Lussac of the law that gases under the same pressure and temperature have equal volumes was at the same time a confirmation and an aid in determining atomic weights. Avogadro's law (1811) that gases under the same conditions of pressure and temperature have an equal number of molecules, and the law of Petit and Dulong that the product of the specific heat and atomic weight of an element gives a constant number were further confirmations and aids. The atomic theory was soon applied to physics, and is today the basis of most of the sciences. Its main outlines are: Matter is not continuous but atomically constituted. An atom is the smallest particle of matter that can enter a chemical reaction. Atoms of like nature constitute elements, those of unlike nature constitute compounds. The elements known today are about 76 in number and differ from one another in weight and physical and chemical properties. Atoms combine to form molecules, which are the smallest quantities of matter that can exist in a free state, whether of an element or a compound. Some believe that the atom retains its individuality in the molecule, whilst others consider the molecule homogeneous throughout. The theoretic formulas of structure of Frankland suppose them to remain. The spaces between the atoms are filled with an imponderable matter called ether. Upon the nature of ether the greatest differences of opinion exist. The adoption by scientists of Maxwell's theory of light seems to render the ether-hypothesis with its many contradictions superfluous. At all events it is quite independent of the atomic theory. The results obtained by the Hungarian Lenard, the English physicist J.J. Thomson, and many others, by means of electric discharges in ratified gases, the discovery of Hertzian waves a better understanding of electrolysis and the discovery of radium by Madame Curie have made necessary a modification of the atomic theory of matter. The atom, hitherto considered solid and indivisible, is now believed to break up into ions or electrons. This new theory, however, must not be considered as opposed to the atomic theory; it comes rather as an extension of it. In chemistry, the principal field of the atomic theory, the atom will still remain as the chemically indivisible unit. The hypothesis of subatoms is, moreover, not entirely new; it was proposed by Spencer as early as 1872 ("Contemporary Rev.", June, 1872) and defended by Crookes in 1886. The physico-chemical theory of atomism, though is not a demonstrated truth, offers a satisfactory explanation of a great number of phenomena, and will, no doubt, remain essentially the same, no matter how it may be modified in its details. In chemistry, it does not stop arbitrarily in the division of matter, but stops at chemical division. If another science demands further division, or if philosophy must postulate a division of the atom into essential principles, that is not the concern of chemistry. Science has no interest in defending the indivisible atom of Democritus. Scholastic philosophy finds nothing in the scientific theory of atomism which it cannot harmonize with its principles, though it must reject the mechanical explanation, often proposed in the name of science, which looks upon the atom as an absolutely inert mass, devoid of all activities and properties. Schlolastic philosophers find in the different physical and chemical properties of the elements an indication of specificlly different natures. Chemical changes are for them substantial changes, and chemical formulas indicate the mode in which the elements react on one another in the production of the compound. They are not a representation of the molecular edifice built up of unchangeable atoms. Some would accept even this latter view and admit that there are no substantial changes in inanimate nature (Gutberlet). This view can also be harmonized more easily with the facts of stereo-chemistry. As regards the phenomena observed in radlo-activity, a generalization, either in the materialistic sense, that all matter is homogeneous, or in the scholastic sense, that all elements can be changed into one another, is in the present state of science premature. EDMUND J. WIRTH Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) Day of Atonement (Hebrew Yom Hakkippurim. Vulgate, Dies Expiationum, and Dies Propitiationis — Leviticus 23:27-28) The rites to be observed on the Day of Atonement are fully set forth in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus (cf. Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 23:27-31, 25:9; Numbers 29:7-11). It was a most solemn fast, on which no food could be taken throughout the whole the day, and servile works were forbidden. It was kept on nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. The sacrifices included a calf, a ram, and seven lambs (Numbers 29:8-11). But the distinctive ceremony of the day was the offering of the two goats. He (Aaron) shall make the two buck-goats to stand before Lord, in the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: and casting lots upon them both, one to be offered to the Lord and the other to be the emissary-goat: That whose lot fell to be offered to the Lord, he shall offer for sin: But that whose lot was to be the emissary goat he shall present alive before the Lord, that he may pour out prayers upon him, and let him go into the wilderness . . . After he hath cleansed the sanctuary, and the tabernacle, and the altar, let him offer the living goat: And putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins, and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony. (Leviticus 16:7-10, 20-23). The general meaning of the ceremony is sufficiently shown in the text. But the details present some difficulty. The Vulgate caper emissarius, "emissary goat", represents the obscure Hebrew word Azazel, which occurs nowhere else in the Bible. Various attempts have been made to interpret its meaning. Some have taken it for the name of a place where the man who took the goat away used to throw it over a precipice, since its return was thought to forbode evil. Others, with better reason, take it for the name of an evil spirit; and in fact a spirit of this name is mentioned in the Apocryphal Book of Henoch, and later in Jewish literature. On this interpretation—which, though by no means new, finds favour with modern critics—the idea of the ceremony would seem to be that the sins were sent back to the evil spirit to whose influence they owed their origin. It has been noted that somewhat similar rites of expiation have prevailed among heathen nations. And modern critics, who refer the above passages to the Priestly Code, and to a post-Exilic date, are disposed to regard the sending of the goat to Azazel as an adaptation of a pre-existing ceremonial. The significant ceremony observed on this solemn Day of Atonement does but give a greater prominence to that need of satisfaction and expiation which was present in all the ordinary sin-offerings. All these sacrifices for sin, as we learn from the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, were figures of the great Sacrifice to come. In like manner these Jewish rites of atonement speak to us of the Cross of Christ, and of the propitiatory Sacrifice which is daily renewed in a bloodless manner on the Eucharistic Altar. For this reason it may be of interest to note, with Provost Maltzew, that the Jewish prayers used on the Day of Atonement foreshadow the common commemoration of the saints and the faithful departed in our liturgies (Die Liturgien der orthodox-katholischen Kirche des Morgenlandes, 252). W.H. KENT Doctrine of the Atonement Doctrine of the Atonement The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e. g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. "For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" (II Cor., v, 19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues: Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (II Cor., 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Gal., iv, 4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Rom., iii, 25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2). More than twelve centuries before this, the same dogma was proclaimed in the words of the Nicene Creed, "who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered. "And all that is thus taught in the decrees of the councils may be read in the pages of the New Testament. For instance, in the words of Our Lord, "even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many" (Matt., xx, 28); or of St. Paul, "Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven." (Coloss., i, 19, 20). The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which the doctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement. (a) In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men. From this, we have one of the first and most profound forms of theological speculation on the Atonement, the theory which is sometimes described as Mystical Redemption. Instead of seeking a solution in legal figures, some of the great Greek Fathers were content to dwell on the fundamental fact of the Divine Incarnation. By the union of the Eternal Word with the nature of man all mankind was lifted up and, so to say, deified. "He was made man", says St. Athanasius, "that we might be made gods" (De Incarnatione Verbi, 54). "His flesh was saved, and made free the first of all, being made the body of the Word, then we, being concorporeal therewith, are saved by the same (Orat., II, Contra Arianos, lxi). And again, "For the presence of the Saviour in the flesh was the price of death and the saving of the whole creation (Ep. ad Adelphium, vi). In like manner St. Gregory of Nazianzus proves the integrity of the Sacred Humanity by the argument, "That which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved" (to gar aproslepton, atherapeuton ho de henotai to theu, touto kai sozetai). This speculation of the Greek Fathers undoubtedly contains a profound truth which is sometimes forgotten by later authors who are more intent on framing juridical theories of ransom and satisfaction. But it is obvious that this account of the matter is imperfect, and leaves much to be explained. It must be remembered, moreover, that the Fathers themselves do not put this forward as a full explanation. For while many of their utterances might seem to imply that the Redemption was actually accomplished by the union of a Divine Person with the human nature, it is clear from other passages that they do not lose sight of the atoning sacrifice. The Incarnation is, indeed, the source and the foundation of the Atonement, and these profound thinkers have, so to say, grasped the cause and its effects as one vast whole. Hence they look on to the result before staying to consider the means by which it was accomplished. (b) But something more on this matter had already been taught in the preaching of the Apostles and in the pages of the New Testament. The restoration of fallen man was the work of the Incarnate Word. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (II Cor., v. 19). But the peace of that reconciliation was accomplished by the death of the Divine Redeemer, "making peace through the blood of His cross" (Coloss., i, 20). This redemption by death is another mystery, and some of the Fathers in the first ages are led to speculate on its meaning, and to construct a theory in explanation. Here the words and figures used in Holy Scripture help to guide the current of theological thought. Sin is represented as a state of bondage or servitude, and fallen man is delivered by being redeemed, or bought with a price. "For you are bought with a great price" (I Cor., vi, 20). "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed to God, in thy blood" (Apoc, v, 9). Looked at in this light, the Atonement appears as the deliverance from captivity by the payment of a ransom. This view is already developed in the second century. "The mighty Word and true Man reasonably redeeming us by His blood, gave Himself a ransom for those who had been brought into bondage. And since the Apostasy unjustly ruled over us, and, whereas we belonged by nature to God Almighty, alienated us against nature and made us his own disciples, the Word of God, being mighty in all things, and failing not in His justice, dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself, buying back from it the things which were His own" (Irenaeus Aversus Haereses V, i). And St. Augustine says in well-known words: "Men were held captive under the devil and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth his blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?" (Enarratio in Psalm xcv, n. 5). It cannot be questioned that this theory also contains a true principle. For it is founded on the express words of Scripture, and is supported by many of the greatest of the early Fathers and later theologians. But unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion, which would seem to have arisen from the natural tendency to take a figure too literally, and to apply it in details which were not contemplated by those who first made use of it. It must not be forgotten that the account of our deliverance from sin is set forth in figures. Conquest, captivity, and ransom are familiar facts of human history. Man, having yielded to the temptations of Satan, was like to one overcome in battle. Sin, again, is fitly likened to a state of slavery. And when man was set free by the shedding of Christ's precious Blood, this deliverance would naturally recall (even if it had not been so described in Scripture) the redemption of a captive by the payment of a ransom. But however useful and illuminating in their proper place, figures of this kind are perilous in the hands of those who press them too far, and forget that they are figures. This is what happened here. When a captive is ransomed the price is naturally paid to the conqueror by whom he is held in bondage. Hence, if this figure were taken and interpreted literally in all its details, it would seem that the price of man's ransom must be paid to Satan. The notion is certainly startling, if not revolting. Even if brave reasons pointed in this direction, we might well shrink from drawing the concluslon. And this is in fact so far from being the case that it seems hard to find any rational explanation of such a payment, or any right on which it could be founded. Yet, strange to say, the bold flight of theological speculation was not checked by these misgivings. In the above-cited passage of St. Irenaeus, we read that the Word of God "dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself [i.e. Satan], buying back from it the things which were His own." This curious notion, apparently first mooted by St. Irenaeus, was taken up by Origen in the next century, and for about a thousand years it played a conspicuous part in the history of theology. In the hands of some of the later Fathers and medieval writers, it takes various forms, and some of its more repulsive features are softened or modified. But the strange notion of some right, or claim, on the part of Satan is still present. A protest was raised by St. Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century, as might be expected from that most accurate of the patristic theologians. But it was not till St. Anselm and Abelard had met it with unanswerable arguments that its power was finally broken. It makes a belated appearance in the pages of Peter Lombard. (c) But it is not only in connection with the theory of ransom that we meet with this notion of "rights" on the part of Satan. Some of the Fathers set the matter in a different aspect. Fallen man, it was said, was justly under the dominion of the devil, in punishment for sin. But when Satan brought suffering and death on the sinless Saviour, he abused his power and exceeded his right, so that he was now justly deprived of his dominion over the captives. This explanation is found especially in the sermons of St. Leo and the "Morals" of St. Gregory the Great. Closely allied to this explanation is the singular "mouse-trap" metaphor of St. Augustine. In this daring figure of speech, the Cross is regarded as the trap in which the bait is set and the enemy is caught. "The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors" (Serm. cxxx, part 2). (d) These ideas retained their force well into the Middle Ages. But the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement. It may be said, indeed, that this book marks an epoch in theological literature and doctrinal development. There are not many works, even among those of the greatest teachers, that can compare in this respect with the treatise of St. Anselm. And, with few exceptions, the books that have done as much to influence and guide the growth of theology are the outcome of some great struggle with heresy; while others, again, only summarize the theological learning of the age. But this little book is at once purely pacific and eminently original. Nor could any dogmatic treatise well be more simple and unpretending than this luminous dialogue between the great archbishop and his disciple Boso. There is no parade of learning, and but little in the way of appeal to authorities. The disciple asks and the master answers; and both alike face the great problem before them fearlessly, but at the same time with all due reverence and modesty. Anselm says at the outset that he will not so much show his disciple the truth he needs, as seek it along with him; and that when he says anything that is not confirmed by higher authority, it must be taken as tentative, and provisional. He adds that, though he may in some measure meet the question, one who is wiser could do it better; and that, whatever man may know or say on this subject, there will always remain deeper reasons that are beyond him. In the same spirit he concludes the whole treatise by submitting it to reasonable correction at the hands of others. It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the "mouse-trap" metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm's answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfactlon. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all rnankind. Many side questions are incidentally treated in the dialogue between Anselm and Boso. But this is the substance of the answer given to the great question, "Cur Deus Homo?". Some modern writers have suggested that this notion of deliverance by means of satisfaction may have a German origin. For in old Teutonic laws, a criminal might pay the wergild instead of undergoing punishment. But this custom was not peculiar or to the Germans, as we may see from the Celtic eirig, and, as Riviere has pointed out, there is no need to have recourse to this explanation. For the notion of satisfaction for sin was already present in the whole system of ecclesiastical penance, though it had been left for Anselm to use it in illustration of the doctrine of the Atonernent. It may be added that the same idea underlies the old Jewish "sin-offerings" as well as the similar rites that are found in many ancient religions. It is specially prominent in the rites and prayers used on the Day of Atonement. And this, it may be added, is now the ordinary acceptance of the word; to "atone" is to give satisfactlon, or make amends, for an offense or an injury. (e) Whatever may be the reason, it is clear that this doctrine was attracting special attention in the age of St. Anselm. His own work bears witness that it was undertaken at the urgent request of others who wished to have some new light on this mystery. To some extent, the solution offered by Anselm seems to have satisfied these desires, though, in the course of further discussion, an important part of his theory, the absolute necessity of Redemption and of satisfaction for sin, was discarded by later theologians, and found few defenders. But meanwhile, within a few years of the appearance of the "Cur Deus Homo?" another theory on the subject had been advanced by Abelard. In common with St. Anselm, Abelard utterly rejected the old and then still prevailing, notion that the devil had some sort of right over fallen man, who could only be justly delivered by means of a ransom paid to his captor. Against this he very rightly urges, with Anselm, that Satan was clearly guilty of injustice in the matter and could have no right to anything but punishment. But, on the other hand, Abelard was unable to accept Anselm's view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeerner. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God. Abelard's teaching on this point, as on others, was vehemently attacked by St. Bernard. But it should be borne in mind that some of the arguments urged in condemnation of Abelard would affect the position of St. Anselm also, not to speak of later Catholic theology. In St. Bernard's eyes it seemed that Abelard, in denying the rights of Satan, denied the "Sacrament of Redemption" and regarded the teaching and example of Christ as the sole benefit of the Incarnation. "But", as Mr. Oxenham observes, he had not said so, and he distinctly asserts in his "Apology" that "the Son of God was incarnate to deliver us from the bondage of sin and yoke of the Devil and to open to us by His death the gate of eternal life." And St. Bernard himself, in this very Epistle, distinctly denies any absolute necessity for the method of redemption chosen, and suggests a reason for it not so very unlike Abelard's. "Perhaps that method is the best, whereby in a land of forgetfulness and sloth we might be more powerfully as vividly reminded of our fall, through the so great and so manifold sufferings of Him who repaired it." Elsewhere when not speaking controversially, he says still more plainly: "Could not the Creator have restored His work without that difficulty? He could, but He preferred to do it at his own cost, lest any further occasion should be given for that worst and most odious vice of ingratitude in man" (Bern., Serm. xi, in Cant.). What is this but to say, with Abelard that "He chose the Incarnation as the most effectual method for eliciting His creature's love?" (The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement, 85, 86). (f) Although the high authority of St. Bernard was thus against them, the views of St. Anselm and Abelard, the two men who in different ways were the fathers of Scholasticism, shaped the course of later medieval theology. The strange notion of the rights of Satan, against which they had both protested, now disappears from the pages of our theologians. For the rest, the view which ultimately prevailed may be regarded as a combination of the opinions of Anselm and Abelard. In spite of the objections urged by the latter writer, Anselm's doctrine of Satisfaction was adopted as the basis. But St. Thomas and the other medieval masters agree with Abelard in rejecting the notion that this full Satisfaction for sin was absolutely necessary. At the most, they are willing to admit a hypothetical or conditional necessity for the Redemption by the death of Christ. The restoration of fallen man was a work of God's free mercy and benevolence. And, even on the hypothesis that the loss was to be repaired, this might have been brought about in many and various ways. The sin might have been remitted freely, without any satisfaction at all, or some lesser satisfaction, however imperfect in itself, might have been accepted as sufficient. But on the hypothesis that God as chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm's argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save them. In reference to many points of detail the Schoolmen, here as elsewhere, adopted divergent views. One of the chief questions at issue was the intrinsic adequacy of the satisfaction offered by Christ. On this point the majority, with St. Thomas at their head, maintained that, by reason of the infinite dignity of the Divine Person, the least action or suffering of Christ had an infinite value, so that in itself it would suffice as an adequate satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Scotus and his school, on the other hand, disputed this intrinsic infinitude, and ascribed the all-sufficiency of the satisfaction to the Divine acceptation. As this acceptation was grounded on the infinite dignity of the Divine Person, the difference was not so great as might appear at first sight. But, on this point at any rate the simpler teaching of St. Thomas is more generally accepted by later theologians. Apart from this question, the divergent views of the two schools on the primary motive of the Incarnation naturally have some effect on the Thomist and Scotist theology of the Atonement. On looking back at the various theories noticed so far, it will be seen that they are not, for the most part, mutually exclusive, but may be combined and harmonized. It may be said, indeed, that they all help to bring out different aspects of that great doctrine which cannot find adequate expression in any human theory. And in point of fact it will generally be found that the chief Fathers and Schoolmen, though they may at times lay more stress on some favourite theory of their own, do not lose sight of the other explanations. Thus the Greek Fathers, who delight in speculating on the Mystical Redemption by the Incarnation, do not omit to speak also of our salvation by the shedding of blood. Origen, who lays most stress on the deliverance by payment of a ransom, does not forget to dwell on the need of a sacrifice for sin. St. Anselm again, in his "Meditations", supplements the teaching set forth in his "Cur Deus Homo?" Abelard, who might seem to make the Atonement consist in nothing more than the constraining example of Divine Love has spoken also of our salvation by the Sacrifice of the Cross, in passages to which his critics do not attach sufficient importance. And, as we have seen his great opponent, St. Bernard, teaches all that is really true and valuable in the theory which he condemned. Most, if not all, of these theories had perils of their own, if they were isolated and exaggerated. But in the Catholic Church there was ever a safeguard against these dangers of distortion. As Mr. Oxenham says very finely, The perpetual priesthood of Christ in heaven, which occupies a prominent place in nearly all the writings we have examined, is even more emphatically insisted upon by Origen. And this deserves to be remembered, because it is a part of the doctrine which has been almost or altogether dropped out of many Protestant expositions of the Atonement, whereas those most inclining among Catholics to a merely juridical view of the subject have never been able to forget the present and living reality of a sacrifice constantly kept before their eyes, as it were, in the worship which reflects on earth the unfailing liturgy of heaven. (p. 38) The reality of these dangers and the importance of this safeguard may be seen in the history of this doctrine since the age of Reformation. As we have seen, its earlier development owed comparatively little to the stress of controversy with the heretics. And the revolution of the sixteenth century was no exception to the rule. For the atonement was not one of the subjects directly disputed between the Reformers and their Catholic opponents. But from its close connection with the cardinal question of Justification, this doctrine assumed a very special prominence and importance in Protestant theology and practical preaching. Mark Pattison tells us in his "Memoirs" that he came to Oxford with his "home Puritan religion almost narrowed to two points, fear of God's wrath and faith in the doctrine of the Atonement". And his case was possibly no exception among Protestant religionists. In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies. + The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction. + The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. This view of the Atonement naturally provoked a reaction. Thus the Socinians were led to reject the notion of vicarious suffering and satisfaction as inconsistent with God's justice and mercy. And in their eyes the work of Christ consisted simply in His teaching by word and example. Similar objections to the juridical conception of the Atonement led to like results in the later system of Swedenborg. More recently Albrecht Ritschl, who has paid special attention to this subject, has formulated a new theory on somewhat similar lines. His conception of the Atonement is moral and spiritual, rather than juridical and his system is distinguished by the fact that he lays stress on the relation of Christ to the whole Christian community. We cannot stay to examine these new systems in detail. But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is already found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man's laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross". W.H. KENT Atrib Atrib A titular see of Lower Egypt (Athribites) whose episcopal list (325-479) is given in Gams (p. 461). Atrium Atrium I. An open place or court before a church. It consisted of a large quadrangle with colonnaded walks on its four sides forming a portico or cloister. It was situated between the porch or vestibule and the body of the church. In the center of the atrium was a fountain or well, where the worshippers washed their hands before entering the church. A remnant of this custom still survives in the use of the holy-water font, or basin, usually placed near the inner entrances of churches in the atrium those that were not suffered to advance farther, and more particularly the first class of penitents, stood to solicit the prayers of the faithful as they went into the church. It was also used as a burying-ground, at first only for distinguished persons, but afterwards for all believers. The covered portion next the church was called the narthex and was the place for penitents. The basilicas at Ravenna seem usually to have had a closed narthex, while those of Rome were open to the West. A mosaic in S. Apollinare Nuovo Ravenna shows an open narthex closed by curtains. The atrium existed in some of the largest of the early Christian churches such as old St. Peter's at Rome in the fourth century, and Sancta Sophia at Constantinople, in the sixth. In the residences (palatia, domus) of the Rornan aristocracy, where the Roman Christians first worshipped, there was a threefold division, first, on entering, a court called the atrium; then, farther in, another colonnaded court called the peristyle, and then the tablinum, where the altar was problably placed, and services conducted. (See BASILICA.) So large a fore-court to a church required an area of land costly and difficult to obtain in a large city. For this reason the old Roman atrium survived only occasionally in Eastern and Western churches. Typical examples may be seen in the churches of St. Clement, at Rome, and St. Ambrose, at Mllan; also in the seventh century churches of Novara and Parenzo. II. In secular architecture the atrium was the principal entrance-hall and apartment in a Roman house, and formed the reception-room. It was lighted by an opening in the roof, called the compluvium, the roof sloping so as to throw the rain-water into a cistern in the floor called the impluvium. In large houses it was surrounded by a colonnade. THOMAS H. POOLE Attainder Attainder A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial. It is an act whereby the judicature of the entire parliament is exercised, and may be contrasted with the procedure by impeachment in which the accusation, presented by the Commons acting as a grand jury of the whole realm, is tried by the Lords, exercising at once the functions of a high court of justice and of a jury. In a strictly technical sense it may be said that a Bill of Attainder is a legislative act inflicting the punishment of death without a trial, and that a Bill of Pains and Penalties is such an act inflicting a milder punishment. In the popular sense, however, the term "Bill of Attainder" embraces both classes of acts, and in that sense it is evidently used in the Constitution of the United States, as the Supreme Court has declared in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 138, that "a bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property or both". Such a bill deals with the merits of a particular case and inflicts penalties, more or less severe, ex post facto, without trial in the usual form. While bills of attainder were used in England as early as 1321 in the procedure employed by Parliament in the banishment of the two Despensers (1 St. tr. pp. 23, 38), it was not until the period of passion engendered by the civil war that the summary power of Parliament to punish criminals by statute was for the first time perverted and abused. Then it was that this process was first freely used, not only against the living, but sometimes against the dead, the main object in the latter case being, of course, the confiscation of the estate of the attainted person. In the flush of victory which followed the battle of Towton, Edward IV obtained the passage of a sweeping bill of attainder through which the crown was enriched by forfeiture of the estates of fourteen lords and more than a hundred knights and esquires. In the seventeenth year of that reign was passed the Act of Attainder of the Duke of Clarence in which, after an oratorical preface setting out at length the offence imputed to him, it is enacted "that the said George Duke of Clarence be convicted, and atteynted of high treason". Then follows the appointment of the Duke of Buckingham as lord high steward for that occasion to do execution. It is a remarkable fact that during a period of one hundred and sixty-two years (1459-1621) there is no record of a parliamentary impeachment either in the rolls of Parliament or in the Lords' journal. After the impeachment of Lord Stanley in 1459, for not sending his troops to the battle of Bloreheath, there was not another impeachment until that of Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Mitchell in 1621. During the interval, covering a little more than the reigns of the house of Tudor, enemies of the State were disposed of either by bills of attainder, by trials in the Star Chamber, or by trials for treason in the courts of common law. In the reign of Henry VIII Bills of attainder were often used instead of impeachments, as in the cases of Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, Queen Katherine Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of Surrey. During that reign religious persecution was carried on rather through the legal machinery devised for the punishment of high treason as defined by the Act of Supremacy than by bills of attainder. By the Act of Supremacy, the King was declared Head of the Church with "the title and style thereof"; by the penal act which followed as a corollary thereto, it was declared that any attempt to deprive him "of the dignity, title, or name" of his royal estate should constitute high treason; under the special act providing the amended oath, it was possible to call upon anyone to declare his belief in the validity of the new title, and a failure to do so was sufficient evidence of guilt. By that legal machinery were dashed to pieces the Charterhouse monks of London, who are admitted on every hand to have been the noblest and purest of all churchmen. Even =46roude admits that they were "gallant men, whose high forms, in the sunset of the old faith, stand transfigured on the horizon, tinged with the light of its dying glory". The legal proceedings through which the Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas More were brought to the block were but a repetition of what had been gone through with in the case of the Carthusians. After the Tudor time the most remarkable bills of attainder are those that were directed against Lord Strafford, Lord Danby, the Duke of Monmouth, and Sir John Fenwick. As instances of bills of pains and penalties, reference may be made to those against Bishop Atterbury and Queen Caroline, usually referred to as the last instances of such legislation. When Queen Caroline returned to England, in July, 1830, all the ministers, except Canning, were induced to consent to the introduction in the House of Lords of a bill of pains and penalties, providing for the dissolution of her marriage with the King, upon the ground of adultery, and for her degradation. When the charges contained in the preamble came on to be heard, Brougham and Denman, by their bold and brilliant defence of the Queen, so aroused popular sympathy in her favour, by holding her up as a deserted and persecuted woman, that the ministry deemed it wise to drop the bill after the majority in its favour in the Lords had dwindled to nine. Reference is made to this case as an illustration of the nature of the procedure upon such bills. "The proceedings of parliament in passing bills of attainder, and of pains and penalties, do not vary from those adopted in regard to other bills. They may be introduced in either house, but ordinarily commence in the House of Lords: they pass through the same stages; and when agreed to by both houses they receive the royal assent in the usual form. But the parties who are subjected to these proceedings are admitted to defend themselves by counsel and witnesses, before both houses; and the solemnity of the proceedings would cause measures to be taken to enforce the attendance of members upon their service in parliament" (May, Parl. Practice, 744). It thus appears that, in the modern form, procedure by attainder admits the right of proof and argument. Entirely apart from the judicature of Parliament, attainder is defined by the common law of England to be the stain or corruption of blood which follows as an immediate and inseparable consequence of a death sentence. Such attainder took place after judgment of death, or upon such circumstances as were equivalent to such a judgment or outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding from justice. Conviction without judgment was not followed by attainder. The consequences of attainder were: first, forfeiture; second, corruption of the blood. The extent of the forfeiture depended on the nature of the crime for which the criminal was convicted; and by corruption of blood, "both upwards and downwards," the attainted person could neither inherit nor transmit lands. After it was clear beyond dispute that the criminal was no longer fit to live, he was called attaint, stained, or blackened, and before 6 and 7 Vict., c. 85 p. 1, could not be called as a witness in any court. The doctrine of attainder has, however, ceased to be of much practical importance since 33 and 34 Vict., c. 23, wherein it was provided that henceforth no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction, or judgment of or for any treason or felony, or felo-de-se shall cause any attainder or corruption of blood or any forfeiture or escheat. HANNIS TAYLOR St. Attala St. Attala Born in the sixth century in Burgundy; died 627. He first became a monk at Lerins, but, displeased with the loose discipline prevailing there, he entered the monastery of Luxeuil which had just been founded by St. Columban. When Columban was expelled from Luxeuil by King Theodoric II, Attala was to succeed him as abbot, but preferred to follow him into exile. They settled on the banks of the river Trebbia, a little northeast of Genoa, where they founded the celebrated Abbey of Bobbio. After the death of St. Columban in 615, Attala succeeded him as Abbot of Bobbio. He and his monks suffered many hardships at the hands of the Arian King Ariowald. As abbot, Attala insisted on strict discipline and when a large number of his monks rebelled, declaring his discipline too rigorous, he permitted them to leave the monastery. When, however, some of these perished miserably, the others considering their death a punishment from God, returned to the monastery. Attala was buried in Bobbio where his feast is celebrated on 10 March. MICHAEL OTT Attalia Attalia (Also ATTALEIA.) A titular metropolitan see of Pamphylia in Asia Minor. Its episcopal list (431-879) is given in Gams (450). It is probably identical with the present Adalia, the chief port and largest place on the southern coast of Asia Minor. Remains of sculptured marbles are abundant in the vicinity. It is mentioned in Acts 14:24-25, as the seaport whence Paul and Barnabas set sail for Antioch, at the close of their missionary journey through Pisidia and Pamphylia. Another city of the same name existed in Lydia, Asia Minor; its episcopal list (431-879) is given in Gams (447). THOMAS J. SHAHAN Attaliates Attaliates Byzantine stateman and historian, probably a native of Attalia in Pamphylia, whence he seems to have come to Constantinople between 1130 and 1140. He acquired in the royal city both wealth and position and was rapidly