ARNO OF REICHERSBERG: A younger brother of the more famous Gerhoh of Reichersberg; d. Jan. 30, 1175. The year of his birth is not known, He received his education from Gerhoh, whose "son in the Lord" he calls himself. A third brother, Ruodger, was dean at Augsburg, and later at Neuburg. After Gerhoh's death, Arno, then dean, was unanimously chosen provost of the collegiate church of Reichersberg on the Inn, in the diocese of Passau (June 29, 1169). He wrote his Scutum canonicorum (in MPL, exciv. 1489-1528) under Eugenius III., and so earlier than 1153. It was called out by the jealousy existing between the monks and the canons, which Arno wholly condemns, pleading for fraternal unity between the two foundations with similar aims. At the same time he vigorously defends the canons' rule of life, considering them the true imitators of Christ and the apostles, especially because, unlike the monks, they occupy themselves directly with the service of their neighbors. He also wrote an apologetic treatise (ed. C. Weichert, Leipsic, 1888), defending the teaching of Gerhoh against Provost Folmar of Triefenstein, on a question of Christology-whether the man (homo) taken into God at the Incarnation is truly and strictly the Son of God. Arno vehemently asserts the affirmative, maintaining that all the qualities of the Godhead were communicated to the human nature,though veiled during the earthly life of Christ.

As a corollary he condemns the prevailing view of a local heaven, in which Christ sits in bodily presence. Underneath his polemic against Fol mar there is another, expressed or unexpressed, against a more important theologian, Peter Lom bard; and in one place he also controverts Hugo of St. Victor. Among other contemporary theo logians, he knows Bernard of Clairvaux and Rupert of Deutz. (A. HAues.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wattenbach, Dt3Q, 1314, note 3; Hauck, KD, iv. 444 eqq.

ARNO OF SALZBURG: Archbishop of Salzburg 785-821. He seems to have been born in the diocese of Freising, where his name occurs in the records as deacon and as priest down to 776. After 782 he is found as abbot at St. Amand at Elnon in Hainault, which he retained even after his consecration as bishop of Salzburg, June 10, 785. He was sent to Rome in 787 to implore the help of the pope in reconciling Charlemagne with Tassilo, Duke of Bavaria, but failed, and Bavaria lost its independence the following year. Arno gained the confidence of the new ruler, however, and Cha-lemagne confirmed the church of Salzburg in its possessions (790). The bishop was employed as misses dominicus in Bavaria; and at the close of the war with the Avars, all the conquered lands were placed under the spiritual authority of Salzburg. When Pope Leo III. was driven out by the kinsmen of his predecessor, Arno was charged by Charlemagne with the task of restoring peace and order in Rome, and explaining to the pope the king's wishes for the settlement of ecclesiastical affairs in the eastern part of his realm (797). In deference to these wishes, Bavaria was included ecclesiastically as well as civilly in the Frankish kingdom, and Salzburg was raised to the dignity of a metropolitan see, Arno receiving the pallium April 20, 798. He visited Rome again in 799 to restore Leo III. once more, and in 800 for the coronation of Charlemagne. He was misses dominicus in Bavaria almost continuously from 802 to 806; he appears on the occasion of Charlemagne's making his will, and at the Council of Mainz in 813, after which he seems to have retired from public life. He was a friend of learning and art, and is said to have had more than 150 books copied.

(A. HAVcs.) BIDwooRAPev: Alouin's letters to Arno are in Jafid, BEG, vi., Monumanta Alcuixiiana, Berlin, 1873; consult also Rettberg, KD, ii. 200, 237, 558; Wattenbach. DGQ. i. (1904) 188, 172, 175 eqq., 215, ii. 505; Hauck. KD, iL

A"OOBIUS, ar-ab'bi-vs: A teacher of rhetoric at Sicca in proconsular Africa under Diocletian. At first he was a fierce opponent of Christianity, but he was converted and wrote seven books adversus nationes, in which he seeks to refute the charge of his contemporaries that Christianity was the cause of all misery in the world. To this point he devotes books i. and ii. The other books are a polemic against heathenism, showing in iii., iv., and v. the folly and immorality of the polytheistic mythology, while vi. and vii. speak of the heathen temple and sacrificial service. When the work was composed can not be stated exactly, but


801 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Arno Arnold probably it was after 303. Araobius was neither a clear thinker, nor a skilful writer (cf. Jerome, Epist.,lviii. 10). Where he tries to pose as philoso pher, he betrays no deep study. His ideas con flict not seldom with Holy Scripture. Greek mythology he knows only from the " Preceptor " of Clement of Alexandria, and Roman mythology from the writings of Cornelius Labeo, whom he sometimes attacks. He had only a superficial knowledge of Christianity. His naive modalism is merely the expression of a very superstitious sentiment, and his notions concerning the origin, nature, and continuance of the soul have anything but a Christian-eccleaiaatical color. G. KROGEa. BIBwoaBAPHY: Arnobius's work is in MPL, iv. and was ed. by A. Reifferecheid, in CSEL, iv., 1875; Eng. transl. in ANP, vi. 408-543. Bibliography is in ANF, Bibliog raphy, pp. 78-77. Consult DCB, i.187; K. B. Franoke, Die Psytholopie and Erkenntnialehre des ArnoNue. Leipsie, 1878; W. Roll, in Philoloyus, supplementary vol. v., Cor ndius Labeo, 717-807, G6ttingen, 1889; A. Ebert, Ge echichte der L"ratur des Mittelaltas im Abendland, i. f14-72, Leipsie,1889; A. RShrioht, Die Seetenlehra des Arno bius. Hamburg, 1893; idem6 De Clernsnde Alexandrdno Ar nobii in irridendo pentilium oultu auctore, Hacpburg, 1893; C. Stange, De Arnobii orations, 13sargemand, 1893; 8charnagl, De Arnobii maioris latinitate, Gars. 1894-9b; E. F. Schultze. Das Uebel in der Welt each der Lehre des Arnobius, Jena, 1898; KrOHer, History, 304-3o8; P. 6pin dler, De ArnoUi psnere dicendi, Strasburg, 1901. ARROBIUS THE YOUNGER: Reputed author of certain writings, concerning which scholars are not agreed except that they belong to the fifth century. They include: (1) Commentarii in pealmos, which are usually thought to be the work of a semi-Pelagian Gaul, though they may have been written in Rome; (2) Adnotationea ad qucedam evangeliorum loca, which seems to have been used in the supposed gospel-commentary of Theophilus of Antioch (q.v.); (3) Arnobii catholici et &ra pioni8 conflietus de Deo tnno et uxio; (4) The so called Prcedeatinatus, which may have been the work of this mysterious Amobius (see PRADEB- TINATVS). G. Kst)axlt. BIBLIOGBAPn7: The works are in MPL. Ill). Consult DCB. i. 170; T. Zahn, ForseAumen zur Guehiehte des Ka nons, ii. 104-119, Erlangen. 1883; A. Harnack, in TU. i. 4, 162-153, Leipsic, 1883; 8. B!<umer, in Der KatlWik. ii. (1887) 398-408; A. Engelbrecht, Pabristixhe Analek tea, pp.97-99,. Vienna. 1892; B. Grand). in TQ, lmz. (1897) 568-588: G. Morn, in Revue b&g"ne. :a.. Msredsous, 1903; H. von Schubert, in TU. new ser., ix. 4, Leipsic, 1903. ARNOLD OF BRESCIA. Life to 1139 (5 1). Political Activity in Rome U 3). Banished from Italy d 2). Condemnation and Death ( f 4).

Arnold of Brescia, church reformer of the twelfth

century, was born at Brescia, but the year is not

known; he was executed at Rome 1155. At an early

age he devoted himself to the priesthood. Like

many young Italians of his time he studied in

lance and became a pupil of Abelard. His

scientific culture is particularly praised, and Abe

lard's keen criticism of tradition helped no doubt

to loosen the bonds which connected

:. Life to Arnold with the existing church

i:3g. authority. Some years later he ap

pears again in his native city, having

meanwhile been ordained priest. The Hwtoria pontr

fcalw calls him canonicus regularis and abbaa spud

Brixiam. The views to which he clung to his death were already fixed in his mind. The Church must resign worldly power and worldly possessions; priests, having worldly possessions, forfeit salvation; their necessary support they must obtain from the tithes, and the laity, who withheld from the priests what belonged to them, come in for a share of Arnold's criticism. His austere asceticism and powerful eloquence gained him great authority, which rendered his opposition formidable to Manfred, bishop of Brescia, and the latter accused him at a synod held in Rome in 1139. Arnold was banished from Italy end had to vow solemnly not to return without papal permission.

A revolution now took place in Brescia, and the " evil-minded consuls, hypocritical and heret ical men," were expelled from the city by the knighthood. Arnold meanwhile had gone to France, where he assisted Abelard a. Banished against Bernard of Clairvaux, and so from Italy. the condemnation passed by Innocent II. in 1140 on Abelard concerned him likewise; they were to be separated and kept in monastic prisons. Arnold, however, remained unmolested for the time being, because of a con flict between the king and the curia. Bernard was at first against the king, but afterward he acted as mediator, and thus after a short time Arnold had to leave France. He went to Zurich, where he soon had a following. A letter of Ber nard (cxcv.) to Bishop Herman of Constance [written 1140] caused his expulsion, but he soon found a safe refuge, for another letter of Bernard's (cxevi.) to Cardinal Guido-probably the cardinal deacon Guido who was active as papal legate in Bohemia and Moravia between 1142 and 1145- received Arnold into his retinue and honored him with his society. Arnold returned to Italy shortly after the death of Innocent (1143), and Eugenius III. (1145-53) received the fugitive again into the communion of the Church after a promise to do penance.

Rome was at that time the theater of great struggles. Toward the end of the life of Innocent II. the community had created a senate and appointed a patrician in place of the city-prefect dependent on the pope. Eugenics escaped these unpleasant relations by going to France, and Arnold developed great public activity. He attacked the cardinals, and even the 3. Political pope. A new element now comes out Activity is in him according to the Hislowia

Rome. ponti ficalis, which makes him say that those should not be tolerated who wish to enslave Rome, the mistress of the world, the source of liberty. He took up the idea of reclaiming for Rome her ancient powerful position in the world. He entered into close relations with the Roman community which had become a republic sad had promises[ to protect him against every one. Eugenics sought to get possession of Rome by force of arms, and in their distress the Romans looked to King Conrad, who, however, had no thought of realiziug their hopes, though he was is no position to help the pope in an effective manner. An agreement was made in


November, 1149, according to which Rome acknowledged the supremacy of the pope, but the government of the city remained in the hands of the senate. Arnold exercised his influence as before. When Frederick I became ruler, Eugenius obtained his promise of a campaign against Rome. But the Arnoldists also applied to him in a writing, the strange contents of which may be regarded as an echo of Arnolds sermons. It declares that clerics who in spite of the gospel and the canonical rules claimed for themselves the right of confirming the emperor are successors of Julian the Apostate; the Donation of Constantine is a heretical fable, which even the everyday Roman ridicules; as the empire belongs to the Romans, who should hinder them from electing a new emperor? It is possible that such eccentric schemes repelled the more prudent elements. At the elections of November 1, 1152, the Arnoldists seem to have been defeated, for the senate is soon found in negotiation with the pope, and he was enabled to make his entrance in December. A little later Frederick promised to subdue the Romans.

   When Adrian IV ascended the papal throne December 5, 1154, he demanded of the senate the expulsion of Arnold, which for the time being was not heeded. But an attack made upon a cardinal gave opportunity, shortly before palm Sunday, 1155, to pronounce an interdict on Rome, a hitherto unheard-of proceeding. §4 The depression which already existed in the city was enhanced by this measure, and on Wednesday the senate appeared before the pope and obtained the removal of the interdict by swearing to expel Arnold and his adherents. Arnold's fate was now decided. Banished from Rome, he found indeed a refuge with the viscounts of Campagnatico, but, urged by the pope, Frederick induced them to hand him over to Adrian. The city-prefect, as Rome's criminal judge, delivered him to the gallows, had his body burned, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber. He died lamented even by men who, like Gerhoh of Reichersberg, by no means agreed with him. The great cause of his death was no doubt his opposition to the worldly power of the pope. But he was also regarded as a heretic. That he held false doctrines regarding baptism has not been substantiated; but he declared that the sacraments administered by priests not leading an apostolic life were invalid, and herein one could see a rejection of the official Church and hence a heresy. That Arnold left many followers is evident from the Historia pontificalis, and in the great bull of excommunication of Lucius III (1184), Arnoldists ,are mentioned. Thenceforth only isolated notices concerning them are found; they were probably lost among the Waldensisus.

   S. M. Deutsch.

   BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are: Otto of Freising, De gestis Friderici, i 27-28, ii 21, in MGH, Script., xx (1868) 338-491 and ed. G. Waitz in Script. rer. Germ., Hanover, 1884; John of Salisbury, Historia pontificalis, xxxi, in MGH, Script. xx (1868) 515--545 Gunther, Ligurinus, iii, in MPL, ccxii; Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De investigatione antichristi, xlii, in MPL, cxciv; Boso, Vita Hadrians IV, in J.M. Watterich, Pontificum Romanorum vita, ii 324-325, Leipsic,1862; Gesta di Federigo I in Italia (Publications of the Intituto Storico Italiano), Rome, 1887. Consult also F. Odorici, Storie Bresciane, iv, Brescis, 1858; W. von Giesebrecht, Arnold von Brescia, Munich, 1895; idem, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, iv, v, Brunswick, 1880-88; G. de Castro. Arnold da Brescia, Leghorn, 1875; W. Bernhardi. Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter Konrad III, Leipsic, 1883; E. Vacaudard, Arnauld de Brescia, in Revue des questions historiques, xxxv (1884) 52-114; A. Hausrath, Arnold von Brescia, Leipsic, 1891.

   ARNOLD, CARL FRANKLIN: [This article has not been corrected] German Luther an; b.~ at Williamafield, O., Mar. 10, 1853. He was educated at the gymnasium at Bremen and the universities of Erlangen, Leapsic, and Kbnigs berg (Ph.D.,·1882). He was instructor in religion at the Wilhelms-Gymnasium in Konigsberg from 18,78 to 1888, when he was appointed professor of church history in the University of Breslau. Since 1898 he has also been ephorus of the GrAfliches Ledemtaky'sches Johanneum. In theol ogy he is an advocate of positive union. He has written Studien zur Geschidte der plini anischen ~"ChrWmroerfokung (Konigsbergl 1887); Die neronische Christenverfolgeatg (Leipsic, 1888); Auewahl aus J. G. Hamanns Brie/en and Schriften (Goths, 1888); Cdsarius von Arelate and die gal lische Kirche seirter Zett (Leipsie, 1894); Predigten des Cissardus von Arslote in deutacher Uebersetz ung (1895); Die Vedretbung der Salzburger Protestantea and ihre Aufnahme bei den Glaabem gertossea (1900); Die Ausrot tumue in Salzburg unter Erzbischo f Fwmian and seines Nachfolgern (1901); Priw)fw Leben in den Veteinigten Stttaten (1903). He edited the fifth and sixth editions of H. Weingarten's Zeittafeln and Ueberblicke zur Kirchengewhicltte (1897, 1908).

   ARNOLD, GOTTFRIED: [This article has not been corrected] Lutheran; b. at An. naberg (18 m. s. of Chemnita), Saxony, Sept. 5,

1688; d. at Perleberg (75 m. n.w. of Berlin), Prussia, May 30, 1714. In 1685 he began the study of theology at Wittenberg but gave himself up to independent reading in early church history. Through the influence of Spener, then court preacher at Dresden, he became tutor in a noble family of that city in 1689, and later obtained a similar position at Quedlinburg. There be became identified with the most prominent exponents of mystic and separatist teachings and in 1696 published Die crate Liebe (ed. A. C. LSmmert, Stuttgart, 1844), a eulogy on the early Christian Church in which his hostility to dogma and ecclesiasticism led him to exalt the virtues of the primitive Church as Opposed to the formulism of later orthodoxy. In

16.97 he became professor of history at Giessen, but found himself out of sympathy with the practical nature of his duties and returned in the following year to Quedlinburg. In 1699-1700 he published his Unparteiische Kirchen_ and Kdzer-Hiatorie

(4 vols.; new ed., Frankfort, 1729), which had a marked influence on church history. In studying heretical movements Arnold refused to accept as authority the evidence of hostile contemporaries and draw upon the writings of the sectaries them_ selves for his materials. In view of his constitutional opposition to orthodox doctrine this method naturally led to his assuming a position extremely favorable to the separatist. of various ages and


303 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Arnold of Brescia Arnold, Thomas occasioned a vigorous controversy which plunged him deeper still into mysticism. From this period date his beautiful religious songs, of which a number have found a place in the evangelical hymnal. In 1704 he became pastor and inspector at Werbea, in Prussia, and from that time may be dated his reconciliation with established theology. In 1707 he became inspector at Perleberg, bringing to the performance of his duties the utmost devotion and energy. Besides his church history, his writings number more than fifty, among them, Geisdiche Gestalt siren eoaftgeliae)tert Lekrera (Halls, 1704) and Wahre Abbildung den intoendigen Chriaten thums (Frankfort, 1709). His hymns were edited by K. C. E. Eh ma nn (Stuttgart, 1856). (F. W. DIBELIUB.) Bn9rsoossmT: F. Ih'belias, l7ofbried Arnold, Berlin, 1873. ARNOLD, II ATTHEW: Church of England; b. at Laleham, near Cherteey ',32 in. w.s.w. of London), Dec. 24, 1822, eldest son of Thomas Arnold (q.v.); d. in Liverpool Apr. 15, 1888, He studied at Winchester and Rugby schools, and at Ba11io1 College, Oxford, and became fellow of Oriel 1845. In 1847 he became private secretary to the Marquis of Lansdowne, then president of the council and acting as minister of public instruction; by his influence was appointed in 1851 as inspector of schools, and held the position till 1886. He was professor of poetry at Oxford 1857-87. He was a zealous and able official and his reports upon conti nental schools, which he visited frequently, are valuable in educational literature. His poetry is of high rank; and as literary critic he wag un rivaled in his generation. He possessed a subtle mind, a keen critical spirit, and a passionate love of truth, which, when applied to religious problems, found many defects is the current theology of the time; the chief being a disposition to rest on unprov able assumptions and to ignore the chinos of reason. The greatest good he held to be pies toward perfection;. and such progress could only be made by `culture,' which meet acquaintance with the best that has been done and thought in the world. He declared thst'oonduct is three-fourths of life,' characterised religion as ` morality touched with emotion,' originated the phrase `the enduring power, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,' and believed that ` miracles do not happen.' His works which bear on religious topics are: Culture and Anarchy (London, 1889); &. Paul and Pratea taniiatn: with as introduction on Puritanism, and the Church o f England (1870); Literature and Dogma, an canny toward a better appreciation of the Bible (1873); God and the Bible, a teniem of objections to ` Lifaratttre and Dogma' (1875); Loaf Essays on Church and Religion (1877). He oleo edited, with prefaces and notes, the two sections of the Book of Isaiah, A Bible-Reading for Schools, the great prqplaug of latael'a Reatoration [Isaiah sl. lavi.] (1872; new,ed., 187b); Isaiah of JeruBakrn [Issieh i.-xxtia.] (1883). A complete edition of his works in- 15 volumes was issued in London and New York, 1903-04. In accordance with his wish no authorised biography brie been pub lished, but his Letters, 18,18-88 ' (collected and

arranged by G. W. E. Russell, 2 vohl., London, 1895) furnish au excellent substitute.

Bmzsoaasrax: For life. DNB, 6nppt, i. 70-7b; G. W. E. Russel]. Matthew Arnold, London, 1904. Far his influence on the age. J. M. Robertson, Modern Bu manirb. London. 1891; W.H.Hndeon, Bhrdiesinlrstatioa, New Yet. 1898; J. Fitch, TAmaw sad Matfhesv Arnold and they Influence o» English EduoNios, London, 1897; G. White. Matfkno Arnold and the Spirit o/ the Ape. New York, 1898; G. 9aintebury, Matzo Arnold, London, 1899; W. H. Dawson, Matthew Arnold and kin Relation to the T6ouphf of our Time, New York, 1904; J. M. Dixon, Matthew Arnold, New York, 1908 (on the religious aide of his philosophy and poetry).

#RNOLD, NIKOLAUS: Reformed theologian; b. at Lima (55 m. n.n.w. of Breslau), Poland, Dec. 17, 1618; d. at Franeker, Holland, Oct. 18, 1880. He studied under Amos Comenius, at Donors (1635-91), and at Franeker, where Matxoviug and Cocceius were his teachers. After visiting the academies of Groningen, Leyden, and Utrecht, and traveling in England, he was appointed minister at Beetgum, near Leeuwarden, Friesland, is 1645, and professor of theology at Franeker is 1651. He edited the works of 114accovius, and published, against Boeinianism, Religio Sociniana sets eatecheaia Racoroimta major publicia disprtlatiortt7rus refutata (Freaeker, 1654); AtTteiamtta Sociniantta (1659); against the Roman Catholic Church, Apologia Amesii contra Erbantcat»um ; against the prophecies of Comenius concerning the millennium, Dis eu>gua tateologicus contra Co»unii pratensam lucent is tertebria (1660).

ARNOLD, THO>IIA3: Master of Rugby and "Broad Church" leader; b. at West Cowes, Isle of Wight, June 13, 1795; d. at Rugby June 12, 1842. He studied at Warminster and Winchester schools and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, becoming a fellow of Oriel in 1815. Re wag o

deacon in 1818, and in 1819 settled at Laleham, on the Thames near Staines, where he undertook to prepare a small number of young men for the universities. In 1828 he wag ordained priest and appointed head master of Rugby; in 1841 be was made regius professor of modern history at Oxford, but delivered only one course of lectures. He is best known as one of the greatest of English schoolteachers; but he should be remembered no lees as a keen-thinking and sharp-sighted leader of religious thought. Like Newman, Keble, and others of the reactionary High-church party, he wag alarmed by the troubles political and otherwise, which appeared to be threatening the Church. But he sought safety by advocating that its doors should be opened so that all English Christians could find room within it. Differences of doctrine, constitution, and ritual he maintained were minor matters and should be disregarded; the essential thing in Christianity is practical godliness, manifesting itself in individual and social life. Church and State alike eat to help realise this ideal and each needs the other.' His views were expressed

1 It is Tho . as Arnold, if any one, who meet be regarded as the pioneer of free theology in 1 . . . . He was the fast to show to his countrymen the possibility, and to make the sad, that the Bible should be read with honest human eyes, without the spectacles of orthodox dogmstao presuppositions, sod that it can, at the same time be


Arnoldi THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 304 Art and Church in two pamphlets, The Principles of Church Reform (London, 1833) and Fragment on the Church (1844); his religious writings also include six volumes of Sermons: His historical works comprise an edition of Thucydides (3 vole., 1830-35); the History of Rome (3 vols., 1838-43, unfinished); History of the Later Roman Commonwealth (2 vols., 1845); Lectures on Modern History (Oxford, 1842). BIBLIOasAPar: A. P. Stanley, Life and Correspondence o/ Thomas Arnold, latest unabridged ed., London, 19o1; Stanley collected also his Miscellaneous works, 1845, and his Travelling Journals, 1852; DNB, ii . 113-117; J. Fitch, Thomaa and Matthew Arnold and their In/lurnm on Eng lish Education, London, 1897. ARNOOLDI (ar-nel'df), BARTHOLOMAEUS 4ar tholomew of Usingen): The teacher and later the opponent of Luther; b. at Usingen (17 m. n.n.w. of Frankfort) about 1484; d. at Wiirz burg Sept. 9, 1532. He entered the University of Erfurt probably in 1484, and was made master of arts in 1491. As teacher of philosophy and by his widely circulated writings he won the high esteem of both his colleagues and his pupils, among whom Luther seems to have been specially in close relations with him. When nearly fifty, and appar ently in part owing to Luther's influence, he entered the Augustinian order, and later became professor of theology in the atudium generale of the order at Erfurt. He was opposed to the later exaggera tions of the scholastic methods, but without going as far in this direction as Luther, in whose rejection of philosophy he saw one of the sources of what he considered the reformer's later errors. He took a decided stand against the Wittenberg theses; after he had been deserted by his brethren of the Erfurt house he attacked the reforming movement in his first controversial treatise (1522), directed against the fiery preaching of G'uelsa,mer and Mechler. This was followed by many others cov ering the whole range of the controversy, and be coming more and more bitter as his old pupils scorned his exhortations. He was finally obliged to leave Erfurt, and in 1526 is found in the Augus tinian house at Wiirzburg. He was not a great theologian nor even a good Latinist; but he seems to have been an honorable man who made a thor revered with Christian piety and made truly productive in moral life. He was the first who dared to leave on one side the traditional phraseology of the High-churchmen and the Evangelicals, and to look upon Christianity, not se a sacred treasure of the Churches and the sects, but as a di vine beneficent power for every believer; not as a dead heritage from the past, but as a living spiritual power for the moral advancement of individuals and nations in the pest . . . . He showed how classical and general histor· peal studies may be pursued in the light of the moral ideas of Christianity. and how, on the other hand, a free and clear way of looking at things maybe obtained by means of wide historical knowledge, and then applied to the interpretation of the Bible and the solution of current ecclesiastical ques tons' Thus he began to pull down the wall of separation which had out off the reGgioue life of his fellow countrymen, with their sects and Churches and rigid theological formulae . and . feom the general life and pursuits of the nation It is also clear as day that, if longer life had been granted him, the result of the further proeecutoa of his historical studies . . would have been further. i to apply his historical and critical principlehhtto the ~i in this and co At all direction his subsequently further prosecuted Deueloyment of y his friends and pupils.-Pfieiderer The roes in flrea< Britain Theology in MRy° Iran=and ire Prog (London, 1890), 3871i$. ough study of his opponents' writings and learned to fight them with their own weapons. At Wiirz burg he was of great assistance to his bishop, Conrad von ThUngen, in the struggle with growing Protestantism, appeared with him at the Diet of Augsburg, and was among the theologians to whom the refutation of the Confession was committed. (T. Konn>e.)

Btstxoaasra:: Ci. Veeeenmeyer. Kleine Beitrops zur peschichte des Reichetaps au Augsburg, 105 eqq., Nuremberg, 1880; N. Paulus, Der A upueMner Bartholomdua Arroldi von Usinyen, in Straebtirpar Thaolopiache Studien, i. 3, Freiburg, 1893.

ARROLDISTS. See ARNOLD of Ba>Lse1A. ARNOT, WILLIAM: Free Church, Scotland; b. at Scone, Perthshire, Nov. 6, 1808; d. in Edinburgh June 3, 1875. He studied at Glasgow, and in 1838 became pastor of St. Peter's Church in the same city; joined the Free Church movement in 1843; in 1863 succeeded Dr. Rainy as minister of the Free High Church, Edinburgh. He paid three visits to America, the last time as delegate to the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York (1873). His chief publications were: Life of James Halley (Edinburgh, 1842); The Race for Riches, and some of the Pica into whack the Runners fall: Six Lectures applying the Word o f God to the Traffic of Man (London, 1851); Laws from Heaven for Life on Earth: Illustrations of the Book of Proverbs (2 vole., 1857-58); The Parables of Our Lord (1884); Life of James Hamilton (1870).

Biartoaaera:: DNB, ii. 119-120; Autobiography, and Memoir by A. Fleminp (is daughter), London, 1877.

ARftULF OF LISIEUX: Bishop of Lisieux (90 m. w.n.w. of Paris) 1141-77 (or 81);. d. in Paris Aug. 31, 1184. He was born in Normandy, accompanied Louis VII. of France to the Holy Land on the Second Crusade in 1147, was present at the coronation of Henry II. of England in 1154, and later tried unsuccessfully to mediate between Henry and Thomas Becket; he upheld the cause of Pope Alexander III. against Victor IV. at the Synod of Tours in 1163, and spent his last days in retirement in the abbey of St. Victor in Paris. His works are in MPL, cci. 1-200; moat important are his letters (Epiatolas ad Henricum II., regem Anglace, Thomam archiepiscopum, et slice), which are in MPL, ut sup., 17-152, and, ed. J. A. Giles, in PEA.

SFr SJ4ZT, OF METZ: Bishop of Metz; o. about 580; d. July 18 of an unknown year, according to Sigebert of Gembloux (Chron., MGH, Scrip l., vi., 1844, p. 324) 640. He early distinguished himself in deeds of arms and affairs of state, but

later devoted himself to an ecclesiastical career, and in 811 or 812 was made bishop of Met,. In this position he exercised considerable influence on the government of the Frankish kingdom, as a friend of Pepin of Landea, and enjoying the confidence of the Australian magnates. It was to him more than to any other that Clothair II. of Neus-

tria owed his attainment of the dominion of Australia. Araulf had been married as a young mss, and uge his son Ansegis, who married Pepin's daughter 8ga, he became the ancestor of the


805 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA drnoldi Art and Church Carolingian house. Amid all his dignities, he longed for the peace of the contemplative life; probably in 627 he resigned his see and retired into the wilderness of the Vosges, where he lived as a hermit near his friend Romarich, the founder of the abbey of Remiremont. His body rests in the church at Metz which bears his name. (A. HAucs.) BIBLIOORAPRr: Vita, by unknown author, in MGH, &rsyt rer. Mem., ii. (1888) 428-448; and by another author in MPL, acv. Consult Rettberg, HD, i. 488; Friedrich, %D, ii. 236; Bfgel, Biatoira de 6. Araoot, Bar-le-Duo, 1875; Wattenbach, DGQ, i. 144; Hauck, %D, i. 127, 161, 295, 316. ARROWSMITH, JOHN: Puritan and Presby terian; b. near Newcastle-on-Tyne Mar. 29, 1602; d. at Cambridge and was buried Feb. 24, 1659. He was educated at Cambridge, where he became fellow of St. Catherine's Hall (1623). He was successively incumbent of St. Nicholas's Chapel, King's Lynn (1631); master of St. John's College, Cambridge (1644); rector of St. Martin's, Iron monger Lane, London (1645), and member of the sixth London classis; vice-chancellor of Cambridge University (1647); regius professor ' of divinity there (1651); master of Trinity College (1653). He sat in the Westminster Assembly of Divines (1643). Robert Baillie describes him as " a man with a glass eye in place of that which was put out by an arrow, a learned divine, on whom the Assem bly put the writing against the Antinomians." He was on the committee to draw up a confession of faith, and preached thrice before Parliament, the sermons being published: The Covenant-Averaging Sword Brandished [Lev. xavi. 25] (London, 1643, 4to, pp. 28); England's Eben-ezer [I Sam. vii. 12] (1645, 4to, pp. 34); A Great Wonder in Heaven; or, a lively Picture o f the Militant Church, drawn by a Divine Penman [Rev. xii. 1, 2] (1647, 4to, pp. 44). While at .Cambridge he published Tactics sacra, sive de milite spirrituali pugnante, vincente, et triumphantedissertatio (Cambridge, 1657, 4to, pp. 363), containing also .three Orationes anti-Weige liancs. After his death there were published: Armilla cateehetica, A Chain of Principles; or, era orderly Concatenation of Theological Aphoruma and Exercitatiom, wherein the chief Heads of Chris tian Religion are asserted and improved (Cambridge, 1659, 4to, pp. 490), an unfinished work designed to form a complete body of divinity in thirty aphorisms, only six of which were completed, covering for the most part the ground of the first twenty questions of the larger Westminster Cate chism, in essentially the same order; also &av Sprrrros · or God-Man (London, 1660, 4to, pp. 311), an exposition of the Gospel of John i. 1-18, dis cussing the divinity and humanity of Christ, and maintaining the Catholic doctrine against all here- sies. C. A. Bxlaas. ARSEftIUS, dr-sf'ni-us: 1. Egyptian monk; d., nearly or more than one hundred years old, at True (Troja), near Memphis, about 450. He was a Roman of distinction, served as tutor to the sons of the emperor Theodosius, and retired into the desert of Scetis in Egypt under Arcadius. He is com memorated in the Greek Church on May 8 and in the Latin on July 19. He wrote a book of " In L-20 struction and Exhortation " for his monks, and an exposition of Luke s. 25 (ed. A. Mai, Clasaici artctor-es, s., Rome, 1838, 553-557; MPG, lxvi. 1615-26). G. KaOa>ta. Bn3LIOaRAPHY: Vita, in ASB, July, iv. 80b-831; DCB, i. 172-174. 2. Patriarch of Constantinople 1255-67; d. 1278. On the death of the emperor Theodore Lascaris II. in 1259, Michael Palawlogus usurped the throne, seized upon the legitimate heir, John Lascaris, a boy of six or seven years, and deprived him of his eyesight. Arsenius manfully espoused the cause of the young prince and was banished to an island in the Propontis in consequence. He had followers who for a number of decades remained in irreconcilable opposition and formal schism against the government. His will, in which he anathematized the emperor and his helpers, is in MPG, cgl. 947-958. G. K$t)osa,. BIBLIOaRAPB:: ICL, i. 1447-50. ART AND CHURCH. Art is the Early Church (§ 1). The Romanesque and Medieval Periods (§ 2). The Renaissance (¢ 3). Since the Reformation (§ 4).

There is nothing in the nature of Christianity

which excludes art, although in the Apostolic Age,

under the prevalence of the purely religious con

templation of life and life's problems, the knowl

edge and cultivation of it naturally receded. But

when Christianity entered into the world of Greco

Roman culture, it soon became evident that it

had great receptivity for art. If the Church al

lowed artistic decoration in the solemn resting

places of the dead, the catacombs, as early as the

end of the first century, the conclusion is justified

that art had also a place in the house of worship.

Herein the fundamental position of the Church is

clearly expressed; and the steady growth of artistic

activity during the second and third centuries

indicates not only a tacit permission, but even an

active promotion on the part of the Church, though

no definite statement to that effect is found.

Nevertheless, some doubts were felt. The existing

art was intimately connected with the cult of the

gods and was thus defiled by heathen

:. Art is ism. With this in mind, and knowing

the Early that Christian artists manufactured

Church. idols, Tertullian attributed to the

devil the introduction into the world

of artificers of statues and likenesses (De idolo

latri,a, iii.). But herein he does not touch upon

the fundamental question, having in mind only

art stained by idolatry. Clement of Alexandria

is of much the same opinion, yet he adds "let art

receive its mead of praise, but let it not deceive

man by passing itself off for truth " (Protreptikos,

iv.). The judgment of both Tertullisa and Clement

was warped by the ascetic ideal. Again the Old

Testament prohibition of likenesses of living things

had influence, and prevented all portraiture of

God in human form till the second half of the fourth

century. The Spanish synod at Elvira about 313

(sec E1.v1nA, SYNOD OF) declared that " pictures

ought not to be in churches, nor that which is

worshiped and adored to lee depicted on the


Art and Church THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG S08 Arthur

walls " (canon xxxvi.). The same considerations influenced Eusebius of Cmsarea, as may be seen from his letter to the empress Constantia; and, to a still greater degree, Epiphanius, who tore down a curtain adorned with a picture in a Palestinian village church, because it was contrary to Holy Writ (Epeat. ad Joh. Hieros., ix.). The fear that the masses just emancipated from heathenism might transfer the heathen image-worship to the Christian was not groundless. But the general view of the Church was not expressed by these voices. Men esteemed for knowledge and the Christian life take note of works of art (Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa), encourage artists (Basil the Great), or express pleasure in artistic creations (Gregory of Nazianzus). Still more explicit is the language of the monuments of art. From the time of Constantine ecclesiastical architecture, representative art,. and the minor arts made rapid progress. Not only the houses of 'worship but the holy vessels, vestments, and the like received decoration. Even an ascetic like St. Nilus planned a magnificent church (cf. Augusti, ii. 88 eqq.), and everywhere throughout Christendom bishops were eager to build (cf. Schultze, 31 eqq.). There was less reason for denying the admissibility of art, since it was believed that more than one picture had originated by divine miracle (cf. E. van Dobschats, Chriatu8bilder, Leipsic, 1899) and even the evangelist Luke was regarded as a painter (cf. T. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, ii., Leipsie, 1899, 337).

In the Carolingian. and Romanesque periods the clergy and monks were the creators of ecclesiastical

art. The Benedictines long stood at 2. The Ro- the head. The Gothic also developed manesquQ-6nder church influence, although in it

and Medi- the lay element had a greater part. Oval Art-loving prelates are met with Periods. throughout the eptire medieval period

(cf . Otte, ii. 24-25). In the Greek Church of the Middle Age-, Church and art are even more closely connected, and the influence of the Church was greater. The freedom of art, in so far as it was taken into the ecclesiastical service, was more limited, but the current assumption that dead formalism and conventionality ruled in the Byzantine Church is an error. There was a glorious revival in the ninth century. The iconoclastic controversy had a destructive influence, but its outcome is proof of the insep. arable connection of art and Church.

The Renaissance brought a change. As it emphasized the rights of the individual and called for independence and personal responsibility, so it delivered art from ecclesiastical domination and tutelage. Free apprehension of nature took

the place of the former more or 3. The Re- less conscious dependence on tradi-

neissance. tion (J. Burekhardt, Die gder

Itenaisaanee in ItOllefi, LelpaIe, 1885; idem, Geschichte der Renaissance in Itolien, Stuttgart, 1890). In Michelangelo this freedom comes out the graandest. The Church itself, carried away by the powerful stream of the new culture was first moved by it without reflection, but its'

true ideas characterise not so much the 11tenai®sance popes, Julius II. and Leo X., as. an Adrian VI. Hence the disenchantment which soon followed.

With the restoration of Roman Catholicism after the convulsions of the Reformation, commences the renunciation of the free art of the Renaissance and a return to the ecclesiastical ideals

of the Middle Ages. Romanticism 4. Since strengthened this impulse by similar the Refor- tendencies, and modem ultramon-

mation. tane Roman Catholicism carried it out to the utmost. The inability of Roman Catholic ethics to appreciate the phe nomena of the secular life influences also the judg ment of the Church of Rome on the essence and purpose of art. It regards secular art' as on a lower level than ecclesiastical. Protestantism, on the other hand, continues the conception of the Renaissance. The standards of valuation of a work of art are not to be taken from dogmatics and ethics, but from the character of art itself. No fundamental difference between secular and religious art is recognised. With this the possibility of an unlimited, free relation between Church and art is obtained. The two branches of Protestant ism are here in perfect agreement. They per ceive in art something which is permitted to the Christian as the use of secular culture in general. But the two-confessions differ in that the Lutheran Church not only opened its houses of worship to art but asserted for it therein a necessary place; whereas the Reformed Church, strongly influenced in its ethics, as in other respects, by an Old Testa ment legalistic view, excluded art as much as pos sible from the culture and religious service in general. From this Protestantism has wrongly been suspected of being an adversary of art. But this rigor has been somewhat weakened, or wholly abandoned in modern times. From the potion of Protes tantism toward art follows its perfect independence of the ecclesiastical tradition. Much as it demands a religious and ecclesiastical art, it abstains from laying down canonical enactments with reference to its development, while constantly and properly insisting that such art shall be really promotive of its avowed lofty purpose. VICME SCHUImZ31. BIBLI06nAPET: J. C. W. Auguati, Bedrdpe our chtieddiea Rundperhhidhte, 2 vole.. Leipeie, 1841-98; A. N. Didron, Christian Iconography: or, the History of Christian Art in the Middle Apes, trend. from the Fr. London, 1861; A. Lenoir. Architecture uwuaekque, Paris ~ 1882; C. J. H-, History o/ Ancient Chrurtiauuy and Sacred Art in Ady, Florenoe, 1888; idem, History of Media NafWy and Art in Italy, vol. i., Florence 18(19. Vol. ii.. London 1872 F. Piper, Eiuleguuy iu ~ moues TheOkoie. Gotha, 1887; W. Liihke, Eftk8kw&d Art Qerm'w ding g° MWk Ayae. London, 1870; R St. J. Tyrwhitt Art Teaching of tie primChy n 1872; H. Otte HaudWA der kir,r Kuus~ do, deuurheu Miffelalsry, 2 vole., Leipsic, 18"; A. Jameaon Sacred and Art, 2 vot&,Boeten,1888; M. Stokes, Early Chridian Art in Irda9dLondon 1888· J. van Schlosser $drQax idifs de

piwhen Kunst, V~.1892- idem, Qudlenb~h a,a· guuu^ dndiedau middoltea V

E. L. Cutts, Early ChAri. London. 189a; V 9ahussa

ie~eu Rums, Munich. ll5·· F. $ rhriatlieliea %une4 2 oa, ~,.b~

1898-1900 W. Lowrie jfosne of Bra Early Ch New Yak, 1901; E. M. Her% Tics Life of o_,. Lord


307 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Arthur Art and Church

Art, with setae Aeeount o/ flee Aniatie Treatment of the Life of $t. John the Baptist, Boston. 1898; T. Beaudoire, QeQas de to cryptopmphis apostolique et de l'architecdara rihulis. Paris, 1903; A Michel, Hid. de Part depuia lee premiere temps chr&iane, vole i.-ii., New York, 1908; end the general works on Christian art and archeology.

ART, HEBREW: The ancient Israelites accomthedpractically nothing in the realm of art. They lacked the necessary natural gifts, constructive power, and creative imagination. In the ancient time, when images of gods were indispensable to worship, their native incapacity was supplemented by no outside influence, and the old Israelitic images were of the rudest kind. After contact with more artistic neighbors had given them technical skill, the peculiar hostility of their religion to representative art prevented its development. To such an extent was this hostility carried that all likenesses of living creatures, whether human or animal, were forbidden. Such a prohibition-which survives in Islam to-daywas manifestly possible only among a people of no artistic tastes or powers; it is inconceivable among the Greeks. There is no mention of Israelitic sculpture. The complete silence concerning statues or stone ornamentation of any kind in Solomon's buildings indicates that nothing of the sort was found there. Stone sarcophagi, such as the Phenicians and Egyptians made, were not used. The mawbhoth, the cultic pillars of stone, make the nearest approach to statuary; but while among other nations the atone pillars developed into true statues of gods, among the Israelites they always remained mere pillars. Such an expression as `~ goodly images " in Hos. x. 1 probably indicates that sometimes, as among other Semitic peoples, rude forms were chiseled on the pillars. Wood carving seems to have been practised. The teraphim certainly had something like a man's head (I Sam. xix. 13). There were two cherubim of olive wood in Solomon's temple (I Kings vi. 23), and in Ezekiel's time the temple doors and walls were adorned with carving (Ezek. xfi. 17-26; of. also the later additions to the description of Solomon's temple, I Kings vii. 18, 29, 35). Doorposta and the wainscoting of houses and articles of furniture, such as divans, tables, and chairs, were thus decorated in the time of the later kings. But it is noteworthy that the masterpiece of such work, Solomon's throne (I Kings x. 18-20), was made by Phenician workmen. Metal work also developed under Phenician influence. Solomon had to send to Tyre for an artist to do the casting necessary for the temple (I Kings vii. 13-46). The art of overlaying with metal seems to have been better understood and to date from an earlier time. The ephod may have been made of wood or clay overlaid with gold or silver (see EPHOD), and the Caves of Dan and Bethel (I Kings xii. 2829) were doubtless constructed in this way. A knowledge of gem cutting is ascribed to the time of the Exodus (Ex. xxviii. 21), and the patriarchs are said to have had seals (Gen. xxxviii. 18),-which proves at least that the art was familiar and old when the narratives were written. There is mention of an iron gmving tool with diamond point (Jer. xvii. 1).

Israelitic seals which have been preserved resemble the Thenician so closely that they can be distin guished only when they bear a distinctively Israel itic name (see DuESs AND ORNAMENT, HEBREW, § 6). Hebrew pottery also has the same form as the Phenician; some of the specimens which have been found may be Phenician work. They. are painted with geometric patterns (see HANDIcRAFT$, HE BREW). Manifestly there can be no thought of a Hebrew style in any df the departments described, distinct from that prevailing in Phenicia and all Syria, and this was not original, but borrowed from Assyria and Egypt. I. BENZINGEB.

BIHwoaitApHT: G. Perroi, and C. Chipies, Histoire de fart dens t'antiquiM, iv., Paris, 1887, Eng· tranel., flietory of Art in Sardinia, Judea. Syria, and Asia Minor, 2 vols., London, 1890; Bensinger, Arehdolooie, 249-271; Nowack, Archdolopie, i. 259-208.

ARTAXERXES, ar"tax-erk'efz: The name of a Persian king mentioned in Nehemiah and Ezra, where, however, the word occurs in the form of Artachehashta, by which is doubtless meant Artaxerxes I. Longimadus, 465-425 B.C. In the Persian cuneiform inscriptions the name is written Artakhehathra, " righteous " or " sublime ruler." In Ezra iv. 7, Artaxerxes Longimanus is meant, not the Pseudo-Smerdis; so also Ezra vii. 1, 11 where, following Josephus Ant., XI. v. 1, Xerxes has been read. In the twentieth year of Artachshashta or Artaxerxes, that is, in the year 445-444 B.C. Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of the king, went as governor to Jerusalem. See PEBBIA. (B. LmDNEB.)

ARTEMON (dr'ti-men) or ARTEMA$: A heretic of the third century, founder of a small sect called the Artemonites. Nothing is known of him except what may be gathered from brief references in Eusebius, Epiphanius; Theodoret, and Photius; it seems certain that he shrank from applying the name God to Jesus, and he is probably to be classed with the dynamistic Monarchians (see MONARCH mmrsM); he was living at Rome, but separated from the Church and without influence, about 270. Paul of Samosata adopted and developed his views.

ARTHUR, WILLIAM: Methodist; b. at Kells (18 m. n.w. of Belfast), County Antrim, Ireland, Feb. 3, 1819; d. at Cannes, France, March 9, 1901. He began to preach at the age of sixteen, was accepted as a candidate for the ministry by the Irisbt Conference in 1837, and spent the next two years as a student at the Theological Institution at tHoxton, London. In 1839 he went to India, and openeda new mission station at Gutti, Mysore, but returned to England in 1841, completely broken down in health. His eyesight, in particular, was much impaired, and from this affliction he never fully recovered. He was stationed at Boulogne, 1846, in Paris, 1847-18; preached in London, 1849-50; was appointed one of the secretaries of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, 1851; first principal of the Belfast Methodist College, 1868; honorary missionary secretary, 1871. In 1888 he retired and thenceforth lived chiefly in southern France. In 1856 he was made a member of the legal committee of his Church, and from that time on was prominent in all connectional committees and


Articles Asceticism THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 308 conference proceedings. He was president of the Conference in 1866. During the Civil War in Amen ica he championed the Union cause and wrote a series of able articles in its support for The London Quarterly Review-a periodical which he helped to found in 1853 and to which he contributed regularly for thirty years. His books are numerous and some of them had an enormous sale. They include: A Mission to the Mysore, with Scenes and Fads Illustrative of India, its People and its Religion (London, 1847; ed., with introduction, notes, and appendix, H. Haigh, 1902); The Successful Merchant, Sketches of the Life of Mr. Samuel Budgett (1852); The People's Day, an Appeal to the Right Hon. Lord Stanley against his Advocacy o f ra French Sun day (1855); The Tongue o f Fire, or the True Power of Christianity (1856); Italy in Transition, Public Seenesand Primate Opinions in the Spring of 1860 (1860); The Modern Jove, a Review o f the Collected Speeches of Pio Nono (1873); The Life of Gideon Ouseley (1876); The Pope, the Kings, and the People (2 vole., 1877; ed. W. B. Neatley, 1903); 0n the Difference between Physical and Moral Law, the Fernley lecture for 1883 (1883); Religion without God and God without Religion, a criticism of the philosophical systems of Frederic Harrison, Her bert Spencer, and Sir Fitzjames Stephen (3 parts, 1886-87).

BIBwoaaAPBY: Consult The Methodist Recorder, xlii, 11-18, London, Mar. 14, 1901, for biographical sketch.


ARUNDEL, ar'vn-dl, THOMAS: Archbishop of Canterbury; b. at Arundel Castle (55 m. s.w. of London), Sussex, 1353; d. at Canterbury Feb. 19, 1414. He was the thirdson of the Earl of Arundel, and the family influence secured his promotion to the bishopric of Ely when only twenty-one; he was made Archbishop of York in 1388, of Canterbury in 1396, this being the first instance of a translation from York to Canterbury. He was active in the turbulent times of Richard II, and incurred the resentment of the king; in 1397, with his brother, the Earl of Arundel, he was impeached of high treason; the Earl was executed and the Archbishop was banished. He went to Rome, but the Pope, Boniface IX, at the request of Richard, transferred him to St. Andrews which in effect deprived him of a see, as Scotland adhered to the rival pope, Benedict XIII. He joined Henry of Lancaster on the continent, returned with him to England, 1399, crowned him king, Oct. 13, and was reinstated as Archbishop of Canterbury. He was five times Lord Chancellor of England, twice under Richard II (1386-89 and 1391-96), and three times under Henry IV. Arundel was a shrewd and far-sighted prelate in the performance of what he understood to be his duty. He spent his wealth freely upon the churches in which he was interested. In leis later years he entered heartily into the persecution of the Lollards and was especially conspicuous in the prosecution of Lord Cobham. He procured a prohibition of the vernacular translation of the Scriptures.

Biawoaswray: W. F. Hook, Lives of the ArehbiAops of Canterbury, iv, London, 1885; DB, ii, 137-141. ASA, 6'sa: Third king of Judah, son and suc cessor of Abijah. He is said to have reigned forty-one years, contemporary with Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, and Ahab of Israel. His dates, according to the old chronology, are 955-914 B.C.; according to Hommel, 911-871; according to Duneker, 929-872; according to Kamp hausen, 917-877. Although in I Kings xv, 10, Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom, is mentioned as his mother, who, according to verse 2, was the mother of Abijah (called " Abijam " in I Kings; see ABIJAH), he was probably not the latter's brother, but his son, as is stated in verse 8. Maa chah was probably the name of both his mother and his grandmother, and " daughter of Abi shalom " is erroneously inserted inverse 10 from verse 2. Asa tried to uproot idolatry, and deposed his mother " ° because she had made an idol in a grove"(I Kings xv,13, A. V.; R. V.," becauseshehad made an abominable image for an Asherah;" the object in question may have been a phallic image). He drove the Sodomites from the land, and de stroyed the idols. The high places, however, were not removed. At the suggestion of the prophet Azariah (according to the Chronicler) he caused his people to renew their vows to Yahweh at a great festival. He is said to have built cities and performed mighty deeds, but no details are given. What is told of Asa's conduct in the war with Israel does not redound to his glory (I Kings xv, 16 aqq.). When Baasha fortified Ramah on the frontier between Israel and Judah, Asa could think of no better way to retaliate than to hire Ben-hadad, king of Syria, to invade Israel. The expedient accomplished its immediate purpose by forcing Baasha to retire from Ramah; but the ultimate outcome was the hundred years' war between Israel and the Arameans, which brought misfortune upon both lands and even involved Judah. The Chronicler states that the prophet Hanani was sent to rebuke Asa for his conduct, and was imprisoned for his boldness. The Chronicler further relates that in the eleventh year of Asa's reign `° Zerah the Ethiopian " invaded Judah and met a great defeat. The event is not mentioned in the Book of Kings, and some regard the narrative as unhistorical. Those who accept it have not succeeded in identifying Zerah the Ethiopian. In his old age Asa suffered from a disease of the feet, perhaps gout. [The Chronicler characteristically remarks '° yet in his disease he sought not to Yahweh, but to the physicians ".] Asa's history is in I Kings xv, 9-14;' II Chron. xiv-xvi. (W. LOTZ.) The most probable dates for Asa are 912-872 B.C. J. F. M.

BisrsoaeArar: Consult the works mentioned under ARAB, and, in addition, for Zerah the Ethiopian, H. Winckler, Alttesta-enttida Untereuehunpen, pp. 180 eqq., Leipsic, 1892.


ASBURY, az'ber-i, FRANCIS: The first Methodist bishop ordained in America; b. at Hamatead Bridge, parish of Handaworth (a northern suburb


809 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Articles Asceticism of Birmingham), Staffordshire, England, Aug. 20, 1745; d. at Spottsylvania, Va., Mar. 31, 1816. He became a local preacher at the age of sixteen, and an itinerant minister in 1767; at his own request he was sent by Wesley as a missionary to America in 1771, landing at Philadelphia with his companion, Richard Wright, Oct. 27; in 1772 he was appointed Wesley's " general assistant in America," with supervisory power over all the Methodist preachers and societies in the country, but the next year was superseded by Thomas Rankin. On the outbreak of the Revolutionary War Rankin returned to England, but Asbury chose to remain. Like most of the Methodist preachers, he was a nonjuror (that is, he had con scientious scruples concerning oaths, and refused to take the oath of allegiance required by the au thorities), and he suffered some annoyance from the officials during the war. After the close of the war the Methodists were organized into an inde pendent Church, Thomas Coke (q.v.) and Asbury being chosen joint superintendents at the Christmas Conference at Baltimore, 1784, and Asbury or dained by Coke Dec. 27. The remainder of his life he devoted to the Church with tireless energy and unflagging zeal.' Asbury was fearless in the discharge of duty, possessed a keen wit and uncommon shrewdness, was far-sighted and a good organizer. He never married; and his salary was sixty-four dollars a year. His early education was defective; but in later life he acquired some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. In 1785 he laid the foundation of the first Methodist college, and he formed a plan of dividing the country into districts with an academy in each. His journal from the date of sailing for America to 1780 was published before his death, and the remaining years were transcribed and published by F. Hollingworth in 1821; it has been often reprinted (cf. The Heart of Asbury's Journal, ed. E. S. Tipple, New York, 1905). BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. L. Janes, Character and Career of Francis Asbury, New York, 1870 (the standard biography); W. C. Larrabee, Asbury and His Coadjutors, 2 vols., Cincin nati, 1853; W. P. Strickland, The Pioneer Bishop: or, the Ldfs and Times of Francis Asbury, ib. 1858; F. W. Briggs. Bishop Asbury: a Biographical Study for Christian Workers, London, 1874; J. F. Hurst, History of the Chris tian Church, ii, 894, 905, New York, 1900. For Wesley's views on the assumption by Asbury of the title " bishop " consult It. D. Urlin, Churchman's Life of Wasky, pp. 168 170, London, n.d. ASCENSION, FEAST OF THE: In Acts i, 3 the fortieth day after the resurrection is designated as that of Christ's ascension. The Epistle of Barna r He visited Massachusetts 28 times after 1791~the state of New York 56 times. New Jersey 62 times,Penn sylvanis 78 times, Delaware 83 times, Maryland 80 times, North Carolina 63 times, South Carolina 46 times, Virginia 84 times, Tennessee and Georgia each 20 times, and other states or territories with corresponding frequency. In his unparalleled career he preached about 16,500 sermons, or at least one a day, and travel d about 270,o00 miles, or 6,000 a year, presiding in no lees than 224 annual confer snow, and ordaining more than 4,000 preachers.-Junes, p. 5. When he came to America the ltethodiste numbered 10 preachers and 600 members; when he died, after forty five yews of work. they -had M preachers and 214,235 members.

bas (xv), on the other hand, grounds the observance of Sunday on its having been the day marked by both the resurrection and the ascension. If this is to be reconciled with the Acts, it can only be by the assumption that Luke counts four weeks as four decades, just as later ecclesiastical usage numbers the Sundays before Lent in this loose way as Septuagesima, Sexageaima, and Quinquagesima; but the " forty days " of the Acts sounds too definite for this hypothesis to be accepted. The Christian Church has observed this commemoration on the Thursday of the sixth week after Easter since it has been observed at all, which could only be after the festivals of Easter and Pentecost were firmly established. Origen does not know the festival (Contra Celsum, viii, 23). It is mentioned, however, in the Apostolic Constitutions (v, 19, viii, 13); and Chrysostom has a homily for it, besides referring to it in another place. Socrates (Hist. eocd., vii, 26) mentions, under the year 390, that the people celebrated it as an established custom in a suburb of Constantinople. In the West its observance has been thought to be attested by an obscure canon of the Council of Elvira (306); in any case, Augustine knows it as an old one (Epist. liv. ad Januarium). Its celebration was specially solemn. The paschal candle, lighted at Easter to symbolize the resurrection of the Light of the World, is extinguished after the Gospel in the high mass of that day throughout the Roman Catholic Church, signifying the departure of Christ from earth. The Lutheran Reformation in Germany retained the feast as Scriptural; and it is observed as one of the principal festivals in the Anglican communion. (GEORG RIETSCHEL. )

Perhaps the earliest reference to the feast extant is that of the Peregrinatio Etherdce (0.380), which states that a feast of the Ascension was celebrated in Jerusalem toward the close of the fourth century, coinciding with the festival of Pentecost and observed on the same day. The feast marks the close of the paschal season and is a holyday of obligation in the Roman Catholic Church. In the Latin liturgy the term " ascension " is used exclusively of our Lord. J. T. C.

BrsraoaRSra:: A. Baillet, Lee Vies des saints, asec i'histoire doe f0tse . Paris, 1701; F. Probst, Breerier and Brsvierpeb4 ¢ 93, Tiibingen,1868; DCA, i. 145-147; N. Nilles, Kalendarium manuals ukiusque saleaia, ii, 384, Innsbruck, 1881.

ASCENSION OF PAUL. See APOCRYPHA, B, IV. ASCETICISM. New Testament Tescbing Attitude of the Refornmre Asceticism in the Early Tri a slue and Uses of As Church (¢ 2). cetioism U 4).

The term"asceticism'' (Gk. askilsia) originally meant " practise," especially the training of an athlete. In philosophical language it denotes moral exercise and discipline (e.g., Epiotetus, Dissertationea, iii, 12; Diogenes Laertius, VIII, viii, 8), and in this sense passed into ecclesiastical language (Eusebius, Hilt. eul., II, xvii, 2; Mar tyree Paliestinw, x, 2, xi, 2, 22). In the history of almost all religions, as well as in ancient moral


AmmUoism Aschheim THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 810 philosophy, asceticism plays an important part, evidenced by phenomena like self-mutilation, circumcision, tattooing, fasting, fiagellations, pen ance, etc., and by the ethics of the Buddhists, Stoics, Pythagoreans, and Neoplatonists. The Old Testament manifests, on the whole, few tend encies toward outward asceticism; but later Judaism, in its Pharisaic as well as in its Hellen istic form, cultivated it, especially in the practise of fasting (cf. Dan. x, 3; Tobit xii, 8; :. New Tes- Matt. vi, 16, ix, 14; Luke xviii, 12). tament Primitive Christianity kept free from Teaching. this externalizing asceticism. The custom of fasting was retained (Matt. iv, 2; Acts xiu, 2, xiv, 23, xviii,18, xxi, 24, xxvii, 9; II Cor. xi, 27), but, as in the Old Testament, it was only auxiliary to prayer (Esther iv, 16; Dan. ix, 3; Tobit xii, 8; Luke ii, 37; Acts x, 30, xui, 2, xiv, 23), and no merit was attached to it. In place of a legal and meritorious asceticism the Lord demands watchfulness, sobriety, and prayer (Matt. xxiv, 42, xxv, 13; Mark xiii, 37; of. Acts xx, 31; I Cor. xvi, 13; II Cor. vi, 5, xi, 27; Eph. vi, 18; Col. iv, 2; I Thess. v, 6, 8; I Pet. i, 13, v, 8; II Pet. iii, 11-12; Rev. iii, 3, xvi,15), as well as a readiness to resign everything to follow him and to take up the cross (Matt. viii, 21-22, x, 38-39, xvi, 24, xix, 21; Mark viii, 34, x, 28, 39; Luke ix, 57-58, xiv, 27). In the morals of Jesus everything depends upon the disposition and free deed. Thus Matt. vi, 17-18, ix, 15, xix, 12, are not .to be understood as outward, ascetic regulations. The thoughts of Paul move along the same lines. In the moral struggle one must become master of the old man who has been put off (Rom. vii, 23, xiii, 14; Gal. v, 17; Eph. vi, 12-18; Col. iii, 5-8; I Tim. vi, 12), and discipline is also necessary to bring the body into subjection (I Cor. ix, 25-27). This is the true notion of asceticism as expressed in I Tim. iv, 7, 8. Remarks like I Cor. vii, 5, 8, 25-40 have not the value of generally received ethical laws; the legal ism of Jewish life, the contempt of marriage, the worshiping of angels, and neglect of the body are all rejected (Gal. ii, 12-16; Col. ii, 16-23; I Tim. iv, 3). The New Testament, therefore, offers the following thoughts as bases for the notion of asceti cism: the obligation of the Christian to crucify the flesh; the demand to bear the cross, to be sober and ready; and the exhortation to " exercise " the body and to fashion it into an organ fit for the ends of the Christian.

Hellenistic and Jewish influences worked together to introduce, with " moralism," in the old catholic time an ascetic order of life.

s. Asceti- The institution of certain fast-days,

cism in the fixed hours of prayer, the restricted Early use of food, abstinence from marriage,

Church. withdrawal from the world, charac terise this tendency. Asceticism, .no lees than " knowledge," came to be considered as belonging to Christianity (Clement, Strom., vi, 12). At an early period ascetics are found who retire into the desert and leave the Church from moral considerations (Iremus, Her., III, id, 9; IV, xxvi, 2, xxx, 3, xxxiii, 7). As ascetic tend encies enter more deeply into the Church (cf. the

case of Origen, Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vi, 2), and as the Church comes to know the world more intimately, it becomes easier to understand the origin of ascetic societies (cf. the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, De virganitade; Hieracasf in Epiphanius, Her., lxvii, 13; Athanasius, Pits Antonii, iii, 14; Cyril, Catechesea, iv, 24, v, 4, xu, 33; Methodius, Conviroium, vii, 3; Aphraates, Hom., vi). Here was the beginning of the later anchoretic and monastic system (see MoNAsmcctsm).

On this road the Middle Ages proceeded. The ascetic practises were extended more and more, and their extension naturally produced among the monks a state of dulness. There are two things especially which mark the history of medieval asceticism: the institution of penance with its works of satisfaction, and the idea of imitating the poverty and suffering of Jesus. The first shows a descending evolution, but the second an ascending one, tending to introspection, as in the circle of the Friends of God. The way of asceticism was considered as the way of perfection. The Augsburg

Confession (art. xxvi, 8) says of the 3. Attitude medieval period: " Christianity was

of the Re- thought of as consisting solely of the formers. observance of certain holy days, rites,

fasts, attire." On the other hand, the Reformation abolished on principle the medieval estimate of asceticism, because the solemn ascetic works are not enjoined by God, but by worthless human commandments (art. xxiii, 6 eqq., 19 eqq., savi, 18; Apol., xxiii, 6, 60, xxvii, 42-57), and can even be regarded as suicide and tempting of God (Luther, Werke, Erlangen ed., iv, 380, vii, 40, ix, 289, xi, 104). The ascetic system is also abolished by the concept of righteousness by faith which is opposed to meritorious works, which are therefore to be rejected (Auga. Con., xx, 8, 9 eqq., xxvi, I eqq., 8, xxvn, 3,44; Apo1., xv, 6 eqq.; Art. Schmal., iv, 14; Luther, xx, 250, xvii, 8, xlii, 262, AM, 193, lxv, 128, xx;, 330). Thus it is asserted that the ascetic works answer not the will of God and are not meritorious. For " Christian perfection " ascetic works are not necessary; indeed, moral conduct is the more certain evidence of God's Presence (Augs. Con., xvi, 4 sqq., xxvi, 10, xxvii, 10 eqq., xv, 49, 57; Apol., xv, 25-26, xvii, 61; Longer Catechism, precept iv, 145). But asceticism is hereby not done away with. The " mortification of the flesh " ever remains a Christian duty (Augs. Con., xxvi, 31 eqq.). But by this is not meant a weakening and destruction of the natural powers, but the self-discipline by which the natural powers are made subject to the soul, thus becoming fit for serving God. Outward fast-regulations are therefore very useful, but should never become a law (Luther, xlM, 197-199, Ixv, 128). The Protestant view is briefly this: " Every one can use his own discretion as to fasting and watching, for every one knows how much he must do to master his body. Three, however, who think to become pious through works have no regard for fasting, but only for the works and, imagining that they are pious when they do much in that direction, sometimes break their heads over it and ruin their bodies over it " (Luther, xavii, 27, 190, xliii, 199,


311 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA A°eettet'm Aaohheim 201, x, 290, xxi, 240, x, 250). It is useless to con tinue the historical review, since no essentially new types of asceticism have appeared in the Church. The Roman Catholic Church adheres on principle to the medieval conception, yet in the Jesuitic " Spiritual Exercises " the purely sensual asceticism strongly recedes, and there is accommodation to the modern spirit. Mysticism and pietism in evangelical Christendom have demanded renunciation and seclusion in a one aided manner (cf. C. E. Luthardt, Gesckichte der Ethik, ii, Leipsic, 1893, 154 aqq., 248 aqq., and the histories of pietism by Ritschl and Schmid; see PfgsM). Asceticism is a special moral act. Christian moral acts are free, devoted to the acquisition of the highest good or the realisation of the 4. True kingdom of God. They have for their Value and object the reformation of one's own Uses of As- personality (conversion and sancti ceticism. fication), as well as the influence on the surrounding conditions to be realized by this personality. The Christian life is a con tinual fight with sin, but is to overcome it by virtue of the effects of grace. This task can not in itself be called an " exercise," since it rather denotes the self-preservation of the Christian. To effect this self-preservation in the struggle against sin the Christian must indeed exercise and stretch his powers for the struggle. The object of morality is opposition to sin and the positive exemplification of the good. To bring this about it is necessary to have the mastery over the natural gifta and powers of man, which is obtained by attention to self, by watchfulness, and by accustoming one's own nature to subjection to the moral will. Asceticism is not directly a struggle against sin and realization of the Christian good, but it aims at such a rule over the natural powers that one is qualified to follow the good will readily in the struggle against sin and in the positive moral exemplification. The typical forms of asceticism (fasting, self-denial, etc.) show that the question is not directly the overcoming of sin or of doing good works, but the training of the natural powers for both. This is the specifically evangelical conception of asceticism. On the other hand, the Roman Catholics define as ceticism as a direct moral act and as" the summary of all which serves to promote moral perfection" (Pruner, in HL, i, 1460); or asceticism is ex plained as that part of theology which "develops the principles of Christian perfection and points out the practical rules which bring about the soul's elevation to God " (J. Ribet, L'Ascttique clrMenne, Paris, 1888). Here the various exercises of asceti cism are moral self-interest and good works, whereas, according to evangelical conception, aseetieism is self-discipline to make one fit for good works; in this subordination it is a moral deed itself. Asceticism is therefore self-control in the true sense of the word. Upon a closer examination the point here is this: (1) The task is to exercise nature in patience, watchfulness, self-denial, and sobriety, so that it becomes fit to bear the sufferings of the cross sent by God as a blessing. These are given to man

from God for " the mortifying of the flesh "; the question is not of self-mortification and invited martyrdom. The cross is not to incite the Christian to sin, but to restrain the sinful lust. From this point of view the Christian is to consider the suffering and be affected by it. (2) Our nature in consequence of the sinfulness of man is exercised and ready to walk the ways pointed out by the evil will. In concrete things it exemplifies chiefly the dominion of the sensual desires over the spiritual will. Over against this, it is a Christian duty to accustom nature to subjugation under the .spiritual will, to the regulation of the desires, to regularity and propriety of life, to steadfastness in useful work, to the proper relation between labor and recreation. Here one has to deal with moral gymnastics, which are to fit human nature to obey the good moral will imparted by grace. (3) For each man exist certain thoughts and incentives which in themselves are morally indifferent, but, as experience teaches, may become a temptation to the individual. To restrain these is the further object of asceticism; and herein it includes fasting in the ardent sense, e.g., with reference to society, eating and drinking, matrimony, sexual intercourse, novel-reading, the theater, dancing, total abstinence. etc. The question here is of a moral dietetics. With this the field of asceticism is circumscribed. Only it should be added that the ascetic practic&1 proof must never become a law; it calls only for individual selfrestraint. This, however, as little precludes ascetic habits in the individual as ascetic customs in communities. It mu4 also be emphasized that the question can not be as to the meritorious character of asceticism; for, in the first place, this thought has no place in evangelical ethics; in the second place, because the necessity of ascetic exercises proves not man's moral maturity, but immaturity. Finally, it must be remarked that in the concrete life the ascetic practical proof can not be separated from sanctification and the moral struggle. R. SzEHEftfi.

131BLIOGRAPHY: 0. Nitsoh, Praxis morttilis ifs. Goths. 1725; E. Kist. CAriaaide Asodik, 2 vole.. Weasel. 1827 28; 0. Ztiokler, %rigachs tdite der Asksm, Er, laagen, 1883 (contains a bibliography); idem, Askew and M6schtum, 2 vole.. Frankfort, 1897; DCA. i. 147-149; Schaff, Christian Church. i, 387-414; J. Mayer. Die dusst lidhe Asoms. Freiburg. 1894; R. 13eeberg, in tifi<A, dx .(1898). 508 sqq.; C. E. Hooijkws. Otslijke Amem. Leyden, 1905; a detailed treatment of asoeti oism. Jewish and Christian, of the latter in all periods is given in Neander, Christian Church, consult the Index; also the works on ethics and Christian morals, such as those of Reinhard. Rothe, Dorner, Msrtensen. Harlem. Vilmar, oettinger. Frank. H. Schultz. Luthardt, Wutke, and Smyth, and see Bmcs, and Moxssazcroa.

ASCHHEIM, ash'haim, SYNOD OF: A synod held in a village of what is now Bavaria, a little to the east of Munich. The church there is mentioned in the seventh century. The year of the synod is not definitely named; but since Tassilo is mentioned as prince, and as still very young, and since its decrees are evidently influenced by those of the Frankish synod of Verneuil (July 11, 755), it must have been held either in the latter half of that year. or in 756. Its canons are directed partly to the regulation of various ecclesiastical relations (ii, for the security of churches, and iv, of church


Asherah Ashtoreth THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 812

property; v, payment of tithes; xiii, recognition of the canonical law as to marriage) and partly to the affirmation of the rights of the episcopate (iii, power over church property; vi, subordination of the clergy, and viii, ix, of monks and nuns; xiv, xv, spiritual oversight in courts of justice).

A. HAUCK. BisnroasAPey: The Cayitula are in MGH, Leg., iii (1883), 457-459; ib. Conch., ii (1904),58-58. Consult Hefele, Con- ciliengesehichte, iii, 597-802; Hauck. %D, 1890, ii, 399.

ASHERAH (pl. asherim; in Judges iii, 7, II Chron. xix, 3, xxxiii, 3, asheroth): The transliteration of a Hebrew word which in the A. V. of the English Bible (following the LXX and Vulgate) is rendered "grove" or "groves" (see GROVES AxD TREKS, SACRED); in the A. V. the word is trans-

ferred (" Asherah ") without attempt at

Two Dis- translation. In explaining its meaning tinct two entirely different senses in which

Meanings. it is employed must be distinguished:

(1) as a sacred tree-stem or pole; (2) as the name of a Canaanitic goddess. There is now no doubt of the general meaning when the word is used in the former sense. Exactly what the latter refers to is still a matter of much debate. There are only three passages (Judges iii, 7; I Kings xviii, 19; II Kings xxiii, 4) in which the word (used with ba'al) clearly refers to a goddess; or, rather, only two, for in Judges the reading should be `ashtaroth (pl. of 'ashtoreth; see AsHToRETH) as in similar early statements with regard to forbidden cults. The passage I Kings xv, 13, often supposed to refer to the worship of a goddess, should be translated as in the R. V. " made an abominable thing for (i.e., as) an asherah." The other two passages in Kings are regarded by recent conservative commentators as interpolations (cf. R. Kittel, Die Biicher der K6nige, Gottingen, 1900, pp. 143, 300), and certainly justify the conclusion that at a late period asherah was used as another name for Ashtoreth. How this came about may be explained from the history of the asherah in Israel.

In preexilic times an asherah was not a divine companion or concurrent of a bawl or the baals at all. It was, however, an indispensable part of

the normal baal-worship. A "high-

The Pre- place," or shrine of the baal (bamah) exilic consisted of an altar (with or without

Asherah. a " sanctuary "), a mapebhah or stone

pillar, and an agherah (see ALTAR; HUGH PLACE; MEMORIALS AND SACRED STONES). The pillar was a survival of the old stone-worship; that is to say, the adoration of the local deities or numina, who had their abode in sacred stones (cf. the bathed of Gen. xxviii, 19 and elsewhere). The asherah Or sacred pole was in like manner a Survival of the old tree-worship, that is, of the cult of sacred trees whose sanctity is a marked feature of the early histories (e.g., Gen. xii, 6, R. V.; Judges ix, 37, R. V.). In the Hebrew text of Dent. xi, 30; Judges ix, 6 (cf. R. V.) the sacred tree and the sacred stone appear standing side by side. One step further in the inevitable syncretism was the combination of both of these with the cult of the baal, the presiding divinity or `° proprietor " of the district, who gave fertility to its soil and all

consequential blessings to its inhabitants (cf. Hos. ii, 5, 8; see BAAL). Whatever other factors may have contributed to this cherishing of the asherim, these are the moat important. At first the asherim were probably the stems of trees rudely chopped and stripped; afterward they were conventionalized into a shapely pole or mast, just as the " pillars " or magebhoth were at first roughly hewn blocks of stone.

At a later stage the asherah became transfigured into a goddess and naturally took the place of the

old Ashtoreth in the imagination of Trans- the Hebrews, who, after the Exile, folformed lowed no longer the old Canaanitic into a rites. The fact that the worship of Goddess. Ashtoreth had been combined with that of the baals, or rather absorbed into it, doubtless helped toward the substitution. The deification of an outward object of worship is a familiar phenomenon in nearly all religions, and in the present field of inquiry is actually paralleled by the conversion of a bethel or bait-ill (a god-inhabited stone) into a god, Baitulos, among the Phenicians and elsewhere (cf. Schrader, KA T, pp. 437-438).

Whether the fact that there was an old Canaanitic goddess Ashirtu, with a Babylonian namesake, aided in the confusion, in the Hebrew literature, of the two senses of asherah, is not quite clear. It is, at any rate, practically certain that in the time of the active idolatrous worship of Israel the asherah was not a goddess. See ASHTORETH.

J. F. MCCURDY. BIBIJOOBAPHY: B. Stade, in ZATW i (1881), 343-348, iv (1884), 293-295, vi (1888), 318-319; T. K. Cheyne, The Prophecies of Isaiah, ii, 291-292 London, 1882; O. Hoffmann, in ZATW, iii (1883), 123; idem, Ph6 nikiwA@ Inechsiftea, in Abhandlunpen der 0dWaper Go aeuaehaft der Wisaenwhaften, axxvi (1889), 28-28; M. Ohnefalech-Richter, %Npros, die Bibe1, and Hmner, pp. 144-208, Berlin, 1893; Smith, Ref. of Sem., pp. 187-190, 489-479

ASHIMA, a-shai'ma: A deity of the Hamathites, whose capital, originally called Hamath, afterward Epiphania, was on the Orontes, north of the Antilebanon. They were transported into Samaria by Shalmaneser to replete that depopulated district (II Kings xvii, 30). The deity was therefore Aramean, and was regarded by the Septuagint as feminine, but since nothing is known of it beyond what is told in II Kings, all suggestions as to its identity are mere conjectures.

ASHTORETH. The Cult in Palestine and Worship. Its Astral Sig Syria (51). nificance (; 5). Significance of the Related The Sensual Development Names (§ 2). (§ g) Extension of Ishtar Wor- The Worship as Spiritual ship ($ 3). iced (¢ 7). The Early Ishtar Cult (¢ 4). Tendency of the Cult in Is Dominant Types of Ishtar rael (§ 8). Ashtoreth is the name of a goddess whose wor-

ship, mostly associated with that of Baal or the baals, figured largely in the history of idolatry in ancient Israel. This divinity. is especially marked as a goddess of the `° Sidonians " or Pheniciana

(I Kings xi, 5, 33; II Kings xxiii, 13). She had also a temple among the Philistines at Ascalon,



probably the same as that mentioned by Herodotus (i, 105) East of the Jordan her worship was rife in Moab, combined with that of the

r. The national god, Ashtar-Chemosh being Cult in Pal- named on the Moabite Stone in the estine and ninth century B.C.; and the place

Syria. names Ashtaroth (Dent. i, 4 and elsewhere), Ashteroth-Karnaim (Gen. xiv, 5), and Be-eshterah (Josh. xxi, 27) indicate its prevalence in the country of Bashan. That it was of ancient date in southern Syria is proved by Egyptian references to the goddess " Aehtart of the Hittite land." The most widely attested of three branches of the general cult among Canaanitic or Hebraic peoples is the Phe nician, which is commemorated by many inscrip tions both in the home country and in the western colonies.

This famous goddess is also widely known as Astarte, which is the Greek form of the Phenician 'Ashtart. The name Ashtoreth itself in the orig inal Hebrew texts was 'Ashtareth, the s. Signifi- Masoretic form being a change made cance of by using the vowels of bosheth, " the the Rela- shameful thing," a nickname of Baal ted flames. (q.v.). The Phenician ' a shtart clearly points to the correct reading, as also does the Hebrew plural 'Ashtaroth. The Babylonian and Assyrian forth Ishtar is modified from 'Ashtar, according to a regular phonetic law, through the influence of the initial guttural. 'Ashtar is identical with the South Arabian 'A& tar and Aramaic and North Arabian 'Atar (from 'Athtar), the former being a god and the latter apparently a goddess. Of the Arabian cult very little is known. When more has been learned of South Arabian mythology, much of the mystery which surrounds the origin of the universal Semitic worship of Ishtar-Ashtoreth will be cleared up.

The following are the most important of the facts which may be regarded as established or practically certain: The cult originated in Babylonia and spread northward to As3. Exten- syria, northwestward to Mesopotamia, sion of Ish- thence to Syria and Palestine, and tar Worship. thence through the Phenicians to all of the Mediterranean peoples; south and southwestward it spread to Arabia, and thence across the sea to Abyssinia.

Both the name and the dominant forms of the cult were of Semitic and not of 11 Turanian 11 or Sumerian origin. There was a god-

4. The dens Nana (q.v.) at Erech in South Early Babylonia, who was held to be iden Ishtar ticbl with Ishtar simply because she Cult. had been worshiped there by a non Semitie people, and, having attributes akin to those of Ishtar, was replaced by the latter when the Semites took over the ancient shrine. A similar syncretism took place under the same con ditions in the interest both of Ishtar herself and of other Semitic divinities which she absorbed and superseded. The word Ishtar is a Babylonian verbal noun of the ifteal stem though the etymol ogy is still unsettled. The worship of Ishtar was of very complex or-

igin, both in its primary and in its secondary sources. When in greatest vogue as a principal Semitic religion it was, as above indicated, a composite or syncretism of many related cults, non-Semitic as well as Semitic. Of these some left deep traces of their original distinctive features and remained in part practically separate cults. Such, for example, was the worship of Ish-

tar of Arbela, in which the divinity g. Domi- appears as a war-goddess-an attrinant Types bute probably suggested by the very

of Ishtar natural conception of the planet Worship. Venus being the leader of the starry Its Astral hosts. Ishtar was in fact primarily

Sigaiti- and chiefly identified with this most cance. beautiful of celestial objects, especially

as the evening star. This conception spread from Babylonia through the other Semitic lands to the Phenician settlements, and then mainly byway of Cyprus, to the Greeks and Romans as the cults of Aphrodite and Venus. Among its primary sources, therefore, the worship of Ishtar was in large part astral, and Venus was its favorite celestial object. This combination was not of late origin, but is known to have been made in very early times (cf. Schrader, RAT, pp. 424 sqq.)The moon in the Ishtar cult never took the place of Venus; for the moon among the Semites was a male deity, whose worship was older than even that of Ishtar and was centered in Sin, the moongod par ezceuence. Hence Ishtar in the inscriptions is represented not only as the daughter of Ann, the great heaven-god, but also as the daughter of Sin. It was as impossible that " the queen of heaven " of Jer. vii, 18 and other passages could be a name of the moon among the Hebrews in Palestine or Egypt as it could be among the Babylonians. The identification of Ishtar with the fixed star Sirius and with the constellation Virgo (perhaps through its beautiful star Spica), though comparatively early, was of secondary origin.

From the terrestrial side the primary motive of the worship of Ishtar was the impulse to deify

sensuousness and sensuality. Of the 6. The resulting worship Ishtar-Venus became

Sensual the celestial patron. She not only

Develop- legitimated the sexual indulgences meat which marked her cult in Babylonia,

Phenicia, Palestine, and the Semitic world generally, but she was naturally taken as the authoress of the sexual passion and therewith of all derivative and associated sentiments. This accounts for the part played by Ashtoreth or Astarte as the female counterpart of the Phenician Baal and of the local Canaanitic basis, and also for the wide-spread and influential myth of her

relations with her lover Tammuz or 7. The Wor-Adonis (Esek. viii, 14); see TAMMm. ship as Linked with these primary attri Spiri- butes in the most remarkable and tnalized. instructive ways was the worship of

Ishtar as the fountain of the tenderest and most sacred human sentiments, also of imaginative conceptions of external nature, and even experiences of the inner moral and spiritua,llife (on the process of transition of. J. F. McCurdy,


AAhtoreth Ads, Xinor THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 814

History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, iii, New York, 1901, §§ 1184 eqq.). The best illustrations are afforded by the Babylonian hymns to Ishtar as the great mother-goddess, as the creator of the animate universe generally (cf. the exordium of Lucretius, De rerun natura), and as the helper of men, freeing them from sickness and the curse of sin and guilt.

Though we learn nothing directly from the Old Testament as to the character of the service of Ashtoreth in Palestine, the connections in which the word occurs make it clear that, whatever else may have been here and there included, the lowest forms of Ishtar worship were ordinarily exhibited. The regular association in the singular with " the

baal " and in the plural ('Aahta 8. Tendency Loth) with " the baale " indicates the

of the predominance of the sexual aspects Cult in of the many-sided cult. Its popu Israel. lanty and seductiveness are also mani fested in the use of the plural (exactly as in Babylonian) as an equivalent of goddesses in general (Judges ii, 13, x, 8; I Sam. vii, 3, 4, xii, 10) in passages which, it is true, pled from later deuteronomic editing, but are therefore all the more indicative of the prevailing tendency. A comprehensive historical view of the whole subject helps to understand the fascination of Astarte worship as a seductive and formidable ob stacle to the service of Yahweh. See AssxesiA, VII; ATABGATTe; ABH10$AH; BAAI.; BABYLONIA, VII, 2, § 7; 3, § b. J. F. MCCURDY. BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Selden, De die Syria, ii, 2, London, 1817; F. Miinter, Die Religion der Cardiaper, pp. (i2-88, Copen hagen, 1821; F. C. Movers, Die Pk6nisisr, i, 869-M,, Bonn, 1841; E. Schrader, Die HdUentahrt der lafar, Gies sen. 1874; idem, RAT, pp. 438 sqq.; P. Berger, L'Anpe d Astart4, Paris, 1879; F. Hung, BiUische Theolopie des Alien Testaments. pp. 17 eqq., Carlsrube,1880: P. de I.a garde, Astarte, in Nachriddsn van der GesellaeWt der Wis sansehaften au Gattinpen, 1881, pp 396--400; C. P. Tieb, La Deesse Istar ewtout dans 1e myths Babylonian, Leyden. 1884; F. Baethgen, Beitrage sur semibwhen Relipionepe sehickte' pp. 81-37, 218-220, Berlin, 1889; Collins, A#Ar to" and ks 'Aahera in PSBA ri (1888-89), 291 308; A. Jeremiae Die babylonixh-assyrisohan Vorstell1wnpen van Laben nach dens Tode, pp. 4-45, Leipsio. 1887; idem. .

Isdubar-Ninarod, pp. 57-88, 58-70, ib. 1891; P. Jenson, Die KosmoWis der Babylonier, pp . 117-118, 135, 227 oqq., Strasburg, 1890: Ashtoreth and Her Inigusnoe in the O. T'.

n JBL, z (1891 ), 73 eqq.; G. A. Barton. The Semitic Ishtar Cult, in Hebmica, is (189283). 131-156, z (1893-94).1-74. For the " Q ueen of Heaven " consult: B. Stade, in ZATw, vi (1880), 123-132, 289339; E. Schrader. in Sitcunpaberidafe der BeRinerAkademie, 1888, pp. 477-491; idem, m ZA, iii (1888), 853384; iv (1889), 74-70; J. Well-' haueen, Heidenthurn, pp 88 sqq.: A. Huenen. De Mels cketh des Hemsk, Amsterdam, 1888 (Germ. tranel. in Ge-

snudte A64an"spm, pp. 89211, Freiburg, 1894).

On the connection between Aphrodite and Astarte consult: J. B. F. Lajard, Iteeherc)ma sur Is cults de VEnus, Paris, 1837; W. H. Eogel, Hyprot, ii, b-849, Berlin, 1841: L. F. A. Maury. HiNoirs des religions de la Ordoe antique iii, 191-259, Paris, 1869· F. Hommel, Aphrodito-Astarte, in New Jahrbaeher %flr Ph>Tobphie and Pedopopie, mocv (1882). 178; Ohnefadeoh-Richter, ut sup.. Pp. 227; DB, i, 156, 187-171; M. Jaetrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898 (of. Index under Ishtar); BB, i. 330-883, 336-339; G. A. Barton, A ,3ketrA o/ Semitic Origins, pp. 108. 248-258. Now York. 1902; Schrader. RAT. pp. 438938.

ASH WEDNESDAY (Lat. Dies cineris, feria quarts cinerum): The first day of Lent, the beginning of the forty days' fast before Easter in the Western Church. The name is not simply a general allusion to the repentance in sackcloth and ashes of which the prophets speak in the Old Testament, but refers more directly to a rite which marks the observance of the day in the Roman Catholic Church. The palm-branches blessed on the PahnBunday of the previous year are burned to ashes, and these ashes are placed in a vessel on the altar before the beginning of mass. The priest, wearing a violet cope (the color of mourning), prays that God will send his angel to hallow the ashes, that they may become a salutary remedy to all penitents. Then follows the prayer of benediction, witch explains the symbolical meaning of the use of ashes still more clearly. The ashes are then thrice sprinkled with holy water and censed, after which the celebrant kneels and places some of them upon his own head. The congregation then approschthe altar and kneel, while the sign of the cross is made upon their foreheads with the blessed ashes; to each one are said the words Memento, homo, quia pulroia ea et in pulverem reverteria (" Remember, O man, that dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return ").

It is impossible to determine accurately the date at which the imposition of ashes, which originally formed a part of the public penance for grievous sinners, became a custom applicable to all the faithful. It is demonstrably at least as old as the synod of Beneventum in 1091, which expressly commands it for clergy and laity alike. In the Anglican communion the day is marked by a special service known as the " commination service," (q.v.) or at least by a special collect and Scripture lessons; and the Irvingite liturgy also contains prayers for it. See CHuRcH YEAR.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bingham, Oripinee, book :viii. chap ii, E 2; G. BevineU History of the ie)'ormakon of Ale Church of England, ii. 94, London 1881; J. Butechksr, Oebraueke, pp. 91-152, Vienna, 1848.

ASIA MINOR IN THE APOSTOLIC TIME. I. The Name. V. The Islands of the N4esn Sea. I%. The Province Ciliois. II. The Province of Aeis. VI. The Province PonturBithynis. 7C, Cyprua. III. The Imperial Cult. VII. The Province Galatia. X1. The Province Cappadocia. IV. Cities. VIII. The Province LyoirPsmphylis. I. The Name: The term "Asia Minor" is not found is the New Testament; it is said to occur filet in Oroeius, i, 2 (400 A.D.). In the apostolic period "Asia" denoted the continent, Asia Minor, and the Roman province of Asia. Paul no doubt under stood by Asia, the Roman province (I Cor. avi, 19; II Cor. i, 8; II Tim. i, lb). The Apocalypse in cludes also the Phrygian Laodices; and the provin-

cial district is doubtless meant in I Pet. i, 1, where Asia stands after Pontus, Galatia, and Cappadocia and before Bithynia, though it is uncertain whether the author ass informed of the political character of these designations. How far the Roman provincial demarcations had become familiar to the people it is difficult to tell. There are passages in the New Testament in which the term Asia is used



in a narrower sense. In the time of Paul the country was still in a stage of development.

11. The Province of Asia: When Attalus III of Pergamos in 133 H.c. willed his country to the Romans, it was declared a province, though the real organization was not effected until 129. The main parts were the maritime districts Mysia, Lydia, and Caria. With these Cicero (Pro Plaew, xxvii, 65) mentions Phrygia, which belonged to the province after 118. Under the emperors Asia was a senatorial province ruled by a proconsul, whose seat was at Ephesus. The diet of the province, to which representatives (Gk. asiamhai; cf . Acts xis, 31) were sent, met annually in different cities. Its powers and duties culminated in the imperial cult; and hence it was presided over by the sacerolm provin cica or, Greek, amhiereus tf Asias, who offered the sacrifices and pronounced the vow for the emperor and his house. This office changed annually and the years were dated accordingly.

III. The Imperial Cult: The empire as the guaranty of peace and the source of all blessings of culture appeared to the people as a divine power. From his point of view the author of the Apocalypse (xiii, 3-8) describes this worship of the empire by the world. He is convinced that the empire owes its success to a supernatural power, but not to the God of heaven-rather to the devil. The Jews as a rule enjoyed religious liberty throughout the empire, and were not required to take part in the imperial cult. What Caesar had granted to them was confirmed by Augustus and Claudius. The sufferings of the Christians of Asia Minor, mentioned in the First Epistle of Peter, were not caused by their refusal to take part in this worship (cf- ii, 13 aqq.). It is true that the populace hated and persecuted the Christians, but not because they refused to honor the emperor; the name of this new supemtuio was distrusted and outlawed as at Rome in the time of Nero (Tacitus, Aanalea, xv, 44).

IV. Cities: The number of free cities was steadily reduced under the emperors; and immunity from taxation was granted in place of autonomy. An edict of Antonim Pius divided the cities into three classes according to size and importance. Puny (Hint. net., V, xxix, 105 sqq.) mentions nine cities which possessed a court of justice, viz.: Laodices ad Lycum, Synnada, Apamea, Alabanda, Sardis, Smyrna, Ephesus, Adramyttium, and Pergamos. Ephesus, at the mouth of the Cayster, often called on inscriptions " the first and greatest metropolis of Ate," was the seat of the proconsul. Another title of the city is " temple-keeper " (i.e., of Diana; d. Acts xix, 35, R. V.; the Greek is neakoroe, the usual word for the custodian of a temple). A college of virgin priestesses ministered to Diana, presided over by a eunuch called Megabysos. It was no exaggeration of Demetrius when he said that the Ephesian Artemis was worshiped not only by all Asia, but by the whole world (Acts xix, 27); for through Ephesus flowed the commerce between the East and the West. Among the strangers riding them were manyiewe, who had& synagogue (Actoxviii,19, 26, xix, 8) and enjoyed special privileges, especially

those who were Roman citizens, as may be seen from documents contained in Josephus and Philo. Ephesus was a member of the confederation of the thirteen Ionian cities, of which Miletue was the head.

A great road led from Ephesus to Magnesia, where was another temple of Anemia which Strabo places on a par with the Ephesian. Christianity came to Magnesia from Ephesus; among the epistles of Ignatius, that to the Magnesians immediately follows that to the Ephesians. After Magnesia, Strabo mentions Tralles (also mentioned by Ignatius), once a wealthy city, called Ciesarea under Augustus. Jews also dwelt there; and it is possible that the Gospel was brought thither from Ephesus (Acts xix, 10). It seems that special missionary attention was devoted to the cities along the Mean der-Lykos road; for one meets with the three closely connected Phrygian congregations Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossee, of which Laodicea was the most important and is alone mentioned in the Apocalypse. The Christian community seems to have shared in the wealth of the city (Rev. iii, 17). Laodicea never had an emperor's temple. Polycmtes of Ephesus mentions among the " great lights" of Asia a bishop and martyr with the Phrygian name Lagaris as buried at Laodicea (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, xxiv, 5). In 185 there was " great strife concerning the Passover there " (ib. IV, xxvi, 3). Colossae, an important city of Phrygia, was long the seat of a bishop. More important than Colossee was Hierapolis, the native place of the philosopher Epictetus, and the place in which the apostle Philip lived and died. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, as was also Claudius Apollinaris. ApameawasfoundedbyAntiochusBoterand was the seat of a conventus jwidieua. That many Jews lived hem is known from Cicero (Pro Plaoco, xxviii); they had their own constitution, a "law of the Jews."

The Lydian Philadelphia was sparsely populated on account of the frequent earthquakes. The Gospel was brought thither from Ephesus. Philadelphia is one of the seven churches of Asia mentioned in the Apocalypse (iii, 7-13); among its inhabitants Jews are mentioned (iii, 9). Ignatius addressed an epistle to the Philadelphians; and Eusebine (Hint. ecd., V, xvii, 3) mentions a prophetess Ammia of Philadelphia. Sardis was the ancient city of the Lydian kings. Jews lived there, having their own jurisdiction. The Church at Sardis, one of the seven mentioned in the Apocalypse (iii, 1-6), was the episcopal seeof Melito in the time of Antomnus Pius. Two famous roads led from Sardis: one to Pergamoe by way of Thyatira, tile other to Smyrna. All three cities are mentioned among the seven Churches of the Apocalypse. Thyatim was known especially for its gild of dyers. The Lydia mentioned in Acts xvi, 14, called a " seller of purple," had probably come to Philippi with wool which had been dyed at home. Thyatira plays an important pan in the history of Montar nism (Epiphanius, Hier., li, 33). Taking a western road from Thyatim one comes to Smyrna, where in 195 a.c. atemplewas built in honorof the den Rome. Tiberius allowed a temple to be erected



here to himself, his mother, and the senate. Politically Smyrna was not as important as Ephesus; but it had the reputation of being the most beautiful city of Asia. Jews in Smyrna are mentioned in Rev. ii, 9 and in the Martyrium Polycarpi, xii, 2, and both times as enemies of the Christians. Paul does not seem to have done missionary work there; but that the congregation was founded by John is not a necessary inference. By the " angel of the church in Smyrna " (Rev. ii, 8) Polycarp might be meant, had not the epistles to the seven churches originated in a much earlier period than the final redaction of the Apocalypse. From Smyrna the road leads by way of Gyme, Myrina, and Elea to Pergamos, where it meets the road to Thyatira. Pergamos, the ancient royal city of the Attalides, was still famous under the Roman empire. In the time of Augustus (29 B.c.) the first provincial temple was erected here, and by the side of Ephesus Pergamos seems to have been the most prominent city in Asia. It was famous for the cult of lEsculapius. Although the Jews had influence, they were not the cause of the animosities mentioned in Rev. ii, 12-17. Though they are called in the Apocalypse a " synagogue of Satan " (ii, 9), it is most unlikely that they are meant by the words: " I know . . . where thou dwellest, where Satan's seat is" (ii, 13); the language points to a more concrete phenomenon, which might be thought of as an embodiment of Satan, and no doubt refers to the worship of IEsculapius. This " savior," whose symbol was the serpent, and who, according to Justin (Apologia, i, 21, 22), looked much like Christ, could easily appear as a devilish caricature of the Son of God. The words " hast not denied my faith" imply that in the days of Antipas the population made an effort to force the worship of Xsculapius upon others.

From the seaport Adramyttium, where there was a canventus juridicus, following the north coast of the Adramyttian bay the road leads to Assos, where Paul seems to have been active (Acts xx, 13-14). It was the birthplace of Cleanthes the Stoic. Troas, or rather Alexandria, became famous under Roman sway. Augustus made it a colony. It was the seaport from which Paul went to Macedonia (Acts xvi, 11). It is perhaps characteristic of the Roman citizen, that, besides Ephesus, Troas is the only city of the province of Asia where Paul labored in person (Acts xx, 5-7; II Cor, ii, 12; II Tim. iv, 13). The Church of Troas is not mentioned in the Apocalypse, but is referred to by Ignatius in his epistles to the Philadelphians (xi, 2) and Smyrnmans (xii, 2). Abydus, Lampsacus, and Cyzicus were not included in Paul's mission.

V. The Islands of the Sgean Sea belonged in great part to the province of Asia. Tenedos was opposite Alexandria Troas; Lesbos, with the capital Mytilene, or as the later form reads in Acts xx, 14, Mitylene, was the first station on the passage from Assos. Thence Paul sailed (Acts xx, 15) to chios, opposite the Ionic peninsula. On the following day he reached Samoa. According to the reading of Codex D, he seems not to have tarried on the island itself in the city of Samos, but in the town of Trogyllium on a little isle of like name before the

cape, mentioned by Strabo. South of Samos lay the small island of Patmos. Following the route of Paul (Acts xxi, 1) one comes to Coos and Rhodes. During the last decades before Christ, Rhodes was a center of culture; it was the native place of the Stoic Panaetius, whose work " On Duty " Cicero used in his De ofciis; in Rhodes, too, labored his pupil Posidonius (about 90-50 s.c.); the rhetorician Apollonius Molon, the teacher of Cicero and Caesar; and Theodore of Gadara, the teacher of Tiberius.

VI. The Province Pontus-Bithynia: When King Nicomedes III, Philopator, of Bithynia bequeathed in 74 s.c. his country to the Romans, the governor of Asia made it a province, and it was extended toward the east in 64 B.c. by annexing north Paphlagonia and Pontus. After the separation of Pontus Galaticus, which was joined to Galatia, the new province with the double name Pontus (and) Bithynia comprised the entire coast region east of the Rhyndacus, north of Mt. Olympus, extending beyond the Halys to the city of Amisus. As a senatorial province it was ruled by proconsuls with a legate, a questor, and six lictors. Pliny the Younger was an extraordinary governor, who was sent to the province (111-112 A.D.) to regulate its finances. The domestic conditions in Bithynia are described not only in the correspondence of Pliny the Younger with Trajan, but also in the speeches of the sophist Dio Chrysostomus of Prusa, which have much of interest to the investigator of early Christianity (ed. H. von Arnim, 2 vols., Berlin, 1893-96; cf. also idem, Dio von Prusa, ib. 1898). The most noteworthy of the cities of Pontus and Bithynia were Apamea, Chalcedon, Byzantium, and Prusa. A court of judgment was also at Nica;a (see NicmA, ComvciLs op), where there was a temple of the dea Roma and of the divus Julius, whereas the provincial temple was at Nicomedia. In Pontus were Amastris, Sinope, Amisus, Abonuteichus, and Comana. Concerning the Jews in Pontus and Bithynia cf. Acts ii, 9, xviii, 2. The spread of Christianity in Pontus is attested by Pliny (Epist., xevi, 9).

VIL The Province Galatia has a complicated history. Its boundaries were often changed. It derived its name from the Celtic tribes which :fated to Asia Minor in the third century B.c., and, according to Strabo, occupied the eastern part of Phrygia. Without going into details, it can be assumed that in the New Testament " Galatia " means not the seat of the three Celtic tribes, but the Roman province including Pisid ;a and Lycaonia, therefore the territory of the first Pauline missionary journey. The question is of interest whether by "the Churches of Galatia " (Gal. i, 2) Paul understood only those of the first missionary journey. He shows an inclination to address his Church according to provinces, following the Roman provincial divisions. When he addresses a Church with reference to its special needs, he naturally speaks to Corinthians, Thessalonians, Philippians; but where he overlooks his missionary territory as a whole, he uses the provincial names. There is no reason to believe that "the Churches of Galatia " means anything else than the Churches



of the Roman province. Since the Epistle to the Galatians was not addressed to one Church, but to a number of Churches, Paul had to select a name expressive of all; and the designation "Churches of Galatia" was quite natural and appropriate for the Roman citizen, to whom the political divisions of the empire, were no fortuitous arrangement, but a moral good. In the time of Paul there were no Galatians in the old sense; and the name means subjects of the Roman emperor belonging to the province of Galatia. Similarly Tychicus and the Ephesian Trophimus (Acts xxi, 29) are said to be of Asia (xx, 4); and Gaius and Aristarchus are called Macedonians (xix, 29, xxvii, 2; cf. II Cor. ix, 2, 4 ), although Gaius was certainly no Macedonian by birth. Of the Galatian cities Ancyra was the seat of the governor, having the provincial temple of Augustus and of the den Roma, on the walls of which the deeds of Augustus were inscribed (the so-called nwnumentum Ancyronum). From Ancyra the road leads eastward to Tavium, the ancient capital of the Trocmee. The capital of the Tolistobogi was Pessinus, famous for the rich temple dedicated to Cybele, whom the natives called Agdistis. North of Pessinus was Germs, a colony founded by Augustus (Julia Augusta Fida Germs). For military purposes a direct connection must have existed with Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii, 14), where Augustus had established a military colony under the name of Ciesarea, not mentioned in the New Testament. It was the center of a system of military settlements which the emperor established to protect the province against the mountain tribes of Pisidia and Isaurica. It is possible that Paul went to Iconium by way of Antioch. According to Strabo, Iconium belonged to Lyeaonia; but in Acts xiv, 6 it seems not to be reckoned among the Lycaonian cities; the population was Phrygian. The Jews had a synagogue and in the Acts of Paul and Thecla a proconsul is erroneously mentioned in Iconium. Another city was Lystra, which was a Roman colony and had a temple of Jupiter. Another colony was Derbe at the south end of the province.

VIII. The Province Lycia-Pamphylia was organized by Claudius in 43 A.D. and again under Vespasian. Till 135 it was governed by the emperor; afterward, by the senate. Among the six larger cities of Lycia which are mentioned by Strabo are the two maritime towns Patera and Myra, through which Paul passed on his journeys (Acts xxi, 1-2, xxvii, 5-6). Phaselis, with three ports, did not belong to the Lycian confederacy in the time of Strabo, but was independent. The Jews in Phaselis are mentioned in I Mace. xv, 23. Of the Pamphylian cities Attalla is of special interest, because Paul on returning from his first missionary journey went thither to sail to Antioch (Acts xiv, 25-26). Ramsay suggests that the same vessel which brought the apostlefromPaphos took him to perga also.

IX. The Province Cilicia varied in extent at different times. Under Cicero's administration (51-50 B.C.), besides fSlicia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Isaurica, and Lycaonia, the districts of Laodicea, Apamea, Synnada, and Cyprus, afterward joined

with Asia, belonged to it. Through the organiza tion of the provinces of Galatia (25 B.C.), Pamphylia (43 A.D.), and Cyprus (22 B.C.), the territory of the province was reduced to Cilicia proper. The western part of it, Cilicia Aspera, was given by Augustus to Archelaus of Cappadocia (25 B.C.), with Elaaussa-Sebaste as capital; and Caligula gave it to Antiochus IV of Commagene. Under Vespasian it was restored to the province of Cilicia. Con sidering the small extent which the province had under the first emperors, it no doubt was under the jurisdiction of the procurator of Syria.. Under Hadrian Cilicia Campestris and Aspera became one imperial province. Under Domitian the seat of government was Antioch, otherwise Tarsus was the metropolis. From the time of Antony it was an urba libero, densely populated and wealthy; it was the home of the Stoic philosopher Atheno dorus, son of Bandon, the honored teacher of Augus tus, perhaps also of Strabo. According to Cicero (Ad Attieum, XVI, xi, 4, xiv_4), he helped him in the preparation of the De o ffficiis. A rival of Tarsus was Anazarbus, called also Ceesarea, native city of the physician and author Dioscorides, who lived under Nero, and whose work, De materia medics (ed. C. Sprengel, Leipsic, 1829), Luke is said to have perused (cf. P. de Lagarde, Psalterium juxta He brwo8 Hieronymi, Leipsic, 1874, pp. 165 sqq.; W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke, Dublin. 1882; Zahn, Einleitung, ii, 384, 435). From Tar sus the highroad leads over the Cilician Taurus to Cappadocia. On the road from Tarsus to Issue and Alexandria was Mopsuestia, the episcopal see of Theodore.

X. Cyprus: After a temporary union with Cilicia the province of Cyprus was separated in 22 B.C. and organized as a senatorial province, ruled by a proprcetor pro consuls with a legate and questor. Many Jews lived in Cyprus, and Cyprian Jewish Christians brought the Gospel to Antioch (Acts xi, 20); Barnabas was from Cyprus (Acts iv, 36). In Salamis there were many synagogues. In the revolt under Trajan the Jews killed 240,000 nonJewa, and completely devastated the city of Salamis. For a punishment they were all banished from the island. The Acts of the Apostles mention the two seaports Salamis in the east, and Paphos; Soli, on the southern coast, had a sanctuary of Aphrodite and Isis; Citium was the birthplace of the Stoic Zeno.

XI. The Province Cappadocia: In the year 17 A.D. Cappadocia, after the death of the last king Archelaus, was made a province, governed by a procurator who, as in Judea, was under the governor of the province of Syria in military matters. In the year 70 Vespasian united it with Galatia, but it was afterward again separated. Pontus Galaticus with Amasia and Pontus Polemoniacus, which had belonged to Galatia, Trajan joined to Cappadocia, to which was added Armenia Minor and Lycaonia with Iconium. Cappadocia had very few cities of importance. That Paul did no missionary work there is very intelligible; hence it is also improbable that he should have traveled through Cappadocia (Acts xviii, 23). The road would have brought him within three days from


Asduarii Asseburg THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 318

the Cilician gates to Tyana, the birthplace of Apollonius, a Roman colony after Caracalla; from thence perhaps to Mazaka-Eusebea, called Csesarea, the most important and still flourishing city in Cappadocia, the metropolis of the province, the birthplace of Basil the Great. Nazianzns and Nyasa, the episcopal sees of the two Gregorys, were places of, no importance.


BIHLIOOaAPBT: The article Kkinasisn in der Apostolixhen Zeit, in Hauck-Herzog, RE, 3 d. ed., x, 535-683, is a scholarly and comprehensive trestmenf of the subject. and should be consulted for further information and titles of works dealing with particular localities and special topics. Ritter. Erdkunde, xviii, xix, 2, Berlin, 1868-69, and Sievers, Alien, pp. 78-88, 668-682, Leipsie, 1893. give a general description. For the history: G. F. Hertsberg, Die Geschwkte Griechanlands unter der Herrwhaft der Ramer, vol. ii. Halle, 1888; T. Mommsen, RBmiads Geachichte, vol.v, Berlin. 1904, available for the English reader in the tranel. by T. T. Dickson, Provinces of the Roman Em pire, i, chap. vii, New York, 1887· J. Marquardt, ROmischa Btaataroerwaltunp, i, 333-349, Leipaio, 1881. A complete collection of inscriptions from Asia Minor has been undertaken by the Vienna Academy, of which vol. i, containing the inscriptions in the Lycisn language, has been issued (1900). Of great value in English are W. M. Ramsay, in Classical Review, iii (1889), 174 eqq.. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, in Supplementary Papers of tee Royal Geographical Society of London, v ol. iv, 1890; idem. The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, London, 1893; idem, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrypia, 2 vole., ib. 1896-97; idem, Bt. Paul as Traveller and Roman Citizen, ib. 1899; idem, letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, ib. 1904; articles on the several cities in DB and RE. The article in Ruggiero, Disionario Epiprafiw d i Antiehitd Romans in highly commended. On the political history of the provinces the beat monograph is V. Chapot, La province -romaine prooonsulaire d'Asie, Paris. 1904.

ASINARII, as-i-nvrf-d: Originally a nickname of the Jews, because they were said to worship an ass (see Ass); afterward applied also to the Christians, of whom the same story was told. It is not impossible that the Jews were the first to shift the reproach from themselves to the Christians. Tertullian (Ad nationes, i, 14; Apologia, xvi) tells how an apostate Jew, bitterly hostile to the Christians, exhibited in Carthage a picture representing a god with ass's ears and a hoof on one foot, clad in a toga and holding a book, with the inscription DEUS CHRISTIANORUM ONOHOIHTHE [" Onokoietes, the God of the Christians;" the meaning of " Onokoietes " is not very clear; it has been explained as " ass-priest " or " ass-worshiper "; another reading is ON0HOITHT, " lying in an ass's manger " (7); perhaps there is a ribald implication]. More offensive to the Christians was the "travesty crucifixion" which the Jesuit Garrucci discovered in 1858 in the ruins of a building on the southern declivity of the Palatine, which was Possibly a school for the imperial pages. In that case it was probably sketched in an idle moment by one of then, lads, in mockery of the religion of his Christian comrades. It represents a man's body with an ass's head, not strictly hanging on a cross, since the feet are supported by a platform, but with the arms outstretched and fastened to the transverse piece of a T-shaped cross. To the left is a smaller figure, raising one hand in an attitude of adoration, and under it is the inscription AAE-WAMENOE EEBETE [i.e., alferai] AEON (" Alexamenos worships his god "). It is now in the Museo Kircheriano in Rome.

In 1870 Visconti discovered another inscription in the same building, with the words AAEgAMENOE FIDELIS. Both of these probably belong to the beginning of the third century. That there is nothing improbable in a Christian having been among the imperial pages at that time is shown by Tertullian (Apologia, xxxvii) and by an inscription of the year 217, given by Rossi.

(A. HAucs.)

BIHLIoaaAPBT: Older treatments of the subject, still useful, are Morinus, De capita asinino deo Christiano, Dort, 1820; H. Heinsius, De laude asini, p. 188, Leyden. 1829; T. Haeeue, De calumnies olim Judois et CArwtianis impoeta. Erfurt.1718. Later discussions are. P. Garrucci, in Ciroilta cattalica. series 3. vol. iv (1868), 629; DCA, i,149. For the "travesty crucifixion," cf. F. Beaker, Dan Spottarucifix der ri»nierken Kainerpaleste Breslau. 1888; P Garrucci, Starya dclla ante Christiana, plate 483, vi, 135, Presto, 1880; F. %. Kraus, Das Spottavciflx vac Falatin and neuentdw*fer Graffito, Freiburg. 1872; DCA, f, 618.

ASMODEU3, as"mo-df'vs (in the Talmud, Ashmedai): An " evil spirit;" first mentioned in the apocryphal book of Tobit (iii, 8), as loving Sara, the daughter of Raguel at Ecbatana, and causing the death of her seven successive husbands on the bridal night. But Tobias, the eighth, escaped, under the direction of Raphael, by burning "the ashes of the perfumes" with the heart and liver of a fish which he had caught in the Tigris. When Asmodens smelled the fumes, he fled to Upper Egypt, and was bound there by Raphael (Tobit viii, 1-3). The figure of this demon is taken from the Persians who greatly influenced later Jewish angelology and demonology. He is Parsee in origin, and to be identified with Yehma of the Avesta, the impersonation of anger (the primary meaning) and rapine.

Once adopted by the Jews, Asmodeus, thanks to rabbinic fancies, took on greater dimensions. Thus he is said to have been implicated in Noah's drunkenness and to be the offspring of the incest of Tubal-vain with his sister Naamah; he is reputed to have driven Solomon from his kingdom, but later Solomon forced him to serve in building the Temple, which he did noiseleealy by means of the worm Shamir, whose whereabouts he revealed to Solomon.

Brnwoontra:: J. A. Eibamenger, Bntdecktes Judenikum. i, 361-381, 823, Frankfort, 1700; A. F. Gfrarer, Geackidte den. Urvhristenfhums, i. 378-424, Stuttgart, 1838; T Ben fey and M. A. Stern, Usher die Monatenamen, p. 201, Berlin, 1838; F. H. H. Windisohmann, Zoroashwdhe Studien, ad. F. Spiegel, pp. 138-147, ib. 1883; Kohut, Usher die ftldisdhs Anpeloiopie and Ddmonoiopie in direr Abhdnpipkeit von Paraismus in Abhandlunyen for die Kurds de# Morvsnlandes. iv (1888), 72-88; F. Spiegel, Branisehe Alterfumakunde, ii, 131-133, Leipsic, 1873; Granbaum, Beitr4pe Sur roerpleiehendea Mytlrolopw am der Happada. in ZDMG, xxxi (1877). 216-224; consult oleo commen taries on Tobit.


ASPERSION WITH HOLY WATER: A rite of frequent use in the Roman Catholic Church. It

has a place in the administration of baptism and extreme unction, in the nuptial blessing, and in the ceremonies of sepulture, as well as in the consecration of objects for divine worship and in blessings of all kinds. Persons entering or leaving a church make the sign of the cross with holy water. A solemn form of aspersion, practised in



parish churches every Sunday before the high mass, is called the Asperges, from the first word of the antiphon usually intoned by the officiating priest. The explanation of the use of holy water in aspersions is found in the prayer said at the time when it is blessed,-that, wherever it is sprinkled, the invocation of God's name may drive away all evil spirits and every temptation, and that the Holy Spirit by his presence may comfort all who implore the divine mercy. See HOLY WATER.


ASS: The wild am (Hob. pore, poetic 'arodh; asmua onager or hsmippua) is often mentioned in the Old Testament, and appears to have been found in earlier times more frequently in Syria than is now the case. It is described as dwelling in the wilderness (Isa. xxxii, 14; Jer. ii, 24); and to the poet it is a type of unbridled love of freedom (Job xi, 12, xxxix, b-8), and a picture of the wandering Bedouin (Gen. xvi,12; Job xxiv, 6). Hosea (viii, 9) compares Ephraim wilfully running after Assyria, to a wild ass separated from the herd. It feeds on the vegetation of the salt steppe (Job vi, b; Jer. xiv, 6). The animal is larger and more beautiful and graceful than the common ass; it is famous for its swiftness, and is hard to catch.

The tame am has been from ancient times one of the most important domestic animals in the East, whence it was introduced into Greece and Italy (of . V. Helm, Kuuurp flwwan wid Haus0are, Berlin, 1894, pp. 130-131). The Oriental am in larger, quicker, more enduring, and more intelligent than the European. As in older times, the light-gray asses or white asses are still preferred, which the Sleb Bedouins rear in the desert; the usual color is reddish-brown (hence the name lyamor). All classes used them for riding, for which purpose the females were preferred (Num. xxii, 11; Judges x, 4; II Sam. xvii, 23, six, 26; I Kings xiii, 13; II Kings iv, 24; cf. Matt. xxi, 2-9). In the time of David, mules were used (II Sam. xiii, 29; xviii. 9; I Kings i, 33). The driver went alongside or behind (Judges xix, 3; 11 Kings iv, 24). The ass was also used as a beast of burden (Gen. Ail, 26, xliz, 14; I Sam. xxv,18; Neh. xiii, lb), for plowing (Dent. xxii, 10; Isa. xaa, 24, xxxii, 20), and for grinding. Being an unclean animal, it could not be sacrificed (Ex. xiii, 13, xxxiv, 20), nor could its flesh be eaten (but cf. II Kings vi, 2b). With other nations, as the Egyptians, it was sacred, and with this may probably be connected the fable circulated by Greek sad Roman writers that tie Jews worshiped the am as God (see Asmsll).

I. BsxzmGES.

Brsuoosarfi: An early treat still vsluabk is by B. Boebart, Hiuaroimw. i, 148-149. ii, 214-215, London,

1668; 0. Yon Leagerke, Resaaa. i. 140--141. 146, 165, B. 1844; J. 0. Wood. Wild Anisiois of as BAls. IAUdm. 1887; DB. i.178-174; BB. i. 848 314. ASS, BROTSEE8 OF THE (Orde asinomm). See TBETITARIAIa.

ASS, FEAST OF THE: A popular entertainment provided. by the Church in the Middle Ages in several cities of France. The aim, as in the miracle-plays, mysteries, moralities, and many minor points of the ritual, was to impress the

facts of Bible history upon the minds of the ignorant, and to give general religious instruction. At Rouen a drama was presented at Christmas-tide, in which the prophets, Moses, Aaron, John the Baptist and his parents, Simeon, Nebuchadnezzar, Vergil, and the Sibyl appeared in appropriate dress and announced the coming of a redeemer. The story of Balsam was one of the scenes, and the ass was made to speak by the help of a priest concealed between the legs. At Beauvais a young woman with a child in her arms, and mounted on an ass, was led in procession through the streets on Jan. 14, in commemoration of the flight to Egypt. Mace was then said, during which " hinb- " was substituted for certain of the usual responses. There was a similar festival at Sens, and an ass's feast at Madrid on Jan. 17, in the course of which the story of Balsam's ass was recited. In the fifteenth century these feasts were forbidden because abuse hadjcrept in and they had become a scandal. The ass naturally figured frequently in Palm Sunday processions, and a picture of an ass was often introduced in the churches at that time. See Boy B1980P; FooLe, FEAST Or.

BISmOOa1PHr: 8. du Tilfot. M6nnoirm pow servir 8 BDis, toirs do la fae des fow, p· 14, Lnssnne, 1741; C. F. du Gngee, Glorsarium, N.V. "Festum aeinorum"

ASSEBURG, as'ee-burg, ROSAMU1fDE JULIAME VON: Religious enthusiast; b. at Mgenstedt, near Aschereleben (30 m. n.w. of Halle), Prussia, 1672; d. in Dresden Nov. 8, 1712. She might have been forgotten long ago, if the well-known millenarian, Johann Wilhelm Petersen (q.v.), had not called attention to her, and been followed in the study of her am by such men as Spener, LBecher, and Leibnits. According to her own statement, she received divine revelations and had glorious visions when only seven years old, and was regarded in the neighborhood of her home as an inspired prophetess. She asserted that Christ himself had appeared to her, and that an angel had received her tears in a golden vessel. At first these revelations were confided only to the circle of her friends; but they obtained wider currency when she removed to Magdeburg and became acquainted with Petersen who published a treatise on her case in 1691, discussing the question whether God might be supposed still to reveal himself in direct apparitions. L6ecber, at Dresden, and Johann Friedrich Meyer, at Hamburg, wand against believing her; Spener, asked for his opinion by the electress of Saxony, expressed himself with great caution; Leibnitz supported her, and compared her visions to those of St. Bridget and other holy women of the Middle Ages. Peterson received her at LOneburg, where her mental excitement increased to such a degree as to cause disturbance in the town and to call for an official investigation. Petersen's deposition from the office of superintendent and banishment followed in 1692, and implied the, condemnation of his friend She followed him to Wolfenbfittel and to Magdeburg; later she lived in Berlin, and in the house of a Saxon countess, where Petersen used to call and visit her as late as the year 1708. It is said that she died in Dresden Nov. 8, 1712, and was buried at Schaafeld near Pillnita. Her poem


Aeaemanf Assurance THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 820 euch gegeben, is included in some modern German hymn-books. (F. W. DIBELIus.)

BIBwoaxAP87: J, W. Petersen, Lebensbeschreebung, Frankfort, 1719 (reproduced in Eng., in the work by J. W. P.,

A Letter to Some Divines Concerning the Question whether God, since Christ's Ascension doth any more Reveal Himself to Mankind by the Means of Divine Apparitionaf With an

Exact Account o f what God hath Bestowed upon a Noble Maid written in High-Dutch and Now ,Set Forth in Eng.,

London, 1698).

ASSEMANII, as-sb-ma'nf (Italianized from the Arabic al4ama`aniyy, "the Simeonite "): The name of several learned Maronites who came to Rome from the Lebanon.

1. Joseph Simonius Assemani: The oldest and best known; b. at Hasrun (35 m. n.e. of Beirut, near the cedar-grove at the foot of Jabal Makmat); d., eighty.years old, at Rome Jan. 13, 1768. He was educated at the Maronite college in Rome, and is said to have learned thirty languages. In 1715 Pope Clement XI sent him to the East to look for manuscripts, and he was there again from 1735 to 1738 in behalf of the Roman Catholic Christians of the Lebanon. He published numerous works, of which the firit, and perhaps the most important, was the Bibliotheea orimtulia Clementino-Yaticana in qua manuseriPtos codices Syrtacos, Arabicos, Persicos, Tureicos, Hebraims, Samaritanos, Armenicos, Xthiopicos, Grwcos, Rgyptiacm , Ibericos, et Malabaricoa . . . bibliothecas Vaticanas addidoa remnsuit digmsit J. S. Assemani. Twelve volumes were planned, of which four were published (Rome, 1719-28). For Cardinal Quirini's edition of the works of Ephraem Syrus he prepared the three Greek volumes (1734-i6), and in 1751-53 issued four volumes of Italian historkm acriptorm, a supplement to Muratori; four more volumes were planned. Six volumes of Kalendaria eecleaiar uniroerste appeared in 1755; six more were planned and partially completed, but were destroyed by fire in the Vatican library in 1768. The Bibliotheca iuris orientalis canoniei et eivilis (5 vols., 1762-66) is now very rare. The archives of the Propaganda and of the Inquisition contain more than 100 volumes of treatises by Assemani. Many of the works which he planned should be taken up by organized scholarly research. A lint of his manuscript remains is given in Mai, Nova collectio, ii, 2 (Rome, 1828), 166-168.

B. Joseph Aloy&us Assemani: A younger brother ''~ of the preceding; b. about 1710; d. at Rome Feb. 9, 1782. He was professor of Oriental languages in Rome. His chief work was Codex Murgiesa eecleaim universe! in xv. Ztbros distribWus (13 vole., Rome, 1749-66). Most copies of the last volume were burned, but it (as well as the entire work) is accessible in anaetatic reprint. Besides minor dissertations, he published De catholicia aeu pats-iarchia Chaldlaorum st Nestorianorum commentariua h'istorico-thedogicus (1755). His Latin translation of the Colledio canonum of Ebed Jeau and of the Nomocarlon of Barhebrleus is in Mai, Nova colledio, vii (1838).

8. Stephen Evodius Assemani: A cousin of the preceding two; b. 1707; d. Nov. 24, 1782. He was titular bishop of Apamea and member of the Royal Society of Great Britain. He published

Bibliothece Medicem Laurentianm et PaWinte codicum mss. orienWium catalogus (Florence, 1742), containing in twenty-three plates the illustrations of Bible history from the Syriac codex of Rabulas; the three Syriac volumes of the works of Ephraem Syrus in the edition mentioned above; Acts sanctorum martyrum orientalium et occidentalium in duaa partes distribute : adcedunt acts S. Simeonis Btylitar (2 vols., Rome, 1748); and with J. S. Assemani, Bibliothecce apostolicaa Vaticanas codicum manuscriptorum eatalogus in tres panes distributus, of which 3 volumes (Hebrew and Syriac manuscripts) had appeared (1756 sqq.), as well as eighty pages of the fourth (Arabic manuscripts), when the fire in the Vatican library destroyed the remainder.

4. Simon Assemani: A great-nephew of Joseph Simonius and Joseph Aloysius Aasemani; b. in Rome Feb. 19, 1752, according to G. P. Zabeo, Orazionein funerediAssemani(Padua,1821); others say in Tripolis, and give the date as Feb. 20, 1752, and Mar. 14, 1749; d. in Padua, where he was professor of Arabic, Apr. 7,1821. His publications were chiefly on Arabic subjects, as Museo cu fico Naniana (Padua, 1788); Su la Setta Assissana (1806).

E. NESTLE. BIHLiaa&APHT: J. S. Ersch and J. G. Gruber, Allgemeine

Encyclopadie, vol. vi, Leipsic, 1821 sqq.; Nouvelle biographie g&drale, vol. iii, Paris, 1854.

ASSEMBLY, GENERAL: The highest court of the Presbyterian churches (see PREBBYTERIANa). The name is from Heb. xii, 23.

ASSER: Bishop of Sherborne; d. 909 or 910. He was a Briton, a monk of Menevia (St. David's), and related to the bishop of that see. His repute for learning was such that about 885 King Alfred asked him to enter his service, and an arrangement was ultimately made whereby the monkish scholar agreed to spend half of each year with the English king and half in his own home. Alfred gave him very substantial rewards, including a grant at Exeter and its district in Saxonland and Cornwall. He became bishop of Sherborne (in Dorsetahire) before 900. He wrote a life of Alfred (De rebus ge8tis Xl1ridi), which is a chronicle of English history from 849 to 887, with a personal and original narrative of Alfred's career to the latter year. It betrays the author's Celtic birth in many passages, and in existing manuscripts has been much interpolated. The best editions are by F. Wise (Oxford, 1722), in Petrie's Monuments historica Britannica (London, 1848), and by W. H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1904, Eng. transl. by A. S. Cook, Boston, 1906).

Binwoa6APn'Y: T. Wright, Biographia Britannica litemria, i. 405-413, London, 1842 (questions Asser's authorship of the De rebus gestie); R. Pauli, Ar6nig Alfred and seine 3telle in der Gesrhiehte Englands Berlin, 1851 (shows that Wright's objections are unfounded).

ASSHUR: 1. City of Assyria. See AssyRu, IV, I 1. 2. Assyrian God. See A88YRU, VII, J 2.

ASSHURBANIPAL. See ASsyRIA, VI, 3, i§ 1415.

ASSISTANTS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP: The historical functions of those whose place it is to assist the principal minister in divine service belong largely to the development of the various



orders (see ORDERS, HOLY). In the modern Roman Catholic Church the celebrant at high mass isassisted by a dean and subdeacon who are usually priests. The minor functions are performed by acolytes, usually laymen and boys. A priest is not allowed to celebrate even a low mass without at least one person to make the responses. In the Anglican prayer-book the clergymen who read the epistle and gospel are designated not deacon and subdean, but epistoler and gospeler. See also LAY-READER.


German Roman Catholic; b. at Branitz (80 m. s.e. of Breslau) Aug. 26, 1833. He was educated at the University of Breslau, and after his ordination to the priesthood in 1860 was assistant in Hatscher from 1861 to 1864, and a mission priest and military chaplain in Kolberg in 1865-68. From the latter year until 1882 he was divisional chaplain at Neisse, and was then provost of St. Hedwig's, Berlin, and delegate of the prince-bishop for six years. In 1882 he was consecrated titular bishop of Philadelphia, and since the same year has been field provost of the Prussian army and navy, being also the recipient of numerous orders and decorations.



ASSUMPTION, FEAST OF THE: A festival of the Roman Catholic Church, commemorating the assumption, or corporal translation, of the Virgin Mary into heaven after her death. This doctrine, which the Greek Church also teaches (Synod of Jerusalem, 1672), has never been made the object of a dogmatic papal definition, but the attitude of the Church toward it and the general teaching of theologians class it among those truths which it would be rash to deny; at the Vatican Council over two hundred bishops desired a decree making the Assumption an article of faith. The Assumption can not be proved from Holy Scripture, and is based entirely upon tradition, though the scriptural prerogatives of Mary are invoked to prove the propriety of such an occurrence. About the year 600 the emperor Maurice ordered the celebration of the feast on Aug. 15; and at about the same time Gregory the Great fixed the same date for the West, where it had previously been observed on Jan. 18, for a reason which can not now be ascertained. The Gallican Church held to Jan. 18 down to the ninth century. The most that can be Said for the antiquity of the feast is that its general solemn observance in East and West at the end of the sixth century would seem to justify the belief that its beginnings date from at least a century earlier. The word " assumption," at one time applied generally to the death of saints, especially martyrs, and their entry into heaven, has come to have an exclusive application to the Blessed Virgin. See MARY, TaE MOTB'E8 OF JESUS.


ASSUMPTION, AUGUSTILRANS OF THE (known popularly as Assumptionists): A religious con-

gregation of men, founded at Nines in 1845 by Emmanuel d'Alzon (1810-80), and finally approved by the pope in 1864. The rule is that of St. Augustine, supplemented by special con stitutions. The purpose of the society is the sanc tification of its members, devotion to God, to the Blessed Virgin, and to the Church, and zeal for souls. The activity of the Assumptionists has been displayed in many fields. A large part of their energy has been devoted to the poor and work ing classes, in asylums, schools, and technical institutions. In 1864 the Little Sisters of the Assumption were organized to assist in this work, and later, to secure still more effectively the spiri tual and material relief of the needy, three pious confraternities of laywomen were affiliated to the Oblates-the Servants of the Poor, the Sister hood of Our Lady, and the Daughters of St. Monica. In 1863 Father d'Alzon was sent by Pius IX to Constantinople to take up missionary work, and to-day about 350 members of the society are labor ing in Turkey, Bulgaria, Asia Minor, and Palestine, in schools, seminaries, hospitals, and general mis sionary work. The demands of this field led to the founding of the Oblate Sisters of the Assump tion. Perhaps the best known work of the Assump tionists is the Oeuvre de la Bonne Presse for the dissemination of good literature. This undertaking which was attended by a remarkable degree of suc cess, resulted in numerous newspapers and maga zines, and almost countless other publications. La Croix du Dimaache had a circulation of 510,000. Dissolved by a decree of the Court of Appeal of Paris, Mar. 6, 1900, the Assumptioniets were doomed to exile or dispersion, but still maintain their corporate existence, with a central house at Rome, and establishments in Belgium, Spain, Italy, England, Australia, Chile, and the United States. They count at the present time about 1,000 members. The habit is a black robe with long, flowing sleeves, a black cape and cowl, and a leathern cincture. JOHN T. CREAGB.

ASSURANCE: The doctrine that those who are truly converted know beyond doubt that they are saved (of. Col. ii, 2; Heb. vi, 11; x, 22).

The doctrine may easily be made to contribute to spiritual pride. The degree of its objectionableness depends upon the interpretation placed upon it. It is particularly objectionable when it assumes to deny a state of salvation to those who are troubled by doubts, and in its exaggerated form easily leads to Antinomiauism (q.v.). The doctrine was taught by both Luther and Calvin, and has been generally held in Protestantism. Indeed, the Westminster Assembly was the first Protestant synod to declare assurance not to be of the essence of faith. In connection with the belief in unconditional election, the doctrine in Calvinism (cf. Westmi=ter Confession, art. xviii) takes the form of assurance of final Salvation (see PE88WERANCE of TAE SADM). In Methodism it means full confidence of present, not eternal, salvation. In this form the doctrine was advocated by Wesley, who connected it with the witness of the Holy Spirit; and it is still generally held by Methodist theologians (see METBODIM).


eeeyris THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 322 1. The Name. II. The Country. Geographical Position and Extent (5 1). The Tigris (¢ 2). Influence of Topography on History (5 3)· Climate, Fauna, Flora, and Minerals (¢ 4). III. Exploration and Excavation. The Persepolis Inscriptions (§ 1). Preliminary Exploration. Rich and Porter (§ 2). Bona at Khoreabad (¢ 3). Layard and Rseeam (¢ 4). Rassam,1852 (5 b). Place (¢ 8). George Smith (§ 7). Rassam, 1877,82 (¢ 8). Obstacles in Excavating (¢ 9). IV. The Cities. Asshur (5 1). Nineveh (¢ 2). Calah (¢ 3). Ream. Arbela, and DurShamrkin (5 4)· ASSYRIA. V. The People, Language, and Culture. National Character (¢ 1). Occupations (J 2). Language (I U The Culture not Native (§ 4). VI. The History. 1. Chronology. Sources and Results (¢ 1). 2. Ethnological Dais. Peoples and Places Named in Assyrian Annals (g 1). a. The Story of Assyria. Early History and Names, to 1500 The Winning of Independence, 1500-1300 B.C. (§ 2). t3halmaneeer I-Tjglath-Pileeer I, 1300-1100 B.C. (§ 3). Semitic Rule Unstable (§ 4). A Time of Quiescence, 1100960 Tiglath-Pileeer II, 950 a.c.-As· ehurnssirpal III, 88b-880 a.r, (5 s). t3halmaneeer II,

L The Name: The original form seems to have been a-war (`° water-plain "), which was assimilated to or confused with the name of the god Anshar (" Host of Heaven "), softened into Asshar, and Asshur. The country appears in both Assyrian and Hebrew as Asshur and " land of Asshur "; to the Greeks it was Assyria; in the Aramaic the name became AEhur and Athuriya.

B. The Country: In the case of a land the extent of which fluctuated so greatly at different periods, and the name of which con-

noted very different areas, some :. Geo- convention is necessary. Accordingly,

graphical following the datum of original sine Position rather than of subsequent develop-

and Extent. went, historians regard as Assyria that portion of territory lying along the Tigris, mainly to the east of it, north of the confluence of the Lower (or Little) Zab on the south to the foothills of the mountains of Armenia on the north, and on the east from the Zagros Mountains to just beyond the Tigris on the west. This demarcation coincides with a change in the topographical character of the country at its southern limit. Below the Lower Zab the country becomes alluvial; above that it is rolling or mountainous; while the desert lies to the west. Since this is in accord with native characteristics of the people to be noted later, for which it helps to account, the boundaries given _ above are assumed for this article.

Topographically the Tigris is the chief feature, the.. character of which is best understood by comparson with the Euphrates (q.v.). It rises only a few miles south of the course of the Euphrates and at about the same level, but on the south aide of the mountains. The Euphrates, therefore, has to

skirt the north side of the range and s. The break through on its much longer

Tigris. journey south. The general course of

the Tigris is quite consistently southeast; and the two rivers reach the same level about opposite Bagdad. The consequence is that to make the difference in level of about 1,000 feet between

Shamehi-R,amamn IV and his Successors, 824-74b a.c. (¢ 8).

Tiglath-Pileaer III, 74b-727 B.C. 9halmaneser IV, 727-722 s.c. Sargon, 722-70b B.C. (§ 11). 8enassherib, 705-881 B.C. (§ 12). Eeathaddon, 8B1-688 B.C. (¢ 13). Amhurbanipal, 888-828 B.C. (¢ 14).

Aeshurbanipal'e Successors, 828808 B.C. (1lb).

VII. The Religion. Relation to Babylonian Religion Asshur (¢ 2). Ishtar (13). Ramman ($ 4).

The Sun-gods Shamash, Ninib, and Nergal (§ b).

Bin, the Moon-god. Nuslcu, the Fire-god (J 6).

Rivalry of Babylonia and Assyria (5 7)·

magic U 8). 880-824 B.C. (g 7).

the source and the alluvium, the Tigris, having a much shorter distance to go, makes a more rapid descent than the Euphrates, sad its current is swifter.' A second and noteworthy difference is that while the Euphrates receives only two important tributaries after turning south, the Tigris continues to receive all the way to its mouth streams which drain the mountain regions and basins to the east. While, therefore, the Euphrates loses much of its water to the thirsty soil through which it passes, the Tigris swells its torrent as it proceeds.

Another characteristic of the country is its partial isolation. Mountains make it difficult of access from the north and east; and the 3. Influence desert dote the same on the west.

of Topog- Its only easy approach is from the raphy on south by the rivers, where settled History. populations in ancient times guard ed it from the nomadic hordes in that direction. Still one more note should be made. The country, is not alluvial like the great and marvelously fertile plain of Babylonia. It is rolling or hilly, harder therefore to cultivate, and, being more northerly in situation, its returns to the cultivator are less generous. All these facts have their bearing upon the character of the people. Further stall, the land to the west of the river being prevailingly desert, the population of Assyria, was almost entirely to the east of it; and there, with a single exception, the great cities were situated. In its temperature and its sufficiently abundant rainfall Assyria was fortunate: it was much cooler and moister than its southern neigh 4. Climate, bor. Of course, the temperature was Sauna, lower in proportion to elevation and Flora, and to distance north. In the hills the win- ldinerals. tare were severe. The fauna was very extensive. In the earlier periods the elephant was known about the middle Euphrates. Of beasts of prey, there were the black-waned and another species of lion, the bear, panther, lyre, wild-cat, wolf, fox, jackal, and hyena,. Of other animals, the porcupine, beaver, wild ass, wild boar, wild sheep, wild goat, ibex, gray deer, spotted



deer, and hare may be named, while the great wild ox was not yet extinct. Of birds of prey or carrion, the eagle, vulture, and various hawks were known. Birds suitable for food were the bustard, swan, goose, duck, partridge, grouse, and plover. The common domestic animals were employed, while dogs were trained for the chase. The-pine, poplar, plane, oak, sycamore, and walnut abounded. Under cultivation, though some of them were importations, were the date (of inferior quality), orange, lemon, pomegranate, apricot, mulberry, fig, and grape. Assyrian citrons were famous; melons were abundant; while cucumbers, onions, the grains-wheat, barley, and millet-and the leguminous plants were food staples. Under the careful and extensive system of irrigation in use, the agriculturist reaped a good return for his labors. Mineral resources were abundant and conveniently at hand in the shape of iron, lead, copper, alum, salt, and bitumen, while alabaster of a fine quality, limestone, and sandstone were in close proximity to the cities or easily reached from the Tigris, on which they were floated down to the places where they were required.

III. Exploration and Excavation: It may appear somewhat inconsequent that excavations in Assyria and Babylonia should be the result of the discovery and partial decipherment of inscriptions from a locality so distant as Persepolis. Yet the discovery that these were neither mere ornamentation nor arbitrary signs influenced greatly the patient toil and research which have recovered in large part the history of nations once forgotten, and have carried history back into the fifth preChristian millennium. The steps leading to these

results are as follows. The ruins at :. The Per- Persepolis had been mentioned in sepolis In- 1320 by Qdoric, and the inscriptions scriptions. in 1611 by the friar Antonio de

Gouvea; they were first described by the Spanish ambassador of Philip III to Shah Abbas, Don Garcia Sylva Figueroa, in 1621; the guess that they read from left to right was first made in 1677 by Thomas Herbert; they were first called cuneiform in 1700 by Thomas Hyde; first decided to be in three forms of writing in 1774 by Carden Niebuhr; declared to be in three languages in 1798 by Old Tychsen; and first really translated, in part, in 1815 by Georg F. Grotefend, whose work was the climax which finally stimulated to direct effort upon Assyrian and Babylonian mounds. While discussion had been going on over the Persepolis inscriptions, bits of inscriptions in the cuneiform character had been collected by the surveyors who had been observing, locating, and plotting the mounds in Assyria and Babylonia. A relationship had been asserted between these scraps and the Persepolis writing; and Niebuhr had urgently advised excavation in Babylonia and had predicted rich resulta.

The site of Nineveh had been correctly located as early as 1160 by the rabbi Benjamin of Tudela. Desultory digging had been done in Babylonia at various sites by Claudius Rich of the East India Company, in some cases missing by only a foot or two walls which must have led him to investigate

farther and have anticipated by over a quarter of a century the real discovery of the lost em-

pires. That was in 1811; he visited 2. Prelimi- Nineveh in 1820 and there turned up nary Explo- a few bricks with characters on them ration. Rich and bought others. from the natives, and Porter. all of which were sent home and found

place in the British Museum. A visit of the artist and archeologist Sir R. K. Porter to the region, particularly to the mounds at Hillah in Babylonia, under the guidance of Rich, led to the publication in 1821-22 of a sumptuous work by Porter illustrated by his own brush. The interesting and even brilliant description of what was to be seen and inferred aroused anew the interest of Europe; so that the years which followed, as well as those which preceded his visit, were years of exploration. The sites of the mounds were visited and plotted and described until localities and names, with conjectures as to their history, became almost commonplace. The era of excavation, however, was still to come.

In 1842 a French consulate was established at Mosul, across the river from the site of Nineveh, and Paul Emil Botts was appointed consul. Botts had served in Egypt, Arabia, and Syria, and had so become well acquainted with the Arabs and their methods of working, as well as with French procedure in archeological igvestigation. He had met a German scholar named Julius Mohl, who had visited Babylonia and had been impressed with the opportunities which it was not in his power to grasp. By him Botts was urgently advised not to be content with mere explorations and plotting of sites, but to dig. Accordingly Botts at once began at Kouyunjik, but with results so scanty that he

transferred 11& operations to Khorsa3. Botts at bad, where speedily so large a number Khorsabad. of bas-reliefs and well-preserved in-

scriptions were discovered in the uncovered palace of Sargon, that upon his sober report of the facts the French government made a grant of 3,000 francs to continue the work. The local pasha meanwhile had procured an order for the cessation of the operations; but the arrival of a firman soon enabled Botta to resume, the result being the nucleus of the magnificent collection now in the Louvre, made between 1842 and 1846. In the latter year Botts was transferred, and his work as an excavator came to an end; but the results were published by the French government in five magnifjcent volumes which are even yet almost high-water mark.

While Botts, was engaged in digging, and after some of his successes had been gained, he was visited by Austen Henry Layard, whose early reading had given him a decided bent toward archeology. Layard told the story of the mounds to Lord Stratford, who had secured the Halicarnassus marbles for the British Museum; and in 1845 the latter made a contribution of £60 which Layard was to use in excavating. Layard returned to Mosul, kept his plans from the local pasha,, and began excavating at Nimrud (Calah) at two different points. His first day's work led him into two chambers, belonging to two palaces, lined with



alabaster slabs bearing inscriptions. Further effort resulted in the uncovering of colossi which created sensation first among his Arab laborers and then in England, in the latter case so pronounced that the apathetic British government made a parsimonious grant for the continuance of the work. The local pasha had closed the tren6hes; but authority from the Porte was obtained which over-

ruled opposition. The palace of Shal4. Layard maneser II was excavated, and the and black obelisk unearthed with its

Rassam. sunken panels of relief and its 210

lines of inscription and the mention of Jehu of Israel, along with many other inscriptions. Layard had the benefit of Hormuzd Rassam's skill in managing natives, since Rassam was himself of the country, but educated in England. In 1847 Kalah-Shergat was attacked; and among other finds was the great inscription of TiglathPileser I. An interval of two years was employed partly in writing his first books, and then Layard returned as the agent of the British Museum and excavated at Nimrud, Kalah-Shergat, Nebi Yunus, and Kouyunjik, at the latter place uncovering Sennacherib's palace. In 1851 his transference to the diplomatic service at Constantinople brought his work as an excavator to an end. He had identified Calah and Nineveh, had discovered eight palaces, and had recovered part of the great royal library, many historical inscriptions, the great collection of seals and seal impressions, the great slab, 21 ft. by 18 ft. 7 in., the monolith and statue of Asshurnasirpal, and great numbers of bronze and copper vessels, implements, and arms. Meanwhile his books, written in most pleasing style and using with telling effect Biblical passages referring to Assyria and Babylon, had thoroughly awakened England to the importance of the operations. While his active work in digging creased, his diplomatic post afforded him the opportunity of facilitating the efforts of others by preventing much of the local bigoted and fanatical or avaricious obstruction which had impeded his own success.

In the year 1852 Rassam, who had contributed so much to Layard's success, was commissioned

by the British Museum to continue g. Ratsam, the work of excavating, under the :853. direction of Sir Henry Rawlinson.

He unearthed at Kouyunjik the palace of Asshurbanipal with its " chamber of the lion hunt " and the record chamber with its heaps of inscribed tablets, including the Deluge Tablets, the richest discovery yet made. At Nimrud he found E-zida, the temple of Nebo, six statues of the god, the stele of Shamshi-Ramman IV, and the fragments of the black obelisk of Asshurbanipal II. At Kalah-Shergat the two intact prisms of Tiglath-Pileser I with their 811 lines of inscription were the prizes. His work was followed by that of Loftus and Boutcher, which produced less spectacular but equally solid values, while Hilmi Pasha, who had displaced the unscrupulous Mohammed Pasha, recovered at Nebi Yunus some winged bulls, a number of bas-reliefs, and other important material.

Meanwhile the French government had made an appropriation of 70,000 francs, by which Victor

Place was enabled during 1851-55 to 6. Place. carry on investigations at Rhorsabad

and Kalah-Shergat. The plan of the former was thoroughly worked out, while fourteen cylinders, a magazine of pottery, another of glazed tiles, and the bakery and wine cellar of the palace were uncovered. Unfortunately the materials gathered by this expedition and the one of the same period at Biro Nimrud in Babylonia were lost by the capsizing of the raft on which they were being conveyed down the river for shipment.

The joint results of these labors being a mass of unread inscriptions, it is hard)y~ surprising that a tacit understanding supervened to suspend excavations until decipherment should decide the value of the documents. Progress was rapid; Assyrian and Babylonian, Vannic and Sumerian yielded their secrets; and the reading of part of the material proved its great importance (see Irrscmrriorrs).

A new start was taken in the year 7. George 1872. George Smith had discoyered Smith. among Raseam's tablets obtained

from Asshurbanipal's palace the fragments of the deluge story. The possible, even certain, illumination of the Bible by these documents, guaranteed by the reading of the names of several of the Hebrew kings, stimulated to new effort. The popular demand became urgent for new discovery; yet the government's action was so tardy, under the restrictions of routine, that private enterprise was evoked and the London Daily Telegraph offered £1,000 to defray the expenses of an expedition, if Smith would lead it and send reports of progress. The start was made in January of 1873; Kouyunjik was the site chosen for work; and three new fragments of the deluge series were recovered, along with a number of historical inscriptions. With this success the Telegraph was satisfied and recalled Smith. The same year he was sent back by the British Museum, and secured some 3,000 inscriptions, many of which filled gaps in the material already at hand. In 1875 he was again sent out; but Turkish opposition intervened, and when that had been overcome, his death had occurred.

During the period 1877,82 Reaeam was the agent in the field; and he unearthed at Bala-

wat (fifteen miles from Mosul) the 8. Raeaam, beautiful bronze plates of the gates :877-8s. of Imgur-Bel, a city which was the

site of a palace of Asshurnsairpal II. Kouyunjik was more thoroughly explored, 2,000 pieces, some of them exceedingly fine, being the reward. But the rich finds of previous years made these results seem meager; and the consequence was a cessation of excavation in Assyria which has not yet been resumed, the southern region of Babylonia being more promising and offering greater rewards.

The difficulties which have to be overcome by excavating archeologists in these regions are fourfold. (1) Financial. The French and German governments have established a fine record of sup port of scientific research; the record of the British



is not so clear; the United States has done nothing, Consequently expeditions from the United States have to rely upon private enterprise.

g. Obsta- It is a pity that some great fund is not cles in Ex- available that shall make appeal for cavating. special resources unnecessary: the result would be more thorough work and not the kind which looks for spectacular effects and leaves on the ground material as valuable as that recovered. (2) Governmental. This is in the shape either of refusal or delay, at the Sublime Porte, to grant permission to dig, or at the field in the case of bigoted or obstinate pashas. The only remedy in the former case is timely applica tion supported by suitable diplomatic effort. If the pasha on the ground is inclined to interpose obstructions, the display of a firman should be sufficient. (3) Popular. The suspicion and super stition of the Arabs can be overcome only by the exercise of great patience and diplomacy. Their confidence once gained, the Arabs are loyal to their employers, as is amply proved by experience. The assistance of one trained in dealing with them is, however, a necessity. (4) Natural. The ruins of the country and of its system of irrigation, the resulting stretches of marshes with their miasmatic fevers, the heat of the sun, and the scorching winds and dust-storms, are obstacles which can not be overcome. Their effects may be palliated by proper precautions, which, unfortunately, the excavator too often neglects in the ardor of his pursuit of knowledge.

IV. The Cities: According to the best reading of Gen. x, 11 (R. V. margin), " out of Shiner went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen." By excepting from these Rehoboth-Ir (which is now regarded as a mistake for Rehoboth-Nina, either the place where Mosul new is, or the " open places," i.e., " squares," of Nineveh itself), and by adding Asshur, Arbela, and Dur-Sharrukin, a list of the known cities belonging to Assyria proper is completed.

Asehur, the modern Kalah-Shergat, on the west side of the Tigris, rather below the middle point of the places where the Upper and

r. Aahur. the Lower Zab iota the Tigris, was the chief city of Assyria until the reign of Asshur-bel-kala, son of Tiglath-Pileser I, x.1090 B.c. It never attained as frequent mention or description as Nineveh in contemporary records, though themscriptions record the frequent rebuild ing and repair of the great temple of Asshur which bore the name of E-karsag kurkurra. That it was eclipsed by its rival Nineveh is due perhaps to two causes: (1) The more healthful and pleasant sit uation of the latter; and (2) The location of Asshur in the zone of danger from Babylonian attack. But the return of quite late kings to it as their capital shows the hold the old city had upon the sentimental regard of those rulers.

Nineveh (Assyr. Nina or Ninua; Rehr, Ninweh orNi»s<aeh; L XX, Nineui), the modern Kouyunjik on the north and Nebbi Yunus on the south of the Choser, named probably, lice the southern city of the same name, from Nin, daughter of FA and identified with Ishtar of Nineveh, stood on the

left bank of the Tigris, about twenty miles north of the confluence of the Upper Zab with the Tigris. Its walls enclosed about 1,800 acres, and were about seven and one-half miles in circumference (approximately two miles square), Herodotus describes them as being 380 feet high and 80 feet thick, though in all probability the height given is an exaggeration; but Layard's plans make them, at one of the principal gates, where they were doubtless reinforced, 110 feet thick. The gates were flanked with towers

for their defense. The eastern wall s.Nineveh. was protected by a moat filled with

water from the Choser. The time and circumstances of the founding of the city are unknown, though its Semitic origin seems implied by its name. The last datum is not quite conclusive, since it might have been pre-Semitic and renamed by its Semitic possessors. As it lay on the IndoMediterranean caravan route, its early origin and importance are assured. Gudea (see BABYLOMA, VI,3,,§ 3) left aninscription referringtothe building of a temple in Nineveh which may (and probably does) refer to the Babylonian city. Similarly precarious is the identification of the Assyrian Nineveh with the one mentioned by Dungi, second king of Ur(c.2700 B.c.), as the place where he built a temple to Nergal. The fact that Shalmaneser I made gifts to such a temple in Nineveh does not, considering the diffusion of the worship of Nergal, make the identification secure. The conjecture of Jeremias that it once belonged to a kingdom called Kiashati has little to support it. About 1450 B.c. it was possibly under control of the (Hittite?) state of Mitanni, since Tushratta, king of Mitanni, lent an image of Ishtar of Nineveh to the contemporary Pharaoh. It is named twice in the Amarna Tablets (q.v.), both times in connection with Ishtar. The first Assyrian who made his residence there was Asshur-bel-kale, mentioned above. It was neglected for a number of centuries, and finally under Sennaeherib was made perhaps the richest and lbest adorned city of the times. He tore down the old palace and built a double one, one part in the Assyrian style and one in the Syrian. He also conducted thither a water-supply drawn from the upper reaches of the Choser. Fsarhaddon and Asshurbampal added great structures, and it became the foremost city of the world, a great center of commerce and enormous wealth. Under the hst-named king, it became a repository also of Babylonian culture.

Caiah (Assyr. Kalhu) was the city next in importance, really a suburb of Nineveh, twenty miles

south, in the fork of the Upper zab 3. Cal·h. and the Tigris. It was apparently

founded by Shalmaneser I (c. 1300 B.c.) and used as his capital in place of Awhur. It was then neglected until the time of Asshurnasirpal (c. 880 s.e.), who rebuilt it, fortified it with a massive wall, brought a water-supply from the Zab, and made of it a garden city, adorned with foreign trees and shrubbery. His palace was one of great beauty, and the bas-reliefs found there by Layard, George Smith, and Rseeem are in the British Museum. 8halmaneser II built another palace, one of the adornments of which was the famous



Black Obelisk; and this palace was occupied also by Tiglath-Pileser III. Esarhaddon destroyed it and used the materials to construct his own palace. For these different structures a great platform was built of bricks and faced with stone, forty feet high, to guard against floods.

Of Resen (" fountain-source ") little is known except its location between Nineveh and Calah, and that it is identified with the Larissa of Xenophon's Anabasia (III, iv, 7). Arbela (" [The City of the] Four

Gods "), the modern Erbil, is never 4. Resen, noticed in the early inscriptions, yet

Arbela, must have had an important though and Dur- quiet life, and long outlived its more Sharrukin. pretentious and magnificent sister

cities. It was situated in the mountains between the Upper and Lower Zab, and was the seat of worship of one of the Ishtars, next in prominence to her of Nineveh. Dur-Sharrukin (" Sargon's Fort "), the modern Khorsabad, the site of the palace of Sargon (707 B.C.) and of the necessary adjuncts thereto, was north of Nineveh, near the sources of the Choser and on the slopes of the hills. It was much smaller than the capital, its walls being 3,820 yards in circumference. Two mountain streams flowed past it. Only in Sargon's time did it have much importance.

V. The People, Language, and Culture: The people belonged to the so-called Northern Semites, and were related consequently most closely to the Semitic Babylonians, Arameans, Hebrews, and Phenicians. They were sturdy' in physique, and their physiognomy, clearly portrayed in their many bas-reliefs, is of a pronounced Semitic

type. Their character is traceable x. National partly to their origin, partly to their Character. environment. Their isolation pre-

served or intensified their native qualities, and prohibited the mellowing influences of contact with other peoples as well as the toleration which comes with admixture of blood. Their country was less attractive to marauders, besides being out of the beaten track of the migrations. The mountaineers to the east and north served as buffers against the great waves from the northeast, until they were subdued or degationalized by forced colonization. Thus, in contrast with the Babylonians, who became a much mixed people, the Assyrians preserved the purity of their race and consequently its primitive characteristics, among them that of fierceness (Isa. xxxiii, 19). This quality of a new people is illustrated in the case of two other Semitic peoples. The ferocity of the Chaldeans (c. 600 B.C.) is attributable to the fact that they, too, were a ".new people," only recently from their Arabian habitat; and the fanaticism of the Mohammedan hosts is a matter of history, due not merely to religious causes. The isolation of the Assyrians is in nothing more remarkably illustrated than in the fact that their literature was of late importation from the south, subsequent to their great military operations, much of it in the days of Asshurbanipal (669-826 B.C.). Another trait of this people is a national self-consciousness lacking to most Semites. The larger cities of Assyria do not appear as self-governing

units bearing impatiently the sway of the overlord. Assyria appears almost without exception as united; and the exceptions come from dissensions in the royal family in disputes about the succession.

The occupations of the people are largely included in the two words " war " and " commerce."

The early Assyrian contract tablets i. Occupa- found in Cappadocia bear testimony

tions. to a commercial enterprise which prophesied of the wars of the future. It has been correctly concluded by several histo rians that the object of campaigns was not alone extension of territory, but that security and en largement of trading operations had their part in the purposes of the warring kings. This finds warrant not so much in the express words of the inscriptions as in indirect hints such as are found in the Amarna Tablets (q.v.) and in the usages of the times as represented by Ahab and Ben hadad (I Kings xx, 34). Of other occupations, agriculture has already been assumed (see II, § 4, above), as also the handicrafts in the mention of the metals. Casting was known, and there has been found a mold for arrow-heads of accurate construction, in four parts, in which three heads could be cast at the same time. The representa tions of siege operations show ingenuity in the mechanical construction of implements of offensive warfare.

The language belongs also -to the North Semitic group, and is very close to the Babylonian, differing

only dialectically. The expression of 3. Lan- it in the cuneiform was inherited

guage. directly from the Babylonians, in-

directly from the pre-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia, but developing as a consequence of the fact that writing is the expression of a living force, speech.

The culture of Assyria was borrowed. In nothing is this clearer than in their methods of building

Although they lived in a land where 4. The Cul- stone was easily procured, the principal

ture not building material was sun-dried brick, Native. in the more pretentious structures

faced with burnt brick and sometimes with stone. Even the choice of sites, near the rivers where platforms had to be erected to avoid floods, was probably due to early habit acquired in Babylonia or imitated. To this method and material of building were due the constant repetition of building operations on the great templeetructures and the narratives of the same in the annals of both countries. Roof-making was, from a structural point of view, evidently most imperfectly developed. When once the roof was broken, and the elements had access to the unburnt brick, swift collapse of a structure was inevitable. Yet to this very fact in most cases is attributable the preservation of the libraries and records unearthed; for the superincumbent clay sealed hermetically the chambers used as repositories. In the way of literature nothing creative appears to have come from the Assyrians except the mere narratives of the campaigns. The tablets containing the portions of the epics are knows to be



copies from the south. The elegant style of Asshurbanipal's annals suggests that the formative period of Assyrian literature was just beginning, but the speedy collapse of the empire prevented any ripening into creative work.

VI. The History.-1. Chronology: The crucial datum is the mention of an eclipse in the epony mate of Pur-ahagali in the month Sivan (May June). A total eclipse occurred at Nineveh, June 15, 763 n.c., thus fixing the year of Pur-ahagali's eponymate. The bearing of this on Assyrian chronology appears below. Other data are afforded by the Eponym Canon, found in the z. Sources library of Asahurbanipal, a sort of and Re- calendar in which succeeding years salts. are named respectively for officers of state. There are several sets of these, all incomplete, but often overlapping each other, and in these synchronistic parts showing that they are not replicas of each other, but in some cases independent documents. They cover consecu tivelythe period 902-667 B.c. and give the succes sion of the kings as well as of the eponyms, often including a short statement of the principal events of the year. In a succession like this, if the date of one is fixed, that of the rest follows; the eclipse just mentioned furnishes the desired fixed date. On these two sets of data hangs nearly all of Assyr ian and Babylonian chronology, as well as that of some of the contemporary nations. The Canon o f Ptolemy (Greek), is an appendix to the astro nomical work of Claudius Ptolemmus,, based on solar and lunar eclipses and using Babylonian sources. This was successfully employed to indi cate the order in which the Eponym Canon should be arranged. The Synchronistic History of Baby lonia and Assyria (cuneiform) gives an enumeration of Babylonian kings and contemporary Assyrian monarchs, and covers the period# 1400-1050 and 900-800 B.c. The Babylonian 1'hronicle (cuneiform) covers the period 744-668 B.c., during the Assyrian dominance, and therefore throws light on Assyrian chronology or corroborates results otherwise obtained. For the early periods depend ence must be placed upon isolated data. Thus, Sennacherib,.in the rock inscription at Bavian (Schrader, KB, ii, 116 sqq.) alleges that he restored to the temple E-kallati images carried off to Babylon by Marduk-nadin-ahi 418 years earlier in the days of Tiglath-Pileser I. This is practically corrobo rated by the Babylonian king's statement that in his tenth regnal year he gained a victory over Assyria. The date of restoration was 689 B.c., putting the date when the images were carried off at 1107 s.c., making the coronation year of the Babylonian 1117 s.c., and establishing the eontem poraneity of the kings. Sennacherib mentions another fact which (though in round numbers and therefore slightly suspicious) places Tiglath-Nindar (or Ninib), son of Shalmaneser I, about the year 1289 B.c. Similarly, Tiglath_Pileser. I (dated above) records a fact which places the death of his great-grandfather Asshur-Dan c. 1175 s.c. He also gives the date of the rebuilding of a temple by the patesi (see B.DYLOMe) Shamsbi-Ramman as 641 years earlier, thus placingthe latter c. ISIS

B.c. Further data are obtained by mention of the ancestors of different monarchs. When RammanNirari calls himself son of Pud-il, grandson of Belnirari, great-grandson of Asahur-Uballit, he serves a useful purpose by naming a succession of four kings. Tiglath-Pileser I announces that the Shamshi-Ramman whom he dates was son of IshmiDagan, and that both were patesis of Assyria. This datum shows also that in their time Assyria was not independent, since patesi is not the title of an independent ruler. These data give results upon which in most cases agreement is reached by scholars within the margin of a year.

2. Ethnological Data: Gutium (Assyr. Kutu) was situated northeast from Nineveh, and stretched

from the headwaters of the Upper z. Peoples Zab to Lake Urumiah. It is prob-

and ably referred to in Gen. xiv. The Places Namri occupied the southern part of Named in the Zagros mountain range, between Assyrian Media and Assyria, east of the Lower Annals. Zab. The Madai and Manda, later

known as the Umman-Maruta, were Aryan tribes beyond the Namri to the east of the mountains and toward the Caspian. The Kasshi, sometimes confused in the Old Testament (the unpointed Hebrew is the same) with Cosh (Ethiopia), were northeastern neighbors of the Elamites and gave a long-lived dynasty to Babylonia. The Kaldu, later known as the Chaldeans, occupied the territory north and west of the head of the Persian Gulf and 'became rulers of Babylonia when the Assyrian empire fell. The Manni or Minni inhabited the territory between lakes Van and Urumiah, and were sturdy foes of the Assyrians. The Urartu or Armenians dwelt in the Armenian mountains and valleys northwest of Lake Van, and partly controlled the plains at the foot. They were perhaps the most difficult foes the Assyrians had to meet. The Mitanni, during the rise of Assyria, held Upper Mesopotamia c. 1400' B.c., and are supposed to have been a Hittite power. By their position they controlled the trade route between the Upper Tigris, the Mediterranean, and the West. Goxan, later Gauzanitis, was a district on the upper waters of the Chabur. Bit-Adini was the Aramean state north of the confluence of the Chabur with the Euphrates. Kummu& was a state considerably to the north of Bit-Adini on the southern spurs of the Taurus Mountains. In the northeastern part of ,Syria, north of where Antioch was situated later, not quite contemporary with each other were the Aramean states of Patina, Unki, Samal, Gurgum, and Yaudi--the latter for many years mistaken by Amyriologists for Judah, particularly as it had a king named Azriyahu nearly contemporary with Azariah of Judah. It lay between samal and Unki Of . Winudah, Altarientalische Eorschuaegen, i, 1893). Kue was the name of the eastern part of the coast of Cilicia. Northeast from Rue was the Musri of Asia Minor (confused in I Kings x, 28 and II Kings vii, 6 with Egypt, though mentioned in connection with Syria and the Hittites in both passages; in the former Passage the name Kue is perhaps concealed in the word ma-koh). Still farther to the north were the



Mushke, known to the Greeks as Moachi The Pheniciane, the Syrians of Aleppo, Hamath, Arpad, and Damascus are all frequently mentioned in the inscriptions, as are the Hebrew kingdoms, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia. Arabia was known as Arabi, Arubu, and Aribi. In North Arabia the cuneiform makes known a district called Mur;ri or Mur, also mistaken in the Hebrew of I Kings xi, 17, for Mizraim, Egypt. It was subdued by Tiglath-Pileser III. South Arabian inscriptions also name the locality. In the same region was a district called Cuah, sometimes confused with Ethiopia. Meluhlsa, the Mrs'in of the Old Testament, was in North Arabia. Saba, the Sheba of I Kings x, 1, Minaea, rediscovered by Glaser, and Ynman, probably the modern Yemen, are all noted in the annals of the kings. Northeast Arabia was known as Magan.

S. The Story of Assyria: The history of Assyria before 1800 B.C. is veiled. Gen. x,11 (R. V. margin)

affirms the Babylonian background

t. Early of this people, and all evidence from History and archeology, language, and cultural,

Names, to remains, supports the affirmation. 15oo B.C. The date of colonisation is unknown,

but it was before 2300 B.c. Asahur was the first city. The connection with the parent country was close c. 2000 B.C. Hammurabi of Babylon (c. 2250 B.C.) had Assyrian soldiers in his army. No ruler earlier than Ishmi-Dagan (c. 1850 B.C.) is known, and he bore the title of pateai (or swhaku), a term that implied political dependence: In the time of his son, Shamehi-Ramman, Nineveh was already in existence; for he restored a temple of Ishtar there. Between his time and that of Amhur-bel-nisheshu only a few names are known. Igur-kapkapu (or Bel-kapkapu or Bel-bani) and his son Shamshi-Ramman II, Kallu and his son Irishum are all, but of the first it is known that a tablet exists dated in his reign, and (from it) that he bore the title of king. Assyrian contract tablets belonging to the period 1800-1500 B.C. have been found in Cappadocia, indicating commercial, and perhaps a beginning of territorial, expansion. At the time when Thothmes III of Egypt was most active, the Assyrian king sent him a gift of " a great stone of lapis-lazuli " which Thothmes interpreted as a sign of submission, and so recorded it. If Assyria really feared Egypt, that fear did not last long, for the Hittites were soon active, and Egyptian aggression did not threaten the Tigris.

The independence of Assyria, won soon afterward, was due, not to Assyria's strength, but to the

weakness of the parent power. Intern. The Win- nal strife gave the Rawhites the

ning of opportunity to conquer Babylonia,

Independ- but they were too busy cementing ence, 15oo- their own power to attack Assyria,

I3oo B. C. and the boundary was settled under

Asshur-bel-nisheshu and Puzu-Asahur in treaties to which the Kasshite Raraindash of Babylon was one of the parties. This implies independence. About 1400 B.C., fifty years later, the Babylonian Burnaburiash claimed Assyria for his territory. The probable dependence of Nineveh upon Tushratta of Mitanni has been

noted above (IV, 1 2). Assur-uballit wrote to Amenophis IV as an independent monarch; and indeed the claim of Assyria to Babylon began in the same reign. The Assyrian's daughter had married Kara-kardash of Babylon, and the latter's son had succeeded his father and then been murdered by his subjects Asahur-uballit intervened, subjected Babylon, and placed another grandson on the throne In the same reign and the next the Assyrian arms were carried to the borders of Elam, which led to war between Kurigahsu II of Babylon and Bel-nirari in which the northern cause was successful. Ramman-nirari I (c. 1345-30 B.C ) reconquered the lands already overrun, and located cities for their government. He extended his sway beyond the Euphrates, and had a successful essay against Mitanni. New troubles with Babylonia arose over the conquest of Gutium; both sides claimed the victory, but the Assyrian boundary was advanced. Ramman's inscription is the earliest one of Assyria that is dated, and in it he calls himself king, not of Asahur, but of Kisahatii, " the world."

8halmaneser I (e. 1300 B.C.) left on his successors an impression of greatness. He crossed the

Euphrates and pushed his conquests 3. Shalman- as far as Mu;ri, which probably means eser I-Tig- that the territory up to the river at lath-Pileser least was added to Assyrian territory.

1, 1300- Asahur was abandoned as the capital, i:oo B.C. and Calah was built. The temple of

Ishtar at Nineveh was also reconstructed, and Harran was added to the possessions of the king. 8halmaneser's son, Tiglath-Ninib, invaded Babylonia, captured and plundered Babylon, partly destroyed the wall, carried north with him the image of Marduk, governed the south from his own capital, and assumed the titles borne by Sargon the Great (see BABYLONIA), king of Sumer and Akkad, as well as of Kiwhati and Asahur. But he could not sustain himself, and lost his life in a rebellion headed by his son. For a time the Assyrian star declined. It is very likely that to this decline the Hittites had contributed; for the dash to the Mediterranean must have aroused them and certainly have included in its scope some of their cities. The Babylonians became the aggressors, and the next king, Asahurnasirpal I had difficulty in repelling them. Under the next four reigns Assyria's territory shrank to about its original extent. Then Assur-Dan I (c. 1210-1181 B.C.) began to regain territory south of the Lower Zab. His grandson, Asshur-rich-ishi, cleared the way to Babylon by conquering foes on the southeast, and then defeated Nebuchadrezzar I of Babylon. He rebuilt the Ishtar-temple in Calah. With Tiglath-Pileser I began a new era for Assyria. The celebrated eight-sided prism contains a part of his record. That full information of his predecemrs' activity is not at hand is shown by his having in the very beginning of his reign to subdue people so distant as the Mushke. Hewon a victory over them among their hills, destroyed 14,000 out of the 20,000 engaged, and pursued the plan of subduing the territory by destroying the fighting forces. Tribute was exacted from the rest. During



the next three years he carried his arms into the mountain regions northeast, northwest, and southeast with the uniform result of success and immense booty A confederation of twenty-three kings from the neighborhood of Lake Van was overcome, and heavy tribute imposed. Muzri was once more subdued, and Babylonia hid to submit. At the end of his fifth year Tiglath-Pileser claimed to have subdued " forty-two countries with their rulers." Mention of the Hittites first occurs in his reign.

At this point it is well to note, in explanation of the preceding and of much that follows, a characteristic of early Semitic rule. Con-

4. Semitic atant reconquest of subjected territory Rule Un- was necessary The order of events stable. was: subjection and a light tribute if submission had been ready, a heavy one if strong opposition had been offered; this was invariably followed by rebellion at the first seeming opportunity, and a change in the ruler was always considered an opportunity; then new subjection and a heavier tribute; when rebellion again arose, the case of the rebels was desperate, and further revolt was eliminated by almost com plete desolation of the refractory territory. The creation of an empire by unifying peoples under a beneficent rule had not yet been conceived. On the other side was the inherent tendency to segre gation, which was a characteristic of the Semites. An invader could reduce city after city, throwing against it the force of his united army, while other cities awaited their fate in trembling. Confedera tions invariably fell apart. Assyria was the one Semitic power thoroughly unified; and this unity was the cause of its victorious progress until the wars of centuries had sapped its strength.

Tiglath-Pileser's activities were not all warlike; he rebuilt Asshur, restored its temples and palaces, and fostered agriculture and arbori-

5. A Time culture. He was followed by two of Quies- of his sons in succession, who re- cence, i zoo- moved the capital to Nineveh once 95o B.C. more, restoring its great Ishtar-tem ple. A new period of quiescence or of exhaustion for Assyria had come, and its enemies organized themselves for new resistance. This resistance coincides with that of the ex pansion of the Hebrew kingdom. The Arameans had settled in Mesopotamia and fallen heir to the

Hittite possessions including Hamath, Aleppo, and Damascus. They were traders, and, holding the caravan routes, directly menaced Assyrian commerce. The Phenicians, too, had been making of their cities strong fortresses. Between TiglathPileser I and II were several rulers whose names are known and little else, while there is also a gap in the known succession. But the period was not the time of entire weakness generally supposed; the outburst of vigor which followed and continued with little intermission for three and one-half centuri'm proves it a time of development of power which was used in a series of campaign, which have not ceased to astonish since knowledge of them has been regained.

Tiglath-Pileser II (c. 9501s.C.) began a succession

of kings, all of whose names are known, though of what either he or his son Asahur-Dan II (o. 930 B.C.) did, little is certain. During the nest reign, that of Ramman-nirari II (911-891 B.C.), the

6. Tiglath- struggle with Babylonia was renewed,

Pileser II, the latter losing territory to its op95o B.C. ponent. Tiglath-Ninib (890-885 B.C.)

-Asshur- placed under tribute the highlands nasirpalI3I, of the north from Urumiah to the 885-86o Mediterranean. Asshurnasirpal III

B.C. (885-880 B.C.), son of the foregoing, carried forward the work of conquest, One of the finest inscriptions extant is his, on alabaster in 389 lines, corroborated by other texts. His first campaign in Armenia was so savage that with a single exception, severely punished, all tribes in his line of march hastened to submit. While on a campaign against Kummuh, he heard of the rebellion of an Aramean community at Bit-Kalupe on the Euphrates. He at once countermarched, took and plundered the city, cut off the legs of the officers engaged in the rebellion, flayed the nobles and stretched their skins on a pile built for the purpose, and sent the rebel governor to Nineveh to be flayed. The result was immediate submission of the district and of all in his line of march. While he was thus engaged in the west, rebellion broke out in the east and southeast, was crushed, broke out again, and was again put down with plundering, devastation, and slaughter. Sedition among the Arameans, fomented and assisted by Nabupaliddin of Babylonix, was overcome, and Suru, the capital, destroyed. The fomenter of the trouble in turn found work in repelling the Aramean hordes and occupation in rebuilding the temple of Shamash at Sippar. Continued rebellion among the Arameans revealed the fact that the little state of Bit-Adini, the Bene'Edhen of II Kings xu,12, was the cause of the rising. This the Assyrians assailed and destroyed, and showed that they would permit no strong state on the Euphrates. The Mediterranean coast was next visited; tribute was received from the Phenicians; wood was gathered for the new works at Calah; and a memorial was left on the rocks at Nahr-el-Kalb (near Beirut). Asshurna$irpal made the Assyrian name a synonym for ferocity and savagery. Yet war was not his whole occupation. Calah had fallen into ruins while Asshur had been the capital. He rebuilt it, erected there a great palace, and conducted to the city a water-supply from the Lower Zab.

With Shahmaneser II J860-M B.C.) began contact of the Assyrians *nth the Hebrews. In the Black Obelisk and the Monolith y. Shalman- texts this ldng has left some of the eser II, 86o- finest inscriptions lrnown. These with

824 B-C. supplementary records show a per sonal leadership by the king of his armies for twenty-six consecutive years. Under him began that battering at the gates of Damascus which continued from his time till the city fell in 732 B.C., and then was directed against the He-

brews, Arabs, and Egyptians till about 660 B.C. The three prominent Syrian powers at the time were centered at Hamath, Patin, and Damascus.



A coalition of these with their allies, including Israelites (Ahab furnished a contingent of 2,000 [7] chariots and 10,000 men), Arabs, and Ammonites, was met and defeated at Karkar. The quality of the victory claimed by Shalmaneser is doubtful, since in three inscriptions (the Black Obelisk, Monolith, and Bull; cf. Schrader, %eilschrift forschung, p. 47) the number of killed varies from 14,000 to 25,000, and no statement is made of tribute imposed. The victory was barren. There was revealed here a force which might have stayed the advance of Assyria could it have been held together. Six campaigns were made in this region during 854-839 B.C., none decisive in itself, but contributing in the end to the isolation of Damascus. Jehu of Israel sent tribute to divert from himself the attacks of Damascus. With reference to his campaigns in Armenia, Shalmaneser describes himself as " trampling down the country like a wild bull." But there, too, results were indecisive, and the region remained a menace to the dominant power. Media was invaded in a mere bootysnatching expedition. Internal conflict in Babylonia resulted in the reestablishment of Assyrian power there, and in checking the northward march of the Kaldu. The later years of the king were harassed by rebellions at home, led in one case by his sons, and due in part probably to utter weariness at the constant drain caused by the perpetual wars.

This legacy of civil war was left to the son Shamshi-Ramman IV (824-812 B.C.), who used two years in defeating his brother and in 8. Shamshi- repressing the general rebellion of

Ramman the provinces. .A coalition of Baby- IV and lonians, Ela,mites, Southern Arameans,

his Succes- and Kaldu was met and defeated and sors, 824- quiet restored after two campaigns.

745 B.C. Payment of tribute was forced in dif ferent regions only by the presence of the army. His son, Ramman-nirari 111 (812-783 B.C.), who called himself a descendant of Igur (Bei-)kapkapu, reduced Damascus to tributary relationship. The entire eastern coast of the Medi terranean contributed to his exchequer. A. series of eight campaigns against the Medea took this king to the Caspian, and the south to the Persian Gulf was tributary. He made an attempt to weld religiously Babylonia and Assyria by the intro duction of Babylonian cults into Nineveh, while Babylonia was treated as an Assyrian province. With the next king, Shahnaneser III (783-773 B.c.), began a period okdecadence which continued for three reigns. Campaigns to enforce payment of tribute are mentioned, but Armenia in the mean time gained in power. Under Asshur-Dan III (773-755 B.C.) the story of rebellion and disaster grows. The eclipse of the sun, 763 B.C., and pesti lence in 759 and 754 were events of this reign. Asshur-nirari II (755-745 B.C.) left fewer notices, but enough to make evident that warlike attempts were not altogether discontinued. In an uprising at Calah he disappeared, and with him the dynasty which had ruled at least since Tiglath-Pileser II.

Under the great 71glath-Pileser -III (745-727 B.C ), the Pul of 11 Kings xv, 19, Assyria recovered

at a bound her greatest former eminence and sur-

passed it. The origin of the new king is un

known, for in his numerous inscriptions he never

mentions his ancestry. His vigor

9. Tiglath- and boldness of conception and awift

Pileser III, ness of execution were unparalleled

745-727 even in Assyrian history. Babylonia,

B.C. during the period of Assyria's weak

ness, had been unable to take advan

tage of relief from pressure, owing to attacks by

the Arameans. Tiglath-Pileser invaded the country,

repelled the Arameans, reorganized the government,

and conciliated the inhabitants by paying homage

to the chief deities. The districts east were recon

quered, and a new policy carried out of settling

disaffected subjects in a distant part of the empire.

Urartu, under a king named Sarduris II, had

completely demolished Assyrian supremacy in

the north. A single sweeping victory over him

changed all this, and his allies paid their tribute

to the conqueror. Arpad fell in 740 B.C., and with

it the northwest was pacified. A new coalition of

states of Syria, Asia Minor, and Palestine was

formed; but at the appearance in the field of the

Assyrian forces, it fell apart, Menahem of Israel

paid tribute, the states north of Israel were put

under a governor, their inhabitants deported, and

colonists brought in from other parts. A rebellion

near Nineveh was suppressed by the governors,

who had been made responsible for good order.

They deported the rebellious subjects to Syria

and settled Syrians in their places. Armenia

was crippled in a campaign which reached the

capital on Lake Van, but did not capture it. Tig

lath-Pileser began next to clear the road to Egypt,

just then weakened by attacks from Ethiopia.

Syria was effectually overawed, Phenicia paid

tribute, and Gaza was captured and held as an

outpost. To offset this, Israel and Damascus had

detehmined to force Judah into an alliance against

the Assyrian. Ahaa was thoroughly alarmed,

and all the efforts of Isaiah were insufficient to

restrain him from throwing himself into the arms

of Assyria. Tiglath-Pileser listened to the appeal,

ravaged Israel, had Hoshea made king (II Kings

xv-xvi), assailed Dwnascus, destroyed its depend

encies, and finally captured it in 732 B.C. While

engaged in the west, the king heard of rebellion in

Babylonia. This was punished; and Merodach

baladan, who proved almost a perennial rebel,

submitted. The Assyrian appointed governors

from the north instead of leaving native princes

to rule, did homage to the gods of the land, in 726

B.C. " took the hands of Bel, " the annual right and

duty of the rightful king of Babylon, and assumed

the name Pul with the old title " King of Sumer

and Akkad and of Babylon " (see BABYLONLI).

T5glath-Pileser's death occurred the next year. His

achievements in war and in government were the

greatest the world had yet known. The Semitic

crescent of territory from the Persian Gulf to the

border of Egypt was his without dispute; tribute

was sent from Arabia as far south as Sabwa, from

Armenia, from Elam, and from the states on the

Mediterranean. The policy of exchanging popu

lations of chronically rebellious states had made



the empire more homogeneous by putting seditious nations where circumstances did not favor risings.

Of Tiglath-Pileser's successor, Shalmaneser IV (727 7222 B.c.), but little is known, not even his relationship to his predecessor. Unde:

:o. Shat- him Hoshea was led into what proved maneser IV, the final rebellion of the northern

727-7ss Ieraelitie kingdom, and the episode B.C. narrated in II Kings xvii occurred. In this chapter Hoshea is represented as sending messengers to " So, king of Egypt." So has been erroneously identified with Shabak. Sargon mentions a Shabi of the Arabian Muzri; Shabt in Assyrian would represent the Hebrew word So pointed to read Save; and modern scholars are inclined to follow Winekler (Miuheilungen der roorderasW%sehen Geseuwhaft, i, 5) and see a double confusion in Miqraam (" Egypt ") for Mugra, and in So for Save. It is to the point that this Shabi furnished no little trouble for Sargon, Shalmaneser's successor. From him, then, Hoshea expected help and rebelled, when Shalmaneser attacked, defeated, and captured him, and invested Samaria. The city held out for three years. Meanwhile Shahnaneser died and was succeeded by Sargon (722-705 B.c.). Samaria was captured in 721; and the Isrselitie kingdom ceased to exist.

Sargon's ancestry is very doubtful: he claimed no royal lineage, nor did his son for him; but his grandson, Sennacherib, connected him

zz. Sargon, with the Igur-kapkapu mentioned 7sz-7o5 above. He reproduced the traits of B.C. the great Tiglath Pileser III--self-con fidence, vigor in plan and action, and great military and administrative ability. In Babylonia the determined rebel Merodach-baladan seized Babylon with the help of the Elamutes; Sargon claimed the victory in the battle which ensued, but Merodach retained his crown. In the west Hamath raised the flag of rebellion, and Shabi of Musri and Hanno of Gaza engaged to support Hamath; but 6argon attacked the town before the allies could come in, then marched south, and defeated Shabi at Raphia. The nest rising was in the north, with Urartu as the backbone of the movement. But Assyria was still able to conquer; and, soon after, the old Hittite center, Carchemish, was destroyed. Campaigns in Media, eastern Asia Minor, and Arabia kept the armies moving.

Finally peace was secured in the north by the ending of the kingdom of Urartu, which had for centuries defied Assyria and proved its most dangerous foe. A new uprising in Palestine, Philistia, Edom, and Moab, involving Hezekiah of Judah and evidently fomented by Egypt (Ina. xx), necessitated the sending of Sargon's tartan with an army, who occupied the Philistine cities, deported the inhabitants, and crushed the rebellion. The other states seem to have escaped punishment. Only Babylon was needed to round out the empire. Merodachbaladan had foreign military forces in support; but he had alienated the native priests, the most influential class of his subjects. They called in the Assyrians, who put the Chaldeans to flight- and Sargon was acclaimed the deliverer of the city of Babylon. He performed sacrifice and took office

as viceroy (not king), and restored the templeworship in the great religious centers. In the northwest, boundaries were pushed back, and even Cyprus sent tribute. Sargon built Dur-Sharrukin with its magnificent palace, but occupied it only

ayearSargon was succeeded by his son Sennacherib

(705-681 e.c.). The change in succession was

followed by another attempt of Mero

rs. San- dach-baladan to possess Babylonia.

nacherib, It is likely that the embassy to Heze

705-681 kiah (II Kings xviii, 13) occurred here.

B.C. If so, its motive is plain: he wasfoment

ing a revolt in the west to create a

diversion while he settled himself in the south.

But Sennacherib marched south at once, defeated

the rebel, captured Babylon, rifled the palace, and

then punished severely the Aramean supporters

of the Kaldu, appropriating immense booty and

removing, according to the Taylor cylinder, over

200,000 people and settling them in the Median

mountains after a successful campaign there.

The rebellion fomented by Merodach (if the sugges

tion above be correct) had gathered headway,

with Hezekiah leading the movement, the latter

having seized Philistia. The revolt must have

been general; for Sennacherib first visited Phenicia,

captured Sidon, set up his appointee as king, and

apportioned him a fair kingdom. The coalition fell

apart before his army, though several of the Phi

listine towns held out and were reduced. An army

from Egypt was defeated, Ekron captured, and its

chiefs impaled. Then Sennacherib turned on Judah,

captured forty-six towns, deported 200,150' in

habitants, and gave the district to his governors

in Philistia to manage. Hezekiah submitted and

paid tribute, to gather which he was compelled

to strip palace and temple. Sennacherib, either

at this time or later, sent a small force to demand

the surrender of Jerusalem. Beyond question

the reason for this was that the conquest of Egypt

was projected, and the Assyrian did not care to

leave so strong a fortress as Jerusalem in his rear.

The surrender was refused; the forces were with

drawn; a new campaign in Babylonk. against the

irrepressible Merodaah-baladan was successfully

carried through; and Asahur-nadir-chum, son of

Sennacherib, was put on the throne of Babylon.

The nest eleven years were spent mainly in the

south against the Elamites and KaIdu under Mero

dach-baladan. After holding the country for some

time the allies were defeated in 691 s.c. after a

terrible conflict. Babylon was taken, sacked,

burned to the ground, the waters of the EUphMteB

turned upon the site, and the statue of Marduk taken

to Asahur. A final expedition against Egypt was

probably undertaken near the end of his life by

Sennacherib. Tirhakah of Egypt advanced to meet

him, perhaps as far as Pelusium. There Sennach

erib experienced a severe check, variously ex

plained. 11 Kings ix, 35 tells of a pestilence which

destroyed in a single night 185,000 mien; Tirhakah

claimed credit for a great victory; Herodotus

(ii, 141) was told by the Egyptians that field-mice

gnawed the bow-strings and quivers of the As

eyrians and left them defenseless before the Egyp-



tians; and the Babylonian Chronicles suggest the necessity for return in a rebellion in that region. Sennacherib was killed in 681 B.C. by one (Babylonian Chronicle) or two (II Kings xix, 36-37) of his sons. He had removed the seat of government from Calah to Nineveh, and built there the " peerless " palace, and had provided the city with a system of water-works.

Esar-haddon (681-668 B.C.), Sargon's son, who succeeded him, reversed the policy toward Baby-

lonia. He assumed the title of viceroy 13. Esar- of Babylon, and almost at once set

haddon, about rebuilding the city in a style 681-668 of greater grandeur. By restoring B.C. the gods carried away by his father he regained the good-will of the people. His first care, however, was to avenge the death of Sennacherib and to secure his own position in Nineveh, whence his brothers, the murderers, who had seized the throne, fled on his approach. The extreme south, again in rebellion, was subdued and the projected invasion of Egypt was undertaken. But first the rebellion of Phenicia had to be quelled, in which three years were occupied, when Sidon was destroyed, a new city built and settled by colonists. Tyre was assailed; but its sea-gate enabled it to hold out. In 783 B.C. Tirhakah was enabled to repel the first attack on Egypt; but Esar-haddon renewed the attempt three years later, was successful in three battles, and occupied Memphis. The land was parceled out for govern ment, and no great opposition was offered by the people, to whom the disaster seemed beyond repair. Northeastern Arabia was then subdued that it might no longer afford assistance to. the recurrent rebellions of Palestine. New troubles were by that time affecting the northern boundaries. The Indo European migration, generally known as the Cim merian or Scythian, had begun. This was split into two bodies, one of which pressed down into Persia and Media and settled there, and the other passed westward. The former occupied a part of what had begn Assyrian territory, and later formed a part of the force which captured Nineveh. The latter passed through Armenia; but its forces were prevented by Esar-haddon from penetrating southward. In 668 B.C. the king was called to Egypt by rebellion there. Before leaving, he had one son proclaimed his successor in Assyria (As shurbanipal) and another in Babylon (Shamash shum-ukin). He died the same year, and before reaching Egypt, having extended Assyrian domina tion farther than it had yet reached. He was fond of building, and constructed the great arsenal at Nebi-Yunus, the materials for which were contributed by twenty-two kings and princes, ten of them in Cyprus. The name of Manasseh of Judah appears in this list of tributaries.

The events of the reign of Asshur 14. Asshur- banipal (668-626 B.C.; Greek, Sardana-

banipal, pales, Aram. Osnappar, Ezra iv, 10) 668-626 are hard to make out, not because of B.C. paucity of material, for it is abundant, nor because of roughness or careless ness, for the annals are elegant and polished, but because the chronological clue is not given. It

is clear, however, that his first movement was to the borderland between Elam. and Babylonia, where his presence prevented serious trouble. A new invasion of Egypt was made necessary by Tirhakah's return, the Assyrian forces being gathered partly on the Mediterranean coast. Tirhakah was defeated, and the country occupied this time as far south as Thebes. A new rising which took place almost immediately was as quickly punished in ruthless fashion, and enormous booty was sent home. A third insurrection under the son of the now dead Tirhakah was futile. Tyre had finally submitted and sent tribute. But the story continues of revolts in different parts of the empire which presage its speedy fall. The king was occupied in desperate attempts to maintain himself. Participation in these led to the conquest of Elam up to the very walls of Suss. Even his brother on the throne of Babylon revolted; but Asshurbanipal's movements were swift and sure. Babylon, Borsippa, Sippara, and Cutha were beset; Shamash-shun-ukin in despair burned himself in his own palace; and people from the captured towns were settled in Samaria. A new challenge from Elam was accepted; and finally Sum was taken with immense booty. The usual success attended the king's final campaign in Arabia. The results of this long succession of successful wars was the heaping up of enormous wealth in the cities of Assyria, particularly in Nineveh. The end of a victorious campaign was the transportation of precious metals, works of art, flocks, and herds, and, in the later reigns, of people as slaves to Assyria. The great works of the Assyrian kings were doubtless in great part the product of the toil of captives. And the captors of Nineveh fell heir to this immense wealth. Asshurbanipal's wars were not his only interest. Apart from the palace which he built, the walls of which were lined with sculptured reliefs, he was fond of the hunt, and his contests with lions am frequently portrayed. Most significant for modern times was his interest in literature. His library, uncovered by George Smith, was amassed by the copying of tablets from libraries in the south, and contained works on history, ethics, science, religion, and linguistics.

Asshurbanipai was succeeded by his son Asshuretil-ilani, of whom it is known that he built or re-

stored the temple E-zida in Calah, and 15. Asehur- that during his fourth year he claimed

banipal's the title of king of Sumer and Akkad.

Successors, Whether a Sin-chum-lishir next reigned 626-606 is not known; but mention of him as a

B.C. king of Assyria has been found. A Sin shar-ishkun is known from three tab lets from Sippar and Erech. In his seventh year he was still lung of a part of Babylonia, though not of Babylon, over which Nabopolassar had established himself. Upon an invasion of Babylonia by the Assyrian, Nabopolassar invoked the aid of the Umman-Manda, and Sin-char-ishkun was forced to retreat, Nabopolassar securing the provinces as the former evacuated them. It seems that one branch of the Scythians were allies of the Assyrians at this time and actually defeated the armies of the assailants, thus prolonging the life



of Nineveh. The rush of the Scythians, which so terrified western Asia and elicited the prophecies of Nahum and Zephaniah (Driver, Introduction, 5th ed., 1894, pp. 314-320), is to be explained by their alliance with Assyria and a desire to attack Egypt, the king of which, Psammetichus, had assailed Philistia. Their sudden disappearance is as remarkable as their unheralded coming.

The Umman-Manda returned soon to Nineveh. The story of the siege is unknown; but the city fell 607-606 H.e., and its vast treasures became the nucleus of the tremendous wealth of the later Persian empire.' With it fell the empire which twenty-five years earlier had controlled all southwestern Asia.

VII. The Religion: From the relationship of Assyrians and Babylonians set forth in the pre ceding it would be expected that z. Relation both resemblances and differences to Baby- would be found to exist in the two

lonian religions. The reeemblanees are as Religion. follows: (1) The general character of the cults is the same; the liturgies, prayers, psalms are often identical, as are some of the deities. (2) The goddesses are of minor importance in Assyria, appearing .hardly as prominent as in the southern land. Theoretically the gods had consorts; practically these are but shadows and a name. (3) The great exceptions to this in both countries were the Ishtars; to the extent exhibited below, the pantheons were the same, at least in theory (see BABPLONLI). The dissimilarities are: (1) Asshur assumes the character of a national god as far back as he can be traced. (2) His aloofness is a new feature; he in particular seems ever without consort and family.

(3) The next difference needs stating at some length. In their annals the Babylonians laid great stress upon their temple-building, even more than upon wars and the construction of palaces. From the emphasis laid upon religion, and the care taken to house the divinities and provide for their maintenance, the country seems priest-ridden, with the kings devoted first of all to religion. The Assyrians, on the other hand, while indeed they often built or restored temples, devoted much less space to the recital of their operations and put far less emphasis on the story of this activity than on that attending their wars and the construction of their palaces. They seemed less absorbed in their religion, though not less devout when worshiping. It is a case of correctly reading in a lease, abun. dance of matter a lower quality of intensity. Religion seemed less on the Assyrian's mind. (4) The pantheon was much smaller. Tiglath-Pileser I, one of the most pious of Assyrian monarchs, names Asahur, Bel (rarelynamed elsewhere), Sin, Ramman, Ninib, and Ishtar. Shalmaneser II mentions on the obelisk, in addition to the gods of Tiglath-Pileser h Ann, EA, Marduk, Nergal, Nusku, and Belit. It is just the deities mentioned here which were most generally disregarded; and their notice by this king is doubtless to be traced to his attempt to fuse more closely the north and the south.

busehurbaniPal omits Anu, E e, Marduk, and Belit, but mentions two 1ehtam and adds, Nebo. But


a caveat should be entered here, which is justified by knowledge of facts existing in other lands where a similar civilization had been attained; as in Oriental countries generally, so in Assyria there were an aristocratic or official cult and a popular and democratic cult. The pantheon of the kings, particularly of Tiglath-Pileser, represented the former; the peasant and farmer worshiped the gods and spirits of field, tree, and fountain, and these did not get into the inscriptions.

The chief of the Assyrian pantheon, not found in the pantheon of Babylonia, was Assbur. His derivation and origin are obscure, though

s. Asshur. there is some plausibility in the sug gestion that he was ultimately derived from Anu, the heaven-god of Babylonia. But it is possible that Asshur the city was not originally Semitic, and that the local god was adopted by the Semitic colonists. As that city was for a long period the capital, he became the chief deity. The great triad of the south was entirely subordinated and lost; Ann, Bel, and Ea find scanty mention in the god-lists of the kings. The significance of Aeshur is that he stands for nationalism. His position from the first seems more elevated, his attitude has in it more of aloofness and abstraction than even Marduk ever attained in the south. Moreover, he never appears to be chained to a locality. Whatever city was the capital, there he made his abode. His symbol or representation was not an image, but a winged disk surmounted by the figure of an archer discharging his shaft. This served also as a military standard, and accOm panied the armies in their campaigns. While individual kings could and did choose what may be called individual patrons among the gods, A9bhur was always*the nation's guardian and protagonist, the unquestioned chief. Yet it must be noted that in spite of this reverence, even when Assyria most completely dominated Babylonia; there was no attempt to displace Marduk or Shamash or any other of the southern deities by Aashur; his domain was his own country, and there was honor among the gods, precluding one from usurping the due of another. Sayce was the first to point out that in this deity and the conceptions about him there was the possibility of all the greatness of a mono theism such as developed in the coneeption of Yahweh. Asehur's position was unique, without wife or family, a consideration which doubtless had much to do with the elevation of the concep tion which was formed of his being. There seems every ,reason to assume that he was originally a sun-deity, but this feature is not prominent in the original records in which he figure.. The other gods form, after a fashion, his retinue or court, but even this feature is far less pronounced than in the case of Marduk.

Ishtar was in Syria never one, but at least three; she of Nineveh, of Arbea, and of $itmur (a city of which almost nothing is known). The first two were the most

Prominent; and both appear to have been above all goddesses of battle. Ishtar of Kit-

mur ruled in the domain of love. In the south this goddess reached her eminence by absorbing


Assyria Asterine THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 334

or assimilating the beings, functions, and rites of local goddesses, such as Nana of Erech, Nina and Ban of Shirpurla, Sarpanit of Babylon, and Anunit. In neither place was she originally a moon-deity; this function appears in late times, and generally in the west after she had become associated, often as consort, with Bag as sun-god. In some cases religious prostitution was associated with her cult; but it was not, as is so often supposed, exclusively or primarily her rite. The origin of name andgoddess is obscure. Nearly, if not quite, all Semitic peoples had a deity of the name, though Athtar of South Arabia was male. The hypothesis of non-Semitic origin seems out of court, in view of the universality of her cult among Semites; and yet no satisfactory Semitic etymology has been found. If she was a loan-goddess, she was borrowed in the prehistoric age of the Semitic peoples. The Ishtar of Nineveh ranked next to Asshur in estimation, was to the Assyrians Belit (" the Lady "), as Asshur was Bel (" the Lord "); yet, as is implied in the foregoing, she was never his consort. " Goddess of Battle," '° Princess of Heaven and Earth," " Queen of All," are titles given her. In the religious literature she is invoked as the " gracious mother of creation, the giver of plenty, hearer of the supplications of the sinner," and as the goddess of fertility. It was partly out of this latter conception that the debasing worship grew which attended her as the Oriental Aphrodite. The functions of the various Ishtars were quite the same; and there is more of the primitive attachment to locality than in the case of Asshur. (See ABHTOBETH.)

The deity who seemed to rank third, at any rate if one may judge by the frequency with which his

name was used in the fdrmation of 4. Ramman. proper names, was Ramman, the

thunderer, god of storms, and probably in consequence of this, also of fertility and fruitfulness. He was identified with Hadad or Adad, a deity of Syria, one of whose principal seats was Aleppo. There has always been considerable doubt whether his name, which in the cuneiform is represented by the sign IM, should be read Ramman or Hadad. The name has been found in the region of Van in the cuneiform written phonetically Hadad, so that it is settled that at least the form common in Syria was known in Assyria and used there. But it is not a necessary conclusion that the sign IM is always to be read Hadad and never Rdmman.

Doubtless the cults of Asshur, Ishtar, and Ramman were those characteristic of Assyria. But the student of religions will always be alert for signs

of sun-worship; and, since Asshur, if g. The Sun- he was indeed originally a sun-deity, gods Sham- had been disassociated from that rehash, Ninib, tionship, it would be expected that and NergaL other deities would represent that phase

of early worship. There were three sun-gods in Assyria who had a more or less prominent position, were derived from the south and were known in both lands as Shamash, Ninib, and Nergal. The first was par excellence the sun-god (of. the Hebr. ahemeah, " sun "); and the splendor

and fervor and inspiration of his ritual tlmost equals that of Asshur, It is practically certain that he had temples in every city. Ninib became connected among the Assyrians with hunting and sports, and then with war. Nergal represented rather the maleficent, destructive power of the sun; he was, therefore, associated with war as the destroyer, with pestilence, and also with the chase.

A religion which derived its elements in large part from a people to whom the moon had been an eminent power would be expected to retain clear traces of that cult. Accordingly Sin, called also Nannar, the pre-Semitic EN-ZU,

6. Sin, the god of wisdom, who had early seats Moon-god. in Ur and Harran, both connected Nusku, the by the Hebrews' tradition with the

Fire-god. father of their race, Abraham, had his seats of worship also in Assyria. The diffused character of his worship will be partly real ized when it is remembered that he gave his name to the peninsula of Sinai. He was always closely associ ated with the endowment of mankind with wisdom. Nusku was a fire-god, then the deity of charms and incantations, a night deity, and also associated with the impartation of knowledge. Other deities had little place in the worship and regard of the people. Mention of them seems rather perfunctory, a sort of parade of piety, or a diplomatic measure of conciliation toward the south, rather than an acknowledgment of their importance for the country or the religion. A factor that swayed mightily the selection of the members of the pantheon-a selection which was instinctive rather than deliberative and planned-was the persistent rivalry of Babylonia and q. Rivalry Assyria. It was impossible for the

of Baby- god Marduk to become domiciled in lonia and Nineveh or Asshur or Calah, for he

Assyria was the god of the rival, city. Even if he had been more mobile, had the native Babylonian conception of deity been more favorable to a change of residence of the god than it was, the fact mentioned would have impeded his adoption of a seat in the north. But, as has been noted above, even when the arms and star of the Assyrians were thoroughly dominant in the south, no attempt was made to demand that Asshur take his place at the head of the southern pan theon. The image of Marduk was carried to As syria as a sign of his subjection; but that of Asshur was not installed in his place, so far as any hint goes in the annals accessible. So that the As syrian recognition of Marduk conveys simply the .impression of assent to his lordship in his own land. It is not beyond suspicion that the tendency to favor Nebo was not because he was especially revered, though as the god of oracles he became less chained to a locality and more eligible to general worship than others; more probably he was used by Ramman-ni~ and Asshurbanipal to diminish the prestige of the almost hostile god Marduk.

The background and undercurrent of Assyrian religion was thoroughly animistic. Omens of all sorts were consulted; magic of formulas and of material, sympathetic and simple, was everywhere;



sorcery was a constant peril and device; spirits evil and good, maleficent and beneficent, swarmed. The diagnosis of disease was recognition of obsession or infliction of suffering or prevention 8. Magic. of health by spirits or deities who must be driven out or exorcised or placated in order to lighten or abolish the suffering or to secure health. The formulas of magic were numerous and potent, the medicine-man or shaman as well as the priest thrived. While for king, nobility, army, and priesthood the great gods were supreme, there are hints even in the annals of the kings, and more decided proof in the collections of magical texts, of apprehensions of the lower powers, of hopes that rested not on the gods. Of incantation tablets a whole series give a ritual of " the evil demons." Parts of the body had their appropriate ritual for their preservation from disease and to banish the spirits which chose them as the spheres of their operations. The formulas arose and became fixed because the occasion which produced them appeared to be recurrent. And, as elsewhere in early religion, the exact letter, word, and intonation were essential to success in using them.

The idea of sin as transgression against the will of the gods was highly developed; and some of the penitential psalms, with the polytheistic expressions eliminated, would fitly express the most pious sentiments of devout Christians in worship of today. The notion of communion between god and man is involved in the elaborate system of omens and oracles which obtained. For ideas of eschatology, the underworld, and future life, see BABYLONIA.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the explorations and discoveries: R. W. Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, vol. i, New York, 1900; H. V. Hilpreeht, Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 1-578, Philadelphia, 1903 (very full and fresh); A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, 2 vole., London, 184849 (an old classic and good for geographical and topographical detail), and as a companion piece, H. Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, New York, 1897.

On the language: F. Delitzsch. Assyrische Grammatik. Leipsic, 1908, Eng. trawl., 1889; J. Menant, Les Lanpues perdues de la Perse et de 1'Asayrie, Paris, 1885; A. H. Sayce, Primer of Assyriology, New York, 1895 (deals with the people, the language, and the whole subject).

For sours: H. C. Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inecriptions of Western Asia, 5 vols., London, 1881-84; Assyriologiaehe Bibliothek, begun by C. Bezold, continued by F. Dalitzseh and P. Haupt, Leipsic, 1888 sqq.; Schrader, . KB; H. Winekler, Sammlung yon Keilinschriften, Leipsic, 1893 sqq.; J. A. Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, 2 vols., ib. 1895-97; C. Johnston, Epistolary Literature o/ Assyrians and Babylonians, Baltimore, 1898; R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, 5 vole., Chicago, 1900-05; idem. Assyrian Literature. New York, 1901.

On chronology: A. Kamphawen, DM Chronolopis der hebrdiechan K6nipe, Bonn. 1883; B. G. Niebuhr, Die CAronolopia . . . Babyloniene and Assyrians. Leipsic. 1898.

On the history the best for the English reader is R. W. Rogers, History of Babylonia and Assyria, ii, New York. 1900; other works are: F. Hommel, Oeschichle BabYloniens and Assyriens, Berlin. 1885; C. P. Tiele, Babyloniackaaayriache Gesehichtt. 1888-88; F. Mardter and F. Delitzseh, Oeschichte won Babylonian and Assyrien. Stuttgart, 1891; H. Winekler, Geachichte Babylonians and Assyriene Leiosio, 1892; idem. Die V61ker Vorderasiena, and Die poiuiwM Enkoiekelunp Babyierliens and Assyrians, in Dar alle Orient, I, i, II, i, ib. 1899-1900; G. Maspero. Dawn

exposition of the Nicene (.'reed, growing up by degrees in Gaul from the fifth century and assuming its present form in the sixth; to this was added perhaps in the eighth or ninth the second half, about whose origin nothing can be certainly said except that it is older than the ninth century. Ommanney and Burn added new material but no new results. An independent French investigation by Morin urged the claims of Pope Anastasius II (496-498).

of Civilization, New York, 1894; idem, The Struggle of the Nations, 1897; idem, The Passing o/ the Empires, 1900; J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, 3 vole., ib. 1894-1901 (gives the parallel development of Israel and the contemporary nations); F. Kaulen, Aseyrien and Babylonjen nach den neuesten Entdeckungen, Frei burg, 1899; L. B. Paton, Early History o/ Syria and Palestine, New York, 1901 (involves the history of As syria); G. S. Goodspeed, History of Babylonians and Assyrians, New York, 1902 (popular).

On special subjects: G. Smith, History of Assurbanipal, London, 1871; W. Lots, Die InwAriften Tiglath-Pilewrs I., Leipsic, 1880; E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften am Eingange der Quellgrotte des Sebeneh-Su, Berlin, 1885.(on the reliefs of Tiglath-Pileser I, Tiglath-Ninib, and Asshurnasirpal III at Sebneh); S. A. Smith, Die Keilachrifttezte Assurbanipals, Leipsic, 1887-89; H. Winekler, Die Keilaehrifttexte Sargons, ib. 1889; idem, Die Inschriften Tiplat-Pilesers 1., ib.1893; idem, Die Keilschr%fttexte Assurbanipals, ib. 1895; B. Meissner and P. Rost, Die Bauinschri/ten Sanheribs, ib. 1893; P. Rost, Die Keilechrif6 texts Tiglab-Pileaera ill., ib. 1893; D. G. Lyon, Die Keilschrifttexte Sarpons II., in Assyriolopiache Bibliothek, I, iv, ib. 1883; H. Winekler, Altorientalische Forachungen, lit series, ib. 1893 97, 2d series, 1898-1901, 3d series, 1902, in progress (I, i. 1893, on Ysudi; I, iv, 1898, on Muzri; I, vi, 1897, on the Cimmerians; II, i, on Esarhaddon; II, ii, 1898, on Tiglath-Pileser III); O. Weber, Sanherib Kbnip yon Assyrien, n Der alts Orient, ib. 1905; L. W. King, Records of the Reign o/ Tukulti-Ninib l., King of Assyria, London, 1904; F. Delitzsch and P. Haupt, Beitrage zur Asayriologis, ib. 1890-1908 (contains a series of treatises on special topics); on Muzri, Meluhha, and Main, cf. H. Winekler, in Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellecha/t, i and iv, 1898, Schrader, KA T, i, 140 eqq., and Winokler, Oeschichte Israeli, i, 150-153, 2 vols., Leipeio, 1895-1900.

On the religion: M. Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898 (revised ed., in German, issued in parts and still in progress. Berlin); J. A. Knudtzon, Aaabriache Gebets an den Sonnengott, Leipsio, 1894; G. Tasks, AltteetamendicAe Theologie, Hanover, 1904; A. S. Geden. Studies in Comparative Religion, London, 1898.

On the relations of Assyriology to the Old Testament: Schrader. KAT. and COT; B. T. A. Evetts. New Light on the Holy Land, ib. 1891; H. Winckler, AMeetamentliche Untemuchunpen, .Leipsic, 1892; A. H. Sayce, Higher Criticism and the Monuments, London, 1894; C. J. Ball, Light from the East, ib. 1899; T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the History . . . o/ Assyria and Babylonia, ib. 1902; H. Winckler, Keilinwhrifaiche Textbush rum Allen Testament, Leipsic, 1903; J. Jeremiss, Das Alle Testament dm Lic1Je des alien Orients, ib. 1904; F. DeHtzseh, Babel and Bibel, Leipsic, 1902, Eng. trawl., Chicago, 1908.

Journals of note containing valuable material are: ZA; Revue d'Assyrsolopie et d'Arehtolopie Orientals, Paris; prientaliache Litteraturzeitunp, Berlin; American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Chicago; Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London; Transactions and PSBA, ib. Consult also the literature under BABYLONIA.


ASTERIUS, as-tyre-us: Name of twenty-five writers mentioned in Fabricius-Harles (Bibliotheca Graca, ix, Hamburg, 1804, 513-522). The following axe the more important:

1. Asterius Urbanus: Montanist, editor of a collection of oracles used by the anti-Montanist mentioned in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xvi, 17.


BIRLIOGRAPHy: A NF, vii, 333-337 (contains introduction and Eng. trawl. of fragments); cf. Eusebius. Hitt. Eccl. by McGiffert, NPNF, 2d series, i, 232, note 27.

2. Asterius of Cappadocia: A teacher of rheto

ric, converted from paganism to Christianity. He

relapsed in the persecution under Maximianus (e.

305), and, notwithstanding the support of the semi

Arian party, could not afterward attain to ecclesi

astical dignities. Theologically he was a disciple

than, that attributed to Bruno of W tlrzburg (d.

W40-the so-called Expositio Fortu

3· Ancient nati. The latter, first published by

Commen- Muratori from the Codex Ambrosiantta

tarleL 79 (eleventh or twelfth century), was

ascribed by most of the earlier inves

tigators to Venantius Fortunatus (d. c. 600), and

regarded as the oldest evidence of the existence of

the Quicunque. At present there are sixteen ex-


Antis Atargatis THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG of Lucian of Antioch (see LUCuN THE MARTYR) and represented Arianism in a mild form. Accord ing to Jerome (De vir ill., xciv) he wrote commen taries on the Epistle to the Romans, the Gospels, and the Psalms. G. ]KROGER, BIBmoaRAPHy: T. Zahn. Marfsius van AncCyla, pp. 38 sqq.. Gotha, 1867.

3. Bishop of Petra in Arabia. He was originally a follower of Eusebius, but renounced the party at Sardica in 343, and was banished to Libya. In 362 he took part in the synod held at Alexandria.


4. Bishop of Amasia in Pontus from 378; d. before 431. He was a famous pulpit orator of the ancient Greek Church; of his homilies,. which have historical importance, twenty-one are wholly extant, and extracts from six others are given by Photius (codex 271). They are in MPG, xl.

G. KatfoER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. F. W. Paniel, PragnwWache Geachichte der chrietlicAen Beredaamkeit, i, part 2, 562-582, Leipeia, 1841· L. Koch, in ZHT, xli (1871), 77-107; DCB, i, 178; Krdger, History, p 367. ASTIE, as"tf', JEAN FREDERIC: Swiss Prot estant; b. at Nt:rac (65 m. s.e. of Bordeaux), Lot et-Garonne, France, Sept. 21, 1822; d. at Lausanne May 20, 1892. He studied at Geneva, Halle, and Berlin, went to the United States, and was pastor of a French church in New York from 1848 to 1853; from 1856 till his death he was professor of phi losophy and theology in the Free Faculty at Lau sanne. From 1868 he was joint editor of the Revue de TUologie et de Philosophic, published at Geneva and Lausanne. Besides polemical pamphlets, he wrote Louis Fourteenth and the Writers o f His Age, lectures in French delivered in New York, trans lated by E. N. Kirk (Boston, 1855); an account, in French, of the religious revival in the United States in 1857-58 (Lausanne, 1859); a history of the United States (2 vols., Paris, 1865); Esprit d'Alex andre Vinet (2 vols., 1861); Les Deux Thdologies nouvelles sans le sein du Proteatantisme frangam (1862); Explication de l1vangile selon Saint-Jean (3 vols., Geneva, 1864); Th6ologie allemande c4ntem Poraine (1874); Milanges de thdologee et de pltiloso phie (Lausanne, 1878); and published an edition of the Pensdes of Pascal (2 vole., Paris, 1857; 2d ed., 1882). ASTROLOGY AND ASTRONOMY. See STARK.

ASTRUC, as"trlic', JEAN: Roman Catholic; b. at Sauve (20 m. w.n.w. of Ntmes, department of Gard), Languedoc, Mar. 19, 1684; d. in Paris May 5, 1766. He was carefully educated by his father, who had been a Protestant pastor, but had been converted to Roman Catholicism; he studied also at Montpellier, where he received the degrees of M.A. and M.D. (1703), lectured at Montpellier, became professor on the medical faculty at Toulouse (1710); and at Montpellier (1717). In 1729 he became physician to King Augustus III of Po· land, returned to France in 1730 as physician to Louis XV, was professor at the royal college in Paris from 1731, and member of the medical faculty there from 1743. He was eminent in his profession and published several medical treatises of value.

The study of skin diseases led him to consider the Pentateuchal laws of the clean and the unclean; and this occasioned the work which entitles him to mention in a theological encyclopedia, a work which is regarded by many modern scholars as pointing out the true path of Pentateuchal investigation. It appeared anonymously (12mo, Brussels, 1753), with the title, Conjectures cur lea mdmoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyae seat aervi pour composer le livre de la G6nhe. Aveo des.remarques qui appuient ou qui klaircisaent ces conjectures, and consists of a preface (pp. 1-2), preliminary remarks (pp 3-24), the Book of Genesis and chapters i and ii of Exodus in French translation from the Geneva folio edition of 1610 arranged according to the supposed m6moires (pp. 25-280), the ° conjectures " proper (pp. 281-495), closing with an index of twenty-eight pages

That the Pentateuch is based upon older docu ments was no new idea. Astruc's originality con sisted rather in his assumption that these sources had not been recast, but had been pieced together, and in his attempt to reproduce the sources, follow ing as a clue the varying use of Elohim and Yahweh for the divine name. He thought that he dis covered traces of twelve documents, and made naive guesses at their authorship; as Amram the father and Levi the great-grandfather of Moses for Ex. i-ii, and what immediately precedes, respect ively; Joseph for his own story; Levi for the Dinah narrative (Gen. xxxiv); etc. He rightly perceives that his hypothesis explains the two ex pressions for the divine name, as well as repetitions and chronological difficulties. He also thinks that it vindicates Moses from the reproach of careless workmanship, since it is probable that originally he arranged the material in columns like the work of Origen or a harmony of the Gospels, and that negligent or ignorant copyists put it in consecutive form. The Mosaic authorship, Astruc considered established beyond possibility of doubt by pas sages such as John i, 45, v, 46. The fear that free thinkers would misuse his work deterred him from publishing it till his seventieth year; and he issued it then only on the assurance of a man " learned and very zealous for religion " that " far from being injurious to the cause of religion, it could only be helpful to it, because it would remove or clear up several difficulties which arise in reading the book and with the weight of which commentators have always been burdened" (Preface, p. 1). The title page bears the motto Avia Pierfdum peragro loco nullius ante trita solo (" Free through the muses' pathless haunts I roam, where mortal feet have never strayed," Lucretius, iv, 1). A German trans lation of the Conjectures, abridged, appeared at Frankfort in 1782, with the title Mutmassungen in Betre f j der Origintdfxrichte deren sick Moses wahr scheinlichenaeias bei Verfertigung des ersten seiner Bucher bedient. hat, nebat Anmerkungen toodurch dieae Mutmassungen theils unterstatzt theils erldtu tert werden. As a guaranty of his soundness in the faith, Astruo published immediately after the Con jectures a Dissertation sur l'immartaliU et sur l'im. mattrialitd de lame with a Dissertation cur la MertE (Paris, 1755). His Mftoirm pour aervird Mistoire


887 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA de la FaculM de m&decine de Montpellier were edited after his death with an historique by A. C. Lorry. (E. BBnxERt.)

BIBLIOGBAPBT: A. C. Lacy. Vie d'Aa(rue, in his ed. of As· truo's Mbnoires pour ssnnr d 1'hiatoire de is Paculte de m& dsoine de Moatp. Paris. 1887; A. Westphal. Lee Sources de la Pentakuque. 1. Le Probldms lift&vsire. p. 111 eqq.. Paris, 1888; C. A. Briggs, Study of Holy Baipturr, pp. 248. 250, 278 sqq.. New York, 1899.

ASYLUM, RIGHT OF: Among practically all nations is found an early belief that places dedicated to the service of divine beings acquire a sanctity which makes them inviolable places of refuge for people pursued by their enemies. Specific prescriptions for the carrying out of this principle are found in the Mosaic law (Ex. xxi,13; Deut. xix, 7-10). Certain temples among the Greeks had the same quality; and in Rome, where originally only special temples had been places of refuge for slaves, under the empire statues of the emperor were considered as affording protection, which the law definitely recognized in the case of slaves. In early Christian times the bishops possessed the privilege of interceding for accused persons or condemned criminals, who accordingly fled to the churches; but these were not considered inviolable asylums either by the ecclesiastical or by the imperial law. On the contrary, the latter definitely provided against abuses which had grown up in connection with this practise.

The right of asylum first received legal recognition for the West in 399; this was made more definite in 419, extended by Valentinian 111 (425-X55); and regulated by Leo I in 468. But Justinian restricted it in 535; and the final shape assumed by the Roman law was that certain defined classes of persons who might have taken sanctuary in the churches could not be removed against their will, while the bishops had the right, but not the duty, of allowing them to remain there. In the Germanic kingdoms forcible violation of an asylum was indeed forbidden; but the fugitive had to be surrendered, though he was exempted from the penalty of death or mutilation. In the Frankish kingdom the Deeretio Chlotharii (511-558) took a position in harmony with that of the Synod of Orleans (511); the surrender of the fugitive was only required on an oath being given to renounce the penalties just mentioned; but no secular punishment was provided for the violation of sanctuary, and the Carolingian legislation did away with this oath, while it denied the right of asylum altogether to those condemned to death. Under the influence of the Decretum Gratiani and other collections of decretals, the right of asylum was considerably extended; and this extension has been partly confirmed, partly revised by various papal decisions since the sixteenth century.

In general the right may be said to attach to churches and other buildings directly connected with them, to a certain amount of adjacent ground, to the whole enclosures of monasteries, to hospitals and similar pious institutions, and to episcopal palaces. The fugitive, whether judicially con demned or not, and even if he has escaped from prison, may not be repulsed or removed, even with his consent, by state officers. He may only be L-22

surrendered when what he has done comes under the head of a casus exceptus, such as murder, treason, robbery of churches, etc. The violation of sanctuary is sacrilege, and incurs excommunication ipso facto. The right of asylum, however, provoked a secular reaction after the sixteenth century, which in the eighteenth went as far as total abolition in some countries. This is now everywhere the case, though the Church holds to the right in principle. (E. FRIEDBERG.) BIBLIOGBAPHr: The fundamental book is Rittershusius,

'Ad",a, hoc sat, de furs asylorum, Strasburg, 1824. reprinted in Critaci Sacri, i. 249 -qq., best ed.. Amsterdam, 1898; S. Pegge, in Arrharolopia, vol. viii (published by the Society of Antiquaries, London, 1770 sqq., gives his. tory of Asylum in Great Britain down to James 1); Bingham, Origines, book viii, chap. xi; J. J. Altmeyer, .Du Droit d'asils en Brabant. Brussels, 1852; A. Bulwinoq, Das Asylrecht in serner pewAichtliawn Bntsickelunp, Doe . pat, 1853; C. R de Beaurepair4, L'Aaile relipisux daps i'empire romain et la monarchic fangawe, Paris, 1854; J. J, E. Proost, Hutoirs du droit d'asileredpieussn Belqique, Brussels, 1870; A St6ber, Recherches our to droit d'asile, Molhausen,1884; J. F. Stephen, History of Criminal Lam, vol. i, obap xiii, London, 1883; A P. Riessel, The Lam o/ Asylum in Israel, Leipsic, 1884; A. Gengel. AsykerU and Forstenmord, Frauenfeld, 1886; H. Lammasoh, Aus· lislerunpspflicht undAsylruU.Leipuc,1887; P. Hinechiu0. %irchenrecht, iv, 380, Berlin. 1888; N. M. Trenholm, Right of Sanctuary in England, University of Missouri, 1903.

ATARGATIS, at-dr-gr;'tis: A word which does not occur in the canonical Scriptures; but in II Mace. xii, 26 mention is made of " a temple of Atargatis " (Atargateion) as a place of refuge sought by the Arabians' and Ammonites who were defeated by Judas Maccubmus. This temple was situated in Carnion (cf. I Mace. v, 43-44), which is probably the same as the Ashteroth-Karnaim of Gen. xiv, 5. The supposition is natural that the place was an old seat of Astarte-worship, and some have even identified Atargatis directly with Astarte.

Support has been found for this view in the fact that a principal seat of the cult of Atargatis was Ascalon, and that Herodotus (i, 105) places there a temple of " the heavenly Aphrodite." This is not conclusive, for there may have been shrines of both goddesses in the same city, or-which is far more probable-the Aphrodite of the days of Herodotus may have been succeeded by Atargatis. She had there a famous shrine for several centuries before and after the Christian era. Mabug or Hierapolis, on the Euphrates, was an equally famous mat of her worship.

In connection with both temples fishes were kept sacred to the goddess, and at Ascalon she was represented as a sort of mermaid-a woman with the tail of a fish (Lucian, De dea Syria, xiv; cf. x1v). Various reasons are given for these customs. According to one form of the legends in Greek and Roman writers, Dereeto (the name Atargatis modified), having thrown herself into the water, was saved by a fish (Hyginus, Astronomic, if, 30); according to another version she was turned into a fish (Diodorus Siculus, ii, 4). The dove, which was sacred to Astarte, Aphrodite, and Venus, also figures in the same legends.

The only question of present importance is the connection between the cult of Atargatis and that of Astarte. That the connection was close is indioated prima facie by the fact that the Agar of



Atargatis is the contracted form of `Athtar, the Aramaic equivalent of Ishtar or Astarte (see AsH TORETH, § 2 ). Presumably Ataris here confounded with the name of another deity. A certain Palmyrene god AN or Atah is supposed to be the one in question, but his attributes are not sufficiently known to make the combination certain.

Although a wholly satisfactory explanation of the compound name is lacking, a plausible hypothesis as to the leading motive of the complex cult may be offered. After the political extinction of Semitism, and the consequent depreciation of IshtarAstarte (along with the decline of the complementary Baal-worship), it was found necessary to perpetuate some of the leading features of such a wide-spread and deep-rooted cult. The fertility and life-giving power of water was one of the most familiar of the conceptions of the world of thought and fancy of which Astarte was the center. This idea was in large measure suggested by the

h Title not Justified, Not an Ecumenical Creed (¢ 1). Not Athanasian (§ 2). II. History of Discussion. Parallels to the Athanasian (:reed Theories of Origin (§ 1). (¢ 5).

The so-called Athanasian Creed (Symbolism Athanasianum, also called, from its first word, Symbolum Quicunque) is an exposition of the catholic faith which, from the Carolingian period, in some places earlier than in others, began to be sung at prime every day throughout the Western Church. It was not then called a °` symbol " or creed; the passage in Theodulf of Orleans (De spiritu aancto, MPL, cv, 247) which was supposed so to designate it is corrupt, and Hincmar's reference to "Athanasius speaking in the creed " (De prtedestinatione, MPL, cxxv, 374) has been shown to refer, not to this, abut to the so-called Tides Romanorum (see _ below, II, § 5).

I. Title not Justified: None of the manuscripts of the ninth or tenth century, no certain quotation of this date, none of the old commentaries, call it a creed And even later, Thomas Aquinas expressly Bays that Athanasius wrote his exposition not in the manner of a creed but rather in that of a teacher's lesson (Summa, Ilb, 1, 10, 3). And he is right. Nothing was originally considered a creed, strictly speaking, but the baptismal profession of faith, and only a composition of similar structure could be accounted a creed, or more

properly, a form of the creed. The r. Not an Quicunque can not come under this

Ecumenical head; it is a theological exposition of Creed. the doctrines of the Trinity and the

Incarnation found in the creed. It is natural, however, that its use in public worship should approximate it in the popular mind to the Apostles' Creed used at baptism, and the Nicene used in the mass. As late as 1287, it is true, a diocesan synod at Exeter refers to the " articles of faith as they ate contained in the psalm Quicunque volt and in both symbols;" but in the thirteenth century the name of creed was not seldom applied to it. Durandus (d. 1296) says " the creed is three-

mysterious origin and fecundity of fish, the chief of water animals. These consequently figure very largely, along with other elements, in the cult of Atargatis, which replaced but did not supersede the worship of Astarte. See A6HTORETH.

J. F. MeCQRny.

Bmtroanwrar: J. Bolden, De dia Syria, ii, 3, London, 1017; F. C Movers Die PBn%afer, i, 584-600 Bonn, 1841 · K. B. Stark, Gaza and die philiatt<iaehe K ate, pp. 250255, Jenja, 1852; Derceto the Goddess of Ascalon, in the Journal of Sacred Literature, new aeries, vii (1865), 1-20; P. Scholz, Gbtzendienat uud Zauberweaen bet den allen Hebrgem, pp. 301-333, Regensburg, 1877; J. P. Six. in the Numismatic Chronicle, new aeries, aviii (1878), 102 eqq.; Hauvette-Besnault, in Bulletin de correapondance hellhnique, vi (1882), 470-503; L. Preller, RSmiache Mytho7opte, vol. ii, Berlin, 1883; W. Robertson Smith, in the English Historical Review, ii (1887), 303-317· F· Baeth· gen, BeitrtEge our aemitiaclien Rel%gionageachichte, pp. 8875, Berlin 1889; R. Pietachmann, Geachichte der Ph 8uizier, pp. 148-149, Berlin 1889; Scharer, Geachichte, ii, 23-24, Eng. travel., II, i, 13-14-and iii, 91-92; DB, i,194-195; EB, i, 379; Sith, Rol. of .Sam., 172-170.

ATHANASIAN GREED. Facts as to Manuscripts (§ 2). Ancient Commentaries (¢ 3). The Theory of Two Sources (¢ 4). III. Present Status. Attempted Conclusion (§ 1). Controversy in Anglican Church

fold;" and Alexander of Hales in like manner, writing in England about 1230, says, " there are three symbols, one of the apostles; one of the Fathers, which is sung in the mass; and the third, the Athanasian, which is sung at prime." Accordingly the Reformers, when their time came, had learned to receive these old confessions as " the three creeds " of catholic Christendom. They did not know that the Greek Church had neither the Apostles' nor the Athanasian, and the later Lutherans included all three as a universal heritage in their Corpus doctrince. So also Zwingli, the French and Belgic Confessions, and the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles expressly accepted the three creeds as ecumenical. But the Eastern Churches do not know the Athanasian as an authority, in spite of the assertion of the Russian theologian Macarius. Of the Reformed Churches, those which accept the Westminster Confession, while agreeing with its general teaching, do not accept it formally; the American Episcopal Church has dropped it from the prayer-book; the Churches of Puritan origin and the Methodists do not use it; so also the Swiss and French Reformed, to say nothing of the antitrinitarian bodies.

But the Athanasian Creed is not only not ecu menical; it is not even Athanasian· Since Ger hard Voss demonstrated this in 1642, the Athana sian origin of it has been practically abandoned by scholars, even those of the Roman Catholic Church. There are decisive grounds against it: a. Not Atha- it was composed in Latin-the Greek nasian. forms, which can be shown to be as late as the thirteenth century, are mere translations; Athanasius himself, as well as his biographers, know nothing of it-the Greeks men tion it first about 1200; and it expresses things of later origin, such as the final settlement of not only the Trinitarian but the Apollinarian and Christo-



logical controversies, the dogmatic formulas of Augustine, and the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit. The evidence of the manuscripts, too, is insufficient. Several of them give it without any author's name, and of the seven oldest commentaries only two mention Athanasius in the title and one in the introduction. Besides all this, it is not difficult to account for its attribution to Athanasius.

II. History of Discussion: But, however generally these facts are recognized, there is little positive agreement as to any other origin. The period of study of the subject which reaches from Vow to 1870 produced a bewildering variety of hypotheses. Voss himself conjectured that it grew up on Frankish soil under Pepin or Charlemagne, as a consequence of the controversies over the filioque; his contemporary, Archbishop Ussher, at:. Theories tributed it to an unknown author be-

of Origin. fore the middle of the fifth century; and Qtiesnel to Vigilius of Thapsus (c. 500), in which he was followed by Cave, Du Pin, and many others. Antehnius was for Vincent of Lerins (c. 430); Muratori for Venantius Fortunatus (d. c. 600); Lequien doubtfully suggested Pope Anaetasius I (d.401); Waterland, whose book is the most learned and authoritative of the older discussions, favored Hilary of Arles (d. 449); and Bperoni referred it to Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367).

A new period in the study of the subject opened with 1870, the impulse coming from England, where the creed is publicly recited in the Anglican liturgy on certain days, not without opposition. The commission for the revision of the Prayer-book in 1689 had recommended the insertion of a note explaining away the " damnatory clauses," and the question of its retention came up again before the Ritual Commission appointed in 1867, with no practical result except to stir up fresh interest in the creed and advance its study. Ffoulkes tried in 1871 to assign it to Paulinus of Aquileia (d. 802); Swainson published a learned, if not uniformly satisfactory, book in 1875, coming to the conclusion that it was a composite product, which assumed its present form between 860 and 870. Lumby's book, published in 1873, was in substantial agreement with Swainson, dating the crystallizing proem between 813 and 870. The theory of two sources was also accepted, with notable modifications, by Harnack in his DogmengeschiMte. He saw in the Trinitarian section an exposition of the Nicene Creed, growing up by degrees in Gaul from the fifth century and assuming its present form in the sixth; to this was added perhaps in the eighth or ninth the second half, about whose origin nothing can be certainly said except that it is older than the ninth century. Ommanney and Burn added new material but no new results. An independent French investigation by Morin urged the claims of Pope Anastasius II (496-498).

Of these hypotheses, those which point to Anar atasius I and II do not deserve serious consideration, even if they receive a specious attractiveness from the fact that some of the manuscripts (though the later ones) give the name, and a thirteenth century compilation treats 11 of the third symbol, that

of Pope Ansatasius "; but Morin himself admits that without this no one would ever have though of the theory, which has really no other support than

the stupidity of medieval copyists. 2. Facts as In order to form an opinion of the

to Menu- other theories, it is necessary to glance scripts. at the facts as to the manuscripts.

Down to 1870 eight were named as ancient, via.: (1) a psalter in the Cottonian Library, which Useher put in the time of Gregory the Great; (2) the Psalterium Aedheletani in the wane collection, dated by Ussher 703; (3) the Codex Cokertisus 784, dated by Montfaucon c. 750; (4) the Sangermanenaia, about the same age; (5), the Codex regius 4908, c. 800; (6) the Codex Colbertinus 1339, called Psauerium Caroli Calvi; (7 ) the Codex Ambrosaanus, which Muratori in 1697 thought to be over a thousand years old; (8) a psalter in Vienna, presented by a Frankish king Charles to a pope Adrian, thought by Waterland to belong to the first year of Adrian I (772). Recent investigations have altered the status of several of these. That supposed to be the oldest, the one named first above, lost after Uesher's time and rediscovered in 1871 in the so-called Utrecht Psalter, is now believed by experts to be of the ninth century, and thus not much older than (6), which was certainly written between 842 and 869. The second is now known to be a compilation of three pieces, that containing the creed being later than the ninth century. The fourth can no longer be used as a. basis for argument, since it is lost. The fifth may not be older than (6); and (8) is considered to belong to the time of Charles the Bald and Adrian II (867-872). Of all these manuscripts, then, only that numbered (7) above can be shown to be older than 800-as not only Muratori, Waterland, and Montfauoon believed it to be, but also such modern scholars-as Ceriani, Reiff®rscheid, and Krusch have maintained. Yet this is not the only one to place the origin further back, if only a little further, than 800. Two more must now be added: (9) Paris. 13,159, a psalter from Saint-Germain-des-Pr6s, not the same as (4), assigned on strong grounds to c. 795; and (10) Paris. 1451, a collection of canons dated with apparent probability 796. The manuscripts, then, place the date of the Quicunque at least as early as the end of the eighth century.

The same evidence is given by the oldest commentaxies. Waterland and the older students of the question knew of only one commentary older than,that attributed to Bruno of Wilrzburg (d.

1D45)-the so-called Exposaw Fortu- g. Ancient nati. The latter, first published by Commen- Muratori from the Codex Ambrosianus taries. 79 (eleventh or twelfth century), was

ascribed by most of the earlier investigators to Venantius Fortunatua (d. c. 600), and regarded as the oldest evidence of the existence of the Quicunque. At present there are sixteen extant manuscripts of this Expoaitio, besides three codices which give the bulk of it in the form of glosses.. Its ascription to Fortunatus, resting only on the comparatively late authority of the Codex Ambrosianus, and easily to be explained there by the fact that the codes begins with his exposition



of the Apostles' Creed, has now been abandoned. The only other author's name is offered by a lost manuscript from St. Gall, printed by Melchior Goldast in 1610, which calls it Euphronii presbyters expositio. Morin identified this Euphronius with the bishop of Tours of that name (555-572), who was well known to Venantius Fortunatus. Burn is inclined to see its author in Euphronius of Autun, who built the church of St. Symphorian there about 450. But this positive criticism is very hazardous in view of the number of anonymous manuscripts, to say nothing of the frequency of the name Euphronius in Gaul. A more important question is that of its date. An attempt has been made to decide this from the fact that the author explains the words in sceculo in section 31 of the creed (Schaff, Creeds, ii, New York, 1887, 68) by " that is, in the sixth millennium [sextum miliarium] in which we now are." This has been supposed to indicate 799 as the terminus ante quem; but no stress can be laid on this; peoplc spoke of the aextum miliorium, with Augustine, after 799 as well as before it. Just as little can be made of its supposed dependence on Alcuin for a terminus post quem, as Ommanney has shown. The only sure limit of date might be supposed to be given by the fact that the oldest manuscript (Bodleian. Junius 25) belongs to the ninth century -probably the beginning-were it not that a whole group of other ancient commentaries allow us to put the terminus ante quem further back. Ommanney has rendered a signal service to the investigation by the discovery of these, and Burn has followed independently. These are, in the order of the dates given by Burn: (2) the Expositio Parisiensis, certainly written between Gregory the Great and 900; (3) the Expositio Trecensis, assigned by Ommanney to the seventh, by Burn to the end of the eighth century; (4) the Expositio Oratorii, found in the same manuscript, dated by Ommanney about 700, by Burn a century later; (5) the Stahulensis, ninth century according to Burn; (6) the Buheridna, based on (4), and written, according to Ommanney, in the first half of the eighth century, to Burn, in the ninth; and (7) the Aurelianensis, first published in 1892 by Cuiseard, who attributes it to Theodulf of Orleans, while Burn is for an author of the middle or end of the ninth century. Now, of all these commentaries, only the Expositio Fortunati and the Trecensis (which in its first part is very dependent on the former), do not evidence a knowledge of the entire Quicunque. To be sure, Burn's dates-to say nothing of Ommanney's-are by no means certain. But none the less these commentaries are of great importance as helps to a decision of the difficult problem under discussion. The last-named, one of the latest (because dependent on three or four of the others), is preserved in a manuscript which Delisle assigns to the ninth century; and the Trecensia, used in the compilation of this, presupposes in its turn the Expositio Fortunati. This being so, it is not too bold a conclusion that the latter, everything about which shows it to be the oldest of them all, belongs to the period before 799. If this is granted, one may go a little further, and point out

that since its author says nothing about the approaching end of the sextum miliarium, he did not live very near that date.

Both the Expositio Fortunati and the Expositio Trecensis leave certain verses of the Quicunque without mention. Are we to conclude that the whole of it was not known to their authors? We have seen how far the testimony of the manuscripts supports the theses of Ffoulkes, Swainson, and Lumby; our Quicunque was definitely in existence before the end of the eighth century.

4. The But that does not in itself militate

Theory of against the acceptance of the theory of Two two sources; Harnack considers it

Sources. possible that both halves of our present creed were found in conjunction in the eighth century, or even earlier. We must there fore look further into that theory. Its main sup port is the manuscript referred to above as (3), the Codex Colbertinus 784 (now known as Paris. 3836), which all authorities agree to place in the eighth century, Swainnson dating it as early as 730. In this manuscript the Christological por tion of the Athanasian Creed (though with note worthy verbal variants) is found under the rubricated caption Hcec invini treveri's in uno libro scriptum sic incipiente Domini nostri Jesu Christi fuleliter eredot et reliqua. Now, assuming that the scribe copied exactly what he found in the Treves manuscript, Swainson, Lumby, and Hamack see in this teat, which goes well back into the eighth cen tury (possibly to 730), distinct documentary evi dence for the separate existence of the Christolog ical half of the Quicunque. But it does not seem to have been observed that the manuscript will not sustain this contention. The copyist put down in red ink, as his introduction, words which actually form a part of the verse which makes, in the com plete creed, the transition from the Trinitarian to the Christological section. The " Treves frag ment " is thus really a fragment-part of a whole whose first half stood in the same relation to our Quicunque as the extant second half. There is nothing surprising in this conclusion. That a preacher (and Swainson himself has noticed that this fragment is clearly a fragment of a sermon) should have undertaken to set forth " the faith," and then have spoken only of the Incarnation and not of the Trinity, would have been much more surprising. But the conclusion, if not surprising, is none the less weighty; for it takes both halves of the'creed distinctly further back than any of the manuscripts d6scribed above. We do not know how old the Treves manuscript was when the writer of Paris. 3836 copied it in 750 or 730; but there is room for a logical train of reasoning which leads to valuable results. It is obviously improb able that a copyist with a complete manuscript before him should copy only the last part, begin ning in the middle of a sentence; therefore the Treves manuscript (or its original) must have been defective. This train of thought gains in force when we notice that the " fragment " represents exactly a third of our Quicunque. On the assump tion that the two first pages of the original went down to incarnationem quoque, the third beginning



with Domini nostri Jesu Christi, the loss of the first part would fully explain the condition of Paris. 3836. It follows further that the Codex Treviren sia, already defective about 750, was more probably than not relatively old then, and the manuscript evidence actually confirms the supposition that the Treves fragment must originally have been preceded by something answering to the first section of the present Quicunque. The theory of two sources breaks down, therefore, at its strongest point-for the other arguments, from both external and internal evidence, are very weak.

But the interest of the Codex Paris. 3836 is not exhausted by its decisive evidence against the twosource theory, or by the remarkable text which it offers. It brings up the question whether the sermo contained in the Codex Trevirensis was taken from the Quicunque, or whether the latter in some way grew out of this and other like sermons. The Apostles' Creed in its simplicity was the standard of faith for the Western 5. Parallels Church at least, long after the Trinito the tarian and Christological controversies Athanasian had carried dogmatic development Creed. far beyond its simple words. Popular misconceptions of the meaning of those words had called for more precise definitions in numerous sermons on the creed still extant. To supply these is Augustine's aim in his Sermones de traditions symboli (212, 213, 214), which contain expressions reminding of the Quicunque. The same is true of the pseudo-Augustinian 244, attributed by the Benedictine editors and some modern scholars to Cwsarius of Arles; and whether or not he wrote it, it is a product of the Lerins school, in which similar formulas were current. Thus Vincent himself recalls our phrases in his Commonitorium (434), and other parallels are found in Faustus of Riez, abbot of Lerins 433-462, and in Eucherius of Lyons, who was a monk there from 416 to 434. But parallels of thought are to be expected wherever these traditional theologians discussed the Trinity or the Incarnation; and we need only mention here those authors who offer us not merely a parallel of thought but a close resemblance in phrasing outside of the consecrated formulas of definition. Besides Augustine, to whom, as has long been recognized, not a few phrases go back, and Vincent of Lerins, those who deserve especial mention are Vigilius of Thapsus (or the author who passes under his name), Isidore of Seville, and Paulinus of Aquileia. In the writings more or less doubtfully ascribed to Vigilius, especially the three books against Varimadus and the twelve on the Trinity, we find at least three sections (13, 15, 17) almost word for word, and a confession of faith-the so-called fides Romanorum -which touches the Quieunque rather in general structure than in details. Isidore, writing on the rule of faith, uses these similar expressions directly as an exposition of the Apostles' Creed. The oration of Paulinus at the Council of Friuli has led to his identification by Ffoulkes as the original author; in it expressions parallel to no less than twelve verses of the Quicunque occur. The fact that Paulinus was addressing a council reminds

us that many synodal confessions of faith had a life and an influence far beyond their original purpose, being adopted and copied as happy formulations of the faith. Thus the Council of Arles (813) adopted the Confession of Toledo (633), and many more examples might be given. The two most important of these confessions for our subject are those described in the newer investigations as fides Romanorum and symbolum Damasi. The latter (included under this obviously misleading title among the works of Jerome) is specially interesting not only because it reminds in several places of the Quicunque, and because it is closely related to the Toledan confession of 633, but also because a resemblance may easily be traced here and there to the Expositio Fortunati. Still more important is the other, which, under the title Fides catholica ecclesice Romance, can be traced in manuscript to the sixth century. It was cited as Athanasian by Hincmar and by Ratramnus in passages which used to be thought to refer to the Quicunque; its whole structure is worth notice-it begins with a Trinitarian section, reminding us of our subject, and this is followed by a Christological one, which, exactly as in the Quicunque and in the Toledan confession of 633, goes down to the last judgment.

III. Present Status: The question whether such expositions of the faith, or any of them, presuppose the existence of the Quicunque is the real question at the present stage of the discussion. If they do, its author must have lived very early; if they do not, its development forms only a part of the varied development of these expository formula's down through the ages. The decision for the first alternative would be easy if any of the theologians named above, before Paulinus, could be shown to have been acquainted with our Quicunque.

But this acquaintance is, for various

:. At- reasons, not probable in the cases of tempted Pauhnus, of Cxsarius of Arles, of Conclusion. Vincent of Lerins, of Vigilius of

Thapsus, or of Isidore. Many reasons, for which there is not space here, go to make us think further that the same thing applies to the writer of the Treves fragment; and, after all, the weight of evidence seems in favor of the second alternative mentioned. A long-continued and gradual process, in which the sermo Trevirensis is but one stage, seems the inevitable conclusion. Much remains to be done before the various steps of the process can be determined. But one of the most important data for this further research is the famous canon of the Council of Autun: " If any priest, deacon, subdeacon, or cleric does not receive the creed which has been handed down from the Apostles as inspired by the Holy Spirit and the creed of bishop St. Athanasius without criticism, he is to be condemned by his bishop." Waterland and the older investigators had reason to doubt its authenticity, which, however, modern research has confirmed. The council was demonstrably held under the presidency of Leodegar, bishop of Autun 659-683, but its date is not positively known; the best we can do is to assign it roughly to 670, as the middle of Leodegar's episcopate.

If, then, the Quicunque was ascribed to Atha.


Athanasian THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 342 Athanasius nasius about 670, a still earlier date for the conclu sion of its formation may well be looked for. The question how much earlier this may be involves the question of its birthplace-for productions were possible in seventh century Italy and Spain which were impossible in the contemporary Merovingian north. Italy is excluded by the fact that the copyist of the Codex Paris. 3836 was not familiar with the Quicunque; nothing speaks for Africa; and against Spain may be urged the fact that it seems to have been unknown there at a period later than that at which the canon of Autun shows it had begun to play an important part in the Frank ish regions. Besides this negative evidence for a Gallic origin, there is the positive one of the fre quent echoes of it in the fifth century theologians of southern Gaul. But if it grew up in France at all, it was not the Merovingian theologians who could give it its final shape; the place of this development is to be sought in the south of France, between c. 450 and 600--so that the sermo Trevi. rensis may very well belong to the fifth century. The new importance and significance which the document assumed in the Carolingian period does not require belief in a late authorship; it is suffi ciently explained by the fact that the Carolingian culture knew how to make full use of this heritage of the past, which had remained isolated and in operative in Gaul during the confusion of the Merovingian period. The Quicunque is no product of the early Middle Ages; it is a precipitate resulting from the early western development of expositions of the creed. But its history shows how in this process the theologians' exposition of the faith has been confounded with the faith itself to such an ex tent as to preclude its acceptance as a final authority by evangelical Christians. (F. Loon.) The Athanasian Creed is ordered to be recited at morning prayer in the Church of England, in place of the Apostles', on a number a. Contra- of greater festivals. In the anti versy in dogmatic period when the American Anglican revision of the Prayer-book was made, Church. it was wholly omitted; and the same sort of tendency to avoid positive expressions of strong belief, which might give offense to those who held different views, has caused attempts to be made at different times since 1867, if not to remove it from the English Prayer-book, at least to render its recitation optional, to omit the so-called " damnatory clauses," or by a retranslation to avoid the very possible misconstruction which might be placed upon them. Of this movement Dean Stanley was one of the principal leaders, and Canon Liddon, supported by a large number who dreaded any tampering with the standards of faith, was one of the principal opponents. The opposition has been so determined and vigorous that all propositions for a change have thus far been defeated. BIBLioanAP87: The text in six variant forms is in MPG, xxviii; in the Utrecht Psalter, London, 1875 (a facsimile ed. of the codex); d. T. Hardy, Reports on the Athanasian Creed in Connection with the Utrecht Psalter, its. 1873; and is edited by A. E. Burn, The Athanaaian Creed and its Early Commentaries, in TS, vol. iv, part 1, Cambridge, 1898; also to be found in Schaff , Creeds, ii, t10-71. For

the history of the creed consult: G. D. W. Ommanney, Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed, London, 1897 (critical and historical); D. Waterland, Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, Cambridge, .1723, revised ed. by J. R. King, London, 1870 (the fullest discussion, but in part antiquated); E. s. Ffoulkes, The Athanasian Creed, ib. 1871 (historical); C. A. Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica, Oxford, 1858; idem, The Athanaaian Creed, ib. 1872; Schaff, Creeds, i. 34-42; idem, Christian Church, iii, 689-698; G. Morin, Lee thipines du Symbols Quicunque, in Revue ales questions relipieuses, v (1891), No. 9; Harnack, Dogma, iv, 133 sqq., 156, v, 302303, vii, 174. For the debate in the Anglican Church consult: A. P. Stanley, The Athanasian Creed, London, 1871 (adverse to the use of the creed); J. s. Brewer, Origin of the Athanasian Creed, ib. 1872 (defensive); Memorials to the Primate and Petition to Convo cation . . . for Some Change either in the Compulsory Rubric or in the Damnatory Clauses, Chester, 1872; G. A. Willan, The Athanasian Creed not Damnatory, London, 1872; The Athanasian Creed; Suggestions . . by a lay Member of as General Synod, Dublin, 1876; C. A. Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles' Creed . . . with an Account of . . . "The Creed of St. Athanasius;" London, 1894 (historical and critical, but bearing on the Anglican discussion); F. N. Oxenham, The Athanasian Creed: Should it be Recitedf and is it Trust ib. 1902.

ATH"A-NA'SIOS PA-RI'OS: Dogmatician of the Greek Church; b. on the island of Paros 1725; d. at Chios June 24, 1813. He studied in the Athos academy under Eugenius Bulgaria, and from 1792 till 1812 was director of the school at Chios, which is the period of his most important activity. He belongs to the most prominent and fertile theological writers of the Greek Church of his time, and was also an able philosopher. A pupil of Bulgaria, in his opposition to the West he surpassed his master; he attacked with great energy not only the Roman Church and her scholasticism, and the Protestants, but also the western rationalism-the worst representative of which, in his eyes was Voltaire--particularly in its opposition to positive Christianity and monasticism. This explains his opposition to the desire of his people for liberty. Yet his historical judgment was so far influenced by Bulgaria, that in theology he recognized the more recent teachers of his Church, even Koressios, as " fathers," and seemingly made concessions to Biblical criticism. But Western science he used only when he attacked his opponents. His polemical disposition sometimes placed him in opposition to his own Church. By his connection with the Athos community he became involved in the Kolyba-controversy (am ATaos), and wrote his "Exposition of the Faith" in 1774. In 1776 he was excommunicated, but the ban was removed in 1781. His principal work is an " Epitome or Summary of the Holy Dogmas of the Faith" (Leipsic, 1806), in which he shows his dependence on Bulgaria, but at the same time so much independence of thought that this epitome may be regarded as one of the most important dogmatic efforts of the Greek Church of the eighteenth century. The sources of doctrine are, according to him, the Holy Scripture, written tradition, and the teaching of the Church as fixed by the synods. The work of Christ he treats under the headings of king, priest, lawgiver, and judge. In the doctrine of the Lord's Supper he accepts transubstantiation. He opposes rationalism in his "Christian Apology" (Constantinople, 1797), attacking especially the


343 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Athanasian Athanasiun false freedom and the false equality of the French, and renouncing all sympathy with the Greek struggles for freedom. Against Voltaire especially he directed the "Antidote for Evil," which was pub lished after his death (Leipsic, 1818). Of his hagiographical works the most noteworthy were lives of Gregorios Palamas (Vienna, 1785), and of Marcus Eugenicus (1785), which have little inde pendent value. In the " New Limonarium " (Venice, 1819) he gives many marvelous stories and biog raphies of modern saints. Very interesting is a treatise at the beginning of the book, in which he tries to show that those who were condemned as Christians because of a renunciation of Islam are just as much martyrs as those of the ancient time. Athanasioa was also active as a preacher. A discourse on Gregorios Palamas, printed after the Logoi of Makarios Chrysokephalos (Vienna, 17977) is a brilliant combination of popular elo quence and fanatical rhetoric. PmLlpp MEYER. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A biography, trustworthy in the main, with a list of his writings, by his pupil, A. Z. Mamukas, is given in C. N. Bathas, NeoelU,wwq OwAoAoyia. Athens, 1888; consult also P. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden der dthoaNdater, pp. 78 sqq., 238 eqq., Leipsic, 1894. ATH"A-NA'SIUS. Fourth and Fifth Exiles (¢ 5). Early IN. Chosen Bish- Relations with Monasti- op 328 (§ 2). ciam (1 8). The Arian Controversy. II. Writings. First Exile (¢ 3). His Works in Chronological Second and Third Exiles. Order (§ 1). ($ 4). His Teaching (¢ 2).

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was born apparently at Alexandria 293; d. there May 2, 373. His fame is due solely to his unswerving and self-sacrificing opposition to the Arian heresy, and some account of his life, with a statement of his views, is given in the article ARIAND3M. A few facts will be added here, and an account of his literary activity attempted.

I. Life: The principal sources for the biography of Athanasius are the numerous documents bearing on the great Arian controversy which have been preserved, and his own works, which are rich in biographical material,-especially his " Apologies " (" against the Arians," " to Constantine," and "for his Flight ") and his " History of the Arians for Monks."

The oration on Athanasius by Gregory Nazianzen (xxi, NPNF, 2d ser., 269-280; dating from 3807) is a mere panegyric without much biographical value. The biographies r. Sources. prefixed to the Benedictine edition of his works are later than the fifth century historians and quite worthless. Of greater importance are two sources not known to the seventeenth century editor of his works. These are the fragment published by Maffei (1738) of the so-called Hfatoria acephala, written between 384 and 412, and the preface to the"Festal Letters "of Athanasius which are preserved in a Syriac version (ed. Cureton, Mai). Both of these come apparently from a single older source, and are very careful in their chronology, so that since they have been known the dates given by Socrates and Sozomen have often to be corrected.

I. Life. Sources (§ 1). Some difficulties still remain; but a careful comparison of these authorities enables us with reasonable security to fix the data of Athanasius's consecration at 326, and, with the help of a re cently discovered fragment of a Coptic " ° Enco mium," written by a contemporary of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 412), to put his birth back to 293. Of his life up to 326, however, we still know very little. He seems to have been an Alexandrian; that his parents were Christians is

not proved. The traditional story of a. Early his playing at "church" as a boy and, Life. Chosen in the character of a bishop, so correctly Bishop 326. baptizing some catechumens that Bish-

op Alexander (313-326) recognized the validity of the baptism, and took the lad under his care, is worthy of its first narrator, Rufinus; the chronology is sufficient to condemn it. Devoting himself, however, to a clerical life, he served (according to the Coptic " Encomium ") six years as reader; by the outbreak of the Arian controversy he was already a deacon, and in close relations with the aged bishop Alexander, perhaps as his amanuensis. This would account for Alexander's taking him to the Council of Nima, sad perhaps for Sozomen's story that he designated him as his successor. At any rate, Athanasius was chosen to this office on Alexander's death (326), and was received with enthusiasm by the great majority of his flock. His opponents early asserted that he was chosen bishop by a minority and consecrated secretly; but this is disproved by the evidence of the Egyptian bishops assembled in council in 339.

The position was by no means an easy one. The Meletian schism (see MELETIU6 OF LycoroLls) had rent the Egyptian Church in two; and, although the Nicene decisions had opened the way for a termination of the schism, the manner in which this came about did not preclude the continuance of strife as to the validity of the orders of the Meletian clergy. Athanasius had scarcely been consecrated when these disturbances broke out anew, complicated by the enmities aroused by his decided anti-Arian attitude.

At the instance of Eueebius of Nicomedia, the leader of the semi-Ariane (see EU6EB1U6 OF N1co-


3. The emperor demanded the readmission Arian Con- of Arias into the Church; but Atha-

troversynsaius stoutly refused his consent, First Exile. and immediately the storm broke

(see ARIANIBM, I). He was summoned before the emperor, who was at that time in Nicomedis, and accused of conspiring to prevent the export of grain from Egypt to Constantinople. Only after long and wearisome exertions did he succeed in proving his innocence. Immediately after his return, new accusations were brought against him; it was said that he had killed a Meletian bishop, Araenius, and used his bones for magical acts. An investigation was ordered, and a synod summoned to meet at Ceesarea (334). Athanasiue refused to appear; and the investigation came to a natural end on the discovery that Arsenius was alive. Eueebius, however, still had the emperor's ear, and Athanasius was summoned to appear at


ethsassius THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 344

a synod in Tyre. He left Alexandria July 11, 335, but found at Tyre that the council had made up its mind to condemn him, and repaired to Constantinople, where he succeeded in convincing the emperor of the unfairness of the synod. Constantine saw in him, none the less, an obstacle to peace, the maintenance of which seemed the most desirable thing, and banished him to Treves toward the end of the year. Constantine died May 23, 337, and Athanasius's first exile ended with his return to his diocese, Nov. 23 of the same year, his entrance into the city being, according to Gregory Nazianzen, " more triumphal than had ever an emperor."

The opposition and intrigues still continued, however; the enemies of Athanasius accused him of having sold and employed for his own use the corn which the late emperor had destined for the poor widows of Egypt and Libya. A synod of African bishops declared in his favor, but as Constantius was influenced by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and as the prefect of Egypt, Philagrius, wanted the

4. Second see for a countryman of his own, Gre$- and Third ory of Cappadocia, he was driven into Exiles. his second exile March 19, 339, and Gregory was installed by military force at Easter. Athanasius went to Rome, where he was well received by Pope Julius, and later to Gaul to confer with Hosius, whom he accompanied to Sardica to take part in the famous .council held there (343?). After spending some time at Naissus in Dacia, at Aquileia, and in Gaul (where he met Conatans, whose influence with his brother was exerted in his favor), he finally appeared once more before Constantius, and obtained permission to re turn. Gregory died June 25; 345, and was not replaced; and Athanasius was able to resume his jurisdiction Oct. 21, 346. After the death of Con stans (Jan., 350), his position once more became unsafe; and the end of a long series of intrigues and machinations was that the " Duke " Syrianus surrounded the church of St. Theonas with 5,000 sol diers to arrest him on the night of Feb. 8, 356. He escaped, and fled the next day, finding refuge dur ing this his third exile among the monks and her mits of the desert, though for a part of the time he lay concealed within the city, and by his wri tings continued to encourage his faithful followers. On Feb. 24, 357, another Cappadocian, George, was made bishop, and as many as possible of the ecclesiastical offices were filled by Arians. George, however, was able to maintain himself for only eighteen months, and then, after a three years' absence, was imprisoned three days after his return, and put to death in the disturbances which fol lowed the death of Constantius. The new emperor, Julian the Apostate (361-363), issued an edict permitting the exiled bishops to return to their sees, hoping thus to increase the confusion in the Church, to the profit of the paganism which he was bent on restoring. The third exile of Atha nasius thus ended Feb. 21, 362.

But a fourth exile followed shortly. The new emperor's counselors found Athanasius too dangerous a man for their plans, and Julian issued a special edict commanding him, as he had returned to

Alexandria without personally receiving permis sion, to leave it at once (Oct. 24, 362). He remained in concealment in the deserts of the Thebaid until he heard of Julian's death (June 26, 363), when he returned to Alexandria 5. Fourth (Sept. 5), though only to pass through and Fifth on his way to see the new emperor, Exiles. Jovian, at Antioch. Jovian received him kindly, and his fourth exile was definitely terminated by his return on Feb. 20, 364. Jovian's death after only eight months brought fresh trouble to the orthodox. An edict of Valens (May 5, 365) reversed Julian's recall of the exiled bishops; and on Oct. 5 the prefect Flavianus broke into the church of St. Dionysius and compelled Athanasius to flee once more. He remained at a villa in the neighborhood of the city, until Valens found the discontent in so im portant a place as Alexandria dangerous, and made a special exception in favor of Athana sius, who was able to return Jan. 31, 366. The last seven years of his episcopate were undis turbed.

The refuge of Athanasius among the monks and hermits of the desert during his third and fourth periods of exile leads up to a point which needs special mention-his relations with monasticism. Athanasius was not only the father of orthodoxy in the East, but also the first bishop to take an active part in encouraging the mo-

6. Rela- nastic life. This assertion is so far tions with from being founded on the "Life of Monasti- Anthony " alone that it would still be cism. demonstrable if his authorship of that work were less certain than it is. From an early period he was in close relations with Egyptian monasticism. When the assem bled bishops in 339 designate him as " one of the ascetics" (referring to the motives which led to his election), it may mean no more than that he belonged to the large number in the Christian community who practised the ascetic life in varying degrees, without retiring from the world. We can not say whether his personal inter course with Anthony (d. 356) occurred altogether after he was a bishop or partly before. But he came early in his episcopate into contact with Pachomius (d. 345), who came out with his brethren to greet their new bishop when he undertook a visitation of the Thebaid between the Easters of 328 and 329. Lasting relations with this colony were kept up by means of the yearly visits of deputations of the monks to Alexandria for the purpose of making necessary purchases. Par chomius is reported to have said that there were three sights specially pleasing to the eyes of God in the Egypt of his time-Athanasius, Anthony, and his own community of monks. Athanasius knew Theodore, the successor of Pachomius, and visited him in his desert retreat at Phboou probably in 363, for which year we have evidence of a journey as far south as Antinoea and Her mopolis. So well known were these relations that an imperial officer sent by Constantius to appre, hend him in 360 searched for him, though in vain, at Phboou. When Theodore died (368), Athanasius



wrote his successor a letter of warm sympathy. These long and intimate relations with Egyptian monasticism support the assertion of Jerome (Epist., cxxvii) that the Roman lady Marcell& first heard through Athanasius, in 341, of Anthony, Pachomius, and the ascetic communities of the Thebaid. If, however, he rendered monasticism a service by calling to it the attention of the western world, he did even more for it by successfully combating the tendency which it showed at first to form a caste apart from, and to some extent in rivalry with, the clergy; he was also the first (at least in the Church of the empire) to promote monks to the episcopate--a point of great importance to the later development of the Eastern Church.

II. Writings: Athanasius ranks high as an author-though it may be doubted whether he would have attained so high a place had it not

i. His been for the epoch-making war which Works in he waged upon Arianism. Of pure Chronolog- learning he had not much, or else it

ical Order. was put in the background by the more absorbing interests of his life. Isis most important works were written for some special purpose of the moment; and they may therefore be best considered in their chronological order, the more that any classification of them is prac tically impossible. The editors of his works place first the two connected treatises " Against the Heathen" and "On the Incarnation" These have until recently been considered as a product of Athar nasius's youth (c. 318); but some recent critics (Schultze, DrAseke) have attempted to deny his authorship and to assign them to the middle of the fourth century. The grounds given for this opinion are unconvincing, although the date may be brought down as late as 325. Next follow the oldest of the "Festal Letters" (329-335 and 338-339); of the later ones only short fragments have been preserved, either in Greek or Syriac-among them part of the 39th, which is important for its bearing on the New Testament canon. Up to 348 the only things that can be surely dated are the "Encyclical Letter," written soon after Easter, 339, and the dis cussion of Matt. xi, 27 (probably incomplete), be longing to a time before the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia. But with the collection of documents known as the " Apology against the Arians " (be tween 347 and 351) begins a long series of works more important for the history of the period, and at the same time more certainly to be dated. These are the "Defense of the Nicene Council" (probably 351); the "Defense of Dionysius" soon after; the "Letter to Dracontius" (Easter, 354 or 355); the "Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya " (between February of 356 and the same month of 357); the "Apology to Constantius" (probably summer of 357); the "Apology for his Flight," a little later;. the "History of the Arians for Monks" (end of 357 or beginning of 358); the "Letter to Serapion on the Death of Arius " (358); the four " Letters to Serapion," decisive for the doctrine of the consubatantiality of the Holy Ghost (during the third exile); "On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucib." (end of 359); the "Book to the Antiochians" (362); the "Letter to Jo-

vian" (364); the " Letter to the Africans" (probably 369); and about the same time, after the Roman synod of 369 or 370, the " Letters to Epictetus," "to Adelphus," and "to Maximus the Philosopher," so weighty for the controversies of the fifth century. We have not mentioned in this enumeration a few important works whose date can not be certainly determined, as well as a large number of smaller letters, sermons, and fragments. To the former class belong the "Life of Anthony," whose genuineness has been disputed of late years on insufficient grounds; the " Four Orations against the Arians," which have by many been considered the dogmatic masterpiece of Athauasius (usually dated in the third exile, but for various reasons more probably to be assigned to a much earlier date, say, 338 or 339); the fragmentary " Longer Sermon on the Faith,"and the " Statement of Faith," both of which seem fairly assignable to the earliest period of Athanasius's authorship. Owing to his fame, it is not to be wondered at that a large number of works were ascribed to him which have since been classed as doubtful or certainly not his. For the famous exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which passes under his name, see ATHANABIAN CREED.

As to the teaching of Athanasius, especially in regard to his Christology, consult the article AxueNisM; some further discussion

2. His of his views on the human nature of Teaching. Christ, which deserve a more thorough examination than they have ever received, will be found under NEsToxrus. It is the opinion of Harnack that the doctrine of Atha nasius is identical with that of Alexander and underwent no development. But it would be diffi cult to prove that the teaching of the two is really identical, at least on the basis of the writings of Athanasius from the "Defense of the Nicene Coun cil " on; and perhaps as hard to show that his views did not develop as time went on. It is more probable (though the question needs mere thorough investigation) that he began by simply accepting Alexander's teaching, and then struck out a path of his own. His terminology, in ques tions of Christology, demonstrably changes. The earlier works, like those of Alexander, do not use the word which became the crucial test of ortho doxy, homoousim; even in the main thesis of the "Statement of Faith" homoios toi patH is found, though homoousios occurs in the expla nations, but with an express caution against a Sabellian meaning. The same impression is strengthened by the " Orations against the Ariaas," written after he had spent some time in banishment at Treves; it is probably an already visible effect of his contact with western thought that we get a slightly different terminology-but the influence of the older phrases, which he gave up later, is still clearly marked; he employs the word homo ousios, which his opponents rejected as unscriptural, only once in passing, and uses homoios several times to denote the generic identity of substance between the Father and the Son. In short, in these "Ora tions" Athanasius's terminology is in a transi tional stage, not free from uncertainty. Later,


Athanasius THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 348 Athenagoras he got over his concealed dread of the term homo ousios, though without giving up the assimilation of ousia and hypostasis, as to which he was evi dently uncertain in the" Orations." In fact,his la ter homoottaios is scarcely distinguishable from mono ousios, and the earlier homoios [tes ousim] no longer sufficed him. If we ask the origin of this change between 339 and 343-352, it will be obvious that we can not neglect to think of his sojourn in the West from 339 to 348, and his intercourse with Mareellua. Further evidences of development may be found in his teaching as to the manhood of Christ. If, however, his change of attitude to ward the Homoousians, his condemnation of Basil of Aneyra, etc., show that he was capable of de velopment, it need not be taken as a reproach. He knew better than many of his contemporaries how to separate the fact, as to which he never wavered, from the formulas employed to describe it; his convictions were fixed early, but to the end of his life he never obstinately asserted the complete ness of the phrases he had chosen to express them. Through evil report and good report, through the many changes of a long and eventful career, he maintained indisputably his title to the respect which we give to love of truth and honesty of mind. (F. Loon.) BIHLIoaaAPHY: The Benedictine ed. of the works was printed in 4 vole., at Padua, 1877; again at Paris, 1899, ed. B. de Montfaucon; in MPG, xxv-xxviii; and in A. B. Cail lau. Patres Apostolici, xxx-xxxii, Paris, 1842-43. The dogmatic treatises are accessible in the ed. of J. E. Thilo, Leipsic, 1853. Editions or translations of selected works are: Bistorical Tracts and Treatises in Controversy with the Arians, in L%Wrary of the Fathers, viii, ix, xiii, and xxviii, 1843; Contra Gentes, ad. H. von Hurler, in Collectio opusculorum sanctorum pabum, xliv, Innsbruck. 1874; Select Treatises, tranel. by J. H. Newman, 2 vols., Lon don, 1881; Historical Writings td. from the Benedictine Text, by W. Bright. Oxford, 1881; Dialogue of Athanasius and Zaochcaus, ed. F. C. Conybeare, in Anscdota Oaoniensia, part 8, ib. 1882; Orations Against the Arians, ed. W. Bright, with a life, ib. 1873, reissued in Ancient and Modern L Zrmy of Theological Literature, 1887; Select Writings and Letters, tranal. with prolegomens, inNPNF, iv; and De Incarnations Verbi Dei, tranel. with notes by T. H. Bindley, London 1903. Especially noteworthy is the edition of the long lost Posing Letters, by W. Cureton from a Syriac manuscript, London, 1853, Eng. tmnal. by H. Burgess, Oxford, 1854 His life. from early sources, in in ASS, May, i, 188-258, cf. 75(1-782 and vii, 548 547; consult the biographies by P. Barbier, Paris, 1888; R. W. Bush, London, 1888; and H. R. Reynolds, ib. 1889 (" lucid and able "). For his writings and teaching consult J. A. Moehler, Athanasiue der Groan and die %irrhe ninsr Zeit, Mains, 1844 (Roman Catholic); H. Voigt, Die Lehre des Athanasius, Bremen, 1801; F. Boeh ringer, Athanaaiue and Aries, odor der orate groans Kampf der Orthodoxis and Haterodoxie, Stuttgart, 1874 (Protestant, in his familiar series); E. Fialon, St. Athanase, nude lit Mraira, Paris, 1877; L. At:berger, Die Lopoalehre des Athanasius, ihrs Gepner and V orloufer, Munich, 188o; G. A. Poll, Lehm des Athanasius von der Sands, Passau, 1888 (Roman Catholic, " difficulties not always faced "); W. Bright, Lessons front the Lives of Three Great Fathers. New York, 1891; P. LaugherE, Die Lehr@ des heilipsn Afhanasiua, Leipsic, 1895; B. Hose, Studien fiber Schrifb tun and T heolopis des Athanaaius Freiburg, 1899; Harnack, Dogma. Panim (consult Index), 7 vols., Boo ton, 1895-1900 (important, very detailed); L. L. Pains, Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianisn Boston, 1900 (brilliant, deals with the position of Athanaeive respecting homoousianism); W. F. Fraser, A Cloud of Witnesses to Christian Doctrine, third series, Against Arianism, part 1, St. Athanasius, London, 1900; L. H. Hough, Athanaatur the Hero, Cincinnati, 190&

ATHEISM: A term employed with some variety of connotation. Sometimes it is taken purely negatively and applied to every point of view which does not distinctly assert the existence of God, or

order the life in view of his claims upon Different it. In this application it is broad

Uses of the enough to include not only such sysWord. tems as Agnosticism and Secularism

(qq.v.), but even that simple forgetfulness of God which is commonly known as " practical atheism." Sometimes, on the other hand, it is given a distinctly positive sense, and made to designate the dogmatic denial of the existence of God. Even when it is so understood, however, it has a wider and a narrower application, dependent on the meaning attached to the term " God," the denial of which constitutes its differentiation. In its narrowest sense, it is confined to those theories which deny the existence of all that can be called God, by whatever extension or even abuse of that term. In this sense it stands over against Pantheism or Fetishism, as truly as over against Theism; and takes its place alongside of this whole series of terms as designating .a distinct theory of the universe. In its widest sense, on the contrary, it receives its definition in contrast with, not a vague notion of the divine, but the specific conception of Theism, and designates all those systems, differing largely in other respects, which have in common that they are antagonistic to a developed Theism. In this application, Atheism is synonymous with Antitheism, and includes not only Pantheism (q.v.), but even Polytheism, and, with some writers, Deism itself,-all of which fail in some essential elements of a clear Theism. Most commonly the term is employed by careful writers either in its narrowest sense, or else in the somewhat broadened sense of the denial of a personal God. Between these two definitions choice is not easy. All depends on our definition of God, and what we are prepared to admit to involve recognition of him. From the point of view of developed Theism all that can be thought God is denied when a living personal God, the creator, preserver, and governor of all things is disallowed; it is inevitable, therefore, that from the standpoint of Theism, Atheism should tend to receive one of its more extended connotations. It may be truer to the historical sense of the term, however, to take it in its narrowest sense and to treat it as designating only one of the Antitheistic theories, and as standing as such alongside of the others, from which it is differentiated in that it denies the validity of the notion of God altogether; while the others allow the possible or actual existence of the divine in one or another sense of that term.

The question which has been much discussed, whether Atheism is possible, depends for its solution very much upon its definition. That negative Atheism, especially in the form of °° practical atheism," is possible, is evident from its persistent appearance in the world. Whether men may be totally ignorant of God or not, they certainly can very completely ignore him. And if the great atheistic systems like Buddhism and Confucianism have not been able to preserve the purity of their Atheism, no more have the great theistic


347 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Athanasdus athenagoras

systems-Mohammedanism, Judaism, Christianity itself-been able to eliminate " practical atheism" from among their adherents. It is

The Possi- equally idle to deny the possibility of bility of positive Atheism in its wider sense, in

Atheism. the face of the great part which has been played in the world by the var ious forms of Pantheism, which not only underlies whole systems of religion but is continually inva ding with its leaven the most austere and complete systems of Theism. It is only in its narrowest sense, in which it is the denial of all that is called God or that is worshiped, that the possibility of Atheism can be brought into question, and then only when we regard it, not in its outward expression, but in the most intimate convictions of the heart. No one can doubt that portentous systems of reasoned Atheism have flourished in the bosom of the most advanced culture. As little can. it be denied that, among the backward races, a very low order of religious conception may sometimes be discov ered. It may well be contended, however, that even the most thoroughly compacted system of atheistic thought only overlies and conceals an in stinctive and indestructible " sense of the divine," just as the most elaborated system of subjective idealism only insecurely covers up an ineradicable realism; and that it is this innate " sense of the divine " which we see struggling in the conceptions of low savages to express itself in the inadequate forms which alone a low stage of culture can pro vide for it. If this is all that is meant, Atheism is, no doubt, a condition impossible to man. Man differs from the lower creations, not in being less dependent than they, but in being conscious of his dependence and responsibility; and this conscious ness involves in it a sense of somewhat, or better, some one, to which he is thus related. The expli cation of this instinctive perception into an ade quate conception is a different matter; and in this explication is wrapped up the whole development of the idea of God. But escape from the appre hension of a being on whom we are dependent and to whom we are responsible is no more possible than escape from the world in which we live. God is part of our environment. The history of reasoned Atheism is as old as the history of thought. There can be no right think ing unless there be thinking, and it is incident to thinking among such creatures as men History of that some may think awry. In all Atheism. ages, accordingly, the declaration has found its verification that those who have not liked to retain God in their knowledge he has given over to a reprobate mind. India and China both early gave birth to gigantic atheistic systems. The materialism of classical antiquity found its expression especially in the Atomists Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius. The unbelief of the eighteenth century ran to seed in the French Encyclopedista--De la Mettrie, D'Hoibach, Diderot, Lalande--and embodied itself in that Systems de la Nature which Voltaire called the Bible of Athe ism. In the nineteenth century the older mate rialism strengthened itself by alliance, on the one hand, with advancing scientific theory, and, on the

other, with the increasing social unrest; and Atheism found expression through a series of great systems-Positivism, Secularism, Pessimism, Socialism. The doctrine of Evolution (q.v.), which was given scientific standing by Darwin's Origin of Speaim (1859), became almost at once the prime support and stay of the atheistic propaganda. In every department of thought " evolution " is supposed to, account for everything, while itself needing no accounting for. Men as widely unlike in everything else as Feuerbach, Strauss, Flourens, Czolbe, Duehring, Vogt, Buechner, Moleschott, Maildnder, Haeckel, Nietzsche, have united in a common proclamation of dogmatic Atheism; and probably in no period since the advent of Christianity has positive Atheism been proclaimed with more confidence or accepted more widely.


Bat:oaasmr: R. Flint, Antitheiatic Theories, Edinburgh, 1880 (gives literature in Appendix 4); J. Beattie, Eroidenoes of the Christian Religion. 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1788 (contains a bibliography); J. Buchanan, Faith in God and Modern Atheism Compared, Edinburgh, 1855; Modern Atheism under its Forms of Pantheism, MaterWism, Secalariam: Development and Natural Laws. Boston. 1856; Paul Janet, Le Mat6raalime contemporain, Paris, 1864; F6lix Dupanloup L'Afhhame d k pkil social, Paris, 1866; It. M6rio, Morale el atlJieme contemporaine, Paris, 1875; J. 8. Blaelde, Natural History of Atheism, London, 1877 (keen and discriminating); J. Cairns, Unbelief in the $ipkteentA Century, London, 1881; E. Naville, Le Piro CEleate. Geneva. 1866, EnB. tranal., Modern Atheism or the Heavenly Father. London, 1882 (philosophical); F. W. Hedge, Atheism in Philosophy, Boston. 1884; W. H. Mallook, Atheism and do Value of Life, London, 1884; H. H. Moore, Anatomy of Atheism in dis Light of Ow Laws of Nature, Boston, 1890; A. Egger, Der Agisismus, Einsiedeln, 1901 (evangelical); F. Is Danteo, L'Athlisme, Paris, 1906.

ATHEliAGORAS, ath"e-nag'o-ras: Reputed author of two Greek treatises of the time of the Antonines, one on the resurrection, the other an apology for the Christians. He is entirely unknown to the tradition of the Church. Eusebius, Jerome, and their successors are silent, and, as the survey which Eusebius gives of the apologetic literature of the second century is very complete, his silence could not fail to attract attention. Very early the existence of an apologist of the name was doubted and the work was ascribed to Justin (of. Baronies, Annolea, ii, ad an. 179, chap. xxxix). This supposition, however, is from internal reasons untenable. The first testimony, and the only one from the third century, to the existence of the apology and the name of its author, is a quotation by Methodius, found (1) in the ancient Bulgarian translation (ed. Bmwetmch, i, 293); (2) in Epiphanius, Hmr., lxiv, 20, 21; (3) in Photius, BiN. cod. 234 (cf. Athenagorm, Supplscatio, xxiv, p. 27 B). Certain notices by an unknown scribe (Cod. Baroee. 142, fol. 216) quoting from the " Christian History " of Philippus Sidetes (early in the fifth century) state that Athenagoras was an Athenian by birth, and first director of the aatechetical school of Alexandria; he lived in the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius; like Celaug, he was occupied with searching the Scriptures for arguments against Christianity, when he was suddenly converted. Most of these notices, however, are palpably erroneous. Yet, in spire of the entire absence of tradition and the close raem-



blance to the apology of Justin, the date of the work must be placed somewhere in the second century. It is addressed to the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, and various passages indicate the period between 176 and 178. After an introduction (i-iii) the author refutes the chief calumnies urged against the Christians in that day, viz., that they were atheists (iv-xxx), and that they ate human flesh and committed the most horrible crimes in their assemblies (xxxi-xxxvi). In the treatise on the resurrection, Athenagoras argues in its favor from the goodness, wisdtim, and power of God, together with the natural constitution of man. (A. HARNACg.)

BIBwodaAPHr: The text of Athenagoras is given in MPG, vi; the best editions are by J. C. T, Otto, in Corpus apologet4rum Christianorum, vol. vii, Jena, 1876, and E.

Schwarz, in TU, iv, 2, Leipsic, 1891; a handy ed. is by F. A. March, New York, 1876; an Eng. trawl. is to be found in ANF, ii, 125-162. Consult Harnack, Litteratur, i, 256-258, ii, 317-319; KrUger, History, pp. 130-132; L. Arnould, De Apologia Athenagoree, Paris, 1898. A full bibliography up to 1886 is in ANF, Bibliography, 36-38.

ATHENS. See GREECE, 1., 1 2.

ATH'OS: The easternmost of the three tongues of land projecting into the 1Egean Sea from the Chalcidian peninsula. It is about 35 miles long and culminates at the southern extremity in Mt. Athos proper, 6,780 feet high. Grand forests, murmuring brooks, clear air, and charming combination of rocks and sea, make it one of the most beautiful spots of Europe. By the Orthodox Greeks it is always called " the Holy Mount." According to the legend, the Holy Virgin Christianized Mt. Athos and Constantine the Great founded the first monasteries there. But the Athos monasticism does not appear in church history before the middle of the ninth century. At that time the monks formed a laura of the old fashion, with its center at Karyas, presided over by a pr6tos appointed by the emperor in Conatantinople. With the founding of the Laura of St. Athanasius, the -first great monastery there, in 963,

Athos rises in historical importance. The Various The founder of this monastery (which Monasteries. still bears his name) and of the whole

monastic life on Mt, Athos, belonged to a noble family in Trebizond. Through Michael Maleinos, the famous hegumenos of Mt. Kyminos in Asia Minor, where he himself lived at first as monk, he became acquainted with the future emperor, Nicephoras II (Phocas). The two men became good friends and the laura was founded at the instance of the emperor. Ever after Athos enjoyed imperial favor and monasteries were founded in rapid succession. To the tenth century belongs the founding of Iveron, Vatopedi, and Philotheu; to the eleventh, Xeropotam, Esfigmenu, Dochiariu, Agiu Paulu, Karakallu, and Xenophontos; to the twelfth, the two important Slav monasteries, Russiko and Chilandari; to the thirteenth, Zografu; and to the fourteenth, Pantokratoros, Simopetra, Dionysiu, and Gregoriu. The most recent is Sbauronikita, founded in 1542. There were others which long ago disappeared, such as a Latin monastery of the Amalfines.

Until the fifteenth century all the monks lived together, according to rules laid down by Athar

nasius in his three writings, the The Mon- %anonikon, the Diathekg, and the astic Life so-called Diatppasis (of. Meyer, Haupt to the Fif- urkunden). Any man of unblemished teenth character could be received; but Century. women, children, beardless youths, and people of royal descent were forbidden entrance. After a three years' probation admission into the holy company of the brethren took place and the tonsure was received. At the head of the monastery stood the *oumenos, assisted by a council of " the chosen," i.e., the higher monastic officers and the priest-monks. Two ephors, generally a noble layman outside of Athos and a monk not belonging to the monastery, formed a non-resident directorate. Approved monks could live by themselves, and received a special dwelling (Gk. kellion), whence they were called kelliotes, or after their mode of living, ascetics or hesychasts, but were dependent on the monastery. The relation of the monasteries to each other and the entire constitution of the holy mount was regulated at that period by the typica of 975, 1045, and 1394 (printed in Meyer). The protos stood at the head, by his side the synaxis, consisting of the representatives of the monasteries, . which as before met at Karyas. At first the life during this period was austere, but in the eleventh century it relaxed, and at one time nomads with wives and children were sheltered at Athos (Meyer, 163 aqq.). The Latin rule at Constantinople was an especially sad time for the monasteries. In the Hesychastic controversy (1341-51) western science was rejected especially through the influence of the Athos monks and quietistic mysticism was received into the teachings of the Greek Church (see HESYCmAsTs).

With the fifteenth century a new period commences in the constitution of the holy mount, which by degrees transformed the entire life. The idiorrhythmic life begins, which consisted in the abolition of the common life in the monasteries and the adoption of a plan whereby every monk, sometimes with a few friends, lived by himself.

The common roof and the church Changes alone are common to all. Since after x5oo. every one lived at his own expense, the power of the hegumenos was soon crippled. But the influence of idiorrhythm went still further. As the monasteries following it soon became worldly, the stricter tendency, which was by no means extinct, reacted upon the monks and new places of earnest asceticism were established outside of the monasteries, such as the sketai, monastic villages, the first of which was founded by St. Anna in 1572. Here one could live an ascetic life after the old fashion. Such sketes were dependent on their monasteries; their rights are set forth in separate collections of canons (cf. Meyer, 248). The last regulation of the rights of the kelliotes, who still remained, and of the aketists took place in 1864 (Meyer, 254). The influence of idiorrhythm was ultimately of such a character on the general constitution of the holy mount, that


349 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Athens Atonement the office of protos was abolished and the entire constitution became democratic. The last typicon is of 1783 (Meyer, 243). In the nineteenth century half of the monasteries returned to the common life, but the old constitution was retained. Down to the eighteenth century the religious and moral life was of a low type. After 1750 there seems to have been a revival. At that time Eugenios Bul garia (q.v.) was teacher in the academy of Vato pedi. At the end of the eighteenth century there were certain lively religious controversies on Mt. Athos, among others the so-called kolyba con troversy-whether the memorial days of the dead could be celebrated on Sunday instead of Saturday. On the whole the life on Athos has remained unchanged, and is still a remnant of pure medieval ism. The great number of manuscripts and docu ments there offer to the scholar a rich field of activity. The student of art finds all that Byzan tine art produced gathered together. The student of religion can study the Eastern piety of all Chris tian centuries, for each period has left behind distinct remains. It is to be hoped that the struggle of the nationalists, especially the struggle of Pan hellenism against Panslavism, will not deprive the Athos monachism of its universality. PHILIPP MEYEB. BiamooaArsr: The Historian Byzantince of Nioephoras Gregorae. book xiv. in MPG, oxiviii, and of John Canta cusenus, book iv, in MPG, cliv, 15-370. passim; John Comnenue, IIpooKVrnirbp.ov ro"v ayiov opovt, Venice. 1701, and often; J. P. Fallmerayer, Frapnsnte aus den Orient. Stuttgart, 1845; M. I. Gedeon, o 'ABror, Con atantinople, 1885; Porphyrius Uepensky. Oesehichte den Athos and seiner K1Sster (in Russian), 3 vole., Kiev and Moscow, 1845-92; Philipp Meyer, Die Hauyturkunden fftr die Geschiahia der AthwskItiater, Leipsie, 1894; A. 1. Significance and History of the Doc trine. The New Testament Presentation (¢ I). Development of the Doctrine (¢ 2). Various Theories U 3). II. The Five Chief Theories of the Atone ment. 1. Terminating upon Satan. The " Triumphantorial Theory " (¢ 1). I. Significance and History of the Doctrine: The replacement of the term "satisfaction" (q.v.), to designate, according to its nature, the work of Christ in saving sinners, by " atonement," the term more usual at present, is somewhat unfor tunate. " Satisfaction " is at once the more comprehensive, the more expressive, the less ambiguous, and the more exact term. The word " atonement " occurs but once in the Eng lish New Testament (Rom. v, 11, A. V., but not R. V.) and on this occasion it bears its archaic sense of " reconciliation," and as such translates the Greek term katallagi=. In the English Old Testament, however, it is found quite often as the stated rendering of the Hebrew terms kipper, kilopurim, in the sense of " propitiation," " expia tion." It is in this latter sense that it has become current, and has been applied to the work of Christ, which it accordingly describes as, in its essential

Schmidtke. Das Hloateriand des Athos, Leipaic. 1903; H. Gelzer, Vom heilipen Berge and aus Mac6donien, Leipsic, 1904; H. Brockhaus, Die Kunst in den Athoskl6stern. Leipaie, 1891. Catalogues of the documents are given in V. Langlois, Le Mont Athos et sea monaatbree, Paris, 1887; J. Moller, Slavixhe Bibliothek, Vienna, 1851; and in the IIep,ypamucbs Karaaoyos, published at Constantinople in 1902 at the instance of the patriarch Joachim III. A catalogue of the manuscripts in most of the libraries is given in S. Lampros, KarcAoyos riuv iv rail S~a~o~it~a,sro"v ~yiov 6povs'E1AvjPtKVv.w8iKGv, 2 vols.,Cambridge,1895-1900. Manydocumente have been published in Greek and Russian periodicals. A new collection has been begun by Regel, xpvou PovAAa Xai ypapp.firLa rids ev rj'Ayiq,'Ope& povis To"v Bar=e diov, St. Petersburg, 1898. For special literature, consult Krumbaeher, Geschichte; the English works of R. Curzon. Visits to Monasteries in the Levant, London. 1849, 1885, and A. Riley, Athos or the Mountain of the Monks, London, 1887, may also be mentioned.

ATKINS, JAMES: Methodist Episcopalian; b. at Knoxville, Tenn., Apr. 18, 1850. He was educated at Emory and Henry College (B.A., 1872) and entered the ministry in the Holston Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1872, in which he held various pastorates until 1879. He was president of Asheville Female College, 1879-89 and 1893-96, and of Emory and Henry College, 1889-93. Since 1896 he has been the Sunday-school editor of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. He is president of the Board of Missions of the Western North Carolina Conference, and vice-president of the General Board of Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and was also a member of the commission which effected the union of the Methodist Episcopal Churches of Japan in 1906. He is the author of The Kingdom in the Cradle (Nashville, 1905).


CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely