tantinople, of a character which seems to entitle Evliya to the appelation which he tells us one of his ancestors rejoiced in, "the Turk of Turks." The most childish credulity and superstition are apparent in every page: with some powers of observation and memory there is a total lack of judgment. A detailed statement of the distances round Constantinople, which Evliya walked round for the purpose in 1634-as careful and circumstantial a narrative as Dr. Birch's of his similar walk round London-is followed by a lengthy enumeration of the different talismans by which the city was protected by the ancient Greeks, a striking testimony of the ignorant awe with which the savage conquerors looked up to the superior civilisation they had subdued. There is no work now extant in a European language, from which a correct idea of the Turkish mind may be so easily formed, as from the travels of Evliya.

EVREMOND. CHARLES DE ST. DENYS, SEIGNEUR DE ST. EvREMOND, was born April 1, 1613, at St.-Denys-le-Guast, near Coutances in Normandy. He entered the army early, and by his literary talents and sprightly wit, as well as bravery, acquired the friendship of Turenne, Condé, and other of the most distinguished men of that brilliant epoch. Condé made him lieutenant of his guards, for the sake of his society; and he fought with that great commander at the battles of Rocroi and Nordlingen. But the prince, though fond of raillery at the expense of others, could not bear it levelled against himself; and St. Evremond, by an imprudent exercise of his satiric humour, lost his patron and his lieutenancy in 1648. In the wars of the Fronde he espoused the royal cause, and was rewarded with promotion and a pension. He incurred a three months' imprisonment in the Bastile by making too free with Cardinal Mazarin; but found means to reinstate himself in the minister's favour. Another indiscretion in ridiculing the treaty of the Pyrenees (unless, as has been said, there was some secret cause for his disgrace, and this was only a pretext), led to a second order for his arrest in 1661. He received timely notice, and fled, first to Holland, then to England, in which two countries the rest of his long life was spent. Louis XIV., though solicited by his most favourite courtiers to pardon St. Evremond, remained inflexible till 1689, when be granted the exile a tardy permission to return. But it was then too late for St. Evremond again to change the scene; and though in banishment, his life had all that he required for happiness. He was a favourite with Charles II., who gave him a pension of 3007., and his society was courted by the most distinguished wits and beauties of that reign; nor was he less fortunate in possessing the regard of William III., who had known him in Holland, and took much pleasure in his company. Devoted to the enjoyment of the present, and availing himself moderately of every source of social pleasure, he retained his faculties, mental and bodily, to the last, and died in his ninety-first year, September 20, 1703. St. Evremond was one of those who, aiming chiefly at success in society, leave no memorials sufficient to sustain the reputation which they have enjoyed in life. He possessed however extensive reading and an independent and acute judgment, as well as wit. His verses are deservedly forgotten; and his treatises on Roman literature and on the modern drama, though ranked among his best works, are probably seldom read. His letters are among the most brilliant specimens of that style of composition in which the French have excelled. He appears to have been a disbeliever in revealed religion, but he was not a scoffer, and he checked wanton insult to religion in others. He never authorised the publication of his works, so that the earlier editions, which were all pirated, contain much that was foisted in by the booksellers to profit by his popularity. The first correct edition is that of Des Maizeaux, 3 vols. 4to, Lond., 1705, with a life prefixed, from manuscripts revised by the author and editor jointly, shortly before the death of the former. Des Maizeaux also translated the whole into English.

* EWART, WILLIAM, M.P., the son of a merchant and broker at Liverpool, was born in 1798. He was educated at Eton and at Christchurch, Oxford, where he gained the Newdegate prize for English Verse in 1819. He subsequently was called to the bar at the Middle Temple. He was chosen member for Bletchingley in 1828; sat for Liverpool from 1830 to 1837, and for Wigan from 1839 to 1841; since which time he has represented Dumfries. Mr. Ewart has distinguished himself in Parliament not only for his constant motions for the abolition of capital punishment, but also for having proposed and carried by steady perseverance several bills for the establishment of public libraries and museums and schools of design. He is one of those individuals who have contributed most largely in a variety of ways towards the spread of national secular education and the repeal of taxes on knowledge.

EXCELMANS, REMI-JOSEPH-ISIDORE, BARON, Marshal, was a native of Bar-le-Duc, where he was born November 13, 1775. He entered the army very young, and first drew attention to his services, in 1799, whilst under General Oudinot, during the campaign which terminated in the conquest of Naples. In 1800 he became aide-decamp to General Broussier; but exchanged that for the same post under Murat. At the combat of Wertingen, on the Danube, October 8, 1805, he had three horses killed under him; and being commissioned to lay the numerous flags taken from the enemy at the feet of Napoleon I., he received from the hands of the emperor the decoration of officer of the Legion of Honour.

He

In 1806 he was made colonel of the first regiment of Chasseurs, and was mainly instrumental in the capture of Posen, in Poland. was afterwards engaged at the doubtful battle of Eylau, and for his conduct in that action (1807) he was appointed to command a brigade, and placed on the staff of Prince Murat, whom he afterwards accompanied to Spain. It was General Excelmans who was commissioned to head the escort by which King Charles was attended to Bayonne, after he had been induced to abdicate in favour of his son. A few weeks after this special service, Excelmans was arrested with other officers, and sent to England, where he remained a prisoner until 1811. On his release he again joined his former general, who had ascended the throne of Naples. Sent to Russia in 1812, in Junot's corps, as second in command, he was several times wounded, and was created a general of division, September 8, 1812. Savary, in his 'Memoirs,' ascribes entirely to Excelmans the merit of saving the remuant of this corps, which returned home after that arduous campaign.

In 1813 his division was placed under the orders of Marshal Macdonald; he took an active part in the operations in Saxony and Silesia, and was rewarded with the cordon of great officer of the Legion of Honour. In 1814 he commanded the cavalry of the Imperial Guard, and was present in most of the battles fought by Napoleon to defend the French territory. After the return from Elba, General Excelmans was called to the Chamber of Peers, June 2, 1815; and despatched to join the army of the north. He was not present at Waterloo, but he had the merit of bringing back his division to the walls of Paris, in time to defend the capital, and to check the advance of the Prussians, whom he defeated at Versailles in the last action of the war. Excelmans was included in the decree of July 24, 1815, and banished from France with many other generals, who had served the emperor during the hundred days. It was not until 1819 that he was permitted to return to France, during the ministry of Marshal Gouvion Saint-Cyr; in 1831 Louis Philippe restored to him his title and rank in the Chamber of Peers.

Louis Napoleon raised him to the dignity of Marshal of France in the early part of 1849, and nominated him Chancellor of the Legion of Honour in August of the same year. On the 2nd of December 1851, Marshal Excelmans powerfully assisted in securing to the government of Napoleon the faithful adherence of the army. On the 21st of July 1852, the marshal was on his way to the house of the Princesse Mathilde, in company with one of his sons, when he was suddenly jerked from his horse, and fell on the road, not far from the bridge of Sèvres. He never spoke afterwards, and expired at two o'clock the next morning.

(Rabbe; Savary, Memoirs; Biogr. des Contemp.; Dictionnaire de Conversation.)

EXMOUTH, EDWARD PELLEW, VISCOUNT, a distinguished naval commander, was born April 19, 1757, at Dover, where his father was captain of a government packet. Edward Pellew entered the navy in 1770, and in that year sailed with Captain Stott when he was sent out to retake possession of Port Egmont, on the island of West Falkland, which had been captured and restored by the Spaniards. He was afterwards in the Mediterranean, and was in the Blonde frigate, employed in the relief of Quebec. He first distinguished himself in the battle on Lake Champlain, October 11, 1776. After his return to England, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant in 1779, and in 1782 obtained his commission as post-captain. From 1786 to 1789 he was stationed off the coast of Newfoundland. In 1793, having been appointed to the command of the Nymphe, frigate, 36 guns, he fell in with La Cleopatra, French frigate, 36 guns. The French ship was fought with skill and bravery, but after a desperate battle struck her colours. His gallantry on this occasion was rewarded with the honour of knighthood. Sir Edward Pellew was soon afterwards appointed to the command of the Arethusa, frigate, 44 guns, and was engaged in several actions off Jersey and other parts of the French coast, in which some frigates and numerous smaller vessels were captured or destroyed. He was afterwards transferred to the Indefatigable, 49 guns. In 1796, after a chase of fifteen hours he came up with La Virginie, French frigate, and captured her. On the 13th of January 1797, the Indefatigable and Amazon having engaged a large French ship in 'foggy weather, after an action of five hours the Indefatigable was obliged to sheer off to secure her masts. Early in the morning breakers were seen, and the skill and energy of Sir Edward. Pellew saved the Indefatigable, but the Amazon and the French ship were wrecked together. The French ship proved to be a two-decker of 80 guns, and had on board, including soldiers, 1700 persons, of whom 1350 perished.

In the early part of 1799 Sir Edward Pellew was appointed to the command of the Impétueux, 78 guns, and was actively employed In 1802 he was nominated in various services on the French coast. Colonel of Marines, and in the same year was elected M.P. for the borough of Barnstaple, in Devonshire. On the renewal of the war after the peace of Amiens Sir Edward was appointed to the Tonnant, 84 guns, and on the 23rd of April 1804, was promoted to the rank of Rear-Admiral of the Red, and made commander in the East Indies, in consequence of which he resigned his seat in the House of Commons, July 26, 1804. On the 28th of April 1808, he was advanced to the

rank of Vice-Admiral of the Blue, and returned home at the commencement of the following year. In 1810 he was employed in blockading Flushing, and soon afterwards was sent to the Mediter ranean as commander-in-chief there. On the 14th of May 1814 Sir Edward Pellew was elevated to the peerage, with the title of Baron Exmouth of Canonteign in Devonshire, with a pension of 2000l. a year for his long and eminent services. On the 4th of June 1814, Lord Exmouth was promoted to the rank of full admiral; on the 2nd of January 1815 he was created a K.C.B., and on the 16th of March 1816 a G.C.B. During his command in the Mediterranean Lord Exmouth had concluded treaties with the rulers of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, for the abolition of Christian slavery in those states; but after his return to England it became known that the Dey of Algiers had violated his treaty in the most flagrant manner. The British government, in conjunction with that of Holland, having resolved to chastise the Algerines, Lord Exmouth set sail on board the Queen Charlotte with eighteen other vessels of war, and having been joined by the Dutch admiral with six frigates, they appeared before the city of Algiers on the 26th of August 1816. The plan of attack was one of the most daring or record. The Queen Charlotte sailed into the harbour, and took her station within the mole at eighty yards from the principal batteries, and with her bowsprit almost touching the houses. The other ships were placed in admirable order to support each other and act with most effect against the enemy. A tremendous fire was commenced on both sides at a quarter to three in the afternoon. The Algerine fleet, consisting of four large frigates, five large corvettes, and a large number of smaller vessels, were all on fire at once, and the flames had extended to the arsenal and other public and private buildings. At ten o'clock p.m. the firing ceased, the Dey of Algiers having consented to every demand. On the 30th of August a treaty was concluded on the terms dictated by the conquerors. Lord Exmouth was slightly wounded in the leg and also on the cheek, and his coat is described as having been almost torn into strips by grape and musket shot. On his return to England he received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament, and on the 10th of December 1816 was raised to the rank of Viscount. About 1200 Christian slaves were set at liberty, and insignia of knighthood were sent to Lord Exmouth from several states to which they belonged. On the death of Sir Thomas Duckworth he was appointed to the chief command at Plymouth, but after 1821 he retired from public service. He died January 23, 1833.

EYCK, HUBERT VAN. This celebrated old Flemish painter, the elder brother and master of John Van Eyck, was born, according to Van Mander, in 1366, and probably at Eyck (now Alden Eyck), a small village near Maaseyck on the Maas. The two brothers established themselves first in Bruges and afterwards in Ghent. The name of Hubert Van Eyck is nearly lost in that of his younger brother and pupil John, apparently from no other reason than that John alone is mentioned by Vasari in his story of the invention of the new method of oil-painting, while he takes no notice whatever of Hubert; John's name therefore appears as the principal or indeed sole name in nearly all subsequent investigations relating to the origin of this method of oil-painting, and the joint productions of the two brothers are generally adduced as the works of John alone. But the great probability is that much of the invention or improvement was the result of their joint experiments, and it is not unlikely that their great merit really consisted in carrying forward to a much higher point of success the practice of their predecessors.

Van Mander says that the Van Eycks must have painted in their new method as early as 1410, and as Hubert did not die till the 18th of September 1426, according to the inscription on his tomb in the church of St. Bavon at Ghent, they worked a sufficient number of years together to completely develope it in practice. John Van Eyck cannot have been very old in 1426, as, according to an authentic lottery notice of his widow, though alive in 1440, he died before the 24th of February 1446, and he was still young when he died, according to Marcus Van Vaernewyck, who published a 'History of Belgium' in 1565. This is somewhat corroborated by a portrait of John in the Museum of Berlin, dated 1430, in which he appears under thirty-five years of age. John was probably above twenty years younger than his brother Hubert, supposing the latter to have been born in 1366, and accordingly he can have been at first little more than the assistant of Hubert in their masterpiece, the great altar-piece of St. Bavon's, Ghent, which was finished by John in 1432. His name is clearly subordinate to Hubert's in the inscription on the work, which is as follows, the last verse being a chronogram :—

"Pictor Hubertus e Eyck, major quo nemo repertus
Incepit; pondusque Johannes arte secundus
Frater perfecit, Judoci Vyd prece fretus
VersV seXta MaI Vos CoLLoCat aCta tVerI."

The capitals in the last line, when added together according to their value as Roman numerals, make 1432.

The altar-piece is about fourteen feet wide by twelve feet high, and is in two horizontal divisions, each centre covered by revolving wings or doors, two on each side. There are twelve pictures in all: God the Father, with the Virgin and St. John the Baptist, as large as life, one on each side in distinct compartments, constitute the upper centre;

the extreme wings of this division are full-length naked figures of Adam and Eve, Adam on the right and Eve on the left of the centre: the interior wings represent on the right hand angels singing, on the left, angels playing musical instruments. The lower centre represents in one picture the actual Adoration of the Lamb in small figures; the two wings to the right represent the just judges, Justi Judices, and the soldiers of Christ, Christi Milites; the two on the left, the holy hermits, Heyremiti Sti., and the holy pilgrims, Perigrini Sti.: there are in all about 60 figures and 300 heads. An elaborate copy of it was made by Coxie for Philip II. of Spain. [CoXIE, MICHAEL] The colouring of the whole work is beautiful, and many parts are admirably executed; and the painting is still in excellent preservation, owing to the excellent oil-vehicle discovered by the Van Eycks. The original picture remained entire till the French obtained possession of Belgium. The clergy of the cathedral of St. Bavon succeeded in concealing eight of the twelve panels, so that only four were taken to Paris, whence they were brought back in 1815. Only the two central divisions however now remain at St. Bavon's, the wings having been sold and removed to Berlin, where they are now in the Royal Museum, united with a part of the copy made by Coxie for Philip II.

The medium employed by the Van Eycks was not merely oil: it was several oils mixed with resins, or some such substances, and prepared by fire. Many useless and intemperate discussions have arisen from Vasari's attributing the invention of oil-painting to John Van Eyck, but they are due chiefly to a careless or partial consideration of what Vasari really says. In one passage in the Life of Antonello he fully describes, though in general terms, what the Van Eyck medium was, but in others he merely terms it oil-painting, a term, after what he had said before, sufficiently characteristic and distinctive. The Cave Tambroni however in his preface to the treatise of Cennino Cennini (Rome, 1821), has, with much disingenuousness, argued solely upon the general impressions of Vasari, and ridiculed the story as an absurd fiction, because mere oil-painting was known in Italy before it was introduced by Antonello of Messina. [ANTONELLO DA MESSINA.] It is true that Cennino Cennini wrote his book in 1437, and it contains five chapters on oil-painting, but he prefaces his remarks by the following observation:-"I will now teach you to paint in oil, a method much practised by the Germans." The oil-painting which Cennino teaches is no more that of the Van Eycks than temperà painting is; it is the very method which the Van Eycks superseded. An old German monk of the name of Tutilo or Theophilus wrote on the same subject centuries before Cennini. [TUTILO.] The words of Vasari are-"At last, having tried many things, separately and compounded, he discovered that linseed and nut oils were the most siccative: these therefore he boiled with other mixtures, and produced that varnish (vehicle) which he, and indeed every painter in the world, had long desired." This is what the Cave. Tambroni and others have treated as an assertion that John Van Eyck invented and introduced the practice of mixing colours with oil. Sir C. L. Eastlake, after an elaborate investigation of every passage of contemporary or nearly contemporary authority which in any way bears on the subject, arrives at the conclusion that their new vehicle was an oleoresinous one, the resin being probably amber or copal; and that the use of that in conjunction with a great superiority of technical skill would be amply sufficient to account for their works appearing so much finer than those of their predecessors and contemporaries, the painters in temperà and plain oil, as fully to explain the fact of their being termed the inventors of a new method.

Several interesting notices of the brothers Van Eyck appeared in the Messager des Sciences et des Arts, Gand., 1824; and in the Kunsblatt in 1824 and 1826; see also Passavant, Kunstreise, &c. (in which there is an outline of the altar-piece of Ghent); and Rathgeber, Annalen der Niederländischen Malerei; see also Eastlake, Materials for a History of Oil-painting, chaps. vii. and viii.; and Carton, Les Trois Prères Van Eyck.

EYCK, JOHN VAN, the younger brother of Hubert and the improver and supposed inventor of oil painting, sometimes called John of Bruges from his having settled in that place, was born at Maaseyck, between 1385 and 1390, and studied under his elder brother Hubert. There are however some reasons for supposing John to have been born much later than 1370. As noticed under Hubert Van Eyck, although the Van Eycks did not invent, they greatly improved the art of oil-painting, and brought it into general use. After having long resided in the rich and flourishing city of Bruges, the two brothers removed about 1420 to Ghent, where their greatest and most renowned work, the adoration of the Lamb for the altar-piece at St. Bavon's, was painted between the years 1420 and 1432. Some say it was painted for Iodocus Vyts, a rich citizen of Ghent, while others affirm that it was by order of Philip, duke of Burgundy, count of Flanders, who came to the government in 1420. It is certain however that John Van Eyck was long attached to the brilliant court of Philip. John Van Eyck probably greatly advanced in the path opened by his elder brother. He was endowed, as Eastlake observes, "with an extraordinary capacity for seeing nature," an endowment of the very first consequence for the painter; "and thus gifted, and aided by the example and instruction of Hubert, a world was opened to him, which his predecessors had not attempted to represent." The best works of John Van Eyck are now chiefly in the

855

:

EZRA.

government by the mission of Nehemiah to Jerusalem from Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the twentieth year of his reign, B.C. 445. As Daniel's seventy prophetic weeks commence at the going forth of the edict of Cyrus to Zerubbabel, or that of Artaxerxes to Ezra, these events have been the subject of much critical investigation among biblical critics. The contents of the first six chapters are briefly as follows :-Chap. i. gives an account of the proclamation of Cyrus concerning his release of the captive Jews, permitting them to go from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple; of the restoration of their property, sacred vessels and utensils; and of presents made by the Chaldæans of money and various provisions. Chap. ii. states the numbers of each of the families composing the multitude which returned to Judæa with Zerubbabel, and the number of their beasts of burden. All this account, except some of the numbers, is repeated word for word in the seventh chapter of Nehemiah, beginning at verse 6. In verses 64 and 65 of Ezra, the total number of the people is said to have been 42,360, which appears not to agree with the preceding particulars, since the addition of these produces only 29,818, that is, a deficiency of 12,542. The numbers given in Nehemiah occasionally differ very widely from those in Ezra for instance, the children of Azgad are said in Ezra (ii. 12) to have been 1222; but in Nehemiah (vii. 17) they are said to have been 2322, or 1100 more. Nehemiah repeats precisely the total given by Ezra, 42,360; but the addition of Nehemiah's particular numbers makes 31,089, or a deficiency of 11,271. The numbers of horses, 736, mules, 245, camels 435, and asses 6720, exactly agree in the two accounts; but in Ezra, verse 69, the chief fathers give to the treasury 61,000 drams of gold; in Nehemiah, ver. 71, they give only 20,000. Chap. iii. records the events of setting up the altar at Jerusalem and re-establishing the Jewish sacrificial worship. An account of the interruption of the building of the Temple by the decree of Artaxerxes, and its completion by a subsequent decree of the same monarch, with transcripts of the documents written on these occasions, occupy chapters iv., v., and vi. Chapters vii. and viii. contain an account of Ezra's commission from Artaxerxes to undertake the government of Judæa, his preparations and reception of presents for his journey thither, with a multitude of Jews, who it appears still remained in Babylon after the return to Judæa of the multitude under Zerubbabel; an enumeration of the people and families who returned, and the weight of gold and silver contributed by the king, his councillors, and the Israelites, for the use of the Temple at Jerusalem (viii. 25-28). The value of these presents amounts to 803,600l. Chapters ix. and x. relate the proceedings of Ezra in separating from their wives and children all the Israelites who had married women from among the surrounding nations, and thus "mingled the holy seed with the abominations of the Gentiles." Ezra (x. 3, 5, 19, 44) made all the Israelites who had "strange wives and children" swear, and give their hands, that they would put them away, which accordingly was done. The latter half of the last chapter contains a long list of the husbands and fathers who were the subjects of this national renovation. The part from iv. 8 to vii. 27 is written in the Chaldee idiom, the rest in Hebrew. The period to which the four last chapters relate, comprising the Jewish history from B.C. 458 to 445, is coeval with the age of Pericles. The subject-matter of the book of Nehemiah being identical with that of Ezra, the collation of the two affords a mutual illustration. Chapter viii. of Nehemiah relates circumstantially the fact of Ezra's solemn reading and exposition of the law to the assembled Israelites, who, according to Dr. Prideaux, were taught the signification of the Hebrew words by means of Chaldaic interpreters (8); for, since their seventy years' captivity in Babylon, the Chaldee instead of the Hebrew had become their vernacular language. (Dean Prideaux's 'Connection,' fol., p. 263.) The critical arguments adduced in opposition to the opinion that the Israelites lost the Hebrew language, and understood only the Chaldæan, are well exhibited in Dr. Gill's learned 'Dissertation on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language,' 8vo, 1767. The two principal undertakings of Ezra were-1. The restoration of the Jewish law and ritual, according to the modes observed before the captivity; and 2. The collection and rectification of the Sacred Scriptures. On account of these important services the Jews regarded Ezra as a second Moses. It was commonly believed by the ancient fathers of the Christian church that all the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews were entirely destroyed in the conflagration of the temple and city of Jerusalem by the king of Babylon, and that, on the return of the Jews from the Chaldæan captivity, these writings were wholly reproduced by a divine inspiration of Ezra. (See Ireneus, Adversus Hæres.,' 1. iii. c. 25; Tertullian, 'De Habitu Mulierum,' c. iii.; Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom.,' i.; Basil, in Epist. ad Chilonem.') The following passages from the second Apocryphal book of Ezra, xiv. 26, 45, 46, 47, appear to sanction this opinion. "Behold, Lord," says Ezra, “I will go as thou hast commanded me, and reprove the people. The world is set in dark

ness, and they that dwell therein are without light, for 'thy law is burnt;' therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee; but if I have found grace before thee, send the Holy Ghost into me, and I shall write all things that have been done in the world since the beginning, which were written in the law; And God said, Go, prepare to write swiftly, and when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish, and some things shalt thou show secretly to the wise." The learned Dr. Prideaux ('Connection,' p. 260, folio) remarks, that "in the time of king Josiah (B.C. 640), through the impiety of the two preceding reigns of Manasseh and Ammon (a period of sixty years), the book of the law was so destroyed and lost, that, besides the copy of it which Hilkiah, the high-priest, accidentally found in the Temple (2 Kings xxii. 8, &c.; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14, &c.), there was then no other to be had; for Hilkiah's surprise in finding it, and Josiah's grief in hearing it read, do plainly show that neither of them had ever seen it before; and if this pious king and the high-priest were without it, it cannot be thought that any one else had it." If this were the authentic copy laid up before the Lord in the Temple, it was burned, as believed by all Jewish and Christian writers, in the burning of the Temple, fiftytwo years afterwards, by Nebuchadnezzar. Dr. Prideaux takes it to be implied in several passages which he cites that, from the copy accidentally found by the high-priest Hilkiah, some transcriptions were made previous to the destruction of the Temple, and that from these scattered copies Ezra formed his improved edition of the sacred text. In common with most other modern divines, he rejects the opinion of the fathers respecting the restoration of the Scriptures by a new revelation to Ezra. All, he continues, that Ezra did was-"he got together as many copies of the sacred writings as he could, and out of them all he set forth a corrected edition, in which he took care of the following particulars:-1. He corrected all the errors introduced into these copies by the negligence or mistakes of transcribers; for, by comparing them, he found out the true reading, and set all to rights. 2. He collected together all the books of which the Sacred Scriptures did then consist, disposed them in proper order, and settled the canon of Scripture up to that time." The Jewish writers state that the canon was decided by a congress of 120 elders under the presidency of Ezra; but since they mention as members of it, not only the contemporaries of Ezra, as Daniel, Shadrach, Meschech, and Abednego, but the high-priest Simon the Just, who lived 250 years later, it is evident that they mean the number of those who 'successively' arranged and rectified the canonical books. Ezra divided all the books he collected into three parts-the Law, that is, the Pentateuch; the Prophets, containing all the historical and prophetical books; and the Hagiographa, which comprised all the writings not included in the two other divisions. (Josephus, 'Advers. Apion.') He divided the Pentateuch into fiftyfour sections, one of which was read every Sabbath; and, according to the Jewish authorities, he was also the author of the smaller divisions called Pesukim, or verses, and of the various readings and suggested corrections inserted in the margins of the Hebrew copies. These, called Keri Cetib (that which is read and that which is written), appear however in the books attributed to Ezra himself. (On these particulars see the remarks of Prideaux; Buxtorf, Vindiciae Veritatis Hebraicæ,' par. ii. c. 4; Walton, 'Prolegom.,' viii. § 18; and Dr. Gill, ‘Dissertation on the Hebrew Language.') Most Biblical critics state that Ezra changed the ancient names of places for those by which these places were known in his time, and some say that he wrote out all the Scriptures in the Chaldee character, which alone was used and understood by the Jews after the Chaldæan captivity. Whether Ezra added the vowel-points, and whether they were invented by the Masorite grammarians at a period far posterior to the rise of Christianity, are subjects of great controversy among Hebrew critics. A concise and able view of this dispute is contained in Houbigant's Racines Hebraiques,' 1732. The Jewish commentators assert that all the rules and observances preserved by tradition from the time anterior to the captivity were carefully collected by Ezra, and that having reviewed them, those which he sanctioned by his authority henceforth constituted the oral law, in contradistinction to that which is written; the Church of Jerusalem, like the Church of Rome, regarding Scripture and tradition of equal authority, and believing the latter to be highly necessary for clearing the obscurities, supplying the defects, and solving the difficulties of the former. (See the Rabbinical authorities cited by Dr. Prideaux.) It is a theory suggested by this learned divine, and since adopted by many others, that all the numerous passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which involve chronological inconsistencies were interpolations made by Ezra, and that this is the only possible way to solve the difficulties which arise from considering the several books as the productions of the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed. The Book of Ezra, with the two Books of Chronicles, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi, are supposed by Dr. Prideaux to have been added to the sacred canon by the high-priest Simon the Just, in the year B.c. 150.

857

FABBRONI, ANGELO.

FABIUS MAXIMUS.

858

F

FABBRO'NI, ANGELO, born at Florence in 1782, studied at Rome, where he distinguished himself for his ability in Latin composition, through which he became acquainted with the learned Bottari, who introduced him to the Papal Court. In 1766 Fabbroni published the first volume of his Latin biographies of the learned men of modern Italy, Vita Italorum Doctrina Illustrium;' a work which he afterwards extended to twenty volumes 8vo, and for which he has been styled by some the Plutarch of modern Italy. His patron Bottari not being on friendly terms with the Jesuits, who had great influence at Rome under Pope Clement XIII., and who accused Bottari of a bias in favour of the Jansenists, Fabbroni found that he had little chance of making his way at the Papal Court, and he returned to Florence in 1767, where the Grand-Duke Leopold appointed him President of the Collegiate Church of San Lorenzo, and afterwards made him Prefect of the University of Pisa, and Prior of the military order of San Stefano. After this Fabbroni travelled through Germany, France, and England, and made the acquaintance of many learned men in those countries. On his return to Tuscany in 1773, he devoted himself entirely to literary pursuits. He continued his series of Latin biographies already mentioned; wrote also some Italian biographies; edited the 'Giornale Pisano,' a literary magazine, which enjoyed considerable reputation in the latter part of the 18th century; and published an interesting history of the University of Pisa, Historia Academiæ Pisanæ,' 3 vols. 4to, Pisa, 1791. Fabbroni died at Pisa in 1803. A cenotaph was raised to his memory in the Campo Santo of that city. Fabbroni was considered one of the best Latin scholars and writers of Italy in the 18th century. His Italian works are- Elogj di alcuni Illustri Italiani,' 2 vols. 8vo, Pisa, 1789; 'Elogj di Dante, di Poliziano, di Ariosto, e di Tasso,' 8vo, Parma, 1800; Dissertazione sulle Statue appartenenti alla Favola di Niobe,' Florence, 1799. He also contributed to the collection of 'Memorie de' più Illustri Pisani,' 4 vols. 4to, Pisa, 1790. (Lombardi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana nel Secolo XVIII.; Gamba, Serie di Testi di Lingua; Life of Fabbroni, written by himself, and inserted in the last volume of his 'Vitæ Italorum.') FABER, REV. GEORGE STANLEY, was born on the 25th of October 1773. He was the eldest son of the Rev. Thomas Faber, who was descended from a French refugee who came over to England after the revocation of the edict of Nantes. He was educated at the grammar-school of Heppenholme, near Halifax in Yorkshire, where he remained till 1789, when he was entered of University College, Oxford. He took his degree of B.A. in 1792, and before he had reached his twenty-first year was elected a Fellow and Tutor of Lincoln College. He took his degree of M.A. in 1796, served the office of Proctor in 1801, and in the same year, as Bampton Lecturer, preached the discourses which he shortly afterwards published under the title of 'Hora Mosaicæ.' He took the degree of B.D. in 1803, and married in the same year. Having by this step relinquished his fellowship, he went to reside with his father at Calverley, near Bradford in Yorkshire, where for two years he acted as curate. In 1805 he was collated to the vicarage of Stockton-upon-Tees, in the county of Durham, which he resigned in 1808 for that of Redmarshall, in the same county. In 1811 he was collated to the vicarage of Long-Newton, where he remained till 1831, when Bishop Burgess presented him to a prebend in the cathedral of Salisbury. In 1832 Bishop Van Mildert gave him the mastership of Sherburn Hospital, near the city of Durham, when he resigned the vicarage of Long-Newton. During his mastership he considerably increased the value of the estates of the Hospital. He rebuilt the chapel, the house, and the offices, and greatly improved the grounds; he augmented the incomes of the incumbents of livings under his patronage, restored the chancels of their churches, and erected agricultural buildings on the farms. He died at his residence, Sherburn Hospital, on the 27th of January, 1854.

The theological writings of Mr. Faber, particularly those on prophecy, have had a very wide circulation. One of the principles for the interpretation of prophecy which he chiefly laboured to establish and exemplify, was, that the delineations of events in prophecy are not applicable to the destinies of individuals, but to those of governments and nations. His writings are numerous, and we can only mention a few of the most important :-'Hora Mosaicæ, or a View of the Mosaical Records, with respect to their Coincidence with Profane Antiquity, their internal Credibility, and their Connexion with Christianity,' 2 vols. 8vo, 1801; A Dissertation on the Mysteries of the Cabyri, or the great gods of Phoenicia, Samothrace, Egypt, Troas, Greece, Italy, and Crete, 2 vols. 8vo; Dissertation on the Prophecies that have been fulfilled, are now fulfilling, or will hereafter be fulfilled, relative to the great Period of 1260 Years,' 2 vols. 8vo, 1806; A General and Connected View of the Prophecies relating to the Conversion, Restoration, Union, and future Glory of Judah and Israel,' 2 vols. 8vo, 1808; The Origin of Pagan Idolatry,' 3 vols. 8vo, 1816; A Treatise on the Genius and Object of the Patriarchal, the Levitical, and the

BIOG. DIV. VOL. II.

Christian Dispensation,' 2 vols. 8vo, 1823; The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, or a Dissertation on the Prophecies which treat of the Grand Period of Seven Times,' 3 vols. 8vo, 1828; Eight Dissertations on certain connected Prophetical Passages of Holy Scriptures bearing more or less upon the Promise of a Mighty Deliverer,' 2 vols. 8vo, 1845. FA'BIUS MAXIMUS and the FABII FAMILY. The Fabii were a numerous and powerful gens or patrician house of ancient Rome, which became subdivided into several families or branches distinguished by their respective cognomina, such as Fabii Maximi, Fabii Ambusti Fabii Vibulanii, &c. They were of Sabine origin, and settled on the Quirinal from the time of the earliest kings. After the expulsion of the Tarquinii, the Fabii as one of the older houses exercised considerable influence in the senate. Caso Fabius being Quæstor with L. Valerius, impeached Spurius Cassius in the year of Rome 268 (B.c. 486), and had him executed. It has been noted as a remarkable fact, that for seven consecutive years from that time, one of the two annual consulships was filled by three brothers Fabii in rotation. Niebuhr has particularly investigated this period of Roman history, and speculated on the causes of this long retention of office by the Fabii as connected with the struggle then pending between the patricians and the plebeians, and the attempt of the former to monopolise the elections. (History of Rome,' vol. ii., 'The Seven Consulships of the Fabii.') One of the three brothers, Quintus Fabius Vibulanus, fell in battle against the Veientes, in the year 274 of Rome. In the following year, under the cousulship of Caso Fabius and Titus Virginius, the whole house of the Fabii proposed to leave Rome and settle on the borders of the territory of Veii, in order to take the war against the Veientes entirely into their hands. After performing solemn sacrifices, they left Rome in a body, mustering 306 patricians, besides their families, clients, and freedmen, and encamped on the banks of the Cremera in sight of Veii. There they fortified themselves, and maintained for nearly two years a harassing warfare against the Veientes and other people of Etruria. At last in one of their predatory incursions they fell into an ambuscade, and fighting desperately, were all exterminated. (Livy, ii. 48, 50; and Niebuhr's History,' on the Veientine War.) One only of the house, Quintus Fabius Vibulanus, who had remained at Rome, escaped, and became the parent stock of all the subsequent Fabii. He was repeatedly consul, and was afterwards one of the decemviri with Appius Claudius for two consecutive years, in which office he disgraced himself by his connivance at the oppressions of his colleague, which caused the fall of the decemvirate. In subsequent years we find several Fabii filling the consulship, until we come to M. Fabius Ambustus, who was consul in the year 393 of Rome, and again several times after. He fought against the Hernici and the Tarquinians, and left several sons, one of whom, known by the name of Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus, attacked and defeated the Samuites (429 of Rome) in the absence and against the orders of his commanding officer, the Dictator Papirius, who would have brought him to punishment for disobedience, but was prevented by the intercession of the soldiers and the people. This Fabius was five times consul, and dictator twice. He triumphed over the Samnites, Marsi, Gauls, and Tuscans. His son, Quintus Fabius Gurges, was thrice consul, and was the grandfather of QUINTUS FABIUS MAXIMUS VERRUCOSUS, one of the most celebrated generals of Rome. In his first consulate he triumphed over the Ligurians. After the Thrasymenian defeat he was named Prodictator by the unanimous voice of the people, and was intrusted with the salvation of the Republic. The system which he adopted to check the advance of Hannibal is well known. By a succession of skilful movements, marches, and countermarches, always choosing good defensive positions, he harassed his antagonist, who could never draw him into ground favourable for his attack, while Fabius watched every opportunity of availing himself of any error or neglect on the part of the Carthaginians.

This mode of warfare, which was new to the Romans, acquired for Fabius the name of Cunctator, or 'temporiser,' and was censured by the young, the rash, and the iguorant; but it probably was the means of saving Rome from ruin. Minucius, who shared with Fabius the command of the army, having imprudently engaged Hannibal, was saved from total destruction by the timely assistance of the dictator. In the following year however, 536 of Rome, Fabius being recalled to Rome, the command of the army was intrusted to the consul T. Varro, who rushed imprudently to battle, when the defeat of Cannæ made manifest the wisdom of the dictator's previous caution. Fabius was made consul in the next year, and was again employed in keeping Hannibal in check. In 543 of Rome, being consul for the fifth time, he re-took Tarentum by stratagem, after which he narrowly escaped being caught himself in a snare by Hannibal near Metapontum. (Livy, xxvii. 15, 16.) When some years after the question was discussed in the senate of sending P. Scipio with an army into Africa, Fabius opposed it, saying that Italy ought first to be rid of Haunibal. Fabius died some time after at a very advanced age. His son, called 3 K