صور الصفحة

historical conditions. Peter’s function in relation to the Gentiles belongs to the early Palestinian conditions, before Paul’s distinctive mission had taken shape. Once Paul’s apostolate~a personal one, parallel with the more collective apostolate of “ the Twelve ”—has proved itself by tokens of Divine approval, Peter and his colleagues frankly recognize the distinction of the two missions, and are anxious only to arrange that the two shall not fall apart by religiously and morally incompatible usages (Acts xv.). Paul, on his side, clearly implies that Peter felt with him that the Law could not justify (Gal. ii. 15 if), and argues that it could not now be made obligatory in principle (cf. “ a yoke,” Acts xv. to); yet for Jews it might.continue for the time (pending the Parousia) to be seemly and expedient, especially for the sake of non-believing Judaism. To this he conformed his own conduct as a Jew, so far as his Gentile apostolate was not involved (1 Cor. ix. r9 ff). There is no reason to doubt that Peter largely agreed with him, since he acted in this spirit in Gal. ii. 11 f., until coerced by Jerusalem sentiment to draw back for expediency’s sake. This incident it simply did not fall within the scope of Acts (see below) to narrate, since it had no abiding effect on the Church’s extension. As to Paul‘s submission of the issue in Acts xv. to the Jerusalem conference, Acts does not imply that Paul would have accepted a decision in favour of the Judaizers, though he saw the value of getting a decision for his own policy in the quarter to which they were most likely to defer. If the view that he already had an understanding with the “ Pillar ” Apostles, as recorded in Gal. ii. I—IO (see further PAUL), be correct, it gives the best of reasons why he was ready to enter the later public Conference of Acts xv. Paul’s own “ free " attitude to the Law, when on Gentile soil, is just what is implied by the hostile rumours as to his conduct in Acts xxi. 21, which he would be glad to disprove as at least exaggerated (ib. 24 and 26). What is clear is that such lack of formal accord as here exists between Acts and the Epistles, tells against its author’s dependence on the latter, and so favours his having been a comrade of Paul himself.

The speeches in Acts deserve special notice. Did its author follow the plan adopted by all historians of his age, or is he an exception? Ancient historians (like many of modern times) used the liberty of working up in their own language the speeches recorded by them. They did not dream of verbal fidelity; even when-they had more exact reports before them, they preferred to mould a speaker’s thoughts to their own methods of presentation. Besides this, some did not hesitate to give to the characters of their history speeches which were never uttered. The method of direct speech, so useful in producing a vivid idea of what is supposed to have passed through the mind of the speaker, was used to give force to the narrative. Now how far has the author of Acts followed the practice of his contemporaries? Some of his speeches are evidently but summaries of thoughts which occurred to individuals or multitudes. Others claim to be reports of speeches really delivered. But all these speeches have to a large extent the same style, the style also of the narrative. They have been passed though one editorial mind, and some mutual assimilation in phraseology and idea may well have resulted. They are, moreover, all of them, the merest abstracts. The speech of Paul at Athens, as given by Luke, would not occupy more than a minute or two in delivery. But these circumstances, while inconsistent with verbal accuracy, do not destroy authenticity; and in most of the speeches (cg. xiv. 15-17) there is a varied appropriateness as well as an allusiveness, pointing to good information (see under Sources). There is no evidence that any speech in Acts is the free composition of its author, without either written or oral basis; and in general he seems more conscientious than most ancient historians touching the essentials of historical accuracy, even as now understood.

Objections to the trustworthiness of Acts on the ground of its miracles require to be stated more discriminately than has somemudm times been the case. Particularly is this so as regards

the question of authorship. As Harnack observes (Lukas der Arzt, p. 24), the “ miraculous ” or supernormal ele



ment is hardly, if at all, less marked in the “ we ” sectious, which are substantially the witness of a companion of Paul (and where efforts to dissect out the miracles are fruitless), than in the rest of the work. The scientific method, then, is to consider each “miracle ” on its own merits, according as we find reason to suppose that it has reached our author more or less directly. But the record of miracle as such cannot prejudice the question of authorship. Even the form in which the gift of Tongues at Pentecost is conceived does not tell against a companion of Paul, since it may have stood in his source, and the first outpouring of the Messianic Spirit may soon have come to be thought of as unique in some respects, parallel in fact to the Rabbinic tradition as to the inauguration of the Old Covenant at Sinai (cf. Philo, De deccm oraculis, 9, n, and the Midrash on P5. lxviii. II).

Finally as to such historical difficulties in Acts as still perplex the student of the Apostolic age, one must remember the possibilities of mistake intervening between the facts and the accounts reaching its author, at second or even third hand. Yet it must be strongly emphasized, that recent historical research at the hands of experts in classical antiquity has tended steadily to verify such parts of the narrative as it can test, especially those connected with Paul’s missions in the Roman Empire. That is no new result; but it has come to light in greater degree of recent years, notably through Sir W. M. Ramsay’s researches. The proofs of trustworthiness extend also to the theological sphere. What was said above of the Christology of the Petrine speeches applies to the whole conception of Messianic salvation, the eschatology, the idea of Jesus as equipped by the Holy Spirit for His Messianic work, found in these speeches, as also to titles like “ Jesus the Nazarene ” and “ the Righteous One ” both in and beyond the Petrine speeches. These and other cases in which we are led to discern very primitive witness behind Acts, do not indeed give to such witness the value of shorthand notes or even of abstracts based thereon. But they do support the theory that our author meant to give an unvarnished account of such words and deeds as had come to his knowledge. The perspective of the whole is no doubt his own; and as his witnesses probably furnished but few hints for a continuous narrative, this perspective, especially in things chronological, may sometimes be faulty. Yet when one remembers that by 70—80 A.D. it must have been a matter of small interest by what tentative stages the Messianic salvation first extended to the Gentiles, it is surely surprising that Acts enters into such detail on the subject, and is not content with a summary account of the matter such as the mere logic of the subject would naturally suggest. In any case, the very difference of' the perspective of Acts and of Galatians, in recording the same epochs in Paul’s history, argues such an independence in the former as is compatible only with an early date.

Quellenkrilik, then, a distinctive feature of recent research upon Acts, solves many difficulties in the way of treating it as an honest narrative by a companion of Paul. In addition, we may also count among recent gains a juster method of judging such a book. For among the results of the Tubingen criticism was what Dr W. Sanday calls “ an unreal and artificial standard, the standard of the 19th century rather than the 1st, of Germany rather than Palestine, of the lamp and the study rather than of active life.” This has a bearing, for instance, on the differences between the three accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts. In the recovery of a more real standard, we owe much to men like Mommsen, Ramsay, Blass and Harnack, trained amid other methods and traditions than those which had brought the constructive study of Acts almost to a deadlock.

5. Data—External evidence now points to the existence of Acts at least as early as the opening years of the 2nd century. As evidence for the Third Gospel holds equally for Acts, its existence in Marcion’s day (120—140) is now assured. Further, the traces of it in Polycarp ‘ and Ignatius,2 when taken together, are highly probable; and it is even widely admitted that the resemblance of Acts xiii. 22, and r Clem. xviii. 1, in features not

[ocr errors]

found in the Psalm (lxxxix. 20) quoted by each, can hardly be accidental. That is, Acts was probably current in Antioch and Smyrna not later than c. A.D. r r 5, and perhaps in Rome as early as c. A.D. 96.

With this view internal evidence agrees. In spite of some advocacy of a date prior to A.D. 70, the bulk of critical opinion is decidedly against it. The prologue to Luke’s Gospel itself implies the dying out of the generation of eye-witnesses as a class. A strong consensus of opinion supports a date about A.D. 80; some prefer 75 to 80; while a date between 70 and 75 seems no less possible. Of the reasons for a date in one of the earlier decades of the 2nd century, as argued by the Tiibingen school and its heirs, several are now untenable. Among these are the supposed traces of and-century Gnosticism and “ hier— archical ” ideas of organization; but especially the argument from the relation of the Roman state to the Christians, which Ramsay has reversed and turned into proof of an origin prior to Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan on the subject. Another fact, now generally admitted, renders a and-century date yet more incredible; and that is the failure of a writer devoted to Paul’s memory to make palpable use of his Epistles. Instead of this he writes in a fashion that seems to traverse certain things recorded in them. If, indeed, it were proved that Acts uses the later works of Josephus, We should have to place the book about A.D. 100. But this is far from being the case.

Three points of contact with lose hus in articular are cited. (I)The circumstances attending the eath of erod Agri pa I. in A.D. 44. HereActs xii. 21-23 is largely parallel to Jos. ntt. xix. 8. 2; but the latter adds an omen of coming doom, while Acts alone gives a circumstantial account of the occasion of Herod's public appearance. Hence the parallel, when analysed, tells against dependence on Josephus. :So also with (2) the cause of the ligyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts xxi. 37 f., 105. Jewish War, ii. 13. , ntt. xx. 8.6; for the numbers of his followers do not agree wit either of josephus's rather divergent accounts, while Acts alone calls them Siearii. With these instances in mind, it is natural to regard (3) the curious resemblance as to the (non-historical) order In which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both as accidental, the more so that again there is difference as to numbers. Further, to make out a case for dependence at all, one must assume the mistaken order (as it may be) in Gamaliel's speech as due to gross carelessness in the author of Acts—an hypothesis unlikely in itself. Such a mistake was far more likely to arise in oral transmission of the speech, before it reached Luke at all.

6. Place—The place of composition is still an open question. For some time Rome and Antioch have been in favour; and Blass combined both views in his theory of two editions (see below, Text). But internal evidence points strongly to the Roman province of Asia, particularly the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Note the confident local allusion in xix. 9 to “ the school of Tyrannus "—not “ a certain Tyrannus," as in the inferior text—and in xix. 33 to “ Alexander ”; also the very minute topography in xx. r3-15. At any rate affairs in that region, including the future of the church of Ephesus (xx. 28-30), are treated as though they would specially interest “ Theophilus " and his circle; also an early tradition makes Luke die in the adjacent Bithynia. Finally it was in this region that there arose certain early glosses (e,g. on xix. 9, xx. r 5), probably the earliest of those referred to below. How fully in correspondence with such an environment the work would be, as apologia for the Church against the Synagogue’s attempts to influence Roman policy to its harm, must be clear to all familiar with the strength of Judaism in “ Asia ” (cf. Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9, and see Sir W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, ch. xii.).

7. Text.~The apparatus criticus of Act: has grown consider— ably of recent years; yet mainly in one direction, that of the socalled “ Western text.” This term, which our growing knowledge, especially of the Syriac and other Eastern versions, is rendering more and more unsatisfactory, stands for a text which used to be connected almost exclusively with the “ eccentric ” Codex Baae, and is comparable toaTargum on an Old Testament book. But it is now recognized to have been very widespread, in both east and west, for some 200 years or more from as early as the middle of the 2nd century. The process, however, of sifting out the readings of all our present witnesses—MSS., versions, Fathers


—-has not yet gone far enough to yield any sure or final result as to the history of this text, so as to show what in its extant forms is primary, secondary, and so on. Beginnings have been made towards grouping our authorities; but the work must go on much further before a solid basis for the reconstruction of its primitive form can be said to exist. The attempts made at such areconstruction, as by Blass (189 5, 1897) and Hilgenfeld (1899), are quite arbitrary. The like must be said even of the contribution to the problem made by August Pott,1 though he has helped to define one condition of success—the classification of the strata in “ Western ” texts—and has taken some steps in the right direction, in connexion with the complex phenomena of one witness, the Harklean Syriac.

Assuming, however, that the original form of the “ Western ” text had been reached, the question of its historical value, Le. its relation to the original text of A cts, would yet remain. On this point the highest claims have been made by Blass. Ever since 1894 he held that both the “ Western ” text of Acts (which he styles the 5 text) and its rival, the text of the great uncials (which he styles the a text), are due to the author’s own hand. Further, that the former (Roman) is the more original of the two, being related to the latter (Antiochene) as fuller first draft to severely pruned copy. But even in its later form, that “ )3 stands nearer the Grundschrift than a, but yet is, like a, a copy from it,” the theory is really untenable. In sober contrast of Blass’s sweeping theory stand the views of Sir W. M. Ramsay. Already in The Church in the Roman Empire (r893) he held that the Codex Bezae rested on a recension made in Asia Minor (somewhere between Ephesus and S. Galatia), not later than about the middle of the 2nd century. Though “ some at least of the alterations in Codex Bezae arose through agradual process, and not through the action of an individual reviser,” the revision in question was the work of a single reviser, who in his changes and additions expressed the local interpretation put upon Ads in his own time. His aim, in suiting the text to the views of his day, was partly to make it more intelligible to the public, and partly to make it more complete. To this end he “added some touches where surviving tradition seemed to contain trustworthy additional particulars," such as the statement that Paul taught in the lecture-room of Tyrannus “ from the fifth to the tenth hour." In his later work, on St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895), Ramsay’s views gain both in precision and in breadth. The gain lies chiefly in seeing beyond the Bezan text to the “ Western ” text as a whole.

Generally speaking, then, the text of Acts as printed by Westcott and Hort, on the basis of the earliest M85. (83), seems as near the autograph as that of any other part of the New Testament ; whereas the “ Western ” text, even in its earliest traceable forms. is secondary. This does not mean that it has no historical value of its own. It may well contain some true supplements to the original text, derived from local tradition or happy inference—— a few perhaps from a written source used by Luke. Certain of these may even date from the end of the rst century, and the larger part of them are probably not later than the middle of the 2nd. But its value lies mainly in the light cast on ecclesiastical thought in certain quarters during the epoch in question. The nature of the readings themselves, and the distribution of the witness for them, alike point to a process involving several stages and several originating centres of diffusion. The classification of groups of “ Westem ” witnesses has already begun. When completed, it will cast light, not only on the origin and growth of this type of text, but also on the exact value of the remaining witnesses to the original text or' Acts—and further on the early handling of New Testament writings generally. Ads, from its very scope, was least likely to be viewed as sacrosanct as regards its text. Indeed there are signs that its undogmatic nature caused it to be comparatively neglected at certain times and places, as, e.g., Chrysostom explicitly witnesses.

[merged small][ocr errors][graphic]

commentaries, viz., H. H. Wendt's edition of Meyer (1899), and that by R. J. Knowling in The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. ii. (I 00), supplemented by his Testimony of St Paul to Christ (190 . See, also J. Mofiatt, The Historical New Testament (1901). 412 5., 655 ff.; C. Clemen, Die A ostelgesch. im Lichte der ncueren Forschungen (Giessen, 1905); and . Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte (1908). - (j. . B.)

ACTUARY. The name of actuarius, sc. scriba, in ancient Rome, was given to the clerks who recorded the Acta Publica of the senate, and also to the officers who kept the military accounts and enforced the due fulfilment of contracts for military supplies. In its English form the word has undergone a gradual limitation of meaning. At first it seems to have denoted any clerk or registrar; then more particularly the secretary and adviser of any joint-stock company, but especially of an insurance company; and it is now applied specifically to one who makes those calculations as to the probabilities of human life, on which the practice of life assurance and the valuation of reversionary interests, deferred annuities, &c., are based. The first mention of the word in law is in the Friendly Societies Act of 1819, where it is used in the vague sense, “ actuaries, or persons skilled in calculation,” but it has received still further recognition in the Friendly Societies Act of 1875 and the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870. The word has been used with precision since the establishment of the “ Institute of Actuaries of Great Britain and Ire— land ” in 1848. The Quarterly Journal, Charter of Incorporation, and by-laws of this society may be usefully consulted for particulars as to the requirements for membership (see also ANNUITY). The registrar in the Lower House of Convocation is also called the actuary.

ACUMINATE (from Lat. acumen, point), sharpened or pointed, a word used principally in botany‘and ornithology, to denote the narrowing or lance-shaping of a leaf or of a bird’s feather into a point, generally at the tip, though sometimes (with regard to a leaf) at the base. The poet William Cowper used the word to denote sharp and keen despair, but other authors, Sir T. Browne, Bacon, Bulwer, &c., use it to explain a matgrial pointed shape.

ACUNA, CHRISTOVAL DE (1597-6. 1676), Spanish missionary and explorer, was born at Burgos in 1597. He was admitted a Jesuit in 1612, and afterwards sent on mission work to Chile and Peru, where he became rector of the college of Cuenca. In 1639 he accompanied Pedro Texiera in his second exploration of the Amazon, in order to take scientific observations, and draw up a report for the Spanish government. The journey lasted ten months; and on the explorer’s arrival in Peru, Acuna prepared his narrative, while awaiting a ship for Europe. The king of Spain, Philip IV., received the author coldly, and it is said even tried to suppress his book, fearing that the Portuguese, who had just revolted from Spain (1640), would profit by its information. After occupying the positions of procurator of the Jesuits at Rome and censor (cah'ficador) of the Inquisition at Madrid, Acur'ia returned to South America, where he died, probably soon after 167 5. His Nuevo Descubrimiento del Gran Rio de tas Amazonas was published at Madrid in 1641; French and English translations (the latter from the French, appeared in 1682 and 1698.

ACUPRESSURE (from Lat. acus, a. needle, and premere, to press), the name given to a method of restraining haemorrhage, introduced by Sir J. Y. Simpson, the direct pressure of a metallic needle, either alone or assisted by a loop of wire, being used to close the vessel near the bleeding point.

ACUPUNCTURE (from Lat. acus, a needle, and Pungere, to prick), a form of surgical operation, performed by pricking the part affected with a needle. It has long been used by the Chinese in cases of headaches, lethargies, convulsions, colics, &c. (See SURGERY.)

ADABAZAR, an important commercial town in the Khoja Ili sanjak of Asia Minor, situated on the old military road from Constantinople to the east, and connected by a branch line with the Anatolian railway. Pop. 18,000 (Moslems, 10,000; Christians, 8000). It was founded in 1540 and enlarged in 1608 by the settlement in it of an Armenian colony. There are silk and


linen industries, and an export of tobacco, walnut-wood, cocoons and vegetables for the Constantinople market. Imports are valued at £80,000 and exports at £480,000. ’

See V. Cuinet, Turquie d'Asie (Paris, 1890—1900).

ADAD, the name of the storm-god in the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon, who is also known as Ramman (“ the thunderer ”). The problem involved in this double name has not yet been definitely solved. Evidence seems to favour the view that Ramman was the name current in Babylonia, whereas Adad was more common in Assyria. To judge from analogous instances of a double nomenclature, the two names revert to two different centres for the cult of a storm-god, though it must he confessed that up to the present it has been impossible to determine where these centres were. A god Hadad who was a prominent deity in ancient Syria is identical with Adad, and in view of this it is plausible to assume—for which there is also other evidence —that the name Adad represents an importation into Assyria from Aramaic districts. Whether the same is the case with Ramman, identical with Rimmon, known to us from the Old Testament as the chief deity of Damascus, is not certain though probable. On the other hand the cult of a specific storm-god in ancient Babylonia is vouched for by the occurrence of the sign Im—the “ Sumerian ” or ideographic writing for Adad-Ramman —as an element in proper names of the old Babylonian period. However this name may have originally been pronounced, so much is certain,—that through .Aramaic influences in Babylonia and Assyria he was identified with the storm-god of the western Semites, and a trace of this influencev is to be seen in the designation Amurru, also given to this god in the religious literature of Babylonia, which as an early name for Palestine and Syria describes the god as belonging to the Amorite district.

The Babylonian storm-god presents two aspects in the hymns, incantations and votive inscriptions. On the one hand he is the god who, through bringing on the rain in due season, causes the land to become fertile, and, on the other hand, the storms that he sends out bring havoc and destruction. He is pictured on monuments and seal cylinders with the lightning and the thunderbolt, and in the hymns the sombre aspects of the god on the whole predominate. His association with the sun-god, Shamash, due to the natural combination of the two deities who alternate in the control of nature, leads to imbuing him with some of the traits belonging to a solar deity. In Syria Hadad is hardly to be distinguished from a solar deity. The process of assimilation did not proceed so far in Babylonia and Assyria, but Shamash and Adad became in combination the gods of oracles and of divination in general. Whether the will of the gods is determined through the inspection of the liver of the sacrificial animal, through observing the action'of oil bubbles in a basin of water or through the observation of the movements of the heavenly bodies, it is Shamash and Adad who, in the ritual connected with divination, are invariably invoked. Similarly in the annals and votive inscriptions of the kings, when oracles are referred to, Shamash and Adad are always named as the gods addressed, and their ordinary designation in such instances is bélé biri, “ lords of divination.” The consort of Adad-Ramman is Shala, while as Amurru his consort is called Aschratum. (See BABYLONIAN AND Assyru/m RELIGION.) (M. Li.)

ADAGIO (Ital. ad agio, at ease), a term in music to indicate slow time; also a slow movement in a symphony, sonata, &c., or an independent piece, such as Mozart’s pianoforte “ Adagio in B minor.” »

ADAIR, JOHN (d. 1722), Scottish surveyor and map-maker of the 17th century. Nothing is known of his parentage, birthplace or early life. His name first came before the public in 1683, when a prospectus was published in Edinburgh entitled An Account of the Scottish Atlas, stating that “ the Privy Council of Scotland has appointed John Adair, mathematician and skilfull mechanick, to survey the shires.” In 1686 an act of tonnage was passed in Adair’s favour. He was then employed on a survey of the Scottish coast and two years later was made a fellow of the Royal Society. Two other acts of tonnage were passed for Adair, one in 1695 and the other in 1705. In 1703 he published the first part of his Description of the Sea Coast: and Islands of Scotland, for the use of seamen. The second part never appeared. He is thought to have died in_London about the end of 1722. He must have lost a considerable amount of money in the execution of his work, and in 1723 some remuneration was made to his widow by the government.‘ Some of his work is preserved in the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh and in the King’s Library of the British Museum, London.

ADALBERON, or Ascsuu (d. 1030 or 1031), French bishop and poet, studied at Reims and. became bishop of Laon in 977. When Laon was taken by Charles, duke of Lorraine, in 988, he was put into prison, whence he escaped and sought the protection of Hugh Capet, king of France. Winning the confidence of Charles of Lorraine and of Arnulf, archbishop of Reims, he was restored to his see; but he soon took the opportunity to betray Laon, together with Charles and Arnulf, into the hands of Hugh Capet. Subsequently he took an active part in ecclesiastical affairs, and died on the 19th of July 1030 or 1031. Adalberon wrote a satirical poem in the form of a dialogue dedicated to Robert, king of France, in which he showed his dislike of Odilo, abbot of Cluny, and his followers, and his objection to persons of humble birth being made bishops. The poem was first published by H. Valois in the Carmen panegyricum in laudem Bermganli (Paris, 1663), and in modern times by J. P. vMigne in the Patralogia Latina, tome cxli. (Paris, 1844). \Adalberon must not be confounded with his namesake, Adalberon, archbishop of Reims (d. 988 or 989).

- See Richer, Historfarurn librt' III. e! IV., which ap s in the Monumenla Germamae htstorzca. Scriptures. Band 111. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826—1892 ; Olleris, Qi_uvr_es de Gerhertdgafie sous la nam dc Sylvestre I I. ( ans, 1867); Histozre httérazre France, tome vii. (Paris, 1865—1869).

ADALBERT, or ADELBERT (c. 1000—1072), German archbishop, the most famous ecclesiastic of the 11th century, was the son of Frederick, count of Goseck, a member of a noble Saxon family. He was educated for the church, and began his clerical career at Halberstadt, where he attained to the dignity of provost. Having attracted the notice of the German king, Henry III., Adalbert probably serVed as chancellor of the kingdom of Italy, and in 1045 was appointed archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, his province including the Scandinavian countries, as well as a larger part of North Germany. In 1046 be accompanied Henry to Rome, where he is said to have refused the papal chair; and in 1052 he was made legate by Pope Leo IX., and given the right to nominate bishops in his province. He sought to increase the influence of his archbishopric, sent missionaries to Finland, Greenland and the Orkney Islands, and aimed at making Bremen a patriarchal see for northern Europe, with twelve sufiragan bishoprics. He consolidated and increased the estates of the church, exercised the powers of a count, denounced simony and initiated financial reforms. The presence of this powerful and active personality, who was moreover a close friend of the emperor, was greatly resented by the Saxon duke, Bernard 11., who regarded him as a spy sent by Henry into Saxony. Adalbert, who wished to free his lands entirely from the authority of the duke, aroused further hostility by an attack on the privileges of the great abbeys, and after the emperor’s death in 1056 his lands were ravaged by Bernard. He took a leading part in the government of Germany during the minority of King Henry IV., and was styled patronus of the young king, over whom he appears to have exercised considerable influence. Having accompanied Henry on a campaign into Hungary in 1063, he received large gifts of crown estates, and obtained the office of count palatine in Saxony. His power aroused so much opposition that in 1066 the king was compelled to assent to his removal from court, In 1069 he was recalled by Henry, when he made a further attempt to establish a northern patriarchate, which failed owing to the hostility oi the papacy and the condition of aflairs in the Scandinavian kingdoms. He died at Goslar on the 16th or 17th of March 1072, and was buried in the cathedral which he had built at Bremen. Adalbert was a man of proud and haughty bearing, with large ideas and a strong,energetic character. He made


Bremen a city of importance, and it was called by his biographer, Adam of Bremen, the New Rome.

See Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammenburgmsis ecclesiae ponlificum, edited by J. M. Lap enberg, in the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scri tores. Band vii. Hanover and Berlin, 1826—1892) ; C. Griinhagen, Ad bert Erzbischof van Hamburg and die Idee cine: Nordischen Patriarchats (Leipzig, 1854).

ADALBERT (originally VOYTECH), (a. 950—997), known as the apostle of the Prussians, the son of a Bohemian prince, was born at Libice (Lobnik, Lubik), the ancestral seat near the junction of the Cidlina and the Elbe. He was educated at the monastery of Magdeburg; and in 983 was chosen bishop of Prague. The extreme severity of his rule repelled the Bohemians, whom he vainly strove to wean from their national customs and pagan rites. Discouraged by the ill-success of his ministry, he withdrew to Rome until 993, when, in obedience to the command of the pope, he returned to his own people. Finding little amendment, however, in their course of living, he soon afterwards went again to Rome, and obtained permission from the pope to devote himself to missionary labours, which he carried on chiefly in ' North Germany and Poland. While preaching in Pomerania (997) he was assassinated by a heathen priest.

See U. Chevalier, RéPcrtoire des sources histori ues du moyen dge, Bl0.-Blbl. (1905); Holland, Acta Sanctorum, April 23; H. G. Voigt, Adalbert van Prag (1898), a thoroughly exhaustive monograph.

ADALIA (med. Antaliyah; the crusaders’ Satalia), the ancient Attalia (q.v.), the largest seaport on the south coast of Asia Minor, though in point of trade it is now second to Mersina. The unsuitability of the harbour for modern steamers, the bad anchorage outside and the extension of railways from Smyrna have greatly lessened its former importance as an emporium for west central Anatolia. It is not connected by a chaussée with any point outside its immediate province, but it has considerable importance as the administrative capital of a rich and isolated ranjak. Adalia played a considerable part in the medieval history of the Levant. Kilij Arslan had a palace there. The

army of Louis VII. sailed thence for Syria in 1148, and the fleet

of Richard of England rallied there before the conquest of Cyprus. Conquered by the Seljuks of Konia, and made the capital of the province of Tekké, it passed after their fall through many hands, including those of the Venetians and Genoese, before its final occupation by the Ottoman Turks under Murad II. (1432). In the 18th century, in common with most of Anatolia,its actual lord was a Dere Bey. The family of Tekké Oglu, domiciled near Perga, though reduced to submission in 1812 by Mahmud IL, continued to be a rival power to the Ottoman governor till within the present generation, surviving by many years the fall of the other great Beys of Anatolia. The records of the Levant (Turkey) Company, which maintained an important agency here till 1825, contain curious information as to the local Dere Beys. The present population of Adalia, which includes many Christians and Jews, still living, as in the middle ages, in separate quarters, the former round the walled mina or port, is about 2 5,000. The port is served by coasting steamers of the local companies only. Adalia is an extremely picturesque, but ill-built and backward place. The chief thing to see is the city wall, outside which runs a good and clean promenade. The government oflices and the houses of the better class are all outside the walls.

See C. Lanckoronski, Ville: de la Pamphylz'e e! de la Pisidie, i. (1890). (D. G. H.)

ADAM, the conventional name of the first created man according to the Bible.

1. The Name—The use of “ Adam ” (03s) as a proper name is an early error. Properly the word a'ddm designated man as a species; with the article prefixed (Gen.ii. 7, 8, 16, iv. 1; and doubtless ii. 20, iii. 17) it means the first man. Only in Gen. iv. 25 and v. 3-5 is a'ddm a quasi-proper name, though LXX. and Vulgate use “ Adam ” (A6041) in this way freely. Gen. ii. 7 suggests a popular Hebrew derivation from dda'mah, “ the ground.” Into the question whether the original story did not give a proper name which was afterwards modified into “ Adam ’: —important as this question is —we cannot here enter.

2. Creation 0/ Adam—For convenience, we shall take “ Adam ’

as a symbol for “ the first man,” and inquire first, what does tradition say of his creation? In Gen. ii. 4b-8 we read thus:— “At the time when Yahweh-Elohiml made earth and heaven,— earth was as yet without bushes, no herbage was as yet sprouting, because Yahweh-Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and no men were there to till the ground, but a stream2 used to go up from the earth, and water all the face of the ground,~—then Yahweh-Elohim formed the man of dust of the ground,:' and blew into his nostrils breath of life,‘ and the man became a living being. And Yahweh-Elohim planted a garden5 in Eden, eastward; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” (See Eva.)

How greatly this simple and fragmentary tale of Creation differs from that in Gen. i. r—ii. 40 (see Cosnooomt) need hardly be mentioned. Certainly the priestly writer who produced the latter could not have said that God modelled the first man out

of moistened clay, or have adopted the singular account of the.

formation of Eve in ii. 21-23. The latter story in particular (see EVE) shows us how childlike was the mind of the early men, whose God is not “ wonderful in counsel ” (Isa. xxviii. 29), and fails in his first attempt to relieve the loneliness of his favourite. For no beast however mighty, no bird however graceful, was a fit companion for God’s masterpiece, and, apart from the serpent, the animals had no faculty of speech. All therefore that Adam could do, as they passed before him, was to name them, as a lord names his vassals. But here arises a difficulty. How came Adam by the requisite insight and power of observation? For as yet he had not snatched the perilous boon of wisdom. Clearly the Paradise story is not homogeneous.

3. How the Animals were named.——Some modems, e.g. von Bohlen, Ewald, Driver (in Genesis, p. 55, but cp. p. 42), have found in ii. 19, 20 an early explanation of the origin of language. This is hardly right. The narrator assumes that Adam and Eve had an innate faculty of speech.“ They spoke just as the birds sing, and their language was that of the race or people which descended from them. Most probably the object of the story is, not to answer any curious question (such as, how did human speech arise, or how came the animals by their names?), but to dehort its readers or hearers from the abominable vice referred to in Lev. xviii. 23.7 There may have been stories in circulation like that of Ea-bani (§ 8), and even such as.those of the Skidi Pawnee, in which “ people ” marry animals, or become animals. Against these it is said (ver. 20b) that “ for Adam he found no helper (qualified) to match him.”

4. Three Riddles—Manifold are the problems suggested by the Eden-story (see EDEN; PARADISE). For instance, did the original story mention two trees, or only one, of which the fruit was taboo? In iii. 3(cp. vv. 6, 11) only “ the tree in the midst of the garden ” is spoken of, but in ii. 9 and iii. 22 two trees are referred to, the fruit of both of which would appear to be taboo. To this we must add that in ii. 17 “ the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ” appears to have the qualities of a “ tree of life,” except indeed to Adam. This passage seems to give us the key to the mystery. There was only one tree whose fruit was forbidden; it might be called either “ the tree of life ” or “ the tree of knowledge,” but certainly not “ the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”8 The words “life” and “ knowledge ” (=“ wisdom ”) are practically equivalent; perfect knowledge

‘ The English Bible gives “the LORD GOD." This, however, does not adequately represent the Hebrew.

’ See commentaries of Gunkel and Cheyne. stream is meant. (See EDEN.)

3 A wide] spread mythic re resentation. (Cp. COSMOGONY.)

‘ See an il ustration from Navi le's Book of the Dead (Egyptian) in Jewish Cycloflaedia, i. I74a.

‘ 0r park. (See PARADISE.)

{The later Jews, however, supposed that before the Fall the animals could speak, and that they had all one language (Jubilees, iii. 28; Jos. Antiquities, i. I, 4).

" Chzyne, Genesis and Exodus, referring to Dorsey, Traditions of the Sk' i Pawnee, p .2, 80 ff.

' “ Good and evi " may be a late marginal loss. See further Ency. Bib. col. 3578, and the commentaries Driver leaves the

hrase); also jastrow, Relig. of Bob. and Ass. p. 555; Sayce,

ibbert Lectures, p. 242.

As in v.10, the ocean


(so primitive man believed) would enable any being to escape death (an idea spiritualized in Prov. iii. 18).

Next, which of the trees is the “ tree of life "P Various sacred trees were known to the Semitic peoples, such as the fig-tree (cp. iii. 7), which sometimes appears, conventionalized, as a sacred tree.9 But clearly the tree referred to was more than a “ sacred tree ”; it was a tree from whose fruit or juice, as culture advanced, some intoxicating drink was produCed. The Cat» kerena of the Iranians 1° is exactly parallel. At the resurrection, those who drink of the life-giving juice of this plant will obtain " perfect welfare," including deathlessness. It is not, however, either from Iran or from India that the Hebrew tree of life is derived, but from Arabia and Babylonia, where date-wine (cp. Enoch xxiv. 4) is the earliest intoxicant. Of this drink it may well have been said in primitive times (cp. Rig Veda, ix. go. 5, of Soma) that it “ cheers the heart of gods ” (in the speech of the vine, Judg. ix. :3). Later writers spoke of a “ tree of mercy,” distilling the “ oil of life,” “is. the oil that heals, but 4 Esdr. ii. 12 (cp. viii. 53) speaks of the “ tree of life,” and Rev. xxii. 2 (virtually) of “ trees of life,” whose leaves have a healing virtue (cp. Ezek. xlvii. 12). The oil-tree should doubtless be grouped with the river of oil in later writings (see PARADISE). Originally it was enough that there should be one tree of life, Le. that heightened and preserved vitality.

A third enigma—why no “ fountain of life "P The references to such a fountain in Proverbs (xiii. 14, 81c.) prove that the idea was familiar,‘2 and in Rev. xxii. r we are told that the river of Paradise was a “ river of water of life " (see PARADISE). The serpent, too, in mythology is a regular symbol of water. Possibly the narrator, or redactor, desired to tone down the traces of mythology. Just as the Gathas (the ancient Zoroastrian hymns) omit Gaokerena, and the Hebrew prophets on .the whole avoid mythological phrases, so this old Hebrew thinker prunes the primitive exuberance of the traditional myth.

5. The Serpent—The keen-witted, fluently speaking serpent gives rise to fresh riddles. How comes it that Adam's ruin is efi‘ected by one of those very “ beasts of the field " which he had but lately named (ii. 19), that in speech he is Adam's equal and in wisdom his superior? Is he a pale form of the Babylonian chaos-dragon, or of the serpent of Iranian mythology who sprang from heaven to earth to blight the " good creation "P It is true that the serpent of Eden has mythological affinities. In iii. 14, 15, indeed, he is degraded into a mere typical snake, but 1-5 shows that he was not so originally. He is perhaps best regarded, in the light of Arabian folk-lore, as the manifestation of a demon residing in the tree with the magic fruit." He may have been a prince among the demons, as the magic tree was a prince among the plants. Hence perhaps his strange boldness. For some unknown reason he was ill disposed towards YahwehElohim (see iii. 3b), which has suggested to some that he may be akin to the great enemy of Creation. To Adam and Eve, however, he is not unkind. He bids them raise themselves in the scale of being by eating the forbidden fruit, which he declares to be not fatal to life but an opener of the eyes, and capable of equalizing men with gods (iii. 4, 5). To the phrase “ ye shall be as gods ” a later writer may have added “ knowing good and evil," but “ to be as gods ” originally meant “ to live the lifev of gods—wise, powerful, happy.” The serpent was in the main right, but there is one point which he did not mention, viz. that for any being to retain this intensified vitality the eating of the

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »