صور الصفحة

former corresponds to the element of variety in a beautiful object, that of the latter with its unity. He explicitly excludes all other kinds of pleasure, such as the sensuous, from the proper gratification of beautfi He denies that the attribute of beauty belongs to fitness. john uskin's well-known speculations on the nature of beauty in Modern Painters (“ Of ideas of beauty "), though sadly wanting in Rusum scientific precision, have a certain value in the history of aesthetics. For him beauty is spiritual and ty ical of

divine attributes. Its true nature is appreciated by the t eoretic facult which is concerned in the moral conception and appreciation 0 ideas of beauty, and must be distinguished from the imaginative or artistic faculty, which is employed in regarding in a certain

way and combining the ideas received from external nature. He distinguishesbetween typical and vital beauty. The former is the external quality of bodieswhich typifies some divine attribute. The

latter consists in “ the appearance of felicitous fulfilment of function in living things." The forms of ty ical beauty arez—(i) infinity, the type of the divine incomprehensiiiility: (2) unity, the type of the divine comprehensiveness; (3) repose, the type of the divine permanence; (4) symmetry, the type of the divine justice; (5) purity, the type of the divine energy; and (6) moderation, the ty of government by law. Vital beauty, again, is regarded as relg‘iive when the dc ree of exaltation of the function is estimated, or generic if only the e ree of conformity of an individual to the appointed functions of t e species is taken into account. Ruskin's writings illustrate the extreme tendency to identify aesthetic with moral perception.

Addison’s “Essays on the Imagination," contributed to the Spectator, though they belong to popular literature, contain the germ of scientific analysis in the statement that the pleasures

Tho . . . . . . . . .

Inn-ya“, of imagination (which arise originally from sight) fall into “nods”. two classes:—(I) primary pleasures, which entirely (proAddlxom ceed from objects before our eyes; and (2) secon ary

pleasures, flowin from the ideas of visible objects. The latter are greatly extended Iiy the addition of the proper enjoyment of resemblance, which is at the basis of all mimicry and wit. Addison recognizes, too, to some extent, the influence of association upon our aesthetic preferences.

In the Elements of Criticism of Home (Lord Kames) another attempt is made to resolve the pleasure of beauty into its elements. Beauty and ugliness are simply the pleasant and unpleasant in the higher senses of sight and hearing. He appears to admit no general characteristic of beautiful objects beyond _thlS power of yielding pleasure. Like Hutcheson, he divides beauty into intrinsic and relative, but understands by the latter the appearance of fitness and utility, which is excluded from the beautiful by Hutcheson.

Passin by the name of Sir Joshua Reynolds, whose theory of beauty cosely resembles that of Pere Bufiier, we come to the "om speculationsofanotherartistand ainter,\VilliamHogarth.

_ ' He discusses, in his Analysis of cauty, all the elements of Visual beauty. He finds in this the following elements :-—(i) fitness of the parts to some design; (2) variety in as many ways as possible; (3) uniformity, regularity or symmetry, which is only beautiful when it helps to preserve the character of fitness; (4) simplicity or distinctness, which gives pleasure not in itself, but through its enabling the eye to en'oy variety with ease; (5) intricacy, which prowdes emdplo‘yment or our active energies, leading the eye " a wanton kin o chase "; (6) quantity or magnitude, which draws our attention and produces admiration and awe. The beauty of proportion he resolves into the needs of fitness. Hogarth applies these rinciples to the determination of the degrees of beauty in lines, glures and groups of forms. Among lines he singles out for special onour the serpentine (formed by drawing a line once round from the base to the apex of a long slender cone).

Burke's speculations, in his Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, illustrate the tendency of English writers Burke to treat the problem as a psychological one and to intro' duce physiological considerations. He finds the elements

of beauty tobe:——(I) smallness; (2)5moothness; (3) gradualvariation of direction in gentle curves; (4) delicacy, or the ap rance of fragility; (5) brightness, purity and softness of colour. he sublime

is rather crudely resolved into astonishment, which he thinks always contains an element of terror. Thus “infinity has a tendency to fill the mind with a delightful horror.H Burke seeks what he calls

“ efficient causes " for these aesthetic impressions in certain affections of the nerves of sight analogous to those of other senses, namely, the soothing effect of a relaxation of the nerve fibres. The arbitrari' ness and narrowness of this theory cannot well escape the reader's attention.

Alison, in his well-known Essays on the Nature and Principles 0 Taste, proceeds by a method exactly the opposite to that of Hogart All!“ and Burke. He seeks to analyse the mental process when

' we experience the emotion 0 beauty or sublimity. He finds that this consists in a peculiar operation of the imagination, namely, the flow of a train of ideas through the mind, which ideas always correspond to some simple affection or emotion (e.g. cheerfulness, sadness, awe) awakened by the object. He thus makes association the sole source of aesthetic delight, and denies the existence of a primary source in sensations themselves. He illustrates



the working of the principle of association at great length, and with much skill; et his attempt to make it the uni ue source of aesthetic pleasure fai 5 completely. Francis Jeffre 's ssays on Beauty (in the Edinburgh Review, and Encycloptudia rilannica, 8th edition) are little more than a modification of Alison's theory.

D. Stewart's chief contribution to aesthetic discussion in his Philosophical Essays consists in pointing out the unwarranted assumption lurking in the doctrine of a single quality Dun” running through all varieties of beautiful object. He seeks sewn to show how the successive chan es in the meaning of the term “ beautiful " have arisen. e su gests that itoriginallyconnoted the pleasure of colour. The value 0 his discussion resides more in the criticism of his predecessors than in the contribution of new ideas. His conception of the sublime, suggested by the etymology of the word, emphasizes the element of height in objects.

Of the association psychologists james Mill did little more towards the analysis of the sentiments of beauty than re-state Alison's doctrine. Alexander Bain, in his treatise, The Emotions and the Will (“ Aesthetic Emotions "), carries this examination considerably further. He seeks to differentiate aesthetic from other varieties of pleasurable emotion by three characteristics :—-(l) their freedom from life-serving uses, being ratifications sought for their own sakes; (2) their purity from alii disagreeable concomitants; (3) their eminently sym athetic or shareable nature. He takes a comprehensive view of t e constituents of aesthetic enjoyment, including the pleasures of sensation and of its revived or its “ ideal " form; of revived emotional states; and lastl the satisfaction of those wide-ran in susceptibilities which we call the love of novelty, of contrast am 0% harmony. The effect of sublimity is connected with the manifestation of superior power in its highest degrees, which manifestation excites a sympathetic elation in the beholder. The ludicrous, again, is defined by Bain, improving on Aristotle and Hobbes, as the degradation of something possessing dignity in circumstances that excite no other strong emotion.

Herbert Spencer, in his First Principles, Princi les of Psychology and Essays, has given an interesting turn to t e psychology of

aesthetics by the application of his doctrine of evolution. Adopting Schiller's idea of a connexion between aesthetic activity "em." and pla , he seeks to make it the starting-point in tracing 5””. the evolution of aesthetic activity. Play is defined as the

outcome of the superfluous energies of the organism: as the activity of organs and faculties which, owing to a prolon ed riod of inactivity, have become specially ready to dlschar e t eir unction, and as a consequence vent themselves in simulate actions. Aesthetic activities supply a similar mode of self-relieving dischar e to the higher organs of perception and emotion; and they furt er agree with play in not directly subserving any processes conducive to life; in being gratifications sought for their own sake only. Spencer seeks to construct a hierarchy of aesthetic pleasures according to the degree of complexity of the faculty exercised: from those of sensation u to the revived emotional experiences which constitute the aesthetic sentiment proper. Among the more vaguely revived emotions Spencer includes more permanent feelings of the race transmitted by heredity; as when he refers the dee and indefinable emotion excited by music to associations with voca tones ex ressive of feeling built up during the past history of our species. is biological treatment of aesthetic activity has had a wide influence, some (:45. Grant Allen) being content to develop his evolutional method. Yet, as suggested above, his theory is now reco nized as taking us only a little way towards an adequate understan ing of our aesthetic ex )erience. iBLiooRAPiiv.1—(a) Works on General Aesthetics.

English and American.—There are no important recent works which deal with the whole subject. The following will bev found helpful: Herbert Spencer, Principles of Psychology, pt. viii. c. 9, “Aesthetic Sentiments," and the papers on “Use and Beauty," “ Origin and Function of Music " and others in the Essays; A. Bain, Emotion: and Will, “ Aesthetic Emotions"; ]. Sully, Human Mind, ii. “Aesthetic Sentiment "; Grant Allen, “ Physiological Aesthetics " (Meth., PL, Senses, Play); Rutgers Marshall, Pain, Pleasure and Aesthetics, and Aesthetic Principles (Meth., PL, Play).

French and Italian Works.—M. Guyau, Les Problémcsdcl'esthétique contemporaine (1884) (PL, Play); Ii. Véroii, L'Eslhr'tique(1890) (slight PL); L. Bray, Du Beau (1901". (PL, Play); l’. Sauriau. 1,1 Beauté ralionnelle (I904) (Meth., PL, Senses, Einf.); M. Pilo, Estelica (PL, Senses); A. Rolla, Storia delle idea estetiche in Italia (1905) (full account of ideas of Dante and other medieval writers, as well as of modern systems). _

German Works.—K. Kostlin, Prolegomena 2w Aslhetik (1889)

[graphic][merged small]

(good introduction to subject); K. Groos, Der dsthetische Genuss £902) (Methn Jud ., Play, Senses, Einf. and lll.) ; J. Volkelt, System

r .ll'sthetik (1905) {very full and clear) (Meth., Norm., Evol., Senses, Einf.);{). Cohn, Allgemeine A'sthetik (1901) (Yak, Play, Einf.); K. Lan , as Wesen der Kunst (1901) (Meth., E1nf., Ill., Play).

(15 Works on History 0 Aesthetics.—-H. Lotze, Geschichte der Isthetik in Deutschland; . Schasler, Kritische Geschichte der Al'sthetik (full and elaborate, dealing with ancient and modern theories); E. von Hartmann, Die deutsche {lsthetik seit Kant (Ausgewahlte Werke, iii.); K. H. von Stein, Die Entstehung der neueren Asthetik (theories of French critics, &c.); F. Brunetiere, L'Evolution des genres (History of critical discussions in the 17th and 18th centuries); B. Bosanquet, History of Aesthetics (very full, es ially on ancient theories and German systems); W. Knight, Pizilirso hy of the Beautiful, pt. i. “History” (Univ. Extension Manua s, a popular résumé with quotations). .

AESTIVATION (from Lat. aestivare, to spend the acstas, or summer; the word is sometimes spelled “ estivation "), literally “ summer residence,” a term used in zoology for the condition of torpor into which certain animals pass during the hottest season in hot and dry countries, contrasted with the similar winter condition known as hibernation (q.v.). In botany the word is used of the praefloration or folded arrangement of the petals in a flower before expansion in the summer, contrasted with “ vermtion ” of leaves which unfold in the spring.

ETHELBALD, king of Mercia, succeeded Ceolred AD. 716. According to Felix, Life of St Guthlac, he visited the saint at Crowland, when exiled by Ceolred and pursued by his emissaries before his accession, and was cheered by predictions of his future greatness. According to Bede, the whole of Britain as far north as the Humber was included within the sphere of his authority. His energy in preserving his influence is shown by several entries in the Chronicle. He made an expedition against Wessex in 733, in which year he took the royal vill of Somerton. In 740 he took advantage of the absence of Eadberht of Northumbria in a campaign against the Picts to invade his kingdom. In 743 he fought with Cuthred, king of Wessex, against the Welsh, but the alliance did not last long, as in 7 52 Cuthred took up arms against him. In 757 [Ethelbald was slain by his guards at Seckington (Warwickshire) and buried at Repton. He seems to have been the most powerful and energetic king of Mercia between Penda and Ofia. A letter of St Boniface is preserved, in which he rebukes this king for his immoralities and encroachments on church property, while recognizing his merits as a monarch. By a charter of 749 he freed ecclesiastical lands from all obligations except the trinoda necessitas.

See Bede. Hist. Ecc. (ed. Plummer), v. 23 and Continuatio s.a. 740, 750, 757; Saxon Chronicle (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 716, 733, 737, 740, 741, 743, {355; Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum', ii. p_p_. 264, 275, 276, 279, 283-284; . Jnffe, Alonumenta Moguntiaca, 111. p . 168-1 7; W. de G. Birch, Cartul. Saxon. 178 (1885-1893). (F. M. B}

ETHELBALD, king of Wessex, was the son of Ethelwulf, with whom he led the West Saxons to victory against the Danes at Aclea, 851. According to Asscr he rebelled against his father on the latter’s return from Rome in 856, and deprived him of Wessex, which he ruled until his death in 860. On his

father’s death in 858 he married his widow, Judith. Sec Asser, Life of Alfred (W. H. Stevenson, 1904), 12; Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 851, 855, 860.

ETHELBERHT, king of Kent, son of Eormenric, probably came to the throne in A.D. 560. The first recorded event of his reign was a serious reverse at the hands of Ceawlin of Wessex in the year 568 (Chronicle) at a place called Wibbandune. {Ethelbcrht married Berhta, daughter of Charibert, king of Paris, who brought over Bishop Liudhard as her private confessor. According to Bede, Aithelberht’s supremacy in 597 stretched over all the English kingdoms as far as the Humber. The nature of this supremacy has been much disputed, but it was at any rate sufficient to guarantee the safety of Augustine in his conference with the British bishops. Ethelberht exercised a stricter sway over Essex, where his nephew Saberht was king. In 597 the mission of Augustine landed in Thanet and was received at first with some hesitation by the king. He seems to have acted with prudence and moderation during the conversion of his kingdom and did not countenance compulsory proselytism.

(Ethelbcrht gave Augustine a dwelling-place in Canterbury, and


Christ Church was consecrated in 603. He also made grants to found the see of Rochester, of which Justus became first bishop in 604, and his influence established Mcllitus at London in the same year. A code of laws issued by him which is still extant is probably the oldest document in the English language, and contains a list of money fines for various crimes. Towards the close of his reign his pro-eminence as Bretwalda was disturbed by the increasing power of Razdwald of East Anglia.

He died probably in 616, and was succeeded by his son Eadbald. See Bede, Hist. Eco. (Plummcr) i. 25, 26, ii. 3, 5; Saxon Chronicle (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 568. (F. G. M. B.)

ETHELBERHT, king of the West Saxons, succeeded to the sub-kingdom of Kent during the lifetime of his father lEthelwulf, and retained it until the death of his elder brother [Ethelbald in 860, when he became sole king of Wessex and Kent, the younger brothers Ethelred and Alfred renouncing their claim. He ruled these kingdoms for five years and died in 865. His reign was marked by two serious attacks on the part of the Danes, who destroyed Winchester in 860, in spite of the resistance of the ealdormen Osric and iEthelwulf with the levies of Hampshire and Berkshire, while in 865 they treacherously ravaged Kent.

See Saxon Chronicle (Earle and Plummer), s.a. 860, 865; King Alfred's Will; W. de G. Birch, Cartul. Saxon. 553.

ETHELFLAED (ETHELFLEDA), the “ Lady of the Mercians," the eldest child of Alfred the Great, was educated with her brother Edward at her father’s court. As soon as she was of marriageable age (probably about 11.1). 886), she was married to Ethelred, earl of Mercia, to whom Alfred entrusted the control of Mercia. On the accession of her brother Edward, iEthelflaed and her husband continued to hold Mercia. In 907 they fortified Chester, and in 909 and 910 either ZEthelflaed or her husband must have led the Mercian host at the battles of Tettenhall and Wednesfield (or Tettcnhall-chnesfield, if these battles are one and the same). It was probably about this time that Ethelred fell ill, and the Norwegians and Danes from Ireland unsuccessfully besieged Chester. Ethelflacd won the support of the Danes against the Norwegians, and seems also to have entered into an alliance with the Scots and the Welsh against the pagans. In 911 [Ethelred died and Edward took over Middlesex and Oxfordshire. Except for this {Ethelflaed’s authority remained unimpaired. In 912 she fortified “ Scergcat” and Bridgenorth, Tamworth and Stafiord in 913, Eddisbury and Warwick in 914, Cherbury, “ Weardbyrig ” and Runcorn in 915. In 916 she sent an expedition against the Welsh, which advanced as far as Brecknock. In 917 Derby was captured from the Danes, and in the next year Leicester and York both submitted to her. She died in the same year at Tamworth (June 12), and was buried in St Peter’s church at Gloucester. This noble queen, whose career was as distinguished as that of her father and brother, left one daughter, l‘Elfwyn. For some eighteen months [Elfwyn seems to have wielded her mother’s authority, and then, just before the Christmas of 919, Edward took Mercia into his own hands, and {Elfwyn was “ led away ” into Wessex. [Ethelflaed and her husband wielded almost kineg authority, and the

royal title is often given them by the chroniclers.

See The Saxon Chronicle, sub ann. (especially the Mercian register in M55. B, C and D); Florence of Worcester; Fragments of Irish Annals (ed. O'Conor), pp. 227-237; D.N.B., s.v. (A. Mw.)

ETHELFRITH, king of Northumbria, is said to have come to the throne in 11.1). 593, being the son of fEthelric (probably reigned 568-572). He married Acha, daughter of Ella ()Elle), king of Deira, whom he succeeded probably in 605, expelling his son Edwin. In 603 he repelled the attack of Aidan, king of the Dalriad Scots, at Daegsastan, defeating him with great loss. The appearance of Hering, son of Hussa, [Ethelfrith’s predecessor, on the side of the invaders seems to indicate family quarrels in the royal house of Bernicia. Later in his reign, probably in 614, be defeated the Welsh in a great battle at Chester and massacred the monks of Bangor who were assembled to aid them by their prayers. This war may have been due partly to tEthelfrith’s persecution of Edwin, but it had a stra~ tegic importance in the separation of the North Welsh from the Strathclyde Britons. In 617 Ethelfrith was defeated and slain

[merged small][ocr errors]

BTHELING, an Anglo-Saxon word compounded of (ethole, or ethel, meaning noble, and ing, belonging to, and akin to the modern German words Adel, nobility, and adelig, noble. During the earliest years of the Anglo-Saxon rule in England the word was probably used to denote any person of noble birth. Its use was, however, soon restricted to members of a royal family, and in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it is used almost exclusively for members of the royal house of Wessex. It was occasionally used after the Norman Conquest to designate members of the royal family. The earlier part of the word formed part of the name of several Anglo-Saxon kings, e.g. Ethelbert, lEthelwulf, lEthelred, and was used obviously to indicate their noble birth. According to a document which probably dates from the 10th century, the wergild of an aetheling was fixed at 15,000 thrymsas, or 1 1,2 50 shillings. This wergild is equal to that of an archbishop and one-half of that of a king.

ETHELNOTH (d. 1038), archbishop of Canterbury, known also as EGELNODUS or Eonoous, was a son of the ealdorman Ethelmaer, and a member of the royal family of Wessex. He became a monk at Glastonbury, then dean of the monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, and chaplain to King Canute, and on the 13th of November 1020 was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury. In 1022 he went to Rome to obtain the pallium, and was received with great respect by Pope Benedict VIII. Returning from Rome he purchased at Pavia a relic said to be an arm of St Augustine of Hippo, for a hundred talents of silver and one of gold, and presented it to the abbey of Coventry. He appears to have exercised considerable influence over Canute, largely by whose aid he restored 'his cathedral at Canterbury. A story of doubtful authenticity tells how he refused to crown King Harold L, as he had promised Canute to crown none but a son of the king by his wife, Emma. Ethelnoth, who was called the “Good,” died on the 29th of October 1038, and his name appears in the lists of saints. »

ETHELRED, king of Mercia, succeeded his brother Wulfhere in AD. 675. In 676 he ravaged Kent with fire and sword, destroying the monasteries and churches and taking Rochester. {Ethelred married Osthryth, the sister of Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria, but in spite of this connexion a quarrel arose between the two kings, presumably over the possession of the province of Lindsey, which Ecgfrith had won back at the close of the reign of Wulfhere. In a battle on the banks of the Trent in 679, the king of Mercia was victorious and regained the province. lElfwine, the brother of Ecgfrith, was slain on this occasion, but at the intervention of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, [Ethelred agreed to pay a wergild for the Northumbrian prince and so prevented further hostilities. Osthryth was murdered in 697 and [Ethelred abdicated in 704, choosing Coenred as his successor. He then became abbot of Bardney, and, according to Eddius, recommended Wilfrid to Coenred on his return from Rome. [Ethelred died at Bardney in 716. (See WILFRID.)

Sconces—Eddius, Vila Wilfridi (Raine), 23_ 4o, 43, 4 -48, 57; Bede, Hist. Ecc. (ed. Plummer), iii. 11, iv. 12, 21; Saxon hram'cle, 5.0. 676, 679, 704, 716. (F. G. M. B.)

ETHELRED 1., king of Wessex and Kent (866—871), was the fourth son of Ethelwulf of Wessex, and should, by his father’s will, have succeeded to Wessex on the death of his eldest brother Ethelbald. He seems, however, to have stood aside in favour of his brother lEthelberht, king of Kent, to whose joint kingdoms he succeeded in 866. Ethelred’s reign was one long struggle against the Danes. In the year of his succession a large Danish force landed in East Anglia, and in the year 868 [Ethelred and his brother Alfred went to help Burgred, or Burhred, of Mercia, against this host, but the Mercians soon made peace with their foes. In 871 the Danes encamped at Reading, where they defeated lEthelred and his brother, but later in the year the English won a great victory at “ Escesdun.”


A fortnight later they were defeated at Basing, but partially retrieved their fortune by a victory at “ Maeretun ” (perhaps Marden in Wiltshire), though the Danes held the field. In the Easter of this year Ethelred died, perhaps of wounds received in the wars against the Danes, and was buried at Wimborne. He left a son, Ethelwold, who gave some trouble to his cousin Edward the Elder, when the latter succeeded to the kingdom. iEthelweard the historian was also a descendant of this king. AUTHORITIES.—The Saxon Chronicle, sub ann.; Birch, Canal. Saxon. vol. ii. Nos. 516-526; D.N.B., s.v.; Eng. Hist. Review, i. 218-234. - (A. Mw.) MHELRED II. (or ETHELRED) (0. 968—1016), king of the English (surnamed T111: Unnmnv, Le. without mic or counsel), son of King Edgar by his second wife lElfthryth, was born in 968 or 969 and succeeded to the throne on the murder of his step-brother Edward (the Martyr) in 979. His reign was disastrous from the beginning. The year after his accession the Danish invasions, long unintermitted under Edgar the Peaceful, recommenced; though as yet their object was plunder only, not conquest, and the attacks were repeated in 981, 982 and 988. In 991 the Danes burned Ipswich, and defeated and slew the East Saxon ealdorman Brihtnoth at Maldon. After this, peace was purchased by a payment of £10,0oo—a disastrous expedient. The Danes were to desist from their ravages, but were allowed to stay in England. Next year lEthelred himself broke the peace by an attack on the Danish ships. Despite the treachery of iElfric, the English were victorious; and the Danes sailed off to ravage Lindsey and Northumbria. In 994 Olaf Tryggvason, king of Norway, and Sweyn, king of Denmark, united in a great invasion and attacked London. Foiled by the valour of the citizens, they sailed away and harried the coast from Essex to Hampshire. [Ethelred now resorted to the old experiment and bought them 05 for £16,000 and a promise of supplies. Olaf also visited Ethelred at the latter’s request and, receiving a most honourable welcome, was induced to promise that he would never again come to England with hostile intent, an engagement which he faithfully kept. The Danish attacks were repeated in 997, 998, 999, and in 1000 [Ethelred availed himself of the temporary absence of the Danes in Normandy to invade Cumberland, at that time a Viking stronghold. Next year, however, the Northmen returned and inflicted worse evil than ever. The national defence seemed to have broken down altogether. In despair [Ethelred again offered them money, which they again accepted, the sum paid on this occasion being £24,000. But soon afterwards the king, suspecting treachery, resolved to get rid of his enemies once and for all. Orders were issued commanding the slaughter on St Brice’s day (December 2) pf “ all the Danish men who were in England.” Such a decree could obviously not be carried out literally; but we cannot doubt that the slaughter was great. This violence, however, only made matters worse. Next year Sweyn returned, his hostility fanned by the desire for revenge. For two years he ravaged and slew; in 1003 Exeter was destroyed; Norwich and Thetford in 1004. No effectual resistance was offered, despite a gallant efiort here and there; the disorganization of the .country was complete. In 1005 the Danes were absent in Denmark, but came back next year, and emboldened by the utter lack of resistance, they ranged far inland. In 1007 [Ethelred bought them off for a larger sum than ever (£36,000), and for two years the land enjoyed peace. In 1009, however, in accordance with a resolution made by the witan in the preceding year, {Ethelred collected such a fleet “ as never before had been in England in any king’s day ”; but owing to a miserable court quarrel the effort came to nothing. The king then summoned a general levy of the nation, with no better result. Just as he was about to attack, the traitor Edric prevented him from doing so, and the opportunity was lost. In 1010 the Danes returned, to find the kingdom more utterly disorganized than ever. “ There was not a chief man in the kingdom who could gather a force, but each fled as he best might; nor even at last would any there resist another." Incapable of offering resistance, the king again ofl'eredmoney, this time no less than £48,000. While it was being collected, the Danes sacked Canterbury and barbaroust slew the archbishop Alphege. The tribute was paid soon afterwards; and about the same time the Danish leader Thurkill entered the English service. From 1013 an important change is discernible in the character of the Danish attacks, which now became definitely political in their aim. In this year Sweyn sailed up the Trent and received the submission of northern England, and then marching south, he attacked London. Failing to take it, he hastened west and at Bath received the submission of Wessex. 'Then he returned northwards, and after that “ all the nation considered him as full king.” London soon acknowledged him, and ZEthelred, after taking refuge for a while with Thurkill’s fleet, escaped to Normandy. Sweyn died in February 1014, and [Ethelred was recalled by the witan, on giving a promise to reign better in future. At once- he hastened north against Canute, Sweyn’s son, who claimed to succeed his father, but Canute sailed away, only to return next year, when the traitor Edric joined him and Wessex submitted. Together Canute and Edric harried Mercia, and were preparing to reduce London, when Ethelred died there on the 23rd of April 1016. - Weak, self-indulgent, improvident, he had pursued a policy of opportunism to a fatal conclusion.

{Ethelred’s wife was Emma, or Elfgifu, daughter of Richard I. the Fearless, duke of the Normans, whom he married in 1002. After the king’s death Emma became the wife of Canute the Great, and after his death in 103 5 she struggled hard to secure England for her son, Hardicanute. In 1037, however, when Harold Harefoot became sole king, she was banished; she went to Flanders, returning to England with Hardicanute in 1040. In r043, after Edward the Confessor had become king he seized the greater part of Emma’s great wealth, and the queen lived in retirement at Winchester until her death on the 6th of March 1052. By Ethelred Emma had two sons, Edward the Confessor and the tetheling 1151er (d. 1036), and by Canute she was the mother of Hardicanute. Emma’s marriage with [Ethelred was an important step in the history of the relations between England and Normandy, and J. R. Green says “it suddenly opened for its rulers a distinct policy, a distinct course of action, which led to the Norman conquest of England. From the moment of Emma’s marriage Normandy became a chief factor in English politics.”

AUTHORITIEs.—The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (edition by C. Plummer, 2 vols. Oxford, 1892—1899); Florence of Worcester (ed. B. Thorpe, London, I848—X849); Encomium Emmae. (ed. by G. H. Pertz In the Scriptores Rerum Germantcarum, Band xxx., Hanover, 1866) for the latter art of the rei n. See also J. M. Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus aem' gaxonici (Lon on, 1839—1848); and B. The e, Ancient Laws (London, 184,0). ('8. S. P?)

ETHBLSTAN (c. 894—940), Saxon king, was the son (probably illegitimate) of Edward the elder. He had been the favourite of his grandfather Alfred, and was brought up in the household of his aunt lEthelflaed, the “ Lady of the Mercians.” On the death of his father in 924, at some date after the 12th of November, [Ethelstan succeeded him and was crowned at Kingston shortly after. The succession did not, however, take place without opposition. One lElfred, probably a descendant of {Ethelred 1., formed a plot to seize the king at Winchester; the plot was discovered and )Elfred was sent to Rome to defend himself, but died shortly after. The king’s own legitimate brother Edwin made no attempt on the throne, but in 933 he was drowned at sea under somewhat mysterious circumstances; the later chroniclers ascribe his death to foul play on the part of the king, but this seems more than doubtful.

One of ZEthelstan’s first public acts was to hold a conference at Tamworth with Sihtric, the Scandinavian king of Northumbria, and as a result Sihtric received fEthelstan’s sister in marriage. In the next year Sihtric died and {Ethelstan took over the Northumbrian kingdom. He now received, at Dacre in Cumberland, the submission of all the kings of the island, viz. Howe] Dda, king of West Wales, Owen, king of Cumbria, Constantine, king of the Scots, and Ealdred of Bamburgh, and henceforth he calls himself “rex totius Britanniae.” About this time (the exact chronology is uncertain) {Ethelstan expelled Sihtric's brother


Guthfrith, destroyed the Danish fortress at York, receiVed the submission of the Welsh at Hereford, fixing their boundary along the line of the Wye, and drove the Cornishmen west of the Tamar, fortifying Exeter as an English city.

In 934 he invaded Scotland by land and sea, perhaps owing to an alliance between Constantine and Anlaf Sihtricsson. The army advanced as far north as Dunottar, in Kincardincshire, while the navy sailed to Caithness. Simeon of Durham speaks of a submission of Scotland as a result; if it ever took place it was a mere form, for three years later we find a great confederacy formed in Scotland against iEthelstan. This confederacy of 937 was joined by Constantine,~kin,g of Scotland, the Welsh of Strathclyde, and the Norwegian chieftains Anlaf Sihtricsson and Anlaf Godfredsson, who, though they came from Ireland, had powerful English connexions. A great battle was fought at Brunanburh (perhaps Brunswark or Birrenswark hill in S.E. Dumfriesshire) , in which [Ethelstan and his brother Edmund were completely victorious. England had been freed from its greatest danger since the days of the struggle of Alfred against Guthrum.

[Ethelstan was the first Saxon king who could claim in any real sense to be 10rd paramount of Britain. In his charters he is continually called “ rex totius Britanniae,” and he" adopts for the first time the Greek title basileus. This was not merely an idle flourish, for some of his charters are signed by Welsh and Scottish kings as subreguli. Further, {Ethelstan was the first king to bring England into close touch with continental Europe. By the marriage of his half-sisters he was brought into connexion with the chief royal and princely houses of France and Germany. His sister Eadgifu married Charles the Simple, Eadhild became the wife of Hugh the Great, duke of France, Eadgyth was married to the emperor Otto the Great, and her sister {Elfgifu to a petty German- prince. Embassies passed between )Ethelstan and Harold F airhair, first king of Norway, with the result that Harold’s son Haakon was brought up in England and is known in Scandinavian history as Haakon Adalsteinsfostri.

[Ethelstan died at Gloucester in 940, and was buried at Malmesbury, an abbey which he had munificently endowed during his lifetime. Apparently he was never married, and he certainly had no issue.

A considerable body of law has come down to us in [Ethelstan’s name. The chief collections are those issued at Grately in Hampshire, at Exeter, at T hunrcsfcld, and the J udicia civitatis Lundonie. In the last-named one personal touch is found when the king tells the archbishop how grievous it is to put to death persons of twelve winters for stealing. The king secured the raising of the age limit to fifteen.

Aurnonrrras.-—Primary: The Saxon Chronicle, sub ann.; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, i. 141-157, Rolls Series, containing valuable ori inal information (11. Stubbs' Introduction, I]. Ix.lxvii.); Birch, artul. Saxon. vol. ii. Nos. 641-747; AS. Laws, (ed. Liebermann), i. l46-l83; Ethelweard, Florence of Worcester. Secondary: Saxon Chronicle (ed. Plummer), vol. ii. p . 132-142; D.N.B., av. FA. Mw.)

ETHELWEARD (ETHELWARD), Anglo-Saxon historian, was the great-grandson of fEthelred, the brother of Alfred, and ealdorman or earl of the western provinces (Le. probably of the whole of Wessex). He first signs as dust or ealdorman in 973, and continues to sign until 998, about which time his death must have taken place. In the year 991 he was associated with archbishop Sigeric in the conclusion of a peace with the victorious Danes from Maldon, and in 994 he was sent with Bishop )Elfheah (Alphege) of Winchester to make peace with Olaf at Andover. zEthelweard was the author of a Latin Chronicle extending to the year 975. Up to the year 892 he is largely dependent on the Saxon Chronicle, with a few details of his own; later he is largely independent of it. ZEthelweard gave himself the bom~ bastic title “ Patricius Consul Quaestor Ethelwerdus,” and unfortunately this title is only too characteristic of the man. His narrative is highly rhetorical, and as he at the same time attempts more than Tacitean brevity his narrative is often very obscure. Ethelweard was the friend and patron of [Elch the grammarian.

Aurnonirrss.—Primary: The Saxon Chronicle, 994 E: Birch, Carlularium Saxonicum; A.S. Laws (ed. Liebermann), pg.e 220-224; Fabii Ethel-werdi Chrom, Mon. Hist. Brit. 449-454. condary: Plummer, Saxon Chronicle, vol. ii. p. ci.; Napier and Stevenson, Crawford Charters, pp. 118420; D.N.B., 5.1.1. (A. Mw.)

ETHELWULF, king of the West Saxons, succeeded his father Ecgberht in AD. 839. It is recorded in the Saxon Chronicle for 823 that he was sent with Eahlstan, bishop of Sherborne, and the ealdorman Wulfheard to drive out Baldred, king of Kent, which was successfully accomplished. On the accession of :‘Ethelwulf, Ethelstan, his son or brother, was madesub-king of Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Essex. [Ethelwulf’s reign was chiefly occupied with struggles against the Danes. After the king’s defeat 843—844, the Somerset and Dorset levies won a victory at the mouth of the Parret, c. 850. In 851 Ceorl, with the men of Devon, defeated the Danes at Wigganburg, and [Ethelstan of Kent was victorious at Sandwich, in spite of which they wintered in England that year for the first time. In 8 51 also {Ethelwulf and Ethelbald won their great victory at Aclea, probably the modern Ockley. In 853 [Ethelwulf subdued the North Welsh, in answer to the appeal of Burgred of Mercia, and gave him his daughter Ethelswith in marriage. 855 is the year of the Donation of iEthelwulf and of his journey to Rome with Alfred. On his way home he married Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald. According to Asser he was compelled to give up Wessex to his son )Ethelbald on his return, and content himself with the eastern sub-kingdom. He died in 858.

See Asser, Life of Alfred (W. H. Stevenson, 1904), 1-16; Saxon Chronicle, 3.0. 823, 836, 840, 851, 853, 855. (F. G. M. B.)

AETHER, or ETHER (Gr. alflhp, probably from a't’Ow, I burn, though Plato in his Cratylus (410 B) derives the name from its perpetual motion—6n as 0e? rep! for aépa. béwv, 6.6.067”? 6txaiws 6.11 xaho'i-ro), a material substance of a more subtle kind than visible bodies, supposed to exist in. those parts of space which are apparently empty.

“ The hypothesis of an aether has been maintained by difierent speculators for very different reasons. To those who maintained the existence of a plenum as a philosophical principle, nature’s abhorrence of a vacuum was a sufficient reason for imagining an all-surrounding aether, even though every other argument should be against it. To Descartes, who made extension the sole essential property of matter, and matter a necessary condition of extension, the bare existence of bodies apparently at a distance was a proof of the existence of a continuous medium between them. But besides these high metaphysical necessities for a medium, there were more mundane uses to be fulfilled by aethers. Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, till all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers. It is only when we remember the extensive and mischievous influence on science which hypotheses about aethers used formerly to exercise, that we can appreciate the horror of aethers which sober-minded men had during the 18th century, and which, probably as a sort of hereditary prejudice, descended even to John Stuart Mill. The disciples of Newton maintained that in the fact of the mutual gravitation of the heavenly bodies, according to Newton’s law, they had a complete quantitative account of their motions; and they endeavoured to follow out the path which Newton had opened up by investigating and measuring the attractions and repulsions of electrified and magnetic bodies, and the cohesive forces in the interior of bodies, without attempting to account for these forces. Newton himself, however, endeavoured to account for gravitation by ditierenccs of pressure in an aether; but he did not publish his theory, ‘ because he was not able from experiment and observation to give a satisfactory account of this medium, and the manner of its operation in producing the chief phenomena of nature.’ On the other hand, those who imagined aethers in order to explain phenomena could not specify the nature of the motion of these media, and could not prove that the media, as imagined by them, would produce the effects they were meant to explain. The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light. The


evidence for the existence of the luminiferous aether has accumulated as additional phenomena of light and other radiations have been discovered; and the properties of this medium, as deduced from the phenomena of light, have been found to be precisely those required to explain electromagnetic phenomena.”

This description, quoted from James Clerk Maxwell’s article in the 9th edition of the Encycloflaedia Britannica, represents the historical position of the subject up till about 1860, when Maxwell began those constructive speculations in electrical theory, based on the influence of the physical views of Faraday and Lord Kelvin, which have in their subsequent development largely transformed theoretical physics into the science of the aether.

In the remainder of the article referred to, Maxwell reviews the evidence for the necessity of an aether, from the fact that light takes time to travel, while it cannot travel as a substance, for if so two interfering lights could not mask each other in the dark fringes (see INTERFERENCE or LIGHT). Light is therefore an influence propagated as wave-motion, and moreover by transverse undulations, for the reasons brought out by Thomas Young and Augustin Fresnel; so that the aether is a medium which possesses elasticity of a type analogous to rigidity. It must be very different from ordinary matter as we know it, for waves travelling in matter constitute sound, which is propagated hundreds of thousands of times slower than light.

If we suppose that the aether differs from ordinary matter in degree but not in kind, we can obtain some idea of its quality from a knowledge of the velocity of radiation and of its possible intensity near the sun, in a manner applied long ago by Lord Kelvin (Trans. R. S. Edin. xxi. 1854). According to modern measurements the solar radiation imparts almost 3 grammecalories of energy per minute per square centimetre at the distance of the earth, which is about r-3X16‘ ergs per sec. per cm.’ The energy in sunlight per cubic cm. just outside the earth’s atmosphere is therefore about 4X :0" ergs; applying the law of inverse squares the value near the sun’s surface would be r-8 ergs. Let a be the efiective elasticity of the aether; then E=pc', where p is its density, and c the velocity of light which is 3X10 1° cm./sec. If £=A cosn (t—x/c) is the linear vibration, the stress is E df/dx; and the total energy, which is twice the kinetic energy §p(d£/dt)'dx, is hprl'A' per cm., which is thus equal to 1-8 ergs as above. Now X=2xc/n, so that if Al)‘=k, we have §p(21rck)’= 1-8, giving p= ro'flk" and E= ro"k". Lord Kelvin assumed as a superior limit of k, the ratio of amplitude to wave-length, the value 10", which is a very safe limit. It follows that the density of the aether must exceed 10"", and its elastic modulus must exceed 10‘, which is only about 20-8 of the modulus of rigidity of glass. It thus appears that if the amplitude of vibration could be as much as 10" of the wave-length, the aether would be an excessively rare medium with very slight elasticity; and yet it would be capable of transmitting the supply of solar energy on which all terrestrial activity depends. But on the modern theory, which includes the play of electrical phenomena as a function of the aether, there are other considerations which show that this number to“2 is really an enormous overestimate; and it is 'not impossible that the co-efficient of ultimate inertia of the aether is greater than the co-efficient of inertia (of different kind) of any existing material substance.

The question of whether the aether is carried along by the earth’s motion has been considered from the early days of the undulatory theory of light. In reviving that theory at the be' ginning of the 19th century, Thomas Young stated his conviction that material media offered an open structure to the substancc called aether, which passed through them without hindrance “ like the wind through a grove of trees.” Any convection of that medium could be tested by the change of eflective velocity of light, which would be revealed by a prism as was suggested by F. J. D. Arago. Before 1868 Maxwell conducted the experiment by sending light from the illuminated cross-wires of an observing telescope forward through the object-glass, and through a train of prisms, and then reflecting it back along the same path; any influence of convection would conspire in

« السابقةمتابعة »