v. 221) points out that the view of 4 Ezra that the Ten | in the sixth year of that king (vi.). The event was solemnized Tribes will return was held by the Shammaites, whereas it was by the celebration of the Passover (cf. 2 Chron. xxx., Hezekiah; denied by Aqiba. The Apocalypse of Baruch is silent on this xxxv. Josiah). point. Time and Place.-The work was written towards the close of the 1st century (iii. 1, 29), and somewhere in the east. LITERATURE. In addition to the authorities mentioned above, see Dillmann, Herzog's Real-Encyk,2 xii. 353 sqq.; Schürer, Gesch. des jud. Volkes, iii. 246 sqq.; and the articles on 4 Esdras in Hastings' Bible Dictionary and the Encyclopaedia Biblica by Thackeray and James respectively. (R. H. C.) I EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF, in the Old Testament. The two canonical books entitled Ezra and Nehemiah in the English Bibie1 correspond to the 1 and 2 Esdras of the Vulgate, to the 2 Esdras of the Septuagint, and to the Ezra and Nehemiah of the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. Though for many centuries they have thus been treated as separate compositions, we have abundant evidence that they were anciently regarded as forming but one book, and a careful examination proves that together with the book of Chronicles they constitute one single work. The two books may therefore be conveniently treated together. 1. Position and Date.--Origen (Euseb, H.E. vi. 25), expressly enumerating the twenty-two books of the old covenant as acknowledged by the Jews and accepted by the Christian church, names the First and Second Ezra in one book "; Melito of Sardis (Euseb. H.E. iv. 26) in like manner mentions the book of Ezra only. So also the Talmud (in Bābā bathrā, 14. 2), nor can it be supposed that Josephus in his enumeration (c. Ap. i. 8) reckoned Nehemiah as apart from Ezra. That the Jews themselves recognized no real separation is shown by the fact that no Massoretic notes are found after Ezra x., but at the end of Nehemiah the contents of both are reckoned together, and it is stated that Neh. iii. 22 is the middle verse of the book. Their I position in the Hebrew Bible before the book of Chronicles is, however, illogical. The introductory verses of Ezra i. are identical with the conclusion of 2 Chron. xxxvi., whilst in the version of 1 Esdras no less than two chapters (2 Chron. xxxv. sq.) overlap. The cause of the separation is probably to be found in the late reception of Chronicles into the Jewish canon. Further proof of the unity of the three is to be found in the general similarity of style and treatment. The same linguistic criteria recur, and the interest in lists and genealogies, in priests and Levites, and in the temple service point unmistakably to the presence of the same hand (the so-called "chronicler ") in ChroniclesEzra-Nehemiah. See BIBLE (sect. Canon); CHRONICLES. The period of history covered by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah extends from the return of the exiles under Zerubbabel B.C. in 537-536 B.C. to Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem in 432 In their present form, however, the books are considerably later, and allusions to Nehemiah in the past (Neh. xii. 26, 47), to the days of Jaddua (the grandson of Nehemiah's contemporary Joiada; ib. xii. 11), to Darius (Nothus 423 B.C. or rather Codomannus 336 B.C., ib. v. 22), and the use of the term "king of Persia,' as a distinctive title after the fall of that empire (332 B.C.), are enough to show that, as a whole, they belong to the same age as the book of Chronicles. 2. Contents. Their contents may be divided into four parts: (a) The events preceding the mission of Ezra (i. -vi.).—In the first year of his reign Cyrus was inspired to grant a decree permitting the Jews to return to build the temple in Jerusalem (i.); a list of families is given (ii.). The altar of burnt-offering was set up, and in the second year of the return the foundations of the new temple were laid with great solemnity (iii.). The "adversaries of Judah and Benjamin" offered to assist but were repulsed, and they raised such opposition to the progress of the work that it ceased until the second year of Darius (521520 B.C.). Aroused by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah the building was then resumed, and despite fresh attempts to hinder the work it was completed, consecrated and dedicated 1 References to 1 Esdras in this article are to the book discussed above as Ezra, THIRD BOOK OF. (b) An interval of fifty-eight years is passed over in silence, and the rest of the book of Ezra comprises his account of his mission to Jerusalem (vii. -x.). Ezra, a scribe of repute, well versed in the laws of Moses, returns with a band of exiles in order to reorganize the religious community. A few months after his arrival (seventh year of Artaxerxes, 458 B.C.) he instituted a great religious reform, viz. the prohibition of intermarriage with the heathen of the land (cf. already vi. 21). In spite of some opposition (x. 15 obscurely worded) the reform was accepted, and the foundations of a new community were laid. description of his work is one of the most interesting pieces of (c) Twelve years elapse before the return of Nehemiah, whose Old Testament narrative (Neh. i.-vi.). In the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (445 B.C.), Nehemiah the royal cup-bearer at Shushan and was overcome with grief at the tidings of the miserable con(Susa, the royal winter palace) was visited by friends from Judah dition of Jerusalem and the pitiful state of the Judaean remnant which had escaped the captivity. He obtained permission to return, and on reaching the city made a secret survey of the ruins and called upon the nobles and rulers to assist in repairing them. Much opposition was caused by Sanballat the Horonite (i.e. of the Moabite Horonaim or Beth-horon, about 15 m. N.W. of Jerusalem), Tobiah the Ammonite, Geshem (or Gashmu) the Arabian, and the Ashdodites, whose virulence increased as the rebuilding of the walls continued. But not withstanding attempts upon the city and upon the life of Nehemiah, and in spite of intrigues among certain members of the Judaean section, in fifty-two days the city walls were complete (Neh. vi. 15). The hostility, however, did not cease, and measures were taken to ensure the safety of the city (vi. 16-vii. 4). A valuable account is given of Nehemiah's economical reforms, illustrating the internal social conditions of the period and the general character of the former governors who had been placed in charge (v., cf. the laws codified in Lev. xxv. 35 sqq.). (d) The remaining chapters carry on the story of the labours of both Ezra and Nehemiah. The list of those who returned under the decree of Cyrus is repeated (Neh. vii.), and leads up to the reading of the Law by Ezra, a great national confession of guilt, and a solemn undertaking to observe the new covenant, the provisions of which are detailed (x. 28-39). After sundry lists of the families dwelling in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood (xi. I sqq., apparently a sequel to vii. 1-4),2 and of various priests and Levites, an account is given of the dedication of the walls (xii. 27-43), the arrangements for the Levitical organization (v. 4447), and a fresh separation from the heathen (Moabites and Ammonites, xiii. 1-3; cf. Deut. xxiii. 3 seq.). The book concludes with another extract from Nehemiah's memoirs dealing with the events of a second visit, twelve years later (xiii. 4-31). On this occasion he vindicated the sanctity of the temple by expelling Tobiah, reorganized the supplies for the Levites, took measures to uphold the observance of the Sabbath, and protested energetically against the foreign marriages. In the course of his reforms he thrust out a son of Joiada (son of Eliashib, the high-priest), who had married the daughter of Sanballat, an incident which had an important result (see SAMARITANS). That these books are the result of compilation (like the book of Chronicles itself) is evident from the many abrupt changes; the inclusion of certain documents written in an Aramaic dialect (Ezr. iv. 8-vi. 18, vii. 12-26)3; the character of the name-lists; the lengthy gaps in the history; the use made of two distinct from the varying form in which the narratives are cast. The sources, attributed to Ezra and Nehemiah respectively, and 2 With Neh. xi. 4-19 cf. 1 Chron. ix. 3-17; with the list xii. 1-7 cf. vv. 12-21 and x 3-9; and with xii. 10 sq. cf. 1 Chron. vi. 3-15 (to which it forms the sequel). See further Smend, Listen d. Esra u. Neh. (1881). 3 Sometimes wrongly styled Chaldee (q.v.); see SEMITIC LAN GUAGES. chronicler's hand can usually be readily recognized. There | are relatively few traces of it in Nehemiah's memoirs and in the Aramaic documents, but elsewhere the sources are largely coloured, if not written from the standpoint of his age. Examples of artificial arrangement appear notably in Ezr. ii.-iii. I compared with Neh. vii. 6-viii. 1 (first clause); in the present position of Ezr. iv. 6-23; and in the dislocation of certain portions of the two memoirs in Neh. viii.-xiii. (see below). It should be noticed that the present order of the narratives involves the theory that some catastrophe ensued after Ezr. x. and before Neh. i.; that the walls had been destroyed and the gates burnt down; that some external opposition (with which, however, Ezra did not have to contend) had been successful; that the main object of Ezra's mission was delayed for twelve years, and, finally, that only through Nehemiah's energy was the work of social and religious reorganization successful. These topics raise serious historical problems (see Jews: History, § 21). I sqq. follow more naturally upon v. 1-2, but v. 14 with its difficult reference to Artaxerxes now seems to presuppose the decree in iv. 21 and looks forward to the time of Ezra or Nehemiah. As regards this section (Ezr. i.-vi.) as a whole, there is little doubt that i. iii. 1-iv. 5, vi. 15-22 are from the chronicler, whose free treatment of his material is seen in the use he has made of ch. ii. Notwithstanding the unimpeachable evidence for the tolerant attitude of Persian kings and governors towards the religion of subject races, it is probable that the various decrees incorporated in the book (cf. also 1 Esdr. iv. 42 sqq.) have been reshaped from a Jewish standpoint. A noteworthy example appears in the account of the unique powers entrusted to Ezra (vii. 11-26), the introduction to whose memoirs, at all events, is quite in the style of the chronicler. I 4. Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra.-The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah do not appear to have been incorporated without some adjustment. The lapse of time between Neh. i.. I and ii. I 3. Criticism of Ezra i.-vi.-The chronicler's account of the is noteworthy, and with the prayer in i. 5-11 cf. Ezr. ix. 6-15, destruction of Jerusalem, the seventy years' interval (2 Chron. Dan. ix. 4 sqq. (also parallels in Deuteronomy); chap. i. in its xxxvi. 20 sq.; cf. Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10, also Is. xxiii. 17), and the present form may be a compiler's introduction. The important return of 42,360 of the exiles (Ezr. ii. 64 sqq.) represent a topographical list in ch. iii. is probably from another source; special view of the history of the period. The totals, as also the the style is different, Nehemiah is absent, and the high-priest detailed figures, in Ezr., Neh. and 1 Esdr. v. vary considerably; is unusually prominent.2 Chap. v., where Nehemiah reviews his the number is extremely large (contrast Jer. lii. 30); it includes past conduct as governor, turns aside to economic reforms and the common people (contrast 2 Kings xxiv. 14, XXV. 12), and scarcely falls within the fifty-two days of the building of the ignores the fact that Judah was not depopulated, that the Jews walls. The chapter is closely associated with the contents of were carried off to other places besides Babylon and that many xiii. and breaks the account of the opposition. Anticipated remained behind in Babylon. According to this view, Judah already in ii. 10, the hostility partly arises from the repudiation and Jerusalem were practically deserted until the return. The of Samaritan religious claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezr. iv. 3) and is partly list in Ezr. ii. is that of families which returned " every man unto political. It is difficult to follow its progrees clearly, and the his city" under twelve leaders (including Nehemiah, Azariah account ceases abruptly in vi. 17-19 with the notice of the [cf. Ezra], Zerubbabel and Jeshua); it recurs with many varia- conspiracy of Tobiah and the nobles of Judah. The chronicler's tions in a different and apparently more original context in Neh. style can be recognized in vii. 1-5 (in its present form), where vii., and in 1 Esdr. v. is ascribed to the time of Darius. The steps are taken to protect and to people Jerusalem; the older families (to judge from the northwards extension of Judaean sequel is now found in ch. xi. Whilst the account of the dedicaterritory) are probably those of the population in the later tion of the walls is marked by the use of the pronoun "I" Persian period, hardly those who returned to the precise homes (xii. 31, 38, 40), it is probably now due as a whole to the chronicler, of their ancestors (see C. F. Kent, Israel's Hist. and Biogr. and when the more trustworthy memoirs of Nehemiah are Narratives, p. 379). The offerings which are for the temple- resumed (xiii. 4 sqq.) the episodes, although placed twelve service in Neh. vii. 70-72 (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 6-8) are for the years later (ver. 6), are intimately connected with the preceding building of the temple in Ezr. ii. 68-70; and since the walls are reforms (cf. xii. 44-xiii. 3 with xiii. 10 sqq., 23 sqq.). Nehemiah's not yet built, the topographical details in Neh. viii. 1 (see 1 Esdr. | attitude towards intermarriage is markedly moderate in contrast v. 47) are adjusted, and the event of the seventh month is not the to the drastic measures of Ezra, whose mission and work the reading of the Law amid the laments of the people (Neh. viii.; simpler and perhaps earlier narratives of Nehemiah originally see vv. 9-11) but the erection of the altar by Jeshua and Zerub-ignored, and the relation between the two is complicated further babel under inauspicious circumstances (cf. Ezr. iii. 3 with I by the literary character of the memoir of Ezra. Esdr. v. 50). I I The chronologically misplaced account of the successful opposition in the time of Ahasuerus (i.e. Xerxes) and Artaxerxes (the son and grandson of Darius respectively) breaks the account of the temple under Cyrus and Darius, and is concerned with the city walls (iv. 6-23)1; there is some obscurity in vv. 7-9: Rehum and Shimshai evidently take the lead, Tabeel may be an Aramaized equivalent of Tobiah. A recent return is implied (iv. 12) and the record hints that a new decree may be made (v. 21). The account of the unsuccessful opposition to the temple in the time of Darius (v. sq.; for another account see Jos. Ant. xi. 4, 9) is independent of iv. 7-23, and throws another light upon the decree of Cyrus (vi. 3-5, contrast i. 2-4). It implies that Sheshbazzar, who had been sent with the temple vessels in the time of Cyrus, had laid the foundations and that the work had continued without cessation (v. 16, contrast iv. 5, 24). The beginning of the reply of Darius is wanting (vi. 6 sqq.), and the decree which had been sought in Babylon is found at Ecbatana. Chap. vi. 15 Its real position in the history of this period is not certain. Against the supposition that the names refer to Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis who reigned after Cyrus and before Darius, see H. E. Ryle, Camb. Bible," Ezra and Neh.," p. 65 sq. Against the view that Darius is D. ii. Nothus of 423-404 B.C., see G. A. Smith, Minor Prophets, ii. 191 sqq. The ignorance of the compiler regarding the sequence of the kings finds a parallel in that of the author of the book of Daniel (q.v.); see C. C. Torrey, Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang. (1907), p. 178, n. I. To the last mentioned are prefixed (a) the scribe's genealogy, which traces him back to Aaron and names as his immediate ancestor, Seraiah, who had been slain 130 years previously (Ezr. vii. 1-5), and (b) an independent account of the return (vv. 6-10) with a reference to Ezra's renown, obviously not from the hand of Ezra himself. Whatever the original prelude to Ezra's thanksgiving may have been (vii. 27 seq.), we now have the essentially Jewish account of the letter of Artaxerxes with its unusual concessions. The list of those who returned amounts to the moderate total of 1496 males (viii., but 1690 in 1 Esdr. viii. 30 sqq.). Ezra's mission was obviously concerned with the Law and Temple service (vii. 6, 10, 14 sqq., 25; viii. 17, 24-30, 33 sq.), but four months elapse between his return in the fifth month (vii. 9) and the preparations for the marriage reforms in the ninth (x. 9), and there is a delay of twelve years before the Law is read (Neh. viii.). The Septuagint version (1 Esdr. ix.; cf. Josephus, Antiq. xi. 5. 5 and some modern scholars) would place 2 See further H. G. Mitchell, Journ. of Bibl. Lit. (1903), pp. 88 sqq. The chronological difficulties will be seen from xiii. 6 ("before this "), which would imply that the dedication of the walls was on the occasion of Nehemiah's later visit (see G. A. Smith, Expositor, July 1906, p. 12). His previous departure is perhaps foreshadowed in vii. 2. See Ency, Bib. col. 1480. Papyri from a Jewish colony in Elephantine (407 B.C.) clearly show the form which royal permits could take, and what the Jews were prepared to give in return; the points of resemblance are extremely interesting, but compared with the biblical documents the papyri reveal some striking differences. of the Jews in vi. † sq., 13, vii. 21; Neh. ii. 7 sq.). But the account of the events in the reign of Artaxerxes is extremely perplexing. Since the building of the walls of Jerusalem must have begun early in the fifth month (Neh. vi. 15), an allowance of three days (ii. 11) makes the date of Nehemiah's arrival practically the anniversary of Ezra's return (Ezr. vii. 9, viii. 32). Considering the close connexion between the work of the two men this can hardly be accidental. The compiler, however, clearly intends Neh. vi. 15 (25th of sixth month) to be the prelude to the events in Neh. vii. 73, viii. (seventh month), but the true sequence of Neh. vi. sqq. is uncertain, and the possibility of artificiality is suggested by the unembellished statement of Josephus that the building of the walls occupied, not fifty-two days, but two years four months (Ant. xi. 5. 8). The present chronological order of Nehemiah's work is confused (cf. § 4, n. 3), and the obscure interval of twelve years in his work corresponds very closely to that which now separates the records of Ezra's labours. However, both the recovery of the compilers' aims and attempted reconstructions are precluded from finality by the scantiness of independent historical evidence. (See further JEWS: History, §21 seq.) the latter after Ezr. x., but more probably this event (dated in | viii. 9-11; Ezr. iii. 7 with the special favour enlisted on behalf the seventh month) should precede the great undertaking in Ezr. ix. That the adjustment was attended with considerable revision of the passages appears from a careful comparison of Neh. viii. sq. with Ezr. ix. sq. With Ezra's confession (ix. 6 sqq.) compare the prayer in Neh. ix. 5 sqq., which the Septuagint ascribes to him. In Ezr. x. (written in the third person) the number of those that had intermarried with the heathen is relatively small considering the general trend of the preliminaries, and the list bears a marked resemblance to that in ch. ii. It ends abruptly and obscurely (x. 44; cf. 1 Esdr. ix. 35), and whilst as a whole the memoirs of Ezra point to ideas later than those of Nehemiah, the present close literary connexion between them is seen in the isolated reference to Johanan the son of Eliashib in Ezra x. 6, which seems to be connected with Neh. xiii. 7, and (after W. R. Smith) in the suitability of ib. xiii. 1, 2 between Ezr. x. 9 and 10. The list of signatories in Neh. x. 1-27 should | be compared with the names in xii. and 1 Chron. xxiv.; the true connexion of ix. 38 is very obscure, and the relation to Ezr. ix. seq. is complicated by the reference to the separation from the heathen in Neh. ix. 2. The description of the covenant (Neh. x. 28 sqq., marked by the use of "we") is closely connected with xii. 43-xiii. 3 (from the same or an allied source), and anticipates the parallel though somewhat preliminary measures detailed in the more genuine memoirs (Neh. xiii. 4 sqq.). Finally, the specific allusion in xiii. 1-3 to Ammon and Moab is possibly intended as an introduction to the references to Tobiah and Sanballat respectively (vv. 4 seq., 28). 3 5. Summary.—The literary and historical criticism of EzraNehemiah is closely bound up with that of Chronicles, whose characteristic features it shares. Although the three formed a unit at one stage it may seem doubtful whether two so closely related chapters as 1 Chron. ix. and Neh. xi. would have appeared in one single work, while the repetition of Neh. vii. 6-viii. 1 in Ezr. ii.-iii. 1 is less unnatural if they had originally appeared in distinct sources. Thus other hands apart from the compiler of Chronicles may have helped to shape the narratives, either before their union with that book or after their separation.2 The present intricacy is also due partly to specific historical theories regarding the post-exilic period. Here the recension in I Esdras especially merits attention for its text, literary structure and for its variant traditions. Its account of a return in the time of Darius scarcely arose after Ezr. i.-iii. (Cyrus); the reverse seems more probable, and the possibility of some confusion or of an intentional adjustment to the earlier date is emphasized by the relation between the popular feeling in Ezr. iii. 12 (Cyrus) and Hag. ii. 3 (Darius), and between the grant by Cyrus in iii. 7 (it is not certain that he held Phoenicia) and the permit of Darius in Esdr. iv. 47-57 (see v. 48). To the latter context belongs the list of names which reappears in Ezr. ii. (Cyrus). But from the independent testimony of Haggai and Zechariah it is doubtful whether the chronicler's account of the return under Cyrus is at all trustworthy. The list in 1 Esdr. v., Ezr. ii., as already observed, appears to be in its more original context in Neh. vii., i.e. in the time of Artaxerxes, and it is questionable whether the earliest of the surviving detailed traditions in Ezra-Nehemiah went back before this reign. It is precisely at this age that there is evidence for a return, apparently other than that of Ezra or Nehemiah (see Ezr. iv. 12), yet no account seems to be preserved unless the records were used for the history of earlier periods (cf. generally Ezr. iii. 12 sq. with Neh. 1 C. C. Torrey, Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezra-Neh. (Beihefte of Zeit. f. alttest. Wissens., 1896), pp. 30-34; C. F. Kent, Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narratives, pp. 32, 369. Since Neh. vii. 70-73 is closely joined to viii., the suggested transposition would place its account of the contributions to the temple in a more appropriate context (cf. Ezr. viii. 24-30, 33 sq.). 2 For linguistic evidence reference should be made to J. Geissler, Die litterarischen Beziehungen d. Esramemoiren (Chemnitz, 1899). See especially Sir Henry Howorth, Proc. of Society of Bibl. Arch. (1901-1904), passim; C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1910). For the text, see A. Klostermann, Real-Ency. f. prot. Theol. v. 501 sqq.; H. Guthe in Haupt's Sacred Books of Old Testament (1899); and S. A. Cook in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. BIBLIOGRAPHY.-S. R. Driver, Lit. of the O. T. (1909), pp. 540 sqq. and the commentaries of H. E. Ryle (Camb. Bible, 1893), C. Siegfried (1901), A. Bertholet (1902), and T. W. Davies (Cent. Bible, 1909). Impetus to recent criticism of these books starts with Van Hoonacker (Neh. et Esd. [1890]; see also Expos. Times [1897], pp. 351-354, and M.-J. Lagrange, Rev. biblique, iii. 561-585 (1894], iv. 186-202 [1895]) and W. H. Kosters (Germ. ed., Wiederherstellung Israëls, 1895). The latter's important conclusions (for which see his article with Cheyne's additions in Ency. Bib. col. 1473 sqq., 3380 sqq.) have been adversely criticized, especially by J. Wellhausen (Nachrichten of the Univ. of Göttingen, 1895, pp. 166-186), E. Meyer (Entstehung d. Judentums, 1896), J. Nikel (Wiederherstellung d. jüd. Gemein., 1900), and S. Jampel in Monatsschrift f: Gesch. u. Wissens. d. Judentums, vols. xlvi.-xlvii. (1902-1903). The negative criticisms of Kosters have, however, been strengthened by his replies (in the Dutch Theolog. Tijdschrift), and by the discussions of C. C. Torrey and C. F. Kent (op. cit) and of G. Jahn (Esra u. Neh. pp. i-lxxviii; 1909), and his general position appears to do more justice to the (S. A. C.) biblical evidence as a whole. EZZO, or EHRENFRIED (c. 954-1024), count palatine in Lorraine, was the son of a certain Hermann (d. c. 1000), also a count palatine in Lorraine who had possessions in the neighbourhood of Bonn. Having married Matilda (d. 1025), a daughter of the emperor Otto II., Ezzo came to the front during the reign of his brother-in-law, the emperor Otto III. (983-1002); his power was increased owing to the liberal grant of lands in Thuringia and Franconia which he received with his wife, and some time later his position as count palatine was recognized as an hereditary dignity. Otto's successor, the emperor Henry II., was less friendly towards the powerful count palatine, though there was no serious trouble between them until 1011; but some disturbances in Lorraine quickly compelled the emperor to come to terms, and the assistance of Ezzo was purchased by a gift of lands. Henceforward the relations between Henry and his vassal appear to have been satisfactory. Very little is known about Ezzo's later life, but we are told that he died at a great age at Saalfeld on the 21st of March 1024. He left three sons, among them being Hermann, who was archbishop of Cologne from 1036 to 1056, and Otto, who was for a short time duke of Swabia; and seven daughters, six of whom became abbesses. Ezzo founded a monastery at Brauweiler near Cologne, the place where his marriage had been celebrated. This was dedicated in 1028 by Piligrim, archbishop of Cologne, and here both Ezzo and his wife were buried. EZZOLIED, or ANEGENGE, an old German poem, written by Ezzo, a scholar of Bamberg. It was written about 1060, but not, as one authority asserts, composed while the author was making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The subject of the poem is the life of Christ. Very popular during the later middle ages, the Ezzolied had a great influence on the poetry of south Germany, and is valuable as a monument of the poetical literature of the time. The text is printed in the Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa aus dem 8-12. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1892) of C. V. Müllenhoff and W. Scherer. F This is the sixth letter of the English alphabet as it was intimate with Leopold I., grand-duke of Tuscany, but the Jesuits of the Latin. In the ordinary Greek alphabet the symbol disliked him on account of his Jansenist views. Besides his has disappeared, although it survived far into historical other literary labours he began at Pisa in 1771 a literary journal, times in many Greek dialects as F, the digamma, the which he continued till 1796. About 1772 he made a journey to use of which in early times was inductively proved by Bentley, Paris, where he formed the acquaintance of Condorcet, Diderot, when comparatively little was known of the local alphabets d'Alembert, Rousseau and most of the other eminent Frenchmen and dialects of Greece. The so-called stigma 5, which serves of the day. He also spent four months in London. He died at for the numeral 6, is all that remains to represent it. This Pisa on the 22nd of September 1803. symbol derives its name from its resemblance in medieval MSS. The following are his principal works:-Vitae Italorum doctrina to the abbreviation for σT. The symbol occupying the same posi- excellentium qui saeculis XVII. et XVIII. floruerunt (20 vols., Pisa, 1778-1799, 1804-1805), the last two vols., published posttion in the Phoenician alphabet was Vau (4), which seems humously, contain a life of the author; Laurentii Medicei Magnifici to be represented by the Greek T, the Latin V, at the end of Vita (2 vols., Pisa, 1784), a work which served as a basis for H. the early alphabet. Many authorities therefore contend that Roscoe's Life of Lorenzo dei Medici; Leonis X. pontificis maximi Vita (Pisa, 1797); and Elogi di Dante Alighieri, di Angelo Poliziano, F is only a modification of the preceding symbol E and has di Lodovico Ariosto, e di Torq. Tasso (Parma, 1800). nothing to do with the symbol Vau. In some early Latin FABER, the name of a family of German lead-pencil manuinscriptions F is represented by ', as E is by . It must be facturers. Their business was founded in 1760 at Stein, near admitted that the resemblance between the sixth symbol of Nuremberg, by Kaspar Faber (d. 1784). It was then inherited by the Phoenician alphabet and the corresponding symbol of the his son Anton Wilhelm (d. 1819). Georg Leonhard Faber sucEuropean alphabet is not striking. But the position of the ceeded in 1810 (d. 1839), and the business passed to Johann Lothar limbs of symbols in early alphabets often varies surprisingly. von Faber (1817-1896), the great-grandson of the founder. At In Greek, besides F we find for ƒ in Pamphylia (the only Greek the time of his assuming control about twenty hands were emdistrict in Asia which possesses the symbol), and in Boeotia,ployed, under old-fashioned conditions, and owing to the invenThessaly, Tarentum, Cumae and on Chalcidian vases of Italy the tion of the French crayons Contés of Nicolas Jacques Conté (q.v.) form, though except at Cumae and on the vases the form F competition had reduced the entire Nuremberg industry to a low exists contemporaneously with or even earlier. At the little ebb (see PENCIL). Johann introduced improvements in machinery town of Falerii (Civita Castellana), whose alphabet is undoubtedly and methods, brought his factory to the highest state of efficiency, of the same origin as the Latin, F takes the form. Though and it became a model for all the other German and Austrian manuuncertain, therefore, it seems not impossible that the original facturers. He established branches in New York, Paris, London symbol of the Phoenician alphabet, which was a consonant like and Berlin, and agencies in Vienna, St Petersburg and Hamburg, the English w, may have been differentiated in Greek into two and made his greatest coup in 1856, when he contracted for the symbols, one indicating the consonant value w and retaining exclusive control of the graphite obtained from the East Siberian the position of the Phoenician consonant Vau, the other having mines. Faber had also branched out into the manufacture of the vowel value u, which ultimately most dialects changed to water-colour and oil paints, inks, slates and slate-pencils, and a modified sound like French u or German i. Be this as it may, engineers' and architects' drawing instruments, and built the value of the symbol F in Greek was w, a bilabial voiced additional factories to house his various industries at New York sound, not the labio-dental unvoiced sound which we call f. and at Noisy-le-Sec, near Paris, and had his own cedar mills When the Romans adopted the Greek alphabet they took over in Florida. For his services to German industry he received a the symbols with their Greek values. But Greek had no sound patent of nobility and an appointment as councillor of state. corresponding to the Latin f, for was pronounced p-h, like the After the death of his widow (1903) the business was inherited final sound of lip in ordinary English or the initial sound of pig by his grand-daughter Countess Otilie von Faber-Castell and her in Irish English. Consequently in the very old inscription husband, Count Alexander. on a gold fibula found at Praeneste and published in 1887 (see FABER, BASIL (1520–c. 1576), Lutheran schoolmaster and ALPHABET) the Latin ƒ is represented by FB. Later, as Latin theologian, was born at Sorau, in lower Lusatia, in 1520. did not use F for the consonant written as v in vis, &c., H was 1538 he entered the university of Wittenberg, studying as dropped and F received a new special value in Latin as repre- pauper gratis under Melanchthon. Choosing the schoolmaster's sentative of the unvoiced labio-dental spirant. In the Oscan profession, he became successively rector of the schools at and Umbrian dialects, whose alphabet was borrowed from Nordhausen, Tennstadt (1555), Magdeburg (1557) and QuedlinEtruscan, a special form appears for f, viz. 8, the old form Eburg (1560). From this last post he was removed in December being kept for the other consonant v (i.e. English w). The 8 has generally been asserted to be developed out of the second element in the combination FB, its upper and lower halves being first converted into lozenges, 8, which naturally changed to 8 when inscribed without lifting the writing or incising implement. Recent discoveries, however, make this doubtful (see ALPHABET). (P. GI.) FABBRONI, ANGELO (1732-1803), Italian biographer, was born at Marradi in Tuscany on the 25th of September 1732. After studying at Faenza he entered the Roman college founded for the education of young Tuscans. On the conclusion of his studies he continued his stay in Rome, and having been introduced to the celebrated Jansenist Bottari, received from him the canonry of Santa Teresa in Trastevere. Some time after this he was chosen to preach a discourse in the pontifical chapel before Benedict XIV. and made such a favourable impression that the pontiff settled on him an annuity, with the possession of which Fabbroni was able to devote his whole time to study. He was 1570 as a Crypto-Calvinist. In 1571 he was appointed to the FABER, FREDERICK WILLIAM (1814-1863), British hymn writer and theologian, was born on the 28th of June 1814 at Calverley, Yorkshire, of which place his grandfather, Thomas Faber, was vicar. He attended the grammar school of Bishop Auckland for a short time, but a large portion of his boyhood was spent in Westmorland. He afterwards went to Harrow The and to Balliol College, Oxford. In 1835 he obtained a scholar- | during the whole of 1520, and, removing to Meaux, was appointed ship at University College; and in 1836 he gained the Newdigate (May 1, 1523) vicar-general to Bishop Briçonnet, and published prize for a poem on "The Knights of St John," which elicited his French version of the New Testament (1523). This (conspecial praise from Keble. Among his college friends were Dean temporary with Luther's German version) has been the basis of Stanley and Roundell Palmer, 1st earl of Selborne. In January all subsequent translations into French. From this, in the same 1837 he was elected fellow of University College. Meanwhile he year, he extracted the versions of the Gospels and Epistles " à had given up the Calvinistic views of his youth, and had become l'usage du diocèse de Meaux." The prefaces and notes to both an enthusiastic follower of John Henry Newman. In 1841 a these expressed the view that Holy Scripture is the only rule of travelling tutorship took him to the continent; and on his doctrine, and that justification is by faith alone. He incurred return a book appeared called Sights and Thoughts in Foreign much hostility, but was protected by Francis I. and the princess Churches and among Foreign Peoples (London, 1842), with a Margaret. Francis being in captivity after the battle of Pavia dedication to his friend the poet Wordsworth. He accepted the (February 25, 1525), Faber was condemned and his works suprectory of Elton in Huntingdonshire, but soon after went again pressed by commission of the parlement; these measures were to the continent, in order to study the methods of the Roman quashed on the return of Francis some months later. He issued Catholic Church; and after a prolonged mental struggle he Le Psautier de David (1525), and was appointed royal librarian at joined the Roman Catholic communion in November 1845. He Blois (1526); his version of the Pentateuch appeared two years founded a religious community at Birmingham, called Wilfridians, later. His complete version of the Bible (1530), on the basis of which was ultimately merged in the oratory of St Philip Neri, Jerome, took the same place as his version of the New Testament. with John Henry Newman as Superior. In 1849 a branch of the Margaret (now queen of Navarre) led him to take refuge (1531) at oratory-subsequently independent-was established in London, Nérac from persecution. He is said to have been visited (1533) first in King William Street, and afterwards at Brompton, over by Calvin on his flight from France. He died in 1536 or 1537. which Faber presided till his death on the 26th of September See C. H. Graf, Essai sur la vie et les écrits (1842); G. Bonet1863. In spite of his weak health, an almost incredible amount of Maury, in A. Herzog-Hauck's Realencyklopädie (1898). (A. Go.*) work was crowded into those years. He published a number of FABER (or LEFEVRE), JOHANN (1478-1541), German theotheological works, and edited the Oratorian Lives of the Saints. logian, styled from the title of one of his works "Malleus He was an eloquent preacher, and a man of great charm of Haereticorum," son of one Heigerlin, a smith (faber), was born character. It is mainly as a hymn-writer, however, that Faber at Leutkirch, in Swabia, in 1478. His early life is obscure; the is remembered. Among his best-known hymns are:-" The tradition that he joined the Dominicans is untenable. He studied Greatness of God," "The Will of God,' ""The Eternal Father," theology and canon law at Tübingen and at Freiburg im Breisgau, "The God of my Childhood, Jesus is God," "The Pilgrims where he matriculated on the 26th of July 1509, and graduated of the Night,' ," "The Land beyond the Sea,' ""Sweet Saviour, M.A. and doctor of canon law. He was soon appointed vicar bless us ere we go," "I was wandering and weary," and "The of Lindau and Leutkirch, and shortly afterwards canon of Basel. Shadow of the Rock." The hymns are largely used in Protestant In 1518 Hugo von Landenberg, bishop of Constance, made him collections. In addition to many pamphlets and translations, protonotary. He was an advocate of reforms, in sympathy with one of his vicars-general, and Pope Leo X. appointed him papal Faber published the following works: All for Jesus; Precious Blood; Bethlehem; The Blessed Sacrament; The Erasmus, and corresponded (1519-1520) with Zwingli. While Creator and the Creature; Growth of Holiness; Spiritual Con- he defended Luther against Eck, he was as little inclined to adopt ferences; The Foot of the Cross (8 vols., London, 1853-1860). the position of Luther as of Carlstadt. His journey to Rome views of the Protestant leaders. He published Opus adversus in the autumn of 1521 had the result of estranging him from the nova quaedam dogmata Lutheri (1522), and appeared as a disputant Then followed his Malleus in FABER, FABRI OF FABRY (surnamed STAPULENSIS), JACOBUS against Zwingli at Zürich (1523). [Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples] (c. 1455-c. 1536), a pioneer of the haeresin Lutheranam (1524). Among his efforts to stem the tide Protestant movement in France, was born of humble parents at of Protestant innovation was the establishment of a trainingEtaples, in Pas de Calais, Picardy, about 1455. house for the maintenance and instruction of popular preachers, He appears to have been possessed of considerable means. He had already been drawn from the lower ranks, to compete with the orators of reform. ordained priest when he entered the university of Paris for higher In 1526 he became court preacher to the emperor Ferdinand, and education. Hermonymus of Sparta was his master in Greek. 1527 and 1528 was sent by him as envoy to Spain and England. He visited Italy before 1486, for he heard the lectures of Argyro- He approved the death by burning of Balthasar Hubmeier, the Argyro-Baptist, at Vienna on the 10th of March 1528. In 1531 he was pulus, who died in that year; he formed a friendship with Paulus Aemilius of Verona. In 1492 he again travelled in Italy, consecrated bishop of Vienna, and combined with this (till 1538) studying in Florence, Rome and Venice, making himself familiar the administration of the diocese of Neustadt. He died at Vienna on the 21st of May 1541. His works were collected in three with the writings of Aristotle, though greatly influenced by the Platonic philosophy. Returning to Paris, he became professor in volumes, 1537, 1539 and 1541. the college of Cardinal Lemoine. Among his famous pupils were F. W. Vatable and Farel; his connexion with the latter drew him to the Calvinistic side of the movement of reform. At this time he began the publication, with critical apparatus, of Boëtius (De Arithmetica), and Aristotle's Physics (1492), Ethics (1497), Metaphysics (1501) and Politics (1506). In 1507 he took up his residence in the Benedictine Abbey of St Germain des Prés, near Paris; this was due to his connexion with the family of Briçonnet (one of whom was the superior), especially with William Briçonnet, cardinal bishop of St Malo (Meaux). He now began to give himself to Biblical studies, the first-fruit of which was his Quintuplex Psalterium: Gallicum, Romanum, Hebraicum, Vetus, Conciliatum (1509); the Conciliatum was his own version. This was followed by S. Pauli Epistolae xiv. ex vulgata editione, adjecta intelligentia ex Graeco cum commentariis (1512), a work of great independence and judgment. His De Maria Magdalena et triduo Christi disceptatio (1517) provoked violent controversy and was condemned by the Sorbonne (1521). He had left Paris See his Life and Letters, by Father J. E. Bowden (London, 1869), and A Brief Sketch of the Early Life of the late F. W. Faber, D.D., , by his brother the Rev. F. A. Faber (London, 1869). in Wagenmann and Egli in Herzog-Hauck's Realencyklopädie (1898). See C. E. Kettner, Diss. de J. Fabri Vita Scriptisque (1737); (A. Go.*) FABERT, ABRAHAM DE (1599-1660), marshal of France, was the son of Abraham Fabert, seigneur de Moulins (d. 1638), a famous printer who rendered great services, civil and military, to Henry IV. At the age of fourteen he entered the Gardes françaises, and in 1618 received a commission in the Piedmont regiment, becoming major in 1627. He distinguished himself repeatedly in the constant wars of the period, notably in La Rochelle and at the siege of Exilles in 1630. His bravery and engineering skill were again displayed in the sieges of Avesnes and Maubeuge in 1637, and in 1642 Louis XIII. made him governor of the recently-acquired fortress of Sedan. In 1651 he became lieutenant-general, and in 1654 at the siege of Stenay he introduced new methods of siegecraft which anticipated in a measure the great improvements of Vauban. In 1658 Fabert was made a marshal of France, being the first commoner to attain that rank. He died at Sedan on the 17th of May 1660. |