text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Stanoyevich, Milivoy Stoyan

STANOYEVICH, Milivoy Stoyan, Serbian essayist and author: b. Koprivnica, Kraina, Serbia, 14 Feb. 1882. He studied at Belgrade University, where he successfully competed for academic prizes in literary essays. He graduated from that institution in 1907, and was immediately appointed professor ad interim of modern languages at Zaječar College. He came to the United States in 1908 and continued his pursuits in literature, sociology and economics at Columbia University and the University of California, receiving from the last-named institution his degree of M.L. (1914). In 1915 he became a lecturer on Slavonic literature at the University of California, and in 1916 he was nominated as political adviser on Slavic affairs in the office of the Russian consul-general at San Francisco. He has been editor of several Jugoslav publications and frequent contributor to the American periodicals, besides having written ‘Omladina u

Sadašnjosti’ (1907); ‘Figure u Pesmama’ (1907); ‘Prevodi u Srpskin Zabavnicima’ (1908); ‘Veština Pisanja’ (1915); ‘Pessimisme et Optimisme dans la Sociologie’ (in joint collaboration with his brother, Milosh S.) in 1913; ‘Tolstoy's Theory of Social Reform’ (1914); ‘Russian Foreign Policy in the East’ (1916), etc. His writings are marked by a fresh and vigorous style, by refined simplicity and incisive diction. His studies are full of delicate observations of human nature and he may be justly regarded as a representative writer of Serbian prose.


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Epact

Epact (Gr. Epaktai hemerai; Lat. dies adjecti), the surplus days of the solar over the lunar year; hence, more freely, the number of days in the age of the moon on January 1 of any given year. The whole system of epacts is based on the Metonic Lunar Cycle (otherwise known as the Cycle of Golden Numbers), and serves to indicate the days of the year on which the new moons occur.

THE CHURCH LUNAR CALENDAR.—It is generally held that the Last Supper took place on the Jewish Feast of the Passover, which was always kept on the fourteenth day of the first month of the old Jewish calendar. Consequently, since this month always began with that new moon of which the fourteenth day occurred on or next after the vernal equinox, Christ arose from the dead on Sunday, the seventeenth day of the so-called paschal moon. It is evident, then, that an exact anniversary of Easter is impossible except in years in which the seventeenth day of the paschal moon falls on Sunday. In the early days of Christianity there existed a difference of opinion between the Eastern and Western Churches as to the day on which Easter ought to be kept, the former keeping it on the fourteenth day and the latter on the Sunday following. To secure uniformity of practice, the Council of Nicaea (325) decreed that the Western method of keeping Easter on the Sunday after the fourteenth day of the moon should be adopted throughout the Church, believing no doubt that this mode fitted in better with the historical facts and wishing to give a lasting proof that the Jewish Passover was not, as the Quartodeciman heretics believed, an ordinance of Christianity.

As in the Julian calendar the months had lost all their original reference to the moon, the early Christians were compelled to use the Metonic Lunar Cycle of the Greeks to find the fourteenth day of the paschal moon. This cycle in its original form continued to be used until 1582, when it was revised and embodied in the Gregorian calendar. The Church claims no astronomical exactness for her lunar calendar; we shall show presently the confusion which would necessarily result from an extreme adherence to precise astronomical data in determining the date of Easter. She wishes merely to ensure that the fourteenth day of the calendar moon shall fall on or shortly after the real fourteenth day but never before it, since it would be chronologically absurd to keep Easter on or before the Passover. Otherwise, as Clavius plainly states (Romani Calendarii a Gregorio XIII P.M. restituti explicatio, cap. V, § 13, p. 85), she regards with indifference the occurrence of the moons on the day before or after their proper seats and cares much more for peace and uniformity than for the equinox and the new moon. It may be mentioned here that Clavius's estimate of the accuracy of the calendar, in the compilation of which he took such a leading part, is extremely modest, and the seats assigned by him to the new moons tally with strict astronomical findings in a degree which he seems never to have anticipated. The impossibility of taking the astronomical moons as our sole guide in finding the date of Easter will be best understood from an example: Let us suppose that Easter is to be kept (as is at least implied by the British Act of Parliament regulating its date) on the Sunday after the astronomical full moon, and that this full moon, as sometimes happens, occurs just before midnight on Saturday evening in the western districts of London or New York. The full moon will therefore happen a little after midnight in the eastern districts, so that Easter, if regulated strictly by the paschal full moon, must be kept on one Sunday in the western and on the following Sunday in the eastern districts of the same city. Lest it be thought that this is carrying astronomical exactness to extremes, we may say that, if Easter were dependent on the astronomical moons, the feast could not always be kept on the same Sunday in England and America. Seeing, therefore, that astronomical accuracy must at some point give way to convenience and that an arbitrary decision on this point is necessary, the Church has drawn up a lunar calendar which maintains as close a relation with the astronomical moons as is practicable, and has decreed that Easter is to be kept on the Sunday after the fourteenth day of the paschal moon as indicated by this calendar.

METONIC LUNAR CYCLE OR CYCLE OF GOLDEN NUMBERS.—In the year now known as 432 B.C., Meton, an Athenian astronomer, discovered that 235 lunations (i.e. lunar months) correspond with 19 solar years, or, as we might express it, that after a period of 19 solar years the new moons occur again on the same days of the solar year. He therefore divided the calendar into periods of 19 years, which he numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. to 19, and assumed that the new moons would always fall on the same days in the years indicated by the same number. This discovery found such favor among the Athenians that the number assigned to the current year in the Metonic Cycle was henceforth written in golden characters on a pillar in the temple, and, whether owing to this circumstance or to the importance of the discovery itself, was known as the Golden Number of the year. As the 19 years of the Metonic Cycle were purely lunar (i.e. each contained an exact number of lunar months) and contained in the aggregate 235 lunations, it was clearly impossible that all the years should be of equal length. To twelve of the 19 years 12 lunations were assigned, and to the other seven 13 lunations, the thirteenth lunation being known as the embolismic or intercalary month.

Length of the Lunation.—The latest calculations have shown that the average duration of the lunar month is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 mins., 3 secs. To avoid the difficulty of reckoning fractions of a day in the calendar, all computators, ancient and modern, have assigned 30 and 29 days alternately to the lunations of the year, and regarded the ordinary lunar year of 12 lunations as lasting 354 days, whereas it really lasts some 8 hours and 48 mins. longer. This underestimation of the year is compensated for in two ways: (I) by the insertion of one extra day in the lunar (as in the solar) calendar every fourth year, and (2) by assigning 30 days to six of the seven embolismic lunations, although the average lunation lasts only about 291 days. A comparison of the solar and lunar calendars for 76 years (one cycle of 19 years is unsuitable in this case, since it contains sometimes 4, sometimes 5, leap years) will make this clearer:—76 solar years=76 X 365+19, i.e. 27,759 days. Therefore 940 calendar lunations (since 19 years equal 235 lunations) contain 27,759 days (29 d., 12 hrs., 44 mins., 3 secs. X940= 2. 7,758 d., 18 hrs., 7 mins.). But 940 lunations averaging 291 days equal only 27,730 days. Consequently, if we assign 30 and 29 days uninterruptedly to alternate lunations, the lunar calendar will, after 76 years, anticipate the solar by 29 days. The intercalation of the extra day every fourth year in the lunar calendar reduces the divergence to 10 days in 76 years, i.e. 2+1 days in 19 years. The divergence is removed by assigning to the seven embolismic months (which would otherwise have contained 7 X 291, or 2061, days) 209 days, 30 days being assigned to each of the first six and 29 to the seventh.

MANNER OF INSERTION OF THE EMBOLISMIC MONTHS.—As the Gregorian and Metonic calendars differ in the manner of inserting the embolismic months, only the former is spoken of here. It has just been said that seven of the 19 years of the lunar cycle contain a thirteenth, or embolismic, month, consisting in six cases of 30 days and in the seventh of 29 days. Granted that the first solar and lunar years begin on the same day (i.e. that the new moon occurs on January 1), it is evident that, as the ordinary lunar year of 12 lunations is 11 days shorter than the solar, the lunar calendar will, after three years, anticipate the solar by 33 days. To the third lunar year, then, is added the first embolismic month of 30 days, reducing the divergence between the calendars to three days. After three further years, i.e. at the end of the sixth year, the divergence will have mounted to 36 (3 X 11+ 3) days, but, by the insertion of the second embolismic lunation, will be reduced to six days. Whenever, then, the divergence between the calendars amounts to more than 30 days, an embolismic month is added to the lunar year; at the end of the nineteenth lunar year, the divergence will be 29 days, and, as the last embolismic month consists of 29 days, it is clear that after the insertion of this month the nineteenth solar and lunar years will end on the same day and that the first new moon of the twentieth (as of the first) year will occur on January 1. The divergence, therefore, at the end of the 19 successive years of the lunar cycle is: 11, 22, 3, 14, 25, 6, 17, 28, 9, 20, 1, 12, 23, 4, 15, 26, 7, 18, and 0 days.

CYCLE OF EPACTS.—We have defined an epact as the age of the moon on January 1, i.e. at the beginning of the year. If, then, the new moon occurs on January 1 in the first year of the Lunar Cycle, the Epact of the year is 0 or, as it is more usually expressed, *; and, since the lunar year always begins with the new moon, it is clear that the divergence between the solar and lunar calendars, of which we have just been speaking, gives the Epacts of the succeeding years. Thus, after the first year, the divergence between the calendars amounts to 11 days; therefore, the new moon occurs 11 days before January 1 of the second solar year, which is expressed by saying that the Epact of the second solar year is XI. Granted, then, that the new moon occurs on January 1 in the first year of the Lunar Cycle, the epacts of the 19 years are as follows:

Golden Numbers 1 2 3 4

Epacts * XI XXII III

5 6 7 8 9 10

XIV XXV VI XVII XXVIII IX

Golden Numbers 11 12 13 14

Epacts XX I XII XXIII

15 16 17 18 19

IV XV XXVI VII XVIII

INACCURACY OF THE METONIC CYCLE.—Meton's theory, as adopted by the Church until the year 1582, might be briefly expressed as follows:

The average Lunar Cycle consists of:

19 lunar years averaging 354¬º days i.e.......... ......6730¬æ Days

6 extra, or embolismic, months of 30 days, i.e....... 180 Days

1 embolismic month of 29 days......................... 29 Days

Total..............................................6939¬æ Days

19 solar years averaging 365, days equal................6939¬æ. But later computators found that the average lunation lasts 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 3 seconds, consequently:

235 calendar lunations (one Lunar Cycle) equal....... 6939 d. 18 h. 0 m. 0 s.

235 astronomical lunations equal......................... 6939 d. 16 h. 31 m. 45 s.

Difference:................................1 h. 28 m. 15 s.

We thus see that the average Lunar Cycle is about 14 hour too long, and that, though the new moons occur on the same dates in successive cycles, they occur, on an average, 1¬Ω hour earlier in the day. The astronomers entrusted with the reformation of the calendar calculated that after a period of 312¬Ω years (310 years is according to our figures a closer approximation) the new moons occur on the day preceding that indicated by the Lunar Cycle, that is, that the moon is one day older at the beginning of the year than the Metonic Cycle, if left unaltered, would show, and they removed this inaccuracy by adding one day to the age of the moon (i.e. to the Epacts) every 300 years seven times in succession and then one day after 400 years (i.e. eight days in 8 X 312¬Ω or 2500 years). This addition of one to the Epacts is known as the Lunar Equation, and occurs at the beginning of the years 1800, 2100, 2400, 2700, 3000, 3300, 3600, 3900, 4300, 4600, etc. A second disturbance of the Epacts is caused by the occurrence of the non-bissextile centurial years. We have seen above that the assigning of 6939¬æ days to 19 lunar years leads to an error of one day every 312¬Ω years, and that within these limits the lunar calendar must not be disturbed; but the assigning of 6939¬æ days to every 19 solar years amounts to an error of 3 days every 400 years, and it is therefore necessary to omit one day from the solar calendar in every centurial year not divisible by 400. Consequently, since this extra day in February every fourth year is an essential part of the lunar calendar, the new moons will occur one day later in the non-bissextile centurial years than indicated by the Lunar Cycle (e.g. a new moon which under ordinary circumstances would have occurred on February 29 will occur on March 1), and the age of the moon will, after the omission of the day, be one day less on all succeeding days of the solar year. As the fact that the January and February moons are not properly indicated is immaterial in a system whose sole object is to indicate as nearly as practicable the fourteenth day of the moon after March 21, the subtraction of one from the Epacts takes place at the beginning of all non-bissextile centurial years and is known as the Solar Equation. In the following table, +1 is written after the years which have the Lunar Equation, and -1 after those which have the Solar:

1600 2800 4000

1700 -1 2900 -1 4100 -1

1800 +1 -1 3000 +1 -1 4200 -1

1900 -1 3100 -1 4300 +1 -1

2000 3200 4400 2100 +1 -1 3300 +1 -1 4500 -1 2200 -1 3400 -1 4600 + 1 -1 2300 -1 3500 -1 4700 -1

2400 +1 3600 + 1 4800

2500 -1 3700 -1 4900 + 1 -1

2600 -1 3800 -1 5000 -1 2700 +1 -1 3900 + 1 -1 5100 -1

Clavius continued this table as far as the year 300,000, inserting the Lunar Equation eight times every 2500 years and the Solar three times every 400 years. As he thus treats the year 5200 as a leap year his table is untrustworthy after 5199.

INDICATION OF NEW MOONS.—Before proceeding further, it will be convenient to consider the method devised by Lilius of indicating the new moons of the year in the Gregorian calendar. As the first lunation of the year consists of 30 days, he wrote the Epacts *, XXIX, XXVIII... III, II, I opposite the first thirty days of January; then continuing, he wrote * opposite the thirty-first, XXIX opposite the first of February and so on to the end of the year, except that in the case of the lunations of 29 days he wrote the two Epacts XXV, XXIV opposite the same day (cf. February 5, April 4, etc. in the Church calendar). From this arrangement it is evident that if, for example, the Epact of a year is X, the new moons will occur in that year on the days before which the Epact X is placed in the calendar. One qualification must be made to this statement. According to the Metonic Cycle, the new moon can never occur twice on the same date in the same nineteen years (the case is exceedingly rare even in the purely astronomical calendar); consequently, whenever the two Epacts XXV and XXIV occur in the same nineteen years, the new moons of the year whose Epact is XXV are indicated in the months of 29 days by Epact XXVI with which the number 25 is for this object associated in the Church calendar.

HOW TO FIND THE EPACT.—We have already seen that the Church used the Metonic Cycle until the year 1582 as the only practical means devised of finding the fourteenth day of the paschal moon. Now, this cycle has always been regarded as starting from the year 1 B.C., and not from the year of its introduction (432 B.C.), probably (although all the authors we have seen appear to have overlooked the point) because such change was found necessary if the leading characteristic of the Metonic Cycle were to be retained in changing from a lunar to a solar calendar, viz., that the first lunar and solar years of the cycle should begin on the same day. That two nations with calendars so fundamentally different as those of the Greeks and the Romans should regard the solar year as beginning with the same phases of the sun would be highly improbable, even if there were no direct evidence that such was not the case. But we have shown that when the solar and lunar years begin on the same day, the Epacts of the successive years of the cycle are:

Golden Numbers 1 2 3 4

Epacts * XI XXII III

5 6 7 8 9 10

XIV XXV VI XVII XXVIII IX

Golden Numbers 11 12 13 14

Epacts XX I XII XXIII

15 16 17 18 19

IV XV XXVI VII XVIII

Consequently, if we divide the calendar into cycles of 19 years from 1 B.C., the first year of each cycle will have the Epact *, the second the Epact XI and so on, or, in other words, the Epact of any year before 1582 depends solely on its Golden Number. The Golden Number of any year may be found by adding 1 to the year and dividing by 19, the quotient showing the number of complete cycles elapsed since 1 B.C. and the remainder (or, if there be no remainder, 19) being the Golden Number of the year. Thus, for example,

1481 + 1

the Golden Number of 1484 is 3, since 19 = 78,

with 3 as remainder; therefore the Epact of the year 1484 is XXII.

In the course of time it was found that the paschal moon of the Metonic Cycle was losing all relation to the real paschal moon, and in the sixteenth century (c. 1576) Gregory XIII entrusted the task of reforming the calendar to a small body of astronomers, of whom Lilius and Clavius are the most renowned. These astronomers having drawn up the table of equations to show the changes in the Epacts necessary to preserve the relations between the ecclesiastical and astronomical calendars, proceeded to calculate the proper Epacts for the years of the Lunar Cycle after 1582. These they found to be as follows:

Golden Numbers 1 2 3 4

Epacts I XII XXIII IV

5 6 7 8 9 10

XV XXVI VII XVIII XXIX X

Golden Numbers 11 12 13 14

Epacts XXI II XIII XXIV

15 16 17 18 19

V XVI XXVII VIII XIX

Now the essential difference between the Metonic Cycle and the Gregorian system of Epacts lies in this, that, whereas the sphere of application of the former was held to be unlimited, that of the latter is bounded by the Lunar and Solar Equations. Since, then, a Solar Equation occurs in 1700, the Cycle of Epacts just given holds only for the period 1582-1699, after which a new cycle must be formed. To understand the reason of the changes we must remember (I) that by treating 365 days as equivalent to one solar year and to 12 lunations plus 11 days, we underestimate the solar year by about 5 4/5 hours and the lunations by 8 4/5 hours; (2) that in consequence of this underestimation of the solar year, one day must be inserted in every fourth solar year except in the case of the centurial years not divisible by 400; and (3) that the underestimation of the lunations by 6 hours every year (the additional 2 4/5 hours are compensated for in the embolismic months and by the Lunar Equation) necessitates the insertion of one extra day in the lunar calendar every fourth year without exception. To take an example: the Epact of 1696 (its Golden Number being 6) is XXVI, and since this Epact is found opposite February 4 in the Church calendar we know that in 1696 the new moon happened on that date and that consequently February 23 was the twentieth day of the calendar moon. But, since the underestimation of the lunations amounts to one day in every four years, the following day (our February 24) was only nominally the twenty-first day of the moon and the proper twenty-first was our February 25. The Church therefore inserted an extra day after February 23 and treated this and the real February 24 (our 24 and 25) as one continuous day in both the solar and lunar calendars, and consequently February 25 (our 26) was again legitimately regarded as the twenty-second day of the moon and the fifty-sixth day of the astronomical solar year. Coming now to the year 1700, we find its Epact to be X, consequently the new moon occurred on February 19 and February 23 was the fifth day of the calendar moon. But, since no extra day could be inserted in February, 1700, the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of this month had to be treated as the sixth day of the moon, and the age of the moon on every subsequent day of the year 1700 was one day less than indicated by the Epact X. As the moons of January and February are of very secondary importance in the Church calendar, we may say that the age of the moon in 1700 and all subsequent years was one day less than indicated by the above Cycle of Epacts, and thus the Epacts for the years of the Lunar Cycle after 1700 are:

Golden Numbers 1 2 3 4

Epacts * XI XXII III

5 6 7 8 9 10

XIV XXV VI XVII XXVIII IX

Golden Numbers 11 12 13 14

Epacts XX I XII XXIII

15 16 17 18 19

IV XV XXVI VII XVIII

In the year 1800, both the Lunar and Solar Equations (i.e. the addition and subtraction of 1) occur and no change of Epacts takes place. In 1900 the Solar Equation occurs and we must again subtract 1 from the Epacts. No change takes place in 2000 or in 2100, the former being a leap year and the latter having both equations. In 2200 and in 2300, we must again subtract 1, while in 2400, in which the Lunar Equation occurs and is not neutralized as usual by the Solar Equation, we add 1 to all the Epacts. The accompanying table gives the Epact of every year from 1 B.C. to A.D. 3099.

Examples.—(I) To find the Epact of the year 3097.

3097 + 1

Golden Number is 1, since 19 = 163, with 1 as remainder. Epact corresponding to Golden Number 1 after 2900 is XXV; therefore the Epact of 3097 is XXV.

(2) On what Sunday will Easter fall in the year 2459? Golden Number of 2459 is 9, and Epact of ninth year of Lunar Cycle after 2400 is XXVI. Since the Epact of 2459 is XXVI, the new moons of this year will occur on the days before which XXVI is placed in the Church calendar (e.g. in the Breviary). Now, since the paschal moon is that whose fourteenth day falls on or next after March 21, the paschal new moon can never happen before March 8. The first day after March 8 to which the Epact XXVI is prefixed in the Church calendar is April 4; consequently the paschal new moon in the year 2459 will occur on April 4. Counting 14 days from April 4, which we include in our reckoning, we find the fourteenth day of the paschal moon to be April 17. In 2459, therefore, Easter will be kept on the Sunday after April 17, which with the help of the Dominical Letters is found to be April 20. (See Dominical Letter.)

THOMAS KENNEDY

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Epact


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Stanton, Edwin McMasters

STANTON, Edwin McMasters, American statesman and jurist: b. Steubenville, Ohio, 19 Dec. 1814; d. Washington, D. C., 24 Dec. 1869. His paternal ancestors were Quakers originally from Massachusetts but later settled in North Carolina, and his mother was a Virginian. At the age of 13 upon his father's death he began to work, and at 17 entered Kenyon College but was obliged to leave after two years for lack of means. After three years of study he was admitted to the bar in 1836 and married.

He joined the Democratic party on the issue of nullification, and in 1837 was elected prosecuting officer of his county. After serving for two years he returned to private practice, and in 1847 he moved to Pittsburgh where he soon took rank among the leaders of the Pennsylvania bar. In 1856 he changed his residence to Washington, and in 1858 was sent to California as special counsel of the United States in the cases growing out of land grants made by the Mexican government before the treaty of 1848. He added greatly to his reputation by his conduct of this litigation. During these years he took no part in politics but sympathized with the Free-soil wing of the Democratic party and favored the Wilmot Proviso. In 1856 he supported Buchanan, and in 1860 voted for Breckenridge, believing that the election of Lincoln would imperil the Union.

When Buchanan's Cabinet divided in December 1860 and Cass, the Secretary of State, resigned, Attorney-General Black took his place and Stanton was made Attorney-General 20 Dec 1860, the day when the ordinance of secession was adopted in South Carolina. At his first Cabinet meeting the question was presented whether Major Anderson should be ordered back to Fort Moultrie. Floyd, the Secretary of War, and his southern associates insisted that this should be done, while Stanton with Black and Holt vigorously opposed them, threatening to resign if such orders were issued. Their attitude drove the secessionists from the Cabinet and redeemed the close of Buchanan's administration. During the remainder of the administration he was active in studying the plans of the secessionists and considering how to defeat them and protect Washington. He feared insurrection or assassination to prevent Lincoln's inauguration, and his influence helped to persuade President Buchanan that regular troops should be ordered to Washington.

The attack on Fort Sumter found him a strong supporter of the national authority and outspoken in calling upon all loyal men to stand by the government. On 13 Jan. 1862, Mr. Lincoln appointed him Secretary of War in place of Simon Cameron. Stanton had criticized

severely and had not even met him since his inauguration, but Lincoln selected him for his ability and because he was a representative of the Democratic Unionists, whose support was essential. The wisdom of the choice was signally vindicated. The whole system of the War office was inefficient and reorganization was imperatively demanded. Stanton brought to his work great executive ability, prompt decision and a strong will which made itself felt through the whole military service. He had scant patience with men who were seeking personal advantages, or with frivolous calls upon his attention. Hence his manner was brusque, impatient and decided, and he made many enemies.

He advised the passage of a law authorizing the President to take possession of all the railroad and telegraph lines of the United States, and this was at once enacted. He ordered that all contracts for supplies and munitions be in writing, appointed a commission to investigate and determine what valid contracts were outstanding, and waged vigorous war upon fraudulent contractors. By an order of 14 February he directed the release of all persons who had been arrested on suspicion of disloyal practices, with certain exceptions, upon their giving their parole not to aid the rebellion. From that time such arrests were made only under military authority, which was exercised on the theory that all doubts were to be resolved in favor of the country. No part of Stanton's career shows more loyalty to his country than his patience with McClellan during the first six months of 1862, but the latter's delay in moving his army to the support of Pope, his disregard of orders, and his whole conduct during tne critical weeks which preceded Lee's invasion of Maryland at length satisfied Stanton that he should be removed, and in the last days of August he tried to unite the Cabinet in recommending this step, but Mr. Lincoln felt that McClellan's popularity and the political situation made it necessary to give him the command of the army. Stanton disapproved this action as did Mr. Chase, but the President took the responsibility. McClellan's conduct of the Antietam campaign, his inexcusable delays and almost direct insubordination increased Stanton's feeling and at length convinced the President, and McClellan was dismissed from active service.

Taking office as a Democrat, Stanton early felt the importance of emancipation as a war measure, and when on 22 July 1862, Mr. Lincoln laid before the Cabinet a proclamation declaring that all slaves in the seceded States should be free on a fixed day, Stanton and Bates, the Attorney-General, were in favor of issuing it at once, while Seward and Chase opposed it. Stanton approved the issue of the proclamation after Antietam, and in his annual report made a powerful argument in support of the measure. When in the next year after the defeats of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, Lee a second time crossed the Potomac, Hooker was relieved and Meade appointed to the command by Stanton's advice, and during the critical summer and autumn of 1863 he met every emergency successfully.

When it was apparent that General Rosecrans was not in a condition to retain the

Stanton summoned Grant from New Orleans to Louisville, himself met him there and after a full conference placed him in command of the Western armies, giving Thomas command at Chattanooga. The immediate success of General Grant in his new command with the crushing defeat of Bragg's army made the whole military situation much clearer, and General Grant's appointment to the command of the army and his removal to Virginia followed as a matter of course. After Appomattox, General Sherman agreed upon terms with General Johnston, which provided not only for the surrender of the latter's army but for the settlement of vital political questions, and the agreement was disapproved by the Administration. Stanton stated the reason in a dispatch to General Dix that the public might understand why General Sherman was overruled. His statement was clear and poignant and while it reflected on General Sherman's discretion in consenting to such an arrangement, the general himself was not criticized. Sherman held Stanton especially responsible for the action of the government and became very hostile to him.

Nothing in the history of the Civil War is more remarkable than the speed with which the vast armies of the United States were dissolved. On 1 May 1865, a million men were on the rolls of the army. In hardly more than 60 days nearly 700,000 of them were returned to their homes. The grand review of the two great armies held in Washington 22 and 23 May 1865 showed the military force of the United States at its greatest. In little more than a month most of that force was engaged in the labors of peace. Stanton had made this possible.

Stanton remained in the Cabinet of President Johnson, and in the struggle between the President and Congress over the policy of reconstruction, sympathized with Congress. He felt that the President's policy meant the return of the disloyal element to power in the Southern States and he could not contemplate such a result without indignation. The partisans of the President demanded his resignation, while the leading Republicans besought him to remain, feeling that his presence in the War Department was an insurance against violence. His position was extremely disagreeable, but he held it with persistent courage, taking no part in the discussion and making no public expression of his views. He simply remained at his post and discharged his duty. The Tenure of Office Act had been passed in part to prevent the removal of Stanton. He opposed its passage, advised the President to veto it and desired its defeat after the veto.

This act and the provision that the President should issue orders to the army only through the general of the army, effectually took the control of the army away from the President and he wished to regain it. When Congress adjourned in the summer of 1867 the President sounded General Grant as to removing Stanton from office. Grant counseled him against it. Thereupon the President asked for Stanton's resignation, which was refused and the refusal was applauded by the Republican leaders. A week later the President suspended him from office without stating any cause and directed him to turn over all public records and property to General Grant, whom he appointed Secretary ad interim. Stanton in reply denied

his right to suspend him without legal cause, but under protest obeyed the order. When Congress reassembled in December 1867 the Senate refused to concur in the suspension and Stanton was thus reinstated. The President was very much irritated and after an interval spent in endeavoring to persuade General Sherman to accept the position, removed Stanton on 21 Feb. 1868 and appointed Lorenzo Thomas Secretary of War ad interim. Stanton declined to obey this order, the Senate by resolution denied the President's power to remove him and the House voted to impeach the President. The trial of the President followed and ended on the 26th of May, and during its progress General Schofield had been nominated to the Cabinet as Secretary of War. When the Senate failed to convict the President, Stanton at once retired and the nomination of Schofield was confirmed.

He left the office which he had held for more than six years, a comparatively young man, but broken in health by the unremitting toil and anxiety which he had undergone. His income which had been considerable when he took office had been so reduced that he had nothing but his house in Washington, and he was obliged to resume the practice of his profession. He argued several important cases, but his powers were exhausted, and he gradually failed. His last argument was made at a hearing in his own library in December 1869, and he never left the house again. The approaching resignation of Judge Grier made a prospective vacancy on the Supreme Bench and on the recommendation of the leading men in both Houses of Congress, President Grant nominated Stanton to the place on 20 Dec. 1869. His nomination was at once confirmed and he lived to feel the pleasure of receiving the only office which he ever desired, but his work was done and he died four days later. A sincere, unselfish, patriotic man, the result of the Civil War was due in no small part to his labors. Consult Gorham, G. C., ‘Life and Public Services of Edwin Y. Stanton’ (2 vols., Boston 1899); De Witt, D. M., ‘The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson’ (New York 1903); Flower, F. A., ‘Edwin McMasters Stanton’ (Akron, Ohio 1905).


text:
Author:Thomas Kennedy

Works

 * A History of the Irish Protest against Over-Taxation from 1853 to 1897 (1897)

title: Author:Thomas Kennedy


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eparchy

Eparchy (eparchia) was originally the name of one of the divisions of the Roman Empire. Diocletian (284-305) and Maximian divided the empire into four great Prefectures (Gaul, Italy, Illyricum, and the East). Each was subdivided into (civil) Dioceses, and these again into Eparchies under governors (proesides, hegemones). The Church accepted this division as a convenient one for her use. The Prefectures of Gaul, Italy, and Illyricum made up the Roman Patriarchate; the Prefecture of the East was divided (in the fourth century) between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch and three exarchs. The Diocese of Egypt was the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Diocese of the East (not to be confused with the Prefecture of the East) became that of Antioch. Asia was under the Exarch of Ephesus, Pontus under Cappadocia, and Thrace under Heraclea. Under these patriarchates and exarchates came the eparchies under metropolitans; they had under them the bishops of the various cities. The original ecclesiastical eparchies then were provinces, each under a metropolitan. The First Council of Nicaea (325) accepts this arrangement and orders that: "the authority [of appointing bishops] shall belong to the metropolitan in each eparchy" (can. iv). That is to say that in each such civil eparchy there shall be a metropolitan bishop who shall have authority over the others. This is the origin of our provinces. Later in Eastern Christendom the use of the word was gradually modified and now it means generally the diocese of a simple bishop. The name Eparchy is, however, not commonly used except in Russia. There it is the usual one for a diocese. The Russian Church now counts eighty-six eparchies, of which three (Kiev, Moscow, and St. Petersburg) are ruled by bishops who always bear the title "Metropolitan", and fourteen others are under archbishops.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eparchy


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/26

22 my impressions in the way and form in which I received them, as they were engraved ineffaceably on my brain in the light of the street-lamp which shone luridly over that ghastly scene. But I am exciting myself too much, though there is reason enough for it, as you will see further on. Don't be concerned, however, for the state of my mind. I am not yet crazy!

"'The first thing which struck me in that woman, as I will call her, was her extreme height and the breadth of her bony shoulders. Then, the roundness and fixity of her dry, owl-eyes, the enormous size of her protruding nose, and the great dark cavern of her mouth. Finally, her dress, like that of a young woman of Avapiés—the new little cotton handkerchief which she wore on her head, tied under her chin, and a diminutive fan which she carried open in her hand, and with which, in affected modesty, she was covering the middle of her waist.

"'Nothing could be at the same time more ridiculous and more awful, more laughable and more taunting, than that little fan in those huge hands. It seemed like a make-believe sceptre in the hands of such an old, hideous, and bony giantess! A like effect was produced by the showy percale handkerchief adorning her face by the side of that cut-water nose, hooked and masculine; for a moment I was led to believe (or I was very glad to) that it was a man in disguise.


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/27

Rh "'But her cynical glance and harsh smile were those of a hag, of a witch, an enchantress, a Fate, a—I know not what! There was something about her to justify fully the aversion and fright which I had been caused all my life long by women walking alone in the streets at night. One would have said that I had had a presentiment of that encounter from my cradle. One would have said that I was frightened by it instinctively, as every living being fears and divines, and scents and recognizes, its natural enemy before ever being injured by it, before ever having seen it, and solely on hearing its tread.

"'I did not dash away in a run when I saw my life's sphinx. I restrained my impulse to do so, less out of shame and manly pride than out of fear lest my very fright should reveal to her who I was, or should give her wings to follow me, to overtake me—I do not know what. Panic like that dreams of dangers which have neither form nor name.

"'My house was at the opposite end of the long and narrow street, in which I was alone, entirely alone with that mysterious phantom whom I thought able to annihilate me with a word. How should I ever get home? Oh, how anxiously I looked towards that distant Montera Street, broad and well lighted, where there are policemen to be found at all hours! I decided, finally, to get the better of my weakness; to


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/28

24 and hide that wretched fear; not to hasten my pace, but to keep on advancing slowly, even at the cost of years of health or life, and in this way, little by little, to go on getting nearer to my house, exerting myself to the utmost not to fall fainting on the ground before I reached it.

"'I was walking along in this way—I must have taken about twenty steps after leaving behind me the doorway where the woman with the fan was hidden, when suddenly a horrible idea came to me horrible, yet very natural nevertheless—the idea that I would look back to see if my enemy was following me. One thing or the other I thought, with the rapidity of a flash of lightning: either my alarm has some foundation or it is madness; if it has any foundation, this woman will have started after me, will be overtaking me, and there is no hope for me on earth. But if it is madness, a mere supposition, a panic fright like any other, I will convince myself of it in the present instance, and for every case that may occur hereafter, by seeing that that poor old woman has stayed in that doorway to protect herself from the cold, or to wait till the door is opened; and thereupon I can go on to my house in perfect tranquillity, and I shall have cured myself of a fancy that causes me great mortification.

"'This reasoning gone through with, I made


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Stanton, Elizabeth Cady

STANTON, Elizabeth Cady, American reformer: b. Johnstown, N. Y., 12 Nov. 1815; d. New York, 26 Oct. 1902. She was graduated from Emma Willard Seminary, Troy, N. Y., in 1832 and was married to Henry Brewster Stanton (q.v.) in 1840. Her attention was first attracted to the disabilities of her sex when at 15 she was prepared to enter college and found none in which she could obtain the education which her brothers received. She afterward studied Blackstone, Story and Kent, and while in London, in 1847, met Lucretia Mott, with whom in the following year she issued the first call for a woman-suffrage convention to be held in her home at Seneca Falls. From that time her career was one long struggle for equal rights for both sexes. The general principles for which she strove were equal educational advantages, equal rights of suffrage and of property, and more intelligent divorce laws. She addressed the New York legislature on the rights of

women in 1854 and again in 1860, advocating divorce for drunkenness. In 1866, she offered herself as a congressional candidate and for 25 years annually addressed congressional committees in the endeavor to gain a constitutional amendment granting enlarged privileges to women. She was president of the Women's Loyal League in 1861 and of the National Woman Suffrage Association in 1865-93. She traveled and lectured in all parts of the United States and also made addresses in England, Scotland and France. Throughout her entire career, Mrs. Stanton's personal life was a model of the fulfilment of the duties of a wife and mother, her public career never operating to the neglect of her social and home life. While the changes which have been wrought cannot definitely be declared the result of the exertions of Mrs. Stanton and her immediate associates, a great change certainly came about in her lifetime. The education within the reach of her brothers but unattainable for herself in her girlhood is now within the reach of any determined girl, and the changes in legislation are even more noticeable. The laws which placed a woman's property absolutely at her husband's disposal have been replaced by those which give her equal rights with him, or possibly superior, since the law recognizes no claim on the woman for family support, and her earnings are her own. Her intellect, energy and perseverance, and her womanly traits made her generally respected, and she is rightfully regarded as the mother of the movement. She presided over the first International Council of Women held in Washington in 1888, was one of the founders and afterward editor of The Revolution, and a frequent contributor to English and American magazines. She published ‘Eighty Years and More’ (1895); and was joint author of ‘The History of Woman Suffrage’ (1881-86) and edited ‘The Woman's Bible’ (1895).


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/29

Rh an extraordinary effort and turned my head. Ah, Gabriel!—Gabriel! how fearful it was! The tall woman had followed me with silent tread, was right over me, almost touching me with her fan, almost leaning her head on my shoulder.

"'Why was she doing it?—why, my Gabriel? Was she a thief? Was theshe [sic] really a man in disguise? Was she some malicious old hag who had seen that I was afraid of her? Was she a spectre conjured up by my very cowardice? Was she a mocking phantasm of human self-deception?

"'I could never tell you all I thought in a single moment. If the truth must be told, I gave a scream and flew away like a child of four years who thinks he sees the Black Man. I did not stop running until I got out into Montera Street. Once there, my fear left me like magic. This in spite of the fact that that street also was deserted. Then I turned my head to look back to Jardines Street. I could see down its whole length. It was lighted well enough for me to see the tall woman, if she had drawn back in any direction, and, by Heaven! I could not see her, standing still, walking, or in any way! However, I was very careful not to go back into that street again. The wretch, I said to myself, has slunk into some other doorway. But she can't move without my seeing her.

"'Just then I saw a policeman coming up


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/30

26 Caballero de Gracia Street, and I shouted to him without stirring from my place. I told him that there was a man dressed as a woman in Jardines Street. I directed him to go round by the way of Peligros and Aduana Streets, while I would remain where I was, and in that way the fellow, who was probably a thief or murderer, could not escape us. The policeman did as I said. He went through Aduana Street, and as soon as I saw his lantern coming along Jardines Street I also went up it resolutely.

"'We soon met at about the middle of the block, without either of us having encountered a soul, although we had examined door after door.

"'"He has got into some house," said the policeman.

"'"That must be so," I replied, opening my door with the fixed purpose of moving to some other street the next day,

"'A few moments later I was in my room; I always carried my latchkey, so as not to have to disturb my good José. Nevertheless, he was waiting for me that night. My misfortunes of the 15th and 16th of November were not yet ended.

"'"What has happened?" I asked him, in surprise.

"'"Major Falcón was here," he replied, with evident agitation, "waiting for you from eleven till half-past two, and he told me that, if you came


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/31

Rh home to sleep, you had better not undress, as he would be back at daybreak."

"'Those words left me trembling with grief and alarm, as if they had predicted my own death to me. I knew that my beloved father, at his home in Jean, had been suffering frequent and dangerous attacks of his chronic disease. I had written to my brothers that, if there should be a sudden and fatal termination of the sickness, they were to telegraph Major Falcón, who would inform me in some suitable way. I had not the slightest doubt, therefore, that my father had died.

"'I sat down in an arm-chair to wait for the morning and my friend, and, with them, the news of my great misfortune. God only knows what I suffered in those two cruel hours of waiting. All the while, three distinct ideas were inseparably joined in my mind; though they seemed unlike, they took pains, as it were, to keep in a dreadful group. They were: my losses at play, my meeting with the tall woman, and the death of my revered father.

"'Precisely at six Major Falcón came into my room, and looked at me in silence. I threw myself into his arms, weeping bitterly, and he exclaimed, caressing me:

"'"Yes, my dear fellow, weep, weep."'"


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/32

28

" friend Telesforo," Gabriel went on, after having drained another glass of wine, "also rested a moment when he reached this point, and then he proceeded as follows:

"'If my story ended here, perhaps you would not find anything extraordinary or supernatural in it. You would say to me the same thing that men of good judgment said to me at that time: that every one who has a lively imagination is subject to some impulse of fear or other; that mine came from belated, solitary women, and that the old creature of Jardines Street was only some homeless waif who was going to beg of me when I screamed and ran.

"'For my part, I tried to believe that it was so. I even came to believe it at the end of several months. Still, I would have given years of my life to be sure that I was not again to encounter the tall woman. But, to-day, I would give every drop of my blood to be able to meet her again.'

"'What for?'

"'To kill her on the spot.'

"'I do not understand you.'

"'You will understand me when I tell you that I did meet her again, three weeks ago, a few hours before I had the fatal news of my poor Joaquina's death.'


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Diocese of Eperies

Eperies,, of the Greek Ruthenian Rite, suffragan to Gran. Detached in 1818 from the Diocese of Munkàcs, this diocese has had the following bishops: Gregory Tarkovics (1818-41); Joseph Garganecs (1843-75); Nicholas Toth (1876-81); John Vàlyi (1882). The city of Eperies, called by the Slovaks Pressova, was founded by a German colony in the twelfth century on the Tarcza, a tributary of the Danube, and is now the capital of the county of Sàros, Hungary, with a population of 11,000. It is famous for its sugar factories, its mineral waters, and the rock salt mine situated at Sovar, several miles distant. The diocese contains 160,000 Ruthenian Catholics; 212 priests (nearly all married); 190 parishes scattered over the territory of six counties; 190 churches, 25 chapels, 24 parochial schools, with 28,000 pupils, a college for boys, 2 convents of Basilians, and a theological seminary with 40 students. The episcopal residence, the seminary, and most of the diocesan institutions are situated at Eperies.

.


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/33

Rh "'Tell me about it, tell me about it!'

"'There is little more to tell. It was five o'clock in the morning. It was not yet fully light, though the dawn was visible from the streets looking towards the east. The street-lamps had just been put out, and the policemen had withdrawn. As I was going through Prado Street, so as to get to the other end of Lobo Street, the dreadful woman crossed in front of me. She did not look at me, and I thought she had not seen me.

"'She wore the same dress and carried the same fan as three years before. My trepidation and alarm were greater than ever. I ran rapidly across Prado Street as soon as she had passed, although I did not take my eyes off her, so as to make sure that she did not look back, and, when I had reached the other end of Lobo Street, I panted as if I had just swum an impetuous stream. Then I pressed on with fresh speed towards home, filled now with gladness rather than fear, for I thought that the hateful witch had been conquered and shorn of her power, from the very fact that I had been so near her and yet that she had not seen me.

"'But soon, and when I had almost reached this house, a rush of fear swept over me, in the thought that the crafty old hag had seen and recognized me, that she had made a pretence of not knowing me so as to let me get into Lobo


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/34

30 Street, where it was still rather dark, and where she might set upon me in safety, that she would follow me, that she was already over me.

"'Upon this, I looked around—and there she was! There at my shoulder, almost touching me with her clothes, gazing at me with her horrible little eyes, displaying the gloomy cavern of her mouth, fanning herself in a mocking manner, as if to make fun of my childish alarm.

"'I passed from dread to the most furious anger, to savage and desperate rage. I dashed at the heavy old creature. I flung her against the wall. I put my hand to her throat. I felt of her face, her breast, the straggling locks of her gray hair until I was thoroughly convinced that she was a human being—a woman.

"'Meanwhile she had uttered a howl which was hoarse and piercing at the same time. It seemed false and feigned to me, like the hypocritical expression of a fear which she did not really feel. Immediately afterwards she exclaimed, making believe cry, though she was not crying, but looking at me with her hyena eyes:

"'"Why have you picked a quarrel with me?"

"'This remark increased my fright and weakened my wrath.

""'Then you remember," I cried, "that you have seen me somewhere else."


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/35

Rh "'"I should say so, my dear," she replied, mockingly. "Saint Eugene's night, in Jardines Street, three years ago."

"'My very marrow was chilled.

"'"But who are you?" I asked, without letting go of her. "Why do you follow me? What business have you with me?"

"'"I am a poor weak woman," she answered, with a devilish leer. "You hate me, and you are afraid of me without any reason. If not, tell me, good sir, why you were so frightened the first time you saw me."

"'"Because I have loathed you ever since I was born. Because you are the evil spirit of my life."

"'"It seems, then, that you have known me for a long time. Well, look, my son, so have I known you."

"'"You have known me? How long?"

"'"Since before you were born! And when I saw you pass by me, three years ago, I said to myself, that's the one."

"'"But what am I to you? What are you to me?"

"'"The devil!" replied the hag, spitting full in my face, freeing herself from my grasp, and running away with amazing swiftness. She held her skirts higher than her knees, and her feet did not make the slightest noise as they touched the ground.


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Stanton, Frank Lebby

STANTON, Frank Lebby, American journalist and poet: b. Charleston, S. C, 1857. He has resided in Atlanta, Ga., since 1894 and is now on the editorial staff of the Atlanta Constitution. He has published ‘Songs of the Soil’; ‘Comes One With a Song’ (1898); ‘Songs from Dixie Land’ (1900); and ‘Up from Georgia’ (1902); and ‘Little Folks Down South.’


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Epistle to the Ephesians

Ephesians, .— This article will be treated under the following heads: I. Analysis of the Epistle; II. Special Characteristics: (I) Form: (a) Vocabulary; (b) Style; (2) Doctrines; III. Object; IV. To Whom Addressed; V. Date and Place of Composition; Occasion; VI. Authenticity: (I) Relation to other books of the New Testament; (2) Difficulties arising from the form and doctrines; (3) Tradition.

I. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE.—The letter which, in the MSS. containing the Epistles of St. Paul, bears the title "To the Ephesians" comprises two parts distinctly separated by a doxology (Eph., iii, 20 sq.). The address, in which the Apostle mentions himself only, is not followed by a prologue; in fact, the entire dogmatic part develops the idea which is usually the subject of the prologue in the letters of St. Paul. In a long sentence that reads like a hymn (Eph., i, 3-14), Paul praises God for the blessings which He has bestowed upon all the faithful in accordance with the eternal plan of His will, the sublime plan by which all are to be united under one head, Christ, a plan which, although heretofore secret and mysterious, is now made manifest to believers. Those to whom the Epistle is addressed, having received the Gospel, have, in their turn, been made participants of these blessings, and the Apostle, having recently learned of their conversion and their faith, assures them that he ceases not to give thanks to Heaven for the same (Eph., i, 15, 16) and that, above all, he prays for them. The explanation of this prayer, of its object and motives, constitutes the remainder of the dogmatic part (cf. Eph., iii, 1, 14). Paul asks God that his readers may have a complete knowledge of the hope of their calling, that they may be fully aware both of the riches of their inheritance and the greatness of the Divine power which guarantees the inheritance. This Divine power manifests itself first in Christ, Whom it raised from the dead and Whom it exalted in glory above all creatures and established head of the Church, which is His body. Next, this power and goodness of God was evidenced in the readers, whom it rescued from their sins and raised and exalted with Christ. But it shone forth, above all, in the establishment of a community of salvation welcoming within its fold both Jews and Gentiles without distinction, the Death of Christ having broken down the middle wall of partition, i.e. the Law, and both sections of the human race having thus been reconciled to God so as thenceforth to form but one body, one house, one temple, of which the apostles and Christian prophets are the foundation and Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone. (Eph., i, 16-ii, 20.) Paul, as his readers must have heard, was the minister chosen to preach to the Gentiles of this sublime mystery of God, hidden from all eternity and not revealed even to the angels, according to which the Gentiles are made coheirs with the Jews, constitute a part of the same body, and are joint partakers in the same promises (Eph., iii, 1-13). Deeply imbued with this mystery, the Apostle implores the Father to lead his readers to the perfection of the Christian state and the complete knowledge of Divine charity (Eph., iii, 14-19), continuing the same prayer with which he had begun (Eph., i, 16 sq.).

Having praised God anew in the solemn doxology (Eph., iii, 20 sq.), Paul passes on to the moral part of his letter. His exhortations, which he bases more than is his wont on dogmatic considerations, all revert to that of chapter iv, verse 1, wherein he entreats his readers to show themselves in all things worthy of their vocation. First of all, they must labor to preserve the unity described by the author in the first three chapters and here again brought into prominence: One Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God. There is, of course, a diversity of ministries, but the respective offices of apostles, prophets, etc. have all been instituted by the same Christ exalted in glory and all tend to the perfection of the society of saints in Christ (Eph., iv, 2-16). From these great social duties, Paul proceeds to the consideration of individual ones. He contrasts the Christian life that his readers are to lead, with their pagan life, insisting above all on the avoidance of two vices, immodesty and covetousness (Eph., iv, 17-v, 3). Then, in treating of family life, he dwells on the duties of husbands and wives, whose union he likens to that of Christ with His Church, and the duties of children and servants (v, 21-vi, 9). In order to fulfil these duties and to combat adverse powers, the readers must put on the armor of God (vi, 10-20).

The Epistle closes with a short epilogue (vi, 21-24), wherein the Apostle tells his correspondents that he has sent Tychicus to give them news of him and that he wishes them peace, charity, and grace.

II. SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS.—(I) Form—(a) Vocabulary.—This letter, like all of those written by St. Paul, contains hapax legomena, about seventy-five words which are not found in the Apostle's other writings; however, it were a mistake to make this fact the basis of an argument against Pauline authenticity. Of these words nine occur in quotations from the Old Testament and others belong to current language or else designate things which Paul elsewhere had had no occasion to mention. Others, again, are derived from roots used by the Apostle and besides, in comparing these hapax legomena one with another, it is impossible to recognize in them a characteristic vocabulary that would reveal a distinct personality. (Cf. Brunet, "De l'authenticité de l'épïttre aux Ephésiens; preuves philologiques", Lyons, 1897; Nägeli, "Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus", Göttingen, 1905.)

(b) Style.—This Epistle, even more than that to the Colossians, is remarkable for the length of its periods. The first three chapters contain hardly more than three sentences and these are overladen with relative or participial clauses that are simply strung together, frequently without being connected by the logical particles that occur so frequently in St. Paul. Each particular clause is itself encumbered with numerous prepositional modifiers (especially with en and sun) of which it is difficult to state the exact meaning. Often, too, several synonyms are in juxtaposition and in very many cases a noun has an explanatory genitive, the sense of which differs but very slightly from that of the noun itself. For all of these reasons the language of the Epistle, heavy, diffuse, and languid, seems very different from the dialectical, animated, and vigorous style of the Apostle's uncontested letters. It is important to note that in the moral part of the Epistle these peculiarities of style do not appear and hence they would seem to depend more on the matter treated than on the author himself; in fact, even in the dogmatic expositions in the great Epistles, St. Paul's language is frequently involved (cf. Rom., ii, 13 sq.; iv, 16 sq.; v, 12 sq.; etc.). Moreover, it must be observed that all these peculiarities spring from the same cause: they all indicate a certain redundancy of ideas surging in upon a deep and tranquil meditation on a sublime subject, the various aspects of which simultaneously appear to the author's mind and evoke his admiration. Hence also the lyric tone that pervades the first three chapters, which constitute a series of praises, benedictions, thanksgivings, and prayers. A sort of rhythmic composition has been pointed out in chapter i (cf. T. Innitzer, "Der `Hymnus' im Eph., i, 3-14" in "Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie", 1904, 612 sq.), and in chapter iii traces of liturgical hymnology have been observed (Eph., iii, 20), but they are no more striking than in I Cor. and are not to be compared with the liturgical language of I Clement.

(2) Doctrines.—The doctrines on justification, the Law, faith, the flesh, etc., that are characteristic of the great Pauline Epistles, are not totally lacking in the Epistle to the Ephesians, being recognizable in chapter ii (I-16). However, the writer's subject does not lead him to develop these particular doctrines. On the other hand, he clearly indicates, especially in chapter i, the supreme place which, in the order of nature and grace, is allotted to Christ, the author and center of creation, the point towards which all things converge, the source of all grace, etc. Although, in his great Epistles, St. Paul sometimes touches upon these doctrines (cf. I Cor., viii, 6; xv, 45 sq.; II Cor., v, 18 sq.), they constitute the special object of his letter to the Colossians, where he develops them to a much greater extent than in that to the Ephesians. In fact this Epistle treats more of the Church than of Christ. (On the doctrine of the Church in the Epistle to the Ephesians see Meritan in "Revue biblique", 1898, pp. 343 sq., and W. H. Griffith Thomas in the "Expositor", October, 1906, pp. 318 sq.) The word church no longer means, as is usual in the great Epistles of St. Paul (see, however, Gal., i, 13; I Cor., xii, 28; xv, 9), some local church or other, but the one universal Church, an organic whole uniting all Christians in one body of which Christ is the head. Here we find the systematized development of elements insinuated from time to time in the letters to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. The author who has declared that there is now neither Jew nor Greek but that all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal., iii, 28); that in each Christian the life of Christ is made manifest (Gal., ii, 20; II Cor., iv, 11 sq.); that all are led by the Spirit of God and of Christ (Rom., viii, 9-14); that each one of the faithful has Christ for head (I Cor., xi, 3), could, by combining these elements, easily come to consider all Christians as forming but one body (Rom., xii, 5; I Cor., xii, 12, 27), animated by one spirit (Eph., iv, 4), a single body having Christ for head. To this body the Gentiles belong by the same right as the Jews. Undoubtedly this mysterious dispensation of Providence was, according to the Epistle to the Ephesians, made manifest to all the Apostles, a declaration which, moreover, the Epistle to the Galatians does not contradict (Gal., ii, 3-9); however, this revelation remains, as it were, the special gift of St. Paul (Eph., iii, 3-8). The right of pagans seems to be no longer questioned, which is easily understood at the close of the Apostle's life. At the death of Christ the wall of separation was broken down (cf. Gal., iii, 13), and all have since had access to the Father in the same spirit. They do not meet on the Jewish ground of the abolished Law but on Christian ground, in the edifice founded directly on Christ. The Church being thus constituted, the author contemplates it just as it appears to him. Besides, if in the extension of the Church he beholds the realization of the eternal decree by which all men have been predestined to the same salvation, he is not obliged to repeat the religious history of mankind in the way he had occasion to describe it in the Epistle to the Romans; neither is he constrained to explain the historical privileges of the Jews, to which he nevertheless alludes (Eph., ii, 12), nor to connect the new economy with the old (see, however, Eph., iii, 6), nor indeed to introduce, at least into the dogmatical exposition, the sins of the pagans, whom he is satisfied to accuse of having lacked intimate communion with God (Eph., ii, 12). For the time being all these points are not his main subject of meditation. It is rather the recent, positive fact of the union of all men in the Church, the body of Christ, that he brings into prominence; the Apostle contemplates Christ Himself in His actual influence over this body and over each of its members; hence it is only occasionally that he recalls the redemptive power of Christ's Death. (Eph., i, 7; ii, 5, 6.) From heaven, where He has been exalted, Christ bestows His gifts on all the faithful without distinction, commanding, however, that in His Church certain offices be held for the common welfare. The hierarchical terms used so constantly later on (episkopoi, presbuteroi, diakonoi) are not met with here. The apostles and prophets, always mentioned together, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, play a like part, being the founders of the Church (Eph., ii, 20). Thus placed on an equality with the prophets, the apostles are not the chosen Twelve but, as indicated in the letters of St. Paul, those who have seen Christ and been commissioned by Him to preach His Gospel. It is for the same purpose that the prophets in the Epistle to the Ephesians used the charisma, or spiritual gifts described in I Cor., xii-xiv. The evangelists, who are not noticed in Eph., ii, 20, or iii, 5, are inferior in dignity to the apostles and prophets in connection with whom they are, nevertheless, mentioned (Eph., iv, 11). In his first letters St. Paul had no occasion to allude to them, but they belong to the Apostolic age, as at a later epoch they are never referred to. Finally the "pastors and doctors" (A. V. pastors and teachers), who are clearly distinguished (Eph., iv, 11) from the apostles and prophets, founders of the churches, seem to be those local authorities already indicated in I Thess., v, 12; I Cor., xvi, 15 sq.; Acts, xx, 28. While the attention given to these different ministers forms a distinctive note in the Epistle to the Ephesians, we cannot therefore admit (with Klopper, for example) that the author is preoccupied with the hierarchy as such. The unity of the Church, a point that he clearly emphasizes, is not so much the juridical unity of an organized society as the vital unity that binds all the members of the body to its head, the glorified Christ. Nor is it true that the author already predicts centuries of future existence for this Church (Klopper) as, properly speaking, the ages to come, referred to in the Epistle to the Ephesians (ii, 7), are to come in the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. ii, 6). On the other hand we know that St. Paul's hope of soon witnessing Christ's second coming kept constantly diminishing, and therefore, in the latter years of his life, he might well define (Eph., v, 22 sq.) the laws of Christian marriage, which at an earlier period (I Cor., vii, 37 sq.) he regarded only in the light of the approaching advent of Christ.

The exposition that we have given of the doctrines proper to the Epistle to the Ephesians has been so made as to show that none of these doctrines taken separately contradicts the theology of the great Pauline Epistles and that each one individually can be connected with certain elements disseminated in these Epistles. It is nevertheless true that, taken in its entirety, this letter to the Ephesians constitutes a new doctrinal system, the Pauline authenticity of which can only be critically defended by pointing out the circumstances in consequence of which the Apostle was able thus to develop his first theology and profoundly to modify his manner of setting it forth. Naturally this leads us first of all to try to ascertain the object of the letter to the Ephesians.

III. OBJECT.—It has been said that St. Paul combated immoral doctrines and an antinomian propaganda that especially endangered those to whom the letters were addressed (Pfleiderer), but this hypothesis would not explain the dogmatic part of the Epistle, and even in the hortatory part nothing betokens polemical preoccupation. All the warnings administered are called forth by the pagan origin of the readers, and when the author addresses his prayers to Heaven in their behalf (Eph., i, 17 sqq.; iii, 14 sqq.) he does not mention any particular peril from which he would have God deliver their Christian life. Klopper thought that the author had Judeo-Christians in view, still denying converted pagans their full right in the Church, and Jacquier gives this as an additional motive. Others have said that the Gentile-Christians of the Epistle had to be reminded of the privileges of the Jews. But not one word in the letter, even in the section containing exhortations to unity (Eph., iv, 2 sq.), reveals the existence of any antagonism among those to whom the Apostle writes, and there is no question of the reproduction or reestablishment of unity. The author never addresses himself to any save converted pagans, and all his considerations tend solely to provide them with a full knowledge of the blessings which, despite their pagan origin, they have acquired in Christ and of the greatness of the love that God has shown them. If, in chapter iii, St. Paul speaks of his personal Apostleship, it is not by way of defending it against attacks but of expressing all his gratitude for having been called, in spite of his unworthiness, to announce the great mystery of which he had sung the praises. Briefly, nothing in the letter allows us to suspect that it responds to any special need on the part of those to whom it is addressed, nor that they, on their side, had given the author any particular occasion for writing it. In so far as either its dogmatic or moral part is concerned, it might have been addressed to any churches whatever founded in the pagan world.

IV. To WHOM ADDRESSED.—To whom, then, was the Epistle addressed? This question has evoked a variety of answers. There are critics who maintain the traditional opinion that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians exclusively (Danko, Cornely), but the greater number consider it in the light of a circular letter. Some maintain that it was addressed to Ephesus and the churches of which this city was, so to speak, the metropolis (Michelis, Harless, and Henle), while others hold that it was sent to the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse (H. Holtzmann) or to the circle of Christian communities within and around Colossae and Laodicea (Godet, Haupt, Zahn, and Belser); or again to the faithful of Asia Minor (B. Weiss) or to all the Gentile-Christian Churches (Von Soden). The question can only be solved by comparing the Epistle with the knowledge possessed of the life and literary activity of the Apostle. Those who deny the authenticity of the letter must certainly grant that the Pseudo-Paul (i, 1) was careful to conform to literary and historical probabilities; and if not, since the letter vouchsafes no direct indication as to the correspondents whom he supposed the Apostle to be addressing, it would be idle to imagine who they were. The words en Epheso, in the first verse of the Epistle, do not belong to the primitive text. St. Basil attests that, even in his day, they were not met with in the ancient MSS.; in fact they are missing from the Codices B and◊ê (first hand). Moreover, the examination of the Epistle does not warrant the belief that it was addressed to the church in which the Apostle had sojourned longest. When St. Paul writes to one of his churches, he constantly alludes to his former relations with it (see Thess., Gal., Cor.), but here there is nothing personal, no greeting, no special recommendation, no allusion to the author's past. Paul is unacquainted with his correspondents, although he has heard them spoken of (Eph., i, 15), and they have heard of him (Eph., iii, 2; cf. iv, 21). When addressing himself to any particular church, even be it at the time still a stranger to him as, for instance, Rome or Colossae, the Apostle always assumes a personal tone; hence the abstract and general manner in which he treats his subject from the beginning to the end of the Epistle to the Ephesians can best be accounted for by beholding in this Epistle a circular letter to a group of churches still unknown to Paul. But this explanation, founded on the encyclical character of the Epistle, loses its value if the Church of Ephesus is numbered among those addressed; for, during his three years' sojourn in this city, the Apostle had had frequent intercourse with the neighboring Christian communities, and in this case he would have had Ephesus especially in view, just as in writing to all the faithful of Achaia (II Cor., i, 1) it was chiefly to the Church of Corinth that he addressed himself.

Nevertheless, it was to a rather restricted circle of Christian communities that Paul sent this letter, as Tychicus was to visit them all and bring them news of him (Eph., vi, 21 sq.), which fact precludes the idea of all the churches of Asia Minor or of all the Gentile-Christian churches. Moreover, since Tychicus was bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians and that to the Ephesians at one and the same time (Col., iv, 7 sq.), those to whom the latter was addressed could not have been far from Colossae, and we have every reason to suppose them in Asia Minor. However, we do not believe that the Epistle in question was addressed to the churches immediately surrounding Colossae, as the perils which threatened the faith of the Colossians virtually endangered that of the neighboring communities, and wherefore, then, two letters differing in tone and object? Having had no personal intercourse with the Colossians, the Apostle would have been satisfied to address to them and their Christian neighbors an encyclical letter embodying all the matter treated in both Epistles. Hence it behooves us to seek elsewhere in Asia Minor, towards the year 60, a rather limited group of churches still unknown to St. Paul. Now, in the course of his three journeys, Paul had traversed all parts of Asia Minor except the northern provinces along the Black Sea, territory which he did not reach prior to his captivity. Nevertheless, the First Epistle of St. Peter shows us that the Faith had already penetrated these regions; hence, with the historical data at our disposal, it is in this vicinity that it seems most reasonable to seek those to whom the Epistle was addressed. These Christians must have been named in the authentic text of the inscription of this Epistle, as they are in all of St. Paul's letters. Now, whenever the substantive participle appears in one of these inscriptions, it serves the sole purpose of introducing the mention of locality. We are therefore authorized to believe that, in the address of the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph., i, 1: tois hagiois ousin kai pistois en Christo Iesou), this participle, so difficult to understand in the received text, originally preceded the designation of the place inhabited by the readers. One might assume that the line containing this designation was omitted owing to some distraction on the part of the first copyist; however, it would then be necessary to admit that the mention of locality, now in question, occurred in the midst of qualifying adjectives applied by the Apostle to his readers (hagiois tois ousin ... pistois), and this is something that is never verified in the letters of St. Paul. Hence we may suppose that, in this address, the indication of place was corrupted rather than omitted, and this paves the way for conjectural restorations. We ourselves have proposed the following: tois hagiois tois ousin kat' Irin tois en Christo Iesou. Ladeuze in Revue biblique, 1902, pp. 573 sq.) Grammatically, this phrase corresponds perfectly with the Apostle's style (cf. Gal., i, 22; I Cor., i, 2; Phil., i, 1) and palaeographically, if transcribed in ancient capitals, it readily accounts for the corruption that has certainly been produced in the text. The Epistle to the Ephesians was, therefore, written to distant churches, located perhaps in various provinces [Pontus, Galatia, Polemonium (the kingdom of Polemon)] and, for this reason, requiring to be designated by a general term, but all situated along the River Iris.

These churches of the northeast of Asia Minor played rather an obscure part in the first century. When the first collection of the Apostle's letters was made, a collection on which the entire textual tradition of these letters depends (cf. Zahn, Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, I, ii, p. 829), it was Ephesus that furnished the copy of this Epistle, having obtained it when Tychicus landed at that port, thence to set out for Colossae and in the direction of Pontus, and in this copy the text of the address had already been corrupted. Having come from Ephesus, this letter quickly passed for one to the Ephesians, the more so as there was no other written by the Apostle to the most celebrated of churches. This explains why, from the beginning, all except Marcion, even those who did not read the words en Epheso in the first verse (Origen, Tertullian), look upon this letter as an Epistle to the Ephesians, and why, in all MSS., it is transcribed under this title.

V. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION; OCCASION.—Like the Epistles to the Colossians, to the Philippians, and to Philemon, that to the Ephesians was written during the leisure hours of one of the Apostle's imprisonments (Eph., iii, 1; iv, 1; vi, 20), when he had but little reason to resort to the services of a disciple to write in his name (De Wette, Ewald, and Renan). Lisco (Vincula Sanctorum, Berlin, 1900) is the only one nowadays who claims that these letters antedate the great captivity of St. Paul, maintaining that the Apostle must have written them while a prisoner in Ephesus in 57 and prior to those which he sent to the Corinthians and Romans. But we are not acquainted with any of the details of this captivity at Ephesus. Moreover, the doctrine set forth in the letters in question belongs to an epoch subsequent to the composition of the Epistle to the Romans (58); hence they were not written previously to the captivity in Caesarea (58-60). On the other hand, they are anterior to the first persecution, to which the author makes no allusion when describing the armor and combats of the faithful; wherefore they cannot be assigned to the last captivity. It consequently remains for them to be ascribed to a period between 58 and 63, but whether they were produced in Caesarea or in Rome (61-63) is still a much mooted question. The information gleaned here and there is very vague and the arguments brought forward are very doubtful. However, the freedom allowed Paul, and the evangelical activity he displays at the time of writing these letters, would seem more in keeping with his captivity in Rome (Acts, xxviii, 17-31) than in Caesarea (Acts, xxiii, sq.). One thing, however, is certain, once the authenticity of the Epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians is admitted, and that is that they were written at the same time. They both show fundamentally and formally a very close connection of which we shall speak later on. Tychicus was appointed to convey both Epistles to those to whom they were respectively addressed and to fulfil the same mission in behalf of them (Col., iv, 7 sq.; Eph., vi, 21 sq.). Verse 16 of chapter iv of Colossians does not seem to allude to the letter to the Ephesians, which would need to have been written first; besides, the Epistle here mentioned is scarcely an encyclical, the context leading us to look upon it as a special letter of the same nature as that sent to the Colossians. If, moreover, Paul knew that, before reaching Colossae Tychicus would deliver the Epistle to the Ephesians to the Christians at Laodicea, there was no reason why he should insert greetings for the Laodiceans in his Epistle to the Colossians (Col., iv, 15). It is more probable that the Epistle to the Ephesians was written in the second place. It would be less easy to understand why, in repeating to the Colossians the same exhortations that he had made to the Ephesians, for instance, on remarriage (Eph., v, 22 sqq.), the author should have completely suppressed the sublime dogmatic considerations upon which these exhortations had been based. Moreover we believe with Godet that: "It is more natural to think that, of these two mutually complemental letters, the one provoked by a positive request and a definite need [Col.] came first, and that the other [Eph.] was due to the greater solicitude evoked by the composition of the former."

How, then, admitting that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians, shall we explain the origin of this document? The Apostle, who was a captive at Rome, was informed by Epaphras of the dogmatic and moral errors that had come to light in Colossae and the neighboring cities, in churches of which he was not the founder. He also learned that he had been censured for not bringing to the perfection of Christianity those whom he had once converted, and for not taking sufficient interest in churches that had sprung up side by side with his own, although without his personal intervention (Col., i, 28-ii, 5). At the same time that Paul received the news concerning Colossae and its surroundings, he also heard (Eph., i, 15) that in a distant part of Asia Minor Christian communities had been brought to the Faith, perhaps by evangelists (Eph., iv, 11). Impressed by the accusations made against him, Paul took advantage of the departure of Tychicus for Colossae, to enter into communication with those Christians who had heard of him (Eph., iii, 2) and to address them a letter in which he had to limit himself to general considerations on Christianity, but he wished to prove his Apostolic solicitude for them by making them realize not only the dignity of their Christian vocation, but the oneness of the Church of God and the intimate union by which all the faithful, no matter what their history, are constituted a single body of which Christ is the head.

VI. AUTHENTICITY.—If one would only remember to whom the Epistle was addressed and on what occasion it was written, the objections raised against its Pauline authenticity could be readily answered.

(I) Relation to Other Books of the New Testament.—The letter to the Ephesians bears some resemblance to the Epistle to the Hebrews and the writings of St. Luke and St. John, in point of ideas and mode of expression, but no such resemblance is traceable in the great Pauline Epistles. Of course one of the Apostle's writings might have been utilized in these later documents but these similarities are too vague to establish a literary relationship. During the four years intervening between the Epistle to the Romans and that to the Ephesians, St. Paul had changed his headquarters and his line of work, and we behold him at Rome and Caesarea connected with new Christian centers. It is, therefore, easy to understand why his style should savor of the Christian language used in these later books, when we recall that their object has so much in common with the matter treated in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Whatever may now and then have been said on the subject, the same phenomenon is noticeable in the Epistle to the Colossians. If, indeed, the Epistle to the Ephesians agrees with the Acts in more instances than does the Epistle to the Colossians, it is because the two former have one identical object, namely, the constitution of the Church by the calling of the Jews and Gentiles.

The relationship between the Epistle to the Ephesians and I Peter is much closer. The letter to the Ephesians, unlike most of the Pauline Epistles, does not begin with an act of thanksgiving but with a hymn similar, even in its wording, to that which opens I Peter. Besides, both letters agree in certain typical expressions and in the description of the duties of the domestic life, which terminates in both with the same exhortation to combat the devil. With the majority of critics, we maintain the relationship between these letters to be literary. But I Peter was written last and consequently depends on the Epistle to the Ephesians; for instance, it alludes already to the persecution, at least as impending. Sylvanus, the Apostle's faithful companion, was St. Peter's secretary (I Peter, v, 12), and it is but natural that he should make use of a letter, recently written by St. Paul, on questions analogous to those which he himself had to treat, especially as according to us, those addressed in both of these Epistles are, for the greater part, identical (cf. I Peter, i, 1).

The attacks made upon the authenticity of the Epistle to the Ephesians have been based mainly on its similarity to the Epistle to the Colossians, although some have maintained that the latter depends upon the former (Mayerhoff). In the opinion of Hitzig and Holtzmann, a forger living early in the second century and already imbued with Gnosticism used an authentic letter, written by Paul to the Colossians against the Judeo-Christians of the Apostolic Age, in composing the Epistle to the Ephesians, in conformity to which he himself subsequently revised the letter to the Colossians, giving it the form it has in the canon. De Wette and Ewald looked upon the Epistle to the Ephesians as a verbose amplification of the uncontroversial parts of the letter to the Colossians. However, it is only necessary to read first one of these documents and then the other, in order to see how exaggerated is this view. Von Soden finds a great difference between the two letters but nevertheless holds that several sections of the Epistle to the Ephesians are but a servile paraphrase of passages from the letter to the Colossians (Eph., iii, 1-9 and Col., i, 23-27; Eph., v, 21-vi, 9 and Col., iii, 18-iv, 1) and that still more frequently the later author follows a purely mechanical process by taking a single verse from the letter to the Colossians and using it to introduce and conclude, and serve as a frame, so to speak, for a statement of his own. Thus, he maintains that in Eph., iv, 25-31, the first words of verse 8 of Col., iii, have served as an introduction (Eph., iv, 25) and the last words of the same verse as a conclusion (Eph., iv, 31). Evidently such methods could not be attributed to the Apostle himself. But, neither are we justified in ascribing them to the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians. For instance, the duties of husband and wife are well set forth in Col., iii, 18, 19, but in these verses there is no comparison whatever between Christian marriage and that union of Christ with His Church such as characterizes the same exhortation in Eph., v, 22 sq.; consequently, it would be very arbitrary to maintain the latter text to be a vulgar paraphrase of the former. In comparing the texts quoted, the phenomenon of framing, to which von Soden called attention, can be verified in a single passage (Eph., iv, 2-16, where verse 2 resembles Col., iii, 12 sq. and where verses 15, 16, are like Col., ii, 19). In fact, throughout his entire exposition, the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians is constantly repeating ideas and even particular expressions that occur in the letter to the Colossians, and yet neither a servile imitation nor any one of the well-known offenses to which plagiarists are liable, can be proved against him.

Moreover, it is chiefly in their hortatory part that these two letters are so remarkably alike and this is only natural if, at intervals of a few days or hours, the same author had to remind two distinct circles of readers of the same common duties of the Christian life. In the dogmatic part of these two Epistles there is a change of subject, treated with a different intention and in another tone. In the one instance we have a hymn running through three chapters and celebrating the call of both Jews and Gentiles and the union of all in the Church of Christ; and in the other, an exposition of Christ's dignity and of the adequacy of the means He vouchsafes us for the obtaining of our salvation, as also thanksgiving and especially prayers for those readers who are liable to misunderstand this doctrine. However, these two objects, Christ and the Church, are closely akin. Besides, if in his letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul reproduces the ideas set forth in that to the Colossians, it is certainly less astonishing than to find a like phenomenon in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans, as it is very natural that the characteristic expressions used by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Colossians should appear in the letter to the Ephesians, since both were written at the same time. In fact it has been remarked that he is prone to repeat typical expressions he has once coined (cf. Zahn, Einleitung, I, p. 363 sq.). Briefly, we conclude with Sabatier that: "These two letters come to us from one and the same author who, when writing the one, had the other in mind and, when composing the second, had not forgotten the first." The vague allusions made in the Epistle to the Ephesians to some of the doctrinal questions treated in the Epistle to the Colossians, can be accounted for in this manner, even though these questions were never proposed by those to whom the former Epistle was addressed.

(2) Difficulties Arising from the Form and Doctrines.—The denial of the Pauline authenticity of the Epistle to the Ephesians is based on the special characteristics of the Epistle from the viewpoint of style as well as of doctrine, and, while differing from those of the great Pauline Epistles, these characteristics although more marked, resemble those of the letter to the Colossians. But we have already dwelt upon them at sufficient length.

The circumstances under which the Apostle must have written the Epistle to the Ephesians seem to account for the development of the doctrine and the remarkable change of style. During his two years' captivity in Caesarea, Paul could not exercise his Apostolic functions, and in Rome, although allowed more liberty, he could not preach the Gospel outside of the house in which he was held prisoner. Hence he must have made up for his want of external activity by a more profound meditation on "his Gospel". The theology of justification, of the Law, and of the conditions essential to salvation, he had already brought to perfection, having systematized it in the Epistle to the Romans and, although keeping it in view, he did not require to develop it any further. In his Epistle to the Romans (viii-xi, xvi, 25-27) he had come to the investigation of the eternal counsels of Providence concerning the salvation of men and had expounded, as it were, a philosophy of the religious history of mankind of which Christ was the center, as indeed He had always been the central object of St. Paul's faith. Thus, it was on Christ Himself that the solitary meditations of the Apostle were concentrated; in the quiet of his prison he was to develop, by dint of personal intellectual labor and with the aid of new revelations, this first revelation received when "it pleased God to reveal His Son in him". He was, moreover, urged by the news brought him from time to time by some of his disciples, as, for instance, by Epaphras, that, in certain churches, errors were being propagated which tended to lessen the role and the dignity of Christ, by setting up against Him other intermediaries in the work of salvation. On the other had, separated from the faithful and having no longer to travel constantly from one church to another, the Apostle was able to embrace in one sweeping glance all the Christians scattered throughout the world. While he resided in the center of the immense Roman Empire which, in its unity, comprised the world, it was the one universal Church of Christ, the fulfilment of the mysterious decrees revealed to him, the Church in which it had been his privilege to bring together Jews and pagans, that presented itself to him for contemplation.

These subjects of habitual meditation are naturally introduced in the letters that he had to write at that time. To the Colossians he speaks of Christ's dignity; to the Ephesians, and we have seen why, of the unity of the Church. But in these Epistles, Paul addresses those who are unknown to him; he no longer needs, as in preceding letters, to combat theories which undermined the very foundation of the work and to refute enemies who, in their hatred, attacked him personally. Accordingly, there is no further occasion to use the serried argumentation with which he not only overthrew the arguments of his adversaries but turned them to the letters' confusion. There is more question of setting forth the sublime considerations with which he is filled than of discussions. Then, ideas so crowd upon him that his pen is overtaxed; his sentences teem with synonyms and qualifying epithets and keep taking on new propositions, thus losing the sharpness and vigor of controversy and assuming the ample proportions of a hymn of adoration. Hence we can understand why, in these letters, Paul's style grows dull and sluggish and why the literary composition differs so widely from that of the first Epistles. When writing to the Colossians he at least had one particular church to deal with and certain errors to refute, whereas, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he addressed himself at one and the same time to a group of unknown churches of which he had received but vague information. There was nothing concrete in this and the Apostle was left entirely to himself and to his own meditations. This is the reason why the special characteristics already indicated in the Epistle to the Colossians appear even more pronounced in that to the Ephesians, particularly in the dogmatic part.

(3) Tradition.—If we thus keep in mind the circumstances under which Paul wrote both of these letters, their peculiar character seems no obstacle to their Pauline authenticity. Therefore, the testimony which, in their inscriptions (Col., i, 1; Eph., i, 1), they themselves render to this authenticity and the very ancient tradition which unanimously attributes them to the Apostle preserve all their force. From the traditional viewpoint the Epistle to the Ephesians is in the same class as the best attested letters of St. Paul. Used in the First Epistle of St. Peter, in the Epistle of St. Polycarp, in the works of St. Justin, perhaps in the Didache and I Clement, it appears to have been already well known towards the end of the first century. Marcion and St. Irenaeus ascribe it to St. Paul and it seems that St. Ignatius, when writing to the Ephesians, had already made use of it as Pauline. It is also to be noted that if the authenticity of this Epistle has been denied by most of the liberal critics since Schleiermacher's day, it is nevertheless conceded by many modern critics, Protestants among them, and held at least as probable by Harnack and Jülicher. In fact the day seems to be approaching when the whole world will recognize as the work of St. Paul, this Epistle to the Ephesians, of which St. John Chrysostom admired the sublime sentences and doctrines: noematon meste ... hupselon kai dogmaton.

P. LADEUZE


text:
Page:Stories by Foreign Authors (Spanish).djvu/36

32 "'It was madness to try to catch her. Besides, people were already passing through the Carrera de San Jerónimo, and in Prado Street, too. It was broad daylight. The tall woman kept on running, or flying, as far as Huertas Street, which was now lighted up by the sun. There she stopped to look back at me. She waved her closed fan at me once or twice, threateningly, and then disappeared around a corner.

"'Wait a little longer, Gabriel. Do not yet pronounce judgment in this case, where my life and soul are concerned. Listen to me two minutes longer.

"'When I entered my house I met Colonel Falcón, who had just come to tell me that my Joaquina, my betrothed, all my hope and happiness and joy on earth, had died the day before in Santa Agueda. The unfortunate father had telegraphed Falcón to tell me—me, who should have divined it an hour before, when I met the evil spirit of my life! Don't you understand, now, that I must kill that born enemy of my happiness, that vile old hag, who is the living mockery of my destiny?

"'But why do I say kill? Is she a woman? Is she a human being? Why have I had a presentiment of her ever since I was born? Why did she recognize me when she first saw me? Why do I never see her except when some great