text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Extension

Extension (from Lat. extendere, to spread out).— That material substance is not perfectly continuous in its structure, as it appears to our gross senses, the physical sciences demonstrate. The microscope reveals pores in the most compact matter, while the permeation of gases and even of liquids through solids indicates that the densest bodies would probably present to a sufficiently penetrating eye a sponge-like structure throughout. This fact, together with the difficulty of explaining how the senses can perceive extension, has led many theorists to deny its objectivity, although, on the other hand, the first of modern philosophers, Descartes, was so impressed by the universality of extension that he held it to be the very essence of matter. Kant makes extension a subjective form, an original condition of sensuous faculty which when stimulated by the sense-object stamps the impression accordingly. Others, with Leibniz, resolve matter into simple unextended points (monads), which by their agitation are supposed to produce in us the impression of continuous extension. Others, with Boscovich (d. 1787), subtilize matter into simple forces which some hold to be "virtually" extended. The Atomists (physical and chemical) dissolve bodies into minute particles or atoms (which some consider to be absolutely, others only physically, indivisible) of certain elementary substances, which hitherto have defied further analysis but which may eventually turn out to be merely varying arrangements of some primordial homogeneous material, the radical constituent of the universe. The present teaching of Catholic philosophy on the subject may be summarized as follows: Extension is either successive (fluent, as that of a stream and of time), or permanent. The latter may be viewed as either (a) continuous (mathematical, i.e. abstract, as a line; or physical), when the entitative or integrant parts into which its immediate subject, material substance, is divisible are united (perfectly or imperfectly) throughout, e.g. a homogeneous wire; (b) contiguous, when the said parts are conjoined only by contact, e.g. a brick wall; (c) interrupted, when those parts are in some degree disjoined, though connected by an intermediate, e.g. a string of beads. We are here occupied with continuous extension only.

Continuous extension may be described as that property in virtue whereof the parts into which material substance is divisible are situally arranged in orderly relation one beyond the other (internal and potentially local extension) and hence are naturally commensurate with the corresponding parts of the immediately environing surfaces (external and actual local extension). Consequent attributes of extension are divisibility, measurability, and impenetrability. Wherein precisely the essence of extension consists, is a controverted question. Probably the more general opinion is that extension radically and essentially consists in the internal distribution of the parts into which matter is divisible, and that external extension, or the correspondence of those parts to the parts of the locating surfaces, is a sequent property of essential or internal extension. Of course this does not explain extension. Some nearer approach to an explanation may be found in the opinion of a recent writer (Pecsi) who makes extension consist in the expansive and cohesive forces of matter—the former causing the said parts to spread out, the latter keeping them united.

Continuous extension is an objective property of matter, not a mere mental form moulding the sensuous impression produced in the sensory organs by some sort of physical motion. What it is that extension immediately affects—whether the ultimate atoms, the constituent molecules, or the gross mass of matter—we are unable in the present stage of physical science to decide. Even should it turn out, however, as many conjecture, that the densest solid—to say nothing of a liquid or a gas—is but what might be called an "infinitely" complex arrangement of infinitesimal corpuscles—atoms or electrons-gyrating in a matrix of ether, continuous extension would still remain real (objective), though it would then be the immediate property of the constituent corpuscles and the ether instead of a property of the gross mass. It is experimentally demonstrable that sensuous impressions are aroused in us by bodies as extended and resistent. Now if bodies were constituted of simple, unextended points—monads or forces—these could not stimulate the sensory organs, since such elements, apart from the fact that they would all coalesce and copenetrate, could not be the subjects of material activity (etherial or aerial vibrations, chemical reactions, i.e. the immediate sense-stimuli). Nor could the organs evoke the sensation, since in the hypothesis they, too, being made up of unextended elements, would be incapable of material action. Neither will it do to say that the motion of the supposed "points" might evoke sensation, since being unextended they would be imperceptible whether in motion or at rest.

Extension is an "absolute accident", that is not a mere mode in which substance exists, as, for instance, are motion and rest. It seems to have a certain distinct entity of its own. This, of course, would most probably never have been suspected by the human mind unaided by Revelation. But given the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, wherein the extensional dimensions and sensible qualities of bread and wine persist after the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, reason, speculating on the doctrine, discerns some grounds for the possibility of the real distinction and even severance between substance and local extension. In the first place there are motives for inferring a real distinction between substance and extension (actual and local), or, in other words, that extension does not constitute the essence of material substance (as Descartes maintained that it does): (a) substance is the root principle of action; extension as such is either inactive or at most a proximate principle; (b) substance is the ground of specification; extension as such is indifferent to any species, since shape or figure which is the dimensional termination of extension depends upon the specific form; (c) substance is identical in the entire mass and in each of its parts (e.g. in gold), while extension is not the same in the whole and in each of its parts; (d) substance is the principle of unity; extension is the formal principle of plurality; (e) substance essentially demands three dimensions; extension may be realized in one or two; (f) substance remaining the same, extension may increase or decrease.

Given a real distinction between extension and substance, no intrinsic impossibility can be proven to exist in the separation of one from the other, for although internal extension naturally demands external, there is no evidence that the demand is so essentially imperative that Omnipotence cannot supernaturally suspend its realization and by other means afford the accidents—extension and the rest—the support which the substance naturally supplies. Since material substance owes the distribution of its integral parts to extension, the question arises whether, independently of extension, it possesses any such parts (it, of course, possesses parts essential to corporeal substance, matter and form), or is simple, indivisible. St. Thomas and many others maintain that substance as such is indivisible. Suarez and others hold that it is divisible. For this and the other questions concerning the divisibility of extension, and the psychology of the subject, the reader is referred to the works mentioned below.

F. P. SIEGFRIED

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Extension


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Extravagantes

Extravagantes (extra, outside; vagari, to wander).—This word is employed to designate some papal decretals not contained in certain canonical collections which possess a special authority, i.e. they are not found in the Decree of Gratian or the three official collections of the "Corpus Juris" (the Decretals of Gregory IX, the Sixth Book of the Decretals, and the Clementines). The term was first applied to those papal documents which Gratian had not inserted in his "Decree" (about 1140), but which, however, were obligatory upon the whole Church, also to other decretals of a later date, and possessed of the same authority. Bernard of Pavia designated under the name of "Breviarium Extravagantium", or Digest of the "Extravagantes", the collection of papal documents which he compiled between 1187 and 1191. Even the Decretals of Gregory IX (published 1234) were long known as the "Libel." or "Collectio Extra", i.e. the collection of the canonical laws not contained in the "Decree" of Gratian. This term is now applied to the collections known as the "Extravagantes Joannis XXII" and the "Extravagantes communes", both of which are found in all editions of the "Corpus Juris

Canonici". When John XXII (1316-1334) published the decretals known as the Clementines, there already existed some pontifical documents, obligatory, upon the whole Church but not included in the "Corpus Juris". This is why these Decretals were called "Extravagantes". Their number was increased by the inclusion of all the pontifical laws of later date, added to the manuscripts of the "Corpus Juris", or gathered into separate collections. In 1325 Zenselinus de Cassanis added a gloss to twenty constitutions of Pope John XXII, and named this collection "Viginti Extravagantes papae Joannis XXII". The others were known as "Extravagantes communes", a title given to the collection by Jean Chappuis in the Paris edition of the "Corpus Juris" (1499-1505). He adopted the systematic order of the official collections of canon law, and classified in a similar way the "Extravagantes" commonly met with (hence "Extravagantes communes") in the manuscripts and editions of the "Corpus Juris". This collection contains decretals of the following popes: Martin IV, Boniface VIII (notably the celebrated Bull "Unam Sanctam"), Benedict XI, Clement V, John XXII, Benedict XII, Clement VI, Urban V, Martin V, Eugene IV, Callistus III, Paul II, Sixtus IV (1281-1484). Chappuis also classified the "Extravagantes" of John XXII under fourteen titles, containing in all twenty chapters. These two collections are of lesser value than the three others which form the "Corpus Juris Canonici"; they possess no official value, nor has custom bestowed such on them. On the other hand, many of the decretals comprised in them contain legislation obligatory upon the whole Church, e.g. the Constitution of Paul II, "Ambitiosae", which forbade the alienation of ecclesiastical goods. This, however, is not true of all of them, some had even been formally abrogated at the time when Chappuis made his collection; three decretals of John XXII, are reproduced in both collections. Both the collections were printed in the official (1852. edition of the "Corpus Juris Canonici". This explains the favor they enjoyed among canonists. For a critical text of these collections see Friedberg, "Corpus Juris Canonici" (Leipzig, 1879-1881), II. (See Corpus Juris Canonici; Papal Decretals.)

A. VAN HOVE

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


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Exul Hibernicus

Exul Hibernicus, the name given to an Irish stranger on the Continent of Europe in the time of Charles the Great, who wrote poems in Latin, several of which are addressed to the emperor. He is sometimes identified with Dungal (see Dungal). The designation exul is one which the Irish wanderers on the Continent frequently adopted. The poems of this exile show that he was not only a poet but a grammarian and dialectician as well. They also reveal his status as that of a teacher, probably in the palace school. Of more than ordinary interest are the verses which describe the attitude of the ninth-century teacher towards his pupils. His metrical poem on the seven liberal arts devotes twelve lines to each of the branches, grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, etc., showing the origin, scope, and utility of each in succession. Like the lines on the same subject by Theodulf of Orleans, they may have been intended to accompany a set of pictures in which the seven liberal arts were represented. The style of these poems, while much inferior to that of the classical period, is free from many of the artificialities which characterize much of the versification of the early Middle Ages.

WILLIAM TURNER


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Exultet

Exultet, the hymn in praise of the paschal candle sung by the deacon, in the liturgy of Holy Saturday. In the missal the title of the hymn is "Praeconium", as appears from the formula used at the blessing of the deacon: "ut digne et competenter annunties suum Paschale praeconium". Outside Rome, the use of the paschal candle appears to have been very ancient in Italy, Gaul, Spain, and perhaps, from the reference by St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XV, xxii), in Africa. The "Liber Pontificalis" attributes its introduction in the local Roman Church to Pope Zosimus. The formula used for the "Praeconium" was not always the "Exultet", though it is perhaps true to say that this formula has survived, where other contemporary formulae have disappeared. In the "Liber Ordinum", for instance, the formula is of the nature of a benediction, and the Gelasian Sacramentary has the prayer "Deus mundi conditor", not found elsewhere, but containing the remarkable "praise of the bee"—possibly a Vergilian reminiscence—which is found with more or less modification in all the texts of the "Praeconium" down to the present day. The regularity of the metrical cursus of the "Exultet" would lead us to place the date of its composition perhaps as early as the fifth century, and not later than the seventh. The earliest MSS. in which it appears are those of the three Gallican Sacramentaries:—the Bobbio Missal (seventh century), the Missale Gothicum and the Missale Gallicanism Vetus (both of the eighth century). The earliest MS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary (Vat. Reg. 337) does not contain the "Exultet", but it was added in the supplement to what has been loosely called the Sacramentary of Adrian, and probably drawn up under the direction of Alcuin.

As it stands in the liturgy, it may be compared with two other forms, the Blessing of Palms, and the Blessing of the Baptismal Font. The order is, briefly:

(I) An invitation to those present to join with the deacon in the invocation of the blessing of God, that the praises of the candle may be worthily celebrated. This invitation, wanting in the two blessings just mentioned, may be likened to an amplified "Orate fratres", and its antiquity is attested by its presence in the Ambrosian form, which otherwise differs from the Roman. This section closes with the "Per omnia saecula saeculorum", leading into:—(2) "Dominus vobiscum" etc., "Sursum corda" etc., "Gratias agamus" etc. This section serves as the introduction to the body of the "Praeconium", cast in the Eucharistic form to emphasize its solemnity. (3) The "Praeconium" proper, which is of the nature of a Preface, or, as it is called in the Missale Gallicanum Vetus, a contestatio. First, a parallel is drawn between the Passover of the Old and the New Covenants, the candle being here a type of the Pillar of Fire. And here the language of the liturgy rises into heights to which it is hard to find a parallel in Christian literature. We are drawn out of cold dogmatic statement into the warmth of the deepest mysticism, to the region where, in the light of paradise, even the sin of Adam may be regarded as "truly necessary" and "a happy fault". Secondly, the candle itself is offered as a burnt-sacrifice, a type of Christ, marked by the grains of incense as with the five glorious wounds of His Passion. And, lastly, the "Praeconium" ends with a general intercession for those present, for the clergy, for the pope, and for the Christian rulers. For these last the text as it stands cannot now be used. The head of the Holy Roman Empire alone could be prayed for in this formula, and the resignation (1804) of the prerogatives of that august position, by the Emperor Francis II of Austria, has left that position unfilled to the present day.

It remains to notice three accessaries of the "Exultet": the ceremonial carried on during its performance; the music to which it has been sung; and the so-called "Exultet-rolls" on which it was sometimes written. The deacon is vested in a white dalmatic, the rest of the sacred ministers are vested in purple. The affixing of five grains of incense at the words incensi hujus sacrificium has probably arisen from a misconception of the meaning of the text. The lighting of the candle is followed by the lighting of all the lamps and candles of the church, extinguished since the close of Matins. The chant is usually an elaborate form of the well-known recitative of the Preface. In some uses a long bravura was introduced upon the word accendit, to fill in the pause, which must otherwise occur during the lighting of the candle. An elaborate analysis of the chant, as found in early MSS., has been published in "Paleographie Musicale", IV; viii, 171. Dom Latil has published the text, and part of the highly ornate chant, of an "Exultet" at Salerno. The text is almost identical with one previously published by Duchesne from a roll at Bari. In Italy the "Praeconium" was sung from long strips of parchment, gradually unrolled as the deacon proceeded. These "Exultet-rolls" were decorated with illuminations and with portraits of contemporary reigning sovereigns, whose names were mentioned in the course of the "Praeconium". The use of these rolls, as far as is known at present, was confined to Italy. The best examples date from the tenth and eleventh centuries.

CHARLTON BENEDICT WALKER

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Exultet


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/St. Exuperius

Exuperius, , Bishop of Toulouse in the beginning of the fifth century; place and date of birth unascertained; d. after 410. Succeeding St. Silvius as bishop, he completed the basilica of St. Saturninus, begun by his predecessor. St. Jerome praises him for his munificence towards the monks of Palestine, Egypt, and Libya, and for his charity to the people of his own diocese, who were then suffering from the depredations of the Vandals, Alans, and Suevi. Of great austerity and simplicity of life, he sought not his own, but gave what he had to the poor. For their sake he even sold the altar vessels and was compelled in consequence to carry the Sacred Host in an osier basket and the Precious Blood in a vessel of glass. In esteem for his virtues and in gratitude for his gifts, St. Jerome dedicated to him his "Commentary on Zacharias". Exuperius is best known in connection with the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures. He had written to Innocent I for instructions concerning the Canon and several points of ecclesiastical discipline. In reply, the pope honored him with the letter "Consulenti tibi", dated February, 405, which contained a list of the canonical Scriptures as we have them today, including the deuterocanonical books of the Catholic Canon. The assertion of non-Catholic writers that the Canon of Innocent I excluded the Apocrypha is not true, if they mean to extend the term Apocrypha to the deuterocanonical books.

The opinion of Baronius, that the bishop Exuperius was identical with the rhetor of the same name, is quite generally rejected, as the rhetor was a teacher of Hannibalianus and Dalmatius, nephews of Constantine the Great, over half a century before the period of the bishop. From St. Jerome's letter to Furia of Rome, in 394, and from the epistle of St. Paulinus to Amandus of Bordeaux, in 397, it seems probable that Exuperius was a priest at Rome, and later at Bordeaux, before he was raised to the episcopate, though it is possible that in both of these letters reference is made to a different person. Just when he became bishop is unknown. That he occupied the See of Toulouse in February, 405, is evident from the letter of Innocent I mentioned above; and from a statement of St. Jerome in a letter to Rusticus it is certain that he was still living in 411. It is sometimes said that St. Jerome reproved him, in a letter to Riparius, a priest of Spain, for tolerating the heretic Vigilantius; but, as Vigilantius did not belong to the Diocese of Toulouse, St. Jerome was probably speaking of another bishop.

Exuperius was early venerated as a saint. Even in the time of St. Gregory of Tours he was held in equal veneration with St. Saturninus. His feast occurs on September 28. The first martyrologist to assign it to this date was Usuard, who wrote towards the end of the ninth century.

LEO A. KELLY


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Albrecht von Eyb

Eyb,, one of the earliest German humanists, b. in 1420 near Ansbach in Franconia; d. in 1475. After preliminary studies at Erfurt he went to Italy and devoted himself to humanistic study at the Universities of Pavia and Bologna. He returned to Germany in 1451, having in the meantime been appointed canon at Eichstätt and Bamberg. From 1452 to 1459 he was again a student at Bologna, winning the degree of doctor of canon and civil law. He was also honored by an appointment as chamberlain to Pius II. After his return to Germany he resided chiefly at Eichstätt. In 1462 he became archdeacon of Würzburg, not, however, without encountering violent opposition from the Bishop of Würzburg, who hated Eyb as a partisan of the Hohenzollern Margrave, Albrecht Achilles. Little is known of his last years.

Eyb's best known and most important work is his "Ehebüchlein" (Book on Marriage), in which he discusses the question whether a man should take a lawful wife or not. It was published in 1472. In 1460 he had written on the same theme in Latin "An viro sapienti uxor sit ducenda". The German work treats of the joys and sorrows of married life and general maxims of a moral or philosophical character are added. A decision is finally rendered in favor of the married state. The popularity of the book is attested by the fact that between 1472 and 1540 no less than twelve reprints were issued. Another work of Eyb is the "Margarita poetica" (Nuremberg, 1472), a textbook of humanistic rhetoric, consisting of a collection of passages in prose and verse from Latin authors, to which are added specimens of humanistic eloquence. In 1474 Eyb finished his "Spiegel der Sitten" (Mirror of Morals), a lengthy work of ethical and moral content, probably based on some Latin original. The book did not meet with the favor shown to the "Ehebüchlein" and was not printed until 1511. Appended to it are German translations of two of Plautus's comedies, the "Menaechmi" and the "Bacchides" as well as of Ugolini's "Philogenia". Eyb's writings have been edited by K. Müller (Sondershausen, 1879); the best edition is that of M. Herrmann, "Deutsche Schriften des Albrecht von Eyb" (Berlin, 1895).

ARTHUR F. J. REMY


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Hubert and Jan van Eyck

Eyck, and, brothers, Flemish illuminators and painters, founders of the school of Bruges and consequently of all the schools of painting in the North of Europe. Hubert was born at Maeseyck (i.e. Eyck on the Meuse) in the Diocese of Liege, about 1366, and his brother Jan about twenty years later, 1385. They had a sister named Margaret who, won fame as a miniaturist.

A document of 1413 makes the earliest mention we have of a painting by "Master Hubert". In 1424 he was living at Ghent, and he died there on the 18th of September, 1426. We have no further definite knowledge concerning the elder of the brothers. Of the younger we know that in 1420 he presented a Madonna's head to the Guild of Antwerp, that in 1422 he decorated a paschal candle for the cathedral of Cambrai, and that in 1425 he was at The Hague in the service of Jean Sans Merci. Afterwards he went to Bruges and to Lille to the court of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, as peintre et varlet de chambre. He was already a man of some influence at court, and he travelled in the embassy charged to ask the hand of Isabella of Portugal for Philip, and it was his privilege to paint her portrait "true to life" thereby fixing Philip's choice. This journey lasted from the 18th of October, 1428, to the end of December, 1429. In 1431 he went to Hesdin to superintend, for the Duke, the work going on at the castle there: and afterwards he returned to Bruges, which he seldom left again. He married, and a child of his was baptized in 1434. In 1436 we learn once more that he received 720 livres on account of "certain secret matter", doubtless in connection with some new mission or journey. He died towards the end of June, 1441.

The most important work of the brothers Van Eyck, and the one that places their names among the great masters of painting for ever, is the famous altar-piece, "The Adoration of the Lamb", of which the central portion is preserved in St-Bavons at Ghent, while the wings have found their way to the Museums of Berlin and of Brussels. It is one of the enigmas of art. All the questions bearing on it may, however, be reduced to two: Who was its author? and, What was its origin? As to its authorship, all we know depends on an inscription obscure enough, which is to be read on the edge of its frame:

Pictor Hubertus e Eyck major quo nemo repertus

Incepit pondus: quod Johannes arte secundus

Suscepit letus, Judoci Vyd prece fretus

Vers-V seXta Ma-I: Vos CoLLoCat a-Cta tVerI

The faulty Latin of this cryptic inscription means: "Hubert van Eyck, the greatest painter that ever lived, began this work [pondus], which John, his brother, second only to him in skill, had the happiness to continue at the request of Jodocus (Josse) Vydt. By this line, on the 6th of May, you learn when the work was completed, i.e., MCCCCXXXII." That it is their joint work is certain, but it is impossible to distinguish which portion belongs to each brother. Very soon Jan began to get all the credit for it. Durer mentions only Jan in his "Journal" of 1521. But the inscription clearly states that Hubert began the work and asserts that he was the greater artist, his brother being called in only at his death, and in order to complete it. But how far had Hubert progressed with it? How far back had he been commissioned to paint it? In 1426 were portions of it finished, or was it merely a sketch, a general outline when Jan took charge? Who suggested the subject? Who planned its treatment? Can we believe that a painter of any school living in a fifteenth century atmosphere could have elaborated by himself from a few texts of the Apocalypse (v, 6-14) such a wealth of detail, such symphony of symbolism and imagery? Who was the theologian who inspired this mighty poem as others had inspired the learned allegories of the Chapel of the Spaniards, and of the Hall of the Segnatura? And again, in the history of painting from the miniatures of the Irish Apocalypses (eleventh century) to the Angers tapestries, what were the artistic sources of this great work?

This moral encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, if we may call it such, treats of all things in heaven and on earth (there was a predella to it depicting hell, but it disappeared in the sixteenth century); it portrays God and man in all their historical and mystical relations; it tells us of the heavenly and the earthly paradise, of the ages that have followed one another in the flight of time, of the Dogma of the Fall, and that of the Redemption, of Adam and Eve, and of the first sacrifices; of the death of Abel (type of Christ); of the years of expectation of the patriarchs and just men of the Old Law; of the mystery of the Incarnation; of the Trinity; of the world subject to the law of Christ; of the life of the Church in her saints, her hermits, her virgins, her martyrs, her pontiffs, her confessors, her warrior princes; of all Christendom in a landscape filled with cathedral spires (Rome, Jerusalem, Utrecht, etc.). And can we in reason be asked to believe that this wonderful pictorial epic reaching out from the beginning to the consummation of the world and ending in a glimpse of the eternal life to come as full in conception and as orderly in arrangement as the "Divina Commedia" itself; summing up the Old as well as the New Testament, drawing its inspiration from St. Augustine's "Civitas Dei", and Vincent of Beauvais' "Speculum Majus", as well as Jacobus de Voragine's "Legenda Aurea", and Dante's "De Monarchic"; a compendium of politics, history, and theology, and which crowns the representation of man's life on earth by a glimpse of the Infinite, can we in reason be asked to believe that this lofty expression of the ideals of Christendom in the Europe of the Middle Ages sprang Minerva-like, fully formed from the brain of a single artist?

No one can adopt this supposition except for the purpose of ascribing all the honor of having conceived this painting to the elder of the brothers. As an assumption, however, it is altogether gratuitous. There is not one of the scenes that can be attributed to Hubert with any degree of certainty; and no work the brothers Van Eyck have left us (with the exception of the "Fount of Salvation" in the Prado Museum, Madrid, and this is the work of a school) shows a similar dogmatic and theological character, a like power of design and richness of thought that this "Lamb" does. Taken as a whole the work of the Van Eycks has a totally different tendency. It is frankly naturalistic in fact, as well as in intention. So that when Hubert is labelled a thinker, it is for no other reason than the wish to differentiate him, and to separate him from January How futile this distinction is, is made clear if we look into the results obtained by applying it as a criterion to the work of the two brothers. On not a single disputed painting has agreement been reached; and every painting that has been attributed to Hubert by one connoisseur, has been adjudged by others for equally good reasons to January

The catalogue of their work has been reconstructed more than twenty times. The altar-piece of the "Lamb" has been divided in a hundred different ways, and each in turn has been given to first one brother and then to the other over and over again. Each year sees a new theory proposed. After Waagen came James Weale; after Hymans, Dvorak, and after Stoerck, Wurzbach; and we are as far from the solution as ever. The masterpiece keeps its secret, and will probably never give it up. In any case, seeing that the whole painting was retouched at least twice during the sixteenth century, all evidence of individual technic must have been buried beneath these restorations; and in all likelihood the little points and peculiarities attributed to Hubert or to Jan, are really the work of Michael Coxie. But there is a larger and a wider question at issue than such idle wranglings that can never be settled, the question as to the effect and the nature of the artistic revolution to which the brothers Van Eyck have given their name.

What constitutes the altar-piece of the "Lamb" a unique monument in the history of art, and gives it its supreme interest in our eyes, is the fact that it unites in itself the styles and the genius of two opposing epochs. Whereas its general plan belongs to the Middle Ages, its execution, its manner of seeing things and putting them on canvas, are truly modern. The masterpiece has a double nature, so to speak. The genius of the Renaissance for what was concrete and realistic is wedded to the majesty of the Gothic and its love of the abstract. It shows us the wondrous blending of two principles that would seem necessarily to exclude each other, like the past and the future, and that we never meet with again save in opposition. It is this that constitutes the supreme interest of the work, that it contains the noblest expression of the old mystical genius together with the most powerful example of modern naturalism. In the sincerity, breadth, and daring of their naturalism, no one at any time nor of any school has excelled the Van Eycks. Nature, which prior to their day, men had looked at as through a veil of formulae and symbols, they seem suddenly to have unveiled. They invented, so to speak, the world of realities. The happenings of all sorts in the world of nature, the sylva rerum, with which they have endowed the art of painting, are always true to life. Landscapes, atmosphere, types, physiognomies, a wealth of studies and sketches of all sorts, rich materials, cloths, cimars (robes), copes, brilliancy of precious stones and works of the goldsmith's art; all are copied to perfection, and the deftness of the work is beyond compare. The masterpiece inaugurates a new era in painting. If the object of the painter's art is to depict the visible world, if his aim ought to be not so much the expression of a thought as to hold up the mirror to life, then for the first time in its history painting entered into its birthright in this altar-piece, and gave proof of its legitimacy in this first attempt. Life under all its sensible forms and aspects sweeps through this mighty scene like a motif, life with all its myriad changes and variety of moods, brushing aside the dry as dust ideograms and crumbling hieroglyphics of the Middle Ages.

The absolute is abandoned, and the relative brought into fashion. The eye is turned away from the vision of the ideal, but the feet are more firmly planted on the real. The word nature undergoes a change of meaning. Once it had been a vague Platonic idea, a something like the nominals and universals of the schools, which are understood by the intelligence rather than perceived by the senses. In that lofty plane of thought in which art in the thirteenth century loved to move, the universe existed really in the intellect. Henceforth, however, nature changes her aspect for the painter; he refrains from expressing any opinion as to the essence of things, but delights in all their accidental qualities. The actual, the fact, whether it be positive, complex, capricious, or odd, becomes of more importance than the abstract and immutable law. The absolute cause of all things is neglected in favor of the rich and glowing vegetation of nature; principles have less value than their consequences, less importance is given to types than individuals. The vast harvest of phenomena from the ever teeming field of reality and experience is henceforth open to art. A painting becomes what the painter has actually seen; what he has found in nature; the story of his feelings in the midst of things. In this a new kind of idealism replaces the old. And art, thus freed from the academism of the Gothic tradition, was not to slavishly copy nature, but to serve as a vehicle for the expression of the painter's personality, and to act as the safest confidante of his emotional experiences.

The altar-piece at Ghent marks the triumph of this basic artistic revolution from which all modern art has sprung. Never was a richer shrine of nature and of life got together by a painter. In two hundred figures of every size, sex, race, and costume we behold a resume of the human race. We see before us all the beauty of the physical world, the woods, the fields, the rocks, the desert places, a geography of earth with its climates and its flora, palms, cacti, and aloes (which foolishly has led some to believe that Hubert must have travelled in the East). And the world of art is not forgotten; styles of architecture, towers, cupolas, statues, bas-reliefs, are all brought in. In a word, life out-of-doors and within doors, with all its social activities and moral coloring, is portrayed. There are interiors, such as the room of the Blessed Virgin, a young Flemish maiden, with its prie-Dieu, its nicely tiled floor, its washstand and basin, and its open window looking out on to the pointed roofs of a row of brick houses. There are portraits of a marvellous realism, such as those of the donor and his wife; epic figures, such as God the Father under the guise of Charlemagne crowned with a triple tiara, type of the pontiff-king; and there are figures full of charm and poetry, such as the singing angels (Berlin museum), symbolizing the harmonies of paradise, under the form of entrancing minstrelsy, or of the chanting of choir boys. Other figures are fearful in their naturalism, such as the figures of our first parents (Brussels museum) which would suffice alone to immortalize their creator, because of their audacious nudity, their stiff and awkward manner, and their eloquent ugliness.

Such a transformation, of course, exceeds the powers of any one man, or even of two brothers. And like all great works, the altar-piece of Ghent is but the result of the labors of more than one generation. It was not a local movement; its influences were at work up and down throughout Christendom.

In Italy the work of Jacopo della Quercia, of Ghiberti, the frescoes of Masolino and of Masaccio (1428), are contemporary with the labors of the Van Eycks, and bear traces of similar tendencies. But the birthplace of the movement was not on Italian soil. It is in France we find the earliest evidences of it, about the beginning of the fourteenth century. A few statues, like the Visitation group in the great doorway at Reims (1310), the tombs of St. Denis, the portraits of King Charles V and his wife Eleanor (in the Louvre), mark the last stages in the victorious progress. The same school which a century earlier had developed the Gothic ideal, was about to produce by a natural evolution the new principles and the new methods. An important factor in this evolution was the creation of the Duchies of Berry and of Burgundy, and the alliance of Flanders and Burgundy by marriage (1384). At the Court of the Valois, the most brilliant in the world, famous for its voluptuousness, its elegance, and its worship of all the arts of life, and under the patronage of its princes, no less famous for their dissolute lives than for their artistic taste and love of luxury, there rapidly grew up a school of painters, sculptors, goldsmiths, and miniaturists, cosmopolitans by birth, but Parisian by education, who were the nucleus of the Renaissance.

The larger part of the paintings, frescoes, and stained glass of this epoch have perished; but the miniatures supply all the proof we need. Especially in the manuscripts made at the time for the Duc de Berry do we find the links of this glorious history. Many of the books collected by this incomparable Maecenas have come down to us; some of them illustrated by Andre Beauneveu, Jacquemart of Hesdin, or Jacques Cohn of Antwerp. But the most important of all is the seignorial MS.—one of the treasures of Chantilly—known as the "Book of Hours of the Duc de Berry". This wonderful book was adorned from 1413 to 1416 by three artists; "the three illuminator-brothers" spoken of by Guillebert of Metz, the brothers de Limbourg or simply the Limbourgs. Nearly all the poetic fancy of the Van Eycks is already outlined in this "Book of Hours", especially on their landscape side; and whereas the Limbourgs kept to the country around Liege, the Van Eycks followed the same route, and doubtless experienced the same influences. But there is something more. Another MS., "The Hours of Turin", which was unfortunately destroyed in the fire at the library of that town, January 20, 1904, belonged successively to the Duc de Berry (d. 1416) and to Duke William IV of Bavaria-Hainault. And it has been proved that Hubert van Eyck spent some time in the latter's service. Paul Durrieu has given very weighty reasons for attributing the MS. to him, and for believing that he began it for the Due de Berry. Thus the art of the Van Eycks would be but the culminating point of the great Renaissance movement inaugurated at the Court of the Valois in France, and which reached its apogee in 1400. Perhaps this was what the Italian Bishop Facius meant to imply when in 1456 he spoke of Jan van Eyck as Johannes Gallicus.

This is a partial solution of the enigma of the altar-piece. Hubert and Jan van Eyck are but continuators, masters indeed, of an art that began before them and without them. But what was it they added that caused the new style in art to date only from their work? If we are to credit Vasari, Van Mander, and all the historical writers, their great discovery was the art of painting with oils. Painting with oil had been discovered long before; the monk Theophilus gives a recipe for it in the eleventh century. And as we have seen, the new aestheticism had been already formulated in the miniatures of the Limbourgs and of the Van Eycks themselves. Whatever importance in art its material and mechanical methods may have, it would be too humiliating to make it depend entirely on the particular fluid, water, gum, or albumen used in mixing the colors. Moreover, on canvases 500 years old from which all moisture has long since dried up he would be a daring critic who would venture to assert the proportion of oil or distemper used by the artist. To build one's criticism on such a doubtful principle is like seeking the scent of the "Roses of Sadi". The real merit of the Van Eycks is elsewhere. By a chain of circumstances (The Battle of Agincourt, the madness of Charles VI, and the minority of Charles VII), France was brought to the edge of ruin, and suddenly lost control of the movement that it had begun.

Comfort, art, luxury began to cluster around the new fortunes of the Duchy of Burgundy, as the home of wealth in the North. Ghent, Bruges, Brussels, Antwerp became the centers of the new school. In these new towns of little culture and traditional refinement, and lacking in reserve (Taine, "Philosophie de l'Art aux Pays-Bas"—description of the festivals known as the Voeu du faisan), Naturalism, freed from the restraints French taste would have imposed on it, was enabled to grow at its ease and spread without restriction. The Germanic element which had already shown itself in such men as Beauneveu, Malouel, the Limbourgs, burst out, and carried everything before it in the work of the Van Eycks. For the first time the genius of the North shook off all those cosmopolitan influences which had hitherto refined it, and gave itself free scope.

It paused not to think of what had gone before, and it was not concerned with such things as taste, nobility, or beauty. Such preoccupations as these, as the antique began to have an influence, became more and more the distinguishing characteristics and limitation of Italian naturalism. It is enough to compare the ugly yet touching figures of Adam and Eve by Jan van Eyck, with those by Masaccio in the Brancacci Chapel to be convinced of this. On the one side there is realism, but the painter has scruples, reserves, a sense of modesty; on the other there is absolute crudity, what we might call naturalism pure and simple. What does this mean, but that painting, which had hitherto been a universal, international art, is beginning to localize itself; and that what had hitherto been a European, or better still, Western, color-language is about to split up into many dialects and national modes of speech? It is the real glory of the Van Eycks, that they emancipated the genius of the races of the North and gave it its first full expression. During a whole century (1430-1530) the school they founded at Bruges was always producing new works and renewing its own strength. During a century, painters from Flanders, from Holland, and Germany—Petrus Cristus, Gerard de St-Jean, Ouwater, Hugo van der Goes, Roger van der Weyden, Memlinck, Gerard David, Martin Schöngauer, Dürer, Lucas of Leyden—never ceased to draw their inspiration more or less directly from their work. In 1445 the Catalonian Luis Dalmau made a copy of the altar-piece of Ghent. In France, Jean Fouquet, Nicolas Froment, on the banks of the Loire and of the Rhone, were disciples of Jan van Eyck. Even Italy did not escape their sovereign influence. As early as the middle of the fifteenth century paintings by Jan van Eyck were being treasured at Naples and at Urbino.

Antonello of Messina went to study art in Flanders. Ghirlandajo imitated the famous Portinari altar-piece by H. van der Goes, and whenever an Italian painter relaxed a moment his straining after art to snatch a breath of gayety or a lesson in realism, it was always to the Flemish school he turned; always, until the triumph of the antique was assured, and Raphael and Michelangelo, by the constraining revelation of its beauty, had restored for a time the reign of the ideal. Their triumph was, however, short-lived; the pagan and aristocratic ideal of art and life, with all its loftiness and rigidity, began to give way from the beginning of the seventeenth century, with its new schools at Antwerp and Amsterdam, before the naturalism of the North, before the more homely, hearty, and winning genius of the Van Eycks. It is therefore impossible to exaggerate the importance of their work, which, besides occupying a unique position throughout the fifteenth century, led the way in the evolution which two centuries later produced such painters as Rubens and Rembrandt.

The following is a list of the signed and dated works of Jan van Eyck: The "Consecration of St. Thomas Becket" (1421—Chatsworth); "The Madonna" (1432—Ince Hall); portraits of two men (1432-1433—National Gallery); "Arnolfini and his Wife" (1434—National Gallery); "Portrait of Jan de Leewe" (1436—Vienna); "The Virgin", with kneeling figure of Canon van der Paele (1436—Bruges); "St. Barbara" (1437—Antwerp); "Head of Christ" (1438—Berlin); "The Artist's Wife" (1439—Bruges); "The Virgin" (1439—Antwerp). The principal works without date or signature that can be certainly attributed to the brothers Van Eyck are "Portrait of an Old Man" (Vienna); "The Man with the Pinks" (Berlin); "The Madonna of Lucca" (Frankfort); "The Madonna" executed for Chancellor Rolin (Louvre); "The Virgin" (Burleigh House, Exeter); "The Virgin" (Paris, Rothschild); triptych, not completed (Van Hellenpute collection, Mechlin).

LOUIS GILLET


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Education of Women

EDUCATION OF WOMEN. The changes during the 19th century include none more significant than those in the history of education for women. So swift has been the transition that it is difficult to realize that until after the Revolution practically the only opportunities for a girl's education were found in the so-called “Dame Schools,” where she was taught to read and sew, the ‘New England Primer’ being the chief textbook. Even the art of writing was not universal, as is shown by the number of wills, left by women of property, which were signed with a cross. The grammar schools, providing instruction sufficient to prepare young men for college, only occasionally admitted girls until the beginning of the 19th century. The exceptions were less than 12 in the first century of our colonial history, as shown by the records of nearly 200 towns in New England. The town of Medford, Mass., voted in 1766 that “The Committee have power to agree with the School Master to instruct girls two hours in a day after the boys are dismissed”; Dorchester in 1784 voted “that such girls as can read the psalter be allowed to attend the grammar school from the first day of June to the first day of October ” ; and Gloucester in 1790 passed the following resolution: “And also that the master be directed to begin his school from the first day of April to the last day of September at 8 o'clock m the morning and close at 6 o'clock in the afternoon, or any 8 hours in the 24 as shall be thought the most convenient, but that two hours, or a proportionate part of that time, be devoted to the instruction of females — as they are a tender and interesting branch of the Community, but have been much neglected in the Public Schools of this town.”

In Norwich, Conn., they were admitted “from 5-7 A.M.”; and Nathan Hale, school-master in New London in 1774, writes, “I have kept during the summer, a morning school between the hours of 5 and 7, of about 20 young ladies: for which I have received 20 shillings a scholar by the quarter.” This admission of girls at times during the day and year, when the schools were not needed for the boys, seems to have been common during the last years of the 18th century. Northampton, which had voted in 1788 “not to be at any expense for schooling girls,” four years later voted “by a large majority to admit girls between the ages of 8 and 15 to the schools from May 1st to October 3lst,” and Boston, in 1790, opened the schools to girls during the summer months, when there were not enough boys to fill them.

One of the first advocates of education for girls was a graduate of Yale College in 1780, William Woodbridge, who took for the subject of his graduating essay, “Improvement in Female Education,” and afterward opened an evening school for them in which he dared to teach such abstruse subjects as grammar, geography, and the art of composition. The founding of academies, to which girls as well as boys were admitted, is another evidence that in the latter part of the 18th century and the early part of the 19th, there was a new sentiment concerning their education. The first quarter of the 19th century might well be called the “Academy Age,” since the most distinctive advance was in the founding of these institutions. The first one was at South Byfield, founded by bequest of a certain William Dummer, who died

in 1761. Leicester, incorporated in 1784, Westford (1793), Bradford (1803), Monson (1804), were all coeducational at the beginning, although Bradford later excluded boys and has been for many years a school for girls. The so-called Academy at Medford, Mass., founded in 1789, is said to have been the first in New England for girls only, but was followed by others which became more famous such as Adams Academy in Derry, N. H., (1823), Ipswich Academy, in Massachusetts (1828), and Abbot Academy in Andover (1829).

Before the close of the 18th century there were efforts for the education of girls in other parts of the country; by the Friends in Rhode Island, by the Friends and Moravians in Pennsylvania, the latter founding schools in Nazareth, and as far south as Lexington, Ky. None of these institutions, however, aimed to give higher education to women; the academies prepared boys for college, but 200 years after the founding of Harvard College there was not a college for women in the country.

A movement for the higher education of women began about 1820. The Rev. Joseph Emerson, principal of the Academy at Byfield, had become noted for his championship of the cause and had attracted to the Academy women like Zilpah Grant and Mary Lyon, whom he inspired with zeal for learning as a preparation for service. In 1820 Emma Willard's ‘Plan for Improving Women's Education’ attracted the attention of Governor Clinton of New York, who secured the passage of two acts, one the incorporation of a proposed seminary at Waterford, and the other, “To give female academies a share of the literary fund,” probably the first law passed by any legislature, expressly favoring women's education. The seminary was opened in 1821, not at Waterford, but at Troy, N. Y., as the Troy Female Seminary, later known as the Emma Willard School.

In 1822 Catherine Beecher opened a seminary at Hartford, Conn., in the upper room of a store. Beginning with 7 pupils, it soon grew to more than 150, and attracted students from all the States, but after 10 years was discontinued on account of Miss Beecher's removal to Cincinnati. Her interest in education was thus transferred to the Middle West, where for a generation she helped to mold public opinion on the subject.

From 1830-39 several institutions for the education of women were established, most of them in the South, the Wesleyan Female College at Macon, Ga., being authorized to grant degrees. In 1835 Wheaton Seminary in Norton, Mass., was founded by Judge Wheaton in memory of his daughter. His daughter-in-law, Mrs. Eliza Wheaton, instrumental in the founding of the school, lived until June 1905, its constant benefactor and a significant figure, as representing the last of the little group who, in the 30's, were laying the foundation of higher education for women.

Adviser and helper in the founding of this school was the woman who holds a foremost place among pioneers of higher education. Mary Lyon's reputation as student and teacher had already been won in the academies at Byfield, Amherst, Ashfield and Derry, and with Miss Grant in the seminary at Ipswich, but her chief work was in the founding of Mount Holyoke Seminary, Incorporated in 1836, and opened in 1837, in the

town of South Hadley, Mass., the seminary realized the ideal for which the founder had been working for years, that of a permanent institution for women which should furnish “every advantage that the state of education in the country will allow.” The first curriculum, including the natural sciences, higher mathematics, logic, moral philosophy, ancient and modern history, evidences of Christianity and Butler's ‘Analogy,’ shows a decided advance since the days when Mr. Woodbridge was considered eccentric because he believed that women should be allowed to study grammar, geography, and composition. It marks an era in higher education, in the establishment of a permanent endowed institution, which should furnish to women, at moderate rates, as good educational opportunities as the colleges for men then offered. Its founding is not less significant in its influence as the “mother of schools.” Among the institutions established on the same plan, with its graduates as principals and teachers, are the Western College at Oxford, Lake Erie College at Painesville, Ohio, and Mills College in California. Michigan Seminary at Kalamazoo and the Cherokee Seminary, in what is now Indian Territory, were also Mount Holyoke schools, while across the water they were founded in Persia by Fidelia Fisk; in Turkey at Marsovan and at Bitlis; in South Africa, where the Huguenot Seminary now Huguenot College, at Wellington, Cape Colony, is the most famous; and in Spain, in the form of the International Institute of Madrid, founded at San Sebastian, by Alice Gordon Gulick. Miss Lyon's influence is seen also in the establishment of Wellesley College, for Mr. Durant was a friend and trustee of Mount Holyoke and included many of its features in his own institution.

The intervening period before the Civil War saw the rise of numerous schools for the education of women, but only two of full collegiate rank to-day, Rockford College in Rockford, Ill., opened as a seminary in 1849 and chartered as a college in 1892, and Elmira College in Elmira, N. Y., founded in 1855 and authorized from the beginning to confer degrees. It is interesting to notice that most of these institutions were in the Southern States, a development cut short by the war. Within the last 30 years, three colleges for women of collegiate rank have been established in that section: Randolph-Macon College for Women at Lynchburg, Va. (1893), Agnes Scott College at Decatur, Ga. (1889) and Sweet Briar at Sweet Briar, Va. (1906).

The last 35 years of the 19th century were marked by an advance movement in women's education such as the world had never before seen. During this period three types of institution were developed:—

1. The separate women's college.

2. The women's college affiliated with the university or with the college for men.

3. Coeducation in the universities for men.

The first and second types are characteristic of the East and the third of the West, although the distribution is not entirely along sectional lines.

The Separate Women's College. — The conviction of Matthew Vassar, that "woman, having received from her Creator the same intellectual constitution as man, has the same right as man to intellectual culture and development,"

led in 1861 to the incorporation of Vassar College, opened in Poughkeepsie (1865) with more than 300 students, the first of the distinctive colleges for women authorized to confer degrees, with curriculum and endowment sufficient to realize its ideal of collegiate work. In 1875 two other colleges for women followed, Wellesley College at Wellesley, Mass., founded by Mr. and Mrs. Henry F. Durant, in memory of their son, and Smith College of Northampton, founded by Sophia Smith of Hatfield.

Within another 10 years a fourth college was established, Bryn Mawr at Bryn Mawr, Pa., founded by Joseph W. Taylor, and opening its doors to students in 1885. In 1888 Mount Holyoke Seminary was incorporated as Mount Holyoke Seminary and College, and in 1893 became Mount Holyoke College, the seminary course being withdrawn. The development of these colleges for women has been phenomenal. Each one has a beautiful campus, with fine academic buildings and residence halls, is well equipped, and offers a wide choice of elective courses, in addition to the required work, which varies somewhat in the different institutions. The faculty of each includes both men and women, with the latter in the majority. Two, Smith and Vassar, have had only men for presidents; two, Wellesley and Mount Holyoke, have had only women; and one, Bryn Mawr, had a man for the first president and a woman, the present executive, for the second holder of the office. The large number of applicants for admission has made it possible for these colleges to maintain a high standard of entrance requirements. Bryn Mawr admits only on examination; the other four colleges have admitted on certificate from accredited schools, a system which will be discontinued in 1919, in order to substitute the Comprehensive Examinations of the College Entrance Examination Board, although the Old Plan Examinations will also be allowed.

Other colleges in the East, somewhat smaller, but of high collegiate rank, are Goucher College in Baltimore, founded in 1888 as a Methodist institution, and Wells College in Aurora, N. Y., beginning as a seminary in 1868, but chartered as a college in 1870. The Western College at Oxford, Ohio, Lake Erie College at Painesville, Ohio, Milwaukee-Downer in Wisconsin, and Mills College in California, all beginning as seminaries but later chartered as colleges, are doing excellent collegiate work, although their numbers are small, as might be expected in sections of the country where coeducation is almost universally accepted.

More recent foundations in the East are Simmons College and the Connecticut College for Women. Simmons College, established by the will of John Simmons of Boston “as an institution in which might be given instruction in such branches of art, science, and industry as would best enable women to earn an independent livelihood” was granted a charter in 1899. Its course of study is arranged in “programs — grouped in seven schools” — including Household Economics, Secretarial Studies, Library Science, General Science, Social Workers, Industrial Teaching and Salesmanship. The plan of instruction provides a four year program for students meeting its entrance requirements, a one or two year technical training for college graduates and provision for special students.

The Connecticut College for Women, located at New London, received its charter from the Connecticut legislature in 1911 and was opened in 1915. Its course for the degree of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science includes several branches of technical training, thus standing midway between the college of liberal arts and the more distinctive vocational colleges like Simmons. The college “owes its foundation to the wish and purpose of people of Connecticut to provide within the State adequate facilities for the higher education of women.” The movement for its establishment was begun by members of the College Club of Hartford.

Another New England College for Women receiving its charter since 1910 is Wheaton College, formerly Wheaton Seminary.

The Women's College Affiliated with the University. — The college for women affiliated with the university, although the latest development, holds a place midway between the college on a separate foundation and coeducation.

The first to be established (1886) was the H. Sophie Newcomb Memorial College for Women, affiliated with Tulane University in New Orleans. Under the same board of trustees as the University, its buildings are in a different part of the city, its productive funds are in part separate, and it has a distinct facility, including the president. The graduate department of the university has been entirely open to women since 1890.

The Women's College of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, is the outgrowth of an informal system of coeducation, established at Adelbert College, the undergraduate department of the university, in 1872. Sixteen years later women were excluded from Adelbert College, and provision made for them by the establishment of the Women's College. The fine buildings of the college, although separate, are near the other university buildings, and some of the laboratories of the men's college are open to women. The faculty, with the exception of the president, is distinct, but the university confers the degrees and opens all its graduate work to women.

Barnard College, affiliated with Columbia University, was opened in 1889, although 10 years before that President Barnard had urged the adoption of coeducation at Columbia College. As a result of his efforts and of a large popular petition in 1883, asking for the admission of women to Columbia College on the same terms as men, a system was inaugurated known as the “Collegiate Course for Women,” which proposed to grant degrees to those who passed the college examination, but made no provision for instruction. The unsatisfactory character of this arrangement led to the establishment of the college, which, with a separate charter and an administrative autonomy, received Columbia degrees, took the university examinations and had university instructors, or those approved by the president. In 1900 another change was made by which Barnard bears the same relation to Columbia University as Columbia College, having its own faculty, endowments, and examinations, but receiving the university degree and being represented on the university council.

In 1891 the corporation of Brown University voted to admit women to the university examinations, but made no provision for

and took no action concerning the conferring of degrees. Unofficial instruction, however, was given by some of the faculty of the university during the first year and at least one woman was admitted to the regular classroom, a beginning which resulted in a vote of the corporation in June 1892 opening the degrees and all graduate courses to women. At the beginning of the second year a dean was appointed and a building for recitation purposes secured, where regular undergraduate classes were conducted by members of the university staff under the name of “The Women's College in connection with Brown University.” The numbers had largely increased and four classes were graduated before the corporation formally recognized the college, by constituting it in 1897 a department of the university. The affiliation is a close one, since the faculty is composed of members of the university faculty, and the requirements, courses, examinations, and degrees are the same, thus carrying out the plan of the founder, President Andrews, who designed it not as an “Annex,” but as “part and parcel” of the university.

Radcliffe College, in affiliation with Harvard University, although of the five colleges of this class, the last chartered to confer degrees (1894), was one of the first to make some provision other than coeducation for the admission of women to university privileges. Following the precedent of the English universities at Cambridge and Oxford, in 1879 the “Society for the Collegiate Instruction of Women” was organized in Cambridge, Mass., “for the purpose of providing systematic instruction for women by professors and other instructors in Harvard University.” The students who completed the course received not a degree, but a certificate stating that the holder “had pursued a course of study equivalent in amount and quality to that for which the degree of Bachelor of Arts is conferred in Harvard College, and has passed in a satisfactory manner examinations on that course corresponding to the college examinations.” There was no official relation with the university until 1894, when the society commonly known as “Harvard Annex,” was incorporated as Radcliffe College and authorized to confer Bachelor's and Master's degrees, subject to the approval of the president and fellows of Harvard College. The president and fellows constitute the Board of Visitors having the general administration of the college, but the immediate government is in the hands of a council and an academic board, chosen mainly by the associates, who form the corporation. Thus its management is, in general, distinct from that of Harvard, although its instructors are entirely from the university staff.

To the list of affiliated colleges should be added William Smith College of Geneva, New York, opened in 1906 as a “co-ordinate” college. William Smith College is under the board of trustees and the president of Hobart College, the same faculty teach in both colleges, with the exception of instructors in the department of household arts and the degrees are the same. It has its own dean, and its classes, collegiate activities, and commencements are entirely separate.

In 1910 Tufts College in Massachusetts partially gave up the system of coeducation and opened Jackson College as a “co-ordinate”

with general segregation the first two years of the course.

The affiliated colleges show certain differences in the character of their connection with the university. The chief administrative is generally the dean, only Radcliffe and the H. Sophie Newcomb Memorial College having a president distinct from the president of the university. All these universities open their graduate courses to women, and all, with the exception of Harvard, grant degrees on the condition of that work. In their development much has been accomplished by advisory boards, or councils of women, who have collected funds for endowments, erected buildings, acted as advisers, and in many ways promoted their interests.

Coeducation in the Universities for Men. — To Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio, belongs the honor of being the first institution of collegiate rank to admit women. Opened in 1833 as Oberlin Collegiate Institute, it was coeducational from the start, although at first women entered the so-called “Ladies' Course,” and were not candidates for degrees until 1837. The new departure aroused less comment, since “from the outset, the new institution stood for so many unpopular ideas, social and theological, that the mere fact of the admission of both sexes attracted little attention.” Its example was not followed for two decades, the second institution in this pioneer work being also in Ohio, Antioch College at Yellow Springs, founded by Horace Mann in 1853, and coeducational from the beginning. The movement, however, did not gain before the period of the Civil War; various reasons have been suggested for its rapid development since that time, such as the growth of the public school system, generally co-educational, and thus influencing public opinion in favor of the same policy in higher education, and the rise of the factory, relieving the home of many duties and leaving women more free for other interests. Throughout the country the demand for “practical education” was felt and the passage of the Land Grant Act in 1862, appropriating 10,000,000 acres for the endowment of colleges “to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanics arts” is most significant in its influence upon women's education, since it was interpreted as providing for them as well as for men.

The West and the State universities have been the leaders in coeducation, only three of the latter, Virginia, Georgia and Louisiana, being still closed to women; but the East is not without representation in this class. When Cornell University was opened at Ithaca, N. Y., in 1868, the interest of Mr. Cornell and President White in favor of giving equal advantage young women resulted in the offer from Henry W. Sage of a generous endowment on condition that “instruction shall be offered to the young women by the Cornell University as broad and thorough as that now offered to young men.” In 1872 this offer was accepted and Cornell became coeducational.

The movement, however, had spread further east than the State of New York. In 1868 Boston University was opened, welcoming young women on precisely the same conditions as young men, the first institution in Massachusetts to take this step and, according to the report of the president, “the first in the world

to open the entire circle of post-graduate professional schools to men and women alike.”

Several other universities and colleges in the East are coeducational, among them Johns Hopkins, the universities of Pennsylvania and Maine, New York, Rochester and Syracuse, and Swarthmore, Adelphi, Bates and Colby colleges.

The opening of the University of Chicago in 1892 added another endowed institution of rank to coeducation; but in 1902, by the so-called ‘segregation’ policy, which means separate instruction for women during the first two years of their undergraduate course, the university provision for them comes partially under the head of the affiliated college. This action, together with the limitation of the number of women admitted to undergraduate work at Leland Stanford Jr. University in California and at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., might be interpreted as a certain reaction in the West against coeducation were these policies not explained by the institutions themselves as efforts simply to preserve a proportionate relation in the undergraduate body. In the light of statistics the fear that the women students may outnumber the men is not unfounded.

The Commissioner of Education reports that in the academic year 1915-16 there were in the United States 144 colleges for men, with 43,851 undergraduate students; 89 colleges for women, with 20,638 undergra4uate students; 341 institutions for both sexes, with 109,009 undergraduate men and 69,543 undergraduate women — in all, 574 institutions, with a total of 152,860 undergraduate men and 90,181 undergraduate women. The degrees conferred upon women by universities, colleges and technological schools in 1915-16 were as follows:

First degrees —

The higher degrees conferred upon women were as follows:

The total number of bachelors' degrees received by women was 11,240; by men 20,586. The total number of graduate degrees received by women was 1,062; by men 3,462.

In professional schools the numbers were as follows:

The tendency toward the utilitarian is more marked in the coeducational institutions than in the separate women's colleges, a difference easily explained, since the step is a natural one, from the opening of a work-shop for the men students to the establishment of courses in domestic science for the women. The universities endowed by the land grant were the first to introduce the last-named subject and now form the majority of the institutions which include it in their curricula.

Early specialization is also more common in the coeducational college, the separate college placing greater emphasis in its undergraduate course upon liberal culture. The general tendency to-day, however, is away from unrestricted elective toward more required work, a “group” system, or a system of “majors,” by which the student may have in her undergraduate course something more than a purely technical and hence one-sided training.

The results of education for women are shown in the large increase of numbers in the professions, the census of 1890 giving the number of women in professional service as 311,689, that of 1900 as 430,576, that of 1910 as 733,885, 44.1 per cent, of all the people in professional service. One of the chief reasons urged by the early champions of the movement was that they might be better qualified to become teachers and to-day their representation in that profession outranks all others.

The number of women who are given the higher positions in the profession of teaching, however, is not in proportion, as the following report for 1915-16 shows:

Professors and instructors in universities, colleges and technological schools:

Within the last few years there has been a large increase in the number and variety of employments which college women enter. They are not only teachers and physicians, but also nurses, superintendents of hospitals, secretaries, registrars and keepers of records, librarians, social workers, in settlements and associated charities, professional housekeepers, assayers and poultry-raisers. They have opened laboratory kitchens, laundries and greenhouses, have engaged in scientific and historical research, published books, become musicians and artists, deans and presidents of colleges. Nor has their interest been confined to the professions by which they might earn a living. A recent writer says that “between the two broad oceans there is hardly any significant movement outside of trade and politics which is not aided by unpaid women who work purely out of ideal motives.” Educated women are interesting themselves in the problems of the cities in which they live, serving on boards of education and of sanitation, making possible public playgrounds and vacation schools, agitating the questions of improved tenements, pure water supply and clean streets. The experiment of college training for women has already justified itself by what they have accomplished in promoting public health and morals.

The Great War has intensified this call for

college women. Laboratories which two or three years ago had no place for them, are demanding more trained workers then the colleges can supply. Positions as draughtsmen, accountants, social workers, government employees, farmers, dietitians, nurses and organizers for different kinds of work, are opening faster than the colleges can send out graduates to fill them. Never was there such real need of the educated woman.

The fear that academic training would unfit women physically and divert them from the home by the attraction of other careers has proved unfounded. The women's colleges and many of the coeducational institutions provide gymnasiums and regular physical training, require out-of-door exercise, and have careful physical examination. These provisions, together with the regular hours and systematic life of the college, mean a better physical condition than in the case of the average non-college woman.

To those who know the college woman in her home the question concerning her fitness for it is not debatable. The supreme result of the college training is the development of character and the cultivation of self-control, of consideration for others and of a more rational outlook, means preparation for the home as well as for the profession.

Bibliography. — Boone, ‘Higher Education of Women’ (‘Education in the United States,’ pp. 362-382); Dexter, ‘The Education of Women’ (‘History of Education in the United States,’ pp. 424-453); Freeman, ‘Vassar College’ (‘Education,’ VIII, 73); Hooker, ‘Mount Holyoke College’ New England Magazine, XXI, 545); North, ‘Wellesley College’ (Historical Address, 1900); Palmer, ‘The Higher Education of Women’ (Forum, XII, 28, 1891); Putnam, ‘Rise of Barnard College’ (Columbia University Quarterly, June 1900); Seelye, ‘Smith College’ (in ‘Celebration of the Quarter Centenary of Smith College’ 1900); Small, ‘Girls in Colonial Schools’ (‘Education,’ XXII, 552); Smith, ‘Coeducation’ (‘Report of Commissioner of Education, 1917,’ Vol. II); Stow, ‘History of Mount Holyoke Seminary, 1837-87’; Thomas, ‘Education of Women’ (Butler's ‘Education in the United States,’ 1900, Vol. I, 319-358); Warner, ‘Radcliffe College’ (Harvard Graduates Magazine, March 1894).


text: Author:Mary Emma Woolley

title: Author:Mary Emma Woolley


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Jean Baptiste Van Eycken

Eycken,, painter, b. at Brussels, Belgium, September 16, 1809; d. at Schaerbeek, December 19, 1853. He was the son of Corneille van Eycken and Elise Cordemans, and as a boy was employed in commercial pursuits, but from 1829, when his father died, he gave himself over entirely to the study of art. In 1830 he became a member of the Academy of Belgium, in 1835 gained an important prize with high distinctions, and four years afterwards was appointed professor of drawing and painting. In 1838 he went to Italy, returning in 1839 and resuming his professorship. In that year he exhibited his great picture of "Divine Pity", which was warmly received and brought him a gold medal and a high position in the Societe des Beaux Arts de France. He married in 1840 Julie Noël, who died February 11, 1843. Two of his most important pictures were those representing "Captive Christians" and a "St. Boniface", for the church of La Chapelle; but for the same building he carried out no less than fourteen pictures representing the Passion of Christ and these were exhibited in 1847 and gained for him the Order of Leopold. His best-known picture perhaps is entitled "L'Abondance", a replica of which the artist was employed to make for the Prince Consort of England, according to the instructions of Louise Marie, Queen of the Belgians. He was intensely interested in the subject of mural decoration, and studied every variety of it very closely, preparing a long essay on the subject and a series of paintings representing the Beatitudes, in order to exemplify his ideas in this direction. He also gave some attention to sculpture and to designing medallions. He was a very devout man, true to his faith and to his friends, and very much respected by all who knew him. His pictures are marked by considerable religious feeling, grace, tenderness, and delicacy. (For further details, see a life of the artist published privately in Brussels by Emile van Arenbergh, no date.)

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ven. Pierre-Julien Eymard

Eymard,, , founder of the Society of the Blessed Sacrament, and of the Servants of the Blessed Sacrament, b. at La Mure d'Isere, Diocese of Grenoble, France, February 4, 1811; d. there August 1, 1868. From early childhood he gave evidence of great holiness and most tender devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. In 1829, he entered the novitiate of the Oblates of Mary, but illness compelled him to return home. At the age of twenty he entered the grand seminary of Grenoble, and was ordained priest July 20, 1834. He returned to the Marist novitiate in 1839. In 1845 he was appointed Provincial of the Oblates of Mary. His entire spiritual life was centered round the Eucharist. It was the subject of his sermons and exhortations, the object of his worship and prayers. Those who fell under his spiritual direction were taught by his counsel to fix their attention on the Blessed Sacrament.

In January of 1851 Pere Eymard made a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Fourvieres, and there promised Mary to devote his life to founding a congregation of priests whose principal duty should be to honor the Blessed Sacrament. Having obtained the necessary ecclesiastical permission, he procured a small house in Paris, in which he and his single companion took up their abode. Here, on January 6, 1857, the Blessed Sacrament was exposed, and the nascent community of two members commenced the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as prescribed by their rule. Their founder received his first encouragement for the work in a laudatory Brief, blessing the work and its author, and signed by Pius IX, in 1857. Five years after, in 1862, Pere Eymard had enough spiritual sons to open a regular novitiate. From this date the congregation spread rapidly, until now its houses may be found in Rome, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Canada, the United States, and South America. The Servants of the Blessed Sacrament, a congregation of cloistered women who carry on perpetual adoration in their convents, were also founded by him in 1858. The Priests' Eucharistic League and the Archconfraternity of the Blessed Sacrament are evidences of his zeal among priests and the faithful. Pere Eymard's writings have been collected, and form four volumes: "The Real Presence", which has been translated into English; "Retreat at the Feet of Jesus Eucharistic", "La Sainte Communion", and "L'Eucharistie et la Perfection Chretienne". These writings have received the approbation of the Holy See. The author was declared Venerable, August 11, 1908, and the process for Pere Eymard's beatification is now in progress.

.


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Nicolas Eymeric

Eymeric,, theologian and inquisitor, b. at Gerona, in Catalonia, Spain, c. 1320; d. there January 4, 1399. He entered the Dominican Order at an early age, receiving the habit August 4, 1334, from the hands of Prior Petrus Carpi, and soon won a reputation for theological knowledge. His earliest writings, which date from 1351, were of a philosophical character. Nicola Roselli, the grand inquisitor of Aragon, having been raised to the rank of a cardinal (1356), Eymeric was appointed his successor in the Inquisition early in 1357. The zeal he displayed in his new office roused much opposition and even open enmity. In spite of the support of Cardinal Legate Guido, Eymeric, in the interest of peace, was removed from office at the general chapter of the Dominican Order held at Perpignan in 1360. Two years later, at the general chapter held at Ferrara, he was chosen vicar of the Dominican province of Aragon. Shortly afterwards, when a provincial was to be elected for the same province, there was a hopeless division among the Dominicans, one party supporting Eymeric, the other Father Bernardo Ermengaudi. Pope Urban V confirmed neither, but appointed a third, Jacopo Dominici.

Meanwhile Eymeric showed great activity as a preacher, as well as a writer on theological subjects. Some years later he was again made inquisitor general of Aragon; we find him in this office in 1366, and several tractates on dogmatic subjects date from the years immediately following. He combated in particular Raymond Lully, in whose writings he found numerous errors. He influenced Gregory XI to forbid the faithful to read certain writings of Lully's and to condemn by a special decree (January 26, 1376) several theses extracted from his works. Eymeric was in high esteem with King Pedro IV of Aragon, as well as with Gregory XI. In 1376 he visited the papal court at Avignon, and accompanied the pope on his return to Rome. He was still there at the election of Urban

VI and the nomination of the antipope Clement VII, whose claims he vigorously championed against those of the Roman pope. Towards the end of 1378 the returned to Aragon, but in the interests of his office as grand inquisitor often went to the court of Clement VII at Avignon. Eymeric continued his campaign against the Lullists by word as well as by pen. In his "Tractatus contra doctrinam Raymundi Lulli", dedicated to Clement VII, he indicates 135 heresies, 38 errors, and many misleading statements of Lully. He also composed a "Dialogus contra Lullistas" and other treatises. Lully's partisans, however, won over to their side, soon after his accession, King John I of Aragon. Eymeric was banished and went to the papal court of Avignon, where he was welcomed both by Clement VII and later by Benedict XIII. He wrote numerous theological works and also special tractates defending the legitimacy of the Avignon popes, e.g. his "Tractatus de potestate papali" (1383), which he composed for Clement VII, and two tractates for Benedict XIII. Notwithstanding his sentence of banishment, he still retained his post of grand inquisitor of Aragon. As early as 1376 he had compiled, as a guide for inquisitors, his "Directorium inquisitorum", the only one of his more extensive works that was afterwards printed (Barcelona, 1503; Rome, 1578, ed. Francesco Pegna, with a copious commentary; reissued several times). Towards the end of 1397 Eymeric returned to his native land and his monastery of Gerona, where he died. His epitaph describes him as proedicator veridicus, inquisitor intrepidus, doctor egregius.

J. P. KIRSCH


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Thomas Eyre

Eyre,, first president of Ushaw College; b. at Glossop, Derbyshire, in 1748; d. at Ushaw, May 8, 1810. He was the fourth son of Nathaniel Eyre and Jane Broomhead. On June 24, 1758, he, with his brothers Edward and John, arrived at Esquerchin, near Douai, the preparatory school for the English college. Having passed through school and college alike with credit, he remained after his ordination as general prefect and master of the classes known as rhetoric and poetry. In 1775 Mr. Eyre returned to England to take charge of the Stella mission near Newcastle, on the invitation of his kinsman, Thomas Eyre. While here he brought out a new edition of the works of Gother and also made a collection of materials (now in the Ushaw archives) with the intention of continuing Dodd's "Church History". His scheme for a new edition of Bishop Challoner's Bible was given up at the request of Bishop Thomas Talbot. In 1792 he removed from Stella Hall to Wooler and thence to Pontop Hall in Durham. In 1794 Bishop Gibson desired him to take charge of the Northern students who had been expelled from Douai, and who were then temporarily at Tudhoe under Lingard, the famous historian, who had not yet been ordained priest. Mr. Eyre removed these students first to Pontop Hall and in October, 1794, to Crook Hall, where he became president of the new college. Though he was willing to resign this post in favor of Mr. Daniel, president of Douai, this suggested arrangement came to nothing and Mr. Eyre remained president. In 1803 an estate called Ushaw was bought by the bishop, and here, early in 1804, the new college was begun, and in July, 1808, Mr. Eyre began to remove his community thither. On August 2 he himself entered and the transfer of St. Cuthbert's College from Crook Hall to Ushaw was complete. Mr. Eyre died at Ushaw, leaving a considerable sum to the college for professorships and burses. Besides the edition of Gother's works he brought out, in separate form, Gother's "Instructions for Confirmation" (Newcastle, 1783), and Gobinet's "Instruction of Youth in Christian Piety".

EDWIN BURTON


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Charles Eyston

Eyston,, antiquary, b. 1667; d. November 5, 1721; he was a member of the ancient family of Eyston, then and still of East Hendred, their house being one of the few places in England where the Blessed Sacrament has always been preserved. He was eldest son of George Eyston and of Ann, daughter of Robert Dormer of Peterley. On the death of his father in 1691 he succeeded to the family estates, and in 1692 married Winefrid Dorothy, daughter of Basil Fitzherbert of Swinnerton, Staffordshire, by whom he had a large family. He was a good scholar and it was in his antiquarian researches that he became a friend of Thomas Hearne, who wrote of him: "He was a Roman Catholick and so charitable to the poor that he is lamented by all who knew anything of him: ... He was a man of a sweet temper and was an excellent scholar and so modest that he did not care to have it at any time mentioned." (Reliq. Hearnianae, cit. inf.) On his death he was succeeded by his son, Charles. It is generally stated that another of his sons joined the Jesuits, but though his son, William George, entered the Society in 1736, he left it almost at once. Several of his daughters became nuns. He wrote: "A little Monument to The Once Famous Abbey and Borough of Glastonbury", published by Hearne in his "History and Antiquities of Glastonbury" (Oxford, 1722); reprinted by the Rev. R. Warner in his "History of the Abbey of Glaston and the town of Glastonbury" (Bath, 1826). There is in the library at Hendred an unpublished MS. entitled "A Poor Little Monument to All the Old Pious Dissolved Foundations of England: or a Short History of Abbeys, all sorts of Monasteries, Colleges, Chapels, Chantries, etc." Another MS. mentioned under his name by Gillow was merely his property and not his work; and the same writer corrects Charles Butler's error in ascribing to Eyston a "History of the Reformation", published in 1685.

EDWIN BURTON


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ezechiel

Ezechiel, whose name, Yehézq'èl (9Npirr) signifies "strong is God", or "whom God makes strong" (Ezech., i, 3; iii, 8), was the son of Buzi, and was one of the priests who, in the year 598 B.C., had been deported together with Joachim as prisoners from Jerusalem (IV Kings, xxiv, 12-16; cf. Ezech., xxxiii, 21, xl, 1). With the other exiles he settled in Tell-Abib near the Chobar (Ezech., i, 1; iii, 15) in Babylonia, and seems to have spent the rest of his life there. In the fifth year after the captivity of Joachim, and according to some, the thirtieth year of his life, Ezechiel received his call as a prophet (Ezech. i, 2, 4 etc.) in the vision which he describes in the beginning of his prophecy (Ezech. i, 4; iii, 15). From Ezech. xxix, 17 it appears that he prophesied during at least twenty-two years.

Ezechiel was called to foretell God's faithfulness in the midst of trials, as well as in the fulfillment of His promises. During the first period of his career, he foretold the complete destruction of the kingdom of Juda, and the annihilation of the city and temple. After the fulfillment of these predictions, he was commanded to announce the future return from exile, the reestablishment of the people in their own country and, especially, the redemption within the Kingdom of the Messiah, the second David, so that the people would not abandon themselves to despair and perish as a nation, through contact with the Gentiles, whose gods had apparently triumphed over the God of Israel. This is the principal burden of Ezechiel's prophecy, which is divided into three parts. After the introduction; the vision of the calling of the prophet (Ezech., i-iii, 21), the first part contains the prophecies against Juda before the fall of Jerusalem (Ezech., iii 22-xxiv). In this part the prophet declares the hope of saving the city, the kingdom, and the temple to be vain, and announces the approaching judgment of God upon Juda. This part may be subdivided into five group of prophecies.

(I) After a second revelation, in which God discloses to the prophet His course of action (iii, 22-27), the prophet foretells by symbolic acts (iv, v) and in words (vi-vii), the siege and capture of Jerusalem, and the banishment of Juda. (2) In a prophetic vision, in the presence of the elders of Israel, God reveals to him the cause of these punishments. In spirit he witnesses the idolatry practiced in and near the temple (viii); God commands that the guilty be punished and the faithful be spared (ix); God's majesty departs from the temple (x), and also, after the announcement of guilt and punishment, from the city. With this the judgment which the prophet communicates to the exiles ends (xi).

(3) In the third group (xii-xix) many different prophecies are brought together, whose sole connection is the relation they bear to the guilt and punishment of Jerusalem and Juda. Ezechiel prophesies by symbolic actions the exile of the people, the flight of Sedecias, and the devastation of the land (xii, 1-20). Then follow Divine revelations regarding belief in false prophecies, and disbelief in the very presence of true prophecy. This was one of the causes of the horrors (xii, 21-xiv, 11), to be visited upon the remnant of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (xiv, 12-23). The prophet likens Jerusalem to the dead wood of the vine, which is destined for the fire (xv); in an elaborate denunciation he represents Juda as a shameless harlot, who surpasses Samaria and Sodom in malice (xvi), and in a new simile, he condemns King Sedecias (xvii). After a discourse on the justice of God (xviii), there follows a further lamentation over the princes and the people of Juda (xix). (4) In the presence of the elders the prophet denounces the whole people of Israel for the abominations they practiced in Egypt, in the Wilderness, and in Canaan (xx). For these Juda shall be consumed by fire, and Jerusalem shall be exterminated by the sword (xxi). Abominable is the immorality of Jerusalem (xxii), but Juda is more guilty than Israel has ever been (xxiii). (5) On the day on which the siege of Jerusalem began, the prophet represents, under the figure of the rusty pot, what was to befall the inhabitants of the city. On the occasion of the death of his wife, God forbids him to mourn openly, in order to teach the exiles that they should be willing to lose that which is dearest to them without grieving over it (xxiv).

In the second part (xxv-xxxii), are gathered together the prophecies concerning the Gentiles. He takes, first of all, the neighboring peoples who had been exalted through the downfall of Juda, and who had humiliated Israel. The fate of four of these, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Philistines, is condensed in chapter xxv. He treats more at length of Tyre and its king (xxvi-xxviii, 19), after which he casts a glance at Sidon (xxviii, 20-26). Six prophecies against Egypt follow, dating from different years (xxix-xxxii). The third part (xxxiiixlviii), is occupied with the Divine utterances on the subject of Israel's restoration. As introduction, we have a dissertation from the prophet, in his capacity of authorized champion of the mercy and justice of God, after which he addresses himself to those remaining in Juda, and to the perverse exiles (xxxiii). The manner in which God will restore His people is only indicated in a general way. The Lord will cause the evil shepherds to perish; He will gather in, guide, and feed the sheep by means of the second David, the Messiah (xxxiv).

Though Mount Seir shall remain a waste, Israel shall return unto its own. There God will purify His people, animate the nation with a new spirit, and reestablish it in its former splendor for the glory of His name (xxxv—xxxvi). Israel, though dead, shall rise again, and the dry bones shall be covered with flesh and endowed with life before the eyes of the prophet. Ephraim and Juda shall, under the second David, be united into one kingdom, and the Lord shall dwell in their midst (xxxvii). The invincibleness and indestructibility of the restored kingdom are then symbolically presented in the war upon Gog, his inglorious defeat, and the annihilation of his armies (xxxviiixxxix). In the last prophetic vision, God shows the new temple (xl-xlii), the new worship (xliii-xlvi), the return to their own land, and the new division thereof among the twelve tribes (xlvii-xlviii), as a figure of His foundation of a kingdom where He shall dwell among His people, and where He shall be served in His tabernacle according to strict rules, by priests of His choice, and by the prince of the house of David.

From this review of the contents of the prophecy, it is evident that the prophetic vision, the symbolic actions and examples, comprise a considerable portion of the book. The completeness of the description of the vision, actions and similes, is one of the many causes of the obscurity of the book of Ezechiel. It is often difficult to distinguish between what is essential to the matter represented, and what serves merely to make the image more vivid. On this account it happens that, in the circumstantial descriptions, words are used, the meaning of which, inasmuch as they occur in Ezechiel only, is not determined. Because of this obscurity, a number of copyist mistakes have crept into the text, and that at an early date, since the Septuagint has some of them in common with the earliest Hebrew text we have. The Greek version, however, includes several readings which help to fix the meaning. The genuineness of the book of Ezechiel is generally conceded. Some few consider chapters xl-xlviii to be apocryphal, because the plan there described in the building of the temple was not followed, but they overlook the fact that Ezechiel here gives a symbolic representation of the temple, that was to find spiritual realization in God's new kingdom. The Divine character of the prophecies was recognized as early as the time of Jesus the son of Sirach (Eccles. xlix, 10, 11). In the New Testament, there are no verbatim references, but allusions to the prophecy and figures taken from it are frequent. Compare St. John, x, 10 etc. with Ezech., xxxiv, 11 etc.; St. Matthew, xiii, 32, with Ezech., xvii, 23. In particular St. John, in the Apocalypse, has often followed Ezechiel. Compare Apoc., xviii—xxi with Ezech., xxvii, xxxviii etc., xlvii etc.

JOS. SCHETS

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ezechiel