(F. E. B.)
EARWIG,an insect belonging to theForficulidae, a family usually referred to the Orthoptera, but sometimes regarded as typifying a special order, to which the names Dermaptera, Dermatoptera and Euplexoptera have been given, in allusion to certain peculiarities in the structure of the wings in the species that possess them. The front wings are short and horny and when at rest meet without overlapping in the middle line, like the wing-cases of brachelytrous (cocktail) beetles. The hind wings, on the contrary, are for the most part membranous and, when extended, of large size; each consists of two portions, the distal of which, in virtue of the arrangement and jointing of its nervures, is capable of being both doubled up and folded fanwise beneath the proximal, which is partly horny when the wing is tucked away under the front wing-case of the same side. Apart from these characteristics, the most distinctive feature of earwigs is the presence at the end of the abdomen of a pair of pincers which are in reality modified appendages, known as cercopods, and represent the similar limbs ofJapyxand the caudal feelers ofCampodeaand some other insects.
TheForficulidaeare almost cosmopolitan; but the various species and genera differ from each other both in structure and size to a comparatively slight extent. The length and armature of the pincers and the presence or absence of wings are perhaps the most important features used by systematists in distinguishing the various kinds. Of particular zoological interest in this connexion is a Ceylonese genusDyscritina, in which the cercopods are long, many-jointed and filiform during the early stages of growth, and only assume at the last moult the forcipate structure characteristic of the family. The best known earwig is the common European species,Forficula auricularia. This insect is gregarious and nocturnal. It hides by day under stones orthe loosened bark of trees or in any crevice or hole sheltered from the light. At night it crawls about in search of food, which consists to a small extent of dead animal or vegetable matter, but principally, as gardeners are aware, of the petals and other parts of flowers of growing shoots and soft ripe fruit. During the winter earwigs lie dormant; but in the early months of the year females with their eggs may be found in the soil, frequently in deserted earthworm burrows. Maternal instincts are well developed, both the eggs, which number about fifty, and the young being carefully brooded and watched over by the parent. Except for the absence of wings, the young are miniature models of the adult. As growth proceeds the integument is periodically cast; and at the final moult the perfect winged insect appears. Males and females are like each other in size, but may be distinguished by the difference in the number of visible abdominal segments, the male having nine and the female seven. In the male, moreover, the pincers are caliper-like and toothed at the base, whereas in the female they are untoothed and only lightly curved at the tip. These differences suggest that the pincers aid in the pairing of the sexes. However that may be, they are known to be used in the folding of the wings; and their importance as weapons of defence is attested by the precision and effect with which they are wielded against assailants like ants.
(R. I. P.)
EASEMENT(Fr.aise; O. Fr.aisement; Anglo-Lat.aisiamentum, a privilege or convenience), in English law, a species of “servitude” or limited right of use over land belonging to another. It is distinguished fromprofits à prendre—another species of servitude which involves a right to participate in the profits of the soil of another—since an easement confers merely a convenience (aisiamentum) to be exercised over the land of another (without any participation in the profits of it),i.e.a right to use the soil or produce of the soil in a way tending to the more convenient enjoyment of another piece of land. Thus a right of way is an easement, a right of common is a profit. An easement is distinguishable also from a licence, which, unless it is coupled with a grant, is personal to both grantor and grantee and is neither binding on the licensor, nor, in general, assignable by the licensee; while both the benefit and the burden of an easement are annexed to land (Gale onEasements, 8th ed. p. 2). With easements are sometimes classed certain closely allied “natural rights,” such as a landowner’s right to lateral support for his soil in its natural state, and a riparian owner’s right to the natural flow of a stream.
The essential features of an easement, in the strict sense of the term, are therefore these: (i.) It is an incorporeal right; a right to the use and enjoyment of land—not to the land itself; (ii.) it is imposed upon corporeal property; (iii.) it is a right without profit; (iv.) it requires for its constitution two distinct tenements—the “dominant tenement” which enjoys the right, and the “servient tenement” which submits to it. This last characteristic excludes from the category of easements the so-called “easementsin gross,” such as a right of way conferred by grant independently of the possession of any tenement by the grantee. The true easement is an “appendant” or “appurtenant” right, not a “right in gross.”
Further classifications of easements must be noted. They are divided into (a)affirmativeorpositive, those which authorize the commission of an act by the dominant owner,e.g.rights of way, a right to draw water from a spring, rights of aqueduct, andnegative, when the easement restricts the rights of the servient owner over his own property,e.g.prevents him from building on land so as to obstruct ancient lights (cf. also the right to the support of neighbouring soil); (b)continuous, of which the enjoyment may be continual without the interference of man,e.g.access to light, anddiscontinuous, where there must be a fresh act on each occasion of the exercise of the right,e.g.a right of way, or right to draw water; (c)apparent, where there are visible external signs of the exercise of the right,e.g.a right to dam up a watercourse, andnon-apparent, where such signs are absent,e.g.a right to lateral support from land, a prohibition to build above a certain height.
Acquisition of Easements.—Easements may be acquired (a) by express grant, either by statute, or by deedinter vivos, or by will; (b) by an implied grant; (c) by express or implied reservation,e.g.by the owner of land in selling the fee (as to implied reservation, see Gale onEasements, 8th ed. pp. 137 et seq.); (d) by prescription, either at common law or under the Prescription Act 1832. An express grant, or express reservation, of an easement cannot be effected except by deed. An easement arises by implied grant where a man makes one part of his tenement dependent on another, or makes the parts mutually interdependent, and grants any such part with the dependence attaching to it to another person (Innes,Law of Easements, 7th ed. p. 10). For example, a man builds two houses, each of which by the plan of construction receives support from the other; this mutual right of support is aquasi-easement, of which on severance of the tenements the grantee of one will have the benefit; where the enjoyment of the severed tenement could not be had at all without such a right, it is said to be an “easement of necessity.”
Easements are acquired by prescription at common law by proof of “immemorial user” by the dominant owner and those through whom he claims. At one time it was thought that such proof must date back to the first year (1189) of Richard I. (see preamble to Prescription Act 1832). The ground, however, on which prescription was admitted as a means of acquiring easements was the fiction of a “lost grant.” Long enjoyment of the right pointed to its having had a legal origin in a grant from the servient owner, and so any period of reasonably long use came to be accepted. A “lost grant” may be presumed to have been made (the question is one of fact) if 20 years’ uninterrupted enjoyment is shown. To avoid the difficulties of proof of prescriptive right at common law, the Prescription Act 1832 established shorter periods of user. In the case of easements, other than light, the periods of prescription are 20 years for a claim that may be defeated, and 40 years for an indefeasible claim (s. 2). The right of access of light is dealt with under s. 3 (seeAncient Lights). The enjoyment to become prescriptive must be open,i.e.of such a character that the owner of the tenement said to be servient has a reasonable opportunity of becoming aware of the adverse claim (Union Lighterage Co.v.London Graving Dock Co., 1902, 2 Ch. 557); and it must be enjoyed as of right (Gardnerv.Hodgson’s Kingston Brewery Co., 1903, A.C. 229) as against the owner of the tenement affected (Kilgourv.Gaddes, 1904, 1 K.B. 457). The periods of prescription are to be reckoned backwards from the time when some suit or matter involving the claim of the dominant owner has arisen (s. 4). Nothing is to be deemed an interruption unless the act of interruption has been submitted to, or acquiesced in, for a year (s. 4).
Easements may be extinguished (i.) by express release—here an instrument under seal is necessary; (ii.) by “merger,”i.e.where both tenements become the property of the same owner; (iii.) by abandonment through non-user. In the case of discontinuous easements, the shortest period of non-user may suffice if there is direct evidence of an intention to abandon.
A word may be added here as to the right to air. It is an actionable nuisance to cause pollution of the air entering a dwelling-house. The owner of a dwelling-house may by prescription acquire a right to the passage of air through it by a defined channel; and the enjoyment without interruption of ventilation by means of air flowing in a definite channel, with the knowledge of the owner and occupier of the adjoining premises, creates a presumption of the grant of such an easement (see Gale onEasements, 8th ed. p. 338).
InScots Lawthe term “easement” is unknown. Both the name “servitude” and the main species of servitudes existing in Roman law (q.v.) have been adopted. The classification of servitudes into positive and negative, &c., and the modes of their creation and extinction, are similar to those of English law. The statutory period of prescription is 40 years (Scots Acts 1617, c. 12), or 20 years in the case of enjoyment under anyex facievalid irredeemable title duly recorded in the appropriate register of sasines (Conveyancing [Scotland] Act 1874). There arecertain servitudes special to Scots law,e.g.“thirlage,” by which lands are “thirled” or bound to a particular mill, and the possessors obliged to grind their grain there, for payment of certainmultures(quantities of grain or meal, payable to the mill-owner) andsequels(small quantities given to the mill servants) as the customary price of grinding. Statutory provision has been made for the commutation of these duties (Thirlage Act 1799), and they have now almost disappeared.
The French Code Civil (Arts. 637 et seq.) and the other European codes (e.g.Belgium, arts. 637 et seq.; Holland, arts. 721 et seq.; Italy, arts. 531 et seq.; Spain, arts. 530 et seq.; Germany, arts. 1018 et seq.) closely follow Roman law. French law is in force in Mauritius, and has been followed in Quebec (Civil Code, arts. 499 et seq.) and St Lucia (Civil Code, arts. 449 et seq.). In India the law is regulated, on English lines, by the Easements Act 1882 (Act v. of 1882). The term “easements,” however, in India includesprofits à prendre. In the South African colonies the law of easements is based on the Roman Dutch law (see Maasdorp,Institutes of Cape Law, 1904; Bk. ii. p. 166 et seq.). In most of the other colonies the law of easements is similar to English law. In some, however, it has been provided by statute that rights to the access and use of light or water cannot be acquired by prescription:e.g.Victoria (Water Act 1890, No. 1156, s. 3), Ontario (Real Property Limitation Act, Revised Stats. Ontario, 1897; c. 133, s. 36, light).
In theUnited Statesthe law of easements is founded upon, and substantially identical with, English law. The English doctrine, however, as to acquisition of right of light and air by prescription is not accepted in most of the States.
Authorities.—English Law: Gale,Law of Easements(8th ed., London, 1908); Goddard,Law of Easements(6th ed., London, 1904); Innes,Digest of the Law of Easements(7th ed., London, 1903).Indian Law: Peacock,Easements in British India(Calcutta, 1904); Hudson and Inman,Law of Light and Air(2nd ed., London, 1905).Scots Law: Erskine,Principles of the Law of Scotland(20th ed., Edinburgh, 1903).American Law: Jones,Law of Easements(New York, 1898); Bouvier,Law Dict.(Boston and London, 1897);Ruling Cases, London and Boston, 1894-1901, tit.Easement(American Notes).
Authorities.—English Law: Gale,Law of Easements(8th ed., London, 1908); Goddard,Law of Easements(6th ed., London, 1904); Innes,Digest of the Law of Easements(7th ed., London, 1903).Indian Law: Peacock,Easements in British India(Calcutta, 1904); Hudson and Inman,Law of Light and Air(2nd ed., London, 1905).Scots Law: Erskine,Principles of the Law of Scotland(20th ed., Edinburgh, 1903).American Law: Jones,Law of Easements(New York, 1898); Bouvier,Law Dict.(Boston and London, 1897);Ruling Cases, London and Boston, 1894-1901, tit.Easement(American Notes).
(A. W. R.)
EAST, ALFRED(1849- ), English painter and etcher, was born at Kettering on the 15th of December 1849. One of the most prominent among modern English landscape painters, he received his art education first at the Glasgow School of Art and then in Paris at the École des Beaux-Arts, and under Robert-Fleury and Bouguereau. His landscapes are remarkable for the lyrical use of colour and for the pleasing rhythm of line which is the result of careful selection and building up of the elements that constitute the scene. Based on keen observation of the colour of nature and on careful studies of the details, they are arranged with a rare and by no means obvious sense of balance and compositional beauty which summarily discards all disturbing accidents of nature. He also achieved distinction as an etcher, and published an instructive and useful volume on landscape painting (London, 1906). He began to exhibit at the Royal Academy in 1882, and was elected an associate. In 1906 he became president of the Royal Society of British Artists. Many of his works are to be found in the English provincial galleries; Manchester owns “The Silent Somme” and “Autumn”; Liverpool, “Gibraltar from Algeciras”; Leeds, “The Golden Valley”; Birmingham, “Hayle from Lelant”; Preston, “An Idyll of Spring”; and Hull, “Evening on the Cotswolds.” His “Passing Storm” is at the Luxembourg; “The Nene Valley” at the Venice gallery; and “A Haunt of Ancient Peace” at the National gallery in Budapest. In 1903 he received the order of the Crown of Italy in connexion with his services to the Venice international exhibition; and he was made an honorary member of the Japanese Meiji Bijutsu Kai.
EAST ANGLIA,one of the kingdoms into which Anglo-Saxon Britain was divided. Bede gives no information about its origin except that its earliest settlers were Angles. The kingdom of East Anglia comprised the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. With regard to the western boundary we have no accurate information, but it was probably formed by the fens of Cambridgeshire.
This kingdom first appears in Bede’s narrative early in the 7th century, when its power was at its height. Towards the end of the reign of Æthelberht, who died about 616, Rædwald of East Anglia, who had apparently spent some time at the court of Kent, began to win for himself the chief position among the Anglo-Saxon kings of his day. His position was assured, at least temporarily, in 617, when he decided to espouse the cause of the Northumbrian prince Edwin, then a fugitive at his court, and defeated Æthelfrith of Northumbria on the banks of the Idle, a tributary of the Trent, in Mercian territory. Rædwald had been converted to Christianity in Kent, but after his return home he relapsed, according to Bede, owing to the influence of his wife, and there were to be seen in the same building a Christian and a pagan altar. Bede states that Rædwald was the son of Tytili, the son of Wuffa, from whom the East Anglian royal family derived their name Wuffingas. According to theHistoria BrittonumGuffa (Wuffa) was the son of (Guecha) Wehha, who first ruled the East Angles in Britain. This would put the organization of the kingdom in the first or second quarter of the 6th century. Eorpwald, the son of Rædwald, was converted to Christianity by Edwin, but was soon afterwards slain by Ricberht (627 or 628), whereupon the kingdom again became pagan for three years, when Sigeberht, the brother of Eorpwald, became king and founded a see for Felix at Dunwich. Sigeberht also founded a school in East Anglia, and on the arrival of an Irish missionary named Furšeus he built him a monastery atCnobheresburg, perhaps to be identified with Burgh Castle. Before 644, however, Sigeberht resigned the crown in favour of his brother Ecgric and retired to a monastery. Shortly afterwards both brothers were slain by Penda of Mercia in his invasion of East Anglia, and Anna became king. This king was an enthusiastic Christian, and converted Cœnwalh, king of Wessex, who had fled to his court. Two of his daughters, Sæthryth and Æthelberg, took the veil; while another, Sexburg, was married to Earconberht, king of Kent; and a fourth, Æthelthryth, after two marriages, with Tondberht of the South Gyrwe and Ecgfrith of Northumbria, became abbess of Ely. In 654 Anna was slain by Penda of Mercia, and was succeeded by his brother Æthelhere, who was killed in 655 at the Winwaed, fighting for the Mercian king against Oswio of Northumbria. In 673 Archbishop Theodore divided the East Anglian diocese into two, Elmham being the seat of the northern, Dunwich that of the southern bishop. A long blank follows in the history of this kingdom, until in 792 we find Offa of Mercia slaying Æthelberht, king of East Anglia, who is said to have been his son-in-law. East Anglia was subject to the supremacy of the Mercian kings until 825, when its people slew Beornwulf of Mercia, and with their king acknowledged Ecgberht (Egbert) of Wessex as their lord. In 870 Edmund, king of East Anglia, was killed by the Danes under I′varr and Ubbi, the sons of Ragnar Loðbrok.
The following is a list of the kings of East Anglia of whom there is record:—Wehha; Wuffa; Rædwald, son of Tytili and grandson of Wuffa (reigning 617); Eorpwald, son of Rædwald (d. 627 or 628); Sigeberht, brother of Eorpwald; Ecgric, brother of Sigeberht (both slain before 644); Anna, son of Ene and grandson of Tytili (d. 654); Æthelhere, brother of Anna (d. 655); Æthelwald, a third brother; Aldwulf (succ. 663, d. 713), son of Æthelric and grandson of Ene; Elfwald, son of Aldwulf (d. 749); Hun Beonna and Alberht; Æthelberht (792); Edmund (870).
After the death of Ragnar Loðbrok’s sons East Anglia was occupied by the Danish king Guthrum, who made a treaty with Alfred settling their respective boundaries, probably about 880. Guthrum died in 890. A later king named Eohric took up the cause of Æthelwald, the son of Æthelred I., and was slain in the fight with the Kentish army at the Holm in 905. A war broke out with King Edward the Elder in 913; in 921 a king whose name is unknown was killed at the fall of Tempsford, and in the same year the Danes of East Anglia submitted to Edward the Elder. From this time, probably, East Anglia was governed by English earls, the most famous of whom were Æthelstan, surnamed Half-King (932-956) and his sons,Æthelwold (956-962), and Æthelwine, surnamedDei amicus(962-992).
See Bede,Hist. Eccl.(ed. C. Plummer, Oxford. 1896), ii. 5, 15, iii. 7, 8, 18-20, 22, iv. 3, 5, 23;Saxon Chronicle(ed. Earle and Plummer, Oxford, 1899), s. a. 823, 838, 866, 870, 880, 885, 890, 894, 905, 921;Historia Brittonum(San-Marte, 1844), s. 59; H. Sweet,Oldest English Texts, p. 171 (London, 1885).
See Bede,Hist. Eccl.(ed. C. Plummer, Oxford. 1896), ii. 5, 15, iii. 7, 8, 18-20, 22, iv. 3, 5, 23;Saxon Chronicle(ed. Earle and Plummer, Oxford, 1899), s. a. 823, 838, 866, 870, 880, 885, 890, 894, 905, 921;Historia Brittonum(San-Marte, 1844), s. 59; H. Sweet,Oldest English Texts, p. 171 (London, 1885).
(F. G. M. B.)
EASTBOURNE, a municipal borough (1883) in the Eastbourne parliamentary division of Sussex, England, 61 m. S.S.E. of London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. (1891) 34,969; (1901) 43,344; (local census, 1909) 49,286. It is situated 3 m. N.E. of Beachy Head, the loftiest headland on the English Channel coast. It once consisted of three parts—the village of East Bourne, a mile inland; South Bourne, lying back from the shore; and Seahouses, facing the beach. The church of St Mary, the ancient parish church of East Bourne, is a fine transitional Norman building; and there are numerous modern churches and chapels. The principal buildings and institutions are the town hall and municipal buildings, the Princess Alice Memorial and other hospitals, a free library and, among many high-class schools, Eastbourne College for boys, founded in 1867. There is a fine pier with pavilion, and a marine parade nearly 3 m. in extent, arranged in terraced promenades. Devonshire Park of 13 acres is pleasantly laid out, and contains a pavilion and a theatre. The duke of Devonshire is the principal landowner. Golf links are laid out on the neighbouring downs. A Roman villa was formerly seen close to the shore, but it is not now visible. The corporation consists of a mayor, 8 aldermen and 24 councillors. In 1910 the corporation promoted a bill in parliament to add the Hampden Park district in the parish of Willingdon to the borough and to make Eastbourne, with this extension, a county borough.
EAST CHICAGO, a city of Lake county, Indiana, U.S.A., on Lake Michigan, about 19 m. S.E. of the business centre of Chicago. Pop. (1890) 1255; (1900) 3411 (1331 foreign-born); (1910) 19,098. It is served by several railways, including the Pennsylvania, the Wabash, the Chicago Terminal Transfer (whose shops are here), the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the Chicago, Indiana & Southern, and the Indiana Harbor railways. East Chicago covers an area whose greatest dimensions are 4 by 3½ m. That part of the city along the lake, known as Indiana Harbor, dates from 1901 and has grown very rapidly because of its position at the southernmost part of the Calumet District, and because of the meeting here of railway and lake commerce. A good harbour has been constructed, a new ship canal connecting the harbour with the Calumet river. East Chicago is industrially virtually a part of “Greater” Chicago; among its manufactures are iron and steel, cement, lumber, boilers, hay presses, chains, chemicals and foundry products. East Chicago was chartered as a city in 1893.
EASTER, the annual festival observed throughout Christendom in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The name Easter (Ger.Ostern), like the names of the days of the week, is a survival from the old Teutonic mythology. According to Bede (De Temp. Rat.c. xv.) it is derived fromEostre, orOstâra, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, to whom the month answering to our April, and calledEostur-monath, was dedicated. This month, Bede says, was the same as themensis paschalis, “when the old festival was observed with the gladness of a new solemnity.”
The name of the festival in other languages (as Fr.pâques; Ital.pasqua; Span.pascua; Dan.paaske; Dutchpaasch; Welshpasg) is derived from the Lat.paschaand the Gr.πάσχα. These in turn come from the Chaldee or Aramaean formפסהאpascha’, of the Hebrew name of the Passover festivalפסחpesach, fromפסח“he passed over,” in memory of the great deliverance, when the destroying angel “passed over the houses, of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians” (Exod. xii. 27).
An erroneous derivation of the wordpaschafrom the Greekπάσχειν, “to suffer,” thus connected with the sufferings or passion of the Lord, is given by some of the Fathers of the Church, as Irenaeus, Tertullian and others, who were ignorant of Hebrew. St Augustine (In Joann. Tract.55) notices this false etymology, shows how similarity of sound had led to it, and gives the correct derivation.
There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians. “The whole of time is a festival unto Christians because of the excellency of the good things which have been given” is the comment of St Chrysostom on 1 Cor. v. 7, which has been erroneously supposed to refer to an apostolic observance of Easter. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl.v. 22) states, with perfect truth, that neither the Lord nor his apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival. He says: “The apostles had no thought of appointing festival days, but of promoting a life of blamelessness and piety”; and he attributes the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of an old usage, “just as many other customs have been established.”
This is doubtless the true statement of the case. The first Christians continued to observe the Jewish festivals, though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed. Thus the Passover, with a new conception added to it of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb and the first fruits from the dead, continued to be observed, and became the Christian Easter.
Although the observance of Easter was at a very early period the practice of the Christian church, a serious difference as to the day for its observance soon arose between the Christians of Jewish and those of Gentile descent, which led to a long and bitter controversy. The point at issue was when the Paschal fast was to be reckoned as ending. With the Jewish Christians, whose leading thought was the death of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, the fast ended at the same time as that of the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening, and the Easter festival immediately followed, without regard to the day of the week. The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, unfettered by Jewish traditions, identified the first day of the week with the Resurrection, and kept the preceding Friday as the commemoration of the crucifixion, irrespective of the day of the month. With the one the observance of the day of the month, with the other the observance of the day of the week, was the guiding principle.
Generally speaking, the Western churches kept Easter on the first day of the week, while the Eastern churches followed the Jewish rule, and kept Easter on the fourteenth day. St Polycarp, the disciple of St John the Evangelist and bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome in 159 to confer with Anicetus, the bishop of that see, on the subject; and urged the tradition, which he had received from the apostle, of observing the fourteenth day. Anicetus, however, declined to admit the Jewish custom in the churches under his jurisdiction, but readily communicated with Polycarp and those who followed it. About forty years later (197) the question was discussed in a very different spirit between Victor, bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, metropolitan of proconsular Asia. That province was the only portion of Christendom which still adhered to the Jewish usage, and Victor demanded that all should adopt the usage prevailing at Rome. This Polycrates firmly refused to agree to, and urged many weighty reasons to the contrary, whereupon Victor proceeded to excommunicate Polycrates and the Christians who continued the Eastern usage. He was, however, restrained from actually proceeding to enforce the decree of excommunication, owing to the remonstrance of Irenaeus and the bishops of Gaul. Peace was thus maintained, and the Asiatic churches retained their usage unmolested (Euseb.H.E.v. 23-25). We find the Jewish usage from time to time reasserting itself after this, but it never prevailed to any large extent.
A final settlement of the dispute was one among the other reasons which led Constantine to summon the council of Nicaea in 325. At that time the Syrians and Antiochenes were the solitary champions of the observance of the fourteenth day. The decision of the council was unanimous that Easter was to be kept on Sunday, and on the same Sunday throughout the world,and “that none should hereafter follow the blindness of the Jews” (Socrates,H.E.i. 9). The correct date of the Easter festival was to be calculated at Alexandria, the home of astronomical science, and the bishop of that see was to announce it yearly to the churches under his jurisdiction, and also to the occupant of the Roman see, by whom it was to be communicated to the Western churches. The few who afterwards separated themselves from the unity of the church, and continued to keep the fourteenth day, were namedQuartodecimani, and the dispute itself is known as theQuarto-decimancontroversy. Although measures had thus been taken to secure uniformity of observance, and to put an end to a controversy which had endangered Christian unity, a new difficulty had to be encountered owing to the absence of any authoritative rule by which the paschal moon was to be ascertained. The subject is a very difficult and complex one (see alsoCalendar). Briefly, it may be explained here that Easter day is the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox. This, of course, varies in different longitudes, while a further difficulty occurred in the attempt to fix the correct time of Easter by means of cycles of years, when the changes of the sun and moon more or less exactly repeat themselves. At first an eight years’ cycle was adopted, but it was found to be faulty, then the Jewish cycle of 84 years was used, and remained in force at Rome till the year 457, when a more accurate calculation of a cycle of 532 years, invented by Victorius of Acquitaine, took its place. Ultimately a cycle of 19 years was accepted, and it is the use of this cycle which makes the Golden Number and Sunday Letter, explained in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer, necessary. Owing to this lack of decision as to the accurate finding of Easter, St Augustine tells us (Epist.23) that in the year 387 the churches of Gaul kept Easter on the 21st of March, those of Italy on the 18th of April, and those of Egypt on the 25th of April; and it appears from a letter of Leo the Great (Epist.64,ad Marcian.) that in 455 there was a difference of eight days between the Roman and the Alexandrine Easter. Gregory of Tours relates that in 577 “there was a doubt about Easter. In Gaul we with many other cities kept Easter on the fourteenth calends of May, others, as the Spaniards, on the twelfth calends of April.”
The ancient British and Celtic churches followed the cycle of 84 years which they had originally received from Rome, and their stubborn refusal to abandon it caused much bitter controversy in the 8th century between their representatives and St Augustine of Canterbury and the Latin missionaries. These latter unfairly attempted to fix the stigma of the Quartodeciman observance on the British and Celtic churches, and they are even now sometimes ignorantly spoken of as having followed the Asiatic practice as to Easter. This, however, is quite erroneous. The British and Celtic churches always kept Easter according to the Nicene decree on a Sunday. The difference between them and the Roman Church, at this period, was that they still followed the 84 years’ cycle in computing Easter, which had been abandoned at Rome for the more accurate cycle of 532 years. This difference of calculation led to Easter being observed on different Sundays, in certain years, in England, by the adherents of the two churches. Thus Bede records that in a certain year (which must have been 645, 647, 648 or 651) Queen Eanfleda, who had received her instruction from a Kentish priest of the Roman obedience, was fasting and keeping Palm Sunday, while her husband, Oswy, king of Northumbria, following the rule of the British church, was celebrating the Easter festival. This diversity of usage was ended, so far as the kingdom of Northumbria was concerned, by the council of Streaneshalch, or Whitby, in 654. To Archbishop Theodore is usually ascribed the credit of ending the difference in the rest of England in 669.
The Gregorian correction of the calendar in 1582 has once more led to different days being observed. So far as Western Christendom is concerned the corrected calendar is now universally accepted, and Easter is kept on the same day, but it was not until 1752 that the Gregorian reformation of the calendar was adopted in Great Britain and Ireland. Jealousy of everything emanating from Rome still keeps the Eastern churches from correcting the calendar according to the Gregorian reformation, and thus their Easter usually falls before, or after, that of the Western churches, and only very rarely, as was the case in 1865, do the two coincide.
Easter, as commemorating the central fact of the Christian religion, has always been regarded as the chief festival of the Christian year, and according to a regulation of Constantine it was to be the first day of the year. This reckoning of the year as beginning at Easter lingered in France till 1565, when, by an ordinance of Charles IX., the 1st of January finally took its place.
Four different periods may be mentioned as connected with the observance of Easter, viz. (1) the preparatory fast of the forty days of Lent; (2) the fifteen days, beginning with the Sunday before and ending with the Sunday after Easter, during which the ceremonies of Holy Week and the services of the Octave of Easter were observed; this period, called by the French theQuinzaine de Pâques, was specially observed in that country; (3) the Octave of Easter, during which the newly-baptized wore their white garments, which they laid aside on the Sunday after Easter, known asDominica in albis depositisfrom this custom; another name for this Sunday wasPascha clausum, or the close of Easter, and from a clipping of the word “close” the English name of “Low” Sunday is believed to be derived; (4) Eastertide proper, or the paschal season beginning at Easter and lasting till Whit Sunday, during the whole of which time the festival character of the Easter season was maintained in the services of the church.
Many ecclesiastical ceremonies, growing up from early times, clustered round the celebration of the Easter festival. One of the most notable of these was the use of the paschal candle. This was a candle of very large dimensions, set in a candlestick big enough to hold it, which was usually placed on the north side, just below the first ascent to the high altar. It was kept alight during each service till Whitsuntide. The Paschal, as it was called at Durham cathedral, was one of the chief sights of that church before the Reformation. It was an elaborate construction of polished brass, and, contrary to the usual custom, seems to have been placed in the centre of the altar-step, long branches stretching out towards the four cardinal points, bearing smaller candles. The central stem of the candlestick was about 38 ft. high, and bore the paschal candle proper, and together they reached a combined height of about 70 ft., the candle being lighted from an opening above. Other paschal candles seem to have been of scarcely less size. At Lincoln, c. 1300, the candle was to weigh three stones of wax; at Salisbury in 1517 it was to be 36 ft. long; and at Westminster in 1558 it weighed no less than 3 cwt. of wax. After Whitsuntide what remained was made into smaller candles for the funerals of the poor. In the ancient churches at Rome the paschal candlesticks were fixtures, but elsewhere they were usually movable, and were brought into the church and set up on the Thursday before Easter. At Winchester the paschal candlestick was of silver, and was the gift of Canute. Others of more or less importance are recorded as having been at Canterbury, Bury St Edmunds, Hereford and York. The burning of the paschal candle still forms part of the Easter ceremonial of the Roman Catholic Church (seeLights, Ceremonial).
The liturgical colour for Easter was everywhere white, as the sign of joy, light and purity, and the churches and altars were adorned with the best ornaments that each possessed. Flowers and shrubs no doubt in early times were also used for this purpose, but what evidence there is goes against the medieval use of such decorations, which are so popular at the present day.
It is not the purpose of this article to enter on the wide subject of the popular observances, such as the giving and sending of Pasch or Easter eggs as presents. For such the reader may consult Brand’sPopular Antiquities, Hone’sEvery-Day Book, and Chambers’sBook of Days.
Authorities.—Bingham,Antiquities of the Christian Church; Bede,Ecclesiastical History of England; Procter and Frere,A New History of the Book of Common Prayer(London, 1901); Surtees Society,Rites of Durham, ed. J.T. Fowler (1903); De Morgan,Companion to the Almanac(1845); De Moleon,Voyages liturgiques(Paris, 1718).
Authorities.—Bingham,Antiquities of the Christian Church; Bede,Ecclesiastical History of England; Procter and Frere,A New History of the Book of Common Prayer(London, 1901); Surtees Society,Rites of Durham, ed. J.T. Fowler (1903); De Morgan,Companion to the Almanac(1845); De Moleon,Voyages liturgiques(Paris, 1718).
(T. M. F.)
EASTER ISLAND(Rapanui,i.e.Great Rapa), an island in the eastern part of the South Pacific ocean, belonging to Chile (since 1888), in 27° 8′ S. and 109° 28′ W., 1400 m. E. of Pitcairn, and 2000 m. from the South American coast. It is roughly triangular in shape, with its hypotenuse 12 m. long running north-east and south-west, and its three angles marked by three volcanic peaks, of which the north-eastern reaches 1768 ft. of altitude. The area of the island is 45 sq. m. The coast has no good natural harbour, and landing is difficult. There is no lack of fertile soil, and the climate is moist enough to make up for the absence of running water. Formerly the island appears to have been wooded, but it now presents only a few bushes (Edwardsia,Broussonetia, &c.), ferns, grasses, sedges, &c. The natives grow bananas in the shelter of artificial pits, also sugar-canes and sweet potatoes, and keep a few goats and a large stock of domestic fowls, and a Tahitian commercial house breeds cattle and sheep on the island.
It is doubtful whether Rapanui was discovered by Davis in 1686, though it is sometimes marked Davis Island on maps. Admiral Roggeveen reached it on Easter day 1722; in 1774 Captain Cook discovered it anew and called it Teapi or Waihu. It was subsequently visited by La Pérouse (1776), Kotzebue (1816), &c. At the time of Roggeveen’s discovery the island probably contained from 2000 to 3000 inhabitants of Polynesian race, who, according to their own tradition, came from Rapa Iti (Little Rapa) or Oparo, one of the Tubuai or Austral group. In 1863 a large proportion of the inhabitants were kidnapped by the Peruvians and transported to work at the guano diggings on the Chincha Islands. The next year a Jesuit mission from Tahiti reached the island and succeeded in the task of civilization. The natives, who number scarcely one hundred, are all Christians.
Easter Island is famous for its wonderful archaeological remains. Here are found immense platforms built of large cut stones fitted together without cement. They are generally built upon headlands, and on the slope towards the sea. The walls on the seaside are, in some of the platforms, nearly 30 ft. high and from 200 to 300 ft. long, by about 30 ft. wide. Some of the squared stones are as much as 6 ft. long. On the land side of the platforms there is a broad terrace with large stone pedestals upon which once stood colossal stone images carved somewhat into the shape of the human trunk. On some of the platforms there are upwards of a dozen images, now thrown from their pedestals and lying in all directions. Their usual height is from 14 to 16 ft., but the largest are 37 ft., while some are only about 4 ft. They are formed from a grey trachytic lava found at the east end of the island. The top of the heads of the images is cut flat to receive round crowns made of a reddish vesicular tuff found at a crater about 8 m. distant from the quarry where the images were cut. A number of these crowns still lie at the crater apparently ready for removal, some of the largest being over 10 ft. in diameter. In the atlas illustrating the voyage of La Pérouse a plan of the island is given, with the position of several of the platforms. Two of the images are also represented in a plate. One statue, 8 ft. in height and weighing 4 tons, was brought to England, and is now in the British Museum. In one part of the island are the remains of stone houses nearly 100 ft. long by about 20 ft. wide. These are built in courses of large flat stones fitted together without cement, the walls being about 5 ft. thick and over 5 ft. high. They are lined on the inside with upright slabs, on which are painted geometrical figures and representations of animals. The roofs are formed by placing slabs so that each course overlaps the lower one until the opening becomes about 5 ft. wide, when it is covered with flat slabs reaching from one side to the other. The lava rocks near the houses are carved into the resemblance of various animals and human faces, forming, probably, a kind of picture writing. Wooden tablets covered with various signs and figures have also been found. The only ancient implement discovered on the island is a kind of stone chisel, but it seems impossible that such large and numerous works could have been executed with such a tool. The present inhabitants of Easter Island know nothing of the construction of these remarkable works; and the entire subject of their existence in this small and remote island is a mystery.
EASTERN BENGAL AND ASSAM, a province of British India, which was constituted out of Assam and the eastern portion of Bengal on the 16th of October 1905. Area 111,569 sq. m.; pop. (1901) 30,961,459. It is situated between 20° 45′ and 28° 17′ N., and between 87° 48′ and 97° 5′ E. The province, as thus reconstituted, consists of the Bengal districts of Dacca, Mymensingh, Faridpur, Backergunje, Tippera, Noakhali, Chittagong, Chittagong Hill Tracts, Rajshahi, Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri, Rangpur, Bogra, Pabna, Malda, and the native states of Kuch Behar and Hill Tippera; and the whole of the former area of Assam consisting of the districts of Goalpara, Kamrup, Darrang, Nowgong, Sibsagar, Lakhimpur, Sylhet, Cachar, Garo Hills, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Naga Hills and Lushai Hills. It is bounded on the N. by Bhutan, on the W. by Burma, on the S. by Burma and the Bay of Bengal, and on the E. by Bengal. The line of demarcation between Bengal and the new province begins at the frontier of Bhutan, east of Darjeeling, runs south-west to Sahibganj on the Ganges and thence follows the course of the Ganges down to the deltaic branch, called the Haringhata, which leaves the main stream above Goalanda, and the course of the latter, which runs south into the Bay of Bengal. The capital of the province is Dacca, and its chief port is Chittagong.
The Bengal districts which were transferred to Eastern Bengal and Assam comprised northern and eastern Bengal, the most prosperous and least overcrowded portion of Bengal. The land there is less densely populated, wages are higher and food cheaper, and the rainfall more copious and more regular, while the staple crops of jute, tobacco and rice command a higher price relative to the rent of the land than in Behar or other parts of Bengal. The population are largely Mahommedans and of a more virile stock than the Bengali proper. Northern Bengal corresponds almost exactly with the Rajshahi division and lies within the boundaries of the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. It contains much high land of a stiff red clay, with an undulating surface covered for the most part with scrub jungle. The inhabitants are Indo-Chinese, not Indo-Aryans as in Bengal proper, and are Mahommedan by religion instead of Hindu. Eastern Bengal consists of the Dacca and Chittagong divisions which are mainly Bengali in race and Hindu in religion. For the Assamese districts seeAssam. The province as a whole contains 18,036,688 Mahommedans and 12,036,538 Hindus. In language 27,272,895 of the inhabitants speak Bengali, 1,349,784 speak Assamese, and the remainder Hindi and various hill dialects, Manipuri, Bodo, Khasi and Garo. The administration is in the hands of a lieutenant-governor, assisted by a legislative council of fifteen members. Under him are five commissioners, and financial matters are regulated by a board of revenue consisting of two members.
The constitution of the new province arose out of the fact that Bengal had grown too unwieldy for the administration of a single lieutenant-governor. In 1868 Sir Stafford Northcote drew attention to the greatly augmented demands that the outlying portions of Bengal made on the time and labour of the government. At that time the population of the province was between 40 and 50 millions, and the question was left in abeyance until 1903, when the population had risen to 78½ millions. In the meantime the importance of rendering Assam a self-contained and independent administration with a service of its own, and of providing for its future commercial expansion, had arisen. These two considerations led Lord Curzon to propose that Bengal should be lopped of territory both on its eastern and western borders, and that all the districts east of the Brahmaputra should be constituted into a separate province. This proposal was bitterly opposed by the Hindus of Bengal on the ground that it would destroy the unity of the Bengali race; and their agitation was associated with theSwadeshi(own country) movement for the boycott of British goods.
After the constitution of the province in October 1905, the agitation in Eastern Bengal increased. Public meetings of protest were held, vernacular broadsheets containing scandalousattacks on the British authorities were circulated, schoolboys and others were organized and drilled as so-called “national volunteers,” and employed as pickets to prevent the sale of British goods. Such was the state of things when Sir J. Bampfylde Fuller entered on his office as first lieutenant-governor of Eastern Bengal in January 1906. His reception was ominous. Representative bodies that were dominated by Hindus refused to vote the usual addresses of welcome, and non-official Hindus abstained from paying the customary calls. There were, however, no further overt signs of objection to the lieutenant-governor personally, and after a month or two—in spite of, or perhaps because of, his efforts to restrain sedition and to keep discipline in the schools—there was a decided change in the attitude of Hindu opinion. At Dacca, in July, for instance, the reception at Government House was attended by large numbers of Bengali gentlemen, who assured the lieutenant-governor that “the trouble was nearly ended.” The agitation was, in fact, largely artificial, the work of Calcutta lawyers, journalists and schoolmasters; the mass of the people, naturally law-abiding, was unmoved by it so long as the government showed a firm hand; while the Mussulmans, who formed a large proportion of the whole, saw in the maintenance of the partition and of the prestige of the British government the guarantees of their own security.
All seemed to be going well when an unfortunate difference of opinion occurred between the lieutenant-governor and the central government, resulting in the resignation of Sir Bampfylde Fuller (August 1906) and in ulterior consequences destined to be of far-reaching import. The facts are briefly as follows. Acting on a report of Dr P. Chatterji, inspector of schools, dated January 2, 1906, the lieutenant-governor, on the 10th of February, addressed a letter to the registrar of Calcutta University recommending that the privilege of affiliation to the university should be withdrawn from the Banwarilal and Victoria high schools at Sirajganj in Pabna, as a punishment for the seditious conduct of both pupils and teachers. Apart from numerous cases of illegal interference with trade and of disorder in the streets reported against the students, two specific outrages of a serious character were instanced as having occurred on the 15th of November: the raiding of a cart laden with English cloth belonging to Marwari traders, and a cowardly assault by some 40 or 50 lads on the English manager of the Bank of Bengal. These outrages “were not the result of thoughtlessness or sudden excitement, but were the outcome of a regularly organized scheme, set on foot and guided by the masters of these schools, for employing the students in enforcing a boycott.” All attempts to discover and punish the offenders had been frustrated by the refusal of the school authorities to take action, and in the opinion of the lieutenant-governor the only course open was to apply the remedy suggested in the circular letter addressed to magistrates and collectors (October 10, 1905) by Mr R.W. Carlyle, the officiating chief secretary to the government of Bengal, directing them, in the event of students taking any part in political agitation, boycotting and the like, to inform the heads of schools or colleges concerned that, unless they prevented such action being taken by the boys attending their institutions, their grant-in-aid and the privilege of competing for scholarships and of receiving scholarship-holders would be withdrawn, and that the university would be asked to disaffiliate their institutions.
The reply, dated July 5th, from the secretary in the home department of the government of India, was—to use Sir Bampfylde’s own later expression—to throw him over. It was likely that a difference of opinion in the syndicate of the university would arise as to the degree of culpability that attached to the proprietors of the schools; in the event of the syndicate taking any “punitive action,” the matter was certain to be raised in the senate, and would lead to an acrimonious public discussion, in which the partition of Bengal and the administration of the new province would be violently attacked; and in the actual state of public opinion in Bengal it seemed to the government of India highly inexpedient that such a debate should take place. “Collective punishment,” too, “would be liable to be misconstrued in England,” and the government preferred to rely on the gradual effect of the new university regulations, which aimed “at discouraging the participation of students in political movements by enforcing the responsibility of masters and the managing committees of schools for maintaining discipline.”
On receipt of this communication Sir Bampfylde Fuller at once tendered his resignation to the viceroy (July 15). He pointed out that to withdraw from the position taken up would be “concession, not in the interests of education, but to those people in Calcutta who have been striving to render my government impossible, in order to discredit the partition”; that previous concessions had had merely provocative effects, and that were he to give way in this matter his authority would be so weakened that he would be unable to maintain order in the country. On the 3rd of August, after some days of deliberation, the viceroy telegraphed saying that he was “unable to reconsider the orders sent,” and accepting Sir Bampfylde’s resignation. By the Anglo-Indian press the news was received with something like consternation, theTimes of Indiadescribing the resignation as one of the gravest blunders ever committed in the history of British rule in India, and as a direct incentive to the forces of disquiet, disturbance and unrest. Equally emphatic was the verdict of the Mussulman community forming two-thirds of the population of Eastern Bengal. On the 7th of August, the day of Sir Bampfylde Fuller’s departure from Dacca, a mass-meeting of 30,000 Mahommedans was held, which placed on record their disapproval of a system of government “which maintains no continuity of policy,” and expressed its feeling that the lowering of British prestige must “alienate the sympathy of a numerically important and loyal section of His Majesty’s subjects”; and many meetings of Mussulmans subsequently passed resolutions to the same general effect. TheAkhbar-i-Islam, the organ of Bombay Mussulman opinion, deplored the “unwise step” taken by the government, and ascribed it to Lord Minto’s fear of the Babu press, a display of weakness of which the Babus would not be slow to take advantage.
This latter prophecy was not slow in fulfilling itself. So early as the 8th of August Calcutta was the scene of several large demonstrations at which the Swadeshi vow was renewed, and at which resolutions were passed declining to accept the partition as a settled fact, and resolving on the continuance of the agitation. The tone of the Babu press was openly exultant: “We have read the familiar story of the Russian traveller and the wolves,” said a leading Indian newspaper in Calcutta. “The British government follows a similar policy. First the little babies were offered up in the shape of theBande Mataramcircular and the Carlyle circular. Now a bigger boy has gone in the person of our own Joseph. Courage, therefore, O wolves! Press on and the horse will soon be yours to devour! Afterwards the traveller himself will alone be left.”1The task before the new lieutenant-governor of Eastern Bengal, the Hon. L. Hare, was obviously no easy one. The encouragement given to sedition by the weakness of the government in this case was shown by later events in Bengal and elsewhere (seeIndia:History, ad fin.).
For the early history of the various portions of the province seeBengalandAssam.