Chapter 21

The subject matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Russia during the whole patriarchal period included matrimonial and testamentary causes, inheritance and sacrilege, and many questions concerning the Church domains and Church property, as well as spiritual offences of clergy and laity (ib.). The bishops had consistorial courts; the patriarchs, chanceries and consistories (ib.). Bishops were judged in synod (see,e.g.the case of the archbishop of Polotsk in 1622,ib.p. 179) and only lawfully judged in synod (ib.p. 215).

Clerks and the dependants of the metropolitan (afterwards the patriarch) appear to have been immune from secular jurisdiction, except in the case of crimes against life, from the time of Ivan the Terrible (ib.pp. 180-181). The tsar Michael, in the earlier 17th century, confirmed these immunities in the case of the clergy of the patriarch’s own diocese, but provided that in country places belonging to his diocese, monasteries, churches and lands should be judged in secular matters by the Court of the Great Palace, theoretically held before the tsar himself (ib.p. 181). This tsar limited the “peculiar” monasteries to three, and gave the patriarch jurisdiction over them (ib.). The next tsar, Alexis, however, by his code instituted a “Monastery Court,” which was a secular tribunal composed of laymen, to judge in civil suits against spiritual persons, and in matters arising out of their manors and properties (ib.p. 193). This court was not in operation during the time when the patriarch Nikon was also in effect first minister; but upon his decline exercised its full jurisdiction (ib.p. 216). Nikon was himself tried for abdicating his see, causing disorder in the realm, oppression and violence, first before a synod of Moscow composed of his suffragans and some Greek bishops, and afterwards before another synod in which sat the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, the metropolitans of Servia and Georgia, the archbishops of Sinai and Wallachia, and the metropolitans of Nice, Amasis, Iconium, Trebizond, Varna and Scio, besides the Russian bishops. This synod in 1667 deposed Nikon, degraded him from holy orders, and sentenced him to perpetual penance in a monastery (ib.pp. 220-232). The next tsar, Theodore,suppressed the secular “monastery court,” and directed that all suits against spiritual persons should proceed only in the patriarchal “court of requests” (ib.p. 264). There was, however, a species ofappel comme d’abus. Causes could be evoked to the tsar himself, “when any partiality of the judges in any affair in which they themselves were interested was discovered” (ib.).

The old system was swept away by Peter the Great, who settled ecclesiastical jurisdiction substantially on its present basis. The patriarchate was abolished and its jurisdiction transferred by a council at St Petersburg in 1721 to a Holy Governing Synod. The change was approved by the four patriarchs of the East in 1723 (ib.chs. xv.-xvii.). Peter permanently transferred to the secularforumthe testamentary jurisdiction and that concerning inheritance, as also questions of “sacrilege” (ib.p. 264). As the result of a long series of legislation, beginning with him and ending with Catherine II., all church property of every kind was transferred to secular administration, allowances, according to fixed scales, being made for ministers, monks and fabrics (op. cit.translator’s appendix i. p. 413 et seq.). There remain to the spiritual courts in Russia the purely ecclesiastical discipline of clerks and laity and matrimonial causes.

The court of first instance is the “consistorial court” of the bishop. This consists of a small body of ecclesiastics. Its decisions must be confirmed by the bishop (op. cit.translator’s appendix ii. pp. 422-423). In the more important causes, as divorce (i.e.a vinculo), it only gives a provisional decision, which is reported by the bishop, with his own opinion, for final judgment, to the Most Holy Governing Synod.

The governing synod is the final court of appeal. It consists of a small number of bishops and priests nominated by the tsar, and is assisted by a “procurator,” who is a layman, who explains to it the limits of its jurisdiction and serves as the medium of communication between it and the autocrat and secular authorities. It deals with the secular crimes of spiritual persons, if of importance and if not capital (these last being reserved for the secular forum), and with heresy and schism. It is the only court which can try bishops or decree divorce. The tsar formally confirms its judgments; but sometimes reduces penalties in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy (see Mouravieff,op. cit.ch. xvii. translator’s app. ii.).

The governing synod now sits at St Petersburg, but appoints delegated commissions, with a portion of its jurisdiction, in Moscow and Georgia. The latter commission is presided over by the “exarch” (supra).

Since the War of Independence, the kingdom of Greece has been ecclesiastically organized after the model of Russia, as one autocephalous “province,” separated from its old patriarchate of Constantinople, with an honorary metropolitan and honorary archbishops (Neale,op. cit.Gen. Introd. vol. i.). The Holy Synod possesses the metropolitical jurisdiction. It sits at Athens. The metropolitan of Athens is president, and there are four other members appointed by the government in annual rotation from the senior bishops. There is attached to it a government commissioner, with no vote, but affixing his signature to the synodical judgments (Joyce,op. cit.p. 35).

The subject matter of the jurisdiction of Hellenic courts Christian seems to be confined to strictly spiritual discipline, mainly in regard to the professional misconduct of the clergy. Imprisonment may be inflicted in these last cases (ib.). All matrimonial causes are heard by the secular tribunals (Lehr,op. cit.sec. 587).

The bishop’s consistorial court, consisting of himself and four priests, has a limited jurisdiction in first instance. Such a court can only suspend for seven days unless with the sanction of the Holy Synod (Joyce,op. cit.).

The Holy Synod can only inflict temporary suspension, or imprisonment for fifteen days, unless with the sanction of the King’s ministry. Deprivation, or imprisonment for more than two months, requires the approval of the king (ib.). The king or the ministry do not, however, rehear the cause by way of appeal, but merely restrain severity of sentence (ib.).

The Church of Cyprus has been autocephalous since at any rate the oecumenical synod of Ephesus in 431. The episcopate now consists of an archbishop and three suffragans (Hackett,Orthodox Church in Cyprus, 1901, ch. v.et passim). The final court is the island synod, which consists of the archbishop, his suffragans and four dignified priests. It has original and exclusive cognizance of causes of deposition of bishops (op. cit.pp. 260, 262).

Each bishop is assisted by at least two officers with judicial or quasi-judicial powers, the “archimandrite” who adjudicates upon causes of revenue and the archdeacon who adjudicates on questions between deacons (op. cit.pp. 272-273). The “exarch” of the archbishop, who is a dignitary but not a bishop, has a seat in the provincial synod.

In the Balkan States, the system—inherited from Byzantine and Turkish times—of ecclesiastical jurisdictions prevails, except that they are now autocephalous, and independent of the patriarch of Constantinople. Matrimonial causes in Servia are of ecclesiastical cognizance (Lehr,op. cit.sect. 901).

Authorities.—St Augustine,Epistles;Codex Theodosianus, edited by Th. Mommsen and P.M. Meyer (1905);Code and Novells of Emperor Justinian, ed. J. Gothofredus (1665); T. Balsamon, “In Conc. Ancyr.” in theCorpus juris canonici(1879-1881); “Hostiensis”Super Decretum; W. Lyndwood,Provinciale(Oxford, 1679); Sir A. Fitzherbert,Natura brevium(1534); Sir T. Ridley,View of the Civile and Ecclesiastical Law(1607); J. Ayliffe,Parergon juris ecclesiastici(1726); J. Godolphin,Abridgement of the Laws Ecclesiastical(London, 1687); E. Gibson,Codex juris ecclesiastici(Oxford, 1761); D. Covarruvias,Opera omnia(Antwerp, 1638); Jean Hardouin,Concilia(1715); J.D. Mansi,Concilia(1759-1798); E. Stillingfleet,Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction(1704); L.S. le Nain de Tillemont,Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique(1701-1712); P.T. Durand de Maillane,Dictionnaire du droit canonique(1761);Dictionnaire ecclésiastique et canonique, par une société de religieux (Paris, 1765); Z.B. van Espen,Jus ecclesiasticum universum(Louvain, 1720),De recursu ad Principem, observationes in Concilium Lateranense iv.; L. Thomassin,Vetus et nova disciplina ecc.(1705-1706); W. Beveridge,Synodicon(Oxford, 1672); J.A.S. da Carnota,Life of Pombal(1843); J.P. Migne,Dictionnaire de droit canon.(Paris, 1844); R. Keith,History of the Scottish Bishops(Edinburgh, 1824); P.N. Vives y Cebriá,Usages y demas derechos de Cataluña(1832); C.A. Cornelius,Svenska Kyrkaus Historia(Upsala, 1875); Mouravieff,History of the Russian Church(trans. Blackmore, 1842); Ffoulkes,Manual of Ecclesiastical History(1851); E.H. Landon,Manual of Councils of the Church(1893); W.H. Hale,Precedents in Criminal Cases(London, 1847); E.B. Pusey,Councils of the Church(Oxford, 1857); C.J. von Hefele,Conciliengeschichte(Freiburg, 1855-1890); M. Gaudry,Traité de la législation des cultes(Paris, 1854); W. Stubbs,Select Charters(Oxford, 1895); A.W. Haddan and W. Stubbs,Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents(Oxford, 1869); A.J. Stephens,Ecclesiastical Statutes(1845); H.C. Rothery,Return of Cases before Delegates(1864); J.W. Joyce,The Sword and the Keys(2nd ed., 1881);Report of Ecclesiastical Courts Commission(1888); P. Fournier,Les Officialités au moyen âge(1880); S.B. Smith,Elements of Ecclesiastical Law(New York, 1889-1890); S. Sanguineti,Juris ecc. inst.(Rome, 1890); J.F. Stephen,History of the Criminal Law of England(London, 1883); Pollock and Maitland,History of English Law before Edward I.(1898); F.W. Maitland,Roman Canon Law in the Church of England(1898); R. Owen,Canon Law(1884); Sir R.J. Phillimore,Ecclesiastical Law(2nd ed., 1895); J.W. Brodie-Innes,Comparative Principles of the Laws of England and Scotland(1903); R.B. Merriman,Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell(1902); S. Aichner,Compendium juris ecclesiast.(8th ed., Brixen, 1905, especially in regard to Austro-Hungarian Empire); J. Hackett,History of the Orthodox Church in Cyprus(1901); Tauber,Manuale juris canonici(1906); E.L. Taunton,Law of the Church(London, 1906);Report of Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline(1906).

(W. G. F. P.)

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW,in its broadest sense, the sum of the authoritative rules governing the Christian Church, whether in its internal polity or in its relations with the secular power. Since there are various churches, widely differing alike in their principles and practice, it follows that a like difference exists in their ecclesiastical law, which is the outcome of their corporate consciousness as modified by their several relations to the secular authority. At the outset a distinction must be made between churches which are “established” and those that are “free.” The ecclesiastical laws of the latter are, like the rules of a private society or club, the concern of the members of the church only, and come under the purview of the state only in so far as they come in conflict with the secular law (e.g.polygamy among the Mormons, or violation of the trust-deeds under whichthe property of a church is held). In the case of “established” Churches, on the other hand, whatever the varying principle on which the system is based, or the difference in its practical application, the essential conditions are that the ecclesiastical law is also the law of the land, the decisions of the church courts being enforced by the civil power. This holds good both of the Roman Catholic Church, wherever this is recognized as the “state religion,” of the Oriental Churches, whether closely identified with the state itself (as in Russia), or endowed with powers over particular nationalities within the state (as in the Ottoman empire), and of the various Protestant Churches established in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe.

Writers on the theory of ecclesiastical law, moreover, draw a fundamental distinction between that of the Church of Rome and that of the Protestant national or territorial Churches. This distinction is due to the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to be theonlyChurch, her laws being thus of universal obligation; whereas the laws of the various established Protestant Churches are valid—at least so far as legal obligation is concerned—only within the limits of the countries in which they are established. The practical effects of this distinction have been, and still are, of enormous importance. The Roman Catholic Church, even when recognized as the state religion, is nowhere “established” in the sense of being identified with the state, but is rather animperium in imperiowhich negotiates on equal terms with the state, the results being embodied in concordats (q.v.) between the state and the pope as head of the Church. The concordats are of the nature of truces in the perennial conflict between the spiritual and secular powers, and imply in principle no surrender of the claims of the one to those of the other. Where the Roman Catholic Church is not recognized as a state religion, as in the United States or in the British Islands, she is in the position of a “free Church,” her jurisdiction is onlyin foro conscientiae, and her ecclesiastical laws have no validity from the point of view of the state. On the other hand, the root principle of the ecclesiastical law of the established Protestant Churches is the rejection of alien jurisdiction and the assertion of the supremacy of the state. The theory underlying this may vary. The sovereign may be regarded, as in the case of the Russian emperor or of the English kings from the Reformation to the Revolution, as the vicar of God in all causes spiritual as well as temporal within his realm. As the first fervent belief in the divine right of kings faded, however, a new basis had to be discovered for a relation between the spiritual and temporal powers against which Rome had never ceased to protest. This was found in the so-called “collegial” theory of Church government (Kollegialsystem), which assumed a sort of tacit concordat between the state and the religious community, by which the latter vests in the former the right to exercise a certain part of thejus in sacraproperly inherent in the Church (seePufendorf, Samuel). This had great and lasting effects on the development of the theory of Protestant ecclesiastical law on the continent of Europe. In England, on the other hand, owing to the peculiar character of the Reformation there and of the Church that was its outcome, no theory of the ecclesiastical law is conceivable that would be satisfactory at once to lawyers and to all schools of opinion within the Church. This has been abundantly proved by the attitude of increasing opposition assumed by the clergy, under the influence of the Tractarian movement, towards the civil power in matters ecclesiastical, an attitude impossible to justify on any accepted theory of the Establishment (see below).

Protestant ecclesiastical law, then, is distinguished from that of the Roman Catholic Church (1) by being more limited in its scope, (2) by having for its authoritative source, not the Church only or even mainly, but the Church in more or less complete union with or subordination to the State, the latter being considered, equally with the Church, as an organ of the will of God. The ecclesiastical law of the Church of Rome, on the other hand, whatever its origin, is now valid only in so far as it has the sanction of the authority of the Holy See. And here it must be noted that the “canon law” is not identical with the “ecclesiastical law” of the Roman Catholic Church. By the canon law is meant, substantially, the contents of theCorpus juris canonici, which have been largely superseded or added to by,e.g.the canons of the council of Trent and the Vatican decrees. The long projected codification of the whole of the ecclesiastical law of the Church of Rome, a work of gigantic labour, was not taken in hand until the pontificate of Pius X. (See alsoCanon LawandEcclesiastical Jurisdiction.)

The ecclesiastical law of England is in complete dependence upon the authority of the state. The Church of England cannot be said, from a legal point of view, to have a corporate existence or even a representative assembly. The Convocation of York and the Convocation of Canterbury are provincial assemblies possessing no legislative or judicial authority; even such purely ecclesiastical questions as may be formally commended to their attention by “letters of business” from the crown can only be finally settled by act of parliament. The ecclesiastical courts are for the most part officered by laymen, whose subordination to the archbishops and bishops is purely formal, and the final court of appeal is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In like manner changes in the ecclesiastical law are made directly by parliament in the ordinary course of legislation, and in point of fact a very large portion of the existing ecclesiastical law consists of acts of parliament.

The sources of the ecclesiastical law of England are thus described by Dr. Richard Burn (The Ecclesiastical Law, 9th ed., 1842):—“The ecclesiastical law of England is compounded of these four main ingredients—the civil law, the canon law, the common law, and the statute law. And from these, digested in their proper rank and subordination, to draw out one uniform law of the church is the purport of this book. When these laws do interfere and cross each other, the order of preference is this:—’The civil law submitteth to the canon law; both of these to the common law; and all three to the statute law. So that from any one or more of these, without all of them together, or from all of them together without attending to their comparative obligation, it is not possible to exhibit any distinct prospect of the English ecclesiastical constitution.’ Under the head of statute law Burn includes ‘the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, agreed upon in Convocation in the year 1562; and in like manner the Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, which, being both of them established by Acts of Parliament, are to be esteemed as part of the statute law.’”

The first principle of the ecclesiastical law in England is the assertion of the supremacy of the crown, which in the present state of the constitution means the same thing as the supremacy of parliament. This principle has been maintained ever since the Reformation. Before the Reformation the ecclesiastical supremacy of the pope was recognized, with certain limitations, in England, and the Church itself had some pretensions to ecclesiastical freedom. The freedom of the Church is, in fact, one of the standing provisions of those charters on which the English constitution was based. The first provision of Magna Carta isquod ecclesia Anglicana libera sit. By the various enactments of the period of the Reformation the whole constitutional position of the Church, not merely with reference to the pope but with reference to the state, was definitely fixed. The legislative power of convocation was held to extend to the clergy only, and even to that extent required the sanction and assent of the crown. The common law courts controlled the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, claiming to have “the exposition of such statutes or acts of parliament as concern either the extent of the jurisdiction of these courts or the matters depending before them. And therefore if these courts either refuse to allow these acts of parliament, or expound them in any other sense than is truly and properly the exposition of them, the king’s great courts of common law may prohibit and control them.”

The design of constructing a code of ecclesiastical laws was entertained during the period of the Reformation, but never carried into effect. It is alluded to in various statutes of the reign of Henry VIII., who obtained power to appoint a commission to examine the old ecclesiastical laws, with a view of deciding which ought to be kept and which ought to be abolished;and in the meantime it was enacted that “such canons, institutions, ordinances, synodal or provincial or other ecclesiastical laws or jurisdictions spiritual as be yet accustomed and used here in the Church of England, which necessarily and conveniently are requisite to be put in ure and execution for the time, not being repugnant, contrarient, or derogatory to the laws or statutes of the realm, nor to the prerogatives of the royal crown of the same, or any of them, shall be occupied, exercised, and put in ure for the time with this realm” (35 Henry VIII. c. 16, 25 c. 19, 27 c. 8).

The work was actually undertaken and finished in the reign of Edward VI. by a sub-committee of eight persons, under the name of theReformatio legum ecclesiasticarum, which, however, never obtained the royal assent. Although the powers of the 25 Henry VIII. c. 1 were revived by the 1 Elizabeth c. 1, the scheme was never executed, and the ecclesiastical laws remained on the footing assigned to them in that statute—so much of the old ecclesiastical laws might be used as had been actually in use, and was not repugnant to the laws of the realm.

The statement is, indeed, made by Sir R. Phillimore (Ecclesiastical Law, 2nd ed., 1895) that the “Church of England has at all times, before and since the Reformation, claimed the right of an independent Church in an independent kingdom, to be governed by the laws which she has deemed it expedient to adopt.” This position can only be accepted if it is confined, as the authorities cited for it are confined, to the resistance of interference from abroad. If it mean that the Church, as distinguished from the kingdom, has claimed to be governed by laws of her own making, all that can be said is that the claim has been singularly unsuccessful. From the time of the Reformation no change has been made in the law of the Church which has not been made by the king and parliament, sometimes indirectly, as by confirming the resolutions of convocation, but for the most part by statute. The list of statutes cited in Sir R. Phillimore’sEcclesiastical Lawfills eleven pages. It is only by a kind of legal fiction akin to the “collegial” theory mentioned above, that the Church can be said to have deemed it expedient to adopt these laws.

The terms on which the Church Establishment of Ireland was abolished, by the Irish Council Act of 1869, may be mentioned. By sect. 20 the present ecclesiastical law was made binding on the members for the time being of the Church, “as if they had mutually contracted and agreed to abide by and observe the same”; and by section 21 it was enacted that the ecclesiastical courts should cease after the 1st of January 1871, and that the ecclesiastical laws of Ireland, except so far as relates to matrimonial causes and matters, should cease to exist as law. (See alsoEngland, Church of;Establishment; &c.)

Authorities.—The number of works on ecclesiastical law is very great, and it must suffice here to mention a few of the more conspicuous modern ones: Ferdinand Walter,Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller christlichen Konfessionen(14th ed., Bonn, 1871); G. Phillips,Kirchenrecht, Bde. i.-vii. (Regensburg, 1845-1872) incomplete; the text-book by Cardinal Hergenröther (q.v.); P. Hinschius,Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland, 6 Bde. (Berlin, 1869 sqq.), only the Catholic part, a masterly and detailed survey of the ecclesiastical law, finished; Sir Robert Phillimore,Eccl. Law of the Church of England(2nd ed., edited by Sir Walter Phillimore, 2 vols., London, 1895). For further references seeCanon Law, and the article “Kirchenrecht” in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopädie(ed. Leipzig, 1901).

ECCLESIASTICUS(abbreviated toEcclus.), the alternative title given in the English Bible to the apocryphal book otherwise called “The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach.” The Latin wordecclesiasticusis, properly speaking, not a name, but an epithet meaning “churchly,” so that it would serve as a designation of any book which was read in church or received ecclesiastical sanction, but in practice Ecclesiasticus has become a by-name for the Wisdom of Sirach. The true name of the book appears in the authorities in a variety of forms, the variation affecting both the author’s name and the description of his book. The writer’s full name is given in l. 27 (Heb. text) as “Simeon the son of Jeshua (i.e.Jesus) the son of Eleazar the son of Sira.” In the Greek text this name appears as “Jesus son of Sirach Eleazar” (probably a corruption of the Hebrew reading), and the epithet “of Jerusalem” is added, the translator himself being resident in Egypt. The whole name is shortened sometimes to “Son of Sira,”Ben Sirain Hebrew,Bar Sirain Aramaic, and sometimes (as in the title prefixed in the Greek cod. B) toSirach. The work is variously described as theWords(Heb. text), theBook(Talmud), theProverbs(Jerome), or theWisdomof the son of Sira (or Sirach).

Of the date of the book we have only one certain indication. It was translated by a person who says that he “came into Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes the king” (Ptolemy VII.),i.e.in 132B.C., and that he executed the work some time later. The translator believed that the writer of the original was his own grandfather (or ancestor,πάππος). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the book was composed not later than the first half of the 2nd centuryB.C., or (if we give the looser meaning toπάππος) even before the beginning of the century. Arguments for a pre-Maccabean date may be derived (a) from the fact that the book contains apparently no reference to the Maccabean struggles, (b) from the eulogy of the priestly house of Zadok which fell into disrepute during these wars for independence.

In the Jewish Church Ecclesiasticus hovered on the border of the canon; in the Christian Church it crossed and recrossed the border. The book contains much which attracted and also much which repelled Jewish feeling, and it appears that it was necessary to pronounce against its canonicity. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100 b) Rabbi Joseph says that it is forbidden to read (i.e.in the synagogue) the book of ben Sira, and further that “if our masters had not hidden the book (i.e.declared it uncanonical), we might interpret the good things which are in it” (Schechter,J. Q. Review, iii. 691-692). In the Christian Church it was largely used by Clement of Alexandria (c.A.D.200) and by St Augustine. The lists of the Hebrew canon, however, given by Melito (c.A.D.180) and by Origen (c.A.D.230) rightly exclude Ecclesiasticus, and Jerome (c.A.D.390-400) writes: “Let the Church read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the instruction of the people, not for establishing the authority of the dogmas of the Church” (Praefatio in libros Salomonis). In the chief MS. of the Septuagint, cod. B, Ecclesiasticus comes between Wisdom and Esther, no distinction being drawn between canonical and uncanonical. In the Vulgate it immediately precedes Isaiah. The council of Trent declared this book and the rest of the books reckoned in the Thirty-nine Articles as apocryphal to be canonical.

The text of the book raises intricate problems which are still far from solution. The original Hebrew (rediscovered in fragments and published between 1896 and 1900) has come down to us in a mutilated and corrupt form. The beginning as far as iii. 7 is lost. There is a gap from xvi. 26 to xxx. 11. There are marginal readings which show that two different recensions existed once in Hebrew. The Greek version exists in two forms—(a) that preserved in cod. B and in the other uncial MSS., (b) that preserved in the cursive codex 248 (Holmes and Parsons). The former has a somewhat briefer text, the latter agrees more closely with the Hebrew text. The majority of Greek cursives agree generally with the Latin Vulgate, and offer the fuller text in a corrupt form. The Syriac (Peshitta) version is paraphrastic, but on the whole it follows the Hebrew text. Owing to the mutilation of the Hebrew by the accidents of time the Greek version retains its place as the chief authority for the text, and references by chapter and verse are usually made to it.

Bickell and D.S. Margoliouth have supposed that the Hebrew text preserved in the fragments is not original, but a retranslation from the Greek or the Syriac or both. This view has not commended itself to the majority of scholars, but there is at least a residuum of truth in it. The Hebrew text, as we have it, has a history of progressive corruption behind it, and its readings can often be emended from the Septuagint,e.g.xxxvii. 11 (readומירא עלfor the meaninglessומרר אל). The Hebrew marginal readings occasionally seem to be translations from the Greek or Syriac,e.g.xxxviii. 4 (ברא שמיםforἒκτισεν φάρμακα). More frequently, however, strange readings of the Greek and Syriacare to be explained as corruptions of our present Hebrew. Substantially our Hebrew must be pronounced original.

The restoration of a satisfactory text is beyond our hopes. Even before the Christian era the book existed in two recensions, for we cannot doubt, after reading the Greek translator’s preface, that the translator amplified and paraphrased the text before him. It is probable that at least one considerable omission must be laid to his charge, for the hymn preserved in the Hebrew text after ch. li. 12 is almost certainly original. Ancient translators allowed themselves much liberty in their work, and Ecclesiasticus possessed no reputation for canonicity in the 2nd centuryB.C.to serve as a protection for its text. Much, however, may be done towards improving two of the recensions which now lie before us. The incomplete Hebrew text exists in four different MSS., and the study of the peculiarities of these had already proved fruitful. The Syriac text, made without doubt from the Hebrew, though often paraphrastic is often suggestive. The Greek translation, made within a century or half-century of the writing of the book, must possess great value for the criticism of the Hebrew text. The work of restoring true Hebrew readings may proceed with more confidence now that we have considerable portions of the Hebrew text to serve as a model. For the restoration of the Greek text we have, besides many Greek MSS., uncial and cursive, the old Latin, the Syro-Hexaplar, the Armenian, Sahidic and Ethiopic versions, as well as a considerable number of quotations in the Greek and Latin Fathers. Each of the two recensions of the Greek must, however, be separately studied, before any restoration of the original Greek text can be attempted.

The uncertainty of the text has affected both English versions unfavourably. The Authorized Version, following the corrupt cursives, is often wrong. The Revised Version, on the other hand, in following the uncial MSS. sometimes departs from the Hebrew, while the Authorized Version with the cursives agrees with it. Thus the Revised Version (with codd.א*, A, B, C) omits the whole of iii. 19, which the Authorized Version retains, but for the clause, “Mysteries are revealed unto the meek,” the Authorized Version has the support of the Hebrew, Syriac and cod. 248. Sometimes both versions go astray in places in which the Hebrew text recommends itself as original by its vigour;e.g.in vii. 26, where the Hebrew is,

Hast thou a wife? abominate her not.Hast thou a hated wife? trust not in her.

Hast thou a wife? abominate her not.

Hast thou a hated wife? trust not in her.

Again in ch. xxxviii. the Hebrew text in at least two interesting passages shows its superiority over the text which underlies both English versions.

In the second instance, while the Hebrew says that the man who rebels against his Heavenly Benefactor willa fortiorirebel against a human benefactor, the Greek text gives a cynical turn to the verse, “Let the man who rebels against his true benefactor be punished through the tender mercies of a quack.” The Hebrew text is probably superior also in xliv. 1, the opening words of the eulogy of the Fathers: “Let me now praise favoured men,”i.e.men in whom God’s grace was shown. The Hebrew phrase is “men of grace,” as in v. 10. The Greek text ofv.1, “famous men,” seems to be nothing but a loose paraphrase, suggested byv.2, “The Lord manifested in them great glory.”

In character and contents Ecclesiasticus resembles the book of Proverbs. It consists mainly of maxims which may be described in turn as moral, utilitarian and secular. Occasionally the author attacks prevalent religious opinions,e.g.the denial of free-will (xv. 11-20), or the assertion of God’s indifference towards men’s actions (xxxv. 12-19). Occasionally, again, Ben Sira touches the highest themes, and speaks of the nature of God: “He is All” (xliii. 27); “He is One from everlasting” (xlii. 21, Heb. text); “The mercy of the Lord is upon all flesh” (xviii. 13). Though the book is imitative and secondary in character it contains several passages of force and beauty,e.g.ch. ii. (how to fear the Lord); xv. 11-20 (on free-will); xxiv. 1-22 (the song of wisdom); xlii. 15-25 (praise of the works of the Lord); xliv. 1-15 (the well-known praise of famous men). Many detached sayings scattered throughout the book show a depth of insight, or a practical shrewdness, or again a power of concise speech, which stamps them on the memory. A few examples out of many may be cited. “Call no man blessed before his death” (xi. 28); “He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled” (xiii. 1); “He hath not given any man licence to sin” (xv. 20); “Man cherisheth anger against man; and doth he seek healing from the Lord?” (xxviii. 3); “Mercy is seasonable ... as clouds of rain” (xxxv. 20); “All things are double one against another: and he hath made nothing imperfect” (xlii. 24, the motto of Butler’sAnalogy); “Work your work before the time cometh, and in his time he will give you your reward” (li. 30). In spite, however, of the words just quoted it cannot be said that Ben Sira preaches a hopeful religion. Though he prays, “Renew thy signs, and repeat thy wonders ... Fill Sion with thy majesty and thy Temple with thy glory” (xxxvi. 6, 14 [19], Heb. text), he does not look for a Messiah. Of the resurrection of the dead or of the immortality of the soul there is no word, not even in xli. 1-4, where the author exhorts men not to fear death. Like the Psalmist (Ps. lxxxviii. 10, 11) he asks, “Who shall give praise to the Most High in the grave?” In his maxims of life he shows a somewhat frigid and narrow mind. He is a pessimist as regards women; “From a woman was the beginning of sin; and because of her we all die” (xxv. 24). He does not believe in home-spun wisdom; “How shall he become wise that holdeth the plough?” (xxxviii. 25). Artificers are not expected to pray like the wise man; “In the handywork of their craft is their prayer” (v.34). Merchants are expected to cheat; “Sin will thrust itself in between buying and selling” (xxvii. 2).

Bibliography.—The literature of Ecclesiaticus has grown very considerably since the discovery of the first Hebrew fragment in 1896. A useful summary of it is found at the end of Israel Levi’s article, “Sirach,” in theJewish Encyclopedia. Eberhard Nestle’s article in Hastings’sDictionary of the Bibleis important for its bibliographical information as well as in other respects. A complete edition of the Hebrew fragments in collotype facsimile was published jointly by the Oxford and Cambridge Presses in 1901. J.H.A. Hart’s edition of cod. 248 throws much light on some of the problems of this book. It contains a fresh collation of all the chief authorities (Heb., Syr., Syr.-Hex., Lat. and Gr.) for the text, together with a complete textual commentary.The account given in theSynopsisattributed to Athanasius (Migne,P.G., iv. 375-384) has an interest of its own. The beginning is given in the Authorized Version as “A prologue made by an uncertain author.”

The account given in theSynopsisattributed to Athanasius (Migne,P.G., iv. 375-384) has an interest of its own. The beginning is given in the Authorized Version as “A prologue made by an uncertain author.”

(W. E. B.)

ECGBERT,orEcgberht(d. 839), king of the West Saxons, succeeded to the throne in 802 on the death of Beorhtric. It is said that at an earlier period in his life he had been driven out for three years by Offa and Beorhtric. The accession of Ecgbert seems to have brought about an invasion by Æthelmund, earl of the Hwicce, who was defeated by Weoxtan, earl of Wiltshire. In 815 Ecgbert ravaged the whole of the territories of the West Welsh, which probably at this time did not include much more than Cornwall. The next important occurrence in the reign was the defeat of Beornwulf of Mercia at a place called Ellandun in 825. After this victory Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Essex submitted to Wessex; while the East Anglians, who slew Beornwulf shortly afterwards, acknowledged Ecgbert as overlord. In 829 the king conquered Mercia, and Northumbria accepted him as overlord. In 830 he led a successful expedition against the Welsh. In 836 he was defeated by the Danes, but in 838 he won a battle against them and their allies the West Welsh at Hingston Down in Cornwall. Ecgbert died in 839, after a reign of thirty-seven years, and was succeeded by his son Æthelwulf. A somewhat difficult question has arisen as to the parentage of Ecgbert. Under the year 825 the Chronicle statesthat in his eastern conquests Ecgbert recovered what had been the rightful property of his kin. The father of Ecgbert was called Ealhmund, and we find an Ealhmund, king in Kent, mentioned in a charter dated 784, who is identified with Ecgbert’s father in a late addition to the Chronicle under the date 784. It is possible, however, that the Chronicle in 825 refers to some claim through Ine of Wessex from whose brother Ingeld Ecgbert was descended.

SeeAnglo-Saxon Chronicle, edited by Earle and Plummer (Oxford, 1899); W. de G. Birch,Cartularium Saxonicum(London, 1885-1893). Also a paper by Sir H.H. Howorth inNumismatic Chronicle, third series, vol. xx. pp. 66-87 (reprinted separately, London, 1900), where attention is called to the peculiar dating of several of Ecgbert’s charters, and the view is put forward that he remained abroad considerably later than the date given by the Chronicle for his accession. On the other hand a charter in Birch,Cart. Sax., purporting to date from 799, contains the curious statement that peace was made between Cœnwulf and Ecgbert in that year.

ECGBERT,orEcgberht(d. 766), archbishop of York, was made bishop of that see in 734 by Ceolwulf, king of Northumbria, succeeding Wilfrid II. on the latter’s resignation. The pall was sent him in 735 and he became the first northern archbishop after Paulinus. He was the brother of Eadberht, who ruled Northumbria 737-758. He was the recipient of the famous letter of Bede, dealing with the evils arising from spurious monasteries. Ecgberht himself wrote aDialogus Ecclesiasticae Institutionis, aPenitentialeand aPontificale. He was a correspondent of St Boniface, who asks him to support his censure of Æthelbald of Mercia.

See Bede,Continuatio, sub. ann. 732, 735, 766, andEpistola ad Ecgberctum(Plummer, Oxford, 1896);Chronicle, sub ann. 734, 735, 738, 766 (Earle and Plummer, Oxford, 1899); Haddan and Stubbs,Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents(Oxford, 1869-1878), iii. 403-431;Proceedings of Surtees Society(Durham, 1853).

ECGFRITH(d. 685), king of Northumbria, succeeded his father Oswio in 671. He was married to Æthelthryth, daughter of Anna of East Anglia, who, however, took the veil shortly after Ecgfrith’s accession, a step which possibly led to his long quarrel with Wilfrid archbishop of York. Ecgfrith married a second wife, Eormenburg, before 678, the year in which he expelled Wilfrid from his kingdom. Early in his reign he defeated the Picts who had risen in revolt. Between 671 and 675 Ecgfrith defeated Wulfhere of Mercia and seized Lindsey. In 679, however, he was defeated by Æthelred of Mercia, who had married his sister Osthryth, on the river Trent. Ecgfrith’s brother Ælfwine was killed in the battle, and the province of Lindsey was given up when peace was restored at the intervention of Theodore of Canterbury. In 684 Ecgfrith sent an expedition to Ireland under his general Berht, which seems to have been unsuccessful. In 685, against the advice of Cuthbert, he led a force against the Picts under his cousin Burde, son of Bile, was lured by a feigned flight into their mountain fastnesses, and slain at Nechtanesmere (now Dunnichen) in Forfarshire. Bede dates the beginning of the decline of Northumbria from his death. He was succeeded by his brother Aldfrith.

See Eddius,Vita Wilfridi(Raine,Historians of Church of York, Rolls, Series, London, 1879-1894), 19, 20, 24, 34, 39, 44; Bede,Hist. Eccl.(Plummer, Oxford, 1896), iii. 24, iv. 5, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 26.

ECGONINE,in chemistry, C9H15NO3, a cycloheptane derivative with a nitrogen bridge. It is obtained by hydrolysing cocaine with acids or alkalis, and crystallizes with one molecule of water, the crystals melting at 198° to 199° C. It is laevo-rotatory, and on warming with alkalis gives iso-ecgonine, which is dextro-rotatory. It is a tertiary base, and has also the properties of an acid and an alcohol. When boiled with caustic baryta it gives methylamine. It is the carboxylic acid corresponding to tropine, for it yields the same products on oxidation, and by treatment with phosphorus pentachloride is converted into anhydroecgonine, C9H13NO2, which, when heated to 280° C. with hydrochloric acid, splits out carbon dioxide and yields tropidine, C8H13N. Anhydroecgonine melts at 235° C., and has an acid and a basic character. It is an unsaturated compound, and on oxidation with potassium permanganate gives succinic acid. It is apparently a tropidine monocarboxylic acid, for on exhaustive methylation it yields cycloheptatriene-1·3·5-carboxylic acid-7. Sodium in amyl alcohol solution reduces it to hydroecgonidine C9H15NO2, while moderate oxidation by potassium permanganate converts it intonorecgonine. The presence of the heptamethylene ring in these compounds is shown by the production of suberone by the exhaustive methylation, &c., of hydroecgonidine ethyl ester (seePolymethylenesandTropine). The above compounds may be represented as:

ECHEGARAY Y EIZAGUIRRE, JOSÉ(1833- ), Spanish mathematician, statesman and dramatist, was born at Madrid in March 1833, and was educated at the grammar school of Murcia, whence he proceeded to the Escuela de Caminos at the capital. His exemplary diligence and unusual mathematical capacity were soon noticed. In 1853 he passed out at the head of the list of engineers, and, after a brief practical experience at Almería and Granada, was appointed professor of pure and applied mathematics in the school where he had lately been a pupil. HisProblemas de geometría analítica(1865) andTeorías modernas de la física unidad de las fuerzas materiales(1867) are said to be esteemed by competent judges. He became a member of the Society of Political Economy, helped to foundLa Revista, and took a prominent part in propagating Free Trade doctrines in the press and on the platform. He was clearly marked out for office, and when the popular movement of 1868 overthrew the monarchy, he resigned his post for a place in the revolutionary cabinet. Between 1867 and 1874 he acted as minister of education and of finance; upon the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty he withdrew from politics, and won a new reputation as a dramatist.

As early as 1867 he wroteLa Hija natural, which was rejected, and remained unknown till 1877, when it appeared with the title ofPara tal culpa tal pena. Another play,La Última Noche, also written in 1867, was produced in 1875; but in the latter year Echegaray was already accepted as the successful author ofEl Libro talonario, played at the Teatro de Apolo on the 18th of February 1874, under the transparent pseudonym of Jorge Hayaseca. Later in the same year Echegaray won a popular triumph withLa Esposa del vengador, in which the good and bad qualities—the clever stagecraft and unbridled extravagance—of his later work are clearly noticeable. From 1874 onwards he wrote, with varying success, a prodigious number of plays. Among the most favourable specimens of his talent may be mentionedEn el puño de la espada(1875);O locura ó santidad(1877), which has been translated into Swedish and Italian;En el seno de la muerte(1879), of which there exists an admirable German version by Fastenrath.El gran Galeoto(1881), perhaps the best of Echegaray’s plays in conception and execution, has been translated into several languages, and still holds the stage. The humorous proverb,¿Piensa mal y acertarás?exemplifies the author’s limitations, but the attempt is interesting as an instance of ambitious versatility. His susceptibility to new ideas is illustrated in such pieces asMariana(1892),Mancha que limpia(1895),El Hijo de Don Juan(1892), andEl Loco Dios(1900): these indicate a close study of Ibsen, andEl Loco Diosmore especially might be taken for an unintentional parody of Ibsen’s symbolism.

Echegaray succeeded to the literary inheritance of López de Ayala and of Tamayo y Baus; and though he possesses neither the poetic imagination of the first nor the instinctive tact of the second, it is impossible to deny that he has reached a larger audience than either. Not merely in Spain, but in every land where Spanish is spoken, and in cities as remote from Madrid as Munich and Stockholm, he has met with an appreciation incomparably beyond that accorded to any other Spanish dramatist of recent years. But it would be more than usually rash to prophesy that this exceptional popularity will endure. There have been signs of a reaction in Spain itself, and Echegaray’s return to politics in 1905 was significant enough. He applieshis mathematics to the drama; no writer excels him in artful construction, in the arrangement of dramatic scenes, in mere theatrical technique, in the focusing of attention on his chief personages. These are valuable gifts in their way, and Echegaray has, moreover, a powerful, gloomy imagination, which is momentarily impressive. In the drawing of character, in the invention of felicitous phrase, in the contrivance of verbal music, he is deficient. He alternates between the use of verse and prose; and his hesitancy in choosing a medium of expression is amply justified, for the writer’s prose is not more distinguished than his verse. These serious shortcomings may explain the diminution of his vogue in Spain; they will certainly tell against him in the estimate of posterity.

Back to Index Next