Elijah occupied an altogether peculiar place in later Jewish history and tradition. For the general belief that he should return for the restoration of Israel cf. Mal. iv. 5-6; Matt. xi. 14, xvi. 14; Luke ix. 8; John i. 21, and on the development of the thought see Bousset,Antichrist, s.v., and theJewish Encyc. vol. v. p. 126. In Mahommedan tradition Elijah is the everlasting youthful el-Khidr or el-Khadir.Elijah is canonized both in the Greek and in the Latin Churches, his festival being kept in both on the 20th July—the date of his ascension in the nineteenth year of Jehoshaphat, according to Cornelius a Lapide. The natural and most reliable estimate of the career of Elijah is that which is based upon a critical examination of the narratives; see, in addition to Robertson Smith,Prophets of Israel(²), pp. 75 sqq., Cheyne,Hallowing of Criticism, the articles by Addis inEncyc. Bib., and J. Strachan, Hastings’Dict. Bib., H. Gunkel,Elias, Yahve u. Baal(Tübingen, 1906), the literature toKings, Books of, and the histories referred to inJews. There is difference of opinion as to the historical importance of both Elijah and Elisha; for a useful summary of views, as also for fuller bibliographical information, see W.R. Harper,Amos and Hosea(Internat. Crit. Comm.), pp. xxxiv.-xlix., and articleHebrew Religion.
Elijah occupied an altogether peculiar place in later Jewish history and tradition. For the general belief that he should return for the restoration of Israel cf. Mal. iv. 5-6; Matt. xi. 14, xvi. 14; Luke ix. 8; John i. 21, and on the development of the thought see Bousset,Antichrist, s.v., and theJewish Encyc. vol. v. p. 126. In Mahommedan tradition Elijah is the everlasting youthful el-Khidr or el-Khadir.
Elijah is canonized both in the Greek and in the Latin Churches, his festival being kept in both on the 20th July—the date of his ascension in the nineteenth year of Jehoshaphat, according to Cornelius a Lapide. The natural and most reliable estimate of the career of Elijah is that which is based upon a critical examination of the narratives; see, in addition to Robertson Smith,Prophets of Israel(²), pp. 75 sqq., Cheyne,Hallowing of Criticism, the articles by Addis inEncyc. Bib., and J. Strachan, Hastings’Dict. Bib., H. Gunkel,Elias, Yahve u. Baal(Tübingen, 1906), the literature toKings, Books of, and the histories referred to inJews. There is difference of opinion as to the historical importance of both Elijah and Elisha; for a useful summary of views, as also for fuller bibliographical information, see W.R. Harper,Amos and Hosea(Internat. Crit. Comm.), pp. xxxiv.-xlix., and articleHebrew Religion.
(W. R. S.; S. A. C.)
1The text is uncertain. According to the LXX., he was a native of Tishbeh in Gilead; a more natural reading. Klostermann’s conjecture that the original name of his home was Jabesh-Gilead is attractive but unnecessary. His appearance in the narrative, like Melchizedek, “without father, without mother” (Heb. vii. 3), gave rise to various rabbinical traditions, such as that he was Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, returned to earth, or that he was an angel in human form.2Its duration is vaguely stated; from Luke iv. 25, James v. 17, we learn that it lasted three years and a half; but according to Phoenician tradition (Jos.Ant. viii. 13. 2) only one year.3The rationalistic view that the word translated “ravens” should be “Arabians” is improbable. Cheyne’s suggestion that the unknown brook Cherith should be placed to the south of Judah agrees with Josephus (Ant. viii. 13. 2, “he departed into the southern parts”) and with 1 Kings xix. 3, 8; “Jordan” may refer to another river, if it be not a gloss; see Cheyne,Ency. Bib., s.v. “Cherith.”4The sudden introduction of Elijah in xvii. 1 may be accounted for by the supposition that the commencement of the narrative had been omitted by the editor of xvi. 29 sqq. Hence we are not told the cause of Ahab’s hostility towards Elijah, nor is the allusion to Jezebel’s massacre of the prophets (xviii. 3, 13) explained. It would appear from Obadiah’s words in ver. 9 that he himself was in fear of his life. Later tradition supposed he was the captain of 2 Kings i. 13, or that the widow of 2 Kings iv. 1 had been his wife.5The definition of time by the stated oblation (xviii. 29, 36) is very noteworthy (cp. 2 Kings iii. 20).6It is obvious that a purely rationalistic interpretation of the great sign whereby Jahweh manifested himself would be out of place. But there is an interesting parallel in the legend of the kindling of the sacred fire and the igniting of the “thick water” in the time of Nehemiah (2 Macc. i. 18-36). Elsewhere, there were sacred fires kindled by the aid of magical invocations (e.g.Hypaepa, Pausanias v. 27. 3).7Yahweh is here supposed to have his seat on the ancient mountain. “It was the God of the Exodus to whom he appealed, the ancient King of Israel in the journeyings through the wilderness.” For the cave, cp. Ex. xxxiii. 22.8The theophany is clearly no rebuke to an impatient prophet, nor a lesson that the kingdom of heaven was to be built up by the slow and gentle operation of spiritual forces. It expresses the spirituality of Yahweh in a way that indicates a marked advance in the conception of his nature. See Skinner,Century Bible, “Kings,”ad loc.9The geographical indications imply that in one account the journey to Damascus and the anointing of Hazael and Jehu must have intervened, and were omitted because another account ascribed these acts to Elisha (2 Kings viii. ix.). In the latter we possess a more historical account of the anointing of Jehu, and Robertson Smith observes: “When the history in 1 Kings represents Elijah as personally commissioned to inaugurate [the revolution] by anointing Jehu and Hazael as well as Elisha, we see that the author’s design is to gather up the whole contest between Yahweh and Baal in an ideal picture of Elijah and his work” (Ency. Brit. (9) art. Kings, vol. xiv. p. 85).10Understood in Eccles. xlviii. 12 (Heb.) to mean that Elisha wastwice as greatas Elijah.
1The text is uncertain. According to the LXX., he was a native of Tishbeh in Gilead; a more natural reading. Klostermann’s conjecture that the original name of his home was Jabesh-Gilead is attractive but unnecessary. His appearance in the narrative, like Melchizedek, “without father, without mother” (Heb. vii. 3), gave rise to various rabbinical traditions, such as that he was Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, returned to earth, or that he was an angel in human form.
2Its duration is vaguely stated; from Luke iv. 25, James v. 17, we learn that it lasted three years and a half; but according to Phoenician tradition (Jos.Ant. viii. 13. 2) only one year.
3The rationalistic view that the word translated “ravens” should be “Arabians” is improbable. Cheyne’s suggestion that the unknown brook Cherith should be placed to the south of Judah agrees with Josephus (Ant. viii. 13. 2, “he departed into the southern parts”) and with 1 Kings xix. 3, 8; “Jordan” may refer to another river, if it be not a gloss; see Cheyne,Ency. Bib., s.v. “Cherith.”
4The sudden introduction of Elijah in xvii. 1 may be accounted for by the supposition that the commencement of the narrative had been omitted by the editor of xvi. 29 sqq. Hence we are not told the cause of Ahab’s hostility towards Elijah, nor is the allusion to Jezebel’s massacre of the prophets (xviii. 3, 13) explained. It would appear from Obadiah’s words in ver. 9 that he himself was in fear of his life. Later tradition supposed he was the captain of 2 Kings i. 13, or that the widow of 2 Kings iv. 1 had been his wife.
5The definition of time by the stated oblation (xviii. 29, 36) is very noteworthy (cp. 2 Kings iii. 20).
6It is obvious that a purely rationalistic interpretation of the great sign whereby Jahweh manifested himself would be out of place. But there is an interesting parallel in the legend of the kindling of the sacred fire and the igniting of the “thick water” in the time of Nehemiah (2 Macc. i. 18-36). Elsewhere, there were sacred fires kindled by the aid of magical invocations (e.g.Hypaepa, Pausanias v. 27. 3).
7Yahweh is here supposed to have his seat on the ancient mountain. “It was the God of the Exodus to whom he appealed, the ancient King of Israel in the journeyings through the wilderness.” For the cave, cp. Ex. xxxiii. 22.
8The theophany is clearly no rebuke to an impatient prophet, nor a lesson that the kingdom of heaven was to be built up by the slow and gentle operation of spiritual forces. It expresses the spirituality of Yahweh in a way that indicates a marked advance in the conception of his nature. See Skinner,Century Bible, “Kings,”ad loc.
9The geographical indications imply that in one account the journey to Damascus and the anointing of Hazael and Jehu must have intervened, and were omitted because another account ascribed these acts to Elisha (2 Kings viii. ix.). In the latter we possess a more historical account of the anointing of Jehu, and Robertson Smith observes: “When the history in 1 Kings represents Elijah as personally commissioned to inaugurate [the revolution] by anointing Jehu and Hazael as well as Elisha, we see that the author’s design is to gather up the whole contest between Yahweh and Baal in an ideal picture of Elijah and his work” (Ency. Brit. (9) art. Kings, vol. xiv. p. 85).
10Understood in Eccles. xlviii. 12 (Heb.) to mean that Elisha wastwice as greatas Elijah.
ELIJAH WILNA, orElijah ben Solomon, best known as theGaon Elijah of Wilna(1720-1797), a noted Talmudist who hovered between the new and the old schools of thought. Orthodox in practice and feeling, his critical treatment of the rabbinic literature prepared the way for the scientific investigations of the 19th century. As a teacher he was one of the first to discriminate between the various strata in rabbinic records; to him was due the revival of interest in the older Midrash (q.v.) and in the Palestinian Talmud (q.v.), interest in which had been weak for some centuries before his time. He was an ascetic, and was a keen opponent of the emotional mysticism which was known as the new Hassidism.
See S. Schechter’sStudies in Judaism(London, 1896). His voluminous writings are classified in theJewish Encyclopedia, v. 134.
See S. Schechter’sStudies in Judaism(London, 1896). His voluminous writings are classified in theJewish Encyclopedia, v. 134.
(I. A.)
ELIOT, CHARLES WILLIAM(1834- ), American educationalist, the son of Samuel Atkins Eliot (1798-1862), mayor of Boston, representative in Congress, and in 1842-1853 treasurer of Harvard, was born in Boston on the 20th of March 1834. He graduated in 1853 at Harvard College, where he was successively tutor (1854-1858) and assistant professor of chemistry (1858-1863). He studied chemistry and foreign educational methods in Europe in 1863-1865, was professor of analytical chemistry in the newly established Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1865-1869), although absent fourteen months in Europe in 1867-1868; and in 1869 was elected president of Harvard University, a choice remarkable at once for his youth and his being a layman and scientist. With Johns Hopkins University, Harvard, in his presidency, led in the work of efficient graduate schools. Its elective system, which has spread far, although not originated by President Eliot, was thoroughly established by him, and is only one of many radical changes which he championed with great success. The raising of entrance requirements, which led to a corresponding raising of the standards of secondary schools, and the introduction of anelement of choice in these entrance requirements, which allowed a limited election of studies to secondary pupils, became national tendencies primarily through President Eliot’s potent influence. As chairman of a national Committee of Ten (1890) on secondary school studies, he urged the abandonment of brief disconnected “information” courses, the correlation of subjects taught, the equal rank in college requirements of subjects in which equal time, consecutiveness and concentration were demanded, and a more thorough study of English composition; and to a large degree he secured national sanction for these reforms and their working out by experts into a practicable and applicable system. He laboured to unify the entire educational system, minimize prescription, cast out monotony, and introduce freedom and enthusiasm; and he emphasized the need of special training for special work. He was first to suggest (1894) co-operation by colleges in holding common entrance examinations throughout the country, and it was largely through his efforts that standards were so approximated that this became possible. He contended that secondary schools maintained by public funds should shape their courses for the benefit of students whose education goes no further than such high schools, and not be mere training schools for the universities. His success as administrator and man of affairs and as an educational reformer made him one of the great figures of his time, in whose opinions on any topic the deepest interest was felt throughout the country. In November 1908 he resigned the presidency of Harvard, and retired from the position early in 1909, when he was succeeded by Professor Abbott Lawrence Lowell. In December 1908 he was elected president of the National Civil Service Reform League.
His writings includeThe Happy Life(1896);Five American Contributions to Civilization, and Other Essays and Addresses(1897);Educational Reform, Essays and Addresses 1869-1897(1898);More Money for the Public Schools(1903);Four American Leaders(1906), chapters on Franklin, Washington, Channing and Emerson;University Administration(1908); and with F.H. Storer, aCompendious Manual of Qualitative Chemical Analysis(Boston, 1869; many times reissued and revised). His annual reports as President of Harvard were notable contributions to the literature of education in America, and he delivered numerous public addresses, many of which have been reprinted.
See “President Eliot’s Administration,” by different hands, a summary of his work at Harvard in 1869-1894, inThe Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, vol. 2, pp. 449-504 (Boston, Mass., 1894); and E. Kuhnemann,Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard(Boston, 1909).
See “President Eliot’s Administration,” by different hands, a summary of his work at Harvard in 1869-1894, inThe Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, vol. 2, pp. 449-504 (Boston, Mass., 1894); and E. Kuhnemann,Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard(Boston, 1909).
His son,Charles Eliot(1859-1897), graduated at Harvard in 1882, studied landscape architecture at the Bussey Institution of Harvard and in Europe, successfully urged the incorporation of the Massachusetts Trustees of Public Reservations (1891) and of the Metropolitan Park Commission (1892) of Boston, became landscape architect to the Metropolitan Park Commission in 1892, and in 1893, with F.L. Olmsted and J.C. Olmsted, formed the firm of Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot, which was employed by the Metropolitan Commission. His life was written by his father,Charles Eliot, Landscape Architect(Boston, 1902).
ELIOT, GEORGE, the pen-name of the famous English writer,néeMary Ann (or Marian) Evans (1819-1880), afterwards Mrs J.W. Cross, born at Arbury Farm, in Warwickshire, on the 22nd of November 1819. Her father, Robert Evans, was the agent of Mr Francis Newdigate, and the first twenty-one years of the great novelist’s life were spent on the Arbury estate. She received an ordinary education at respectable schools till the age of seventeen, when her mother’s death, and the marriage of her elder sister, called her home in the character of housekeeper. This, though it must have sharpened her sense, already too acute, of responsibility, was an immense advantage to her mind, and, later, to her career, for, delivered from the tiresome routine of lessons and class-work, she was able to work without pedantic interruptions at German, Italian and music, and to follow her unusually good taste in reading. The life, inasmuch as she was a girl still in her teens, was no doubt monotonous, even unhappy. Just as Cardinal Newman felt, with such different results, the sadness and chain of evangelical influences from his boyhood till the end of his days, so Marian Evans was subdued all through her youth by a severe religious training which, while it pinched her mind and crushed her spirit, attracted her idealism by the very hardness of its perfect counsels. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that when Mr Evans moved to Coventry in 1841, and so enlarged the circle of their acquaintance, she became much interested in some new friends, Mr and Mrs Charles Bray and Mr Charles Hennell. Mr Bray had literary taste and wrote works on theEducation of the Feelings, thePhilosophy of Necessity, and the like. Mr Hennell had published in 1838An Enquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity. Miss Evans, then twenty-two, absorbed immediately these unexpected, and, at that time, daring habits of thought. So compelling was the atmosphere that it led to a complete change in her opinions. Kind in her affection, she was relentless in argument. She refused to go to church (for some time, at least), wrote painful letters to a former governess—the pious Miss Lewis—and barely avoided an irremediable quarrel with her father, a churchman of the old school. Here was rebellion indeed. But rebels come, for the most part, from the provinces where petty tyranny, exercised by small souls, show the scheme of the universe on the meanest possible scale. George Eliot was never orthodox again; she abandoned, with fierce determination, every creed, and although she passed, later, through various phases, she remained incessantly a rationalist in matters of faith and in all other matters. It is nevertheless true that she wrote admirably about religion and religious persons. She had learnt the evangelical point of view; she knew—none better—the strength of religious motives; vulgar doubts of this fact were as distasteful to her as they were to another eminent writer, to whom she refers in one of her letters (dated 1853) as “a Mr Huxley, who was the centre of interest” at some “agreeable evening.” Her books abound in tributes to Christian virtue, and one of her own favourite characters was Dinah Morris inAdam Bede.
She undertook, about the beginning of 1844, the translation of Strauss’sLeben Jesu. This work, published in 1846, was considered scholarly, but it met, in the nature of things, with no popular success. On the death of Mr Evans in 1849, she went abroad for some time, and we hear of no more literary ventures till 1851, when she accepted the assistant-editorship of theWestminster Review. For a while she had lodgings at the offices of that publication in the Strand, London. She wrote several notable papers, and became acquainted with many distinguished authors of that period—among them Herbert Spencer, Carlyle, Harriet Martineau, Francis Newman and George Henry Lewes. Her friendship with the last-named led to a closer relationship which she regarded as a marriage. Among the many criticisms passed upon this step (in view of the fact, among other considerations, that Lewes had a wife living at the time), no one has denied her courage in defying the law, or questioned the quality of her tact in a singularly false position. That she felt the deepest affection for Lewes is evident; that we owe the development of her genius to his influence and constant sympathy is all but certain. Yet it is also sure that what she gained from his intimate companionship was heavily paid for in the unceasing consciousness that most people thought her guilty of a grave mistake, and found her written words, with their endorsement of traditional morality, wholly at variance with the circumstances of her private life. Doubts of her suffering in this respect will be at once dismissed after a study of her journal and letters. Stilted and unnatural as these are to a tragic degree, one can read well enough between the lines, and also in the elaborate dedication of each manuscript to “my husband” (in terms of the strongest love), that self-repression, coupled with audacity, does not make for peace. Her sensitiveness to criticism was extreme; a flippant paragraph or an illiterate review with regard to her work actually affected her for days. The whole history of her union with Lewes is a complete illustration of the force of sheer will—in that case partly her own and not inconsiderably his—over a nature essentially unfitted for a bold stand against attacks. At first she and the man whom she had described “as a sort of miniatureMirabeau in appearance,” went abroad to Weimar and Berlin, but they returned to England the same year and settled, after several moves, in lodgings at East Sheen.
In 1854 she publishedThe Essence of Christianity, a translation from Feuerbach, a philosopher to whom she had been introduced by Charles Bray. During 1855 she translated Spinoza’sEthics, wrote articles for theLeader, theWestminster Review, and theSaturday Review—then a new thing. It was not until the following year that she attempted the writing of fiction, and producedThe Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos Barton—the first of theScenes of Clerical Life. These, published inBlackwood’s Magazine, were issued in two volumes in 1858. The press in general extended a languid welcome to this work, and although the author received much encouragement from private sources, notably from Charles Dickens, the critics were mostly non-committal, and it was not until the publication ofAdam Bedein 1859 that enthusiasm was attracted to the quality of the earlier production.Adam Bede, in the judgment of many George Eliot’s masterpiece, met with a success (in her own words) “triumphantly beyond anything she had dreamed of.” In 1860 appearedThe Mill on the Floss. After the sensational good fortune ofAdam Bede, the criticism applied to the new novel seems to have been disappointing. We find Miss Evans telling her publisher that “she does not wish to see any newspaper articles.” But the book made its way, and prepared an ever-growing army of readers forSilas Marner(1861),Romola(1862-1863), andFelix Holt(1866).
Silas Marnershows a reversion to her early manner—the manner ofScenes of Clerical Life.Romola, which is what is called an historical novel, owesitsvitality not to the portraits of Savonarola or of the heroine, or to its vigorous pictures of Florentine life in the 15th century, but to its superb presentment of the treacherous, handsome Tito Melema, who belongs not to any one period but to every generation.Felix Holt, a novel dealing with political questions, is strained by a painfulness too severe for any reader’s pleasure. Where other eminent authors have produced mechanical books, or books which were mere repetitions of their most popular effort, she erred only on the side of the ponderous and the distressing.Felix Holtis both, and it is the only one of her novels which lacks an unforgettable human note.The Spanish Gypsy(1868), a drama in blank verse, received more public response than most compositions of the kind executed by those connected with the drama or with poetry only; and she published in 1874 another volume of verses,The Legend of Jubal and other Poems.
Any depression which the author may have felt with regard to the faults found with some of the last-named books was completely cured by the praise bestowed onMiddlemarch(1872). This profound study of certain types of English character was supreme at the time of its writing, and it remains supreme, of its school, in European literature. Thackeray is brilliant; Tolstoi is vivid to a point where life-likeness overwhelms any consideration of art; Balzac created a whole world; George Eliot did not create, but her exposition of the upper and middle class minds of her day is a masterpiece of scientific psychology.Daniel Deronda(1876), a production on the same lines, was less satisfactory. It exhibited the same human insight, the passionate earnestness, the insinuated special pleading for hard cases, the same intellectual strength, but the subject was unwieldy, almost forbidding, and, as a result, the novel, in spite of its distinction, has never been thoroughly liked. The death of Mr Lewes in 1878 was also the death-blow to her artistic vitality. She corrected the proofs ofTheophrastus Such(a collection of essays), but she wrote no more. About two years later, however, she married Mr J.W. Cross, a gentleman whose friendship was especially congenial to a temperament so abnormally dependent on affectionate understanding as George Eliot’s. But she never really recovered from her shock at the loss of George Lewes, and died at 4 Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, on the 22nd of December 1880.
No right estimate of her, whether as a woman, an artist or a philosopher, can be formed without a steady recollection of her infinite capacity for mental suffering, and her need of human support. The statement that there is no sex in genius, is on the face of it, absurd. George Sand, certainly the most independent and dazzling of all women authors, neither felt, nor wrote, nor thought as a man. Saint Teresa, another great writer on a totally different plane, was pre-eminently feminine in every word and idea. George Eliot, less reckless, less romantic than the Frenchwoman, less spiritual than the Spanish saint, was more masculine in style than either; but her outlook was not, for a moment, the man’s outlook; her sincerity, with its odd reserves, was not quite the same as a man’s sincerity, nor was her humour that genial, broad, unequivocal humour which is peculiarly virile. Hers approximated, curiously enough, to the satire of Jane Austen, both for its irony and its application to little everyday affairs. Men’s humour, in its classic manifestations, is on the heroic rather than on the average scale: it is for the uncommon situations, not for the daily tea-table.
Her method of attacking a subject shows the influence of Jane Austen, especially in parts ofMiddlemarch; one can detect also the stronger influence of Mrs Gaskell, of Charlotte Brontë, and of Miss Edgeworth. It was, however, but an influence, and no more than a man writer, anxious to acquire a knowledge of the feminine point of view, might have absorbed from a study of these women novelists. One often hears that she is not artistic; that her characterization is less distinct than Jane Austen’s; that she tells more than should be known of her heroes and heroines. But it should be remembered that Jane Austen dealt with familiar domestic types, whereas George Eliot excelled in the presentation of extraordinary souls. One woman drew members of polite society with correct notions, while the other woman depicted social rebels with ideas and ideals. In every one of George Eliot’s books, the protagonists, tortured by dreams of perfection, are in revolt against the prudent compromises of the worldly. All through her stories, one hears the clash of “the heroic for earth too high,” and the desperate philosophy, disguised it is true, of Omar Khayyam. In her day, Epicureanism had not reached the life of the people, nor passed into the education of the mob. Few dared to confess that the pursuit of pleasure, whether real or imagined, was the aim of mankind. The charm of Jane Austen is the charm of the untroubled and well-to-do materialist, who sees in a rich marriage, a comfortable house, carriages and an assured income the best to strive for; and in a fickle lover of either sex or the loss of money the severest calamities which can befall the human spirit. Jane Austen despised the greater number of her characters: George Eliot suffered with each of hers. Here, perhaps, we find the reason why she is accused of being inartistic. She could not be impersonal.
Again, George Eliot was a little scornful to those of both sexes who had neither special missions nor the consciousness of this deprivation. Men are seldom in favour of missions in any field. She demanded, too strenuously from the very beginning, an aim, more or less altruistic, from every individual; and as she advanced in life this claim became the more imperative, till at last it overpowered her art, and transformed a great delineator of humanity into an eloquent observer with far too many personal prejudices. But she was altogether free from cynicism, bitterness, or the least tendency to pride of intellect. She suffered from bodily weakness the greater part of her life, and, but for an extraordinary mental health—inherited from the fine yeoman stock from which she sprang—it is impossible that she could have retained, at all times, so sane a view of human conduct, or been the least sentimental among women writers of the first rank—the one wholly without morbidity in any disguise. The accumulation of mere book knowledge, as opposed to the friction of a life spent among all sorts and conditions of men, drove George Eliot at last to write as a specialist for specialists: joy was lost in the consuming desire for strict accuracy: her genius became more and more speculative, less and less emotional. The highly trained brain suppressed the impulsive heart,—the heart described with such candour and pathos as Maggie Tulliver’s inThe Mill on the Floss. For this reason—chiefly because philosophy is popularly associated with inactive depression,whereas human nature is held to be eternally exhilarating—her later works have not received so much praise as her earlier productions. But one has only to compareRomolaorDaniel Derondawith the compositions of any author except herself to realize the greatness of her designs, and the astonishing gifts brought to their final accomplishment.
See also theLife of George Eliot, edited by J.W. Cross (3 vols., 1885-1887);George Eliot, by Sir Leslie Stephen, in the “English Men of Letters” series (1902); by Oscar Browning, “Great Writers” series (1890), with a bibliography by J.P. Anderson; by Mathilde Blind, “Eminent Women” series, a new edition of which also contains a bibliography (Boston, Mass., 1904).
See also theLife of George Eliot, edited by J.W. Cross (3 vols., 1885-1887);George Eliot, by Sir Leslie Stephen, in the “English Men of Letters” series (1902); by Oscar Browning, “Great Writers” series (1890), with a bibliography by J.P. Anderson; by Mathilde Blind, “Eminent Women” series, a new edition of which also contains a bibliography (Boston, Mass., 1904).
(P. M. T. C.)
ELIOT, SIR JOHN(1592-1632), English statesman, son of Richard Eliot, a member of an old Devonshire family lately settled in Cornwall, was born at his father’s seat at Port Eliot in Cornwall in 1592. He matriculated at Exeter College, Oxford, on the 4th of December 1607, and leaving the university after a residence of three years he studied law at one of the inns of court. He also spent some months travelling in France, Spain and Italy, in company, for part of the time, with young George Villiers, afterwards duke of Buckingham. He was only twenty-two when he began his parliamentary career as member for St Germans in the “addled parliament” of 1614. In 1618 he was knighted, and next year through the patronage of Buckingham he obtained the appointment of vice-admiral of Devon, with large powers for the defence and control of the commerce of the county. It was not long before the characteristic energy with which he performed the duties in his office involved him in difficulties. After many attempts, in 1623 he succeeded by a clever but dangerous manœuvre in entrapping the famous pirate John Nutt, who had for years infested the southern coast, inflicting immense damage upon English commerce. The issue is noteworthy. The pirate, having a powerful protector at court in Sir George Calvert, the secretary of state, was pardoned; while the vice-admiral, upon charges which could not be substantiated, was flung into the Marshalsea, and detained there nearly four months.
A few weeks after his release Eliot was elected member of parliament for Newport (February 1624). On the 27th of February he delivered his first speech, in which he at once revealed his great powers as an orator, demanding boldly that the liberties and privileges of parliament, repudiated by James I. in the former parliament, should be secured. In the first parliament of Charles I., in 1625, he urged the enforcement of the laws against the Roman Catholics. Meanwhile he had continued the friend and supporter of Buckingham and greatly approved of the war with Spain. Buckingham’s incompetence, however, and the bad faith with which both he and the king continued to treat the parliament, alienated Eliot completely from the administration. Distrust of his former friend quickly grew in Eliot’s excitable mind to a certainty of his criminal ambition and treason to his country. Returned to the parliament of 1626 as member for St Germans, he found himself, in the absence of other chiefs of the opposition whom the king had secured by nominating them sheriffs, the leader of the House. He immediately demanded an inquiry into the recent disaster at Cadiz. On the 27th of March he made an open and daring attack upon Buckingham and his evil administration. He was not intimidated by the king’s threatening intervention on the 29th, and persuaded the House to defer the actual grant of the subsidies and to present a remonstrance to the king, declaring its right to examine the conduct of ministers. On the 8th of May he was one of the managers who carried Buckingham’s impeachment to the Lords, and on the 10th he delivered the charges against him, comparing him in the course of his speech to Sejanus. Next day Eliot was sent to the Tower. On the Commons declining to proceed with business as long as Eliot and Sir Dudley Digges (who had been imprisoned with him) were in confinement, they were released, and parliament was dissolved on the 15th of June. Eliot was immediately dismissed from his office of vice-admiral of Devon, and in 1627 he was again imprisoned for refusing to pay a forced loan, but liberated shortly before the assembling of the parliament of 1628, to which he was returned as member for Cornwall. He joined in the resistance now organized to arbitrary taxation, was foremost in the promotion of the Petition of Right, continued his outspoken censure of Buckingham, and after the latter’s assassination in August, led the attack in the session of 1629 on the ritualists and Arminians.
In February the great question of the right of the king to levy tonnage and poundage came up for discussion; and on the king ordering an adjournment of parliament, the speaker, Sir John Finch, was held down in the chair while Eliot’s resolutions against illegal taxation and innovations in religion were read to the House by Holles (q.v.). In consequence, Eliot, with eight other members, was imprisoned on the 4th of March in the Tower. He refused to answer in his examination, relying on his privilege of parliament, and on the 29th of October was removed to the Marshalsea. On the 26th of January he appeared at the bar of the king’s bench, with Holles and Valentine, to answer a charge of conspiracy to resist the king’s order, and refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court he was fined £2000 and ordered to be imprisoned during the king’s pleasure and till he had made submission. This he steadfastly refused. While some of the prisoners appear to have had certain liberty allowed to them, Eliot’s confinement in the Tower was made exceptionally severe. Charles’s anger had been from the first directed chiefly against him, not only as his own political antagonist but as the prosecutor and bitter enemy of Buckingham; “an outlawed man,” he described him, “desperate in mind and fortune.”
Eliot languished in prison for some time, during which he wrote several works, hisNegotium posterorum, an account of the parliament in 1625;The Monarchie of Man, a political treatise;De jure majestatis, a Political Treatise of Government; andAn Apology for Socrates, his own defence. In the spring of 1632 he fell into a decline. In October he petitioned Charles for permission to go into the country, but leave could only be obtained at the price of submission, and was finally refused. He died on the 27th of November 1632. When his son requested permission to move the body to Port Eliot, Charles, whose resentment still survived, returned the curt refusal: “Let Sir John Eliot be buried in the church of that parish where he died.” The manner of Eliot’s death, not without suspicion of foul play, and as the result of the king’s implacability and the severe treatment to which he had been subjected, had more effect, probably, than any other single incident in embittering and precipitating the dispute between king and parliament; and the tragic sacrifice of a man so gifted and patriotic, and actuated originally by no antagonistic feeling against the monarchy or the church, is the surest condemnation of the king’s policy and administration. Eliot was essentially a great orator, inspired by enthusiasm and high ideals, which he was able to communicate to his hearers by his eloquence, but, like Chatham afterwards, he had not only the gifts but the failings of the orator, was incapable of well-reasoned and balanced judgment, and, though one of the greatest personalities of the time, was inferior to Pym both as a party leader and as a statesman.
Eliot married Rhadagund, daughter of Richard Gedie of Trebursye in Cornwall, by whom he had five sons, from the youngest of whom Nicholas the present earl of St Germans is descended, and four daughters.
TheLife of Sir J. Eliot, by J. Forster (1864), is supplemented and corrected by Gardiner’sHistory of England, vols. v.-vii., and the article in theDict. of Nat. Biog., by the same author. Eliot’s writings, together with his Letter-Book, have been edited by Dr Grosart.
TheLife of Sir J. Eliot, by J. Forster (1864), is supplemented and corrected by Gardiner’sHistory of England, vols. v.-vii., and the article in theDict. of Nat. Biog., by the same author. Eliot’s writings, together with his Letter-Book, have been edited by Dr Grosart.
ELIOT, JOHN(1604-1690), American colonial clergyman, known as the “Apostle to the Indians,” was born probably at Widford, Hertfordshire, England, where he was baptized on the 5th of August 1604. He was the son of Bennett Eliot, a middle-class farmer. Little is known of his boyhood and early manhood except that he took his degree of B.A. at Jesus College, Cambridge, in 1622. It seems probable that he entered the ministry of the Established Church, but there is nothing definitely known of him until 1629-1630, when he became an usher or assistant at the school of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, at Little Baddow, near Chelmsford. The influence of Hooker apparently determinedhim to become a Puritan, but his connexion with the school ceased in 1630, when Laud’s persecutions drove Hooker into exile. The realization of the difficulties in the way of a non-conforming clergyman in England undoubtedly determined Eliot to emigrate to America in the autumn of 1631, where he settled first at Boston, assisting for a time at the First Church. In November 1632 he became “teacher” to the church at Roxbury, with which his connexion lasted until his death. There he married Hannah Mulford, who had been betrothed to him in England, and who became his constant helper. In the care of the Roxbury church he was associated with Thomas Welde from 1632 to 1641, with Samuel Danforth (1626-1674) from 1649 to 1674, and with Nehemiah Walter (1663-1750) from 1688 to 1690.
Inspired with the idea of converting the Indians, his first step was to perfect himself in their dialects, which he did by the assistance of a young Indian whom he received into his home. With his aid he translated the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. He first successfully preached to the Indians in their own tongue at Nonantum (Newton) in October 1646. At the third meeting several Indians declared themselves converted, and were soon followed by many others. Eliot induced the Massachusetts General Court to set aside land for their residence, the same body also voting him £10 to prosecute the work, and directing that two clergymen be annually elected by the clergy as preachers to the Indians. As soon as the success of Eliot’s endeavours became known, the necessary funds flowed in upon him from private sources in both Old and New England. In July 1649 parliament incorporated the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England,” which henceforth supported and directed the work inaugurated by Eliot. The first appeal for aid brought contributions of £11,000. In 1651 the Christian Indian town founded by Eliot was removed from Nonantum to Natick, where residences, a meeting-house, and a school-house were erected, and where Eliot preached, when able, once in every two weeks as long as he lived. To this community Eliot applied a plan of government by means of tens, fifties and hundreds, which he subsequently advocated as suitable for all England. Eliot’s missionary labours encouraged others to follow in his footsteps. A second town under his direction was established at Ponkapog (Stoughton) in 1654, in which he had the assistance of Daniel Gookin (c.1612-1687). His success was duplicated in Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket by the Mayhews, and by 1674 the unofficial census of the “praying Indians” numbered 4000. King Philip’s War (1675-76) was a staggering blow to all missionary enterprise; and although few of the converted Indians proved disloyal, it was some years before adequate support could again be enlisted. Yet at Eliot’s death, which occurred at Roxbury on the 21st of May 1690, the missions were at the height of their prosperity, and that the results of his labours were not permanent was due only to the racial traits of the New England tribes.
Of wider influence and more lasting value than his personal labours as a missionary was Eliot’s work as a translator of the Bible and various religious works into the Massachusetts dialect of the Algonquian language. The first work completed was theCatechism, published in 1653 at Cambridge, Massachusetts, the first book to be printed in the Indian tongue. Several years elapsed before Eliot completed his task of translating the Bible. The New Testament was at last issued in 1661, and the Old Testament followed two years later. The New Testament was bound with it, and thus the whole Bible was completed. To it were added a Catechism and a metrical version of the Psalms. The title of this Bible, now a great rarity, isMamussee Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God naneeswe Nukkone Testament kah wonk Wusku Testament-Ne quoshkinnumuk nashpe Wuttinneumoh Christ noh assoowesit John Eliot; literally translated, “The Whole Holy His-Bible God, both Old Testament and also New Testament. This turned by the-servant-of-Christ, who is called John Eliot.”
This book was printed in 1663 at Cambridge, Mass., by Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson, and was the first Bible printed in America. In 1685 appeared a second edition, in the preparation of which Eliot was assisted by the Rev. John Cotton (1640-1699), the younger, of Plymouth, who also had a wide knowledge of the Indian tongue.
This book was printed in 1663 at Cambridge, Mass., by Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson, and was the first Bible printed in America. In 1685 appeared a second edition, in the preparation of which Eliot was assisted by the Rev. John Cotton (1640-1699), the younger, of Plymouth, who also had a wide knowledge of the Indian tongue.
Besides his Bible, Eliot published at Cambridge in 1664 a translation of Baxter’sCall to the Unconverted, and in 1665 an abridged translation of Bishop Bayly’sPractice of Piety. With the assistance of his sons he completed (1664) his well-known Indian Grammar Begun, printed at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1666. It was reprinted in vol. ix. of theCollections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.The Indian Primer, comprising an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and a translation of the Larger Catechism, was published at Cambridge in 1669, and was reprinted under the editorial superintendence of Mr John Small of the university of Edinburgh in 1877. In 1671 Eliot printed in English a little volume entitledIndian Dialogues, followed in 1672 by hisLogick Primer, both of which were intended for the instruction of the Indians in English. His last translation was Thomas Shepard’sSincere Convert, completed and published by Grindal Rawson in 1689. Eliot’s literary activity, however, extended into other fields than that of Indian instruction. He was, with Richard Mather, one of the editors of theBay Psalm Book(1640). Several tracts written wholly or in part by him in the nature of reports to the society which supported his missions were published at various times in England. In 1660 he published a curious treatise on government entitledThe Christian Commonwealth, in which he found the ideal of government in the ancient Jewish state, and proposed the reorganization of the English government on the basis of a numerical subdivision of the inhabitants. HisHarmony of the Gospels(1678) was a life of Jesus Christ.
Bibliography.—An account of Eliot’s life and work is contained in Williston Walker’sTen New England Leaders(New York, 1901). There is a “Life of John Eliot,” by Convers Francis, inSparks’ American Biography, vol. v. (New York, 1853); another by N. Adams (Boston, 1847); and a sketch in Cotton Mather’sMagnalia(London, 1702). For a good account of his publications in the Indian language see the chapter on “The Indian Tongue and its Literature,” by J.H. Trumbull, in vol. i. of theMemorial History of Boston(1882).
Bibliography.—An account of Eliot’s life and work is contained in Williston Walker’sTen New England Leaders(New York, 1901). There is a “Life of John Eliot,” by Convers Francis, inSparks’ American Biography, vol. v. (New York, 1853); another by N. Adams (Boston, 1847); and a sketch in Cotton Mather’sMagnalia(London, 1702). For a good account of his publications in the Indian language see the chapter on “The Indian Tongue and its Literature,” by J.H. Trumbull, in vol. i. of theMemorial History of Boston(1882).
(W. Wr.)
ELIS, orEleia, an ancient district of southern Greece, bounded on the N. by Achaea, E. by Arcadia, S. by Messenia, and W. by the Ionian Sea. The local form of the name was Valis, or Valeia, and its meaning, in all probability, “the lowland.” In its physical constitution Elis is practically one with Achaea and Arcadia; its mountains are mere offshoots of the Arcadian highlands, and its principal rivers are fed by Arcadian springs. From Erymanthus in the north, Skollis (now known as Mavri and Santameri in different parts of its length) stretches toward the west, and Pholoe along the eastern frontier; in the south a prolongation of Mount Lycaeon bore in ancient times the names of Minthe and Lapithus, which have given place respectively to Alvena and to Kaiapha and Smerna. These mountains are well clothed with vegetation, and present a soft and pleasing appearance in contrast to the picturesque wildness of the parent ranges. They gradually sink towards the west and die off into what was one of the richest alluvial tracts in the Peloponnesus. Except where it is broken by the rocky promontories of Chelonatas (now Chlemutzi) and Ichthys (now Katakolo), the coast lies low, with stretches of sand in the north and lagoons and marshes towards the south. During the summer months communication with the sea being established by means of canals, these lagoons yield a rich harvest of fish to the inhabitants, who at the same time, however, are almost driven from the coast by the swarms of gnats. The district for administrative purposes forms part of the nome of Elis and Achaea (seeGreece).
Elis was divided into three districts—Hollow or Lowland Elis (ἡ κοίλη Ἦλις), Pisatis, or the territory of Pisa, and Triphylia, or the country of the three tribes. (1)Hollow Elis, the largest and most northern of the three, was watered by the Peneus and its tributary the Ladon, whose united stream forms the modern Gastouni. It included not only the champaign country originally designated by its name, but also the mountainous region of Acrorea, occupied by the offshoots of Erymanthus. Besides the capital city of Elis, it contained Cyllene, an Arcadian settlementon the sea-coast, whose inhabitants worshipped Hermes under the phallic symbol; Pylus, at the junction of the Peneus and the Ladon, which, like so many other places of the same name, claimed to be the city of Nestor, and the fortified frontier town of Lasion, the ruins of which are still visible at Kuti, near the village of Kumani. The district was famous in antiquity for its cattle and horses; and its byssus, supposed to have been introduced by the Phoenicians, was inferior only to that of Palestine. (2)Pisatisextended south from Hollow Elis to the right bank of the Alpheus, and was divided into eight departments called after as many towns. Of these Salmone, Heraclea, Cicysion, Dyspontium and Harpina are known—the last being the reputed burial-place of Marmax, the suitor of Hippodamia. From the time of the early investigators it has been disputed whether Pisa, which gave its name to the district, has ever been a city, or was only a fountain or a hill. By far the most important spot in Pisatis was the scene of the great Olympic games, on the northern bank of the Alpheus (seeOlympia). (3)Triphyliastretches south from the Alpheus to the Neda, which forms the boundary towards Messenia. Of the nine towns mentioned by Polybius, only two attained to any considerable influence—Lepreum and Macistus, which gave the names of Lepreatis and Macistia to the southern and northern halves of Triphylia. The former was the seat of a strongly independent population, and continued to take every opportunity of resisting the supremacy of the Eleans. In the time of Pausanias it was in a very decadent condition, and possessed only a poor brick-built temple of Demeter; but considerable remains of its outer walls are still in existence near the village of Strovitzi, on a part of the Minthe range.
The original inhabitants of Elis were called Caucones and Paroreatae. They are mentioned for the first time in Greek history under the title of Epeians, as setting out for the Trojan War, and they are described by Homer as living in a state of constant hostility with their neighbours the Pylians. At the close of the 11th centuryB.C.the Dorians invaded the Peloponnesus, and Elis fell to the share of Oxylus and the Aetolians. These people, amalgamating with the Epeians, formed a powerful kingdom in the north of Elis. After this many changes took place in the political distribution of the country, till at length it came to acknowledge only three tribes, each independent of the others. These tribes were the Epeians, Minyae and Eleans. Before the end of the 8th centuryB.C., however, the Eleans had vanquished both their rivals, and established their supremacy over the whole country. Among the other advantages which they thus gained was the right of celebrating the Olympic games, which had formerly been the prerogative of the Pisatans. The attempts which this people made to recover their lost privilege, during a period of nearly two hundred years, ended at length in the total destruction of their city by the Eleans. From the time of this event (572B.C.) till the Peloponnesian War, the peace of Elis remained undisturbed. In that great contest Elis sided at first with Sparta; but that power, jealous of the increasing prosperity of its ally, availed itself of the first pretext to pick a quarrel. At the battle of Mantinea (418B.C.) the Eleans fought against the Spartans, who, as soon as the war came to a close, took vengeance upon them by depriving them of Triphylia and the towns of the Acrorea. The Eleans made no attempt to re-establish their authority over these places, till the star of Thebes rose in the ascendant after the battle of Leuctra (371B.C.). It is not unlikely that they would have effected their purpose had not the Arcadian confederacy come to the assistance of the Triphylians. In 366B.C.hostilities broke out between them, and though the Eleans were at first successful, they were soon overpowered, and their capital very nearly fell into the hands of the enemy. Unable to make head against their opponents, they applied for assistance to the Spartans, who invaded Arcadia, and forced the Arcadians to recall their troops from Elis. The general result of this war was the restoration of their territory to the Eleans, who were also again invested with the right of holding the Olympic games. During the Macedonian supremacy in Greece they sided with the victors, but refused to fight against their countrymen. After the death of Alexander they renounced the Macedonian alliance. At a subsequent period they joined the Aetolian League, but persistently refused to identify themselves with the Achaeans. When the whole of Greece fell under the Roman yoke, the sanctity of Olympia secured for the Eleans a certain amount of indulgence. The games still continued to attract to the country large numbers of strangers, until they were finally put down by Theodosius in 394, two years previous to the utter destruction of the country by the Gothic invasion under Alaric. In later times Elis fell successively into the hands of the Franks and the Venetians, under whose rule it recovered to some extent its ancient prosperity. By the latter people the province of Belvedere on the Peneus was called, in consequence of its fertility, “the milch cow of the Morea.”
ELIS, the chief city of the ancient Greek district of Elis, was situated on the river Peneus, just where it passes from the mountainous district of Acrorea into the champaign below. According to native tradition, it was originally founded by Oxylus, the leader of the Aetolians, whose statue stood in the market-place. In 471B.C.it received a great extension by the incorporation (synoecism) of various small hamlets, whose inhabitants took up their abode in the city. Up to this date it only occupied the ridge of the hill now called Kalaskopi, to the south of the Peneus, but afterwards it spread out in several suburbs, and even to the other side of the stream. As all the athletes who intended to take part in the Olympic games were obliged to undergo a month’s training in the city, its gymnasiums were among its principal institutions. They were three in number—the “Xystos,” with its avenues of plane-trees, its plethrion or wrestling-place, its altars to Heracles, to Eros and Anteros, to Demeter and Kore (Cora), and its cenotaph of Achilles; the “Tetragonon,” appropriated to boxing exercises; and the “Maltho,” in the interior of which was a hall or council chamber called Lalichmion after its founder. The market-place was of the old-fashioned type, with porticoes at intervals and paths leading between them. It was called the Hippodrome because it was commonly used for exercising horses. Among the other objects of interest were the temple of Artemis Philomirax; the Hellanodicaeon, or office of the Hellanodicae; the Corcyrean Hall, a building in the Dorian style with two façades, built of spoils from Corcyra; a temple of Apollo Acesius; a temple of Silenus; an ancient structure supported on oaken pillars and reputed to be the burial-place of Oxylus; the building where the sixteen women of Elis were wont to weave a robe for the statue of Hera at Olympia; the temple of Aphrodite, with a statue of the goddess by Pheidias as Urania with a tortoise beneath her foot, and by Scopas as Pandemos, riding on a goat; and the shrine of Dionysus, whose festival, the Thyia, was yearly celebrated in the neighbourhood. On the acropolis was a temple of Athena, with a gold and ivory statue by Pheidias. The history of the town is closely identified with that of the country. In 399B.C.it was occupied by Agis, king of Sparta. The acropolis was fortified in 312 by Telesphorus, the admiral of Antigonus, but it was shortly afterwards dismantled by Philemon, another of his generals. A view of the site is given by Stanhope. It is now called Palaeopolis. No traces of any buildings can be identified, the only remains visible dating from Roman times.