Cornelius Nepos,Vita Epaminondae; Diodorus xv. 52-88; Xenophon,Hellenica, vii.; L. Pomtow,Das Leben des Epaminondas(Berlin, 1870); von Stein,Geschichte der spartanischen und thebanischen Hegemonie(Dorpat, 1884), pp. 123 sqq.; H. Swoboda in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie, v. pt. 2 (Stuttgart, 1905), pp. 2674-2707; alsoArmy:History, § 6.
Cornelius Nepos,Vita Epaminondae; Diodorus xv. 52-88; Xenophon,Hellenica, vii.; L. Pomtow,Das Leben des Epaminondas(Berlin, 1870); von Stein,Geschichte der spartanischen und thebanischen Hegemonie(Dorpat, 1884), pp. 123 sqq.; H. Swoboda in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie, v. pt. 2 (Stuttgart, 1905), pp. 2674-2707; alsoArmy:History, § 6.
(M. O. B. C.)
EPARCH,an official, a governor of a province of Roman Greece,ἐπαρχος, whose title was equivalent to, or represented that of the Romanpraefectus. The area of his administration was called an eparchy (ἐπαρχία). The term survives as one of the administrative units of modern Greece, the country being divided into nomarchies, subdivided into eparchies, again subdivided into demarchies (seeGreece:Local Administration). “Eparch” and “eparchy” are also used in the Russian Orthodox Church for a bishop and his diocese respectively.
EPAULETTE(a French word, fromépaule, a shoulder), properly a shoulder-piece, and so applied to the shoulder-knot of ribbon to which a scapulary was attached, worn by members of a religious order. The military usage was probably derived from the metal plate (épaulière) which protected the shoulder in the defensive armour of the 16th century. It was first used merely as a shoulder knot to fasten the baldric, and the application of it to mark distinctive grades of rank was begun in France at the suggestion, it is said, of Charles Louis Auguste Fouquet, duc de Belle-Isle, in 1759. In modern times it always appears as a shoulder ornament for military and naval uniforms. At first it consisted merely of a fringe hanging from the end of the shoulder-strap or cord over the sleeve, but towards the end of the 18th century it became a solid ornament, consisting of a flat shoulder-piece, extended beyond the point of the shoulder into an oval plate, from the edge of which hangs a thick fringe, in the case of officers of gold or silver. The epaulette is worn in the British navy by officers above the rank of sub-lieutenant; in the army it ceased to be worn about 1855. It is worn by officers in the United States navy above the rank of ensign; since 1872 it is only worn by general officers in the army. In most other countries epaulettes are worn by officers, and in the French army by the men also, with a fringe of worsted, various distinctions of shape and colour being observed between ranks, corps and arms of the service. The “scale” is similar to the epaulette, but has no fringe.
ÉPÉE, CHARLES-MICHEL,Abbé de l’(1712-1789), celebrated for his labours in behalf of the deaf and dumb, was born at Paris on the 25th of November 1712, being the son of the king’s architect. He studied for the church, but having declined to sign a religious formula opposed to the doctrines of the Jansenists, he was denied ordination by the bishop of his diocese. He thendevoted himself to the study of law; but about the time of his admission to the bar of Paris, the bishop of Troyes granted him ordination, and offered him a canonry in his cathedral. This bishop died soon after, and the abbé, coming to Paris, was, on account of his relations with Soanen, the famous Jansenist, deprived of his ecclesiastical functions by the archbishop of Beaumont. About the same time it happened that he heard of two deaf mutes whom a priest lately dead had been endeavouring to instruct, and he offered to take his place. The Spaniard Pereira was then in Paris, exhibiting the results he had obtained in the education of deaf mutes; and it has been affirmed that it was from him that Épée obtained his manual alphabet. The abbé, however, affirmed that he knew nothing of Pereira’s method; and whether he did or not, there can be no doubt that he attained far greater success than Pereira or any of his predecessors, and that the whole system now followed in the instruction of deaf mutes virtually owes its origin to his intelligence and devotion. In 1755 he founded, for this beneficent purpose, a school which he supported at his own expense until his death, and which afterwards was succeeded by the “Institution Nationale des Sourds Muets à Paris,” founded by the National Assembly in 1791. He died on the 23rd of December 1789. In 1838 a bronze monument was erected over his grave in the church of Saint Roch. He published various books on his method of instruction, but that published in 1784 virtually supersedes all others. It is entitledLa Véritable Manière d’instruire les sourds et muets, confirmée par une longue expérience. He also began aDictionnaire général des signes, which was completed by his successor, the abbé Sicard.
ÉPÉE-DE-COMBAT,a weapon still used in France for duelling, and there and elsewhere (blunted, of course) for exercise and amusement in fencing (q.v.). It has a sharp-pointed blade, about 35 in. long, without any cutting edge, and the guard, or shell, is bowl-shaped, having its convexity towards the point. Theépéeis the modern representative of the small-sword, and both are distinguished from the older rapier, mainly by being several inches shorter and much lighter in weight. The small-sword (called thus in opposition to the heavy cavalry broadsword), was worn by gentlemen in full dress throughout the 18th century, and it still survives in the modern English court costume.
Fencing practice was originally carried on without the protection of any mask for the face. Wire masks were not invented till near 1780 by a famous fencing-master, La Boëssière the elder, and did not come into general use until much later. Consequently, in order to avoid dangerous accidents to the face, and especially the eyes, it was long the rigorous etiquette of the fencing-room that the point should always be kept low.
In the 17th century a Scottish nobleman, who had procured the assassination of a fencing-master in revenge for having had one of his eyes destroyed by the latter at sword-play, pleaded on his trial for murder that it was the custom to “spare the face.”
Rowlandson’s well-known drawing of a fencing bout, dated 1787, shows two accomplished amateurs making a foil assault without masks, while in the background a less practised one is having a wire mask tied on.
For greater safety the convention was very early arrived at that no hits should count in a fencing-bout except those landing on the breast. Thus sword-play soon became so unpractical as to lose much of its value as a training for war or the duel. For, hits with “sharps” take effect wherever they are made, and many an expert fencer of the old school has been seriously wounded, or lost his life in a duel, through forgetting that very simple fact.
Strangely enough, when masks began to be generally worn, and thefleuret(anglice, “foil,” a cheap and light substitute for the real épée) was invented, fencing practice became gradually even more conventional than before. No one seems to have understood that with masks all the conventions could be safely done away with, root and branch, and sword-practice might assume all the semblance of reality. Nevertheless it should be clearly recognized that the basis of modern foil-fencing was laid with the épée or small-sword alone, in and before the days of Angelo, of Danet, and the famous chevalier de St George, who were among the first to adopt the fleuret also. All the illustrious French professors who came after them, such as La Boëssière the younger, Lafaugère, Jean Louis, Cordelois, Grisier, Bertrand and Robert, with amateurs like the baron d’Ezpeléta, were foil-players pure and simple, whose reputations were gained before the modern épée play had any recognized status. It was reserved for Jacob, a Parisian fencing-master, to establish in the last quarter of the 19th century a definite method of the épée, which differed essentially from all its forerunners. He was soon followed by Baudry, Spinnewyn, Laurent and Ayat. The methods of the four first-named, not differing muchinter se, are based on the perception that in the real sword fight, where hits are effective on all parts of the person, the “classical” bent-arm guard, with the foil inclining upwards, is hopelessly bad. It offers a tempting mark in the exposed sword-arm itself, while the point requires a movement to bring it in line for the attack, which involves a fatal loss of time. The épée is really in the nature of a short lance held in one hand, and for both rapidity and precision of attack, as well as for the defence of the sword-arm and the body behind it, a position of guardwith the arm almost fully extended, and épée in line with the forearm, is far the safest. Against this guard the direct lunge at the body is impossible, except at the risk of a mutual or double hit (le coup des deux veuves). No safe attack at the face or body can be made without first binding or beating, opposing or evading the adverse blade, and such an attack usually involves an initial forward movement. Beats and binds of the blade, with retreats of the body, or counter attacks with opposition, replace the old foil-parries in most instances, except at close quarters. And much of the offensive is reduced to thrusts at the wrist or forearm, intended to disable without seriously wounding the adversary. The direct lunge (coup-droit) at the body often succeeds in tournaments, but usually at the cost of a counter hit, which, though later in time, would be fatal with sharp weapons.
Ayat’s method, as might be expected from a first-class foil-player, is less simple. Indeed for years, too great simplicity marked the most successful épée-play, because it usually gained its most conspicuous victories over those who attempted a foil defence, and whose practice gave them no safe strokes for an attack upon the extended blade. But by degrees the épéists themselves discovered new ways of attacking with comparative safety, and at the present day a complete épée-player is master of a large variety of attractive as well as scientific movements, both of attack and defence.
It was mainly by amateurs that this development was achieved. Perhaps the most conspicuous representative of the new school is J. Joseph-Renaud, a consummate swordsman, who has also been a champion foil-player. Lucien Gaudin, Alibert and Edmond Wallace may be also mentioned as among the most skilful amateurs, Albert Ayat and L. Bouché as professors—all of Paris. Belgium, Italy and England have also produced épéists quite of the first rank.
The épée lends itself to competition far better than the foil, and the revival of the small-sword soon gave rise in France to “pools” and “tournaments” in which there was the keenest rivalry between all comers.
In considering the épée from a British point of view, it may be mentioned that it was first introduced publicly in London by C. Newton-Robinson at an important assault-at-arms held in the Steinway Hall on the 4th May 1900. Professor Spinnewyn was the principal demonstrator, with his pupil, the late Willy Sulzbacher. The next day was held at the Inns of Court R. V. School of Arms, Lincoln’s Inn, the first English open épée tournament for amateurs. It was won by W. Sulzbacher, C. Newton-Robinson being second, and Paul Ettlinger, a French resident in London, third. This was immediately followed by the institution of the Épée Club of London, which, under the successive residencies of a veteran swordsman, Sir Edward Jenkinson, and of Lord Desborough, subsequently held annual open international tournaments. The winners were: in 1901, Willy Sulzbacher; 1902, Robert Montgomerie; 1903, the marquis de Chasseloup-Laubat; 1904, J.J. Renaud; 1905, R. Montgomerie. In 1906the Amateur Fencing Association for the first time recognized the best-placed Englishman, Edgar Seligman (who was the actual winner), as the English épée champion. In 1907 R. Montgomerie was again the winner, in 1908 C.L. Daniell, in 1909 R. Montgomerie.
Among the most active of the English amateurs who were the earliest to perceive the wonderful possibilities of épée-play, it is right to mention Captain Hutton, Lord Desborough, Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, Bart., Sir Charles Dilke, Bart., Lord Howard de Walden, Egerton Castle, A.S. Cope, R.A., W.H.C. Staveley, C.F. Clay, Lord Morpeth, Evan James, Paul King, J.B. Cunliffe, John Norbury, Jr., Theodore A. Cook, John Jenkinson, R. Montgomerie, S. Martineau, E.B. Milnes, H.J. Law, R. Merivale, the Marquis of Dufferin, Hugh Pollock, R.W. Doyne, A.G. Ross, the Hon. Ivor Guest and Henry Balfour.
Among foreign amateurs who did most to promote the use of the épée in England were Messrs P. Ettlinger, Anatole Paroissien, J. Joseph-Renaud, W. Sulzbacher, René Lacroix, H.G. Berger and the Marquis de Chasseloup-Laubat.
Épée practice became popular among Belgian and Dutch fencers about the same time as in England, and this made it possible to set on foot international team-contests for amateurs, which have done much to promote good feeling and acquaintanceship among swordsmen of several countries. In 1903 a series of international matches between teams of six was inaugurated in Paris. Up to 1909 the French team uniformly won the first place, with Belgium or England second.
English fencers who were members of these international teams were Lord Desborough, Theodore A. Cook, Bowden, Cecil Haig, J. Norbury, Jr., R. Montgomerie, John Jenkinson, F. Townsend, W.H.C. Staveley, S. Martineau, C.L. Daniell, W. Godden, Captain Haig, M.D.V. Holt, Edgar Seligman, C. Newton-Robinson, A.V. Buckland, P.M. Davson, E.M. Amphlett and L.V. Fildes. In 1906 a British épée team of four, consisting of Lord Desborough, Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, Bart., Edgar Seligman and C. Newton-Robinson, with Lord Howard de Walden and Theodore Cook as reserves (the latter acting as captain of the team), went to Athens to compete in the international match at the Olympic games. After defeating the Germans rather easily, the team opposed and worsted the Belgians. It thus found itself matched against the French in the final, the Greek team having been beaten by the French and the Dutch eliminated by the Belgians. After a very close fight the result was officially declared a tie. This was the first occasion upon which an English fencing team had encountered a French one of the first rank upon even terms. In fighting off the tie, however, the French were awarded the first prize and the Englishmen the second.
In the Olympic games of London, 1908, the Épée International Individual Tournament was won by Alibert (France), but Montgomerie, Haig and Holt (England) took the 4th, 5th, and 8th places in the final pool. The result of the International Team competition was also very creditable to the English representatives, Daniell, Haig, Holt, Montgomerie and Amphlett, who by defeating the Dutch, Germans, Danes and Belgians took second place to the French. Egerton Castle was captain of the English team.
In open International Tournaments on the Continent, English épéists have also been coming to the front. None had won such a competition up to 1909 outright, but the following had reached the final pool: C. Newton-Robinson, Brussels, 1901 (10th), Étretat, 1904 (6th); E. Seligman, Copenhagen, 1907 (2nd), and Paris, 1909 (12th); R. Montgomerie, Paris, 1909 (5th); and E.M. Amphlett, Paris, 1909 (10th).
The method of ascertaining the victor in épée “tournaments” is by dividing the competitors into “pools,” usually of six or eight fencers. Each of these fights an assault for first hit only, with every other member of the same pool, and he who is least often hit, or not at all, is returned the winner. If the competitors are numerous, fresh pools are formed out of the first two, three or four in each pool of the preliminary round, and so on, until a small number are left in for a final pool, the winner of which is the victor of the tournament.
Épée fencing can be, and often is, conducted indoors, but one of its attractions consists in its fitness for open-air practice in pleasant gardens.
In the use of the épée the most essential points are (1) the position of the sword-arm, which, whether fully extended or not, should always be so placed as to ensure the protection of the wrist, forearm and elbow from direct thrusts, by the intervention of the guard or shell; (2) readiness of the legs forinstantadvance or retreat; and (3) the way in which the weapon is held, the best position (though hard to acquire and maintain) being that adopted by J.J. Renaud with the fingersoverthe grip, so that a downward beat does not easily disarm.
The play of individuals is determined by their respective temperaments and physical powers. But every fencer should be always ready to deliver a well-aimed, swift, direct thrust at any exposed part of the antagonist’s arm, his mask or thigh. Very tall men, who are usually not particularly quick on their legs, should not as a rule attack, otherwise than by direct thrusts, when matched against shorter men. For if they merely extend their sword-arm in response to a simple attack, their longer reach will ward it off with a stop or counter-thrust. Short men can only attack them safely by beating, binding, grazing, pressing or evading the blade, and the taller fencers must be prepared with all the well-known parries and counters to such offensive movements, as well as with the stop-thrust to be made either with advancing opposition or with a retreat. Fencers of small stature must be exceedingly quick on their feet, unless they possess the art of parrying to perfection, and even then, if slow to shift ground, they will continually be in danger. With plenty of room, the quick mover can always choose the moment when he will be within distance, for an attack which his slower opponent will be always fearing and unable to prevent or anticipate.
It is desirable to put on record the modern form of the weapon. An average épée weighs, complete, about a pound and a half, while a foil weighs approximately one-third less. The épée blade is exactly like that of the old small-sword after the abandonment of the “colichemarde” form, in which the “forte” of the blade was greatly thickened. In length from guard or shell to point it measures about 35 in., and in width at the shell about13⁄16ths of an inch. From this it gradually and regularly tapers to the point. There is no cutting edge. The side of the épée which is usually held uppermost is slightly concave, the other is strengthened with a midrib, nearly equal in thickness and similar in shape to either half of the true blade. The material is tempered steel. There is a haft or tang about 8 in. long, which is pushed through a circular guard or shell (“coquille”) of convex form, the diameter of which is normally 5 in. and the convexity 1¾ in. The shell is of steel or aluminium, and if of the latter metal, sometimes fortified at the centre with a disk of steel the size of a crown piece. The insertion of the haft or tang through the shell may be either central or excentric to the extent of about 1 in., for the better protection of the outside of the forearm.
After passing through the shell, the haft of the blade is inserted in a grip or handle (“poignet”), averaging 7 in. in length and of quadrangular section, which is made of tough wood covered with leather, india-rubber, wound cord or other strong material with a rough surface. The grip is somewhat wider than its vertical thickness when held in the usual way, and it diminishes gradually from shell to pommel for convenience of holding. It should have a slight lateral curvature, so that in executing circular movements the pommel is kept clear of the wrist. The pommel, usually of steel, is roughly spherical or eight-sided, and serves as a counterbalance. The end of the haft is riveted through it, except in the case of “épées démontables,” which are the most convenient, as a blade may be changed by simply unscrewing or unlocking the pommel.
An épée is well balanced and light in hand when, on poising the blade across the forefinger, about 1 in. in advance of the shell, it is in equilibrium.
For practice, the point is blunted to resemble the flat head of a nail, and is made still more incapable of penetration by winding around it a small ball of waxed thread, such as cobblers use. This is called the “button.” In competitions various forms of “boutons marqueurs,” all of which are unsatisfactory, are occasionally used. The “pointe d’arrêt,” like a small tin-tack placed head downwards on the flattened point of the épée, and fastened on by means of the waxed thread, is, on the contrary, most useful, by fixing in the clothes, to show where and when a good hit has been made. The point need only protrude about1⁄16th of an inch from the button. There are several kinds of pointes d’arrêt. The best is called, after its inventor, the “Léon Sazie,” and has three blunt points of hardened steel each slightly excentric. The single point is sometimes prevented by the thickness of the button from scoring a good hit.
A mask of wire netting is used to protect the face, and a stout glove on the sword hand. It is necessary to wear strong clothes and to pad the jacket and trousers at the most exposed parts, in case the blade should break unnoticed. A vulnerable spot, which ought to be specially padded, is just under the sword-arm.
Bibliography.—Among the older works on the history and practice of the small-sword, or épée, are the following:—The Scots Fencing-Master, or Compleat Small-swordsman, by W.H. Gent (Sir William Hope, afterwards baronet) (Edinburgh, 1687), and several other works by the same author, of later date, for which seeSchools and Masters of Fence, by Egerton Castle;Nouveau traité de la perfection sur le fait des armes, by P.G.F. Girard (Paris, 1736);L’École des armes, by M. Angelo (London, 1763);L’Art des armes, by M. Danet (2 vols., Paris, 1766-1767);Nouveau traité de l’art des armes, by Nicolas Demeuse (Liège, 1778).More modern are:Traité de l’art des armes, by la Böessière, Jr. (Paris, 1818);Les Armes et le duel, by A. Grisier (2nd ed., Paris, 1847);Les Secrets de l’épée, by the baron de Bazancourt (Paris, 1862);Schools and Masters of Fence, by Egerton Castle (London, 1885);Le Jeu de l’épée, by J. Jacob and Émil André (Paris, 1887);L’Escrime pratique au XIXesiècle, by Ambroise Baudry (Paris); L’Escrime a l’épée, by A. Spinnewyn and Paul Manonry (Paris, 1898);The Sword and the Centuries, by Captain Hutton (London,1901); “The Revival of the Small-sword,” by C. Newton-Robinson, in theNineteenth Century and After(London, January 1905);Nouveau Traité de l’épée, by Dr Edom, privately published (Paris, 1908); and, most important of all,Méthode d’escrime à l’épée, by J. Joseph-Renaud, privately published (Paris, 1909).
Bibliography.—Among the older works on the history and practice of the small-sword, or épée, are the following:—The Scots Fencing-Master, or Compleat Small-swordsman, by W.H. Gent (Sir William Hope, afterwards baronet) (Edinburgh, 1687), and several other works by the same author, of later date, for which seeSchools and Masters of Fence, by Egerton Castle;Nouveau traité de la perfection sur le fait des armes, by P.G.F. Girard (Paris, 1736);L’École des armes, by M. Angelo (London, 1763);L’Art des armes, by M. Danet (2 vols., Paris, 1766-1767);Nouveau traité de l’art des armes, by Nicolas Demeuse (Liège, 1778).
More modern are:Traité de l’art des armes, by la Böessière, Jr. (Paris, 1818);Les Armes et le duel, by A. Grisier (2nd ed., Paris, 1847);Les Secrets de l’épée, by the baron de Bazancourt (Paris, 1862);Schools and Masters of Fence, by Egerton Castle (London, 1885);Le Jeu de l’épée, by J. Jacob and Émil André (Paris, 1887);L’Escrime pratique au XIXesiècle, by Ambroise Baudry (Paris); L’Escrime a l’épée, by A. Spinnewyn and Paul Manonry (Paris, 1898);The Sword and the Centuries, by Captain Hutton (London,1901); “The Revival of the Small-sword,” by C. Newton-Robinson, in theNineteenth Century and After(London, January 1905);Nouveau Traité de l’épée, by Dr Edom, privately published (Paris, 1908); and, most important of all,Méthode d’escrime à l’épée, by J. Joseph-Renaud, privately published (Paris, 1909).
(C. E. N. R.)
EPERJES,a town of Hungary, capital of the county of Sáros, 190 m. N.E. of Budapest by rail. Pop. (1900) 13,098. It is situated on the left bank of the river Tarcza, an affluent of the Theiss, and has been almost completely rebuilt since a great fire in 1887. Eperjes is one of the oldest towns of Hungary, and is still partly surrounded by its old walls. It is the seat of a Greek-Catholic bishop, and possesses a beautiful cathedral built in the 18th century in late Gothic style. It possesses manufactures of cloth, table-linen and earthenware, and has an active trade in wine, linen, cattle and grain. About 2 m. to the south is Sóvár with important salt-works.
In the same county, 28 m. by rail N. of Eperjes, is situated the old town ofBártfa(pop. 6098), which possesses a Gothic church from the 14th century, and an interesting town-hall, dating from the 15th century, and containing very valuable archives. In its neighbourhood, surrounded by pine forests, are the baths of Bártfa, with twelve mineral springs—iodate, ferruginous and alkaline—used for bathing and drinking.
About 6 m. N.W. of Eperjes is situated the village of Vörösvágás, which contains the only opal mine in Europe. The opal was mined here 800 years ago, and the largest piece hitherto found, weighing 2940 carats and estimated to have a value of £175,000, is preserved in the Court Museum at Vienna.
Eperjes was founded about the middle of the 12th century by a German colony, and was elevated to the rank of a royal free town in 1347 by Louis I. (the Great). It was afterwards fortified and received special privileges. The Reformation found many early adherents here, and the town played an important part during the religious wars of the 17th century. It became famous by the so-called “butchery of Eperjes,” a tribunal instituted by the Austrian general Caraffa in 1687, which condemned to death and confiscated the property of a great number of citizens accused of Protestantism. During the 16th and the 17th centuries its German educational establishments enjoyed a wide reputation.
ÉPERNAY,a town of northern France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Marne, 88 m. E.N.E. of Paris on the main line of the Eastern railway to Châlons-sur-Marne. Pop. (1906) 20,291. The town is situated on the left bank of the Marne at the extremity of the pretty valley of the Cubry, by which it is traversed. In the central and oldest quarter the streets are narrow and irregular; the surrounding suburbs are modern and more spacious, and that of La Folie, on the east, contains many handsome villas belonging to rich wine merchants. The town has also extended to the right bank of the Marne. One of its churches preserves a portal and stained-glass windows of the 16th century, but the other public buildings are modern. Épernay is best known as the principalentrepôtof the Champagne wines, which are bottled and kept in extensive vaults in the chalk rock on which the town is built. The manufacture of the apparatus and material used in the champagne industry occupies many hands, and the Eastern Railway Company has important workshops here. Brewing, and the manufacture of sugar and of hats and caps, are also carried on. Épernay is the seat of a sub-prefect and has tribunals of first instance and of commerce, and communal colleges for girls and boys.
Épernay (Sparnacum) belonged to the archbishops of Reims from the 5th to the 10th century, at which period it came into the possession of the counts of Champagne. It suffered severely during the Hundred Years’ War, and was burned by Francis I. in 1544. It resisted Henry of Navarre in 1592, and Marshal Biron fell in the attack which preceded its capture. In 1642 it was, along with Château-Thierry, erected into a duchy and assigned to the duke of Bouillon.
ÉPERNON,a town of northern France in the department of Eure-et-Loir, at the confluence of the Drouette and the Guesle, 17 m. N.E. of Chartres by rail. Pop. (1906) 2370. It belonged originally to the counts of Montfort, who, in the 11th century, built a castle here of which the ruins are still left, and granted a charter to the town. In the 13th century it became an independent lordship, which remained attached to the crown of Navarre till, in the 16th century, it was sold by King Henry (afterwards King Henry IV. of France) to Jean Louis de Nogaret, for whom it was raised to the rank of a duchy in 1581. The new duke of Épernon was one of the favourites of Henry III., who were calledles Mignons; the king showered favours upon him, giving him the posts of colonel-general in the infantry and of admiral of France. Under the reign of Henry IV. he made himself practically independent in his government of Provence. He was instrumental in giving the regency to Marie de’ Medici in 1610, and as a result exercised a considerable influence upon the government. During his governorship of Guienne in 1622 he had some scandalous scenes with the parlement and the archbishop of Bordeaux. He died in 1642. His eldest son, Henri de Nogaret de la Valette, duke of Candale, served under Richelieu, in the armies of Guienne, of Picardy and of Italy. The second son of Jean Louis de Nogaret, Bernard, who was born in 1592, and died in 1661, was, like his father, duke of Épernon, colonel-general in the infantry and governor of Guienne. After his death, the title of duke of Épernon was borne by the families of Goth and of Pardaillan.
EPHEBEUM(from Gr.ἔφηβος, a young man), in architecture, a large hall in the ancient Palaestra furnished with seats (Vitruvius v. 11), the length of which should be a third larger than the width. It served for the exercises of youths of from sixteen to eighteen years of age.
EPHEBI(Gr.ἐπί, andἣβη,i.e.“those who have reached puberty”), a name specially given, in Athens and other Greek towns, to a class of young men from eighteen to twenty years of age, who formed a sort of college under state control. On the completion of his seventeenth year the Athenian youth attained his civil majority, and, provided he belonged to the first three property classes and passed the scrutiny (δοκιμασία) as to age,civic descent and physical capability, was enrolled on the register of his deme (ληξιαρχικὸν γραμματεῖον). He thereby at once became liable to the military training and duties, which, at least in the earliest times, were the main object of the Ephebia. In the time of Aristotle the names of the enrolled ephebi were engraved on a bronze pillar (formerly on wooden tablets) in front of the council-chamber. After admission to the college, the ephebus took the oath of allegiance, recorded in Pollux and Stobaeus (but not in Aristotle), in the temple of Aglaurus, and was sent to Munychia or Acte to form one of the garrison. At the end of the first year of training, the ephebi were reviewed, and, if their performance was satisfactory, were provided by the state with a spear and a shield, which, together with thechlamys(cloak) andpetasus(broad-brimmed hat), made up their equipment. In their second year they were transferred to other garrisons in Attica, patrolled the frontiers, and on occasion took an active part in war. During these two years they were free from taxation, and were not allowed (except in certain cases) to appear in the law courts as plaintiffs or defendants. The ephebi took part in some of the most important Athenian festivals. Thus during the Eleusinia they were told off to fetch the sacred objects from Eleusis and to escort the image of Iacchus on the sacred way. They also performed police duty at the meetings of the ecclesia.
After the end of the 4th centuryB.C.the institution underwent a radical change. Enrolment ceased to be obligatory, lasted only for a year, and the limit of age was dispensed with. Inscriptions attest a continually decreasing number of ephebi, and with the admission of foreigners the college lost its representative national character. This was mainly due to the weakening of the military spirit and the progress of intellectual culture. The military element was no longer all-important, and the ephebia became a sort of university for well-to-do young men of good family, whose social position has been compared with that of the Athenian “knights” of earlier times. The institution lasted till the end of the 3rd centuryA.D.
It is probable that the ephebia was in existence in the 5th centuryB.C., and controlled by the Areopagus and strategus as its moral and military supervisors. In the 4th century their place was taken by tensophronistae(one for each tribe), who, as the name implies, took special interest in the morals of those under them, their military training being in the hands of experts, of whom the chief were thehoplomachus, theacontistes, thetoxotesand theaphetes(instructors respectively in the use of arms, javelin-throwing, archery and the use of artillery engines). Later, thesophronistaewere superseded by a single official calledcosmetes, elected for a year by the people, who appointed the instructors. When the ephebia instead of a military college became a university, the military instructors were replaced by philosophers, rhetoricians, grammarians and artists. In Roman imperial times several new officials were introduced, one of special importance being the director of the Diogeneion, where youths under age were trained for the ephebia. At this period the college of ephebi was a miniature city; its members called themselves “citizens,” and it possessed an archon, strategus, herald and other officials, after the model of ancient Athens.
There is an extensive class of inscriptions, ranging from the 3rd centuryB.C.to the 3rd centuryA.D., containing decrees relating to the ephebi, their officers and instructors, and lists of the same, and a whole chapter (42) of the AristotelianConstitution of Athensis devoted to the subject. The most important treatises on the subject are: W. Dittenberger,De ephebis Atticis(Göttingen, 1863); A. Dumont,Essai sur l’éphébie attique(1875-1876); L. Grasberger,Erziehung und Unterricht im klassichen Altertum, iii. (Würzburg, 1881); J.P. Mahaffy,Old Greek Education(1881); P. Girard,L’Éducation athénienne au Veet IVesiècle avant J.-C.(2nd ed., 1891), and article in Daremberg and Saglio’sDictionnaire des antiquitéswhich contains further bibliographical references; G. Gilbert,The Constitutional Antiquities of Athens(Eng. tr., 1895); G. Busolt,Die griechischen Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer(1892); T. Thalheim and J. Öhler in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, v. pt. 2 (1905); W.W. Capes,University Life in Ancient Athens(1877).
There is an extensive class of inscriptions, ranging from the 3rd centuryB.C.to the 3rd centuryA.D., containing decrees relating to the ephebi, their officers and instructors, and lists of the same, and a whole chapter (42) of the AristotelianConstitution of Athensis devoted to the subject. The most important treatises on the subject are: W. Dittenberger,De ephebis Atticis(Göttingen, 1863); A. Dumont,Essai sur l’éphébie attique(1875-1876); L. Grasberger,Erziehung und Unterricht im klassichen Altertum, iii. (Würzburg, 1881); J.P. Mahaffy,Old Greek Education(1881); P. Girard,L’Éducation athénienne au Veet IVesiècle avant J.-C.(2nd ed., 1891), and article in Daremberg and Saglio’sDictionnaire des antiquitéswhich contains further bibliographical references; G. Gilbert,The Constitutional Antiquities of Athens(Eng. tr., 1895); G. Busolt,Die griechischen Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer(1892); T. Thalheim and J. Öhler in Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, v. pt. 2 (1905); W.W. Capes,University Life in Ancient Athens(1877).
EPHEMERIS(Greek for a “diary”), a table giving for stated times the apparent position and other numerical particulars relating to a heavenly body. TheAstronomical Ephemeris, familiarly known as the “Nautical Almanac,” is a national annual publication containing ephemerides of the principal or more conspicuous heavenly bodies, elements and other data of eclipses, and other matter useful to the astronomer and navigator. The governments of the United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany and Spain publish such annals.
EPHESIANS, EPISTLE TO THE.This book of the New Testament, the most general and least occasional and polemic of all the Pauline epistles, a large section of which seems almost like the literary elaboration of a theological topic, may best be described as a solemn oration, addressed to absent hearers, and intended not primarily to clarify their minds but to stir their emotions. It is thus a true letter, but in the grand style, verging on the nature not of an essay but a poem.Ephesianshas been called “the crown of St Paul’s writings,” and whether it be measured by its theological or its literary interest and importance, it can fairly dispute withRomansthe claim to be his greatest epistle. In the public and private use of Christians some parts ofEphesianshave been among the most favourite of all New Testament passages. Like its sister Epistle to the Colossians, it represents, whoever wrote it, deep experience and bold use of reflection on the meaning of that experience; if it be from the pen of the Apostle Paul, it reveals to us a distinct and important phase of his thought.
To the nature of the epistle correspond well the facts of its title and address. The title “To the Ephesians” is found in the Muratorian canon, in Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, as well as in all the earliest MSS. and versions. Marcion, however (c.A.D.150), used and recommended copies with the title “To the Laodiceans.” This would be inexplicable if Eph. i. 1 had read in Marcion’s copies, as it does in most ancient authorities, “To the saints which are at Ephesus”; but in fact the wordsἐν Ἐφέσῳof verse 1 were probably absent. They were not contained in the text used by Origen (d. 253); Basil (d. 379) says that “ancient copies” omitted the words; and they are actually omitted by Codices B (Vaticanus, 4th century) andא(Sinaiticus, 4th century), together with Codex 67 (11th century). The words “in Ephesus” were thus probably originally lacking in the address, and were inserted from the suggestion of the title. Either the address was general (“to the saints who are also faithful”) or else a blank was left. In the latter case the name may have been intended to be supplied orally, in communicating the letter, or a different name may have been written in each of the individual copies. Under any of these hypotheses the address would indicate that we have a circular letter, written to a group of churches, doubtless in Asia Minor. This would account for the general character of the epistle, as well as for the entire and striking absence of personal greetings and of concrete allusions to existing circumstances among the readers. It appears to have drawn its title, “To the Ephesians,” from one of the churches for which it was intended, perhaps the one from which a copy was secured when Paul’s epistles were collected, shortly before or after the year 100. That our epistle is the one referred to in Col. iv. 16, which was to be had by the Colossians from Laodicea, is not unlikely. Such an identification doubtless led Marcion to alter the title in his copies.
The structure ofEphesiansis epistolary; it opens with the usual salutation (i. 1-2) and closes with a brief personal note and formal farewell (vi. 21-24). In the intervening body of the epistle the writer also follows the regular form of a letter. In an ordinary Greek letter (as the papyri show) we should find the salutation followed by an expression of gratification over the correspondent’s good health and of prayer for its continuance. Paul habitually expanded and deepened this, and, in this case, that paragraph is enormously enlarged, so that it may be regarded as including chapters i.-iii., and as carrying the main thought of the epistle. Chapters iv.-vi. merely make application of the main ideas worked out in chapters i.-iii. Throughout the epistle we have a singular combination of the seemingly desultory method of a letter, turning aside at a word and straying whereverthe mood of the moment leads, with the firm, forward march of earnest and mature thought. In this combination resides the doubtless unconscious but nevertheless real literary art of the composition.
The fundamental theme of the epistle isThe Unity of Mankind in Christ, and hence the Unity and Divinity of the Church of Christ. God’s purpose from eternity was to unite mankind in Christ, and so to bring human history to its goal, the New Man, the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Those who have believed in Christ are the present representatives and result of this purpose; and a clear knowledge of the purpose itself, the secret of the ages, has now been revealed to men. This theme is not formally discussed, as in a theological treatise, but is rather, as it were, celebrated in lofty eulogy and application. First, in chapters i.-iii., under the mask of a conventional congratulatory paragraph, the writer declares at length the privileges which this great fact confers upon those who by faith receive the gift of God, and he is thus able to touch on the various aspects of his subject. Then, in chapters iv.-vi., he turns, with a characteristic and impressive “therefore,” to set forth the obligations which correspond to the privileges he has just expounded. This author is indeed interested to prosecute vigorous and substantial thinking, but the mainspring of his interest is the conviction that such thought is significant for inner and outer life.
The relationship, both literary and theological, between the epistle to theEphesiansand that to theColossians(q.v.) is very close. It is to be seen in many of the prominent ideas of the two writings, especially in the developed view of the central position of Christ in the whole universe; in the conception of the Church as Christ’s body, of which He is the head; in the thought of the great Mystery, once secret, now revealed. There is further resemblance in the formal moral code, arranged by classes of persons, and having much the same contents in the two epistles (Eph. v. 22-vi. 9; Col. iii. 18-iv. 1). In both, also, Tychicus carries the letter, and in almost identical language the readers are told that he will by word of mouth give fuller information about the apostle’s affairs (Eph. vi. 21-22; Col. iv. 7-8). Moreover, in a great number of characteristic phrases and even whole verses the two are alike. Compare, for instance, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14; Eph. i. 10, Col. i. 20; Eph. i. 21, Col. i. 16; Eph. i. 22, 23, Col. i. 18, 19; Eph. ii. 5, Col. ii. 13; Eph. ii. 11, Col. ii. 11; Eph: ii. 16, Col. i. 20; Eph. iii. 2, 3, Col. i. 25, 26, and many other parallels. Only a comparison in detail will give a true impression of the extraordinary degree of resemblance. Yet the two epistles do not follow the same course of thought, and their contents cannot be successfully exhibited in a common synoptical abstract. Each has its independent occasion, purpose, character and method; but they draw largely on a common store of thought and use common means of expression.
The question of the authorship ofEphesiansis less important to the student of the history of Christian thought than in the case of most of the Pauline epistles, because of the generalness of tone and the lack of specific allusion in the work. It purports to be by Paul, and was held to be his by Marcion and in the Muratorian canon, and by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, all writing at the end of the 2nd century. No doubt of the Pauline authorship was expressed in ancient times; nor is there any lack of early use by writers who make no direct quotation, to raise doubts as to the genuineness of the epistle. The influence of its language is probably to be seen in Ignatius, Polycarp and Hermas, less certainly in the epistle of Barnabas. Some resemblances of expression in Clement of Rome and in Second Clement may have significance. There is here abundant proof that the epistle was in existence, and was highly valued and influential with leaders of Christian thought, about the year 100, when persons who had known Paul well were still living.
To the evidence given above may be added the use ofEphesiansin the First Epistle of Peter. If the latter epistle could be finally established as genuine, or its date fixed, it would give important evidence with regard toEphesians; but in the present state of discussion we must confine ourselves to pointing out the fact. Some of the more striking points of contact are the following: Eph. i. 3, 1 Peter i. 3; Eph. i. 20, 21, 1 Peter iii. 22; Eph. ii. 2, 3, iv. 17, 1 Peter iv. 3; Eph. ii. 21, 22, 1 Peter ii. 5; Eph. v. 22, 1 Peter iii. 1, 2; Eph. v. 25, 1 Peter iii. 7, 8; Eph. vi. 5, 1 Peter ii. 18, 19. A similar relation exists betweenRomansand1 Peter. In both cases the dependence is clearly on the part of1 Peter; for ideas and phrases that inEphesiansandRomanshave their firm place in closely wrought sequences, are found in1 Peterwith less profound significance and transformed into smooth and pointed maxims and apophthegmatic sentences.
Objections to the genuineness ofEphesianshave been urged since the early part of the 19th century. The influence of Schleiermacher, whose pupil Leonhard Usteri in hisEntwickelung der paulinischen Lehrbegriffs(1824) expressed strong doubts as toEphesians, carried weight. He held that Tychicus was the author. De Wette first (1826) doubted, then (1843) denied that the epistle was by Paul. The chief attack came, however, from Baur (1845) and his colleagues of the Tübingen school. Against the genuineness have appeared Ewald, Renan, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, Pfleiderer, Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, von Soden, Schmiedel, von Dobschütz and many others. On the other hand, the epistle has been defended by Bleek, Neander, Reuss, B. Weiss, Meyer, Sabatier, Lightfoot, Hort, Sanday, Bacon, Jülicher, Harnack, Zahn and many others. In recent years a tendency has been apparent among critics to acceptEphesiansas a genuine work of Paul. This has followed the somewhat stronger reaction in favour ofColossians.
Before speaking of the more fundamental grounds urged for the rejection ofEphesians, we may look at various points of detail which are of less significance.
(1) The style has unquestionably a slow and lumbering movement, in marked contrast with the quick effectiveness ofRomansandGalatians. The sentences are much longer and less vivacious, as any one can see by a superficial examination. But nevertheless there are parts of the earlier epistles where the same tendency appears (e.g.Rom. iii. 23-26), and on the whole the style shows Paul’s familiar traits. (2) The vocabulary is said to be peculiar. But it can be shown to be no more so than that ofGalatians(Zahn,Einleitung, i. pp. 365 ff.). On the other hand, some words characteristic of Paul’s use appear (notablyδιό, five times), and the most recent and careful investigation of Paul’s vocabulary (Nägeli,Wortschatz der paulinischen Briefe, 1905) concludes that the evidence speaks for Pauline authorship. (3) Certain phrases have aroused suspicion, for instance, “the devil” (vi. 11, instead of Paul’s usual term “Satan”); “his holy apostles and prophets” (iii. 5, as smacking of later fulsomeness); “I Paul” (iii. 1); “unto me, who am less than the least of all the saints” (iii. 8, as exaggerated). But these cases, when properly understood and calmly viewed, do not carry conviction against the epistle. (4) The relation ofEphesianstoColossianswould be a serious difficulty only ifColossianswere held to be not by Paul. Those who hold to the genuineness ofColossiansfind it easier to explain the resemblances as the product of the free working of the same mind, than as due to a deliberate imitator. Holtzmann’s elaborate and very ingenious theory (1872) thatColossianshas been expanded, on the basis of a shorter letter of Paul, by the same later hand which had previously written the whole ofEphesians, has not met with favour from recent scholars.
But the more serious difficulties which to many minds still stand in the way of the acceptance of the epistle have come from the developed phase of Pauline theology which it shows, and from the general background and atmosphere of the underlying system of thought, in which the absence of the well-known earlier controversies is remarkable, while some things suggest the thought of John and a later age. Among the most important points in which the ideas and implications ofEphesianssuggest an authorship and a period other than that of Paul are the following:
(a) The union of Gentiles and Jews in one body is already accomplished. (b) The Christology is more advanced, usesAlexandrian terms, and suggests the ideas of the Gospel of John. (c) The conception of the Church as the body of Christ is new. (d) There is said to be a general softening of Pauline thought in the direction of the Christianity of the 2nd century, while very many characteristic ideas of the earlier epistles are absent.
With regard to the changed state of affairs in the Church, it must be said that this can be a conclusive argument only to one who holds the view of the Tübingen scholars, that the Apostolic Age was all of a piece and was dominated solely by one controversy. The change in the situation is surely not greater than can be imagined within the lifetime of Paul. That the epistle implies as already existent a developed system of Gnostic thought such as only came into being in the 2nd century is not true, and such a date is excluded by the external evidence. As to the other points, the question is, whether the admittedly new phase of Paul’s theological thought is so different from his earlier system as to be incompatible with it. In answering this question different minds will differ. But it must remain possible that contact with new scenes and persons, and especially such controversial necessities as are exemplified inColossians, stimulated Paul to work out more fully, under the influence of Alexandrian categories, lines of thought of which the germs and origins must be admitted to have been present in earlier epistles. It cannot be maintained that the ideas ofEphesiansdirectly contradict either in formulation or in tendency the thought of the earlier epistles. Moreover, ifColossiansbe accepted as Pauline (and among other strong reasons the unquestionable genuineness of the epistle to Philemon renders it extremely difficult not to accept it), the chief matters of this more advanced Christian thought are fully legitimated for Paul.
On the other hand, the characteristics of the thought inEphesiansgive some strong evidence confirmatory of the epistle’s own claim to be by Paul. (a) The writer of Eph. ii. 11-22 was a Jew, not less proud of his race than was the writer of Rom. ix.-xi. or of Phil. iii. 4 ff. (b) The centre in all the theology of the epistle is the idea of redemption. The use of Alexandrian categories is wholly governed by this interest. (c) The epistle shows the same panoramic, pictorial, dramatic conception of Christian truth which is everywhere characteristic of Paul. (d) The most fundamental elements in the system of thought do not differ from those of the earlier epistles.
The view which denies the Pauline authorship ofEphesianshas to suppose the existence of a great literary artist and profound theologian, able to write an epistle worthy of Paul at his best, who, without betraying any recognizable motive, presented to the world in the name of Paul an imitation ofColossians, incredibly laborious and yet superior to the original in literary workmanship and power of thought, and bearing every appearance of earnest sincerity. It must further be supposed that the name and the very existence of this genius were totally forgotten in Christian circles fifty years after he wrote. The balance of evidence seems to lie on the side of the genuineness of the Epistle.
IfEphesianswas written by Paul, it was during the period of his imprisonment, either at Caesarea or at Rome (iii. 1, iv. 1, vi. 20). At very nearly the same time he must have writtenColossiansandPhilemon; all three were sent by Tychicus. There is no strong reason for holding that the three were written from Caesarea. For Rome speaks the greater probability of the metropolis as the place in which a fugitive slave would try to hide himself, the impression given inColossiansof possible opportunity for active mission work (Col. iv. 3, 4; cf. Acts xxviii. 30, 31), the fact thatPhilippians, which in a measure belongs to the same group, was pretty certainly written from Rome. As to the Christians addressed, they are evidently converts from heathenism (ii. 1, 11-13, 17 f., iii. 1, iv. 17); but they are not merely Gentile Christians at large, for Tychicus carries the letter to them, Paul has some knowledge of their special circumstances (i. 15), and they are explicitly distinguished from “all the saints” (iii. 18, vi. 18). We may most naturally think of them as the members of the churches of Asia. The letter is very likely referred to in Col. iv. 16, although this theory is not wholly free from difficulties.