Bibliographical Note.—(1)Bibliographies.—Lists of the principal works on the history of the various European countries, and of their main sources, are given in the bibliographies attached to the separate articles (see also those appended to the articlesPapacy;Church History;Diplomacy;Crusades;Feudalism, &c.). For the sources of the medieval history of Europe see Ulysse Chevalier’s monumentalRepertoire des sources historiques du moyen âge; Bio-Bibliography(Paris, 1877, &c.), which with certain limitations (notably as regards the Slav, Hungarian and Scandinavian countries) gives references to published documents for all names of people, however obscure, occurring in medieval history. In 1894 M. Chevalier began the publication of a second series of hisRépertoire, under the somewhat misleading title ofTopo-Bibliographie, intended as a compendious guide to the places, institutions, &c., of the middle ages; though very useful, this is by no means so complete as theBio-Bibliographie. August Potthast’sBibliotheca historica medii aevi(2nd ed., Berlin, 1895-1896) gives a complete catalogue of all the annals, chronicles and other historical works which appeared in Europe between the years 375 and 1500 and have since been printed, with short notes on their value and significance, and references to critical works upon them. See also the articleRecord. For authorities on the history of Europe from the end of the 15th to the 19th centuries inclusive the excellent bibliographies appended to the volumes of theCambridge Modern Historyare invaluable.(2)Works.—Of general works the most important are theHistoire générale du IVmesiècle à nos jours, published under the direction of E. Lavisse and A. Rambaud (Paris, 1894, &c.), in 12 vols., covering the period from the 4th to the end of the 19th century: Leopold von Ranke’sWeltgeschichte(Leipzig, 1881, &c.), in 9 vols., covering (i.) the oldest group of nations and the Greeks; (ii.) the Roman Republic; (iii.) the ancient Roman Empire; (iv.) the East Roman empire and the origin of the Romano-German kingdoms; (v.) the Arab world-power and the empire of Charlemagne; (vi.) dissolution of the Carolingian and foundation of the German empire; (vii.) zenith and decay of the German empire; the hierarchy under Gregory VII.; (viii.) crusades and papal world-power (12th and 13th centuries); (ix.) period of transition to the modern world (14th and 15th centuries). To this may be added Ranke’s works on special periods:e.g.Die Fürsten und Völker von Süd-Europa im 16ten und 17ten Jahrhundert(2nd ed., Leipzig, 1837-1839);Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker, 1494-1514 (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1874, Eng. trans. 1887). In English the most important general work is theCambridge Modern History(1903, &c.), produced by the collaboration of English and foreign scholars, and covering the ground from the end of the 15th to the 19th century inclusive. TheHistorians’ History of the World, edited by Dr H. Smith Williams (1908), is a compilation from the works of eminent historians of all ages, and the value of its various parts is therefore that of the historians responsible for them. Its chief merit is that it makes accessible to English readers many foreign or obscure sources which would otherwise have remained closed to the general reader. It also contains essays by notable modern scholars on the principal epochs and tendencies of the world’s history, the texts of a certain number of treaties, &c., not included as yet in other collections, and comprehensive bibliographies. On a less ambitious scale are the volumes of the “Periods of European History” series (London, 1893, &c.): Per. I.The Dark Ages, 476-918, by C.W.C. Oman (1893); Per. II.The Empire and the Papacy, 918-1273, by T.F. Tout (1898); Per. III.The Close of the Middle Ages, 1273-1494, by R. Lodge (1901);Europe in the 16th Century, 1494-1598, by A.H. Johnson (1897);The Ascendancy of France, by H.O. Wakeman (1894);The Balance of Power, by A. Hassal (1896);Revolutionary Europe, by H. Morse Stephens (1893);Modern Europe, by W. Alison Phillips (1901,5th ed., 1908). See also T.H. Dyer,History of Modern Europe from the fall of Constantinople, revised and continued to the end of the 19th century by A. Hassal (6 vols., London, 1901). Besides the above may be mentioned, for European history since the outbreak of the French Revolution, A. Sorel,l’Europe et la Révolution Française(7 vols., Paris, 1885, &c.), a work of first-class importance; A. Stern,Geschichte Europas seit den Wiener Verträgen von 1815(Stuttgart and Berlin, 1894, &c.), based on the study of much new material, still in progress (1908); C. Seignobos,Histoire politique de l’Europe contemporaine(Paris, 1897), a valuable text-book with copious bibliography (Eng. trans., London, 1901); C.M. Andrews,Historical development of Europe, 2 vols. (New York, 1896-1898).(3)Published Documents.—For the vast mass of published sources reference must be made to the bibliographies mentioned above. It must be borne in mind, however, that these represent but a fraction of the unpublished material, and that the great development of original research is constantly revealing fresh sources, throwing new light on old problems, and not seldom upsetting conclusions long established as final. For these latest developments of scholarship the numerous historical and archaeological reviews published in various countries should be consulted:e.g.The English Historical Review(London);The Scottish Hist. Rev.(Glasgow);The American Hist. Rev.(London and New York); theRevue historique(Paris); theHistorische Zeitschrift(Munich). The most notable collections of treaties are J. Dumont’sCorps diplomatique, covering the period fromA.D.800 to 1731 (Amsterdam and the Hague, 1726-1731); F.G. de Martens and his continuators,Recueil des traités, &c. (1791, &c.), covering with its supplements the period from 1494 to 1874; F. (T.T.) de Martens,Recueil des traités conclus par la Russie, &c. (14 vols., St Petersburg, 1874, &c.); A. and J. de Clercq,Recueil des traités de la France(Paris, 1864; new ed., 1880, &c.); L. Neumann,Recueil des traités conclus par l’Autriche(from 1763), (6 vols., Leipzig, 1855); new series, by. L. Neumann and A. de Plason (16 vols., Vienna, 1877-1903);Österreichische Staatsverträge(vol. i.England, 1526-1748), published by the Commission for the modern history of Austria (Innsbruck, 1907), with valuable introductory notes;British and Foreign State Papers(from the termination of the war in 1814), compiled at the Foreign Office by the Librarian and Keeper of the Papers (London, 1819, &c.); Sir E. Hertslet,The Map of Europe by Treaty(from 1814), (4 vols., London, 1875-1891). See the articleTreaties.
Bibliographical Note.—(1)Bibliographies.—Lists of the principal works on the history of the various European countries, and of their main sources, are given in the bibliographies attached to the separate articles (see also those appended to the articlesPapacy;Church History;Diplomacy;Crusades;Feudalism, &c.). For the sources of the medieval history of Europe see Ulysse Chevalier’s monumentalRepertoire des sources historiques du moyen âge; Bio-Bibliography(Paris, 1877, &c.), which with certain limitations (notably as regards the Slav, Hungarian and Scandinavian countries) gives references to published documents for all names of people, however obscure, occurring in medieval history. In 1894 M. Chevalier began the publication of a second series of hisRépertoire, under the somewhat misleading title ofTopo-Bibliographie, intended as a compendious guide to the places, institutions, &c., of the middle ages; though very useful, this is by no means so complete as theBio-Bibliographie. August Potthast’sBibliotheca historica medii aevi(2nd ed., Berlin, 1895-1896) gives a complete catalogue of all the annals, chronicles and other historical works which appeared in Europe between the years 375 and 1500 and have since been printed, with short notes on their value and significance, and references to critical works upon them. See also the articleRecord. For authorities on the history of Europe from the end of the 15th to the 19th centuries inclusive the excellent bibliographies appended to the volumes of theCambridge Modern Historyare invaluable.
(2)Works.—Of general works the most important are theHistoire générale du IVmesiècle à nos jours, published under the direction of E. Lavisse and A. Rambaud (Paris, 1894, &c.), in 12 vols., covering the period from the 4th to the end of the 19th century: Leopold von Ranke’sWeltgeschichte(Leipzig, 1881, &c.), in 9 vols., covering (i.) the oldest group of nations and the Greeks; (ii.) the Roman Republic; (iii.) the ancient Roman Empire; (iv.) the East Roman empire and the origin of the Romano-German kingdoms; (v.) the Arab world-power and the empire of Charlemagne; (vi.) dissolution of the Carolingian and foundation of the German empire; (vii.) zenith and decay of the German empire; the hierarchy under Gregory VII.; (viii.) crusades and papal world-power (12th and 13th centuries); (ix.) period of transition to the modern world (14th and 15th centuries). To this may be added Ranke’s works on special periods:e.g.Die Fürsten und Völker von Süd-Europa im 16ten und 17ten Jahrhundert(2nd ed., Leipzig, 1837-1839);Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker, 1494-1514 (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1874, Eng. trans. 1887). In English the most important general work is theCambridge Modern History(1903, &c.), produced by the collaboration of English and foreign scholars, and covering the ground from the end of the 15th to the 19th century inclusive. TheHistorians’ History of the World, edited by Dr H. Smith Williams (1908), is a compilation from the works of eminent historians of all ages, and the value of its various parts is therefore that of the historians responsible for them. Its chief merit is that it makes accessible to English readers many foreign or obscure sources which would otherwise have remained closed to the general reader. It also contains essays by notable modern scholars on the principal epochs and tendencies of the world’s history, the texts of a certain number of treaties, &c., not included as yet in other collections, and comprehensive bibliographies. On a less ambitious scale are the volumes of the “Periods of European History” series (London, 1893, &c.): Per. I.The Dark Ages, 476-918, by C.W.C. Oman (1893); Per. II.The Empire and the Papacy, 918-1273, by T.F. Tout (1898); Per. III.The Close of the Middle Ages, 1273-1494, by R. Lodge (1901);Europe in the 16th Century, 1494-1598, by A.H. Johnson (1897);The Ascendancy of France, by H.O. Wakeman (1894);The Balance of Power, by A. Hassal (1896);Revolutionary Europe, by H. Morse Stephens (1893);Modern Europe, by W. Alison Phillips (1901,5th ed., 1908). See also T.H. Dyer,History of Modern Europe from the fall of Constantinople, revised and continued to the end of the 19th century by A. Hassal (6 vols., London, 1901). Besides the above may be mentioned, for European history since the outbreak of the French Revolution, A. Sorel,l’Europe et la Révolution Française(7 vols., Paris, 1885, &c.), a work of first-class importance; A. Stern,Geschichte Europas seit den Wiener Verträgen von 1815(Stuttgart and Berlin, 1894, &c.), based on the study of much new material, still in progress (1908); C. Seignobos,Histoire politique de l’Europe contemporaine(Paris, 1897), a valuable text-book with copious bibliography (Eng. trans., London, 1901); C.M. Andrews,Historical development of Europe, 2 vols. (New York, 1896-1898).
(3)Published Documents.—For the vast mass of published sources reference must be made to the bibliographies mentioned above. It must be borne in mind, however, that these represent but a fraction of the unpublished material, and that the great development of original research is constantly revealing fresh sources, throwing new light on old problems, and not seldom upsetting conclusions long established as final. For these latest developments of scholarship the numerous historical and archaeological reviews published in various countries should be consulted:e.g.The English Historical Review(London);The Scottish Hist. Rev.(Glasgow);The American Hist. Rev.(London and New York); theRevue historique(Paris); theHistorische Zeitschrift(Munich). The most notable collections of treaties are J. Dumont’sCorps diplomatique, covering the period fromA.D.800 to 1731 (Amsterdam and the Hague, 1726-1731); F.G. de Martens and his continuators,Recueil des traités, &c. (1791, &c.), covering with its supplements the period from 1494 to 1874; F. (T.T.) de Martens,Recueil des traités conclus par la Russie, &c. (14 vols., St Petersburg, 1874, &c.); A. and J. de Clercq,Recueil des traités de la France(Paris, 1864; new ed., 1880, &c.); L. Neumann,Recueil des traités conclus par l’Autriche(from 1763), (6 vols., Leipzig, 1855); new series, by. L. Neumann and A. de Plason (16 vols., Vienna, 1877-1903);Österreichische Staatsverträge(vol. i.England, 1526-1748), published by the Commission for the modern history of Austria (Innsbruck, 1907), with valuable introductory notes;British and Foreign State Papers(from the termination of the war in 1814), compiled at the Foreign Office by the Librarian and Keeper of the Papers (London, 1819, &c.); Sir E. Hertslet,The Map of Europe by Treaty(from 1814), (4 vols., London, 1875-1891). See the articleTreaties.
(W. A. P.)
1H. Wagner’s edition of Guthe’sLehrbuch der Geographie(5th ed., Hanover 1882).2At the summit of each of the Trans-Ural railways (Perm-Tyumen and Ufa-Chelyabinsk) and that of the road across the Caucasus from Vladikavkaz to Tiflis, sign-posts, with the name Europe on one side, Asia on the other, mark this boundary.3Fifth edition, vol. ii. pp. 24-25.4Pt. i. pp. 11-12.5Griesbach, on the strength of Middendorff’s observations, remarks that, in addition to European fruit trees, oak, maples, elms, ashes and the black alder do not cross the Urals, while the lime tree is reduced to the size of a shrub (La Végétation du globe, translated by Tchihatchef, i. p. 181).6On the history of the boundary between Asia and Europe see F.G. Hahn in theMitteilungen des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Leipzig(1881), pp. 83-104. Hahn, on the ground that true mountain systems must be regarded as forming geographical units, pronounces against the practice of making “natural boundaries” run along mountain crests, and assigns the whole of the Caucasus region to Europe as all belonging to such a system, but orographically quite different from the Armenian plateau (p. 103). But surely it is no less different from the European plain.7Petermanns Mitteilungen(1890), p. 91.8See Supan’sPhysische Erdkunde, 4th ed., pp. 376-377, and the authorities there quoted.9“Kustenveranderungen im Mittelmeergebiet,” inZtschr. der Ges. für Erdkunde zu Berlin(1878).10SeeMitteil der Wiener Geog. Gesellschaft(1890), p. 333.11See R.T. Gunther,Contributions to the Study of Earth-Movements in the Bay of Naples(Oxford, 1903), and “Earth-Movements in the Bay of Naples,” in theGeog. Journ.vol. xxii. pp. 121-149, 269-285.12SeePetermanns Mitteil.(1891), Pl. 8.13Ib.(1893), Pl. 12.14See Ed. Suess,The Face of the Earth, translated by H.B.C. Sollas, vol. i. (Oxford, 1904); J. Milne,Seismology(London, 1886); R. Hörnes,Erdbebenkunde(Leipzig, 1893).15Die mittlere Höhe Europas(Plauen, 1874).16Traité de géologie(Paris, 1883).17Scot. Geog. Mag.(1888), p. 23.18Petermanns Mitteilungen(1889), p. 17.19Trans. (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog. Soc.(1889), p. 113.20Die mittleren Erhebungsverhaltnisse der Erdoberfläche, pt. i., in Penck’sGeographische Abhandlungen, vol. v. (Vienna, 1891).21Morphologie der Erdoberfläche, vol. i.22The equivalent of the figures given inSuperficie de l’Europe. A later measurement by Strelbitsky yielded a result equal to 2215 English miles.23General von Tillo, inTransactions (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog. Soc.vol. xix. (1883), pp. 160-161.24Dr Al. Bludau inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1898), pp. 185-187, has given new calculations of the areas of the basins of certain European rivers, namely, the Tagus, 31,250 sq. m.; Ebro, 32,810 sq. m.; Guadalquivir, 21,620 sq. m.; Po, 28,800 sq. m.; Guadiana, 25,810 sq. m.; and Jucar, 8245 sq. m.25St Martin,Dict. de géog. univ.26In other parts of this work areas of river-basins and lakes, and other measurements, may be observed to conflict in some degree with those given here. Various authorities naturally differ, both in methods of estimating and in standards of precision.27Penck’sGeographische Abhandlungen, vol. v. pt. iv. (Vienna, 1894); noticed inGeog. Journ.vol. vi. p. 264.28Including L. Pskov as well as the connecting arm known as Teploye.29Sweden, its People and its Industry(Stockholm, 1904).30See Ascherson, “Die Austrocknung des Neusiedler Sees,” inZ. der Ges. für Erdkunde zu Berlin(1865).31See Suess,The Face of the Earth; M. Bertrand, “Sur la distribution géographique des roches éruptives en Europe,”Bull. Soc. Géol. France, ser. 3, vol. xvi. (1887-1888), pp. 573-617. A translation of a lecture by Suess, giving a short summary of his views on the structure of Europe, will be found in theCanadian Record of Science, vol. vii. pp. 235-246.32Vesselovski, as quoted by Voeikov,Die atmosphärische Circulation.33Plate 1 inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1903).34See a paper on “Das regenreichste Gebiet Europas,” by Prof. Kassner, Berlin, inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1904), p. 281.35London, 1901 (one of the publications of the Royal Geog. Society).36Plate 21 inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1900).37Nova Acta Leop. Karol. d. deutschen Akad. d. Naturforscher, vol. lxvii. No. 3 (Halle, 1896).38Petermanns Mitteilungen(1890), pl. 11 (text pp. 137-145).39Ib.(1887), pl. 10 (text pp. 165-172).40Berlin, 3 vols. (one made up of maps), 1898-1899.41By this term (Getreidefläche) Engelbrecht designates the area occupied by wheat and other varieties of triticum, rye, oats and barley.42Based on Scherzer,Das wirtschaftliche Leben der Völker, p. 12.43From theFifth Report of the United States Department of Agriculture, Division of Statistics, Miscellaneous Series, p. 13.44Based on theCorn Trade Year-book(1904), p. 284.45Exclusive of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which the average production in 1894-1903 was about 2½ million bushels.46The estimates for Bulgaria, Rumania, Servia and Turkey in Europe for 1872-1876 are not comparable with those of the two later periods on account of the territorial changes since that date. Those for Bulgaria in the period 1881-1890 include Eastern Rumelia.47Including Poland.48Spanish statistics very imperfect.49Based on the same authorities as the wheat table. In the original, however, the figures for 1894-1903 are given in “quarters of 480 ℔,” while the figures given above are calculated on an average quarter of 462 ℔.50Including Poland, but not Finland, in which the average production of rye is estimated at about 11,000,000 bushels.51Mainly from or based on the Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, 1905.52Single years.53Period 1883-1887.54Based onMines and Quarries: General Report and Statistics for 1906, pt. iv. (Cd. 4145), 1908.55Production in the Ural districts only.56See note 11.57A considerable quantity of quicksilver is produced in the government of Ekaterinoslav.58Dressed.59Cupreous pyrites and cupreous iron pyrites, besides which a considerable quantity of copper precipitate is produced.60A small quantity of copper ore is produced in Finland, but the bulk of the Russian production is in the Asiatic provinces.61Mainly cupreous iron pyrites.62Argentiferous.63In 1906 Greece produced 12,308 m.t. of argentiferous pig lead.64Of which 158,424 m.t. argentiferous.65A considerable quantity of manganese ore is produced in the government of Ekaterinoslav, but the main seat of Russian production is the Caucasus.66Zinc and lead ore.67In addition to 28,891 m.t. of calcined zinc ore.68Probably the most complete synopsis of the evidence on this point is to be found in Prince Kropotkin’sFields, Factories and Workshops(London, 1899).69The total horse-power used in mechanical industries is obtained by adding 650,000, the estimated total of horse-power in hydraulic installations given in an article in theAnnales de géographiefor January 1904, to the total steam-power in fixed engines officially given for 1903, and accordingly excludes gas and other engines not driven by steam- or water-power.70The proportion estimated in the official publication entitledSweden: its People and its Industry, edited by G. Sundbärg (Stockholm, 1904).71Including the installations returned in the Swiss industrial censuses as electric, most if not all of which are probably driven by water-power.72See bibliography at the end of the article.73See on the whole subject Hovelacque’sScience of Language, Latham’sNationalities of Europe, and the same author’sPhilology.74Taken from a paper by Professor Voeikov on “Verteilung der Bevölkerung auf der Erde unter dem Einfluss der Naturverhältnisse und der menschlichen Tatigkeit,” inPetermanns Mitteil.(1906), p. 249, where corresponding figures are given for other parts of the world.75Kaluga, Smolensk, Tver, Moscow, Yaroslav, Kostromer and Vladimir.76Kursk, Orel, Tula, Ryazan, Tambov, Voronezh and Penza.77Nizhniy Novgorod, Kazan, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov and Astrakhan.78Bessarabia, Kherson, Taurida, Ekaterinoslav and Don Province.79The Austro-Turkish protocol had been signed at Constantinople on the 5th of March; it was now ratified by the Turkish parliament on the 5th of April.
1H. Wagner’s edition of Guthe’sLehrbuch der Geographie(5th ed., Hanover 1882).
2At the summit of each of the Trans-Ural railways (Perm-Tyumen and Ufa-Chelyabinsk) and that of the road across the Caucasus from Vladikavkaz to Tiflis, sign-posts, with the name Europe on one side, Asia on the other, mark this boundary.
3Fifth edition, vol. ii. pp. 24-25.
4Pt. i. pp. 11-12.
5Griesbach, on the strength of Middendorff’s observations, remarks that, in addition to European fruit trees, oak, maples, elms, ashes and the black alder do not cross the Urals, while the lime tree is reduced to the size of a shrub (La Végétation du globe, translated by Tchihatchef, i. p. 181).
6On the history of the boundary between Asia and Europe see F.G. Hahn in theMitteilungen des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Leipzig(1881), pp. 83-104. Hahn, on the ground that true mountain systems must be regarded as forming geographical units, pronounces against the practice of making “natural boundaries” run along mountain crests, and assigns the whole of the Caucasus region to Europe as all belonging to such a system, but orographically quite different from the Armenian plateau (p. 103). But surely it is no less different from the European plain.
7Petermanns Mitteilungen(1890), p. 91.
8See Supan’sPhysische Erdkunde, 4th ed., pp. 376-377, and the authorities there quoted.
9“Kustenveranderungen im Mittelmeergebiet,” inZtschr. der Ges. für Erdkunde zu Berlin(1878).
10SeeMitteil der Wiener Geog. Gesellschaft(1890), p. 333.
11See R.T. Gunther,Contributions to the Study of Earth-Movements in the Bay of Naples(Oxford, 1903), and “Earth-Movements in the Bay of Naples,” in theGeog. Journ.vol. xxii. pp. 121-149, 269-285.
12SeePetermanns Mitteil.(1891), Pl. 8.
13Ib.(1893), Pl. 12.
14See Ed. Suess,The Face of the Earth, translated by H.B.C. Sollas, vol. i. (Oxford, 1904); J. Milne,Seismology(London, 1886); R. Hörnes,Erdbebenkunde(Leipzig, 1893).
15Die mittlere Höhe Europas(Plauen, 1874).
16Traité de géologie(Paris, 1883).
17Scot. Geog. Mag.(1888), p. 23.
18Petermanns Mitteilungen(1889), p. 17.
19Trans. (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog. Soc.(1889), p. 113.
20Die mittleren Erhebungsverhaltnisse der Erdoberfläche, pt. i., in Penck’sGeographische Abhandlungen, vol. v. (Vienna, 1891).
21Morphologie der Erdoberfläche, vol. i.
22The equivalent of the figures given inSuperficie de l’Europe. A later measurement by Strelbitsky yielded a result equal to 2215 English miles.
23General von Tillo, inTransactions (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog. Soc.vol. xix. (1883), pp. 160-161.
24Dr Al. Bludau inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1898), pp. 185-187, has given new calculations of the areas of the basins of certain European rivers, namely, the Tagus, 31,250 sq. m.; Ebro, 32,810 sq. m.; Guadalquivir, 21,620 sq. m.; Po, 28,800 sq. m.; Guadiana, 25,810 sq. m.; and Jucar, 8245 sq. m.
25St Martin,Dict. de géog. univ.
26In other parts of this work areas of river-basins and lakes, and other measurements, may be observed to conflict in some degree with those given here. Various authorities naturally differ, both in methods of estimating and in standards of precision.
27Penck’sGeographische Abhandlungen, vol. v. pt. iv. (Vienna, 1894); noticed inGeog. Journ.vol. vi. p. 264.
28Including L. Pskov as well as the connecting arm known as Teploye.
29Sweden, its People and its Industry(Stockholm, 1904).
30See Ascherson, “Die Austrocknung des Neusiedler Sees,” inZ. der Ges. für Erdkunde zu Berlin(1865).
31See Suess,The Face of the Earth; M. Bertrand, “Sur la distribution géographique des roches éruptives en Europe,”Bull. Soc. Géol. France, ser. 3, vol. xvi. (1887-1888), pp. 573-617. A translation of a lecture by Suess, giving a short summary of his views on the structure of Europe, will be found in theCanadian Record of Science, vol. vii. pp. 235-246.
32Vesselovski, as quoted by Voeikov,Die atmosphärische Circulation.
33Plate 1 inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1903).
34See a paper on “Das regenreichste Gebiet Europas,” by Prof. Kassner, Berlin, inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1904), p. 281.
35London, 1901 (one of the publications of the Royal Geog. Society).
36Plate 21 inPetermanns Mitteilungen(1900).
37Nova Acta Leop. Karol. d. deutschen Akad. d. Naturforscher, vol. lxvii. No. 3 (Halle, 1896).
38Petermanns Mitteilungen(1890), pl. 11 (text pp. 137-145).
39Ib.(1887), pl. 10 (text pp. 165-172).
40Berlin, 3 vols. (one made up of maps), 1898-1899.
41By this term (Getreidefläche) Engelbrecht designates the area occupied by wheat and other varieties of triticum, rye, oats and barley.
42Based on Scherzer,Das wirtschaftliche Leben der Völker, p. 12.
43From theFifth Report of the United States Department of Agriculture, Division of Statistics, Miscellaneous Series, p. 13.
44Based on theCorn Trade Year-book(1904), p. 284.
45Exclusive of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which the average production in 1894-1903 was about 2½ million bushels.
46The estimates for Bulgaria, Rumania, Servia and Turkey in Europe for 1872-1876 are not comparable with those of the two later periods on account of the territorial changes since that date. Those for Bulgaria in the period 1881-1890 include Eastern Rumelia.
47Including Poland.
48Spanish statistics very imperfect.
49Based on the same authorities as the wheat table. In the original, however, the figures for 1894-1903 are given in “quarters of 480 ℔,” while the figures given above are calculated on an average quarter of 462 ℔.
50Including Poland, but not Finland, in which the average production of rye is estimated at about 11,000,000 bushels.
51Mainly from or based on the Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, 1905.
52Single years.
53Period 1883-1887.
54Based onMines and Quarries: General Report and Statistics for 1906, pt. iv. (Cd. 4145), 1908.
55Production in the Ural districts only.
56See note 11.
57A considerable quantity of quicksilver is produced in the government of Ekaterinoslav.
58Dressed.
59Cupreous pyrites and cupreous iron pyrites, besides which a considerable quantity of copper precipitate is produced.
60A small quantity of copper ore is produced in Finland, but the bulk of the Russian production is in the Asiatic provinces.
61Mainly cupreous iron pyrites.
62Argentiferous.
63In 1906 Greece produced 12,308 m.t. of argentiferous pig lead.
64Of which 158,424 m.t. argentiferous.
65A considerable quantity of manganese ore is produced in the government of Ekaterinoslav, but the main seat of Russian production is the Caucasus.
66Zinc and lead ore.
67In addition to 28,891 m.t. of calcined zinc ore.
68Probably the most complete synopsis of the evidence on this point is to be found in Prince Kropotkin’sFields, Factories and Workshops(London, 1899).
69The total horse-power used in mechanical industries is obtained by adding 650,000, the estimated total of horse-power in hydraulic installations given in an article in theAnnales de géographiefor January 1904, to the total steam-power in fixed engines officially given for 1903, and accordingly excludes gas and other engines not driven by steam- or water-power.
70The proportion estimated in the official publication entitledSweden: its People and its Industry, edited by G. Sundbärg (Stockholm, 1904).
71Including the installations returned in the Swiss industrial censuses as electric, most if not all of which are probably driven by water-power.
72See bibliography at the end of the article.
73See on the whole subject Hovelacque’sScience of Language, Latham’sNationalities of Europe, and the same author’sPhilology.
74Taken from a paper by Professor Voeikov on “Verteilung der Bevölkerung auf der Erde unter dem Einfluss der Naturverhältnisse und der menschlichen Tatigkeit,” inPetermanns Mitteil.(1906), p. 249, where corresponding figures are given for other parts of the world.
75Kaluga, Smolensk, Tver, Moscow, Yaroslav, Kostromer and Vladimir.
76Kursk, Orel, Tula, Ryazan, Tambov, Voronezh and Penza.
77Nizhniy Novgorod, Kazan, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov and Astrakhan.
78Bessarabia, Kherson, Taurida, Ekaterinoslav and Don Province.
79The Austro-Turkish protocol had been signed at Constantinople on the 5th of March; it was now ratified by the Turkish parliament on the 5th of April.
EUROPIUM,a metallic chemical element, symbol Eu, atomic weight 152.0 (O = 16). The oxide Eu2O3occurs in very small quantity in the minerals of the rare earths, and was first obtained in 1896 by E, A. Demarçay from Lecoq de Boisbaudran’s samarium; G. Urbain and H. Lacombe in 1904 obtained the pure salts by fractional crystallization of the nitric acid solution with magnesium nitrate in the presence of bismuth nitrate. The salts have a faint pink colour, and show a faint absorption spectrum; the spark spectrum is brilliant and well characterized.
EURYDICE(Εὐρυδίκη), in Greek mythology, the wife of Orpheus (q.v.). She was the daughter of Nereus and Doris, and died from the bite of a serpent when fleeing from Aristaeus, who wished to offer her violence (Virgil,Georgics, iv. 454-527; Ovid,Metam. x. 1 ff.).
EURYMEDON,one of the Athenian generals during the Peloponnesian War. In 428B.C.he was sent by the Athenians to intercept the Peloponnesian fleet which was on the way to attack Corcyra. On his arrival, finding that Nicostratus with a small squadron from Naupactus had already placed the island in security, he took the command of the combined fleet, which, owing to the absence of the enemy, had no chance of distinguishing itself. In the following summer, in joint command of the land forces, he ravaged the district of Tanagra; and in 425 he was appointed, with Sophocles, the son of Sostratides, to the command of an expedition destined for Sicily. Having touched at Corcyra on the way, in order to assist the democratic party against the oligarchical exiles, but without taking any steps to prevent the massacre of the latter, Eurymedon proceeded to Sicily. Immediately after his arrival a pacification was concluded by Hermocrates, to which Eurymedon and Sophocles were induced to agree. The terms of the pacification did not, however, satisfy the Athenians, who attributed its conclusion to bribery; two of the chief agents in the negotiations were banished, while Eurymedon was sentenced to pay a heavy fine. In 414 Eurymedon, who had been sent with Demosthenes to reinforce the Athenians at the siege of Syracuse, was defeated and slain before reaching land (Thucydides iii., iv., vii.; Diod. Sic. xiii. 8, 11, 13).
EUSDEN, LAURENCE(1688-1730), English poet, son of the Rev. Laurence Eusden, rector of Spofforth, Yorkshire, was baptized on the 6th of September 1688. He was educated at St Peter’s school, York, and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He became a minor fellow of his college in 1711, and in the next year was admitted to a full fellowship. He was made poet laureate in 1718 by the lord chancellor, the duke of Newcastle, as a reward for a flattering poem on his marriage. He was rector of Coningsby, Lincolnshire, where he died on the 27th of September 1730. His name is less remembered by his translations and gratulatory poems than by the numerous satirical allusions of Pope,e.g.
“Know, Eusden thirsts no more for sack or praise;He sleeps among the dull of ancient days.”Dunciad, bk. i. 11. 293-294.
“Know, Eusden thirsts no more for sack or praise;
He sleeps among the dull of ancient days.”
Dunciad, bk. i. 11. 293-294.
EUSEBIUS(Gr.Εὐσέβιος, fromεὐσεβής, pious, cf. the Latin name Pius), a name borne by a large number of bishops and others in the early ages of the Christian Church. Of these the most important are separately noticed below. No less than 25 saints of this name (sometimes corrupted into Eusoge, Euruge, Usoge, Usuge, Uruge and St Sebis) are venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, of whom 23 are included in the BollandistActa Sanctorum; many are obscure martyrs, monks or anchorites, but two deserve at least a passing notice.
Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli (d. 371), is notable not only as a stout opponent of Arianism, but also as having been, with St Augustine, the first Western bishop to unite with his clergy in adopting a strict monastic life after the Eastern model (see Ambrose,Ep. 63 ad Vercellenses, § 66). The legend that he was stoned to death by the Arians was probably invented for the edification of the Orthodox.
Eusebius, bishop of Samosata (d. 380), played a considerable part in the later stages of the Arian controversy in the East. He is first mentioned among the Homoean and Homoeusian bishops who in 363 accepted the Homousian formula at the synod of Antioch presided over by Meletius, with whose views he seems to have identified himself (seeMeletius of Antioch). According to Theodoret (5, 4, 8) he was killed at Doliche in Syria, where he had gone to consecrate a bishop, by a stone cast by an Arian woman. He thus became a martyr, and found a place in the Catholic calendar (see the article by Loofs in Herzog-Hauck,Realencykl., ed. 1898, v. p. 620).
Eusebius of Laodicea, though not included among the saints, was noted for his saintly life. He was an Alexandrian by birth, and gained so great a reputation for his self-denial and charity that when in 262 the city was besieged by the troops of the emperor Gallienus he obtained permission, together with Anatolius, from their commander Theodotus, to lead out the non-combatants, whom he tended “like a father and physician.” He went with Anatolius to Syria, and took part in the controversy against Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch. He became bishop of Laodicea, probably in the following year (263), and died some time before 268. His friend Anatolius succeeded him as bishop in the latter year (see the article by E. Hennecke in Herzog-Hauck, v. 619).
EUSEBIUS,bishop of Rome for four months under the emperor Maxentius, in 309 or 310. The Christians in Rome, divided on the question of the reconciliation of apostates, on which Eusebius held the milder view, brought forward a competitor, Heraclius. Both competitors were expelled by the emperor, Eusebius dying in exile in Sicily. He was buried in the cemetery of St Calixtus at Rome; and the extant epitaph, in eight hexameter lines, set up here by his successor Damasus, contains all the information there is about his life.
EUSEBIUS[of Caesarea] (c.260-c.340), ecclesiastical historian, who called himself Eusebius Pamphili, because of his devotion to his friend and teacher Pamphilus, was born probably in Palestine betweenA.D.260 and 265, and died as bishop of Caesarea in the year 339 or 340. We know little of his youth beyond the fact that he became associated at an early day with Pamphilus, presbyter of the Church of Caesarea, and founder of a theological school there (seeHist. Eccl.vii. 32). Pamphilus gathered about him a circle of earnest students whodevoted themselves especially to the study of the Bible and the transcription of Biblical codices, and also to the defence and spread of the writings of Origen, whom they regarded as their master. Pamphilus had a magnificent library, which Eusebius made diligent use of, and a catalogue of which he published in his lostLifeof Pamphilus (Hist. Eccl.vi. 32). In the course of the Diocletian persecution, which broke out in 303, Pamphilus was imprisoned for two years, and finally suffered martyrdom. During the time of his imprisonment (307-309) Eusebius distinguished himself by assiduous devotion to his friend, and assisted him in the preparation of an apology for Origen’s teaching (Hist. Eccl.vi. 33), the first book of which survives in the Latin of Rufinus (printed in Routh’sReliquiae sacrae, iv. 339 sq., and in Lommatzsch’s edition of Origen’s Works, xxiv. p. 293 sq.). After the death of Pamphilus Eusebius withdrew to Tyre, and later, while the Diocletian persecution was still raging, went to Egypt, where he seems to have been imprisoned, but soon released. He became bishop of Caesarea between 313 and 315, and remained such until his death. The patriarchate of Antioch was offered him in 331, but declined (Vita Constantini, iii. 59 sq.).
Eusebius was a very important figure in the church of his day. He was not a great theologian nor a profound thinker, but he was the most learned man of his age, and stood high in favour with the emperor Constantine. At the council of Nicaea in 325 he took a prominent part, occupying a seat at the emperor’s right hand, and being appointed to deliver the panegyrical oration in his honour. He was the leader of the large middle party of Moderates at the council, and submitted the first draft of the creed which was afterwards adopted with important changes and additions. In the beginning he was the most influential man present, but was finally forced to yield to the Alexandrian party, and to vote for a creed which completely repudiated the position of the Arians, with whom he had himself been hitherto more in sympathy than with the Alexandrians. He was placed in a difficult predicament by the action of the council, and his letter to the Caesarean church explaining his conduct is exceedingly interesting and instructive (see Socrates,Hist. Eccl.i. 8, and cf. McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’Church History, p. 15 sq.). To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his works written during this period (for instance, thePraeparatio evangelicaandDemonstratio evangelica), as in the works of Origen himself and other ante-Nicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son. And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi’sConcilia, xiii. 316 sq.; English translation in McGiffert,op. cit.p. 70). Meanwhile at the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition, and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf.,e.g., hisContra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia, andTheophania). But he never felt in sympathy with the extreme views of the Athanasian party, for they seemed to him to savour of Sabellianism, which always remained his chief dread (cf. his two works against Marcellus of Ancyra). His personal friends, moreover, were principally among the Arians, and he was more closely identified with them than with the supporters of Athanasius. But he was always a man of peace, and while commonly counted one of the opponents of Athanasius, he did not take a place of leadership among them as his position and standing would have justified him in doing, and Athanasius never spoke of him with bitterness as he did of other prominent men in the party. (For a fuller description of the development of Eusebius’ Christology and of his attitude throughout the Arian controversy, see McGiffert,op. cit.p. 11 sq.)
Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his labours covered almost every field of theological learning. If we look in his works for brilliancy and originality we shall be disappointed. He was not a creative genius like Origen or Augustine. His claim to greatness rests upon his vast erudition and his sound judgment. Nearly all his works possess genuine and solid merits which raise them above the commonplace, and many of them still remain valuable. His exegesis is superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetic is marked by fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and an instinctive appreciation of the difference between important and unimportant points. His style, it is true, is involved and obscure, often rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in large part to the desultory character of his thinking. He did not always clearly define his theme before beginning to write, and he failed to subject what he produced to a careful revision. Ideas of all sorts poured in upon him while he was writing, and he was not always able to resist the temptation to insert them whether pertinent or not. His great learning is evident everywhere, but he is often its slave rather than its master. It is as an historian that he is best known, and to hisHistory of the Christian Churchhe owes his fame and his familiar title “The Father of Church History.” This work, which was published in its final form in ten books in 324 or early in 325, is the most important ecclesiastical history produced in ancient times. The reasons leading to the great undertaking, in which Eusebius had no predecessors, were in part historical, in part apologetic. He believed that he was living at the beginning of a new age, and he felt that it was a fitting time, when the old order of things was passing away, to put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had occurred during the generations that were past. He thus wrote, as any historian might, for the information and instruction of his readers, and yet he had all the time an apologetic purpose, to exhibit to the world the history of Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. His plan is stated at the very beginning of the work:—
“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy Apostles as well as of the times which have elapsed from the day of our Saviour to our own; to relate how many and important events are said to have occurred in the history of the church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so called, have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ. It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came on the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own day, and the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour has accorded them all.”
“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy Apostles as well as of the times which have elapsed from the day of our Saviour to our own; to relate how many and important events are said to have occurred in the history of the church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so called, have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ. It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came on the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own day, and the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour has accorded them all.”
The value of the work does not lie in its literary merit, but in the wealth of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledgeof the early church. Many prominent figures of the first three centuries are known to us only from its pages. Many fragments, priceless on account of the light which they shed upon movements of far-reaching consequence, have been preserved in it alone. Eusebius often fails to appreciate the significance of the events which he records; in many cases he draws unwarranted conclusions from the given premises; he sometimes misinterprets his documents and misunderstands men and movements; but usually he presents us with the material upon which to form our own judgment, and if we differ with him we must at the same time thank him for the data that enable us independently to reach other results. But the work is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in a true sense, and it has an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its quotations from other works. Eusebius possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible to us. The number of books referred to as read is enormous. He also had access to the archives of state, and gathered from them information beyond the reach of most. But the value of his work is due, not simply to the sources employed, but also to the use made of them. Upon this matter there has been, it is true, some diversity of opinion among modern scholars, but it is now generally admitted, and can be abundantly shown, that he was not only diligent in gathering material, but also far more thorough-going than most writers of antiquity in discriminating between trustworthy and untrustworthy reports, frank in acknowledging his ignorance, scrupulous in indicating his authorities in doubtful cases, less credulous than most of his contemporaries, and unfailingly honest. His principal faults are his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of chronology, his lack of artistic skill in the presentation of his material, his desultory method of treatment, and his failure to look below the surface and grasp the real significance and vital connexion of events. He commonly regards an occurrence as sufficiently accounted for when it is ascribed to the activity of God or of Satan. But in spite of its defects theChurch Historyis a monumental work, which need only be compared with its continuations by Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Rufinus and others, to be appreciated at its true worth.
In addition to theChurch Historywe have from Eusebius’ pen aChroniclein two books (c.303; later continued down to 325), the first containing an epitome of universal history, the second chronological tables exhibiting in parallel columns the royal succession in different nations, and accompanied by notes marking the dates of historical events. A revised edition of the second book with a continuation down to his own day was published in Latin by St Jerome, and this, together with some fragments of the original Greek, was our only source for a knowledge of the Chronicle until the discovery of an Armenian version of the whole work, which was published by Aucher in 1818 (Latin translation in Schoene’s edition), and of two Syriac versions published in Latin translation respectively in 1866 (by Roediger in Schoene’s edition) and in 1884 (by Siegfried and Gelzer). Other historical works still extant are theMartyrs of Palestineand theLife of Constantine. The former is an account of martyrdoms occurring in Palestine during the years 303 to 310, of most of which Eusebius himself was an eye-witness. The work exists in a longer and a shorter recension, the former in a Syriac version (published with English translation by Cureton, 1861), the latter in the original Greek attached to theChurch Historyin most MSS. (printed with the History in the various editions).The Life of Constantine, in four books, published after the death of the emperor, which occurred in 337, is a panegyric rather than a sober history, but contains much valuable material. Of Eusebius’ apologetic works we still have theContra Hieroclem,Praeparatio evangelica,Demonstratio evangelica, andTheophania. The first is a reply to a lost work against the Christians written by Hierocles, a Roman governor and contemporary of Eusebius. The second and third, taken together, are the most elaborate and important apologetic work of the early church. The former, in fifteen books, aims to show that the Christians are justified in accepting the sacred writings of the Hebrews, and in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks. The latter, in twenty books, of which only the first ten and fragments of the fifteenth are extant, endeavours to prove from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves that the Christians are right in going beyond the Jews and adopting new principles and practices. The former is thus a preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a defence of Christianity against all the world, heathen as well as Jews. In grandeur of conception, comprehensiveness of treatment, and breadth of learning, this apology surpasses all other similar works of antiquity. ThePraeparatiois also valuable because of its large number of quotations from classical literature, many of them otherwise unknown to us. TheTheophania, though we have many fragments of the original Greek, is extant as a whole only in a Syriac version first published by Lee in 1842. Its subject is the manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word, and it aims to give with an apologetic purpose a brief exposition of the divine authority and influence of Christianity. Of Eusebius’ dogmatic and polemic writings, we still have two works against his contemporary, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, the one known asContra Marcellum, the other asDe theologia ecclesiastica. The former and briefer aims simply to expose the errors of Marcellus, whom Eusebius accuses of Sabellianism, the latter to refute them. We also have parts of a General Introduction (Ἡ καθόλου στοιχειώδης εἰσαγωγή), which consisted of ten-books (the sixth to the ninth books and a few other fragments still extant), under the title ofProphetical Extracts(Προφητικαὶ ἐκλογαί). Although this formed part of a larger work it was complete in itself and circulated separately. It contains prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. Of Biblical and exegetical works we have a considerable part of Eusebius’ Commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah, which are monuments of learning, industry and critical acumen, though marred by the use of the allegorical method characteristic of the school of Origen; also a work on the names of places mentioned in Scripture, or theOnomasticon, the only one extant of a number of writings on Old Testament topography; and an epitome and some fragments of a work in two parts on Gospel Questions and Solutions, the first part dealing with the genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke, the second with the apparent discrepancies between the various gospel accounts of the resurrection. Other important works which have perished wholly or in large part, and some orations and minor writings still extant, it is not necessary to refer to more particularly. (See Preuschen’s list in Harnack’sAlt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte, i. 2, p. 55 sq. Preuschen gives thirty-eight titles, besides orations and letters, but it is doubtful whether all of the Commentaries mentioned really existed.)Bibliography.—The only edition of Eusebius’ extant works which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne (Patrologia graeca, tom, xix.-xxiv.). The publication of a new critical edition was begun in 1902 in the Berlin Academy’sGreek Fathers(Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Leipzig). Many of Eusebius’ works have been published separately. Thus theChurch History, first by Stephanus (Paris, 1554); by Valesius with copious notes, together with theLife of Constantine, theOration in Praise of Constantine, and the Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, &c. (best edition that of Reading (Cambridge, 1720), in three volumes, folio); by Heinichen (1827, second edition 1868-1870 in three volumes, a very useful edition, containing also theLife of Constantineand theOration in Praise of Constantine, with elaborate notes); by Burton (1838; a handy reprint in a single volume by Bright, 1881), and by many others. The most recent and best edition is that of Schwartz in the Berlin Academy’sGreek Fathers, of which the first half has appeared, accompanied by the Latin version of Rufinus edited by Mommsen. The history was early put into Syriac (edited by Bedjan, Leipzig, 1897; also by Wright, McLean and Merx, London, 1898), Armenian (edited by Djarian, Venice, 1877), and Latin, and has been translated into many modern languages, the latest English version being that of McGiffert, in theNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, volume i. (New York, 1890). Of theChronicle, the best edition is by Schoene in two volumes (Berlin, 1866-1875). TheLife of Constantineand theOration in Praise of Constantineare published by Valesius, Heinichen and others in their editions of theChurch History, also in the first volume of the Berlin Academy’s edition (ed. by Heikel), and an English translation by Richardson in the volume containing McGiffert’s translation of theChurch History. Gaisford published theProphetical Extracts(Oxford, 1842), thePraeparatio evangelica(1843), theDemonstratio evangelica(1852), and the works against Hierocles and Marcellus (1852); and the works against Marcellus have appeared in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iv.). TheOnomasticonhas been published frequently, among others by Lagarde (Göttingen, 1870; 2nd ed., 1887), and is contained in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iii.). TheTheophaniawas first published by Lee (Syriac version, 1842; English translation, 1843). A German translation of the Syriac version, with the extant fragments of the original Greek, is given in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iii.).Acacius, the pupil of Eusebius and his successor in the see of Caesarea, wrote a life of him which is unfortunately lost. His own writings contain little biographical material, but we get information from Athanasius, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Jerome’sDe vir. ill., and Photius. Among the many modern accounts in church histories, histories of Christian literature, encyclopaedias, &c., may be mentioned a monograph by Stein,Eusebius Bischof von Caesarea(Würzburg, 1859), meagre but useful as far as it goes; the magnificent article by Lightfoot in theDictionary of Christian Biography; the account by McGiffert in his translation of theChurch History; Erwin Preuschen’s article in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklop. (3rd ed., 1898); the treatment of the Chronology of Eusebius writings in Harnack’sAlt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte, ii. 2, p. 106 sq.; and Bardenhewer’sPatrologie, p. 2260 f. The manyspecial discussions of Eusebius’ separate works, particularly of hisChurch History, and of his character as an historian, cannot be referred to here. Elaborate bibliographies will be found in McGiffert’s translation, and in Preuschen’s article in Herzog-Hauck.
In addition to theChurch Historywe have from Eusebius’ pen aChroniclein two books (c.303; later continued down to 325), the first containing an epitome of universal history, the second chronological tables exhibiting in parallel columns the royal succession in different nations, and accompanied by notes marking the dates of historical events. A revised edition of the second book with a continuation down to his own day was published in Latin by St Jerome, and this, together with some fragments of the original Greek, was our only source for a knowledge of the Chronicle until the discovery of an Armenian version of the whole work, which was published by Aucher in 1818 (Latin translation in Schoene’s edition), and of two Syriac versions published in Latin translation respectively in 1866 (by Roediger in Schoene’s edition) and in 1884 (by Siegfried and Gelzer). Other historical works still extant are theMartyrs of Palestineand theLife of Constantine. The former is an account of martyrdoms occurring in Palestine during the years 303 to 310, of most of which Eusebius himself was an eye-witness. The work exists in a longer and a shorter recension, the former in a Syriac version (published with English translation by Cureton, 1861), the latter in the original Greek attached to theChurch Historyin most MSS. (printed with the History in the various editions).The Life of Constantine, in four books, published after the death of the emperor, which occurred in 337, is a panegyric rather than a sober history, but contains much valuable material. Of Eusebius’ apologetic works we still have theContra Hieroclem,Praeparatio evangelica,Demonstratio evangelica, andTheophania. The first is a reply to a lost work against the Christians written by Hierocles, a Roman governor and contemporary of Eusebius. The second and third, taken together, are the most elaborate and important apologetic work of the early church. The former, in fifteen books, aims to show that the Christians are justified in accepting the sacred writings of the Hebrews, and in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks. The latter, in twenty books, of which only the first ten and fragments of the fifteenth are extant, endeavours to prove from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves that the Christians are right in going beyond the Jews and adopting new principles and practices. The former is thus a preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a defence of Christianity against all the world, heathen as well as Jews. In grandeur of conception, comprehensiveness of treatment, and breadth of learning, this apology surpasses all other similar works of antiquity. ThePraeparatiois also valuable because of its large number of quotations from classical literature, many of them otherwise unknown to us. TheTheophania, though we have many fragments of the original Greek, is extant as a whole only in a Syriac version first published by Lee in 1842. Its subject is the manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word, and it aims to give with an apologetic purpose a brief exposition of the divine authority and influence of Christianity. Of Eusebius’ dogmatic and polemic writings, we still have two works against his contemporary, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, the one known asContra Marcellum, the other asDe theologia ecclesiastica. The former and briefer aims simply to expose the errors of Marcellus, whom Eusebius accuses of Sabellianism, the latter to refute them. We also have parts of a General Introduction (Ἡ καθόλου στοιχειώδης εἰσαγωγή), which consisted of ten-books (the sixth to the ninth books and a few other fragments still extant), under the title ofProphetical Extracts(Προφητικαὶ ἐκλογαί). Although this formed part of a larger work it was complete in itself and circulated separately. It contains prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. Of Biblical and exegetical works we have a considerable part of Eusebius’ Commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah, which are monuments of learning, industry and critical acumen, though marred by the use of the allegorical method characteristic of the school of Origen; also a work on the names of places mentioned in Scripture, or theOnomasticon, the only one extant of a number of writings on Old Testament topography; and an epitome and some fragments of a work in two parts on Gospel Questions and Solutions, the first part dealing with the genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke, the second with the apparent discrepancies between the various gospel accounts of the resurrection. Other important works which have perished wholly or in large part, and some orations and minor writings still extant, it is not necessary to refer to more particularly. (See Preuschen’s list in Harnack’sAlt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte, i. 2, p. 55 sq. Preuschen gives thirty-eight titles, besides orations and letters, but it is doubtful whether all of the Commentaries mentioned really existed.)
Bibliography.—The only edition of Eusebius’ extant works which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne (Patrologia graeca, tom, xix.-xxiv.). The publication of a new critical edition was begun in 1902 in the Berlin Academy’sGreek Fathers(Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Leipzig). Many of Eusebius’ works have been published separately. Thus theChurch History, first by Stephanus (Paris, 1554); by Valesius with copious notes, together with theLife of Constantine, theOration in Praise of Constantine, and the Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, &c. (best edition that of Reading (Cambridge, 1720), in three volumes, folio); by Heinichen (1827, second edition 1868-1870 in three volumes, a very useful edition, containing also theLife of Constantineand theOration in Praise of Constantine, with elaborate notes); by Burton (1838; a handy reprint in a single volume by Bright, 1881), and by many others. The most recent and best edition is that of Schwartz in the Berlin Academy’sGreek Fathers, of which the first half has appeared, accompanied by the Latin version of Rufinus edited by Mommsen. The history was early put into Syriac (edited by Bedjan, Leipzig, 1897; also by Wright, McLean and Merx, London, 1898), Armenian (edited by Djarian, Venice, 1877), and Latin, and has been translated into many modern languages, the latest English version being that of McGiffert, in theNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, volume i. (New York, 1890). Of theChronicle, the best edition is by Schoene in two volumes (Berlin, 1866-1875). TheLife of Constantineand theOration in Praise of Constantineare published by Valesius, Heinichen and others in their editions of theChurch History, also in the first volume of the Berlin Academy’s edition (ed. by Heikel), and an English translation by Richardson in the volume containing McGiffert’s translation of theChurch History. Gaisford published theProphetical Extracts(Oxford, 1842), thePraeparatio evangelica(1843), theDemonstratio evangelica(1852), and the works against Hierocles and Marcellus (1852); and the works against Marcellus have appeared in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iv.). TheOnomasticonhas been published frequently, among others by Lagarde (Göttingen, 1870; 2nd ed., 1887), and is contained in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iii.). TheTheophaniawas first published by Lee (Syriac version, 1842; English translation, 1843). A German translation of the Syriac version, with the extant fragments of the original Greek, is given in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iii.).
Acacius, the pupil of Eusebius and his successor in the see of Caesarea, wrote a life of him which is unfortunately lost. His own writings contain little biographical material, but we get information from Athanasius, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Jerome’sDe vir. ill., and Photius. Among the many modern accounts in church histories, histories of Christian literature, encyclopaedias, &c., may be mentioned a monograph by Stein,Eusebius Bischof von Caesarea(Würzburg, 1859), meagre but useful as far as it goes; the magnificent article by Lightfoot in theDictionary of Christian Biography; the account by McGiffert in his translation of theChurch History; Erwin Preuschen’s article in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklop. (3rd ed., 1898); the treatment of the Chronology of Eusebius writings in Harnack’sAlt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte, ii. 2, p. 106 sq.; and Bardenhewer’sPatrologie, p. 2260 f. The manyspecial discussions of Eusebius’ separate works, particularly of hisChurch History, and of his character as an historian, cannot be referred to here. Elaborate bibliographies will be found in McGiffert’s translation, and in Preuschen’s article in Herzog-Hauck.