Chapter 18

(G. A. Be.)

1Some embryologists regard the vitreous body as formed from the ectoderm (see Quain’sAnatomy, vol. i., 1908).

EYEMOUTH,a police burgh of Berwickshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 2436. It is situated at the mouth of the Eye, 7½ m. N.N.W. of Berwick-on-Tweed by the North British railway via Burnmouth. Its public buildings are the town hall, library and masonic hall. The main industry is the fishing and allied trades. The harbour was enlarged in 1887, and the bay is easily accessible and affords good anchorage. Owing to the rugged character of the coast and its numerous ravines and caves the whole district was once infested with smugglers. The promontory of St Abb’s Head is 3 m. to the N.W.

EYLAU(Preussisch-Eylau), a town of Germany, in east Prussia, on the Pasmar, 23 m. S. by E. of Königsberg by rail on the line Pillau-Prostken. It has an Evangelical church, a teachers’ seminary, a hospital, foundries and saw mills. Pop. 3200. Eylau was founded in 1336 by Arnolf von Eilenstein, a knight of the Teutonic Order. It is famous as the scene of a battle between the army of Napoleon and the Russians and Prussians commanded by General Bennigsen, fought on the 8th of February 1807.

The battle was preceded by a severe general engagement on the 7th. The head of Napoleon’s column (cavalry and infantry), advancing from the south-west, found itself opposed at the outlet of the Grünhöfchen defile by a strong Russian rearguard which held the (frozen) lakes on either side of the Eylau road, and attacked at once, dislodging the enemy after a sharp conflict. The French turned both wings of the enemy, and Bagration, who commanded the Russian rearguard, retired through Eylau to the main army, which was now arrayed for battle east of Eylau. Barclay de Tolly made a strenuous resistance in Eylau itself, and in the churchyard, and these localities changed hands several times before remaining finally in possession of the French. It is very doubtful whether Napoleon actually ordered this attack upon Eylau, and it is suggested that the French soldiers were encouraged to a premature assault by the hope of obtaining quarters in the village. There is, however, no reason to suppose that this attack was prejudicial to Napoleon’s chance of success, for his own army was intended to pin the enemy in front, while the outlying “masses of manoeuvre” closed upon his flanks and rear (seeNapoleonic Campaigns). In this case the vigour of the “general advanced guard” was superfluous, for Bennigsen stood to fight of his own free will.

The foremost line of the French bivouacs extended, from Rothenen to Freiheit, but a large proportion of the army spent the night in quarters farther back. The Russian army on the other hand spent the night bivouacked in order of battle, the right at Schloditten and the left at Serpallen. The cold was extreme, 2° F. being registered in the early morning, and food was scarce in both armies. The ground was covered at the time of battle with deep snow, and all the lakes and marshes were frozen, so that troops of all arms could pass everywhere, so far as the snow permitted. Two of Napoleon’s corps (Davout and Ney) were still absent, and Ney did not receive his orders until the morning of the 8th. His task was to descend upon the Russian right, and also to prevent a Prussian corps under Lestocq from coming on to the battlefield. Davout’s corps advancing from the south-east on Mollwitten was destined for the attack of Bennigsen’s left wing about Serpallen and Klein Sausgarten. In the meantime Napoleon with his forces at and about Eylau made the preparations for the frontal attack. His infantry extended from the windmill, through Eylau, to Rothenen, and the artillery was deployed along the whole front; behind each infantry corps and on the wings stood the cavalry. The Guard was in second line south of Eylau, and an army reserve stood near the Waschkeiten lake. Bennigsen’s army was drawn up in line from Schloditten to Klein Sausgarten, the front likewise covered by guns, in which arm he was numerically much superior. A detachment occupied Serpallen.

The battle opened in a dense snowstorm. About 8A.M.Bennigsen’s guns opened fire on Eylau, and after a fierce but undecided artillery fight the French delivered an infantry attack from Eylau. This was repulsed with heavy losses, and the Russians advanced towards the windmill in force. Thereupon Napoleon ordered his centre, the VII. corps of Augéreau to move forward from the church against the Russian front, the division of St Hilaire on Augéreau’s right participating in the attack. If we conceive of this first stage of the battle as the action of the “general advanced guard,” Augéreau must be held to have overdone his part. The VII. corps advanced in dense masses, but in the fierce snowstorm lost its direction. St Hilaire attacked directly and unsupported; Augéreau’s corps was still less fortunate. Crossing obliquely the front of the Russian line, as if making for Schloditten, it came under afeu d’enferand was practically annihilated. In the confusion the Russian cavalry charged with the utmost fury downhill and with the wind behind them. Three thousand men only out of about fourteen thousand appeared at the evening parade of the corps. The rest were killed, wounded, prisoners or dispersed. The marshal and every senior officer was amongst the killed and wounded, and one regiment, the 14th of the Line, cut off in the midst of the Russians and refusing to surrender, fell almost to a man. The Russian counterstroke penetrated into Eylau itself and Napoleon himself was in serious danger. With the utmost coolness, however, he judged the pace of the Russian advance and ordered up a battalion of the Guard at the exact moment required. In the streets of Eylau the Guard had the Russians at their mercy, and few escaped. Still the situation for the French was desperate and the battle had to be maintained at all costs. Napoleon now sent forward the cavalry along the whole line. In the centre the charge was led by Murat and Bessières, and the Russian horsemen were swept off the field. The Cuirassiers under D’Hautpoult charged through the Russian guns, broke through the first line of infantry and then through the second, penetrating to the woods of Anklappen.

The shock of a second wave of cavalry broke the lines again, and though in the final retirement the exhausted troopers lost terribly, they had achieved their object. The wreck of Augéreau’s and other divisions had been reformed, the Guard brought up into first line, and, above all, Davout’s leading troops had occupied Serpallen. Thence, with his left in touch with Napoleon’s right (St Hilaire), and his right extending gradually towards Klein Sausgarten, the marshal pressed steadily upon the Russian left, rolling it up before him, until his right had reached Kutschitten and his centre Anklappen. By that time the troops under Napoleon’s immediate command, pivoting their left on Eylau church, had wheeled gradually inward until the general line extended from the church to Kutschitten. The Russian army was being driven westward, when the advance of Lestocq gave them fresh steadiness. The Prussian corps had been fighting a continuous flank-guard action against Marshal Ney to the north-west of Althof, and Lestocq had finally succeeded in disengaging his main body, Ney being held up at Althof by a small rearguard, while the Prussians, gathering as they went the fugitives of the Russian army, hastened to oppose Davout. The impetus of these fresh troops led by Lestocq and his staff-officer Scharnhorst was such as to check even the famous divisions of Davout’s corps which had won the battle of Auerstädt single-handed. The French were now gradually forced back until their right was again at Sausgarten and their centre on the Kreege Berg.

Both sides were now utterly exhausted, for the Prussians also had been marching and fighting all day against Ney. The battle died away at nightfall, Ney’s corps being unable effectively to intervene owing to the steadiness of the Prussian detachment left to oppose him, and the extreme difficulty of the roads. A severe conflict between the Russian extreme right and Ney’s corps which at last appeared on the field at Schloditten ended the battle. Bennigsen retreated during the night through Schmoditten, Lestocq through Kutschitten. The numbers engaged in the first stage of the battle may be taken as—Napoleon, 50,000, Bennigsen, 67,000, to which later were added on the one side Ney and Davout, 29,000, on the other Lestocq, 7000. The losses were roughly, 15,000 men to the French, 18,000 to the Allies, or 21 and 27% respectively of the troops actually engaged. The French lost 5 eagles and 7 other colours, the Russians 16 colours and 24 guns..

EYRA(Felis eyra), a South American wild cat, of weasel-like build, and uniform coloration, varying in different individuals from reddish-yellow to chestnut. It is found in Brazil, Guiana and Paraguay, and extends its range to the Rio del Norte, but is rare north of the isthmus of Panama. Little is known of its habits in a wild state, beyond the fact that it is a forest-dweller, active in movement and fierce in disposition. Several have been exhibited in the London Zoological Gardens, and some have grown gentle in captivity. Don Felix de Azara wrote of one which he kept on a chain that it was “as gentle and playful as any kitten could be.” The name is sometimes applied to the jaguarondi.

EYRE, EDWARD JOHN(1815-1901), British colonial governor, the son of a Yorkshire clergyman, was born on the 5th of August 1815. He was intended for the army, but delays having arisen in producing a commission, he went out to New South Wales, where he engaged in the difficult but very necessary undertaking of transporting stock westward to the new colony of South Australia, then in great distress, and where he became magistrate and protector of the aborigines, whose interests he warmly advocated. Already experienced as an Australian traveller, he undertook the most extensive and difficult journeys in the desert country north and west of Adelaide, and after encountering the greatest hardships, proved the possibility of land communication between South and West Australia. In 1845 he returned to England and published the narrative of his travels. In 1846 he was appointed lieutenant-governor of New Zealand, where he served under Sir George Grey. After successively governing St Vincent and Antigua, he was in 1862 appointed acting-governor of Jamaica and in 1864 governor. In October 1865 a negro insurrection broke out and was repressed with laudable vigour, but the unquestionable severity and alleged illegality of Eyre’s subsequent proceedings raised a storm at home which induced the government to suspend him and to despatch a special commission of investigation, the effect of whose inquiries, declared by his successor, Sir John Peter Grant, to have been “admirably conducted,” was that he should not be reinstated in his office. The government, nevertheless, saw nothing in Eyre’s conduct to justify legal proceedings; indictments preferred by amateur prosecutors at home against him and military officers who had acted under his direction, resulted in failure, and he retired upon the pension of a colonial governor. As anexplorer Eyre must be classed in the highest rank, but opinions are always likely to differ as to his action in the Jamaica rebellion. He died on the 30th of November 1901.

EYRE, SIR JAMES(1734-1799), English judge, was the son of the Rev. Thomas Eyre, of Wells, Somerset. He was educated at Winchester College and at St John’s College, Oxford, which, however, he left without taking a degree. He was called to the bar at Gray’s Inn in 1755, and commenced practice in the lord mayor’s and sheriffs’ courts, having become by purchase one of the four counsel to the corporation of London. He was appointed recorder of London in 1763. He was counsel for the plaintiff in the case ofWilkesv.Wood, and made a brilliant speech in condemnation of the execution of general search warrants. His refusal to voice the remonstrances of the corporation against the exclusion of Wilkes from parliament earned him the recognition of the ministry, and he was appointed a judge of the exchequer in 1772. From June 1792 to January 1793 he was chief commissioner of the great seal. In 1793 he was made chief justice of the common pleas, and presided over the trials of Horne Tooke, Thomas Crosfield and others, with great ability and impartiality. He died on the 1st of July 1799 and was buried at Ruscombe, Berkshire.

See Howell,State Trials, xix. (1154—1155); Foss,Lives of the Judges.

EYRIE,the alternative English form of the words Aerie or Aery, the lofty nest of a bird of prey, especially of an eagle, hence any lofty place of abode; the term is also used of the brood of the bird. The word derives from the Fr.aire, of the same meaning, which comes from the Lat.area, an open space, but was early connected withaërius, high in the air, airy, a confusion that has affected the spelling of the word. The forms “eyrie” or “eyry” date from a 17th century attempt to derive the word from the Teutonicey, an egg.

EZEKIEL(יחזקאל, “God strengthens” or “God is strong”; Sept.Ἰεζεκιήλ; Vulg. Ezechiel), son of Buzi, one of the most vigorous and impressive of the older Israelite thinkers. He was a priest of the Jerusalem temple, probably a member of the dominant house of Zadok, and doubtless had the literary training of the cultivated priesthood of the time, including acquaintance with the national historical, legal and ritual traditions and with the contemporary history and customs of neighbouring peoples. In the year 597 (being then, probably, not far from thirty years of age) he was carried off to Babylonia by Nebuchadrezzar with King Jehoiachin and a large body of nobles, military men and artisans, and there, it would seem, he spent the rest of his life. His prophecies are dated from this year (“our captivity,” xl. 1), except in i. 1, where the meaning of the date “thirtieth year” is obscure; it cannot refer to his age (which would be otherwise expressed in Hebrew), or to the reform of Josiah, 621 (which is not elsewhere employed as an epoch); possibly the reference is to the era of Nabopolassar (626 according to the Canon of Ptolemy), if chronological inexactness be supposed (34 or 33 years instead of 30), a supposition not at all improbable. That the word “thirtieth” is old, appears from the fact that a scribe has added a gloss (vv.2, 3) to bring this statement into accord with the usual way of reckoning in the book: the “thirtieth” year, he explains, is the fifth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin. The exiles dwelt at Tell-abib (“Hill of the flood”), one of the mounds or ruins made by the great floods that devastated the country,1near the “river” Chebar (Kebar), probably a large canal not far south of the city of Babylon. Here they had their own lands, and some form of local government by elders, and appear to have been prosperous and contented; probably the only demand made on them by the Babylonian government was the payment of taxes.

Ezekiel was married (xxiv. 18), had his own house, and comported himself quietly as a Babylonian subject. But he was a profoundly interested observer of affairs at home and among the exiles: as patriot and ethical teacher he deplored alike the political blindness of the Jerusalem government (King Zedekiah revolted in 588) and the immorality and religious superficiality and apostasy of the people. He, like Jeremiah, was friendly to Nebuchadrezzar, regarding him as Yahweh’s instrument for the chastisement of the nation. Convinced that opposition to Babylonian rule was suicidal, and interpreting historical events, in the manner of the times, as indications of the temper of the deity, he held that the imminent political destruction of the nation was proof of Yahweh’s anger with the people on account of their moral and religious depravity; Jerusalem was hopelessly corrupt and must be destroyed (xxiv.). On the other hand, he was equally convinced that, as his predecessors had taught (Hos. xi. 8, 9; Isa. vii. 3al.), Yahweh’s love for his people would not suffer them to perish utterly—a remnant would be saved, and this remnant he naturally found in the exiles in Babylonia, a little band plucked from the burning and kept safe in a foreign land till the wrath should have passed (xi. 14 ff.). This conception of the exiles as the kernel of the restored nation he further set forth in the great vision of ch. i., in which Yahweh is represented as leaving Jerusalem and coming to take up his abode among them in Babylonia for a time, intending, however, to return to his own city (xliii. 7).

This, then, was Ezekiel’s political creed—destruction of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, restoration of the exiles, and meantime submission to Babylon. His arraignment of the Judeans is violent, almost malignant (vi. xvi.al.). The well-meaning but weak king Zedekiah he denounces with bitter scorn as a perjured traitor (xvii). He does not discuss the possibility of successful resistance to the Chaldeans; he simply assumes that the attempt is foolish and wicked, and, like other prophets, he identifies his political programme with the will of God. Probably his judgment of the situation was correct; yet, in view of Sennacherib’s failure at Jerusalem in 701 and of the admitted strength of the city, the hope of the Jewish nobles could not be considered wholly unfounded, and in any case their patriotism (like that of the national party in the Roman siege) was not unworthy of admiration. The prophet’s predictions of disaster continued, according to the record, up to the investment of the city by the Chaldean army in 588 (i.-xxiv.); after the fall of the city (586) his tone changed to one of consolation (xxxiii.-xxxix.)—the destruction of the wicked mass accomplished, he turned to the task of reconstruction. He describes the safe and happy establishment of the people in their own land, and gives a sketch of a new constitution, of which the main point is the absolute control of public religion by the priesthood (xl.-xlviii.).

The discourses of the first period (i.-xxiv.) do not confine themselves to political affairs, but contain much interesting ethical and religious material. The picture given of Jerusalemite morals is an appalling one. Society is described as honeycombed with crimes and vices; prophets, priests, princes and the people generally are said to practise unblushingly extortion, oppression, murder, falsehood, adultery (xxii.). This description is doubtless exaggerated. It may be assumed that the social corruption in Jerusalem was such as is usually found in wealthy communities, made bolder in this case, perhaps, by the political unrest and the weakness of the royal government under Zedekiah. No such charges are brought by the prophet against the exiles, in whose simple life, indeed, there was little or no opportunity for flagrant violation of law. Ezekiel’s own moral code is that of the prophets, which insists on the practice of the fundamental civic virtues. He puts ritual offences, however, in the same category with offences against the moral law, and he does not distinguish between immorality and practices that are survivals of old recognized customs: in ch. xxii. he mentions “eating with the blood”2along with murder, and failure to observe ritual regulations along with oppression of the fatherless and the widow; the old customary law permitted marriage with a half-sister (father’s daughter), with a daughter-in-law, and with a father’s wife (Gen. xx. 12, xxxviii. 26; 2 Sam. xvi. 21, 22), but the more refinedfeeling of the later time frowned on the custom, and Ezekiel treats it as adultery.3However, notwithstanding the insistence on ritual, natural in a priest, his moral standard is high; following the prescription of Ex. xxii. 21 [20] he regards oppression of resident aliens (a class that had not then received full civil rights) as a crime (xxii. 7), and in his new constitution (xlvii. 22, 23) gives them equal rights with the homeborn. His strongest denunciation is directed against the religious practices of the time in Judea—the worship of the Canaanite local deities (the Baals), the Phoenician Tammuz, and the sun and other Babylonian and Assyrian gods (vi., viii., xvi., xxiii.); he maintained vigorously the prophetic struggle for the sole worship of Yahweh. Probably he believed in the existence of other gods, though he does not express himself clearly on this point; in any case he held that the worship of other deities was destructive to Israel. His conception of Yahweh shows a mingling of the high and the low. On the one hand, he regards him as supreme in power, controlling the destinies of Babylonia and Egypt as well as those of Israel, and as inflexibly just in dealing with ordinary offences against morality. But he conceives of him, on the other hand, as limited locally and morally—as having his special abode in. the Jerusalem temple, or elsewhere in the midst of the Israelite people, and as dealing with other nations solely in the interests of Israel. The bitter invectives against Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon and Egypt, put into Yahweh’s mouth, are based wholly on the fact that these peoples are regarded as hostile and hurtful to Israel; Babylonia, though nowise superior to Egypt morally, is favoured and applauded because it is believed to be the instrument for securing ultimately the prosperity of Yahweh’s people. The administration of the affairs of the world by the God of Israel is represented, in a word, as determined not by ethical considerations but by personal preferences. There is no hint in Ezekiel’s writings of the grandiose conception of Isa. xl.-lv., that Israel’s mission is to give the knowledge of religious truth to the other nations of the world; he goes so far as to say that Yahweh’s object in restoring the fortunes of Israel is to establish his reputation among the nations as a powerful deity (xxxvi. 20-23, xxxvii. 28, xxxix. 23). The prophet regards Yahweh’s administrative control as immediate: he introduces no angels or other subordinate supernatural agents—the cherubs and the “men” of ix. 2 and xl. 3 are merely imaginative symbols or representations of divine activity. His high conception of God’s transcendence, it may be supposed, led him to ignore intermediary agencies, which are common in the popular literature, and later, under the influence of this same conception of transcendence, are freely employed.

The relations between the writings of Ezekiel and those of Jeremiah is not clear. They have so much in common that they must have drawn from the same current bodies of thought, or there must have been borrowing in one direction or the other. In one point, however,—the attitude toward the ritual—the two men differ radically. The finer mind of the nation, represented mainly by the prophets from Amos onward, had denounced unsparingly the superficial non-moral popular cult. The struggle between ethical religion and the current worship became acute toward the end of the 7th century. There were two possible solutions of the difficulty. The ritual books of our Pentateuch were not then in existence, and the sacrificial cult might be treated with contempt as not authoritative. This is the course taken by Jeremiah, who says boldly that God requires only obedience (Jer. vii. 21 ff.). On the other hand the better party among the priests, believing the ritual to be necessary, might undertake to moralize it; of such a movement, begun by Deuteronomy, Ezekiel is the most eminent representative. Priest and prophet, he sought to unify the national religious consciousness by preserving the sacrificial cult, discarding its abuses and vitalizing it ethically. The event showed that he judged the situation rightly—the religious scheme announced by him, though not accepted in all its details, became the dominant policy of the later time, and he has been justly called “the father of Judaism.” He speaks as a legislator, citing no authority; but he formulates, doubtless, the ideas and perhaps the practices of the Jerusalem priesthood. His ritual code (xliii.-xlvi.), which in elaborateness stands midway between that of Deuteronomy and that of the middle books of the Pentateuch (resembling most nearly the code of Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) shows good judgment. Its most noteworthy features are two. Certain priests of idolatrous Judean shrines (distinguished by him as “Levites”) he deprives of priestly functions, degrading them to the rank of temple menials; and he takes from the civil ruler all authority over public religion, permitting him merely to furnish material for sacrifices. He is, however, much more than a ritual reformer. He is the first to express clearly the conception of a sacred nation, isolated by its religion from all others, the guardian of divine law and the abode of divine majesty. This kingdom of God he conceives of as moral: Yahweh is to put his own spirit into the people,4creating in them a disposition to obey his commandments, which are moral as well as ritual (xxxvi. 26, 27). The conception of a sacred nation controlled the whole succeeding Jewish development; if it was narrow in its exclusive regard for Israel, its intensity saved the Jewish religion to the world.

Text and Authorship.—The Hebrew text of the book of Ezekiel is not in good condition—it is full of scribal inaccuracies and additions. Many of the errors may be corrected with the aid of the Septuagint (e.g.the 430—390 + 40—of iv. 5, 6 is to be changed to 190), and none of them affect the general thought. The substantial genuineness of the discourses is now accepted by the great body of critics. The Talmudic tradition (Baba Bathra14b) that the men of the Great Synagogue “wrote” Ezekiel, may refer to editorial work by later scholars.5There is no validity in the objections of Zunz (Gottesdienstl. Vortr.) that the specific prediction concerning Zedekiah (xii. 12 f.) is non-Prophetic, and that the drawing-up of a new constitution soon after the destruction of the city and the mention of Noah, Daniel, Job and Persia are improbable. The prediction in question was doubtless added by Ezekiel after the event; the code belongs precisely in his time, and the constitution was natural for a priest; Noah, Daniel and Job are old legendary Hebrew figures; and it is not probable that the prophet’s “Paras” is our “Persia.” Havet’s contention (inLa Modernité des prophètes) that Gog represents the Parthians (40B.C.) has little or nothing in its support. There are additions madepost eventum, as in the case mentioned above and in xxix. 17-20, and the description of the commerce of Tyre (xxvii. 9b-25a), which interrupts the comparison of the city to a ship, looks like an insertion whether by the prophet or by some other; but there is no good reason to doubt that the book is substantially the work of Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s style is generally impetuous and vigorous, somewhat smoother in the consolatory discourses (xxxiv., xxxvi., xxxvii.); he produces a great effect by the cumulation of details, and is a master of invective; he is fond of symbolic pictures, proverbs and allegories; his “visions” are elaborate literary productions, his prophecies show less spontaneity than those of any preceding prophet (he receives his revelations in the form of a book, ii. 9), and in their present shape were hardly pronounced in public—a fact that seems to be hinted at in the statement that he was “dumb” till the fall of Jerusalem (iii. 26, xxxiii. 22); in private interviews the people did not take him seriously (xxxiii. 30-33). His book was accepted early as part of the sacred literature: Ben-Sira (c. 180B.C.) mentions him along with Isaiah and Jeremiah (Ecclus. xlix. 8); he is not quoted directly in the New Testament, but his imagery is employed largely in the Apocalypse and elsewhere. His divergencies from the Pentateuchal code gave rise to serious doubts, but, after prolonged study, the discrepancies were explained, and the book was finally canonized (Shab. 13b). According toJerome (Preface toComm. on Ezek.) the Jewish youth were forbidden to read the mysterious first chapter (called themarkaba, the “chariot”) and the concluding section (xl.-xlviii.) till they reached the age of thirty years.

The book divides itself naturally into three parts: the arraignment of Jerusalem (i.-xxiv.); denunciation of foreign enemies (xxv.-xxxii.); consolatory construction of the future (xxxiii.-xlviii.). The opening “vision” (i.), an elaborate symbolic picture, is of the nature of a general preface, and was composed probably late in the prophet’s life. Out of the north (the Babylonian sacred mountain) comes a bright cloud, wherein appear four Creatures (formed on the model of Babylonian composite figures), each with four faces (man, lion, bull, eagle) and attended by a wheel; the wheels are full of eyes, and move straight forward, impelled by the spirit dwelling in the Creatures (the spirit of Yahweh). Supported on their heads is something like a crystalline firmament, above which is a form like a sapphire throne (cf. Ex. xxiv. 10), and on the throne a man-like form (Yahweh) surrounded by a rainbow brightness. The wheels symbolize divine omniscience and control, and the whole vision represents the coming of Yahweh to take up his abode among the exiles. The prophet then receives his call (ii., iii.) in the shape of a roll of a book, which he is required to eat (an indication of the literary form now taken by prophecy). He is informed that the people to whom he is sent are rebellious and stiff-necked (this indicates his opinion of the people, and gives the keynote of the following discourses); he is appointed watchman to warn men when they sin, and is to be held responsible for the consequences if he fail in this duty. To this high conception of a preacher’s function the prophet was faithful throughout his career. Next follow minatory discourses (iv.-vii.) predicting the siege and capture of Jerusalem-perhaps revised after the event. There are several symbolic acts descriptive of the siege. One of these (iv. 4 ff.) gives the duration of the national punishment in loose chronological reckoning: 40 years (a round number) for Judah, and 150 more (according to the corrected text) for Israel, the starting-point, probably, being the year 722, the date of the capture of Samaria; the procedure described inv.8 is not to be understood literally. In vi. the idolatry of the nation is pictured in darkest colours. Next follows (viii.-xi.) a detailed description, in the form of a vision, of the sin of Jerusalem: within the temple-area elders and others are worshipping beast-forms, Tammuz and the sun (probably actual cults of the time);6men approach to defile the temple and slay the inhabitants of the city (ix.). In ch. x. the imagery of ch. i. reappears, and the Creatures are identified with the cherubs of Solomon’s temple. This appears to be an independent form of the vision, which has been brought into connexion with that of i. by a harmonizing editor. There follow a symbolic prediction of the exile (xii.) and a denunciation of non-moral prophets and prophetesses (xiii.)—though Yahweh deceive a prophet, yet he and those who consult him will be punished; and so corrupt is the nation that the presence of a few eminently good men will not save it (xiv.).7After a comparison of Israel to a worthless wild vine (xv.) come two allegories, one portraying idolatrous Jerusalem as the unfaithful spouse of Yahweh (xvi.), the other describing the fate of Zedekiah (xvii.). The fine insistence on individual moral responsibility in xviii. (cf. Deut. xxiv. 16, Jer. xxxi. 29 f.), while it is a protest against a superficial current view, is not to be understood as a denial of all moral relations between successive generations. This latter question had not presented itself to the prophet’s mind; his object was simply to correct the opinion of the people that their present misfortunes were due not to their own faults but to those of their predecessors. A more sympathetic attitude appears in two elegies (xix.), one on the kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, the other on the nation. These are followed by a scathing sketch of Israel’s religious career (xx. 1-26), in which, contrary to the view of earlier prophets, it is declared that the nation had always been disobedient. From this point to the end of xxiv. there is a mingling of threat and promise.8The allegory of xxiii. is similar to that of xvi., except that in the latter Samaria is relatively treated with favour, while in the former it (Aholah) is involved in the same condemnation as that of Jerusalem. At this point is introduced (xxv.-xxxii.) the series of discourses directed against foreign nations. The description of the king of Tyre (xxviii. 11-19) as dwelling in Eden, the garden of God, the sacred mountain, under the protection of the cherub, bears a curious resemblance to the narrative in Gen. ii., iii., of which, however, it seems to be independent, using different Babylonian material; the text is corrupt. The section dealing with Egypt is one of remarkable imaginative power and rhetorical vigour: the king of Egypt is compared to a magnificent cedar of Lebanon (in xxxi. 3 read: “there was a cedar in Lebanon”) and to the dragon of the Nile, and the picture of his descent into Sheol is intensely tragic. Whether these discourses were all uttered between the investment of Jerusalem and its fall, or were here inserted by Ezekiel or by a scribe, it is not possible to say. In xxxiii. the function of the prophet as watchman is described at length (expansion of the description in iii.) and the news of the capture of the city is received. The following chapters (xxxiv.-xxxix.) are devoted to reconstruction: Edom, the detested enemy of Israel, is to be crushed; the nation, politically raised from the dead, with North and South united (xxxvii.), is to be established under a Davidide king; a final assault, made by Gog, is to be successfully met,9and then the people are to dwell in their own land in peace for ever; this Gog section is regarded by some as the beginning of Jewish apocalyptic writing. In the last section (xl.-xlviii.), put as a vision, the temple is to be rebuilt, in dimensions and arrangements a reproduction of the temple of Solomon (cf. I Kings vi., vii.), the sacrifices and festivals and the functions of priests and prince are prescribed, a stream issuing from under the temple is to vivify the Dead Sea and fertilize the land (this is meant literally), the land is divided into parallel strips and assigned to the tribes. The prophet’s thought is summed up in the name of the city:Yahweh Shammah, “Yahweh is there,” God dwelling for ever in the midst of his people.Literature.—For the older works see theIntroductionsof J.G. Carpzov (1757) and C.H.H. Wright (1890). Forlegends: Pseud.-Epiphan.,De vit. prophet.; Benjamin of Tudela, Itin.; Hamburger,Realencycl.;Jew. Encycl.On the Hebrew text; C.H. Cornill,Ezechiel(1886) (very valuable for text and ancient versions); H. Graetz,Emendationes(1893).; C.H. Toy, “Text of Ezek.” (1899) in Haupt’sSacred Books of the Old Test.Commentaries: F. Hitzig (1847); H. Ewald (1868); E. Reuss (French ed., 1876; Germ, ed., 1892); Currey (1876) inSpeaker’s Comm.; R. Smend (revision of Hitzig) (1880) inKurzgefasst. exeget. Handbuch; A.B. Davidson (1882) in Cambr.Bible for Schools; J. Skinner (1895) inExpos. Bible; A. Bertholet (1897) in Marti’sKurz. Hand-Comm.; C.H. Toy (1899) in Haupt’sSacr. Bks.(Eng. ed.); R. Kraetzschmar (1900) in W. Nowack’sHandkommentar. See also Duhm,Theol. d. Propheten(1875); A. Kuenen,Prophets and Prophecy(1877); Gautier,La Mission du prophète Ezéchiel(1891); Montefiore,Hibbert Lectures(1892); A. Bertholet,Der Verfassungsentwurf des Hesekiel(1896); articles in Herzog-Hauck,Realencykl.; Hastings,Bibl. Dict.; Cheyne,Encycl. Bibl., Jew. Encycl.; F. Bleek,Introd.(Eng. tr., 1875), and Bleek-Wellhausen (Germ.) (1878); Wildeboer,Letterkunde d. Oud. Verbonds(1893), and Germ, transl.,Litt. d. Alt. Test.; Perrot and Chipiez,Hist. de l’art, &c. , in which, however, the restoration of Ezekiel’s temple (by Chipiez) is probably untrustworthy.

Literature.—For the older works see theIntroductionsof J.G. Carpzov (1757) and C.H.H. Wright (1890). Forlegends: Pseud.-Epiphan.,De vit. prophet.; Benjamin of Tudela, Itin.; Hamburger,Realencycl.;Jew. Encycl.On the Hebrew text; C.H. Cornill,Ezechiel(1886) (very valuable for text and ancient versions); H. Graetz,Emendationes(1893).; C.H. Toy, “Text of Ezek.” (1899) in Haupt’sSacred Books of the Old Test.Commentaries: F. Hitzig (1847); H. Ewald (1868); E. Reuss (French ed., 1876; Germ, ed., 1892); Currey (1876) inSpeaker’s Comm.; R. Smend (revision of Hitzig) (1880) inKurzgefasst. exeget. Handbuch; A.B. Davidson (1882) in Cambr.Bible for Schools; J. Skinner (1895) inExpos. Bible; A. Bertholet (1897) in Marti’sKurz. Hand-Comm.; C.H. Toy (1899) in Haupt’sSacr. Bks.(Eng. ed.); R. Kraetzschmar (1900) in W. Nowack’sHandkommentar. See also Duhm,Theol. d. Propheten(1875); A. Kuenen,Prophets and Prophecy(1877); Gautier,La Mission du prophète Ezéchiel(1891); Montefiore,Hibbert Lectures(1892); A. Bertholet,Der Verfassungsentwurf des Hesekiel(1896); articles in Herzog-Hauck,Realencykl.; Hastings,Bibl. Dict.; Cheyne,Encycl. Bibl., Jew. Encycl.; F. Bleek,Introd.(Eng. tr., 1875), and Bleek-Wellhausen (Germ.) (1878); Wildeboer,Letterkunde d. Oud. Verbonds(1893), and Germ, transl.,Litt. d. Alt. Test.; Perrot and Chipiez,Hist. de l’art, &c. , in which, however, the restoration of Ezekiel’s temple (by Chipiez) is probably untrustworthy.

(C. H. T.*)

1The Assyrian termabubuis used of the great primeval deluge (in the Gilgamesh epic), and also of the local floods common in the country.2So we must read (as Robertson Smith has pointed out) in xxii. 9 and xviii. 6, instead of “eating on the mountains.”3The stricter marriage law is formulated in Lev. xviii. 8-15, xx. 11 ff.4Yahweh’s spirit, thought of as Yahweh’s vital principle, as man’s spirit is man’s vital principle, is to be breathed into them, as, in Gen. ii. 7, Yahweh breathes his own breath into the lifeless body. The spirit in the Old Testament is a refined material thing that may come or be poured out on men.5The “Great Synagogue” is semi-mythical.6In viii. 17 the unintelligible expression “they put the branch to their nose” is the rendering of a corrupt Hebrew text; a probable emendation is: “they are sending a stench to my nostrils.”7The legendary figure of Daniel (xiv. 14) is later taken by the author of the book of Daniel as his hero.8For a reconstruction of the poem in xxi. 10, 11, see the English Ezekiel in Haupt’sSacred Books.9Gog probably represents a Scythian horde (though such an invasion never took place)—certainly not Alexander the Great, who would have been called “king of Greece,” and would have been regarded not as an enemy but as a friend.

1The Assyrian termabubuis used of the great primeval deluge (in the Gilgamesh epic), and also of the local floods common in the country.

2So we must read (as Robertson Smith has pointed out) in xxii. 9 and xviii. 6, instead of “eating on the mountains.”

3The stricter marriage law is formulated in Lev. xviii. 8-15, xx. 11 ff.

4Yahweh’s spirit, thought of as Yahweh’s vital principle, as man’s spirit is man’s vital principle, is to be breathed into them, as, in Gen. ii. 7, Yahweh breathes his own breath into the lifeless body. The spirit in the Old Testament is a refined material thing that may come or be poured out on men.

5The “Great Synagogue” is semi-mythical.

6In viii. 17 the unintelligible expression “they put the branch to their nose” is the rendering of a corrupt Hebrew text; a probable emendation is: “they are sending a stench to my nostrils.”

7The legendary figure of Daniel (xiv. 14) is later taken by the author of the book of Daniel as his hero.

8For a reconstruction of the poem in xxi. 10, 11, see the English Ezekiel in Haupt’sSacred Books.

9Gog probably represents a Scythian horde (though such an invasion never took place)—certainly not Alexander the Great, who would have been called “king of Greece,” and would have been regarded not as an enemy but as a friend.

EZRA(from a Hebrew word meaning “help”), in the Bible, the famous scribe and priest at the time of the return of the Jews in the reign of the Persian king Artaxerxes I. (458B.C.). His book and that of Nehemiah form one work (seeEzra and Nehemiah, Books of), apart from which we have little trustworthy evidence as to his life. Even in the beginning of the 2nd centuryB.C., when Ben Sira praises notable figures of the exilic and post-exilic age (Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah), Ezra is passed over (Ecclesiasticus xlix. 11-13), and he is not mentioned in a still later and somewhat fanciful description of Nehemiah’s work (2 Macc. i. 18-36). Already well known as a scribe, Ezra’s labours were magnified by subsequent tradition. He was regarded as the father of the scribes and the founder of the Great Synagogue. According to the apocryphal fourth book of Ezra (or 2 Esdras xiv.) he restored the law which had been lost, and rewrote all the sacred records (which had been destroyed) in addition to no fewer than seventy apocryphal works. The former theory recurs elsewhere in Jewish tradition, and may be associated with the representation in Ezra-Nehemiah which connects him with the law. But the story of his many literary efforts, like the more modern conjecture that he closed the canon of the Old Testament, rests upon no ancient basis.

SeeBible, sect. Old Testament (Canon and Criticism);Jews(history, §21 seq.). The apocryphal books, called 1 and 2 Esdras (the Greek form of the name) in the English Bible, are dealt with below asEzra, Third Book of, andEzra, Fourth Book of, while the canonical book of Ezra is dealt with underEzra and Nehemiah.

EZRA, THIRD BOOK OF[1Esdras]. The titles of the various books of the Ezra literature are very confusing. The Greek, the Old Latin, the Syriac, and the English Bible from 1560onwards designate this book as 1 Esdras, the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah being 2 Esdras in the Greek. In the Vulgate, however, our author was, through the action of Jerome, degraded into the third place and called 3 Esdras, whereas the canonical booksEzraandNehemiah(seeEzra and Nehemiah, Books of, below) were called 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Apocalypse of Ezra 4 Esdras. Thus the nomenclature of our book follows, and possibly wrongly, the usage of the Vulgate.1In the Ethiopic version a different usage prevails. TheApocalypseis called 1 Esdras, our author 2 Esdras, and Ezra and Nehemiah 3 Esdras, or 3 and 4 Esdras. Throughout this article we shall use the best attested designation of this book,i.e.1 Esdras.

Contents.—With the exception of one original section, namely, that of Darius and the three young men, our author contains essentially the same materials as the canonical Ezra and some sections of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. To the various explanations of this phenomenon we shall recur later. The book may be divided as follows (the verse division is that of the Cambridge LXX):—

Chap. i. = 2 Chron. xxxv. 1-xxxvi. 21.—Great passover of Josiah; his death at Megiddo. His successors down to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity. (Verses i. 21-22 are not found elsewhere, though the LXX of 2 Chron. xxxv. 20 exhibits a very distant parallel.)Chap. ii. 1-14 = Ezra i.—The edict of Cyrus. Restoration of the sacred vessels through Sanabassar to Jerusalem.Chap. ii. 15-25 = Ezra iv. 6-24.—First attempt to rebuild the Temple: opposition of the Samaritans. Decree of Artaxerxes: work abandoned till the second year of Darius.Chap. iii. 1-v. 6.—This section is peculiar to our author. The contest between the three pages waiting at the court of Darius and the victory of the Jewish youth “Zerubbabel,” to whom as a reward Darius decrees the return of the Jews and the restoration of the Temple and worship. Partial list of those who returned with “Joachim, son of Zerubbabel.”Chap. v. 7-70 = Ezra ii.-iv. 5.—List of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel. Work on the Temple begun. Offer of the Samaritans’ co-operation rejected. Suspension of the work through their intervention till the reign of Darius.Chap. vi. 1-vii. 9 = Ezra v. 1-vi. 18.—Work resumed in the second year of Darius. Correspondence between Sisinnes and Darius with reference to the building of the Temple. Darius’ favourable decree. Completion of the work by Zerubbabel.Chap. vii. 10-15 =Ezra vi. 19-22.—Celebration of the completion of the Temple.Chap. viii. 1-ix. 36 = Ezra vii.-x.—Return of the exiles under Ezra. Mixed marriages forbidden.Chap. ix. 37-55 = Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.—The reading of the Law.

Chap. ii. 1-14 = Ezra i.—The edict of Cyrus. Restoration of the sacred vessels through Sanabassar to Jerusalem.

Chap. ii. 15-25 = Ezra iv. 6-24.—First attempt to rebuild the Temple: opposition of the Samaritans. Decree of Artaxerxes: work abandoned till the second year of Darius.

Chap. iii. 1-v. 6.—This section is peculiar to our author. The contest between the three pages waiting at the court of Darius and the victory of the Jewish youth “Zerubbabel,” to whom as a reward Darius decrees the return of the Jews and the restoration of the Temple and worship. Partial list of those who returned with “Joachim, son of Zerubbabel.”

Chap. v. 7-70 = Ezra ii.-iv. 5.—List of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel. Work on the Temple begun. Offer of the Samaritans’ co-operation rejected. Suspension of the work through their intervention till the reign of Darius.

Chap. vi. 1-vii. 9 = Ezra v. 1-vi. 18.—Work resumed in the second year of Darius. Correspondence between Sisinnes and Darius with reference to the building of the Temple. Darius’ favourable decree. Completion of the work by Zerubbabel.

Chap. vii. 10-15 =Ezra vi. 19-22.—Celebration of the completion of the Temple.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 36 = Ezra vii.-x.—Return of the exiles under Ezra. Mixed marriages forbidden.

Chap. ix. 37-55 = Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.—The reading of the Law.

Thus, apart from iii. 1-v. 3, which gives an account of the pages’ contest, the contents of the book are doublets of the canonical Ezra and portions of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. The beginning of the book seems imperfect, with its abrupt opening “And Josiah held the passover”: its conclusion is mutilated, as it breaks off in the middle of a sentence. As Thackeray suggests, it probably continued the history of the feast of Tabernacles described in Neh. viii.—a view that is supported by Joseph.Ant. xi. 5. 5, “who describes that feast using an Esdras wordἐπανόρθωσιςand ... having hitherto followed Esdras as his authority passes on to the Book of Nehemiah.”

Claims to Canonicity.—It would seem that even greater value was attached to 1 Esdras than to the Hebrew Ezra. (1) For in the best MSS. (BA) it stands before 2 Esdras—the verbal translation of the Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah. (2) It is used by Josephus, who in fact does not seem aware of the existence of 2 Esdras. (3) 1 Esdras is frequently quoted by the Greek fathers—Clem. Alex., Origen, Eusebius, and by the Latin—Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine. The adverse judgment of the church is due to Jerome, who, from his firm attachment to the Hebrew Old Testament, declined to translate the “dreams” of 3 and 4 Esdras. This judgment influenced alike the Council of Trent and the Lutheran church in Germany; for Luther also refused to translate Esdras and the Apocalypse of Ezra.

Origin and Relation to the Canonical Ezra.—Various theories have been given as to the relation of the book and the canonical Ezra.

1. Some scholars, as Keil, Bissell and formerly Schürer, regarded 1 Esdras as a free compilation from the Greek of 2 Esdras (2 Chron. and Ezra-Nehemiah). This theory has now given place to others more accordant with the facts of the case.

2. Others, as Ewald,Hist. of Isr.v. 126-128, and Thackeray in Hastings’Bible Dictionary, assume a lost Greek version of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, from which were derived 1 Esdras—a free redaction of the former and 2 Esdras. Thackeray claims that we have “a satisfactory explanation of the coincidences in translation and deviation from the Hebrew in 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, if we suppose both are to some extent dependent on a lost Greek original.” But later in the same article Thackeray is compelled to modify this view and admit that 1 Esdras is not a mere redaction of a no longer extant version of the canonical books, but shows not only an independent knowledge of the Hebrew text but also of a Hebrew text superior in not a few passages to the Massoretic text, where 2 Esdras gives either an inaccurate version or a version reproducing the secondary Massoretic text.

3. Others like Michaelis, Trendelenburg, Pohlmann, Herzfeld, Fritzsche hold it to be a direct and independent translation of the Hebrew. There is much to be said in favour of this view. It presupposes in reality two independent recensions of the Hebrew text, such as we cannot reasonably doubt existed at one time of the Book of Daniel. Against this it has been urged that the story of the three pages was written originally in Greek (Ewald, Schürer, Thackeray). The only grounds for this theory are the easiness of the Greek style and the paronomasia in iv. 62ἄνεσιν καὶ ἄφεσιν. But the former is no real objection, and the latter may be purely accidental. On the other hand there are several undoubted Semiticisms. Thus we have two instances Of the split relativeοὗ...αὐτοῦiii. 5;οὗ...ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷiv. 63 and the phrase pointed out by Fritzscheτὰ δίκαια ποιεῖ ἀπὸ πάντων=עשה משפט מן. It must, however, be admitted that there are fewer Hebraisms in this section of the book than in the rest.

4. Sir H.H. Howorth in the treatises referred to at the close of this article has shown cogent grounds for regarding 1 Esdras as the original and genuine Septuagint translation, and 2 Esdras as probably that of Theodotion. For this view he adduces among others the following grounds: (i.) Its use by Josephus, who apparently was not acquainted with 2 Esdras. (ii.) Its precedence of 2 Esdras in the great uncials. (iii.) Its origin at a time when Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah formed a single work. (iv.) Its preservation of a better Hebrew text in many instances than 2 Esdras. (v.) The fact that 1 Esdras and the Septuagint of Daniel go back to one and the same translator, as Dr Gwynn (Dict. Christ. Biog.iv. 977) has pointed out (cf. 1 Esdr. vi. 31, and Dan. ii. 5).

This contention of Howorth has been accepted by Nestle, Cheyne, Bertholet, Ginsburg and other scholars, though they regard the question of an Aramaic original of chapters iii. 1-v. 6 as doubtful. Howorth’s further claim that he has established the historical credibility of the book as a whole and its chronological accuracy as against the canonical Ezra has not as yet met with acceptance; but his arguments have not been fairly met and answered.

5. Volz (Encyc. Bibl.ii. 1490) thinks that the solution of the problem is to be found in a different direction. The text is of unequal value, and the inequalities are so great as to exclude the supposition that the Greek version was producedaus einem Guss.iii. 1-v. 3 is an independent narrative written originally in Greek and itself a composite production, the praise of truth being an addition, vi. 1-vii. 15, ii. 15-25ais a fragment of an Aramaic narrative. Some in Josephus (Ant.xi. 4. 9) an account of Samaritan intrigues is introduced immediately after 1 Esdras vii. 15, it is natural to infer that something of the same kindhas fallen out between vi. and ii. 15-25. The Aramaic text behind 1 Esdras here is better than that behind the canonical Ezra. Next, viii.-ix. is from the Ezra document (= Ezra vii.-x.; Neh. vii. 73, viii. 1 sqq.), though implying a different Hebrew text. ii. 1-15; v. 7-73; vii. 2-4, 6-15 are from the Chronicles: likewise i. is from 2 Chron. xxxv.-vi., 2 Esdras being at the same time before the translator.

Date.—The book must be placed between 300B.C.andA.D.100, when it was used by Josephus. It is idle to attempt any nearer limits until definite conclusions have been reached on the chief problems of the book.

MSS. and Versions.—The book is found in B and A. The latter seems to have preserved the more ancient form of the text, as it is generally that followed by Josephus. The Old Latin in two recensions is published by Sabatier,Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, iii. Another Latin translation is given in Lagarde (Septuag. Studien, ii., 1892). In Syriac the text is found only in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul of Tella (A.D.616). See Walton’s Polyglott. There is also an Ethiopic version edited by Dillmann (Bibl. Vet. Test. Aeth. v., 1894) and an Armenian.

Back to Index Next