(C. R. B.)
IDUMAEA(Ἰδουμαῖα), the Greek equivalent of Edom (אדום), a territory which, in the works of the Biblical writers, is considered to lie S.E. of the Dead Sea, between the land of Moab and the Gulf of Akaba. Its name, which is connected with the root meaning “red,” is probably applied in reference to the red sandstone ranges of the mountains of Petra.1This etymology, however, is not certain. The apparently theophorous name Obed-Edom (2 Sam. vi. 10) shows that Edom is the name of a divinity. Of this there is other evidence; a Leiden papyrus names Etum as the wife of the Semitic fire-god Reshpu.
The early history of Edom is hidden in darkness. The Egyptian references to it are few, and do not give us much light regarding its early inhabitants. In the early records of the Pentateuch, the country is often referred to by the name of Seir, the general name for the whole range of mountains on the east side of the Jordan-Araba depression south of the Dead Sea. These mountains were occupied, so early as we can find any record, by a cave-dwelling aboriginal race known as Horites, who were smitten by the much-discussed king Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 6) and according to Deut. ii. 22 were driven out by the Semitic tribes of Esau’s descendants. The Horites are to us little more than a name, though the discovery of cave-dwellers of very early date at Gezer in the excavations of 1902-1905 has enabled us to form some idea as to their probable culture-status and physical character.
The occupants of Edom during practically the whole period of Biblical history were the Bedouin tribes which claimed descent through Esau from Abraham, and were acknowledged by the Israelites (Deut. xxiii. 7) as kin. That they intermarried with the earlier stock is suggested by the passage in Gen. xxxvi. 2, naming, as one of the wives of Esau, Oholibamah, daughter of Zibeon the Horite (corrected by verse 20). Among the peculiarities of the Edomites was government by certain officials known asאלופים2which the English versions (by too close a reminiscence of the Vulgateduces) translate “dukes.” The now naturalized word “sheikhs” would be the exact rendering. In addition to this Bedouin organization there was the curious institution of an elective monarchy, some of whose kings are catalogued in Gen. xxxvi. 31-39 and 1 Chron. i. 43-54. These kings reigned at some date anterior to the time of Saul. No deductions as to their chronology can be based on the silence regarding them in Moses’ song, Exodus xv. 15. There was a king in Edom (Num. xx. 14) who refused passage to the Israelites in their wanderings.
The history of the relations of the Edomites and Israelites may be briefly summarized. Saul, whose chief herdsman, Doeg, was an Edomite (1 Sam. xxi. 7), fought successfully against them (1 Sam. xiv. 47). Joab (1 Kings xi. 16) or Abishai, as his deputy (1 Chron. xviii. 11, 13), occupied Edom for six months and devastated it; it was garrisoned and permanently held by David (2 Sam. viii. 14). But a refugee named Hadad, who escaped as a child to Egypt and grew up at the court of the Egyptian king, returned in Solomon’s reign and made a series of reprisal raids on the Israelite territory (1 Kings xi. 14). This did not prevent Solomon introducing Edomites into his harem (1 Kings xi. 1) and maintaining a navy at Ezion-geber, at the head of the Gulf of Akaba (1 Kings ix. 26). Indeed, until the time of Jehoram, when the land revolted (2 Kings viii. 20, 22), Edom was a dependency of Judah, ruled by a viceroy (1 Kings xxii. 47). An attempt at recovering their independence was temporarily quelled in a campaign by Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7), and Azariah his successor was able to renew the sea trade of the Gulf of Akaba (2 Kings xiv. 22) which had probably languished since the wreck of Jehoshaphat’s ships (1 Kings xxii. 48); but the ancient kingdom had been re-established by the time of Ahaz, and the king’s name, Kaush-Malak, is recorded by Tiglath Pileser. He made raids on the territory of Judah (2 Chron. xxviii. 17). The kingdom, however, was short-lived, and it was soon absorbed into the vassalage of Assyria.
The later history of Edom is curious. By the constant westward pressure of the eastern Arabs, which (after the restraining force of the great Mesopotamian kingdoms was weakened) assumed irresistible strength, the ancient Edomites were forced across the Jordan-Araba depression, and with their name migrated to the south of western Palestine. In 1 Maccabees v. 65 we find them at Hebron, and this is one of the first indications that we discover of the cis-Jordanic Idumaea of Josephus and the Talmud.
Josephus used the name Idumaea as including not only Gobalitis, the original Mount Seir, but also Amalekitis, the land of Amalek, west of this, and Akrabatine, the ancient Acrabbim, S.W. of the Dead Sea. InWarIV. viii. 1, he mentions two villages “in the very midst of Idumaea,” named Betaris and Caphartobas. The first of these is the modern Beit Jibrin (seeEleutheropolis), the second is Tuffūḥ, near Hebron. Jerome describes Idumaea as extending from Beit Jibrin to Petra, and ascribes the great caves at the former place to cave-dwellers like the aboriginal Horites. Ptolemy’s account presents us with the last stage, in which the name Idumaea is entirely restricted to the cis-Jordanic district, and the old trans-Jordanic region is absorbed in Arabia.
The Idumaean Antipater was appointed by Julius Caesar procurator of Judaea, Samaria and Galilee, as a reward for services rendered against Pompey. He was the father of Herod the Great, whose family thus was Idumaean in origin. (SeePalestine.)
(R. A. S. M.)
1A curious etymological speculation connects the name with the story of Esau’s begging for Jacob’s pottage, Gen. xxv. 30.2The same word is used in the anonymous prophecy incorporated in the book of Zachariah (xii. 5), and in one or two other places as well, ofHebrewleaders.
1A curious etymological speculation connects the name with the story of Esau’s begging for Jacob’s pottage, Gen. xxv. 30.
2The same word is used in the anonymous prophecy incorporated in the book of Zachariah (xii. 5), and in one or two other places as well, ofHebrewleaders.
IDUN,orIduna, in Scandinavian mythology, the goddess of youth and spring. She was daughter of the dwarf Svald and wife of Bragi. She was keeper of the golden apples, the eating of which preserved to the gods their eternal youth. Loki, the evil spirit, kidnapped her and the apples, but was forced by the gods to restore her liberty. Idun personifies the year between March and September, and her myth represents the annual imprisonment of spring by winter.
IDYL,orIdyll(Gr.εἰδύλλιον, a descriptive piece, fromεἶδος, a shape or style; Lat.idyllium), a short poem of a pastoral or rural character, in which something of the element of landscape is preserved or felt. The earliest commentators of antiquity used the term to designate a great variety of brief and homely poems, in which the description of natural objects was introduced, but the pastoral idea came into existence in connexion with the Alexandrian school, and particularly with Theocritus, Bion and Moschus, in the 3rd century before Christ. It appears, however, thatεἰδύλλιονwas not, even then, used consciously as the name of a form of verse, but as a diminutive ofεἶδος, and merely signified “a little piece in the style of” whatever adjective might follow. Thus the idyls of the pastoral poets wereεἰδύλλια αἰπολικά, little pieces in the goatherd style. We possess ten of the so-called “Idyls” of Theocritus, and these are the type from which the popular idea of this kind of poem is taken. But it is observable that there is nothing in the technical character of these ten very diverse pieces which leads us to suppose that the poet intended them to be regarded as typical. In fact, if he had been asked whether a poem was or was not an idyl he would doubtless have been unable to comprehend the question. As a matter of fact, the first of his poems, the celebrated “Dirge for Daphnis,” has become the prototype, not of the modern idyl, but of the modern elegy, and the not less famous “Festival of Adonis” is a realistic mime. It was the six little epical romances, if they may be so called, which started the conception of the idyl of Theocritus. It must be remembered, however, that there is nothing in ancient literature which justifies the notion of a form of verse recognized as an “idyl.” In the 4th century after Christ the word seems to have become accepted in Latin as covering short descriptive poems of very diverse characters, for the early MSS. of Ausonius contain a section of “Edyllia,” which embraces some of the most admirable of the miscellaneous pieces of that writer. But that Ausonius himself called his poems “idyls” is highly doubtful. Indeed, it is not certain that the heading is not a mistake for “Epyllia.” The word was revived at the Renaissance and applied rather vaguely to Latin and Greek imitations of Theocritus and of Virgil. It was also applied to modern poems of a romantic and pastoral character published by such writers as Tasso in Italy, Montemayor in Portugal and Ronsard in French. In 1658 the English critic, Edward Phillips, defined an “idyl” as “a kind of eclogue,” but it was seldom used to describe a modern poem. Mme Deshoulières published a series of sevenIdyllesin 1675, and Boileau makes a vague reference to the form. The sentimental German idyls of Salomon Gessner (in prose, 1758) and Voss (in hexameters, 1800) were modelled on Theocritus. Goethe’sAlexis und Dorais an idyl. It appears that the very general use, or abuse, of the word in the second half of the 19th century, both in English and French, arises from the popularity of two works, curiously enough almost identical in date, by two eminent and popular poets. TheIdylles héroïques(1858) of Victor de Laprade and theIdyllsof the King (1859) of Tennyson enjoyed a success in either country which led to a wide imitation of the title among those who had, perhaps, a very inexact idea of its meaning. Among modern Germans, Berthold Auerbach and Jeremias Gotthelf have been prominent as the composers of sentimental idyls founded on anecdotes of village-life. On the whole, it is impossible to admit that the idyl has a place among definite literary forms. Its character is vague and has often been purely sentimental, and our conception of it is further obscured by the fact that though the noun carries no bucolic idea with it in English, the adjective (“idyllic”) has come to be synonymous with pastoral and rustic.
(E. G.)
IFFLAND, AUGUST WILHELM(1759-1814), German actor and dramatic author, was born at Hanover on the 19th of April 1759. His father intended his son to be a clergyman, but the boy preferred the stage, and at eighteen ran away to Gotha in order to prepare himself for a theatrical career. He was fortunate enough to receive instruction from Hans Ekhof, and made such rapid progress that he was able in 1779 to accept an engagement at the theatre in Mannheim, then rising into prominence. He soon stood high in his profession, and extended his reputation by frequently playing in other towns. In 1796 he settled in Berlin, where he became director of the national theatre of Prussia; and in 1811 he was made general director of all representations before royalty. Iffland produced the classical works of Goethe and Schiller with conscientious care; but he had little understanding for the drama of the romantic writers. The form of play in which he was most at home, both as actor and playwright, was the domestic drama, the sentimental play of everyday life. His works are almost entirely destitute of imagination; but they display a thorough mastery of the technical necessities of the stage, and a remarkable power of devising effective situations. His best characters are simple and natural, fond of domestic life, but too much given to the utterance of sentimental commonplace. His best-known plays areDie Jäger,Dienstpflicht,Die Advokaten,Die MündelandDie Hagestolzen. Iffland was also a dramatic critic, and German actors place high value on the reasonings and hints respecting their art in hisAlmanach für Theater und Theaterfreunde. In 1798-1802 he issued hisDramatischen Werkein 16 volumes, to which he added an autobiography (Meine theatralische Laufbahn). In 1807-1809 Iffland brought out two volumes ofNeue dramatische Werke. Selections from his writings were afterwards published, one in 11 (Leipzig, 1827-1828), the other in 10 volumes (Leipzig, 1844, and again 1860). As an actor, he was conspicuous for his brilliant portrayal of comedy parts. His fine gentlemen, polished men of the world, and distinguished princes were models of perfection, and showed none of the traces of elaborate study which were noticed in his interpretation of tragedy. He especially excelled in presenting those types of middle-class life which appear in his own comedies. Iffland died at Berlin on the 22nd of September 1814. A bronze portrait statue of him was erected in front of the Mannheim theatre in 1864.
See K. Duncker,Iffland in seinen Schriften als Künstler, Lehrer, und Direktor der Berliner Bühne(1859); W. Koffka,Iffland und Dalberg(1865); and Lampe,Studien über Iffland als Dramatiker(Celle, 1899). Iffland’s interesting autobiography,Meine theatralische Laufbahn, was republished by H. Holstein in 1885.
See K. Duncker,Iffland in seinen Schriften als Künstler, Lehrer, und Direktor der Berliner Bühne(1859); W. Koffka,Iffland und Dalberg(1865); and Lampe,Studien über Iffland als Dramatiker(Celle, 1899). Iffland’s interesting autobiography,Meine theatralische Laufbahn, was republished by H. Holstein in 1885.
IGLAU(CzechJihlava), a town of Austria, in Moravia, 56 m. N.W. of Brünn by rail. Pop. (1900) 24,387, of whom 4200 are Czechs and the remainder Germans. Iglau is situated on the Iglawa, close to the Bohemian frontier, and is one of the oldest towns in Moravia, being the centre of a German-speaking enclave. Among the principal buildings are the churches of St Jakob, St Ignatius, St John and St Paul, the town-hall, and the barracks formed from a monastery suppressed under the emperor Joseph II. There is also a fine cemetery, containing some remarkable monuments. It has the principal tobacco and cigar factory of the state monopoly, which employs about 2500 hands, and has besides a large and important textile and glass industry, corn and saw-mills, pottery and brewing. Fairs are periodically held in the town; and the trade in timber, cereals, and linen and woollen goods is generally brisk.
Iglau is an old mining town where, according to legend, the silver mines were worked so early as 799. King Ottakar I. (1198-1230) established here a mining-office and a mint. At a very early date it enjoyed exceptional privileges, which were confirmed by King Wenceslaus I. in the year 1250. The town-hall contains a collection of municipal and mining laws dating as far back as 1389. At Iglau, on the 5th of July 1436, the treaty was made with the Hussites, by which the emperor Sigismund was acknowledged king of Bohemia. A granite column near thetown marks the spot where Ferdinand I., in 1527, swore fidelity to the Bohemian states. During the Thirty Years’ War Iglau was twice captured by the Swedes. In 1742 it fell into the hands of the Prussians, and in December 1805 the Bavarians under Wrede were defeated near the town.
IGLESIAS,a town and episcopal see of Sardinia in the province of Cagliari, from which it is 34 m. W.N.W. by rail, 620 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 10,436 (town), 20,874 (commune). It is finely situated among the mountains in the S.W. portion of the island, and is chiefly important as the centre of a mining district; it has a government school for mining engineers. The minerals are conveyed by a small railway via Monteponi (with its large lead and zinc mine) to Portovesme (15 m. S.W. of Iglesias in the sheltered gulf of Carloforte), near Portoscuso, where they are shipped. The total amount of the minerals extracted in Sardinia in 1905 was 170,236 tons and their value £765,054 (chiefly consisting of 99,749 tons of calamine zinc, 26,051 of blende zinc, 24,798 tons of lead and 15,429 tons of lignite): the greater part of them—118,009 tons—was exported from Portoscuso by sea and most of the rest from Cagliari, the zinc going mainly to Antwerp, and in a less proportion to Bordeaux and Dunkirk, while the lead is sent to Pertusola near Spezia, to be smelted. At Portoscuso is also a tunny fishery.
The cathedral of Iglesias, built by the Pisans, has a good façade (restored); the interior is late Spanish Gothic. San Francesco is a fine Gothic church with a gallery over the entrance, while Sta Chiara and the church of the Capuchins (the former dating from 1285) show a transition between Romanesque and Gothic. The battlemented town walls are well preserved and picturesque; the castle, built in 1325, now contains a glass factory. The church of Nostra Signora del Buon Cammino above the town (1080 ft.) commands a fine view.
IGNATIEV, NICHOLAS PAVLOVICH,Count(1832-1908), Russian diplomatist, was born at St Petersburg on the 29th of January 1832. His father, Captain Paul Ignatiev, had been taken into favour by the tsar Nicholas I., owing to his fidelity on the occasion of the military conspiracy in 1825; and the grand duke Alexander (afterwards tsar) stood sponsor at the boy’s baptism. At the age of seventeen he became an officer of the Guards. His diplomatic career began at the congress of Paris, after the Crimean War, where he took an active part as military attaché in the negotiations regarding the rectification of the Russian frontier on the Lower Danube. Two years later (1858) he was sent with a small escort on a dangerous mission to Khiva and Bokhara. The khan of Khiva laid a plan for detaining him as a hostage, but he eluded the danger and returned safely, after concluding with the khan of Bokhara a treaty of friendship. His next diplomatic exploit was in the Far East, as plenipotentiary to the court of Peking. When the Chinese government was terrified by the advance of the Anglo-French expedition of 1860 and the burning of the Summer Palace, he worked on their fears so dexterously that he obtained for Russia not only the left bank of the Amur, the original object of the mission, but also a large extent of territory and sea-coast south of that river. This success was supposed to prove his capacity for dealing with Orientals, and paved his way to the post of ambassador at Constantinople, which he occupied from 1864 till 1877. Here his chief aim was to liberate from Turkish domination and bring under the influence of Russia the Christian nationalities in general and the Bulgarians in particular. His restless activity in this field, mostly of a semi-official and secret character, culminated in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, at the close of which he negotiated with the Turkish plenipotentiaries the treaty of San Stefano. As the war which he had done so much to bring about did not eventually secure for Russia advantages commensurate with the sacrifices involved, he fell into disfavour, and retired from active service. Shortly after the accession of Alexander III. in 1881, he was appointed minister of the interior on the understanding that he would carry out a nationalist, reactionary policy, but his shifty ways and his administrative incapacity so displeased his imperial master that he was dismissed in the following year. After that time he exercised no important influence in public affairs. He died on the 3rd of July 1908.
IGNATIUS(Ἰγνάτιος), bishop of Antioch, one of the “Apostolic Fathers.” No one connected with the history of the early Christian Church is more famous than Ignatius, and yet among the leading churchmen of the time there is scarcely one about whose career we know so little. Our only trustworthy information is derived from the letters which he wrote to various churches on his last journey from Antioch to Rome, and from the short epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. The earlier patristic writers seem to have known no more than we do. Irenaeus, for instance, gives a quotation from his Epistle to the Romans and does not appear to know (or if he knew he has forgotten) the name of the author, since he describes him (Adv. haer.v. 28. 4) as “one of those belonging to us” (τις τῶν ἡμετέρων). If Eusebius possessed any knowledge about Ignatius apart from the letters he never reveals it. The only shred of extra information which he gives us is the statement that Ignatius “was the second successor of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch” (Eccles. hist.iii. 36). Of course in later times a cloud of tradition arose, but none of it bears the least evidence of trustworthiness. The martyrologies, from which the account of his martyrdom that used to appear in uncritical church histories is taken, are full of anachronisms and impossibilities. There are two main types—the Roman and the Syrian—out of which the others are compounded. They contradict each other in many points and even their own statements in different places are sometimes quite irreconcilable. Any truth that the narrative may contain is hopelessly overlaid with fiction. We are therefore limited to the Epistles for our information, and before we can use even these we are confronted with a most complex critical problem, a problem which for ages aroused the most bitter controversy, but which happily now, thanks to the labours of Zahn, Lightfoot, Harnack and Funk, may be said to have reached a satisfactory solution.
I.The Problem of the Three Recensions.—The Ignatian problem arises from the fact that we possess three different recensions of the Epistles. (a)The short recension(often called the Vossian) contains the letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. This recension was derived in its Greek form from the famous Medicean MS. at Florence and first published by Vossius in 1646 (seeTheol. Literaturzeitung, 1906, 596 f., for an early papyrus fragment in the Berlin Museum, containingAd Smyrn.iii. fin. xii. init.). In the Medicean MS. the Epistle to the Romans is missing, but a Greek version of this epistle was discovered by Ruinart, embedded in amartyrium, in the National Library at Paris and published in 1689. There are also (1) a Latin version made by Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, about 1250, and published by Ussher in 1644—two years before the Vossian edition appeared; (2) an Armenian version which was derived from a Syriac not earlier than the 5th century and published at Constantinople in 1783; (3) some fragments of a Syriac version published in Cureton’s edition of Ignatius; (4) fragments of a Coptic version first published in Lightfoot’s work (ii. 859-882). (b)The long recensioncontains the seven Epistles mentioned above in an expanded form and several additional letters besides. The Greek form of the recension, which has been preserved in ten MSS., has thirteen letters, the additional ones being to the Tarsians, the Philippians, the Antiochians, to Hero, to Mary of Cassobola and a letter of Mary to Ignatius. The Latin form, of which there are thirteen extant MSS., omits the letter of Mary of Cassobola, but adds to the list the Laus Heronis, two Epistles to the apostle John, one to the Virgin Mary and one from Mary to Ignatius. (c)The Syriac or Curetonian recensioncontains only three Epistles, viz. to Polycarp, to the Romans, and to the Ephesians, and these when compared with the same letters in the short and long recensions are found to be considerably abbreviated. The Syriac recension was made by William Cureton in 1845 from three Syriac MSS. which had recently been brought from theNitrian desert and deposited in the British Museum. One of these MSS. belongs to the 6th century, the other two are later. Summed up in a word, therefore, the Ignatian problem is this: which of these three recensions (if any) represents the actual work of Ignatius?
II.History of the Controversy.—The history of the controversy may be divided into three periods: (a) up to the discovery of the short recension in 1646; (b) between 1646 and the discovery of the Syriac recension in 1845; (c) from 1845 to the present day. In the first stage the controversy was theological rather than critical. The Reformation raised the question as to the authority of the papacy and the hierarchy. Roman Catholic scholars used the interpolated Ignatian Epistles very freely in their defence and derived many of their arguments from them, while Protestant scholars threw discredit on these Epistles. The Magdeburg centuriators expressed the gravest doubts as to their genuineness, and Calvin declared that “nothing was more foul than those fairy tales (naeniis) published under the name of Ignatius!” It should be stated, however, that one Roman Catholic scholar, Denys Petau (Petavius), admitted that the letters were interpolated, while the Protestant Vedelius acknowledged the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. In England the Ignatian Epistles took an important place in the episcopalian controversy in the 17th century. Their genuineness was defended by the leading Anglican writers,e.g.Whitgift, Hooker and Andrewes, and vigorously challenged by Dissenters,e.g.the five Presbyterian ministers who wrote under the name of Smectymnuus and John Milton.1The second period is marked by the recognition of the superiority of the Vossian recension. This was speedily demonstrated, though some attempts were made, notably by Jean Morin or Morinus (about 1656), Whiston (in 1711) and Meier (in 1836), to resuscitate the long recension. Many Protestants still maintained that the new recension, like the old, was a forgery. The chief attack came from Jean Daillé, who in his famous work (1666) drew up no fewer than sixty-six objections to the genuineness of the Ignatian literature. He was answered by Pearson, who in hisVindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii(1672) completely vindicated the authenticity of the Vossian Epistles. No further attack of any importance was made till the time of Baur, who like Daillé rejected both recensions. In the third stage—inaugurated in 1845 by Cureton’s work—the controversy has ranged round the relative claims of the Vossian and the Curetonian recensions. Scholars have been divided into three camps, viz. (1) those who followed Cureton in maintaining that the three Syriac Epistles alone were the genuine work of Ignatius. Among them may be mentioned the names of Bunsen, A. Ritschl, R. A. Lipsius, E. de Pressensé, H. Ewald, Milman, Bohringer. (2) Those who accepted the genuineness of the Vossian recension and regarded the Curetonian as an abbreviation of it,e.g.Petermann, Denzinger, Uhlhorn, Merx, and in more recent times Th. Zahn, J. B. Lightfoot, Ad. Harnack and F. X. Funk. (3) Those who denied the authenticity of both recensions,e.g.Baur and Hilgenfeld and in recent times van Manen,2Völter3and van Loon.4The result of more than half a century’s discussion has been to restore the Vossian recension to the premier position.
III.The Origin of the Long Recension.—The arguments against the genuineness of the long recension are decisive. (1) It conflicts with the statement of Eusebius. (2) The first trace of its use occurs in Anastasius of Antioch (A.D.598) and Stephen Gobarus (c.575-600). (3) The ecclesiastical system of the letters implies a date not earlier than the 4th century. (4) The recension has been proved to be dependent on theApostolical Constitutions. (5) The doctrinal atmosphere implies the existence of Arian and Apollinarian heresies. (6) The added passages reveal a difference in style which stamps them at once as interpolations. There are several different theories with regard to the origin of the recension. Some,e.g.Leclerc, Newman and Zahn, think that the writer was an Arian and that the additions were made in the interest of Arianism. Funk, on the other hand, regards the writer as an Apollinarian. Lightfoot opposes both views and suggests that it is better “to conceive of him as writing with a conciliatory aim.”
IV.The Objections to the Curetonian Recension.—The objections to the Syriac recension, though not so decisive, are strong enough to carry conviction with them. (1) We have the express statement of Eusebius that Ignatius wrote seven Epistles. (2) There are statements in Polycarp’s Epistle which cannot be explained from the three Syriac Epistles. (3) The omitted portions are proved by Lightfoot after an elaborate analysis to be written in the same style as the rest of the epistles and could not therefore have been later interpolations. (4) The Curetonian letters are often abrupt and broken and show signs of abridgment. (5) The discovery of the Armenian version proves the existence of an earlier Syriac recension corresponding to the Vossian of which the Curetonian may be an abbreviation. It seems impossible to account for the origin of the Curetonian recension on theological grounds. The theory that the abridgment was made in the interests of Eutychianism or Monophysitism cannot be substantiated.
V.The Date and Genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.—We are left therefore with the seven Epistles. Are they the genuine work of Ignatius, and, if so, at what date were they written? The main objections are as follows: (1) The conveyance of a condemned prisoner to Rome to be put to death in the amphitheatre is unlikely on historical grounds, and the route taken is improbable for geographical reasons. This objection has very little solid basis. (2) The heresies against which Ignatius contends imply the rise of the later Gnostic and Docetic sects. It is quite certain, however, that Docetism was in existence in the 1st century (cf. 1 John), while many of the principles of Gnosticism were in vogue long before the great Gnostic sects arose (cf. the Pastoral Epistles). There is nothing in Ignatius which implies a knowledge of the teaching of Basilides or Valentinus. In fact, as Harnack says: “No Christian writer after 140 could have described the false teachers in the way that Ignatius does.” (3) The ecclesiastical system of Ignatius is too developed to have arisen as early as the time of Trajan. At first sight this objection seems to be almost fatal. But we have to remember that the bishops of Ignatius are not bishops in the modern sense of the word at all, but simply pastors of churches. They are not mentioned at all in two Epistles, viz.RomansandPhilippians, which seems to imply that this form of government was not universal. It is only when we read modern ecclesiastical ideas into Ignatius that the objection has much weight. To sum up, as Uhlhorn says: “The collective mass of internal evidence against the genuineness of the letters ... is insufficient to counterbalance the testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp in their favour. He who would prove the Epistles of Ignatius to be spurious must begin by proving the Epistle of Polycarp to be spurious, and such an undertaking is not likely to succeed.” This being so, there is no reason for rejecting the opinion of Eusebius that the Epistles were written in the reign of Trajan. Harnack, who formerly dated them about 140, now says that they were written in the latter years of Trajan, or possibly a little later (117-125). The majority of scholars place them a few years earlier (110-117).5
The letters of Ignatius unfortunately, unlike the Epistles of St Paul, contain scant autobiographical material. We are told absolutely nothing about the history of his career. The fact that like St Paul he describes himself as anἔκτρωμα(Rom.9), and that he speaks of himself as “the last of the Antiochene Christians” (Trall.13;Smyrn.xi.), seems to suggest that he had been converted from paganism somewhat late in life and that the process of conversion had been abrupt and violent. He bore the surname of Theophorus,i.e.“God-clad” or “bearingGod.” Later tradition regarded the word as a passive form (“God-borne”) and explained it by the romantic theory that Ignatius was the child whom Christ took in his arms (Mark ix. 36-37). The date at which he became bishop of Antioch cannot be determined. At the time when the Epistles were written he had just been sentenced to death, and was being sent in charge of a band of soldiers to Rome to fight the beasts in the amphitheatre. The fact that he was condemned to the amphitheatre proves that he could not have been a Roman citizen. We lose sight of him at Troas, but the presumption is that he was martyred at Rome, though we have no early evidence of this.
But if the Epistles tell us little of the life of Ignatius, they give us an excellent picture of the man himself, and are a mirror in which we see reflected certain ideals of the life and thought of the day. Ignatius, as Schaff says, “is the incarnation of three closely connected ideas: the glory of martyrdom, the omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred of heresy and schism.”
1. Zeal for martyrdom in later days became a disease in the Church, but in the case of Ignatius it is the mark of a hero. The heroic note runs through all the Epistles; thus he says:
“I bid all men know that of my own free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me.... Let me be given to the wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto God. I am God’s wheat, and I am ground by the wild beasts that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Entice the wild beasts that they may become my sepulchre...; come fire and cross and grapplings with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body; only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ” (Rom.4-5).
“I bid all men know that of my own free will I die for God, unless ye should hinder me.... Let me be given to the wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto God. I am God’s wheat, and I am ground by the wild beasts that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Entice the wild beasts that they may become my sepulchre...; come fire and cross and grapplings with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, hacking of limbs, crushings of my whole body; only be it mine to attain unto Jesus Christ” (Rom.4-5).
2. Ignatius constantly contends for the recognition of the authority of the ministers of the church. “Do nothing,” he writes to the Magnesians, “without the bishop and the presbyters.” The “three orders” are essential to the church, without them no church is worthy of the name (cf.Trall.3). “It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast” (Smyrn.8). Respect is due to the bishop as to God, to the presbyters as the council of God and the college of apostles, to the deacons as to Jesus Christ (Trall.3). These terms must not, of course, be taken in their developed modern sense. The “bishop” of Ignatius seems to represent the modern pastor of a church. As Zahn has shown, Ignatius is not striving to introduce a special form of ministry, nor is he endeavouring to substitute one form for another. His particular interest is not so much in the form of ministry as in the unity of the church. It is this that is his chief concern. Centrifugal forces were at work. Differences of theological opinion were arising. Churches had a tendency to split up into sections. The age of the apostles had passed away and their successors did not inherit their authority. The unity of the churches was in danger. Ignatius was resisting this fatal tendency which threatened ruin to the faith. The only remedy for it in those days was to exalt the authority of the ministry and make it the centre of church life. It should be noted that (1) there is no trace of the later doctrine of apostolical succession; (2) the ministry is never sacerdotal in the letters of Ignatius. As Lightfoot puts it: “The ecclesiastical order was enforced by him (Ignatius) almost solely as a security for doctrinal purity. The threefold ministry was the husk, the shell, which protected the precious kernel of the truth” (i. 40).
3. Ignatius fights most vehemently against the current forms of heresy. The chief danger to the church came from the Docetists who denied the reality of the humanity of Christ and ascribed to him a phantom body. Hence we find Ignatius laying the utmost stress on the fact that Christ “wastrulyborn and ate and drank, wastrulypersecuted under Pontius Pilate ... wastrulyraised from the dead” (Trall.9). “I know that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection, and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, ‘Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit’” (Smyrn.3). Equally emphatic is Ignatius’s protest against a return to Judaism. “It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism, for Christianity did not believe in Judaism but Judaism in Christianity” (Magn.10).
Reference must also be made to a few of the more characteristic points in the theology of Ignatius. As far as Christology is concerned, besides the insistence on the reality of the humanity of Christ already mentioned, there are two other points which call for notice. (1) Ignatius is the earliest writer outside the New Testament to describe Christ under the categories of current philosophy; cf. the famous passage inEph.7, “There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit (σαρκικὸς καὶ πνευματικός), generate and ingenerate (γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος), God in man, true life in death, son of Mary and son of God, first passible and then impassible” (πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ ἀπαθής). (2) Ignatius is also the first writer outside the New Testament to mention the Virgin Birth, upon which he lays the utmost stress. “Hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord, three mysteries to be cried aloud, the which were wrought in the silence of God” (Eph.19). Here, it will be observed, we have the nucleus of the later doctrine of the deception of Satan. In regard to the Eucharist also later ideas occur in Ignatius. It is termed aμυστήριον(Trall.2), and the influence of the Greek mysteries is seen in such language as that used inEph.20, where Ignatius describes the Eucharistic bread as “the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death.” When Ignatius says too that “the heretics abstain from Eucharist because they do not allow that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ,” the words seem to imply that materialistic ideas were beginning to find an entrance into the church (Smyr.6). Other points that call for special notice are: (1) Ignatius’s rather extravagant angelology. In one place for instance he speaks of himself as being able to comprehend heavenly things and “the arrays of angels and the musterings of principalities” (Trall.5). (2) His view of the Old Testament. In one important passage Ignatius emphatically states his belief in the supremacy of Christ even over “the archives” of the faith,i.e.the Old Testament: “As for me, my archives—my inviolable archives—are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death, His resurrection and faith through Him” (Philadel.8).
Authorities.—T. Zahn,Ignatius von Antiochien(Gotha, 1873); J. B. Lightfoot,Apostolic Fathers, part ii. (London, 2nd ed., 1889); F. X. Funk,Die Echtheit der ignat. Briefe(Tübingen, 1892); A. Harnack,Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur(Leipzig, 1897). There is a good bibliography in G. Krüger,Early Christian Literature(Eng. trans., 1897, pp. 28-29). See alsoApostolic Fathers.
Authorities.—T. Zahn,Ignatius von Antiochien(Gotha, 1873); J. B. Lightfoot,Apostolic Fathers, part ii. (London, 2nd ed., 1889); F. X. Funk,Die Echtheit der ignat. Briefe(Tübingen, 1892); A. Harnack,Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur(Leipzig, 1897). There is a good bibliography in G. Krüger,Early Christian Literature(Eng. trans., 1897, pp. 28-29). See alsoApostolic Fathers.
(H. T. A.)
1In his short treatise “Of Prelatical Episcopacy,” works iii. p. 72 (Pickering, 1851).2Theologisch. Tijdschrift(1892), 625-633.3Ib.(1886) 114-136;Die Ignatianischen Briefe(1892).4Ib.(1893) 275-316.5But there are still a few scholars,e.g.van Manen and Völter, who prefer a date about 150 or later; van Loon goes as late as 175. See article “Old-Christian Literature,”Ency. Bib.iii. col. 3488.
1In his short treatise “Of Prelatical Episcopacy,” works iii. p. 72 (Pickering, 1851).
2Theologisch. Tijdschrift(1892), 625-633.
3Ib.(1886) 114-136;Die Ignatianischen Briefe(1892).
4Ib.(1893) 275-316.
5But there are still a few scholars,e.g.van Manen and Völter, who prefer a date about 150 or later; van Loon goes as late as 175. See article “Old-Christian Literature,”Ency. Bib.iii. col. 3488.
IGNORAMUS(Latin for “we do not know,” “we take no notice of”), properly an English law term for the endorsement on the bill of indictment made by a grand jury when they “throw out” the bill,i.e.when they do not consider that the case should go to a petty jury. The expression is now obsolete, “not a true bill,” “no bill,” being used. The expressions “ignoramus jury,” “ignoramus Whig,” &c., were common in the political satires and pamphlets of the years following on the throwing out of the bill for high treason against the 2nd earl of Shaftesbury in 1681. The application of the term to an ignorant person dates from the early part of the 17th century. TheNew English Dictionaryquotes two examples illustrating the early connexion of the term with the law or lawyers. George Ruggle (1575-1622) in 1615 wrote a Latin play with the title Ignoramus, the name being also that of the chief character in it, intended for one Francis Brakin, the recorder of Cambridge. It is a satire against the ignorance and pettifogging of the common lawyers of the day. It was answered by a prose tract (not printed till 1648) by one Robert Callis, serjeant-at-law. This bore the title ofThe Case and Argument against Sir Ignoramus of Cambridge.
IGNORANCE(Lat.ignorantia, fromignorare, not to know), want of knowledge, a state of mind which in law has important consequences. A well-known legal maxim runs:ignorantia juris non excusat(“ignorance of the law does not excuse”). With this is sometimes coupled another maxim:ignorantia facti excusat(“ignorance of the fact excuses”). That every one who has capacity to understand the law is presumed to know it is a very necessary principle, for otherwise the courts would be continually occupied in endeavouring to solve problems which by their very impracticability would render the administration of justice next to impossible. It would be necessary for thecourt to engage in endless inquiries as to the true inwardness of a man’s mind, whether his state of ignorance existed at the time of the commission of the offence, whether such a condition of mind was inevitable or brought about merely by indifference on his part. Therefore, in English, as in Roman law, ignorance of the law is no ground for avoiding the consequences of an act. So far as regards criminal offences, the maxim as toignorantia jurisadmits of no exception, even in the case of a foreigner temporarily in England, who is likely to be ignorant of English law. In Roman law the harshness of the rule was mitigated in the case of women, soldiers and persons under the age of twenty-five, unless they had good legal advice within reach (Dig.xxii. 6. 9). Ignorance of a matter of fact may in general be alleged in avoidance of the consequences of acts and agreements, but such ignorance cannot be pleaded where it is the duty of a person to know, or where, having the means of knowledge at his disposal, he wilfully or negligently fails to avail himself of it (seeContract).
In logic, ignorance is that state of mind which for want of evidence is equally unable to affirm or deny one thing or another. Doubt, on the other hand, can neither affirm nor deny because the evidence seems equally strong for both. ForIgnoratio Elenchi(ignorance of the refutation) seeFallacy.
IGNORANTINES(Frères Ignorantins), a name given to the Brethren of the Christian Schools (Frères des Écoles Chrétiennes), a religious fraternity founded at Reims in 1680, and formally organized in 1683, by the priest Jean Baptiste de la Salle, for the purpose of affording a free education, especially in religion, to the children of the poor. In addition to the three simple vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, the brothers were required to give their services without any remuneration and to wear a special habit of coarse black material, consisting of a cassock, a hooded cloak with hanging sleeves and a broad-brimmed hat. The name Ignorantine was given from a clause in the rules of the order forbidding the admission of priests with a theological education. Other popular names applied to the order areFrères de Saint-Yon, from the house at Rouen, which was their headquarters from 1705 till 1770,Frères à quatre bras, from their hanging sleeves, andFrères Fouetteurs, from their former use of the whip (fouet) in punishments. The order, approved by Pope Benedict XIII. in 1724, rapidly spread over France, and although dissolved by the National Assembly’s decree in February 1790, was recalled by Napoleon I. in 1804, and formally recognized by the French government in 1808. Since then its members have penetrated into nearly every country of Europe, and into America, Asia and Africa. They number about 14,000 members and have over 2000 schools, and are the strongest Roman Catholic male order. Though not officially connected with the Jesuits, their organization and discipline are very similar.