Chapter 19

The writings of Edward Irving published during his lifetime wereFor the Oracles of God, Four Orations(1823);For Judgment to come(1823);Babylon and Infidelity foredoomed(1826);Sermons, &c. (3 vols., 1828);Exposition of the Book of Revelation(1831); an introduction to a translation of Ben-Ezra; and an introduction to Horne’sCommentary on the Psalms. His collected works were published in 5 volumes, edited by Gavin Carlyle. See also the articleCatholic Apostolic Church.TheLife of Edward Irving, by Mrs Oliphant, appeared in 1862 in 2 vols. Among a large number of biographies published previously, that by Washington Wilks (1854) has some merit. See also Hazlitt’sSpirit of the Age; Coleridge’sNotes on English Divines; Carlyle’sMiscellanies, and Carlyle’sReminiscences, vol. i. (1881).

TheLife of Edward Irving, by Mrs Oliphant, appeared in 1862 in 2 vols. Among a large number of biographies published previously, that by Washington Wilks (1854) has some merit. See also Hazlitt’sSpirit of the Age; Coleridge’sNotes on English Divines; Carlyle’sMiscellanies, and Carlyle’sReminiscences, vol. i. (1881).

IRVING, SIR HENRY(1838-1905), English actor, whose original name was John Brodribb, was born at Keinton-Mandeville, Somerset, on the 6th of February 1838. After a few years’ schooling he became a clerk to a firm of East India merchants in London, but he soon gave up a commercial career and started as an actor. On the 29th of September 1856 he made his first appearance at Sunderland as Gaston, duke of Orleans, in Bulwer Lytton’sRichelieu, billed as Henry Irving. This name he eventually assumed by royal licence. For ten years he went through an arduous training in various provincial stock companies, acting in more than five hundred parts. By degrees his ability gained recognition, and in 1866 he obtained an engagement at the St James’s Theatre, London, to play Doricourt inThe Belle’s Stratagem. A year later he joined the company of the newly-opened Queen’s Theatre, where he acted with Charles Wyndham, J. L. Toole, Lionel Brough, John Clayton, Mr and Mrs Alfred Wigan, Ellen Terry and Nelly Farren. This was followed by short engagements at the Haymarket, Drury Lane and Gaiety. At last he made his first conspicuous success as Digby Grant in James Albery’sThe Two Roses, which was produced at the Vaudeville on the 4th of June 1870 and ran for 300 nights. In 1871 he began his association with the Lyceum Theatre by an engagement under Bateman’s management. The fortunes of the house were at a low ebb when the tide was turned by Irving’s immediate success as Mathias inThe Bells, a version of Erckmann-Chatrian’sLe Juif Polonaisby Leopold Lewis. The play ran for 150 nights. With Miss Bateman, Irving was seen in W. G. Wills’sCharles I.andEugene Aram, inRichelieu, and in 1874 inHamlet. The unconventionality of this last performance, during a run of 200 nights, aroused keen discussion, and singled him out as the most interesting English actor of his day. In 1875, still with Miss Bateman, he was seen as Macbeth; in 1876 as Othello, and as Philip in Tennyson’sQueen Mary; in 1877 inRichard III.andThe Lyons Mail.

In 1878 Irving opened the Lyceum under his own management. With Ellen Terry as Ophelia and Portia, he revivedHamletand producedThe Merchant of Venice(1879). His Shylock was as much discussed as his Hamlet had been, the dignity with which he invested the Jew marking a departure from the traditional interpretation of the rôle, and pleasing some as much as it offended others. After the production of Tennyson’sThe Cup, a revival ofOthello(in which Irving played Iago to the Othello of Edwin Booth) and ofRomeo and Juliet, there began a period at the Lyceum which had a potent effect on the English stage. The Lyceum stage management, and the brilliancy of its productions in scenery, dressing and accessories, were revelations in the art ofmise-en-scène.Much Ado about Nothing(1882) was followed byTwelfth Night(1884),Olivia—an adaptation of Goldsmith’sVicar of Wakefieldby W. G. Wills (1885);Faust(1886);Macbeth(1888):The Dead Heart, by Watts Phillips(1889); andRavenswood—Herman Merivale’s dramatic version of Scott’sBride of Lammermoor(1890). Fine assumptions in 1892 of the characters of Wolsey inHenry VIII.and of King Lear were followed in 1893 by a striking and dignified performance of Becket in Tennyson’s play of that name. During these years too, Irving, with the whole Lyceum company, paid several visits to America, which met with conspicuous success, and were repeated in succeeding years. The chief remaining novelties at the Lyceum during Irving’s sole managership (the theatre passed, at the beginning of 1899, into the hands of a limited liability company) were Comyns Carr’sKing Arthurin 1895;Cymbeline, in which Irving played Iachimo, in 1896; Sardou’sMadame Sans-Gênein 1897;Peter the Great, a play by Laurence Irving, the actor’s second son, in 1898; and Conan Doyle’sWaterloo(1894). The newrégimeat the Lyceum was signalized by the production of Sardou’sRobespierrein 1899, in which Irving reappeared after a serious illness, and in 1901 by an elaborate revival ofCoriolanus. Irving’s only subsequent production in London was Sardou’sDante(1903), a vast spectacular drama, staged at Drury Lane. He died “on tour” at Bradford on the 13th of October 1905, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Both on and off the stage Irving always maintained a high ideal of his profession, and in 1895 he received the honour of knighthood, the first ever accorded an actor. He was also the recipient of honorary degrees from the universities of Dublin, Cambridge and Glasgow. His acting, apart from his genius as a presenter of plays, divided criticism, opinions differing as to the extent to which his mannerisms of voice and deportment interfered with or assisted the expression of his ideas. So strongly marked a personality as his could not help giving its own colouring to whatever part he might assume, but the richness and originality of this colouring at its best cannot be denied, any more than the spirit and intellect which characterized his renderings. At the least, extraordinary versatility must be conceded to an actor who could satisfy exacting audiences in rôles so widely different as Digby Grant and Louis XI., Richard III. and Becket, Benedick and Shylock, Mathias and Dr Primrose.

Sir Henry Irving had two sons, Harry Brodribb (b. 1870) and Laurence (b. 1872). They were educated for other walks of life, the former for the bar, and the latter for the diplomatic service; but both turned to the stage, and the elder, who had already established himself as the most prominent of the younger English actors at the time of his father’s death, went into management on his own account.

IRVING, WASHINGTON(1783-1859), American man of letters, was born at New York on the 3rd of April 1783. Both his parents were immigrants from Great Britain, his father, originally an officer in the merchant service, but at the time of Irving’s birth a considerable merchant, having come from the Orkneys, and his mother from Falmouth. Irving was intended for the legal profession, but his studies were interrupted by an illness necessitating a voyage to Europe, in the course of which he proceeded as far as Rome, and made the acquaintance of Washington Allston. He was called to the bar upon his return, but made little effort to practise, preferring to amuse himself with literary ventures. The first of these of any importance, a satirical miscellany entitledSalmagundi, or the Whim-Whams and Opinions of Launcelot Langstaff and others, written in conjunction with his brother William and J. K. Paulding, gave ample proof of his talents as a humorist. These were still more conspicuously displayed in his next attempt,A History of New York from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty, by “Diedrich Knickerbocker” (2 vols., New York, 1809). The satire ofSalmagundihad been principally local, and the original design of “Knickerbocker’s”Historywas only to burlesque a pretentious disquisition on the history of the city in a guidebook by Dr Samuel Mitchell. The idea expanded as Irving proceeded, and he ended by not merely satirizing the pedantry of local antiquaries, but by creating a distinct literary type out of the solid Dutch burgher whose phlegm had long been an object of ridicule to the mercurial Americans. Though far from the most finished of Irving’s productions, “Knickerbocker” manifests the most original power, and is the most genuinely national in its quaintness and drollery. The very tardiness and prolixity of the story are skilfully made to heighten the humorous effect.

Upon the death of his father, Irving had become a sleeping partner in his brother’s commercial house, a branch of which was established at Liverpool. This, combined with the restoration of peace, induced him to visit England in 1815, when he found the stability of the firm seriously compromised. After some years of ineffectual struggle it became bankrupt. This misfortune compelled Irving to resume his pen as a means of subsistence. His reputation had preceded him to England, and the curiosity naturally excited by the then unwonted apparition of a successful American author procured him admission into the highest literary circles, where his popularity was ensured by his amiable temper and polished manners. As an American, moreover, he stood aloof from the political and literary disputes which then divided England. Campbell, Jeffrey, Moore, Scott, were counted among his friends, and the last-named zealously recommended him to the publisher Murray, who, after at first refusing, consented (1820) to bring outThe Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent.(7 pts., New York, 1819-1820). The most interesting part of this work is the description of an English Christmas, which displays a delicate humour not unworthy of the writer’s evident model Addison. Some stories and sketches on American themes contribute to give it variety; of these Rip van Winkle is the most remarkable. It speedily obtained the greatest success on both sides of the Atlantic.Bracebridge Hall, or the Humourists(2 vols., New York), a work purely English in subject, followed in 1822, and showed to what account the American observer had turned his experience of English country life. The humour is, nevertheless, much more English than American.Tales of a Traveller(4 pts.) appeared in 1824 at Philadelphia, and Irving, now in comfortable circumstances, determined to enlarge his sphere of observation by a journey on the continent. After a long course of travel he settled down at Madrid in the house of the American consul Rich. His intention at the time was to translate theColeccion de los Viajes y Descubrimientos(Madrid, 1825-1837) of Martin Fernandez de Navarrete; finding, however, that this was rather a collection of valuable materials than a systematic biography, he determined to compose a biography of his own by its assistance, supplemented by independent researches in the Spanish archives. HisHistory of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus(London, 4 vols.) appeared in 1828, and obtained a merited success.The Voyages and Discoveries of the Companions of Columbus(Philadelphia, 1831) followed; and a prolonged residence in the south of Spain gave Irving materials for two highly picturesque books,A Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada from the MSS. of[an imaginary]Fray Antonio Agapida(2 vols., Philadelphia, 1829), andThe Alhambra: a series of tales and sketches of the Moors and Spaniards(2 vols., Philadelphia, 1832). Previous to their appearance he had been appointed secretary to the embassy at London, an office as purely complimentary to his literary ability as the legal degree which he about the same time received from the university of Oxford.

Returning to the United States in 1832, after seventeen years’ absence, he found his name a household word, and himself universally honoured as the first American who had won for his country recognition on equal terms in the literary republic. After the rush of fêtes and public compliments had subsided, he undertook a tour in the western prairies, and returning to the neighbourhood of New York built for himself a delightful retreat on the Hudson, to which he gave the name of “Sunnyside.” His acquaintance with the New York millionaire John Jacob Astor prompted his next important work—Astoria(2 vols., Philadelphia, 1836), a history of the fur-trading settlement founded by Astor in Oregon, deduced with singular literary ability from dry commercial records, and, without laboured attempts at word-painting, evincing a remarkable faculty for bringing scenes and incidents vividly before the eye.TheAdventures of Captain Bonneville(London and Philadelphia, 1837), based upon the unpublished memoirs of a veteran explorer, was another work of the same class. In 1842 Irving was appointed ambassador to Spain. He spent four years in the country, without this time turning his residence to literary account; and it was not until two years after his return that Forster’s life of Goldsmith, by reminding him of a slight essay of his own which he now thought too imperfect by comparison to be included among his collected writings, stimulated him to the production of hisLife of Oliver Goldsmith, with Selections from his Writings(2 vols., New York, 1849). Without pretensions to original research, the book displays an admirable talent for employing existing material to the best effect. The same may be said ofThe Lives of Mahomet and his Successors(New York, 2 vols., 1849-1850). Here as elsewhere Irving correctly discriminated the biographer’s province from the historian’s, and leaving the philosophical investigation of cause and effect to writers of Gibbon’s calibre, applied himself to represent the picturesque features of the age as embodied in the actions and utterances of its most characteristic representatives. His last days were devoted to hisLife of George Washington(5 vols., 1855-1859, New York and London), undertaken in an enthusiastic spirit, but which the author found exhausting and his readers tame. His genius required a more poetical theme, and indeed the biographer of Washington must be at least a potential soldier and statesman. Irving just lived to complete this work, dying of heart disease at Sunnyside, on the 28th of November 1859.

Although one of the chief ornaments of American literature, Irving is not characteristically American. But he is one of the few authors of his period who really manifest traces of a vein of national peculiarity which might under other circumstances have been productive. “Knickerbocker’s”History of New York, although the air of mock solemnity which constitutes the staple of its humour is peculiar to no literature, manifests nevertheless a power of reproducing a distinct national type. Had circumstances taken Irving to the West, and placed him amid a society teeming with quaint and genial eccentricity, he might possibly have been the first Western humorist, and his humour might have gained in depth and richness. In England, on the other hand, everything encouraged his natural fastidiousness; he became a refined writer, but by no means a robust one. His biographies bear the stamp of genuine artistic intelligence, equally remote from compilation and disquisition. In execution they are almost faultless; the narrative is easy, the style pellucid, and the writer’s judgment nearly always in accordance with the general verdict of history. Without ostentation or affectation, he was exquisite in all things, a mirror of loyalty, courtesy and good taste in all his literary connexions, and exemplary in all the relations of domestic life. He never married, remaining true to the memory of an early attachment blighted by death.

The principal edition of Irving’s works is the “Geoffrey Crayon,” published at New York in 1880 in 26 vols. HisLife and Letterswas published by his nephew Pierre M. Irving (London, 1862-1864, 4 vols.; German abridgment by Adolf Laun, Berlin, 1870, 2 vols.) There is a good deal of miscellaneous information in a compilation entitledIrvingiana(New York, 1860); and W. C. Bryant’s memorial oration, though somewhat too uniformly laudatory, may be consulted with advantage. It was republished inStudies of Irving(1880) along with C. Dudley Warner’s introduction to the “Geoffrey Crayon” edition, and Mr G. P. Putnam’s personal reminiscences of Irving, which originally appeared in theAtlantic Monthly. See alsoWashington Irving(1881), by C. D. Warner, in the “American Men of Letters” series; H. R. Haweis,American Humourists(London, 1883).

(R. G.)

IRVINGTON, a town of Essex county, New Jersey, U.S.A., bordering on the S.W. side of Newark. Pop. (1900) 5255, of whom 993 were foreign-born; (1905) 7180; (1910) 11,877. Irvington is served by the Lehigh Valley railroad and by electric railway to Newark. It is principally a residential suburb of Newark, but it has a small smelter (for gold and silver), and various manufactures, including textile working machinery, measuring rules and artisans’ tools. There are large strawberry farms here. Irvington was settled near the close of the 17th century, and was called Camptown until 1852, when the present name was adopted in honour of Washington Irving. It was incorporated as a village in 1874, and as a town in 1898.

ISAAC(Hebrew for “he laughs,” on explanatory references to the name, seeAbraham), the only child of Abraham and Sarah, was born when his parents were respectively a hundred and ninety years of age (Gen. xvii. 17). Like his father, Isaac lived a nomadic pastoral life, but within much narrower local limits, south of Beersheba (Gen. xxvi., on the incidents here recorded, seeAbimelech). After the death of his mother, when he was forty years old, he married Rebekah the Aramaean, by whom after twenty years of married life he became the father of Esau and Jacob. He died at the age of one hundred and eighty.1“Isaac” is used as a synonym for “Israel” by Amos (vii. 9, 16), who also bears witness to the importance of Beersheba as a sanctuary. It was in this district, at the well Beer-Lahai-roi, that Isaac dwelt (Gen. xxiv. 62, xxv. 11), and the place was famous for an incident in the life of Hagar (xvi. 14). This was perhaps the original scene of the striking episode “in the land of Moriah,” when at the last moment he was by angelic interposition released from the altar on which he was about to be sacrificed by his father in obedience to a divine command (Gen. xxii).2The narrative (which must be judged with due regard to the conditions of the age) shows that the sacrifice of the first-born, though not inconsistent with Yahweh’s claims (Ex. xxii. 29), was neither required nor tolerated (cp. Micah vi. 6-8). SeeMoloch.

Isaac is by general consent of the Christian church taken as a representative of the unobtrusive, restful, piously contemplative type of human character. By later Judaism, which fixed its attention chiefly on the altar scene, he was regarded as the pattern and prototype of all martyrs. The Mahommedan legends regarding him are curious, but trifling.The resemblance between incidents in the lives of Isaac and Abraham is noteworthy; in each case Isaac appears to be the more original. See furtherIshmael, and note that the pair Isaac and Ishmael correspond to Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau. On general questions, see E. Meyer,Israeliten(Index, s.v.). For attempts to find a mythological interpretation of Isaac’s life, see Goldziher,Mythology of the Hebrews; Winckler,Gesch. Israels(vol. ii.).

The resemblance between incidents in the lives of Isaac and Abraham is noteworthy; in each case Isaac appears to be the more original. See furtherIshmael, and note that the pair Isaac and Ishmael correspond to Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau. On general questions, see E. Meyer,Israeliten(Index, s.v.). For attempts to find a mythological interpretation of Isaac’s life, see Goldziher,Mythology of the Hebrews; Winckler,Gesch. Israels(vol. ii.).

1The stories, including the delightful history of the courting of Rebekah by proxy, are due to the oldest narrators. The jarring chronological notices belong to the post-exilic framework of the book (seeGenesis).2The name is hopelessly obscure, and the identification with the mountain of the temple in Jerusalem rests upon a late view (2 Chron. iii. 1). It is otherwise called “Yahweh-yir’eh” (“Y. sees”) which is analogous to “El-ro’i” (“a God of Seeing”) in xvi. 13. See further the commentaries.

2The name is hopelessly obscure, and the identification with the mountain of the temple in Jerusalem rests upon a late view (2 Chron. iii. 1). It is otherwise called “Yahweh-yir’eh” (“Y. sees”) which is analogous to “El-ro’i” (“a God of Seeing”) in xvi. 13. See further the commentaries.

ISAAC I.(Comnenus), emperor of the East (1057-1059), was the son of an officer of Basil II. named Manuel Comnenus, who on his deathbed commended his two sons Isaac and John to the emperor’s care. Basil had them carefully educated at the monastery of Studion, and afterwards advanced them to high official positions. During the disturbed reigns of Basil’s seven immediate successors, Isaac by his prudent conduct won the confidence of the army; in 1057 he joined with the nobles of the capital in a conspiracy against Michael VI., and after the latter’s deposition was invested with the crown, thus founding the new dynasty of the Comneni. The first care of the new emperor was to reward his noble partisans with appointments that removed them from Constantinople, and his next was to repair the beggared finances of the empire. He revoked numerous pensions and grants conferred by his predecessors upon idle courtiers, and, meeting the reproach of sacrilege made by the patriarch of Constantinople by a decree of exile, resumed a proportion of the revenues of the wealthy monasteries. Isaac’s only military expedition was against the Hungarians and Petchenegs, who began to ravage the northern frontiers in 1059. Shortly after this successful campaign he was seized with an illness, and believing it mortal appointed as his successor Constantine Ducas, to the exclusion of his own brother John. Although he recovered Isaac did not resume the purple, but retired to the monastery of Studion and spent the remaining two years of his life as a monk, alternating menial offices with literary studies. HisScholiatotheIliadand other works on the Homeric poems are still extant in MS. He died in the year 1061. Isaac’s great aim was to restore the former strict organization of the government, and his reforms, though unpopular with the aristocracy and the clergy, and not understood by the people, certainly contributed to stave off for a while the final ruin of the Byzantine empire.

See E. Gibbon,The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire(ed. J. Bury, London, 1896, vol. v.); G. Finlay,History of Greece(ed. 1877, Oxford, vols. ii. and iii.).

ISAAC II.(Angelus), emperor of the East 1185-1195, and again 1203-1204, was the successor of Andronicus I. He inaugurated his reign by a decisive victory over the Normans in Sicily, but elsewhere his policy was less successful. He failed in an attempt to recover Cyprus from a rebellious noble, and by the oppressiveness of his taxes drove the Bulgarians and Vlachs to revolt (1186). In 1187 Alexis Branas, the general sent against the rebels, treacherously turned his arms against his master, and attempted to seize Constantinople, but was defeated and slain. The emperor’s attention was next demanded in the east, where several claimants to the throne successively rose and fell. In 1189 Frederick Barbarossa of Germany sought and obtained leave to lead his troops on the third crusade through the Byzantine territory; but he had no sooner crossed the border than Isaac, who had meanwhile sought an alliance with Saladin, threw every impediment in his way, and was only compelled by force of arms to fulfil his engagements. The next five years were disturbed by fresh rebellions of the Vlachs, against whom Isaac led several expeditions in person. During one of these, in 1195, Alexius, the emperor’s brother, taking advantage of the latter’s absence from camp on a hunting expedition, proclaimed himself emperor, and was readily recognised by the soldiers. Isaac was blinded and imprisoned in Constantinople. After eight years he was raised for six months from his dungeon to his throne once more (seeCrusades). But both mind and body had been enfeebled by captivity, and his son Alexius IV. was the actual monarch. Isaac died in 1204, shortly after the usurpation of his general, Mourzouphles. He was one of the weakest and most vicious princes that occupied the Byzantine throne. Surrounded by a crowd of slaves, mistresses and flatterers, he permitted his empire to be administered by unworthy favourites, while he squandered the money wrung from his provinces on costly buildings and expensive gifts to the churches of his metropolis.

See Gibbon,Decline and Fall(ed. J. Bury, London, 1896, vol. vi.); G. Finlay,History of Greece(ed. 1877, Oxford, vols. iii. and iv.).

ISAAC OF ANTIOCH, “one of the stars of Syriac literature,”1the reputed author of a large number of metrical homilies,2many of which are distinguished by an originality and acumen rare among Syriac writers. As to the identity and history of the author considerable difficulty has arisen. The statements of ancient writers, Eastern and Western, were collected by Assemani (B.O.i. 207-214). According to these accounts Isaac flourished under Theodosius II. (408-450),3and was a native either of Amid (Diarbekr) or of Edessa. Several writers identify him with Isaac, the disciple of S. Ephraim, who is mentioned in the anonymousLifeof that father; but according to the patriarch Bar Shūshan (d. 1073), who made a collection of his homilies, his master was Ephraim’s disciple Zenobius. He is supposed to have migrated to Antioch, and to have become abbot of one of the convents in its neighbourhood. According to Zacharias Rhetor he visited Rome and other cities, and the chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahrē informs us that he composed poems on the secular games of 404, and wrote on the destruction of Rome by Alaric in 410. He also commemorated the destruction of Antioch by an earthquake in 459, so that he must have lived till about 460. Unfortunately these poems have perished. He is of course to be distinguished from Isaac of Nineveh, a Nestorian writer on the ascetic life who belongs to the second half of the 7th century.4

When we examine the collection of homilies attributed to Isaac, a difficulty arises on two grounds. (1) The author of some of the poems is fervently orthodox or Catholic (see especially Nos. 1-3 in Bickell’s edition = 62-64 in Bedjan), in other and more important homilies (such as Bickell 6, 8 = Bedjan 59, 61, and especially Bedjan 60) the doctrine is monophysite, even though Eutyches and Nestorius are equally condemned. (2) One of the monophysite homilies, the famous poem of 2136 lines on the parrot which uttered the Trisagion in the streets of Antioch (Bickell, 8 = Bedjan 61), appears to have been written at Antioch after Peter the Fuller (patriarch 471-488) raised the dispute about the addition to the doxology of the wordsqui crucifixus es pro nobis. It is therefore scarcely possible that the author of this homily should be the same who composed the lost poems on the secular games in 404 and on the sack of Rome.Moreover, Lamy (S. Ephraemi hymni et sermones, iv. 361-364) and Bedjan (Homiliae S. Isaaci, i. pp. iv-ix) have recently called attention to statements made by Jacob of Edessa (708) in a letter to John the Stylite. He says there were three Isaacs who wrote in Syriac:—two orthodox (i.e.monophysite), and one a Chalcedonian heretic (i.e.orthodox or Catholic). (a) The first, he says, a native of Amid, and pupil of S. Ephraim, visited Rome in the time of Arcadius (395-408), on his return journey suffered imprisonment at Byzantium, and afterwards became a priest in the church of Amid. (b) The second was a priest of Edessa, and flourished in the reign of Zeno (474-491). He went up to Antioch in the time of Peter the Fuller. Jacob then tells the story of the parrot (see above). (c) The third was also an Edessene. At first in the days of Bishop Paul (510-522) he was orthodox (monophysite): but afterwards in the time of the Chalcedonian (Catholic) bishop Asclepius he became Nestorian (Catholic) and wrote poems setting forth Nestorian doctrine.With such conflicting evidence it is impossible to arrive at a certain result. But Jacob is an early witness: and on the whole it seems safe to conclude with Bedjan (p. ix) that works by at least two authors have been included in the collection attributed to Isaac of Antioch. Still the majority of the poems are the work of one hand—the 5th-century monophysite who wrote the poem on the parrot.5A full list6of the 191 poems existing in European MSS. is given by Bickell, who copied out 181 with a view to publishing them all: the other 10 had been previously copied by Zingerle. But the two volumes published by Bickell in his lifetime (Giessen, 1873 and 1877) contain only 37 homilies. Bedjan’s edition, of which the first volume has alone appeared (Paris, 1903) contains 67 poems, viz. 24 previously published (18 by Bickell), and 43 that are new, though their titles are all included in Bickell’s list.

Moreover, Lamy (S. Ephraemi hymni et sermones, iv. 361-364) and Bedjan (Homiliae S. Isaaci, i. pp. iv-ix) have recently called attention to statements made by Jacob of Edessa (708) in a letter to John the Stylite. He says there were three Isaacs who wrote in Syriac:—two orthodox (i.e.monophysite), and one a Chalcedonian heretic (i.e.orthodox or Catholic). (a) The first, he says, a native of Amid, and pupil of S. Ephraim, visited Rome in the time of Arcadius (395-408), on his return journey suffered imprisonment at Byzantium, and afterwards became a priest in the church of Amid. (b) The second was a priest of Edessa, and flourished in the reign of Zeno (474-491). He went up to Antioch in the time of Peter the Fuller. Jacob then tells the story of the parrot (see above). (c) The third was also an Edessene. At first in the days of Bishop Paul (510-522) he was orthodox (monophysite): but afterwards in the time of the Chalcedonian (Catholic) bishop Asclepius he became Nestorian (Catholic) and wrote poems setting forth Nestorian doctrine.

With such conflicting evidence it is impossible to arrive at a certain result. But Jacob is an early witness: and on the whole it seems safe to conclude with Bedjan (p. ix) that works by at least two authors have been included in the collection attributed to Isaac of Antioch. Still the majority of the poems are the work of one hand—the 5th-century monophysite who wrote the poem on the parrot.5A full list6of the 191 poems existing in European MSS. is given by Bickell, who copied out 181 with a view to publishing them all: the other 10 had been previously copied by Zingerle. But the two volumes published by Bickell in his lifetime (Giessen, 1873 and 1877) contain only 37 homilies. Bedjan’s edition, of which the first volume has alone appeared (Paris, 1903) contains 67 poems, viz. 24 previously published (18 by Bickell), and 43 that are new, though their titles are all included in Bickell’s list.

The writer’s main interest lies in the application of religion to the practical duties of life, whether in the church or in the world. He has a great command of forcible language and considerable skill in apt illustration. The zeal with which he denounces the abuses prevalent in the church of his day, and particularly in the monastic orders, is not unlike that of the Protestant reformers. He shows acquaintance with many phases of life. He describes the corruption of judges, the prevalence of usury and avarice, the unchastity which especially characterized the upper classes, and the general hypocrisy of so-called Christians. His doctrinal discussions are apt to be diffuse; but he seldom loses sight of the bearing of doctrine on practical life. He judges with extreme severity those who argue about religion while neglecting its practice, and those who though stupid and ignorant dare to pry into mysteries which are sealed to the angels. “Not newly have we found Him, that we should search and pry into God. As He was He is: He changeth not with the times.... Confess that He formed thee of dust: search not the mode of His being: Worship Him that He redeemed thee by His only Son: inquire not the manner of His birth.”7

Some of Isaac’s works have an interest for the historian of the 5th century. In two poems (Bickell 11, 12 = Bedjan 48, 49), written probably at Edessa, he commemorates the capture of Bēth-Hūr (acity near Nisibis) by the Arabs. Although the historical allusions are far from clear, we gather that Bēth-Ḥūr, which in zealous paganism had been a successor to Ḥaran, had been in earlier days devastated by the Persians:8but for the last 34 years the Persians had themselves suffered subjection.9And now had come a flood of Arab invaders, “sons of Hagar,” who had swept away the city and carried all its inhabitants captive. From these two poems, and from the 2nd homily on Fasting (Bickell 14 = Bedjan 17) we gain a vivid picture of the miseries borne by the inhabitants of that frontier region during the wars between Persia and the Romano-Greek empire. There are also instructive references to the heathen practices and the worship of pagan deities (such as Baalti, Uzzi, Gedlath and the planet Venus) prevalent in Mesopotamia. Two other poems (Bickell 35, 36 = Bedjan 66, 67), written probably at Antioch,10describe the prevalence of sorcery and the extraordinary influence possessed by “Chaldeans” and enchanters over women who were nominally Christians.The metre of all the published homilies is heptasyllabic.

The metre of all the published homilies is heptasyllabic.

(N. M.)

1W. Wright,Short Hist. of Syr. Lit.p. 51.2The fullest list, by G. Bickell, contains 191 which are extant in MSS.3The trustworthyChronicle of Edessagives his date as 451-452 (Hallier, No. lxvii.); and the recently publishedChronicleof Michael the Syrian makes him contemporary with Nonus, who became the 31st bishop of Edessa in 449.4The date of Isaac of Nineveh is now known from theLiber fundatorumof Īshō’-děnah, an 8th-century writer; see Bedjan’s edition, and Chabót,Livre de la chasteté, p. 63. Assemani (B.O.i. 445) had placed him late in the 6th century, and Chabót (De S. Isaaci Ninivitae vita, &c.) in the second half of the 5th.5Lamy (op. cit.iv. 364-366) has pointed out that several of the poems are in certain MSS. attributed to Ephraim. Possibly the author of the orthodox poems was not named Isaac at all.6Assemani’s list of 104 poems (B.O.i. 214-234) is completely covered by Bickell’s.7From a really noble poem (Bedjan 60) on the problem whetherGodsuffered and died on the cross.8Possibly in the war at the beginning of the reign of Bahrām V.: but on the uncertainty see Nöldeke,Gesch. d. Perser und Araber, 117.9Probably at the hands of the Hephthalites or White Huns of Kūshan: cf. Isaac’s mention of the Huns in 1. 420 of the 1st poem.10The author refers to the weeping for Tammuz (1. 125 of the 1st poem), and speaks of his city as illustrious throughout the world (ib.1. 132).

1W. Wright,Short Hist. of Syr. Lit.p. 51.

2The fullest list, by G. Bickell, contains 191 which are extant in MSS.

3The trustworthyChronicle of Edessagives his date as 451-452 (Hallier, No. lxvii.); and the recently publishedChronicleof Michael the Syrian makes him contemporary with Nonus, who became the 31st bishop of Edessa in 449.

4The date of Isaac of Nineveh is now known from theLiber fundatorumof Īshō’-děnah, an 8th-century writer; see Bedjan’s edition, and Chabót,Livre de la chasteté, p. 63. Assemani (B.O.i. 445) had placed him late in the 6th century, and Chabót (De S. Isaaci Ninivitae vita, &c.) in the second half of the 5th.

5Lamy (op. cit.iv. 364-366) has pointed out that several of the poems are in certain MSS. attributed to Ephraim. Possibly the author of the orthodox poems was not named Isaac at all.

6Assemani’s list of 104 poems (B.O.i. 214-234) is completely covered by Bickell’s.

7From a really noble poem (Bedjan 60) on the problem whetherGodsuffered and died on the cross.

8Possibly in the war at the beginning of the reign of Bahrām V.: but on the uncertainty see Nöldeke,Gesch. d. Perser und Araber, 117.

9Probably at the hands of the Hephthalites or White Huns of Kūshan: cf. Isaac’s mention of the Huns in 1. 420 of the 1st poem.

10The author refers to the weeping for Tammuz (1. 125 of the 1st poem), and speaks of his city as illustrious throughout the world (ib.1. 132).

ISABELLA(1451-1504), surnamedla Catolica, “the Catholic,” queen of Castile, was the second child and only daughter of John II. of Castile by his second wife Isabella, granddaughter of John I. of Portugal (thus being through both parents a descendant of John of Gaunt), and was born at Madrigal on the 22nd of April 1451. On the death of her father, who was succeeded by her brother Henry IV. (1454), she was withdrawn by her mother to Arevalo, where her early education was conducted in the deepest seclusion; in 1462, however, along with her uterine brother Alphonso, she was removed by Henry to the court, where she showed a remarkable example of staidness and sobriety. Already more than one suitor had made application for her hand, Ferdinand of Aragon, who ultimately became her husband, being among the number; for some little time she was engaged to his elder brother Charles, who died in 1461. In her thirteenth year her brother promised her in marriage to Alphonso of Portugal, but she firmly refused to consent; her resistance seemed less likely to be effectual in the case of Pedro Giron, grand master of the order of Calatrava and brother of the marquis of Villena, to whom she was next affianced, when she was delivered from her fears by the sudden death of the bridegroom while on his way to the nuptials in 1466. After an offer of the crown of Castile, made by the revolutionary leaders in the civil war, had been declined by her, she was in 1468 formally recognized by her brother as lawful heir, after himself, to the united crowns of Castile and Leon. New candidates for her hand now appeared in the persons of a brother of Edward IV. of England (probably Richard, duke of Gloucester), and the duke of Guienne, brother of Louis XI., and heir presumptive of the French monarchy. Finally however, in face of very great difficulties, she was married to Ferdinand of Aragon at Valladolid on the 19th of October 1469. Thence forward the fortunes of Ferdinand and Isabella were inseparably blended. For some time they held a humble court at Dueñas, and afterwards they resided at Segovia, where, on the death of Henry, she was proclaimed queen of Castile and Leon (December 13, 1474). Spain undoubtedly owed to Isabella’s clear intellect, resolute energy and unselfish patriotism much of that greatness which for the first time it acquired under “the Catholic sovereigns.” The moral influence of the queen’s personal character over the Castilian court was incalculably great; from the debasement and degradation of the preceding reign she raised it to being “the nursery of virtue and of generous ambition.” She did much for letters in Spain by founding the palace school and by her protection of Peter Martyr d’Anghiera. The very sincerity of her piety and strength of her religious convictions led her more than once, however, into great errors of state policy, and into more than one act which offends the moral sense of a more refined age: her efforts for the introduction of the Inquisition into Castile, and for the proscription of the Jews, are outstanding evidences of what can only be called her bigotry. But not even the briefest sketch of her life can omit to notice that happy instinct or intuition which led her, when all others had heard with incredulity the scheme of Columbus, to recall the wanderer to her presence with the words, “I will assume the undertaking for my own crown of Castile, and am ready to pawn my jewels to defray the expenses of it, if the funds in the treasury should be found inadequate.” She died at Medina del Campo on the 24th of November 1504, and was succeeded by her daughter Joanna “la loca” (the “Crazy”) and her husband, Philip of Habsburg.

See W. H. Prescott,History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella(1837), where the original authorities are exhaustively enumerated; and for later researches, Baron de Nervo,Isabella the Catholic, translated by Lieut.-Col. Temple-West (1897).

ISABELLA II.(1830-1904), queen of Spain, was born in Madrid on the 10th of October 1830. She was the eldest daughter of Ferdinand VII., king of Spain, and of his fourth wife, Maria Christina, a Neapolitan Bourbon, who became queen-regent on 29th September 1833, when her daughter, at the age of three years, was proclaimed on the death of the king. Queen Isabella succeeded to the throne because Ferdinand VII. induced the Cortes to assist him in setting aside the Salic law, which the Bourbons had introduced since the beginning of the 18th century, and to re-establish the older succession law of Spain. The brother of Ferdinand, Don Carlos, the first pretender, fought seven years, during the minority of Isabella, to dispute her title, and her rights were only maintained through the gallant support of the army, the Cortes and the Liberals and Progressists, who at the same time established constitutional and parliamentary government, dissolved the religious orders, confiscated the property of the orders and of the Jesuits, disestablished the Church property, and attempted to restore order in finances. After the Carlist war the queen-regent, Christina, resigned to make way for Espartero, the most successful and most popular general of the Isabelline armies, who only remained regent two years. He was turned out in 1843 by a military and politicalpronunciamiento, led by Generals O’Donnell and Narvaez, who formed a cabinet, presided over by Joaquin Maria Lopez, and this government induced the Cortes to declare Isabella of age at thirteen. Three years later the Moderado party or Castilian Conservatives made their queen marry, at sixteen, her cousin, Prince Francisco de Assisi de Bourbon (1822-1902), on the same day (10th October 1846) on which her younger sister married the duke of Montpensier. These marriages suited the views of France and Louis Philippe, who nearly quarrelled in consequence with Great Britain; but both matches were anything but happy. Queen Isabella reigned from 1843 to 1868, and that period was one long succession of palace intrigues, back-stairs and ante-chamber influences, barrack conspiracies, militarypronunciamientosto further the ends of the political parties—Moderados, who ruled from 1846 to 1854, Progressists from 1854 to 1856, Union Liberal from 1856 to 1863; Moderados and Union Liberal quickly succeeding each other and keeping out the Progressists so steadily that the seeds were sown which budded into the revolution of 1868. Queen Isabella II. often interfered in politics in a wayward, unscrupulous manner that made her very unpopular. She showed most favour to her reactionary generals and statesmen, to the Church and religious orders, and was constantly the tool of corrupt and profligate courtiers and favourites who gave her court a deservedly bad name. She went into exile at the end of September 1868, after her Moderado generals had made a slight show of resistance that was crushed at the battle of Alcolea by Marshals Serrano and Prim. The only redeeming traits of Queen Isabella’s reign were a war against Morocco, which ended in an advantageous treaty and some cession of territory; some progress in public works, especially railways; a slight improvement in commerce and finance. Isabella was induced to abdicate in Paris on 25th June 1870 in favour of her son, Alphonso XII., and the cause of the restoration was thus much furthered. She had separated from her husband in the previous March. She continued to live in France after the restoration in 1874. On the occasion of one of her visits to Madrid during Alphonso XII.’s reign she began to intrigue with thepoliticians of the capital, and was peremptorily requested to go abroad again. She died on the 10th of April 1904.

ISABELLA,Isabeau, orElizabeth of Bavaria(1370-1435), wife of Charles VI. of France, was the daughter of Stephen II., duke of Bavaria. She was born in 1370, was married to Charles VI. on the 17th of July 1385, and crowned at Paris on the 22nd of August 1389. After some years of happy married life she fell under the influence of the dissolute court in which she lived, and the king having become insane (August 1392) she consorted chiefly with Louis of Orleans. Frivolous, selfish, avaricious and fond of luxury, she used her influence, during the different periods when she was invested with the regency, not for the public welfare, but mainly in her own personal interest. After the assassination of the duke of Orleans (November 23, 1407) she attached herself sometimes to the Armagnacs, sometimes to the Burgundians, and led a scandalous life. Louis de Bosredon, the captain of her guards, was executed for complicity in her excesses; and Isabella herself was imprisoned at Blois and afterwards at Tours (1417). Having been set free towards the end of that year by John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, whom she had called to her assistance, she went to Troyes and established her government there, returning afterwards to Paris when that city had capitulated to the Burgundians in July 1418. Once more in power, she now took up arms against her son, the dauphin Charles; and after the murder of John the Fearless she went over to the side of the English, into whose hands she surrendered France by the treaty of Troyes (May 21, 1420), at the same time giving her daughter Catherine in marriage to the king of England, Henry V. After her triumphal entry into Paris with the latter she soon became an object of loathing to the whole French nation. She survived her husband, her son-in-law, and eight out of her twelve children, and she passed the last miserable years of her life in poverty, solitude and ill-health. She died at the end of September 1435, and was interred without funeral honours in the abbey of St Denis, by the side of her husband, Charles VI.

See Vallet de Viriville,Isabeau de Bavière(1859); Marcel Thibault,Isabeau de Bavière, Reine de France, La Jeunesse, 1370-1405 (1903).

Back to Index Next