[1] Cf. the phrase "ephod of prophecy" (_Testament of Levi_, viii.
2). The priestly apparatus of the post-exilic age retains several
traces of old mythological symbolism and earlier cult, the meaning of
which had not altogether been forgotten. With the dress one may
perhaps compare the apparel of the gods Marduk and Adad, for which
see A. Jeremias, _Das Alte Test. im Lichte des Alten Orients_, 2nd
ed., figs. 33, 46, and pp. 162, 449.
[2] The ordinary interpretation "_linen_ ephod" (1 Sam. ii. 18, xxii.
18; 2 Sam. vi. 14) is questioned by T.C. Foote in his useful
monograph, _Journ. Bibl. Lit._ xxi., 1902, pp. 3, 47. This writer
also aptly compares the infant Samuel with the child who drew the
lots at the temple of Fortuna at Praeneste (Cicero, _De divin._ ii.
41, 86), and with the modern practice of employing innocent
instruments of chance in lotteries (_op. cit._ pp. 22, 27).
[3] It is not stated that the linen ephod was David's sole covering,
and it is difficult to account for the text in the parallel passage 1
Chron. xv. 27 (where he is clothed with a robe); "girt," too, is
ambiguous, since the verb is even used of a sword. On the question of
nudity (cf. 1 Sam. xix. 24) see Robertson Smith, _Rel. Sem._^2 pp.
161, 450 sq.; _Ency. Bib._ s.vv. "girdle," "sackcloth"; and M.
Jastrow, _Journ. Am. Or. Soc._ xx. 144, xxi. 23. The significant
terms "uncover," "play" (2 Sam. vi. 20 sq.), have other meanings
intelligible to those acquainted with the excesses practised in
Oriental cults.
EPHOR (Gr. [Greek: ephoros]), the title of the highest magistrates of
the ancient Spartan state. It is uncertain when the office was created
and what was its original character. That it owed its institution to
Lycurgus (Herod. i. 65; cf. Xen. _Respub. Lacedaem._ viii. 3) is very
improbable, and we may either regard it as an immemorial Dorian
institution (with C.O. Muller, H. Gabriel, H.K. Stein, Ed. Meyer and
others), or accept the tradition that it was founded during the first
Messenian War, which necessitated a prolonged absence from Sparta on the
part of both kings (Plato, _Laws_, iii. 692 a; Aristotle, _Politics_, v.
9. 1 = p. 1313 a 26; Plut. _Cleomenes_, 10; so G. Dum, G. Gilbert,
A.H.J. Greenidge). There is no evidence for the theory that originally
the ephors were market inspectors; they seem rather to have had from the
outset judicial or police functions. Gradually they extended their
powers, aided by the jealousy between the royal houses, which made it
almost impossible for the two kings to co-operate heartily, and from the
5th to the 3rd century they exercised a growing despotism which Plato
justly calls a _tyrannis_ (_Laws_, 692). Cleomenes III. restored the
royal power by murdering four of the ephors and abolishing the office,
and though it was revived by Antigonus Doson after the battle of
Sellasia, and existed at least down to Hadrian's reign (_Sparta Museum
Catalogue_, Introd. p. 10), it never regained its former power.
In historical times the ephors were five in number, the first of them
giving his name to the year, like the eponymous archon at Athens. Where
opinions were divided the majority prevailed. The ephors were elected
annually, originally no doubt by the kings, later by the people; their
term of office began with the new moon after the autumnal equinox, and
they had an official residence ([Greek: ephoreion]) in the Agora. Every
full citizen was eligible and no property qualification was required.
The ephors summoned and presided over meetings of the Gerousia and
Apella, and formed the executive committee responsible for carrying out
decrees. In their dealings with the kings they represented the supremacy
of the people. There was a monthly exchange of oaths, the kings swearing
to rule according to the laws, the ephors undertaking on this condition
to maintain the royal authority (Xen. _Resp. Laced._ 15. 7). They alone
might remain seated in a king's presence, and had power to try and even
to imprison a king, who must appear before them at the third summons.
Two of them accompanied the army in the field, not interfering with the
king's conduct of the campaign, but prepared, if need be, to bring him
to trial on his return. The ephors, again, exercised a general
guardianship of law and custom and superintended the training of the
young. They shared the criminal jurisdiction of the Gerousia and decided
civil suits. The administration of taxation, the distribution of booty,
and the regulation of the calendar also devolved upon them. They could
actually put _perioeci_ to death without trial, if we may believe
Isocrates (xii. 181), and were responsible for protecting the state
against the helots, against whom they formally declared war on entering
office, so as to be able to kill any whom they regarded as dangerous
without violating religious scruples. Finally, the ephors were supreme
in questions of foreign policy. They enforced, when necessary, the alien
acts ([Greek: xenelasia]), negotiated with foreign ambassadors,
instructed generals, sent out expeditions and were the guiding spirits
of the Spartan confederacy.
See the constitutional histories of G. Gilbert (Eng. trans.), pp. 16,
52-59; G. Busolt, p. 84 ff., V. Thumser, p. 241 ff., G.F. Schomann
(Eng. trans.), p. 236 ff., A.H.J. Greenidge, p. 102 ff.; Szanto's
article "Ephoroi" in Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencyclopadie_, v. 2860 ff.;
Ed. Meyer, _Forschungen zur alten Geschichte_, i. 244 ff.; C.O.
Muller, _Dorians_, bk. iii. ch. vii.; G. Grote, _History of Greece_,
pt. ii. ch. vi.; G. Busolt, _Griechische Geschichte_, i.^2 555 ff.; B.
Niese, _Historische Zeitschrift_, lxii. 58 ff. Of the many monographs
dealing with this subject the following are specially useful: G. Dum,
_Entstehung und Entwicklung des spartan_. _Ephorats_ (Innsbruck,
1878); H.K. Stein, _Das spartan_. _Ephorat bis auf Cheilon_
(Paderborn, 1870); K. Kuchtner, _Entstehung und ursprungliche
Bedeutung des spartan_. _Ephorats_ (Munich, 1897); C. Frick, _De
ephoris Spartanis_ (Gottingen, 1872); A. Schaefer, _De ephoris
Lacedaemoniis_ (Greifswald, 1863); E. von Stern, _Zur Entstehung und
ursprunglichen Bedeutung des Ephorats in Sparta_ (Berlin, 1894).
(M. N. T.)
EPHORUS (c. 400-330 B.C.), of Cyme in Aeolis, in Asia Minor, Greek
historian. Together with the historian Theopompus he was a pupil of
Isocrates, in whose school he attended two courses of rhetoric. But he
does not seem to have made much progress in the art, and it is said to
have been at the suggestion of Isocrates himself that he took up
literary composition and the study of history. The fruit of his labours
was his [Greek: Historiai] in 29 books, the first universal history,
beginning with the return of the Heraclidae to Peloponnesus, as the
first well-attested historical event. The whole work was edited by his
son Demophilus, who added a 30th book, containing a summary description
of the Social War and ending with the taking of Perinthus (340) by
Philip of Macedon (cf. Diod. Sic. xvi. 14 with xvi. 76). Each book was
complete in itself, and had a separate title and preface. It is clear
that Ephorus made critical use of the best authorities, and his work,
highly praised and much read, was freely drawn upon by Diodorus
Siculus[1] and other compilers. Strabo (viii. p. 332) attaches much
importance to his geographical investigations, and praises him for being
the first to separate the historical from the merely geographical
element. Polybius (xii. 25 g) while crediting him with a knowledge of
the conditions of naval warfare, ridicules his description of the
battles of Leuctra and Mantineia as showing ignorance of the nature of
land operations. He was further to be commended for drawing (though not
always) a sharp line of demarcation between the mythical and historical
(Strabo ix. p. 423); he even recognized that a profusion of detail,
though lending corroborative force to accounts of recent events, is
ground for suspicion in reports of far-distant history. His style was
high-flown and artificial, as was natural considering his early
training, and he frequently sacrificed truth to rhetoric effect; but,
according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, he and Theopompus were the only
historical writers whose language was accurate and finished. Other works
attributed to him were:--_A Treatise on Discoveries; Respecting Good and
Evil Things; On Remarkable Things in Various Countries_ (it is doubtful
whether these were separate works, or merely extracts from the
_Histories_); _A Treatise on my Country_, on the history and antiquities
of Cyme, and an essay _On Style_, his only rhetorical work, which is
occasionally mentioned by the rhetorician Theon. Nothing is known of his
life, except the statement in Plutarch that he declined to visit the
court of Alexander the Great.
Fragments in C.W. Muller, _Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum_, i., with
critical introduction on the life and writings of Ephorus; see J.A.
Klugmann, _De Ephoro historico_ (1860); C.A. Volquardsen,
_Untersuchungen uber die Quellen der griechischen und sicilischen
Geschichten bei Diodor_. _xi.-xvi._ (1868); and specially J.B. Bury,
_Ancient Greek Historians_ (1909); E. Schwartz, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Realencyc._ s.v.; and article GREECE: _History_: Ancient Authorities.