A. Distinctive Features.---The fact that Aegean civilization

is distinguished from all others, prior or contemporary,

not only by its geographical area, but by leading organic

characteristics, has never been in doubt, since its remains

came to be studied seriously and impartially. The truth

was indeed obscured for a time by persistent prejudices in

favour of certain alien Mediterranean races long known to

have been in relation with the Aegean area in prehistoric

times, e.g. the Egyptians and especially the Phoenicians.

But their claims to be the principal authors of the Aegean

remains grew fainter with every fresh Aegean discovery, and

every new light thrown on their own proper products; with the

Cretan revelations they ceased altogether to be considered

except by a few Homeric enthusiasts. Briefly, we now know

that the Aegean civilization developed these distinctive

features. (i) An indigenous script expressed in characters

of which only a very small percentage are identical, or even

obviously connected, with those of any other script. This is

equally true both of the pictographic and the linear Aegean

systems. Its nearest affinities are with the ``Asianic''

scripts, preserved to us by Hittite, Cypriote and south-west

Anatolian (Pamphyhan, Lycian and Carian) inscriptions. But

neither are these affinities close enough to be of any practical

aid in deciphering Aegean characters, nor is it by any means

certain that there is parentage. The Aegean script may be,

and probably is, prior in origin to the ``Asianic''; and it

may equally well be owed to a remote common ancestor, or (the

small number of common characters being considered) be an

entirely independent evolution from representations of natural

objects (see CRETE). (2) An Art, whose products cannot

be confounded with those of any other known art by a trained

eye. Its obligations to other contemporary arts are many and

obvious, especially in its later stages; but every borrowed

form and motive undergoes an essential modification at the

hands of the Aegean craftsman, and the product is stamped

with a new character. The secret of this character lles

evidently in a constant attempt to express an ideal in forms

more and more closely approaching to realities. We detect

the dawn of that spirit which afterwards animated Hellenic

art. The fresco-paintings, ceramic motives, reliefs, free

sculpture and toreutic handiwork of Crete have supplied the

clearest proof of it, confirming the impression already created

by the goldsmiths' and painters' work of the Greek mainland

(Mycenae, Vaphio, Tiryns). (3) Architectural plans and

decoration. The arrangement of Aegean palaces is of two main

types. First (and perhaps earliest in time), the chambers

are grouped round a central court, being engaged one with the

other in a labyrinthine complexity, and the greater oblongs

are entered from a long side and divided longitudinally by

pillars. Second, the main chamber is of what is known as the

megaron type, i.e. it stands free, isolated from the rest

of the plan by corridors, is entered from a vestibule on a

short side, and has a central hearth, surrounded by pillars

and perhaps hypaethral; there is no central court, and other

apartments form distinct blocks. For possible geographical

reasons for this duality of type see CRETE. In spite of many

comparisons made with Egyptian, Babylonian and ``Hittite''

plans, both these arrangements remain incongruous with any

remains of prior or contemporary structures elsewhere. Whether

either plan suits the ``Homeric palace'' does not affect the

present question. (4) A type of tomb, the dome or ``bee-hive,''

of which the grandest examples known are at Mycenae. The

Cretan ``larnax'' coffins, also, have no parallels outside the

Aegean. There are other infinite singularities of detail;

but the above are more than sufficient to establish the point.

B. Origin and Continuity.--With the immense expansion of the

evidence, due to the Cretan excavations, a question has arisen

how far the Aegean civilization, whose total duration covers

at least three thousand years, can be regarded as one and

continuous. Thanks to the exploration of Cnossus, we now

know that Aegean civilization had its roots in a primitive

Neolithic period, of uncertain but very long duration,

represented by a stratum which (on that site in particular) is

in places nearly 20 ft. thick, and contains stone implements

and sherds of handmade and hand-polished vessels, showing

a progressive development in technique from bottom to

top. This Cnossian stratum seems to be throughout earlier

than the lowest layer at Hissarlik. It closes with the

introduction of incised, white-filled decoration on pottery,

whose motives are presently found reproduced in monochrome

pigment. We are now in the beginning of the Bronze Age,

and the first of Evans's ``Minoan'' periods (see CRETE).

Thereafter, by exact observation of stratification, eight more

periods have been distinguished by the explorer of Cnossus,

each marked by some important development in the universal and

necessary products of the potter's art, the least destructible

and therefore most generally used archaeological criterion.

These periods fill the whole Bronze Age, with whose close, by

the introduction of the superior metal, iron, the Aegean Age

is conventionally held to end. Iron came into general Aegean

use about 1000 B.C., and possibly was the means by which a

body of northern invaders established their power on the ruins

of the earlier dominion. The important point is this, that

throughout the nine Cnossian periods, following the Neolithic

Age (named by Evans, ``Minoan I. 1, 2, 3; II. 1, 2, 3; III.

1, 2, 3''; see CRETE), there is evidence of a perfectly

orderly and continuous evolution in, at any rate, ceramic

art. From one stage to another, fabrics, forms and motives

of decoration develop gradually; so that, at the close of

a span of more than two thousand years, at the least, the

influences of the beginning can still be clearly seen and no

trace of violent artistic intrusion can be detected. This

fact, by itself, would go far to prove that the civilization

continued fundamentally and essentially the same throughout.

It is, moreover, supported by less abundant remains of other

arts. That of painting in fresco, for instance, shows the

same orderly development from at any rate Period II. 2 to the

end. About institutions we have less certain knowledge, there

being but little evidence for the earlier periods; but in

the documents relating to religion, the most significant of

all, it can at least be said that there is no trace of sharp

change. We see evidence of a uniform Nature Worship passing

through all the normal stages down to the anthropism in

the latest period. There is no appearance of intrusive

deities or cult-ideas. We may take it then (and the fact

is not disputed even by those who, like Dorpfeld, believe

in one thorough racial change, at least, during the Bronze

Age) that the Aegean civilization was indigenous, firmly

rooted and strong enough to persist essentially unchanged

and dominant in its own geographical area throughout the

Neolithic and Bronze Ages. This conclusion can hardly entail

less than a belief that, at any rate, the mass of those who

possessed this civilization continued racially the same.

There are, however, in certain respects at certain periods,

evidences of such changes as might be due to the intrusion of

small conquering castes, which adopted the superior civilization

of the conquered people and became assimilated to the

latter. The earliest palace at Cnossus was built probably in

Period II. 1 or 2. It was of the type mentioned first in the

description of palace-plans above. Before Period III. 1 it

was largely rebuilt, and arguments have been brought forward

by Dorpfeld to show that features of the second type were then

introduced. A similar rebuilding took place at the same epoch

at Phaestus, and possibly at Hagia Triada. Now the second

type, the ``megaron'' arrangement, characterizes peculiarly

the palaces discovered in the north of the Aegean area, at

Mycenae, Tiryns and Hissarllk, where up to the present no

signs of the first type, so characteristic of Crete, have been

observed. These northern ``megara'' are all of late date,

none being prior to Minoan III. 1. At Phylakope, a ``megaron''

appears only in the uppermost Aegean stratum, the underlying

structures being more in conformity with the earlier Cretan.

At the same epoch a notable change took place in the Aegean

script. The pictographic characters, found on seals and discs

of Period II. in Crete, had given way entirely to a linear

system by Period III. That system thenceforward prevailed

exclusively, suffering a slight modification again in III.

2 and 3. These and other less well marked changes, say some

critics, are signs of a racial convulsion not long after

2000 B.C. An old race was conquered by a new, even if, in

matters of civilization, the former capta victorem cepit.

For these races respectively Dorpfeld suggests the names

``Lycian'' and ``Carian,'' the latter coming in from the

north Aegean, where Greek tradition remembered its former

dominance. These names do not greatly help us. If we are

to accept and profit by Dorpfeld's nomenclature, we must be

satisfied that, in their later historic habitats, both Lycians

and Carians showed unmistakable signs of having formerly

possessed the civilizations attributed to them in prehistoric

times--signs which research has hitherto wholly failed to

find. The most that can be said to be capable of proof is

the infiltration of some northern influence into Crete at the

end of Minoan Period II.; but it probably brought about no

change of dynasty and certainly no change in the prevailing

race. A good deal of anthropometric investigation has been

devoted to human remains of the Aegean epoch, especially to

skulls and bones found in Crete in tombs of Period II. The

result of this, however, has not so far established more than

the fact that the Aegean races, as a whole, belonged to the

dark, long-headed Homo Mediterraneus, whose probable origin

lay in mid-eastern Africa---a fact only valuable in the present

connexion in so far as it tends to discredit an Asiatic source

for Aegean civilization. Not enough evidence has been collected

to affect the question of racial change during the Aegean

period. From the skullforms studied, it would appear, as we

should expect, that the Aegean race was by no means pure even

in the earlier Minoan periods. It only remains to be added

that there is some ground for supposing that the language

spoken in Crete before the later Doric was non-Hellenic, but

Indo-European. This inference rests on three inscriptions

in Greek characters but non-Greek language found in E.

Crete. The language has some apparent affinities with

Phrygian. The inscriptions are post-Aegean by many centuries,

but they occur in the part of the island known to Homer

as that inhabited by the Eteo-Cretans, or aborigines.

Their language may prove to be that of the Linear tablets.

C. History of Aegean Civilization.---History of an

inferential and summary sort only can be derived from

monuments in the absence of written records. The latter do,

indeed, exist in the Case of the Cretan civilization and in

great numbers; but they are undeciphered and likely to remain

so, except in the improbable event of the discovery of a long

bi-lingual text, partly couched in some familiar script and

language. Even in that event, the information which would be

derived from the Cnossian tablets would probably make but a

small addition to history, since in very large part they are

evidently mere inventories of tribute and stores. The engraved

gems probably record divine or human names. (See CRETE.)

(1) Chronology.--The earliest chronological datum that we

possess is inferred from a close similarity between certain

Cretao hand-made and polished vases of Minoan Period I. 1 and

others discovered by Petrie at Abydos in Egypt and referred

by him to the Ist Dynasty. He goes so far as to pronounce

the latter to be Cretan importations, their fabric and forms

being unlike anything Nilotic. If that be so, the period

at which stone implements were beginning to be superseded by

bronze in Crete must be dated before 4000 B.C. But it will

be remembered that below all Evans's ``Minoan'' strata hes

the immensely thick Neolithic deposit. To date the beginning

of this earliest record of human production is impossible at

present. The Neolithic stratum varies very much in depth,

ranging from nearly 20 ft. to 3 ft., but is deepest on the

highest part of the hillock. Its variations may be due

equally to natural denudation of a stratum once of uniform

depth, or to the artificial heaping up of a mound by later

builders. Even were certainty as to these alternatives

attained, we could only guess at the average rate of

accumulation, which experience shows to proceeb very differently

on different sites and under different social and climatic

conditions. In later periods at Cnossus accumulation seems

to have proceeded at a rate of, roughly, 3 ft. per thousand

years. Reckoning by that standard we might push the

earliest Neolithic remains back behind 10,000 B.C.;

but the calculation would be worthy of little credence.

Passing by certain fragments of stone vessels, found at Cnossus,

and coincident with forms characteristic of the IVth Pharaonic

Dynasty, we reach another fairly certain date in the synchronism

of remains belonging to the XIIth Dynasty (c. 2500 B.C.

according to Petrie, but later according to the Berlin School)

with products of Minoan Period II. 2. Characteristic Cretan

pottery of this period was found by Petrie in the Fayum in

conjunction with XIIth Dynasty remains, and various Cretan

products of the period show striking coincidences with XIIth

Dynasty styles, especially in their adoption of spiraliform

ornament. The spiral, however, it must be confessed, occurs

so often in natural objects (e.g. horns, climbing plants,

shavings of wood or metal) that too much stress must not

be laid on the mutual parentage of spiraliform ornament in

different civilizations. A diorite statuette, referable by

its style and inscription to Dynasty XIII., was discovered

in deposit of Period II. 3 in the Central Court, and a

cartouche of the ``Shepherd King,'' Khyan, was also found at

Cnossus. He is usually dated about 1900 B.C. This brings

us to the next and most certain synchronism, that of Minoan

Periods III. 1, 2, with Dynasty XVIII. (c. 1600-1400 B.C.).

This coincidence has been observed not only at Cnossus, but

previously, in connexion with discoveries of scarabs and other

Egyptian objects made at Mycenae, Ialysus, Vaphio, &c. In Egypt

itself. Refti tributaries, bearing Vases of Aegean form,

and themselves similar in fashion of dress and arrangement of

hair to figures on Cretan frescoes and gems of Period III.,

are depicted under this and the succeeding Dynasties (e.g.

Rekhmara tomb at Thebes). Actual vases of late Minoan style

have been found with remains of Dynasty XVIII., especially in

the town of Amenophis IV. Akhenaton at Tell el-Amarna; while

in the Aegean area itself we have abundant evidence of a great

wave of Egyptian influence beginning with this same Dynasty.

To this wave were owed in all probability the Nilotic scenes

depicted on the Mycenae daggers, on frescoes of Hagia Triada and

Cnossus, on pottery of Zakro, on the shell-relief of Phaestus,

&c.; and also many forrus and fabrics, e.g. certain Cretan

coffins, and the faience industry of Cnossus. These serve to

date, beyond all reasonable question, Periods III. 1-2 in

Crete, the shaft-graves in the Mycenae circle, the Vaphio tomb,

&c., to the 16th and 15th centuries B.C., and Period III.

3 with the lower town at Mycenae, the majority of the sixth

stratum at Hissarlik, the Ialysus burials, the upper stratum

at Phylakope, &c., to the century immediately succeeding.

The terminus ad quem is less certain---iron does not begin to

be used for weapons in the Aegean till after Period III. 3, and

then not exclusively. If we fix its introduction to about 1000

B C. and make it coincident with the incursion of northern

tribes, remembered by the classical Greeks as the Dorian Invasion,

we must allow that this incursion did not altogether stamp

out Aegean civilization, at least in the southern part of its

area. But it finally destroyed the Cnossian palace and initiated

the ``Geometric'' Age, with which, for convenience at any

rate, we may close the history of Aegean civilization proper.

(2) Annals.--From these and other data the outlines of

primitive history in the Aegean may be sketched thus. A

people, agreeing in its prevailing skull-forms with the

Mediterranean race of N. Africa, was settled in the Aegean

area from a remote Neolithic antiquity, but, except in

Crete, where insular security was combined with great natural

fertility, remained in a savage and unproductive condition

until far into the 4th millennium B.C. In Crete, however,

it had long been developing a certain civilization, and at a

period more or less contemporary with Dynasties XI. and XII.

(2500 B.C.?) the scattered communities of the centre of the

island coalesced into a strong monarchical state, whose capital

was at Cnossus. There the king, probably also high priest

of the prevailing nature-cult, built a great stone palace,

and received the tribute of feudatories, of whom, probably,

the prince of Phaestus, who commanded the Messara plain, was

chief. The Cnossian monarch had maritime relations with Egypt,

and presently sent his wares all over the S. Aegean (e.g.

to Melos in the earlier Second City Period of Phylakope) and

to Cyprus, receiving in return such commodities as Melian

obsidian knives. A system of pictographic writing came into

use early in this Palace period, but only a few documents,

made of durable material, have survived. Pictorial art of a

purely indigenous character, whether on ceramic material or

phster, made great strides, and from ceramic forms we may

legitimately infer also a high skill in metallurgy. The

absence of fortifications both at Cnossus and Phaestus suggest

that at this time Crete was internally peaceful and externally

secure. Small settlements, in very close relation with the

capital, were founded in the east of the island to command

fertile districts and assist maritime commerce. Gournia and

Palaikastro fulfilled both these ends: Zakro must have had mainly

a commercial purpose, as the starting-point for the African

coast. The acme of this dominion was reached about the end

of the 3rd millennium B.C., and thereafter there ensued a

certain, though not very serious, decline. Meanwhile, at

other favourable spots in the Aegean, but chiefly, it appears,

on sites in easy relation to maritime commerce, e.g. Tiryns

and Hissarlik, other communities of the early race began to

arrive at civilization, but were naturally influenced by the

more advanced culture of Crete, in proportion to their nearness

of vicinity. Early Hissarlik shows less Cretan influence

and more external (i.e. Asiatic) than early Melos. The

inner Greek mainland remained still in a backward state.

Five hundred years later--about 1600 B.C.----we observe

that certain striking changes have taken place. The Aegean

remains have become astonishingly uniform over the whole

area; the local ceramic developments have almost ceased and

been replaced by ware of one general type both of fabric

and decoration. The Cretans have stayed their previous

decadence, and are once more possessors of a progressive

civilization. They have developed a more convenient and

expressive written character by stages of which one is best

represented by the tablets of Hagia Triada. The art of all

the area gives evidence of one spirit and common models; in

religious representations it shows the same anthropomorphic

personification and the same ritual furniture. Objects produced

in one locality are found in others. The area of Aegean

intercourse has widened and become more busy. Commerce with

Egypt, for example, has increased in a marked degree, and

Aegean objects or imitations of them are found to have begun

to penetrate into Syria, inland Asia Minor, and the central

and western Mediterranean lands, e.g. Sicily, Sardinia and

Spain. There can be little doubt that a strong power was

now fixed in one Aegean centre, and that all the area had

come under its political, social and artistic influence.

How was this brought about, and what was the imperial centre?

Some change seems to have come from the north; and there are

those who go so far as to say that the centre henceforward

was the Argolid, and especially ``golden'' Mycenae, whose

lords imposed a new type of palace and a modification of

Aegean art on all other Aegean lands. Others again cite the

old established power and productivity of Crete; the immense

advantage it derived from insularity, natural fertility and

geographical relation to the wider area of east Mediterranean

civilizations; and the absence of evidence elsewhere for the

gradual growth of a culture powerful enough to dominate the

Aegean, They point to the fact that, even in the new period,

the palm for wealth and variety of civilized production still

remained with Crete. There alone we have proof that the art

of writing was commonly practised, and there tribute-tallies

suggest an imperial organization; there the arts of painting

and sculpture in stone were most highly developed; there the

royal residences, which had never been violently destroyed,

though remodelled, continued unfortified; whereas on the

Greek mainland they required strong protective works. The

golden treasure of the Mycenae graves, these critics urge, is

not more splendid than would have been found at Cnossus had

royal burials been spared by plunderers, or been happened upon

intact by modern explorers. It is not impossible to combine

these views, and place the seat of power still in Crete,

but ascribe the renascence there to an influx of new blood

from the north, large enough to instil fresh vigour, but too

small to change the civilization in its essential character.

If this dominance was Cretan, it was short-lived. The

security of the island was apparently violated not long after

1500 B.C., the Cnossian palace was sacked and burned, and

Cretan art suffered an irreparable blow. As the comparatively

lifeless character which it possesses in the succeeding period

(III. 3) is coincident with a similar decadence all over the

Aegean area, we can hardly escape from the conclusion that

it was due to the invasion of all the Aegean lands (or at

least the Greek mainland and isles) by some less civilized

conquerors, who remained politically dominant, but, like

their forerunners, having no culture of their own, adopted,

while they spoiled, that which they found. Who these were

we cannot say; but the probability is that they too came from

the north, and were precursors of the later ``Hellenes.''

Under their rule peace was re-established, and art production

became again abundant among the subject population, though

of inferior quality. The Cnossian palace was re-occupied in

its northern part by chieftains WHO have left numerous rich

graves; and general commercial intercourse must have been

resumed, for the uniformity of the decadent Aegean products

and their wide distribution become more marked than ever.

About 1000 B.C. there happened a final catastrophe. The

palace at Cnossus was once more destroyed, and never rebuilt or

re-inhabited. Iron took the place of Bronze, and Aegean

art, as a living thing, ceased on the Greek mainland and

in the Aegean isles including Crete, together with Aegean

writing. In Cyprus, and perhaps on the south-west Anatolian

coasts, there is some reason to think that the cataclysm was

less complete, and Aegean art continued to languish, cut off

from its fountain-head. Such artistic faculty as survived

elsewhere issued in the lifeless geometric style which is

reminiscent of the later Aegean, but wholly unworthy of

it. Cremation took the place of burial of the dead. This

great disaster, which cleared the ground for a new growth

of local art, was probably due to yet another incursion of

northern tribes, more barbarous than their predecessors, but

possessed of superior iron weapons---those tribes which later

Greek tradition and Homer knew as the Dorians. They crushed

a civilization already hard hit; and it took two or three

centuries for the artistic spirit, instinct in the Aegean area,

and probably preserved in suspended animation by the survival

of Aegean racial elements, to blossom anew. On this conquest

seems to have ensued a long period of unrest and popular

movements, known to Greek tradition as the Ionian Migration

and the Aeolic and Dorian ``colonizations''; and when once more

we see the Aegean area clearly, it is dominated by Hellenes,

though it has not lost all memory of its earlier culture.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Much of the evidence is contained in

archaeological periodicals, especially Annual of the British

School at Athens (1900--); Monumenti Antichi and Rendiconti

d. R. Ac. d. Lincei (1901--); Ephemeris Archaiologike

(1885- ); Journal of Hellenic Studies, Athenische

Mittheilungen, Bulletin de correspondance hellenique,

American Journal of Archaeology, &c. (all since about 1885).

SPECIAL WORKS: H. Schliemann's books (see SCHLIEMANN),

summarized by C. Schuchhardt, Schliemann's Excavations

(1891); Chr. Tsountas, Mukenai (1893); Chr. Tsountas and

J. I. Manatt, the Mycenaean Age (1897); G. Perrot and Ch.

Chipiez, Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquite, vol. vi.

(1895); W. Dorpfeld, Troja (1893) and Troja und Ilios

(1904); A. Furtwangler and G. Loschke, Mykenische

Vasen (1886); A. S. Murray, Excavations in Cyprus

(1900); W. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece (1901 foll.);

H. R. Hall, The Oldest Civilization of Greece (1901);

A. J. Evans, ``Mycenaean Tree and Pillar Cult'' in Journ.

Hell. Studies (1901) and ``Prehistoric Tombs of Knossos,' in

Archaeologia (1905) F. Noack, Homerische Palaste (1903);

Excavations at Phylakopi, by members of the British School

at Athens (1904); Harriet A. Boyd (Mrs Hawes), Excavations

at Gournia (1901) . D. G. Hogarth, ``Aegean Religion'' in

Hastings' Dict. of Religions (1906) For a recent view of

the place of Aegean civilization in the history of Hellenic

culture see Die Hellenische Kultur by F. Baumgarten, &c.

(1905). Various summaries, controversial articles, &c., formerly

quoted, are now superseded by recent discoveries. See also

CRETE, MYCENAE, TROAD, CERAMICS, PLATE, &c. (D. G. H.)

AEGEAN SEA, a part of the Mediterranean Sea, being the

archipelago between Greece on the west and Asia Minor on the east,

bounded N. by European Turkey, and connected by the Dardanelles

with the Sea of Marmora, and so with the Black Sea. The name

Archipelago (q.v.) was formerly applied specifically to this

sea. The origin of the namo Aegean is uncertain. Various

derivations are given by the ancient grammarians--one from

the town of Aegae; another from Aegea, a queen of the Amazons

who perished in this sea; and a third from Aegeus, the father

of Theseus, who, supposing his son dead, drowned himself in

it. The following are the chief islands: Thasos, in the

extreme north, off the Macedonian coast; Samothrace, fronting

the Gulf of Saros; Imbros and Lemnos, in prolongation of the

peninsula of Gallipoli ( Thracian Chersonese); Euboea, the

largest of all, lying close along the east coast of Greece;

the Northern Sporades, including Sciathos, Scopelos and

Halonesos, running out from the southern extremity of the

Thessalian coast, and Scyros, with its satellites, north-east

of Euboea; Lesbos and Chios; Samos and Nikaria; Cos, with

Calymnos to the north; all off Asia Minor, with the many

other islands of the Sporades; and, finally, the great group

of the Cyclades, of which the largest are Andros and Tenos,

Naxos and Paros. Many of the Aegean islands, or chains of

islands, are actually prolongations of promontories of the

mainland. Two main chains extend right across the sea---the

one through Scyros and Psara (between which shallow banks

intervene) to Chios and the hammer-shaped promontory east of

it; and the other running from the southeastern promontory

of Euboea and continuing the axis of that island, in a

southward curve through Andros, Tenos, Myconos, Nikaria and

Samos. A third curve, from the south easternmost promontory

of the Peloponnese through Cerigo, Ctete, Carpathos and

Rhodes, marks off the outer deeps of the open Mediterranean

from the shallow seas of the archipelago, but the Cretan

Sea, in which depths occur over 1000 fathoms, intervenes,

north of the line, between it and the Aegean proper. The

Aegotu itself is naturally divided by the island-chains and

the ridges from which they rise into a series of basins or

troughs, the 8leepest of which is that in the north, extending

from the coast of Thessaly fo the Gulf of Saros, and demarcated

southward by the Northern Sporades, Lemnos, Imbros and the

peninsula of Gallipoli. The greater part of ths trough is

over 600 fathoms deep. The profusion of islands and their

usually bold elevation give beauty and picturesqueness to

the sea, but its navigation is difficult and dangerous,

notwithstanding the large number of safe and commodious gulfs and

bays. Many of the islands are of volcanic formation; and

a well-defined volcanic chain bounds the Cretan Sea on the

north, including Milo and foimolos, Santorin (Thera) and

Therasia, and extends to Nisyros. Others, such as Paros, are

mainly composed of marble, and iron ore occurs in some. The

larger islands have some fertile and well-watered valleys and

plains. The chief productions are wheat, wine, oil, mastic,

figs, raisins, honey, wax, cotton and silk. The people are

employed in fishing for coral and sponges, as well as for

bream, mullet and other fish. The men are hardy, well built

and handsome; and the women are noted for their beauty, the

ancient Greek type being well preserved. The Cyclades and

Northern Sporades, with Euboea and small islands under the

Greek shore, belong to Greece; the other islands to Turkey.

AEGEUS, in Greek legend, son of Pandion and grandson of Cecrops,

was king of Athens and the father of Theseus. He was deposed

by his nephews, but Theseus defeated them and reinstated his

father. When Theseus set out for Crete to deliver Athens from

the tribute to the Minotaur he promised Aegeus that, if he were

successful, he would change the black sail carried by his ship

for a white one. But, on his return, he forgot to hoist the

white sail, and his father, supposing that his son had lost his

life, threw himself from a high rock on which he was, keeping

watch into the sea, which was afterwards called the Aegean.

The Athenians honoured him with a statue and a shrine, and one

of the Attic demes was named after him. Plutarch, Theseus;

Pausanias i. 22; Hyginus, Fab. 43; Catullus lxiv. 207.

AEGINA (EGINA or ENGIA), an island of Greece in the Saronic

Gulf, 20 m. from the Peiraeus Tradition derives the name from

Aegina, the mother of Aeacus, who was born in and ruled the

island. In Shape Aegina is triangular, 8 m. long from

N.W. to S.E., and 6 m. broad, with an area of about 41 sq.

m. The western side consists of stony but fertile plains,

which are well cultivated and produce luxuriant crops of

grain, with some cotton, vines, almonds and figs. The rest

of the island is rugged and mountainous. The southern end

rises in the conical Mount Oros, and the Panhellenian ridge

stretches northward with narrow fertile valleys on either

side. From the absence of marshes the climate is the most

healthy in Greece. The island forms part of the modern

Uomos of Attica and Boeotia, of which it forms an eparchy.

The sponge fisheries are of considerable importance. The

chief town is Aegina, situated at the north-west end of the

island, the summer residence of many Athenian merchants. Capo

d'Istria, to whom there is a statue in the principal square,

erected there a large building, intended for a barracks,

which was subsequently used as a museum, a library and a

school. The museum was the first institution of its kind in

Greece, but the collection was transferred to Athens in 1834.

Antiquities.--The archaeological interest of Aegina is

centred in the well-known temlple on the ridge near the northern

corner of the island. Excavations were made on its site in

1811 by Baron Haller von Hallerstein and the English architect

C. R. Cockerell, who discovered a considerable amount of

sculpture from the pediments, which was bought in 1812 by the

crown prince Louis of Bavaria; the groups were set up in the

Glyptothek at Munich after the figures had been restored by B.

Thorvaldsen. Their restoration was somewhat drastic, the ancient

parts being cut away to allow of additions in marble, and the

new parts treated in imitation of the ancient weathering.

Various conjectures were made as to the arrangement of the

figures. That according to which they were set up at Munich

was in the main suggested by Cockerell; in the middle of each

pediment was a figure of Athena, set well back, and a fallen

warrior at her feet; on each side were standing spearmen, kneel

ing spearmen and bowmen, all facing towards the centre of the

composition; the corners were filled with fallen warriors. In

1901 Professor Furtwangler began a more systematic excavation

of the site, and the new discoveries he then made, together

with a fresh and complete study of the figures and fragments

in Munich, have led to a rearrangement of the whole, which,

if not certain in all details, may be regarded as approaching

finality. According to this the figures of combatants do not

all face towards the centre, but are broken up, as in other

early compositions, into a series of groups of two or three

figures each. A figure of Athena still occupies the centre

of each pediment, but is set farther forward than in the old

reconstruction. On each side of this, in the western pediment,

is a group of two combatants over a fallen warrior; in the

eastern pediment, a warrior whose opponent is falling into the

arms of a supporting figure; other figures also--the bowmen

especially---face towards the angles, and so give more variety

to the composition. The western pediment, which is more

conservative in type, represents the earlier expedition of

Heracles and Telamon against Troy; the eastern, which is bolder

and more advanced, probably refers to episodes in the Trojan

war. There are also remains of a third pediment, which may

have been produced in competition, but never placed on the

temple. For the character of the sculptures see GREEK ART. The

plan of the temple is chiefly remarkable for the unsymmetrically

placed door leading from the back of the cella into the

opisthodomus. This opisthodomus was completely fenced in

with bronze gratings; and the excavators believe it to have

been adapted for use as an adytum (shrine). It was disputed

in earlier times whether the temple was dedicated to Zeus or

Athena. Inscriptions found by the recent excavations seem to

prove that it must be identified as the shrine of the local goddess

Aphaea, identified by Pausanias with Britomartis and Dictynna.

The excavations have laid bare several other buildings,

including an altar, early propylaea, houses for the

priests and remains of an earlier temple. The present

temple probably dates from the time of the Persian wars.

In the town of Aegina itself are the remains of another

temple, dedicated to Aphrodite; one column of this still

remains standing, and its foundations are fairly preserved.

AUTHORITIES.--Antiquities of Ionia (London, 1797), ii. pl.

ii.-vii.; C. R. Cockerell, The Temples of Jupiter Panhellenius at

Aegina, &c. (London, 186O); Ch. Gareier, Le Temple de Jupiter

Panhellenien a Egine (Paris, 1884); Ad. Furtwangler and

others, Aegina, Heiligtum der App Munich, 1906), where

earlier authorities are collected and discussed. (E. GR.)

History.--(1) Ancient. Aegina, according to Herodotus (v.

83), was a colony of Epidaurus, to which state it was originally

subject. The discovery in the island of a number of gold

ornaments belonging to the latest period of Mycenaean art

suggests the inference that the Mycenaean culture held its own

in Aegina for some generations after the Dorian conquest of

Argos and Lacedaemon (see A. J. Evans, in Journal of Hellenic

Studies, vol. xiii. p. 195). It is probable that the island

was not dorized before the 9th century B.C. One of the

earliest facts known to us in its history is its membership

in the League of Cabauria, which included, besides Aegina,

Athens, the Minyan (Boeotian) Orchomenos, Troezen, Hermione,

Nauplia and Prasiae, and was probably an organization of states

which were still Mycenaean, for the oppression of the piracy

which had sprung up in the Aegean as a result of the decay

of the naval supremacy of the Mycenaean princes. It follows,

therefore, that the maritime importance of the island dates back

to pre-Dorian times. It is usually stated on the authority of

Ephorus, that Pheidon (q.v.) of Argos established a mint in

Aegina. Though this statement is probably to be rejected,

it may be regarded as certain that Aegina was the first state

of European Greece to coin money. Thus it was the Aeginetans

who, within thirty or forty years of the invention of coinage

by the Lydians (c. 700 B.C.), introduced to the western

world a system of such incalculable value to trade. The fact

that the Aeginetan scale of coins, weights and measures was

one of the two scales in general use in the Greek world is

sufficient evidence of the early commercial importance of the

island. It appears to have belonged to the Eretrian league;

hence, perhaps, we may explain the war with Samos, a leading

member of the rival Chalcidian league in the reign of King

Amphicrates (Herod. iii. 59), i.e. not later than the

earlier half of the 7th century B.C. In the next century

Aegina is one of the three principal states trading at the

emporium of Naucratis (q.v.), and it is the only state of

European Greece that has a share in this factory (Herod. ii.

178). At the beginning of the 5th century it seems to have

been an entrepot of the Pontic grain trade, at a later date

an Athenian monopoly (Herod. vii. 147). Unlike the other

commercial states of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., e.g.

Corinth, Chalcis, Eretria and Miletus, Aegina founded no

colonies. The settlements to which Strabo refers (viii. 376)

cannot be regarded as any real exceptions to this statement.

The history of Aegina, as it has come down to us, is almost

exclusively a history of its relations with the neighbouring

state of Athens. The history of these relations, as recorded

by Herodotus (v. 79-89; vi. 49-51, 73, 85-94), involve

critical problems of some difficulty and interest. He

traces back the hostility of the two states to a dispute

about the images of the goddesses Damia and Auxesia, which

the Aeginetans had carried off from Epidaurus, their parent

state. The Epidaurians had been accustomed to make annual

offerings to the Athenian deities Athena and Erechtheus in

payment for the Athenian olive-wood of which the statues were

made. Upon the refusal of the Aeginetans to continue these

offerings, the Athenians endeavoured to carry away the images.

Their design was miraculously frustrated---according to the

Aeginetan version, the statues fell upon their knees---and only

a single survivor returned to Athens, there to fall a victim

to the fury of his comrades' widows, who pierced him with their

brooch-pins. No date is assigned by Herodotus for this ``old

feud''; recent writers, e.g. J. B. Bury and R. W. Macan,

suggest the period between Solon and Peisistratus, c. 570

B.C.. It may be questioned, however, whether the whole

episode is not mythical. A critical analysis of the narrative

seems to reveal little else than a series of aetiological

traditions (explanatory of cults and customs, e.g. of the

kneeling posture of the images of Damia and Auxesia, of the

use of native ware instead of Athenian in their worship, and

of the change in women's dress at Athens from the Dorian to

the Ionian style. Thc account which Herodotus gives of the

hostilities between the two states in the early years of the

5th century B.C. is to the following effect. Thebes, after

the defeat by Athens about 507 B.C., appealed to Aegina for

assistance. The Aeginetans at first contented themselves

with sending the images of the Aeacidae, the tutelary heroes

of their island. Subsequently, however, they entered into an

alliance, and ravaged the sea-board of Attica. The Athenians

were preparing to make reprisals, in spite of the advice of

the Delphic oracle that they should desist from attacking

Aegina for thirty years, and content themselves meanwhile

with dedicating a precinct to Aeacus, when their projects were

interrupted by the Spartan intrigues for the restoration of

Hippias. In 401 B.C. Aegina was one of the states which gave

the symbols of submission (``earth and water'') to Persia.

Athens at once appealed to Sparta to punish this act of medism,

and Cleomenes I. (q.v.), one of the Spartan kings, crossed

over to the island, to arrest those who were responsible for

it. His attempt was at first unsuccessful; but, after the

deposition of Demaratus, he visited the island a second

time, accompanied by his new colleague Leotychides, seized

ten of the leading citizens and deposited them at Athens as

hostages. After the death of Cleomenes and the refusal of

the Athenians to restore the hostages to Leotychides, the

Aeginetans retaliated by seizing a number of Athenians at a

festival at Sunium. Thereupon the Athenians concerted a plot

with Nicodromus, the leader of the democratic party in the

island, for the betrayal of Aegina. He was to seize the old

city, and they were to come to his aid on the same day with

seventy vessels. The plot failed owing to the late arrival

of the Athenian force, when Nicodromus had already fled the

island. An engagement followed in which the Aeginetans were

defeated. Subsequently, however, they succeeded in winning

a victory over the Athenian fleet. Alf the incidents

subsequent to the appeal of Athens to Sparta are expressly

referred by Herodotus to the interval between the sending

of the heralds in 491 B.C. and the invasion of Datis and

Artaphernes in 490 B.C. (cf. Herod. vi. 49 with 94). There

are difficulties in this story, of which the following are

the principal:--(i.) Herodotus nowhere states or implies that

peace was concluded between the two states before 481 B.C.,

nor does he distinguish between different wars during this

period. Hence it would follow that the war lasted from

shortly after 507 B.C. down to the congress at the Isthmus

of Corinth in 481 B.C. (ii.) It is only for two years

(490 and 491) out of the twenty-five that any details are

given. It is the more remarkable that no incidents are

recorded in the period between Marathon and Sabamis, seeing

that at the time of the Isthmian Congress the war is described

as the most important one then being waged in Greece (Herod.

vii. 145). (iii.) It is improbable that Athens would have

sent twenty vessels to the aid of the Ionians in 498 B.C.

if at the time she was at war with Aegina. (iv.) There is

an incidental indication of time, which points to the period

after Marathon as the true date for the events which are

referred by Herodotus to the year before Marathon, viz. the

thirty years that were to elapse between the dedication of

the precinct to Aeacus and the final victory of Athens (Herod.

v. 89). As the final victory of Athens over Aegina was in 458

B.C., the thirty years of the oracle would carry us back

to the year 488 B.C. as the date of the dedication of the

precinct and the outbreak of hostilities. This inference

is supported by the date of the building of the 200 triremes

``for the war against Aegina'' on the advice of Themistocles,

which is given in the Constitutiom of Athens as 483-482

B.C. (Herod. vii. 144; Ath. Pol. r2. 7). It is probable,

therefore, that Herodotus is in error both in tracing back

the beginning of hostilities to an alliance between Thebes and

Aegina (c. 507) and in putting the episode of Nicodromus before

Marathon. Overtures were unquestionably made by Thebes for

an alliance with Aegina c. 507 B.C., but they came to

nothing. The refusal of Aegina was veiled under the diplomatic

form of ``sending the Aeacidae.'' The real occasion of the

outbreak of the war was the refusal of Athens to restore the

hostages some twenty years later. There was but one war, and

it lasted from 488 to 481. That Athens had the worst of it in

this war is certain. Herodotus had no Athenian victories to

record after the initial success, and the fact that Themistocles

was able to carry his proposal to devote the surplus funds of

the state to the building of so large a fleet seems to imply

that the Athenians were themselves convinced that a supreme

effort was necessary. It may be noted, in confirmation of

this view, that the naval supremacy of Aegina is assigned by

the ancient writers on chronology to precisely this period,

i.e. the years 490-480 (Eusebius, Chron. Can. p. 337).

In the repulse of Xerxes it is possible that the Aeginetans

played a larger part than is conceded to them by Herodotus.

The Athenian tradition, which he follows in the main, would

naturally seek to obscure their services. It was to Aegina

rather than Athens that the prize of valour at Salamis was

awarded, and the destruction of the Persian fleet appears to

have been as much the work of the Aeginetan contingent as of

the Athenian (Herod. viii. 91). There are other indications,

too, of the importance of the Aeginetan fleet in the Greek

scheme of defence. In view of these considerations it becomes

difficult to credit the number of the vessels that is assigned

to them by Herodotus (30 as against 180 Athenian vessels,

cf. GREEK HISTORY, sect. Authorities). During the

next twenty years the Philo-laconian policy of Cimon (q.v.)

secured Aegina, as a member of the Spartan league, from

attack. The change in Athenian foreign policy, which was

consequent upon the ostracism of Cimon in 461, led to what

is sometimes called the First Peloponnesian War, in which

the brunt of the fighting fell upon Corinth and Aegina.

The latter state was forced to surrender to Athens after a

siege, and to accept the position of a subject-ally (c. 456

B.C.). The tribute was fixed at 30 talents. By the terms

of the Thirty Years' Truce (445 B.C.) Athens covenanted to

restore to Aegina her autonomy, but the clause remained a dead

letter. In the first winter of the Peloponnesian War (431

B.C.) Athens expelled the Aeginetans, and established a

cleruchy in their island. The exiles were settled by Sparta in

Thyreatis, on the frontiers of Laconia and Argolis. Even in

their new home they were not safe from Athenian rancour.1 A

force landed under Nicias in 424, and put most of them to the

sword. At the end of the Peloponnesian War Lysander restored

the scattered remnants of the old inhabitants to the island,

which was used by the Spartans as a base for operations against

Athens in the Corinthian War. Its greatness, however, was at an

end. The part which it plays henceforward is insignificant.

It would be a mistake to attribute the fall of Aegina solely

to the development of the Athenian navy. It is probable that

the powor of Aegina had steadily declined during the twenty

years after Sabamis, and that it had declined absolutely,

as well as relatively, to that of Athens. Commerce was the

source of Aegina's greatness, and her trade, which appears

to have been principally with the Levant, must have suffered

seriously from the war with Persia. Her medism in 491 is

to be explained by her commercial relations with the Persian

Empire. She was forced into patriotism in spite of herself,

and the glory won by Salamis was paid for by the loss of

her trade and the decay of her marine. The completeness

of the ruin of so powerful a state--we should look in

vain for an analogous case in the history of the modern

world--finds an explanation in the economic conditions of

the island, the prosperity of which rested upon a basis of

slave-labour. It is impossible, indeed, to accept

Aristotle's (cf. Athenaeus vi. 272) estimate of 470,000 as the

1Pericles called Aegina the ``eye-sore'' (leme) of the Peiraeus.

number of the slave-population; it is clear, however, that

the number must have been out of all proportion to that of

the free inhabitants. In this respect the history of Aegina

does but anticipate the history of Greece as a whole. The

constitutional history of Aegina is unusually simple. So long

as the island retained its independence the government was an

oligarchy. There is no trace of the heroic monarchy and no

tradition of a tyrannis. The story of Nicodromus, while

it proves the existence of a democratic party, suggests,

at the same time, that it could count upon little support.

(2) Modern.---Aegina passed with the rest of Greece under

the successive dominations of Macedon, the Aetolians, Attalus

of Pergamum and Rome. In 1537 the island, then a prosperous

Venetian colony, was overrun and ruined by the pirate Barbarossa

(Khair-ed-Din). One of the last Venetian strongholds in the

Levant, it was ceded by the treaty of Passarowitz (1718)

to the Turks. In 1826-1828 the town became for a time

the capital of Greece and the centre of a large commercial

population (about 10,000), which has dwindled to about 4300.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.---Herodotus loc. cit.; Thucydides i. 105,

108, ii. 27, iv. 56, 57. For the criticism of Herodotus's

account of the relations of Athens and Aegina, Wilamowitz,

Aristoteles und Athen, ii. 280-288, is indispensable. See

also Macan, Herodotus iv.-vi., ii. 102-120. (E. M. W.)

AEGINETA, PAULUS, a celebrated surgeon of the island of

Aegina, whence he derived his name. According to Le Clerc's

calculation, he lived in the 4th century of the Christian era;

but Abulfaragius (Barhebraeus) places him with more probability

in the 7th. The title of his most important work, as given by

Suidas, is Epitomes 'Iatrikes Biblia 'Epta (Synopsis

of Medicine in Seven Books), the 6th book of which, treating

of operative surgery, is of special interest for surgical

history. The whole work in the original Greek was published at

Venice in 1528, and another edition appeared at Basel in 1538.

Several Latin translations have been published, and an excellent

English version, with commentary, by Dr F. Adams (1844-1848).

AEGIS (Gr. Aigis), in Homer, the shield or buckler of

Zeus, fashioned for him by Hephaestus, furnished with tassels

and bearing the Gorgon's head in the centre. Originally

symbolical of the storm-cloud, it is probably derived from

aisso, signifying rapid, violent motion. When the god

shakes it, Mount Ida is wrapped in clouds, the thunder rolls

and men are smitten with fear. He sometimes lends it to

Athene and (rarely) to Apollo. In the later story (Hyginus,

Poet. Astronom. ii. 13) Zeus is said to have used the

skin of the goat Amaltheia (aigis=goat-skin) which suckled

him in Crete, as a buckler when he went forth to do battle

against the giants. Another legend represents the aegis as a

fire-breathing monster like the Chimaera, which was slain by

Athene, who afterwards wore its skin as a cuirass (Diodorus

Siculus iii. 70) It appears to have been really the goat's

skin used as a belt to support the shield. When so used it

would generally be fastened on the right shoulder, and would

partially envelop the chest as it passed obliquely round in

front and behind to be attached to the shield under the left

arm. Hence, by transference, it would be employed to denote

at times the shield which it supported, and at other times a

cuirass, the purpose of which it in part served. In accordance

with this double meaning the aegis appears in works of art

sometimes as an animal's skin thrown over the shoulders and arms,

sometimes as a cuirass, with a border of snakes corresponding

to the tassels of Homer, usually with the Gorgon's head in the

centre. It is often represented on the statues of Roman

emperors, heroes and warriors, and on cameos and vases.

See F. G. Welcker, Griechische Gotterlehre (1857); L. Freller,

Griechische Mythologie, i. (1887); articles in Pauly-Wissowa's

Real Encyclopadie, Roscher's Lexikon der Mythologie

Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionnaire des Antiquites, and Smith's

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (3rd ed., 1890).

AEGISTHUS, in Greek legend, was the son of Thyestes by his Own

daughter Pelopia. Having been exposed by his mother to conceal her

shame, he was found by shepherds and suckled by a goat-whence his

name. His uncle Atreus, who had married Pelopia, took him to

Mycenae, and brought him up as his own son. When he grew up

Aegisthus slew Atreus, and ruled jointly with his father over

Mycenae, until they were deposed by Agamemnon on his return

from exile. After the departure of Agamemnon to the Trojan

war, Aegisthus seduced his wife Clytaemnestra (more correctly

Clytaemestra) and with her assistance slew him on his return.

Eight years later his murder was avenged by his son Orestes.

Homer, Od. iii. 263, iv. 517; Hyginus, Fab. 87.

AEGOSPOTAMI (i.e. ``Goat Streams''), a small creek issuing

into the Hellespont, N.E. of Sestos, the scene of the decisive

battle in 405 B.C. by which Lysander destroyed the last

Athenian armament in the Peloponnesian War (q.v.). The

township of that name, whose existence is attested by coins of

the 5th and 4th centuries, must have been quite insignificant.

AEFRIC, called the ``Grammarian'' (c. 955-1020?), English

abbot and author, was born about 955. He was educated in the

Benedictine monastery at Winchester under AEthelwold, who

was bishop there from 963 to 984. AEthelwold had Carried

on the tradition of Dunstan in his government of the abbey

of Abingdon, and at Winchester he continued his strenuous

efforts. He seems to have actually taken part in the work

of teaching. AElfric no doubt gained some reputation as a

scholar at Winchester, for when, in 987, the abbey of Cernel

(Cerne Abbas, Dorsetshire) was finished, he was sent by Bishop

AElfheah (Alphege), AEthelwold's successor, at the request of

the chief benefactor of the abbey, the ealdorman AEthelmaer, to

teach the Benedictine monks there. He was then in priest's

orders. AEthelmaer and his father AEthelweard were both

enlightened patrons of learning, and became AElfric's faithful

friends. It was at Cernel, and partly at the desire, it

appears, of AEthelweard, that he planned the two series

of his English homilies (ed. Benjamin Thorpe, 1844--1846,

for the AElfric Society), come piled from the Christian

fathers, and dedicated to Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury

(990-994). The Latin preface to the first series enumerates

some of AElfric's authorities, the chief of whom was Gregory the

Great, but the short hst there given by no means exhausts the

authors whom he consulted. In the preface to the first volume

he regrets that except for Alfred's translations Englishmen had

no means of learning the true doctrine as expounded by the Latin

fathers. Professor Earle (A.S. Literature, 1884) thinks

he aimed at correcting the apocryphal, and to modern ideas

superstitious, teaching of the earlier Blickling Homilies.

The first series of forty homilies is devoted to plain and

direct exposition of the chief events of the Christian year;

the second deals more fully with church doctrine and history,

AElfric denied the immaculate birth of the Virgin (Homilies,

ed. Thorpe, ii. 466), and his teaching on the Eucharist in the

Canons and in the Sermo de sacrificio in die pascae (ibid.

ii. 262 seq.) was appealed to by the Reformation writers as

a proof that the early English church did not hold the Roman

doctrine of transubstantiation.1 His Latin Grammar and

Glossary 2 were written for his pupils after the two books of

homilies. A third series of homilies, the Lives of the

Saints, dates from 906 to 997. Some of the sermons in the second

series had been written in a kind of rhythmical, alliterative

prose, and in the Lives of the Saints (ed. W. W. Skeat,

1881-1900, for the Early English Text Society) the practice is

so regular that most of them are arranged as verse by Professor

Skeat. By the wish of AEthelweard he also began a paraphrase

3 of parts of the Old Testament, but under protest, for the

stories related in it were not, he thought, suitable for simple

minds. There is no certain proof that he remained at Cernel.

It has been suggested that this part of his life was chiefly

spent at Winchester; but his writings for the patrons of

Cernel, and the fact that he wrote in 998 his Canons 4 as

a pastoral letter for Wulfsige, the bishop of Sherborne, the

diocese in which the abbey was situated, afford presumption

of continued residence there. He became in 1005 the first

abbot of Eynsham or Ensham, near Oxford, another foundation of

AEthelmaer's. After his elevation he wrote an abridgment

for his monks of AEthelwold's De consuetudine monachorum5,

adapted to their rudimentary ideas of monastic life; a letter

to Wulfgeat of Ylmandun6; an introduction to the study of the

Old and New Testaments (about 1008, edited by William L'Isle

in 1623); a Latin life of his master AEthelwold7; a pastoral

letter for Wulfstan, archbishop of York and bishop of Worcester,

in Latin and English; and an English version of Bede's De

Temporibus8. The Colloquium9, a Latin dialogue designed

to serve his scholars as a manual of Latin conversation, may

date from his life at Cernel. It is safe to assume that the

original draft of this, afterwards enlarged by his pupil,

AElfric Bata, was by AElfric, and represents what his own

scholar days were like. The last mention of AElfric Abbot,

probably the grammarian, is in a will dating from about 1020.

There have been three suppositions about AElfric. (1) He

was identified with AElfric (995--1005), archbishop of

Canterbury. This view was upheld by John Bale (III. Maj.

Bril. Scriptorum 2nd ed., Basel, 1557-1559; vol. i. p.

149, s.v, Alfric); by Humphrey Wanley (Catalogus librorum

septentrionalium, &c., Oxford, 1705, forming vol. ii. of

George Hickes's Antiquae literaturae septemtrionalis); by

Elizabeth Elstob, The English Saxon Homily on the Birthday

of St Gregory (1709; new edition, 1839); and by Edward Rowe

Mores, AElfrico, Dorobernensi, archiepiscopo, Commentarius

(ed. G. J. Thorkelin, 1789), in which the conclusions of earlier

writers on AElfric are reviewed. Mores made him abbot of St

Augustine's at Dover, and finally archbishop of Canterbury.

(2) Sir Henry Spelman, in his Concina . . .(1639, vol. i.

p. 583), printed the Canones ad Wulsinum episcopum, and

suggested AElfric Putta or Putto, archbishop of York, as the

author, adding some note of others bearing the name. The

identity of AElfric the grammarian with AElfric archbishop of

York was also discussed by Henry Wharton, in Anglia Sacra

(1691, vol. i. pp. 125-134), in a dissertation reprinted in

J. P. Migne's Patrologia (vol. 139, pp. 1459-70, Paris,

1853). (3) William of Malmesbuty (De gestis pontificum

Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, Rolls Series, 1870, p.

406) suggested that he was abbot of Malmesbury and bishop of

Crediton. The main facts of his career were finally

elucidated by Eduard Dietrich in a series of articles

contributed to C. W. Niedner's Zeitschrift fur historische

Theologie (vols. for 1855 and 1856, Gotha), which have

formed the basis of all subsequent writings on the subject.

Sketches of AElfric's career are in B. Ten Brink's Early

English Literature (to Wiclif) (trans. H. M. Kennedy,

New York, 1883, pp. 105-112), and by J. S. Westlake in The

Cambridge History of English Literature (vol. i., 1907, pp.

116-129). An excellent bibliography and account of the

critical apparatus is given in Dr R. Wulker's Grundriss

zur Geschichte der angelsachsischen Litteratur (Leipzig,

1885; pp. 452-480). See also the account by Professor Skeat

in Pt. iv. pp. 8-61 of his edition of the Lives of the

Saints, already cited, which gives a full account of the

MSS., and a discussion of AElfric's sources, with further

bibliographical references; and AElfric, a New Study of his

Life and Writings, by Miss C. L. White (Boston, New York and

London, 1898) in the ``Yale Studies in English.'' Alcuini

Interrogationes Sigewulfi Presebyteri in Genesin (ed. G.

E. McLean, Halle, 1883) is attributed to AElfric by its

editor. There are other isolated sermons and treatises by

AElfric, printed in vol. iii. of Grein's Bibl. v. A.S. Prosa.

1 See A Testimonie of Antiquitie, shewing the auncient

fayth in the Church of England touching the sacrament of

the body and bloude of the Lord here publikely preached,

printed by John Day (1567). It was quoted in John Foxe's

Actes and Monuments (ed. 1610)) 2 Ed. J. Zupitza in

Sammlung englischer Denkmaler (vol. i., Berlin, 1880).

3 Edited by Edward Thwaites as Heptateuchus (Oxford 1698);

modern edition in Grein's Bibliothek der A. S. Prosa (vol.

i. Cassel and Gottingen, 1872). See also B. Assmann, Abt

AElfric's . . . Esther (Halle, 1885), and Abt AElfric's Judith

(in Anglia, vol. x.). 4 Printed by Benjamin Thorpe in

Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (1840), with the

later pastoral for Wulfstan. 5 See E. Breck, A Fragment

of AElfric; translation of AEthelwold's De Consuetudine

Monachorum and its relation to other MSS. (Leipzig 1887).

6 Ilmington, on the borders of Warwickshire and Gloucestershire.

7 Included by J. Stevenson in the Chron. Monast. de Abingon

(vol. ii. pp. 253-266, Rolls Series, 1858). 8 See Oswald

Cockayne, Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft (vol. iii.,

1866, pp. xiv.-xix. and pp. 233 et. seq.) in the Rolls

Series. 9 See an article by J. Zupitza in the Zeitschrift

fur deutsches Altertum (vol. xix., new series, 1887).

AELIA CAPITOLINA, the city built by the emperor Hadrian,

A.D. 131, and occupied by a Roman colony, on the site of

Jerusalem (q.v.), which was in ruins when he visited his

Syrian dominions. Aelia is derived from the emperor's family

name, and Capilolina from that of Jupiter Capitolinus, to

whom a temple was built on the site of the Jewish temple.

AELIAN (AELIANUS TACTICUS), Greek military writer of

the 2nd century A.D., resident at Rome. He is sometimes

confused with Claudius Aelianus, the Roman writer referred to

below. Aelian's military treatise, Taktike Theoria, is

dedicated to Hadrian, though this is probably a mistake for

Trajan, and the date A.D. 106 has been assigned to it. It

is a handbook of Greek, i.e. Macedonian, drill and tactics

as practised by the Hellenistic successors of Alexander the

Great. The author claims to have consulted all the best

authorities, the chief of which was a lost treatise on the

subject by Polybius. Perhaps the chief value of Aelian's work

lies in his critical account of preceding works on the art of

war, and in the fulness of his technical details in matters of

drill. Critics of the 18th century---Guichard Folard and the

prince de Ligne--were unanimous in thinking Aelian greatly

inferior to Arrian, but both on his immediate successors, the

Byzantines, and on the Arabs, who translated the text for their

own use, Aelian exercised a great influence. The emperor Leo

VI. incorporated much of Aelian's text in his own work on the

military art. The Arabic version of Aelian was made about

1350. In spite of its academic nature, the copious details

to be found in the treatise rendered it of the highest value

to the army organizers of the 16th century, who were engaged

in fashioning a regular military system out of the semi-feudal

systems of previous generations. The Macedonian phalanx of

Aelian had many points of resemblance to the solid masses

of pikemen and the ``squadrons'' of cavalry of the Spanish

and Dutch systems, and the translations made in the 16th

century formed the groundwork of numerous books on drill and

tactics. Moreover, his works, with those of Xenophon,

Polybius, Aeneas and Arrian, were minutely studied by

every soldier of the 16th and 17th centuries who wished to

be master of his profession. It has been suggested that

Aellan was the real author of most of Arrian's Tactica,

and that the Taktike Theoria is a later revision of

this original, but the theory is not generally accepted.

The first edition of the Greek text is that of Robortelli

(Venice, 1552); the Elzevir text (Leiden, 1613) has

notes. The text in W. Rustow and H. Kochly's Gricchische

Kriegsschriftsteller (1855) is accompanied by a translation,

notes and reproductions of the original illustrations.

A Latin translation by Theodore Gaza of Thessalonica was

included in the famous collection Veteres de re mililari

scriptores (Rome and Venice, 1487, Cologne, 1528,

&c.). The French translation of Machault, included in his

Milices des Grecs et Romains (Paris, 1615) and entitled

De la Sergenterie des Grecs, a German translation from

Theodore Gaza (Cologne, 1524), and the English version of

Jo. B(ingham), which includes a drill-manual of the English

troops in the Dutch service, Tacticks of Aelian (London,

1616) are of importance in the military literature of the

period. A later French translation by Bouchard de Bussy.

La Milice des Grecs on Tactique d'Elien (Paris 1737 and

1757); Baumgartner's German translation in his incomplete

Sammlung aller Kriegsschriftsteller der Griechen (Mannheim and

Frankenthal, 1779), reproduced in 1786 as Von Schlachtordnungen,

and Viscount Dillon's English version (London, 1814) may

also be mentioned. See also R. Forster, Studien zu den

griechischen Taktikern (Hermes, xii., 1877, pp. 444-449);

F. Wustenfeld, Das Heerwesen der Muhammedaner und die

arabische Uebersetzung der Taktik des Aelianus (Gottingen,

1880); M. Jahns, Gesch. der Kriegswissenscharen, i. 95-97

(Munich, 1889); Rustow and Kochly, Gesch. des griechischen

Kriegswesens (1852). A. de Lort-Serignan, La Phalange

(1880); P. Serre, Etudes sur L'histoire militaire et

maritime des Grecs et des Romains (1887); K. K. Muller,

in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie (Stuttgart, 1894).

AELIAN (CLAUDIUS AELIANUS), Roman author and teacher of

rhetoric, born at Praeneste, flourished under Septimius Severus

and probably outlived Elagabalus (d. 222). He spoke Greek so

perfectly that he was called ``honey-tongued'' (meliglossos);

Although a Roman he preferred Greek authors, and wrote in Greek

himself. His chief works are: On the Nature of Animals,

curious and interesting stories of animal life, frequently

used to convey moral lessons (ed. Schneider, 1784; Jacobs,

1832); Various History-for the most part preserved only in

an abridged form--consisting mainly of anecdotes of men and

customs (ed. Lunemann, 1811). Both works are valuable for the

numerous excerpts from older writers. Considerable fragments

of two other works On Providence and Divine Manifestations

are preserved in Suidas; twenty Peasants' Letters, after the

manner of Alciphron but inferior, are also attributed to him.

Editio princeps of complete works by Gesner, 1556; Hercher,

1864-1866. English translation of the Various History only by Fleming,

1576, and Stanley, 1665; of the Letters by Quillard (French), 1895.

AELRED, AILRED, ETHELRED (1100-1166), English theologian,

historical writer and abbot of Rievaulx, was born at Hexham

about the year 1109. In his youth he was at the court of

Scotland as an attendant of Henry, son of David I. He was in

high favour with that sovereign, but renounced the prospect

of a bishopric to enter the Cistercian house of Rievaulx in

Yorkshire, which was founded in 1131 by Walter Espec. Here

AElred remained for some time as master of the novices, but

between the years 1142 and 1146 was elected abbot of Revesby in

Lincolnshire and migrated thither. In 1146 he became abbot of

Rievaulx. He led a life of the severest asceticism, and was

credited with the power of working miracles; owing to his

reputation the numbers of Rievaulx were greatly increased.

In 1164 he went as a missionary to the Picts of Galloway. He

found their religion at a low ebb, the regular clergy apathetic

and sensual, the bishop little obeyed, the laity divided by

tho family feuds of their rulers, unchaste and ignorant. He

induced a Galwegian chief to take the habit of religion, and

restored the peace of the country. Two years later he died

of a decline, at Rievaulx, in the fifty-seventh year of his

age. In the year 1191 he was canonized. His writings are

voluminous and have never been completely published. Amongst

them are homilies ``on the burden of Babylon in Isaiah'';

three books ``on spiritual friendship''; a life of Edward the

Confessor; an account of miracles wrought at Hexham, and the

tract called Relatio de Standardo. This last is an account

of the Battle of the Standard (1138), better blown than the

similar account by Richard of Hexham, but less trustworthy,

and in places obscured by a peculiarly turgid rhetoric.

See the Vita Alredi in John of Tynemouth's Nova Legenda

Anglie (ed. C. Horstmann, 1901, vol. i. p. 4i), whence it

was taken by Capgrave. From Capgrave the work passed into

the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum (Jan. ii p. 30). This life is

anonymous, but of an early date. The most complete printed

collection of AElred's works is in Migne's Patrologia

Latina, vol. cxcv.; but this does not include the Miracula

Hagulstatdensis Ecclesiae which are printed in J. Raine's

Priory of Hexham, vol. i. (Surtees Society, 1864).--A

complete list of works attributed to AElred is given in

T. Tanner's Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (1748), pp.

247,248. The Relatio de Standardo has been critically edited

by R. Howlett in Chronicles, &c., of Stephen, Henry II. and

Richard I., vol. iii. (Rolls Series, 1886). . (H. W. C. D.)

AEMILIA VIA, or AEMILIAN WAY. (1) A highroad of Italy,

constructed in 187 B.C. by the consul M. Aemilius Lepidus,

from whom it taves its name; it ran from Ariminum to Placentia,

a distance of 176 m. almost straight N.W., with the plain

of the Po (Padus) and its tributaries on the right, and the

Apennines on the left. The 79th milestone from Ariminum found

in the bed of the Phenus at Bononia records the restoration

of the road by Augustus from Ariminum to the river Trebia in

2 B.C. (Notiz. Scav., 1902, 539). The bridge by which

it crossed the Sillaro was restored by Trajan in A.D. 100

(Notizie degli Scavi, 1888, 621). The modern highroad

follows the ancient line, and some of the original bridges

still exist. After Augustus, the road gave its name to the

district which formed the eighth region of Italy (previously

known as Gallia or Provincia Ariminum), at first in popular

usage (as in Martial), but in official language as early

as the 2nd century; it is still in use (see EMILIA).

The district was bounded on the N. by the Padus, E. by the

Adriatic, S. by the river Crustumium (mod. Conca), and W.

by the Apennines and the Ira (mod. Staffora) at Iria (mod.

Voghera), and corresponds approximately with the modern district.

(2) A road constructed in 109 B.C. by the censor M.

Aemillus Scaurus from Vada Volaterrana and Luna to Vada Sabatia

and thence over the Apennines to Ilertona (Tortona), where

it joined the Via Postumia from Genua to Cremona. We must,

however (as Mommsen points out in C.I.L. v. p. 885), suppose

that the portion of the coast road from Vada Volaterrana to

Genua at least must have existed before the construction of

the Via Postumia in 148 B.C. Indeed Polybius (iii. 39. 8)

tells us (and this must refer to the time of the Gracchi if not

earlier) that the Romans had in his time built the coast road

from the Rhone to Carthago Nova; and it is incredible that the

coast road in Italy itself should not have been constructed

previously. It is, however, a very different thing to open

a road for traffic, and so to construct it that it takes

its name from that construction in perpetuity. (, As.)

AEMILIUS, PAULUS (PAOLO EMILIO ) (d. 1529), Italian

historian, was born at Verona. He obtained such reputation

in his own country that he was invited to France in the reign

of Charles VIII., in order to write in Latin the history

of the kings of France, and was presented to a canonry

in Notre Dame. He enjoyed the patronage and support of

Louis XII. He died at Paris on the 5th of May 1529. His

De Rebus gestis Francorum was translated into French in

1581, and has also been translated into Italian and German.

AENEAS, the famous Trojan hero, son of Anchises and Aphrodite,

one of the most important figures in Greek and Roman legendary

history. In Homer, he is represented as the chief bulwark

of the Trojans next to Hector, and the favourite of the gods,

who frequently interpose to save him from danger (Iliad, v.

311). The legend that he remained in the country after the

fall of Troy, and founded a new kingdom (Iliad, xx. 308;

Hymn to Aphrodite, 196) is now generally considered to be

of comparatively late origin. The story of his emigration is

post-Homeric, and set forth in its fullest development by

Virgil in the Aeneid. Carrying his aged father and household

gods on his back and leading his little son Ascanius by the

hand, he makes his way to the coast, his wife Creusa being

lost during the confusion of the flight. After a perilous

voyage to Thrace, Delos, Crete and Sicily (where his father

dies), he is cast up by a storm, sent by Juno, on the African

coast. Refusing to remain with Dido, queen of Carthage,

who in despair puts an end to her life, he sets sail from

Africa, and after seven years' wandering lands at the

mouth of the Tiber. He is hospitably received by Latinus,

king of Latium, is betrothed to his daughter Lavinia, and

founds a city called after her, Lavinium. Turnus, king of

Rutuli, a rejected suitor, takes up arms against him and

Latinus, but is defeated and slain by Aeneas on the river

Numicius. The story of the Aeneid ends with the death of

Turnus. According to (i. 1. 2), Aeneas, after reigning a few

years over Latium, is slain by the Rutuli; after the battle, his

body cannot be found, and he is supposed to have been carried

up to heaven. He receives divine honours, and is worshipped

under the name of Jupiter Indiges (Dionysius Halle. i. 64).

See J. A. Hild, La Legende d'Enee avant Vergile (1883);

F. Cauer, De Fabuls Graecis ad Romam conditum pertinentibus

(1884) and Die Romische Aeneassage, von Naevius bis

Vergilius (1886); G. Boissier, ``La Legende d'Enee'' in

Revue des Deux Mondes, Sept. 1883; A. Forstemann, Zur

Geschichte des Aeneasmythus (1894); articles in Pauly-Wissowa's

Realencyclopadie (new ed., 1894); Roscher's Lexicon

der Mythologie; Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionnaire des

antiquites; Preller's Griechische und romische Mythologie;

and especially Schwegler, Romische Geschichte (1867).

Romances.---The story of Aeneas, as a sequel to the legend of

Troy, formed the subject of several epic romances in the middle

ages. The Roman d'Eneas (c. 1160, or later), of uncertain

authorship (attributed by some to Benoit de Sainte-More),

the first French poem directly imitated from the Aeneid,

is a fairly close adaptation of the oriinal. The trouvere,

however, omits the greater part of the wanderings of Aeneas,

and adorns his narrative with gorgeous descriptions, with

accounts of the marvellous properties of beasts and stones,

and of single combats among the knights who figure in the

story. He also elaborates the episodes most attractive to

his audience, notably those of Dido and Aeneas and Lavinia,

the last of whom plays a far more important part than in the

Aeneid. Where possible, he substitutes human for divine

intervention, and ignores the idea of the glorification

of Rome and Augustus, which dominates the Virgilian epic.

On this work were founded the Eneide or Eneit (between

1180 and 1190) of Heinrich von Veldeke, written in Flemish

and now only extant in a version in the Thuringian dialect,

and the Eneydos, written by William Caxton in 1490. See

Eneas, ed. J. Salverdo de Grave (Halle, 1891); see also

A. Litteraire de la France, xix.; Veldeke's Encide, ed.

Ettmuller (Leipzig, 1852) and O. Behaghel (Heilbronn, 1882);

Eneydos, ed. F. J. Furnivall (1890). For Italian versions

see E. G. Parodi in Studi di filologia romanza (v. 1887).

AENEAS TACTICUS (4th century B.C.), one of the earliest

Greek writers on the art of war. According to Aelianus

Tacticus and Polybius, he wrote a number of treatises

(Upomnemata) on the subject; the only one extant deals with

the best methods of defending a fortified city. An epitome

of the whole was made by Cineas, minister of Pyrrhus, king of

Epirus. The work is chiefly valuable as containing a large

number of historical illustrations. Aeneas was considered by

Casaubon to have been a contemporary of Xenophon and identical

with the Arcadian general Aeneas of Stymphalus, whom Xenophon

(Hellenica, vii. 3) mentions as fighting at the battle

of Mantinea (362 B.C.). Editions in I. Casaubon's (1619),

Gronovius' (1670) and Ernesti's (1763) editions of Polybius;

also.separately, with notes, by J. C. Orelli (Leipzig,

1818). Other texts are those of W. Rustow and H. Kochly

(Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, vol. i. Leipzig, 183S)

and A. Hug, Prolegomena Critica ad Aeneae editionem (Zurich

University, 1874). See also Count Beausobre, Commentaires

sur la defense des places d'Aeneas (Amsterdam, 1757); A.

Hug, Aeneas von Stymphalos (Zurich, 1877); C. C. Lange,

De Aeneae commentario poliorcetico (Berlin, 1879); M. H.

Meyer, Observationes in Aeneam Tacticum (Halle, 1835) ;

Haase, in Jahns Jahrbuch, 1835, xiv. 1 ; Max Jahns, Gesch.

der Kriegswissenschaften, i. pp. 26-28 (Munich, 1889) ; Ad.

Bauer, in Zeitschrift fur allg. Geschichte, &c., 1886, i.;

T. H. Williams in American Journal of Philology, xxv. 4; E.

Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie (Stuttgart, 1894).

AENESIDEMUS, Greek philosopher, was born at Cnossus in Crete

and taught at Alexandria, probably during the first century

B.C. He was the leader of what is sometimes known as the third

sceptical school and revived to a great extent the doctrine

of Pyrrho and Timon. His chief work was the Pyrrhonian

Principles addressed to Lucius Tubero. His philosophy

consisted of four main parts, the reasons for scepticism and

doubt, the attack on causality and truth, a physical theory

and a theory of morality. Of these the two former are

important. The reasons for doubt are given in the form of

the ten ``tropes'': (1) different animals manifest different

modes of perception; (2) similar differences are seen among

individual men; (3) even for the same man, sense-given data are

self-contradictory, (4) vary from time to time with physical

changes, and (5) accord- ing to local relations; (6) and (7)

objects are known only in- directly through the medium of air,

moisture, &c., and are in a condition of perpetual change in

colour, temperature, size and motion; (8) all perceptions are

relative and interact one upon another; (9) Our impressions

become less deep by repetition and custom; and (10) all

men are brought up with different beliefs, under different

laws and social conditions. Truth varies infinitely under

circumstances whose relative weight cannot be accurately

gauged. There is, therefore, no absolute knowledge, for

every man has different perceptions, and, further, arranges

and groups his data in methods peculiar to himself; so

that the sum total is a quantity with a purely subjective

validity. The second part of his work consists in the attack

upon the theory of causality, in which he adduces almost

entirely those considerations which are the basis of modern

scepticism. Cause has no existence apart from the mind which

perceives; its validity is ideal, or, as Kant would have

said, subjective. The relation between cause and effect is

unthinkable. If the two things are different, they are

either simultaneous or in succession. If simultaneous, cause

is effect and effect cause. If not, since effect cannot

precede cause, cause must precede effect, and there must

be an instant when cause is not effective, that is, is not

itself. By these and similar arguments he arrives at

the fundamental principle of Scepticism, the radical and

universal opposition tion of causes; panti logo logos

antikeitai. Having reached this conclusion, he was able to

assimilate the physical theory of Heraclitus, as is explained

in the Hypotyposes of Sextus Empiricus. For admitting that

contraries co-exist for the perceiving subject, he was able

to assert the co-existence of contrary qualities in the same

object. Having thus disposed of the ideas of truth and

causality, he proceeds to undermine the ethical criterion,

and denies that any man can aim at Good, Pleasure or Happiness

as an absolute, concrete ideal. All actions are product

of pleasure and pain, good and evil. The end of ethical

endeavour is the conclusion that all endeavour is vain and

illogical. The main tendency of this destructive scepticism

is essentially the same from its first crystallization by

Aenesidemus down to the most advanced sceptics of to-day (ree

SCEPTICISM). For the immediate successors of Aenesidemus

see AGRIPPA, SEXTUS EMPIRICUS. See also CARNEADES and

ARCESILAUS. Of the Porroneioi logoi nothing remains; we

have, however, an analysis in the Myriobiblion of Photius.

See Zeller's History of Greek Philosophy; F. Saisset,

AEnesideme, Pascal, Kant; Ritter and Preller, sec. sec. 364-87O.

AEOLIAN HARP (Fr. harpe eolienne; Ger. Aolsharfe, Windharfe;

Ital. arpa d'Eolo), a stringed musical instrument, whose

name is derived from Aeolus, god of the wind. The aeolian

harp consists of a sound-box about 3 ft long, 5 in. wide,

and 3 in. deep, made of thin deal, or preferably of pine, and

having beech ends to hold the tuning-pins and hitch-pins.

A dozen or less catgut strings of different thickness, but

tuned in exact unison, and left rather slack, are attached

to the pins, and stretched over two narrow bridges of hard

wood, one at each end of the sound-board, which is generally

provided with two rose sound-holes. To ensure a proper

passage for the wind, another pine board is placed over the

strings, resting on pegs at the ends of the sound-board, or

on a continuation of the ends raised from 1 to 3 in. above the

strings. Kaufmann of Dresden and Heinrich Christoph Koch,

who improved the aeolian harp, introduced this contrivance,

which was called by them Windfang and Windflugel; the

upper board was prolonged beyond the sound-box in the shape

of a funnel, in order to direct the current of air on to the

strings. The aeolian harp is placed across a window so that

the wind blows obliquely across the strings, causing them to

vibrate in aliquot parts, i.e. (the fundamental note not

being heard) the half or octave, the third or interval of the

twelfth, the second Octave, and the third above it, in fact

the upper partials of the strings in regular succession. With

the increased pressure of the wind, the dissonances of the

11th and 13th overtones are heard in shrill discords, only

to give place to beautiful harmonies as the force of the wind

abates. The principle of the natural vibration of strings

by the pressure of the wind was recognized in ancient times;

King David, we hear from the Rabbinic records, used to

hang his kinnor (kithara) over his bed at night, when it

sounded in the midnight breeze. The same is related of St

Dunstan of Canterbury, who was in consequence charged with

sorcery. The Chinese at the present day fly kites of various

sizes, having strings stretched across apertures in the

paper, which produces the effect of an aerial chorus.

See Athanasius Kircher, Musurgia Universalis, where the aeolian

harp is first described (1602-1608), p. 148; Mathew Young, Bishop

of Clonfert, Enquiry into the Principal Phenomena of Sounds and

Musical Strings pp. 170-182 (London, 1784); Gottingen Pocket

Calendar (1792); Mendel's Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon,

article ``Aeolsharfe.', An illustration is given in Rees'

Encyclopedia, plates, vol. ii. Misc. pl. xxv (K. S.)

AEOLIS (AEOLIA), an ancient district of Asia Minor,

colonized at a very early date by Aeolian Greeks. The name was

applied to the coast from the river Hermus to the promontory

of Lecture, i.o. between Ionia to S. and Troas to N. The

Aeolians founded twelve cities on the mainland, including

Cyme, and numerous towns in Mytilene: they were said also

to have settled in the Troad and even within the Hellespont.

AEOLUS, in Greek mythology, according to Homer the son of

Hippotes, god and father of the winds, and ruler of the island of

Aeolia. In the Odyssey (x. I) he entertains Odysseus,

gives him a favourable wind to help him on his journey, and

a bag in which the unfavourable winds have been confined.

Out of curiosity. or with the idea that it contains valuable

treasures, Odysseus' companions open the bag; the winds escape

and drive them back to the island, whence Aeolus dismisses them

with bitter reproaches. According to Virgil, Aeolus dwells on

one of the Aeolian islands to the north of Sicily, Lipara or

Strongyle (Stromboll), where he keeps the winds imprisoned in

a vast cavern (Virgil, Aen. i. 52). Another genealogy makes

him the son of Poseidon and Arne, granddaughter of Hippotes,

and a descendant of Aeolus, king of Magnesia in Thessaly, the

mythical ancestor of the tribe of the Aeolians (Diodorus iv. 67).

AEON, a term often used in Greek (aion) to denote

an indefinite or infinite duration of time; and hence, by

metonymy, a being that exists for ever. In the latter sense

it was chiefly used by the Gnostic sects to denote those

eternal beings or manifestations which emanated from the

one incomprehensible and ineffable God. (See GNOSTICISM.)

AEPINUS, FRANZ ULRICH THEODOR (1724-1802), German natural

philosopher, was born at Rostock in Saxony on the 13th of December

1724. He was descended from John Aepinus (1499-1553), the

first to adopt the Greek form (aipernos) of the family name

Hugk or Huck, and a leading theologian and controversialist

at the time of the Reformation. After studying medicine for

a time, Franz Aepinus devoted himself to the physical and

mathematical sciences, in which he soon gained such distinction

that he was admitted a member of the Berlin academy of

sciences. In 1757 he settled in St Petersburg as member of

the imperial academy of sciences and professor of physics, and

remained there till his retirement in 1798. The rest of his

life was spent at Dorpat, where he died on the 10th of August

1802. He enjoyed the special favour of the empress Catherine

II., who appointed him tutor to her son Paul, and endeavoured,

without success, to establish normal schools throughout the

empire under his direction. Aepinus is best known by his

researches, theoretical and experimental, in electricity

and magnetism, and his principal work, Tentamen Theoriae

Electricitatis et Magnetismi, published at St Petersburg in

1759, was the first systematic and successful attempt to apply

mathematical reasoning to these subjects. He also published a

treatise, in 176I, De distributione caloris per tellurem,

and he was the author of memoirs on different subjects in

astronomy, mechanics, optics and pure mathematics, contained

in the journals of the learned societies of St Petersburg and

Berlin. His discussion of the effects of parallax in

the transit of a planet over the sun's disc excited great

interest, having appeared (in 1764) between the dates of the

two transits of Venus that took place in the 18th century.

AEQUI, an ancient people of Italy, whose name occurs

constantly in Livy,s first decade as hostile to Rome in the

first three Centuries of the city's existence. They occupied

the upper reaches of the valleys of the Anio, Tolenus and

Himella; the last two being mountain streams runing northward

to join the Nar. Their chief centre is said to have been

taken by the Romans about 484 B.C. (Diodorus xi. 40) and

again about ninety years later (id. xiv. 106), but they

were not finally subdued Until the end of the second Samnite

war (Livy ix. 45,; x. 1; Diod. xx. 101), when they seem to

have received a limited form of franchise (Cic. Off. i.

II, 35). All we know of their subsequent political condition

is that after the Social war the folk of Cliternia and Nersae

appear united in a res Publica Aequiculorum, which was a

municipium of the ordinary type (C.I.L. ix. p. 388). The

Latin colonies of Alba Fucens (304 B.C.) and Carsioll (298

B.C.) must have spread the use of Latin (or what passed as

such) all over the district; through it by the chief (and for

some time the only) route (Pia Valeria) to Luceria and the

south. Of the language spoken by the Aequi before the Roman

conquest we have no record; but since the Marsi (q.v.), who

lived farther east, spoke in the 3rd century B.C. a dialect

closely akin to Latin, and since the Hernici (q.v.), their

neighbours to the south-west, did the same, we have no ground

for separating any of these tribes from the Latian group

(see LATINI). If we could be certain of the origin of the

a in their name and of the relation between its shorter

and its longer form (note that the i in Aequicidus is

long--Virgil, Aen. vii. 74----which seems to connect it

with the locative of aequum ``a plain,'' so that it would

mean ``dwellers in the plain''; but in the historical period

they certainly lived mainly in the hills), we should know

whether they were to be grouped with the q or the p

dialects, that is to say, with Latin on the one hand, which

preserved an original q, or with the dialect of Velitrae,

commonly called Volscian (and the Volsci were the constant

allies of the Aequi), on the other hand, in which, as in the

Iguvine and Samnite dialects, an original q is changed into

p. There is no decisive evidence to show whether the q

in Latin aequus represents an Indo-European q as in Latin

quis, Umbro-Volsc. pis, or an Indo-European k+u as in

equus, Umb. ekvo-. The derivative adjective Aequicus

might be taken to range them with the Volsci rather than the

Sabini, but it is not clear that this adjective was ever used

as a real ethnicon; the name of the tribe is always Aeqai,

or Aequicoli. At the end of the Republican period the Aequi

appear, under the name Aequiculi or Aequicoh, organized as a

municipium, the territory of which seems to have comprised

the upper part of the valley of the Salto, still known as

Cicolano. It is probable, however, that they continued to

live in their villages as before. Of these Nersae (mod.

Nesce) was the most considerable. The polygonal terrace

walls, which exist in considerable numbers in the district,

are shortly described in Romische Mitteilungen (1903), 147

seq., but require further study. See further the articles

MARSI, VOLSCI, LATINI, and the references there given; the

place-names and other scanty records of the dialect are collected

by R. S. Conway. The Italic Dialects, pp. 300 ff. (R. S. C.)

AERARII (from Lat. aes, in its subsidiary sense of

``polltax''), originally a class of Roman citizens not included

in the thirty tribes of Servius Tullius, and subject to a

poll-tax arbitrarily fixed by the censor. They were (1)

the inhabitants of conquered towns which had been deprived

of local self-government, who possessed the jus eonubii

and ius commercii, but no political rights; Caere is said

to have been the first example of this (353 B.C.); hence

the expression ``in tabulas Caeritum referre'' came to mean

``to degrade to the status of an aerarius'': (2) full

citizens subjected to civil degradation (infamia) as the

result of following certain professions (e.g. acting),

of dishonourable acts in private life (e.g. bigamy) or of

conviction for certain crimes; (3) persons branded by the

censor. Those who were thus excluded from the tribes and

centuries had no vote, were incapable of filling Roman

magistracies and could not serve in the army. According to

Mommsen, the aerarii were originally the non-assidui

(non-holders of land), excluded from the tribes, the comitia

and the army. By a reform of the censor Appius Claudius

in 312 B.C. these non-assidui were admitted into the

tribes, and the aerarii as such disappeared. But in 304,

Fabius Rullianus limited them to the four city tribes, and

from that time the term meant a man degraded from a higher

(country) to a lower (city) tribe, but not deprived of the

right of voting or of serving in the army. The expressions

``tribu movere'' and ``aerarium facere,': regarded by Mommsen

as identical in meaning (``to degrade from a higher tribe

to a lower,'), are explained by A. H. J. Greenidge---the

first as relegation from a higher to a lower tribe or total

exclusion from the tribes, the second as exclusion from the

centuries. Other views of the original aerarii are that they

were--artisans and freedmen (Niebuhr); inhabitants of towns

united with Rome by a hospitium publicum, who had become

domiciled on Roman territory (Lange); only a class of degraded

citizens, including neither the cives sine suffragio nor

the artisans (Madvig); identical with the capite censi of

the Servian constitution (Belot, Greenidge). See A. H. J.

Greenidge, Infamia in Roman Law (1894), where Mommsen's theory

is criticized; E. Belot, Histoire des chevaliers romains,

i. p. 200 (Paris, 1866); L. Pardon, De Aerariis (Berlin,

1853); P. Willems, Le Droit public romain (1883); A. S.

Wilkins in Smith's Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities

(3rd ed., 189I); and the usual handbooks of antiquities.

AERARIUM (from Lat. aes, in its derived sense of ``money'')

the name (in full, aerarium stabulum, treasure-house) given

in ancient Rome to the public treasury, and in a secondary

sense to the public finances. The treasury contained the

moneys and accounts of the state, and also the standards of

the legions; the public laws engraved on brass, the decrees

of the senate and other papers and registers of importance.

These public treasures were deposited in the temple of

Saturn, on the eastern slope of the Capitoline hill, and,

during the republic, were in charge of the urban quaeators

(see QUAESTOR), under the superintendence and control of the

senate. This arrangement continued (except for the year 45

B.C., when no quaestors were chosen) until 28 B.C., when

Augustus transferred the aerarium to two praojecti aerarii,

chosen annually by the senate from ex-praetors; in 23 these

were replaced by two praetors (praetores aerarii or ad

aerarium), selected by lot during their term of office;

Claudius in A.D. 44 restored the quaestors, but nominated by

the emperor for three years, for whom Nero in 56 substituted

two ex-praetors, under the same conditions. In addition

to the common treasury, supported by the general taxes and

charged with the ordinary expenditure, there was a special

reserve fund, also in the temple of Saturn, the aerarium

sanctum (or sanctius), probably originally consisting of

the spoils of war, afterwards maintained chiefly by a 5% tax

on the value of all manumitted slaves, this source of revenue

being established by a lex Manlia in 357. This fund was not

to be touched except in cases of extreme necessity (Livy vii.

16, xxvii. 10). Under the emperors the senate continued to

have at least the nominal management of the aerarium, while

the emperor had a separate exchequer, called fiseus. But

after a time, as the power of the emperors increased and

their jurisdiction extended till the senate existed only in

form and name, this distinction virtually ceased. Besides

creating the fiscus, Augustus also established in A.D.

6 a military treasury (aerarium militare), containing all

moneys raised for and appropriated to the maintenance of the

army, including a pension fund for disabled soldiers. It.was

largely endowed by the emperor himself (see Monumentum

Ancyranum, iii. 35) and supported by the proceeds of the tax

on public sales and the succession duty. Its administration

was in the hands of three praefecti aerarii militaris, at

first appointed by lot, but afterwards by the emperor, from

senators of praetorian rank, for three years. The later

emperors had a separate aerarium privatum, containing

the moneys allotted for their own use, distinct from the

fiscus, which they administered in the interests of the empire.

The tribuni aerarii have been the subject of much

discussion. They are supposed by some to be identical with

the curatores tribuum, and to have been the officials

who, under the Servian organization, levied the war-tax

(tributum) in the tribes and the poil-tax on the aerarii

(q.v.). They also acted as paymasters of the equites and of

the soldiers on service in each tribe. By the lex Aurella

(70 B.C.) the list of judices was composed, in addition

to senators and equites, of tribuni aerarii. Whether these

were the successors of the above, or a new order closely

connected with the equites, or even the same as the latter, is

uncertain. According to Mommsen, they were persons who

possessed the equestrian census, but no public horse. They

were removed from the list of judices by Caesar, but replaced by

Augustus. According to Madvig, the original tribuni aerarii

were not officials at all, but private individuals of considerable

means, quite distinct from the curatores tribuuin, who

undertook certain financial work connected with their own

tribes. Then, as in the case of the equites, the term was

subsequently extended to include all those who possessed the

property qualification that would have entitled them to serve

as tribuni aerarii. See Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 29, with

Furneaux's notes; O. Hirschfeld, ``Das Aerarium militare in

der romischen Kaiserzeit,'' in Fleckeisen's Jahrbuch, vol.

xcvii. (1868); S. Herrlich, De Aerario et Fisco Romanorum

(Berlin, 1872); and the usual handbooks and dictionaries of

antiquities. On the tribuni aerarii see E. Belot, Hist.

des chevaliers romains, ii. p. 276; J. N. Madvig, Opuscula

Academica, ii. p. 242; J. B. Mispoulet, Les Institutions

politiques des Romains (1883), ii. p. 208; Mommsen,

Romisches Staatsrecht, iii. p. 189; A. S. Wilkins in Smith's

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (3rd ed., 1890).

AERATED WATERS. Waters charged with a larger proportion of

carbon dioxide than they will dissolve at ordinary atmospheric

pressure occur in springs in various parts of the world (see

MINERAL WATERS). Such waters, which also generally hold in

solution a considerable percentage of saline constituents,

early acquired a reputation as medicinal agents, and when

carbon dioxide (``fixed air'') became familiar to chemists the

possibility was recognized, as by Joseph Priestley (Directions

for impregnating water with fixed air . . . to communicate

the peculiar Spirit and Virtues of Pyrmont water, 1772),

of imitating them artificially. Many of the ordinary aerated

waters of commerce, however, do not pretend to reproduce any

known natural water; they are merely beverages owing their

popularity to their effervescing properties and the flavour

imparted by a small quantity of some salt such as sodium

bicarbonate or a little fruit syrup. Their manufacture on a

considerable scale was begun at Geneva so far back as 1790 by

Nicholas Paul, and the excellence of the soda water prepared

in London by J. Schweppe, who had been a partner of Paul's, is

referred to by Tiberius Cavallo in his Essay on the Medicinal

Properties of Factitious Airs, published in 1798. Many forms

of apparatus are employed for charging the water with the

gas. A simple machine for domestic use, called a gasogene or

seltzogene, consists of two strong glass globes connected

one above the other by a wide glass tube which rises nearly

to the top of the upper and smaller globe. Surmounting the

small globe there is a spring valve, fitted to a narrow tube

that passes through the wide tube to the bottom of the large

globe. To use the machine, the lower vessel is filled with

water, and in the upper one, round the base of the wide tube,

is placed a mixture, commonly of sodium bicarbonate and tartaric

acid, which with water yields carbon dioxide. The valve head

is then fastened on, and by tilting the apparatus some water is

made to flow through the wide tube from the lower to the upper

vessel. The water in the lower globe takes up the gas thus

produced, and when required for use is withdrawn by the

valve, being forced up the narrow tube by the pressure of the

gas. In another arrangement the gas is supplied compressed in

little steel capsules, and is liberated into a bottle containing

the water which has to be aerated. On a large scale, use is

made of continuously acting machinery which is essentially of

the type devised by Joseph Bramah. The gas is prepared in a

separate generator by the action of sulphuric acid on sodium

bicarbonate or whiting, and after being washed is collected

in a gas-holder, whence it is forced with water under pressure

into a receiver or saturator in which an agitator is kept

moving. Some manufacturers buy their gas compressed in steel

cylinders. The water thus aerated or carbonated passes

from the receiver, in which the pressure may be 100-200 lb. on

the square inch, to bottling machines which fill and close

the bottles; if beverages like lemonade are being made the

requisite quantity of fruit syrup is also injected into the

bottles, though sometimes the fruit syrup mixture is aerated in

bulk. For soda water sodium bicarbonate should be added to

the water before aeration, in varying proportions up to about

15 grains per pint, but the simple carbonated water often

does duty instead. Potash water, lithia water and many others

are similarly prepared, the various salts being used in such

amounts as are dictated by the experience and taste of the

manufacturer. Aerated waters are sent out from the factories

either in siphons (q.v.) or in bottles; the latter may be

closed by corks, or by screw-stoppers or by internal stoppers

consisting of a valve, such as a glass ball, held up against an

indiarubber ring in the neck by the pressure of the gas. For use

in ``soda-fountains'' the waters are sent out in large cylinders.

See W. Kirkby, Evolution of artificial Mineral Waters (Manchester, 1902).

AERONAUTICS, the art of ``navigating'' the ``air.'' It is

divisible into two main branches--aerostation, dealing properly

with machines which like balloons are lighter than the air,

and aviation, dealing with the problem of artificial flight

by means of flying machines which, like birds, are heavier

than the air, and also with attempts to fly made by human

beings by the aid of artificial wings fitted to their limbs.

Historically, aviation is the older of the two, and in the

legends of gods or myths of men or animals which are supposed

to have travelled through the air, such as Pegasus, Medea's

dragons and Daedalus, as well as in Egyptian bas-reliefs,

wings appear as the means by which aerial locomotion is

effected. In later times there are many stories of men who have

attempted to fly in the same way. John Wilkins (1614-1672),

one of the founders of the Royal Society and bishop of Chester,

who in 1640 discussed the possibility of reaching the moon by

volitation, says in his Mathematical Magick (1648) that

it was related that ``a certain English monk called Elmerus,

about the Confessor's time,'' flew from a town in Spain for

a distance of more than a furlong; and that other persons

had flown from St Mark's, Venice, and at Nuremberg. Giovanni

Battista Dante, of Perugia, is said to have flown several

times across Lake Trasimene. At the beginning of the 16th

century an Italian alchemist who was collated to the abbacy

of Tungland, in Galloway, Scotland, by James IV., undertook

to fly from the walls of Stirling Castle through the air to

France. He actually attempted the feat, but soon came to

the ground and broke his thigh-bone in the fall--an accident

which he explained by asserting that the wings he employed

contained some fowls' feathers, which had an ``affinity''

for the dung-hill, whereas if they had been composed solely

of eagles' feathers they would have been attracted to the

air. This anecdote furnished Dunbar, the Scottish poet, with

the subject of one of his rude satires. Leonardo da Vinci

about the same time approached the problem in a more scientific

spirit, and his notebooks contain several sketches of wings

to be fitted to the arms and legs. In the following century

a lecture on flying delivered in 1617 by Fleyder, rector of

the grammar school at Tubingen, and published eleven years

later, incited a poor monk to attempt to put the theory into

practice, but his machinery broke down and he was killed.

In Francis Bacon's Natural History there are two

passages which refer to flying, though they scarcely

bear out the assertion made by some writers that he

first published the true principles of aeronautics.

The first is styled Experiment Solitary, touching Flying

in the Air --``Certainly many birds of good wing (as kites

and the like) would bear up a good weight as they fly; and

spreading leathers thin and close, and in great breadth, will

likewise bear up a great weight, being even laid, without

tilting up on the sides. The further extension of this

experiment might be thought upon.'' The second passage is

more diffuse, but less intelligible; it is styled Experiment

Solitary, touching unequal weight (as of wool and lead or

bone and lead); if you throw it from you with the light end

forward, it will turn, and the weightier end will recover to

be forwards, unless the body be over long. The cause is, for

that the more dense body hath a more violent pressure of the

parts from the first impulsion, which is the cause (though

heretofore not found out, as hath been often said) of all

violent motions; and when the hinder part moveth swifter (for

that it less endureth pressure of parts) that the forward

part can make way for it, it must needs be that the body

turn over; for (turned) it can more easily draw forward the

lighter part.'' The fact here alluded to is the resistance

that bodies experience in moving through the air, which,

depending on the quantity of surface merely. must exert a

proportionally greater effect on rare substances. The passage

itself, however, after making every allowance for the period

in which it was written, must be deemed confused, obscure and

unphilosophical. In his posthumous work, De Motu Animalium,

published at Rome in 1680-1681, G.A.Borelli gave calculations

of the enormous strength of the pectoral muscles in birds;

and his proposition cciv. (vol. i. pp. 322-326), entitled Est

impossibile ut homines pro priis viribus artificiose volare

possint, points out the impossibility of man being able by his

muscular strength to give motion to wings of sufficient extent

to keep him suspended in the air. But during his lifetime two

Frenchmen, Allard in 1660 and Besnier about 1678, are said to

have succeeded in making short flights. An account of some

of the modern attempts to construct flying machines will be

found in the article FLIGHT AND FLYING; here we append a

brief consideration of the mechanical aspects of the problem.

The very first essential for success is safety, which will

probably only be attained with automatic stability. The

underlying principle is that the centre of gravity shall

at all times be on the same vertical line as the centre of

pressure. The latter varies with the angle of incidence. For

square planes it moves approximately as expressed by Joessel's

formula, C + (0.2 + 0.3 sin a) L, in which C is the distance

from the front edge, L the length fore and aft, and a the

angle of incidence. The movement is different on concave

surfaces. The term aeroplane is understood to apply to

flat sustaining surfaces, but experiment indicates that

arched surfaces are more efficient. S. P. Langley proposed

the word aerodrome, which seems the preferable term for

apparatus with wing-line surfaces. This is the type to which

results point as the proper one for further experiments. With

this it seems probable that, with well-designed apparatus,

40 to 50 lb. can be sustained per indicated h.p., or about

twice that quantity per resistance or ``thrust'' h.p., and

that some 30 or 40 k of the weight can be devoted to the

machinery, thus requiring motors, with their propellers,

shafting, supplies, &c., weighing less than 20 lb. per

h.p. It is evident that the apparatus must be designed to

be as light as possible, and also to reduce to a minimum

all resistances to propulsion. This being kept in view,

the strength and consequent section required for each member

may be calculated by the methods employed in proportioning

bridges, with the difference that the support (from air

pressure) will be considered as uniformly distributed, and the

load as concentrated at one or more points. Smaller factors

of safety may also have to be used. Knowing the sections

required and unit weights of the materials to be employed,

the weight of each part can be computed. If a model has been

made to absolutely exact scale, the weight of the full-sized

apparatus may approximately be ascertained by the formula

$$W' = W\sqrt{\left({S'\over S}\right)}^3,$$

in which W is the weight of the model, S its surface, and

W' and S' the weight and surface of the intended apparatus.

Thus if the model has been made one-quarter size in its

homologous dimensions, the supporting surfaces will be sixteen

times, and the total weight sixty-four times those of the

model. The weight and the surface being determined, the three

most important things to know are the angle of incidence, the

``lift,'' and the required speed. The fundamental formula for

rectangular air pressure is well known: P=KV2S, in which P is

the rectangular normal pressure, in pounds or kilograms, K a

coefficient (0.0049 for British, and 0.11 for metric measures),

V the velocity in miles per hour or in metres per second, and

S the surface in square feet or in square metres. The normal

on oblique surfaces, at various angles of incidence, is given

by the formula P = KV2Se, which latter factor is given both

for planes and for arched surfaces in the subjoined table:--.

PERCENTAGES OE AIR PRESSURE AT VARIOUS ANGLES OF INCIDENCE

PLANES (DUCHEMIN FORMULA,

VERIFIED BY LANGLEY). WINGS (LILIENTHAL).

N = P(2sina/(1+sin2a)). Concavity 1 in 12

Angle. Normal. Lift. Drift. Normal. Lift. Drift. Tangential

a e ecosa esina e ecosa esina force a

-9 deg. 0.0 0.0 0.0 +0.070

-8 deg. 0.040 0.0396 -0.0055 +0.067

-7 deg. 0.080 0.0741 -0.0097 +0.064

-6 deg. 0.120 0.1193 -0.0125 +0.060

-5 deg. 0.160 0.1594 -0.0139 +0.055

-4 deg. 0.200 0.1995 -0.0139 +0.049

-3 deg. 0.242 0.2416 -0.0126 +0.043

-2 deg. 0.286 0.2858 -0.0100 +0.037

-1 deg. 0.332 0.3318 -0.0058 +0.031

0 deg. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.381 0.3810 -0.0 +0.024

+1 deg. 0.035 0.035 0.000611 0.434 0.434 +0.0075 +0.016

+2 deg. 0.070 0.070 0.00244 0.489 0.489 +0.0170 +0.008

+3 deg. 0.104 0.104 0.00543 0.546 0.545 +0.0285 0.0

+4 deg. 0.139 0.139 0.0097 0.600 0.597 +0.0418 -0.007

+5 deg. 0.174 0.173 0.0152 0.650 0.647 +0.0566 -0.014

+6 deg. 0.207 0.206 0.0217 0.696 0.692 +0.0727 -0.021

+7 deg. 0.240 0.238 0.0293 0.737 0.731 +0.0898 -0.028

+8 deg. 0.273 0.270 0.0381 0.771 0.763 +0.1072 -0.035

+9 deg. 0.305 0.300 0.0477 0.800 0.790 +0.1251 -0.042

10 deg. 0.337 0.332 0.0585 0.825 0.812 +0.1432 -0.050

11 deg. 0.369 0.362 0.0702 0.846 0.830 +0.1614 -0.058

12 deg. 0.398 0.390 0.0828 0.864 0.845 +0.1803 -0.064

13 deg. 0.431 0.419 0.0971 0.879 0.856 +0.1976 -0.070

14 deg. 0.457 0.443 0.1155 0.891 0.864 +0.2156 -0.074

15 deg. 0.486 0.468 0.1240 0.901 0.870 +0.2332 -0.076

The sustaining power, or ``lift'' which in horizontal flight

must be equal to the weight, can be calculated by the formula

L=KV2Secosa, or the factor may be taken direct from the

table, in which the ``lift'' and the ``drift'' have been obtained

by multiplying the normal e by the cosine and sine of the

angle. The last column shows the tangential pressure on concave

surfaces which O. Lilienthal found to possess a propelling

component between 3 deg. and 32 deg. and therefore to be negative

to the relative wind. Former modes of computation indicated

angles of 10 to 15 as necessary for support with planes. These

mere prohibitory in consequence of the great ``drift''; but

the present data indicate that, with concave surfaces, angles

of 2 deg. to 5 will produce adequate ``lift.'' To compute the

latter the angle at which the wings are to be set must first be

assumed, and that of @ will generally be found preferable.

Then the required velocity is next to be computed by the formula

$$V = \sqrt{L\over KS\eta\cos\alpha};$$

or for concave wings at +3 deg. :

$$V = \sqrt{W\over 0.545KS}.$$

Having thus determined the weight, the surface, the angle of

incidence and the required seed for horizontal support, the

next step is to calculate the power required. This is best

accomplished by first obtaining the total resistances, which

consist of the ``drift'' and of the head resistances due to

the hull and framing. The latter are arrived at preferably

by making a tabular statement showing all the spars and parts

offering head resistance, and applying to each, the coefficient

appropriate to its ``master section,'' as ascertained by

experiment. Thus is obtained an ``equivalent area'' of resistance,

which is to be multiplied by the wind pressure due to the

speed. Care must be taken to resolve all the resistances at

their proper angle of application, and to subtract or add the

tangential force, which consists in the surface S, multiplied

by the wind pressure, and by the factor in the table, which

is, however, 0 for 3 and 32, but positive or negative at other

angles. When the aggregate resistances are known, the ``thrust

h.p.'' required is obtained by multiplying the resistance by the

speed, and then allowing for mechanical losses in the motor and

propeller, which losses will generally be 50% of indicated

h.p. Close approximations are obtained by the above method

when applied to full sized apparatus. The following example

will make the process clearer. The weight to he carried

by an apparatus was 189 lb. on concave wings of 143.5 sq.

ft. area, set at a positive angle of 3 deg. There were in

addition rear wings of 29.5 sq. ft., set at a negative angle

of 3 deg. ; hence, L= 189=.o.oo5XV2X143.5X0.545. Whence

$$V = \sqrt{189\over 0.005\times 143.5\times 0.545

= 22\hbox{ miles per hour},$$

at which the air pressure would be 2.42 lb. per sq. ft. The area

of spars and man was 17.86 sq. ft., reduced by various coefficients

to an ``equivalent surface'' of 11.70 sq. ft., so that the

resistances were:-- Drift front wings, 143.5X0.0285X2.42 . . .

.= 9.90 lb. Drift rear wings, 29.5X(o.o43-0.242X0.05235)X2.42

= 2.17 lb. Tangential force at 3 deg. . . . . . . . . =

0.00 lb. Head resistance, 11.70X2.43 . . . . . = 28.31

Total resistance . . . . . . . .= 40.38

Speed 22 miles per hour. Power = (40.38X22)/375 = 2.36 h.p. for

the ``thrust'' or 4.72 h.p. for the motor. The weight being 189

lb., and the resistance 40.38 lb., the gliding angle of descent was

40.38/189 = tangent of 12 deg. , which was verified by many experiments.

The following expressions will be found useful in computing

such projects, with the aid of the table above given:

1. Wind force, F = KV2. 8. Drift, D = KSV2esina

2. Pressure, P = KV2S. 9. Head area E, get an equivalent

3. Velocity, V = sqrt. (W/(KSecosa))

10. Head resistance, H = EF.

4. Surface S varies as 1/V2. 11. Tangential force, T = Pa

5. Normal, N = KSV2e. 12. Resistance, R = D + H (+ or -) T.

6. Lift, L = KSV2ecsoa. 13. Ft. lb., M = RV.

7. Weight, W = L = Ncosa. 14. Thrust, h.p., = RV/factor.

AEROSTATION.---Possibly the flying dove of Archytas of Tarentum

is the earliest suggestion of true aerostation. According to

Aulus Genius (Noctes Atticae) it was a ``model of a dove or

pigeon formed in wood and so contrived as by a certain mechanical

art and power to fly: so nicely was it balanced by weights

and put in motion by hidden and enclosed air.'' This ``hidden

and enclosed air'' may conceivably represent an anticipation

of the hot-air balloon, but it is at least as probable that

the apparent flight of the dove was a mere mechanical trick

depending on the use of fine wires or strings invisible to the

spectators. In the middle ages vague ideas appear of some

ethereal substance so light that vessels containing it

would remain suspended in the air. Roger Bacon (1214-1294)

conceived of a large hollow globe made of very thin metal and

filled with ethereal air or liquid fire, which would float on

the atmosphere like a ship on water. Albert of Saxony, who

was bishop of Halberstadt from 1366 to 1390, had a similar

notion, and considered that a small portion of the principle

of fire enclosed in a light sphere would raise it and keep it

suspended. The same speculation was advanced by Francis

Mendoza, a Portuguese Jesuit, who died in 1626 at the age of

forty-six, and by Gaspar Schott (1608-1666), also a Jesuit

and professor of mathematics at Wurzburg, though for fire

he substituted the thin ethereal fluid which he believed to

float above the atmosphere. So late as 1755 Joseph Galien

(1699-1782), a Dominican friar and professor of philosophy

and theology in the papal university of Avignon, proposed to

collect the diffuse air of the upper regions and to enclose

it in a huge vessel extending more than a mile every way, and

intended to carry fifty-four times as much weight as did Noah's

ark. A somewhat different but equally fantastic method of

making heavy bodies rise is quoted by Schott from Lauretus

Laurus, according to whom swans' eggs or leather balls filled

with nitre, sulphur or mercury ascend when exposed to the

sun. Laurus also stated that hens' eggs filled with dew will

ascend in the same circumstances, because dew is shed by the

stars and drawn up again to heaven by the sun's heat during the

day. The same notion is utilized by Cyrano de Bergerac

(1619-1655) in his romances describing journeys to the moon

and sun, for his French traveller fastens round his body a

multitude of very thin flasks filled with the morning's dew,

whereby through the attractive power of the sun's heat on the

dew he is raised to the middle regions of the atmosphere, to

sink again, however, on the breaking of some of the flasks.