[1] The text is uncertain. According to the LXX., he was a native of
Tishbeh in Gilead; a more natural reading. Klostermann's conjecture
that the original name of his home was Jabesh-Gilead is attractive
but unnecessary. His appearance in the narrative, like Melchizedek,
"without father, without mother" (Heb. vii. 3), gave rise to various
rabbinical traditions, such as that he was Phinehas, the grandson of
Aaron, returned to earth, or that he was an angel in human form.
[2] Its duration is vaguely stated; from Luke iv. 25, James v. 17, we
learn that it lasted three years and a half; but according to
Phoenician tradition (Jos. _Ant_. viii. 13. 2) only one year.
[3] The rationalistic view that the word translated "ravens" should
be "Arabians" is improbable. Cheyne's suggestion that the unknown
brook Cherith should be placed to the south of Judah agrees with
Josephus (_Ant_. viii. 13. 2, "he departed into the southern parts")
and with 1 Kings xix. 3, 8; "Jordan" may refer to another river, if
it be not a gloss; see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib_., s.v. "Cherith."
[4] The sudden introduction of Elijah in xvii. 1 may be accounted for
by the supposition that the commencement of the narrative had been
omitted by the editor of xvi. 29 sqq. Hence we are not told the cause
of Ahab's hostility towards Elijah, nor is the allusion to Jezebel's
massacre of the prophets (xviii. 3, 13) explained. It would appear
from Obadiah's words in ver. 9 that he himself was in fear of his
life. Later tradition supposed he was the captain of 2 Kings i. 13,
or that the widow of 2 Kings iv. 1 had been his wife.
[5] The definition of time by the stated oblation (xviii. 29, 36) is
very noteworthy (cp. 2 Kings iii. 20).
[6] It is obvious that a purely rationalistic interpretation of the
great sign whereby Jahweh manifested himself would be out of place.
But there is an interesting parallel in the legend of the kindling of
the sacred fire and the igniting of the "thick water" in the time of
Nehemiah (2 Macc. i. 18-36). Elsewhere, there were sacred fires
kindled by the aid of magical invocations (e.g. Hypaepa, Pausanias v.
27. 3).
[7] Yahweh is here supposed to have his seat on the ancient mountain.
"It was the God of the Exodus to whom he appealed, the ancient King
of Israel in the journeyings through the wilderness." For the cave,
cp. Ex. xxxiii. 22.
[8] The theophany is clearly no rebuke to an impatient prophet, nor a
lesson that the kingdom of heaven was to be built up by the slow and
gentle operation of spiritual forces. It expresses the spirituality
of Yahweh in a way that indicates a marked advance in the conception
of his nature. See Skinner, _Century Bible_, "Kings," _ad loc_.
[9] The geographical indications imply that in one account the
journey to Damascus and the anointing of Hazael and Jehu must have
intervened, and were omitted because another account ascribed these
acts to Elisha (2 Kings viii. ix.). In the latter we possess a more
historical account of the anointing of Jehu, and Robertson Smith
observes: "When the history in 1 Kings represents Elijah as
personally commissioned to inaugurate [the revolution] by anointing
Jehu and Hazael as well as Elisha, we see that the author's design is
to gather up the whole contest between Yahweh and Baal in an ideal
picture of Elijah and his work" (_Ency. Brit_. (9) art. Kings, vol.
xiv. p. 85).
[10] Understood in Eccles. xlviii. 12 (Heb.) to mean that Elisha was
_twice as great_ as Elijah.
ELIJAH WILNA, or ELIJAH BEN SOLOMON, best known as the GAON ELIJAH OF
WILNA (1720-1797), a noted Talmudist who hovered between the new and the
old schools of thought. Orthodox in practice and feeling, his critical
treatment of the rabbinic literature prepared the way for the scientific
investigations of the 19th century. As a teacher he was one of the first
to discriminate between the various strata in rabbinic records; to him
was due the revival of interest in the older Midrash (q.v.) and in the
Palestinian Talmud (q.v.), interest in which had been weak for some
centuries before his time. He was an ascetic, and was a keen opponent of
the emotional mysticism which was known as the new Hassidism.
See S. Schechter's _Studies in Judaism_ (London, 1896). His voluminous
writings are classified in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_, v. 134.
(I. A.)
ELIOT, CHARLES WILLIAM (1834- ), American educationalist, the son of
Samuel Atkins Eliot (1798-1862), mayor of Boston, representative in
Congress, and in 1842-1853 treasurer of Harvard, was born in Boston on
the 20th of March 1834. He graduated in 1853 at Harvard College, where
he was successively tutor (1854-1858) and assistant professor of
chemistry (1858-1863). He studied chemistry and foreign educational
methods in Europe in 1863-1865, was professor of analytical chemistry in
the newly established Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1865-1869),
although absent fourteen months in Europe in 1867-1868; and in 1869 was
elected president of Harvard University, a choice remarkable at once for
his youth and his being a layman and scientist. With Johns Hopkins
University, Harvard, in his presidency, led in the work of efficient
graduate schools. Its elective system, which has spread far, although
not originated by President Eliot, was thoroughly established by him,
and is only one of many radical changes which he championed with great
success. The raising of entrance requirements, which led to a
corresponding raising of the standards of secondary schools, and the
introduction of an element of choice in these entrance requirements,
which allowed a limited election of studies to secondary pupils, became
national tendencies primarily through President Eliot's potent
influence. As chairman of a national Committee of Ten (1890) on
secondary school studies, he urged the abandonment of brief disconnected
"information" courses, the correlation of subjects taught, the equal
rank in college requirements of subjects in which equal time,
consecutiveness and concentration were demanded, and a more thorough
study of English composition; and to a large degree he secured national
sanction for these reforms and their working out by experts into a
practicable and applicable system. He laboured to unify the entire
educational system, minimize prescription, cast out monotony, and
introduce freedom and enthusiasm; and he emphasized the need of special
training for special work. He was first to suggest (1894) co-operation
by colleges in holding common entrance examinations throughout the
country, and it was largely through his efforts that standards were so
approximated that this became possible. He contended that secondary
schools maintained by public funds should shape their courses for the
benefit of students whose education goes no further than such high
schools, and not be mere training schools for the universities. His
success as administrator and man of affairs and as an educational
reformer made him one of the great figures of his time, in whose
opinions on any topic the deepest interest was felt throughout the
country. In November 1908 he resigned the presidency of Harvard, and
retired from the position early in 1909, when he was succeeded by
Professor Abbott Lawrence Lowell. In December 1908 he was elected
president of the National Civil Service Reform League.
His writings include _The Happy Life_ (1896); _Five American
Contributions to Civilization, and Other Essays and Addresses_ (1897);
_Educational Reform, Essays and Addresses 1869-1897_ (1898); _More Money
for the Public Schools_ (1903); _Four American Leaders_ (1906), chapters
on Franklin, Washington, Channing and Emerson; _University
Administration_ (1908); and with F.H. Storer, a _Compendious Manual of
Qualitative Chemical Analysis_ (Boston, 1869; many times reissued and
revised). His annual reports as President of Harvard were notable
contributions to the literature of education in America, and he
delivered numerous public addresses, many of which have been reprinted.
See "President Eliot's Administration," by different hands, a summary
of his work at Harvard in 1869-1894, in _The Harvard Graduates'
Magazine_, vol. 2, pp. 449-504 (Boston, Mass., 1894); and E.
Kuhnemann, _Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard_ (Boston, 1909).
His son, CHARLES ELIOT (1859-1897), graduated at Harvard in 1882,
studied landscape architecture at the Bussey Institution of Harvard and
in Europe, successfully urged the incorporation of the Massachusetts
Trustees of Public Reservations (1891) and of the Metropolitan Park
Commission (1892) of Boston, became landscape architect to the
Metropolitan Park Commission in 1892, and in 1893, with F.L. Olmsted and
J.C. Olmsted, formed the firm of Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot, which was
employed by the Metropolitan Commission. His life was written by his
father, _Charles Eliot, Landscape Architect_ (Boston, 1902).
ELIOT, GEORGE, the pen-name of the famous English writer, _nee_ Mary Ann
(or Marian) Evans (1819-1880), afterwards Mrs J.W. Cross, born at Arbury
Farm, in Warwickshire, on the 22nd of November 1819. Her father, Robert
Evans, was the agent of Mr Francis Newdigate, and the first twenty-one
years of the great novelist's life were spent on the Arbury estate. She
received an ordinary education at respectable schools till the age of
seventeen, when her mother's death, and the marriage of her elder
sister, called her home in the character of housekeeper. This, though it
must have sharpened her sense, already too acute, of responsibility, was
an immense advantage to her mind, and, later, to her career, for,
delivered from the tiresome routine of lessons and class-work, she was
able to work without pedantic interruptions at German, Italian and
music, and to follow her unusually good taste in reading. The life,
inasmuch as she was a girl still in her teens, was no doubt monotonous,
even unhappy. Just as Cardinal Newman felt, with such different results,
the sadness and chain of evangelical influences from his boyhood till
the end of his days, so Marian Evans was subdued all through her youth
by a severe religious training which, while it pinched her mind and
crushed her spirit, attracted her idealism by the very hardness of its
perfect counsels. It is not surprising to find, therefore, that when Mr
Evans moved to Coventry in 1841, and so enlarged the circle of their
acquaintance, she became much interested in some new friends, Mr and Mrs
Charles Bray and Mr Charles Hennell. Mr Bray had literary taste and
wrote works on the _Education of the Feelings_, the _Philosophy of
Necessity_, and the like. Mr Hennell had published in 1838 _An Enquiry
concerning the Origin of Christianity_. Miss Evans, then twenty-two,
absorbed immediately these unexpected, and, at that time, daring habits
of thought. So compelling was the atmosphere that it led to a complete
change in her opinions. Kind in her affection, she was relentless in
argument. She refused to go to church (for some time, at least), wrote
painful letters to a former governess--the pious Miss Lewis--and barely
avoided an irremediable quarrel with her father, a churchman of the old
school. Here was rebellion indeed. But rebels come, for the most part,
from the provinces where petty tyranny, exercised by small souls, show
the scheme of the universe on the meanest possible scale. George Eliot
was never orthodox again; she abandoned, with fierce determination,
every creed, and although she passed, later, through various phases, she
remained incessantly a rationalist in matters of faith and in all other
matters. It is nevertheless true that she wrote admirably about religion
and religious persons. She had learnt the evangelical point of view; she
knew--none better--the strength of religious motives; vulgar doubts of
this fact were as distasteful to her as they were to another eminent
writer, to whom she refers in one of her letters (dated 1853) as "a Mr
Huxley, who was the centre of interest" at some "agreeable evening." Her
books abound in tributes to Christian virtue, and one of her own
favourite characters was Dinah Morris in _Adam Bede_.
She undertook, about the beginning of 1844, the translation of Strauss's
_Leben Jesu_. This work, published in 1846, was considered scholarly,
but it met, in the nature of things, with no popular success. On the
death of Mr Evans in 1849, she went abroad for some time, and we hear of
no more literary ventures till 1851, when she accepted the
assistant-editorship of the _Westminster Review_. For a while she had
lodgings at the offices of that publication in the Strand, London. She
wrote several notable papers, and became acquainted with many
distinguished authors of that period--among them Herbert Spencer,
Carlyle, Harriet Martineau, Francis Newman and George Henry Lewes. Her
friendship with the last-named led to a closer relationship which she
regarded as a marriage. Among the many criticisms passed upon this step
(in view of the fact, among other considerations, that Lewes had a wife
living at the time), no one has denied her courage in defying the law,
or questioned the quality of her tact in a singularly false position.
That she felt the deepest affection for Lewes is evident; that we owe
the development of her genius to his influence and constant sympathy is
all but certain. Yet it is also sure that what she gained from his
intimate companionship was heavily paid for in the unceasing
consciousness that most people thought her guilty of a grave mistake,
and found her written words, with their endorsement of traditional
morality, wholly at variance with the circumstances of her private life.
Doubts of her suffering in this respect will be at once dismissed after
a study of her journal and letters. Stilted and unnatural as these are
to a tragic degree, one can read well enough between the lines, and also
in the elaborate dedication of each manuscript to "my husband" (in terms
of the strongest love), that self-repression, coupled with audacity,
does not make for peace. Her sensitiveness to criticism was extreme; a
flippant paragraph or an illiterate review with regard to her work
actually affected her for days. The whole history of her union with
Lewes is a complete illustration of the force of sheer will--in that
case partly her own and not inconsiderably his--over a nature
essentially unfitted for a bold stand against attacks. At first she and
the man whom she had described "as a sort of miniature Mirabeau in
appearance," went abroad to Weimar and Berlin, but they returned to
England the same year and settled, after several moves, in lodgings at
East Sheen.
In 1854 she published _The Essence of Christianity_, a translation from
Feuerbach, a philosopher to whom she had been introduced by Charles
Bray. During 1855 she translated Spinoza's _Ethics_, wrote articles for
the _Leader_, the _Westminster Review_, and the _Saturday Review_--then
a new thing. It was not until the following year that she attempted the
writing of fiction, and produced _The Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos
Barton_--the first of the _Scenes of Clerical Life_. These, published in
_Blackwood's Magazine_, were issued in two volumes in 1858. The press in
general extended a languid welcome to this work, and although the author
received much encouragement from private sources, notably from Charles
Dickens, the critics were mostly non-committal, and it was not until the
publication of _Adam Bede_ in 1859 that enthusiasm was attracted to the
quality of the earlier production. _Adam Bede_, in the judgment of many
George Eliot's masterpiece, met with a success (in her own words)
"triumphantly beyond anything she had dreamed of." In 1860 appeared _The
Mill on the Floss_. After the sensational good fortune of _Adam Bede_,
the criticism applied to the new novel seems to have been disappointing.
We find Miss Evans telling her publisher that "she does not wish to see
any newspaper articles." But the book made its way, and prepared an
ever-growing army of readers for _Silas Marner_ (1861), _Romola_
(1862-1863), and _Felix Holt_ (1866).
_Silas Marner_ shows a reversion to her early manner--the manner of
_Scenes of Clerical Life_. _Romola_, which is what is called an
historical novel, owes its vitality not to the portraits of Savonarola
or of the heroine, or to its vigorous pictures of Florentine life in the
15th century, but to its superb presentment of the treacherous, handsome
Tito Melema, who belongs not to any one period but to every generation.
_Felix Holt_, a novel dealing with political questions, is strained by a
painfulness too severe for any reader's pleasure. Where other eminent
authors have produced mechanical books, or books which were mere
repetitions of their most popular effort, she erred only on the side of
the ponderous and the distressing. _Felix Holt_ is both, and it is the
only one of her novels which lacks an unforgettable human note. _The
Spanish Gypsy_ (1868), a drama in blank verse, received more public
response than most compositions of the kind executed by those connected
with the drama or with poetry only; and she published in 1874 another
volume of verses, _The Legend of Jubal and other Poems_.
Any depression which the author may have felt with regard to the faults
found with some of the last-named books was completely cured by the
praise bestowed on _Middlemarch_ (1872). This profound study of certain
types of English character was supreme at the time of its writing, and
it remains supreme, of its school, in European literature. Thackeray is
brilliant; Tolstoi is vivid to a point where life-likeness overwhelms
any consideration of art; Balzac created a whole world; George Eliot did
not create, but her exposition of the upper and middle class minds of
her day is a masterpiece of scientific psychology. _Daniel Deronda_
(1876), a production on the same lines, was less satisfactory. It
exhibited the same human insight, the passionate earnestness, the
insinuated special pleading for hard cases, the same intellectual
strength, but the subject was unwieldy, almost forbidding, and, as a
result, the novel, in spite of its distinction, has never been
thoroughly liked. The death of Mr Lewes in 1878 was also the death-blow
to her artistic vitality. She corrected the proofs of _Theophrastus
Such_ (a collection of essays), but she wrote no more. About two years
later, however, she married Mr J.W. Cross, a gentleman whose friendship
was especially congenial to a temperament so abnormally dependent on
affectionate understanding as George Eliot's. But she never really
recovered from her shock at the loss of George Lewes, and died at 4
Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, on the 22nd of December 1880.
No right estimate of her, whether as a woman, an artist or a
philosopher, can be formed without a steady recollection of her infinite
capacity for mental suffering, and her need of human support. The
statement that there is no sex in genius, is on the face of it, absurd.
George Sand, certainly the most independent and dazzling of all women
authors, neither felt, nor wrote, nor thought as a man. Saint Teresa,
another great writer on a totally different plane, was pre-eminently
feminine in every word and idea. George Eliot, less reckless, less
romantic than the Frenchwoman, less spiritual than the Spanish saint,
was more masculine in style than either; but her outlook was not, for a
moment, the man's outlook; her sincerity, with its odd reserves, was not
quite the same as a man's sincerity, nor was her humour that genial,
broad, unequivocal humour which is peculiarly virile. Hers approximated,
curiously enough, to the satire of Jane Austen, both for its irony and
its application to little everyday affairs. Men's humour, in its classic
manifestations, is on the heroic rather than on the average scale: it is
for the uncommon situations, not for the daily tea-table.
Her method of attacking a subject shows the influence of Jane Austen,
especially in parts of _Middlemarch_; one can detect also the stronger
influence of Mrs Gaskell, of Charlotte Bronte, and of Miss Edgeworth. It
was, however, but an influence, and no more than a man writer, anxious
to acquire a knowledge of the feminine point of view, might have
absorbed from a study of these women novelists. One often hears that she
is not artistic; that her characterization is less distinct than Jane
Austen's; that she tells more than should be known of her heroes and
heroines. But it should be remembered that Jane Austen dealt with
familiar domestic types, whereas George Eliot excelled in the
presentation of extraordinary souls. One woman drew members of polite
society with correct notions, while the other woman depicted social
rebels with ideas and ideals. In every one of George Eliot's books, the
protagonists, tortured by dreams of perfection, are in revolt against
the prudent compromises of the worldly. All through her stories, one
hears the clash of "the heroic for earth too high," and the desperate
philosophy, disguised it is true, of Omar Khayyam. In her day,
Epicureanism had not reached the life of the people, nor passed into the
education of the mob. Few dared to confess that the pursuit of pleasure,
whether real or imagined, was the aim of mankind. The charm of Jane
Austen is the charm of the untroubled and well-to-do materialist, who
sees in a rich marriage, a comfortable house, carriages and an assured
income the best to strive for; and in a fickle lover of either sex or
the loss of money the severest calamities which can befall the human
spirit. Jane Austen despised the greater number of her characters:
George Eliot suffered with each of hers. Here, perhaps, we find the
reason why she is accused of being inartistic. She could not be
impersonal.
Again, George Eliot was a little scornful to those of both sexes who had
neither special missions nor the consciousness of this deprivation. Men
are seldom in favour of missions in any field. She demanded, too
strenuously from the very beginning, an aim, more or less altruistic,
from every individual; and as she advanced in life this claim became the
more imperative, till at last it overpowered her art, and transformed a
great delineator of humanity into an eloquent observer with far too many
personal prejudices. But she was altogether free from cynicism,
bitterness, or the least tendency to pride of intellect. She suffered
from bodily weakness the greater part of her life, and, but for an
extraordinary mental health--inherited from the fine yeoman stock from
which she sprang--it is impossible that she could have retained, at all
times, so sane a view of human conduct, or been the least sentimental
among women writers of the first rank--the one wholly without morbidity
in any disguise. The accumulation of mere book knowledge, as opposed to
the friction of a life spent among all sorts and conditions of men,
drove George Eliot at last to write as a specialist for specialists: joy
was lost in the consuming desire for strict accuracy: her genius became
more and more speculative, less and less emotional. The highly trained
brain suppressed the impulsive heart,--the heart described with such
candour and pathos as Maggie Tulliver's in _The Mill on the Floss_. For
this reason--chiefly because philosophy is popularly associated with
inactive depression, whereas human nature is held to be eternally
exhilarating--her later works have not received so much praise as her
earlier productions. But one has only to compare _Romola_ or _Daniel
Deronda_ with the compositions of any author except herself to realize
the greatness of her designs, and the astonishing gifts brought to their
final accomplishment.
See also the _Life of George Eliot_, edited by J.W. Cross (3 vols.,
1885-1887); _George Eliot_, by Sir Leslie Stephen, in the "English Men
of Letters" series (1902); by Oscar Browning, "Great Writers" series
(1890), with a bibliography by J.P. Anderson; by Mathilde Blind,
"Eminent Women" series, a new edition of which also contains a
bibliography (Boston, Mass., 1904). (P. M. T. C.)
ELIOT, SIR JOHN (1592-1632), English statesman, son of Richard Eliot, a
member of an old Devonshire family lately settled in Cornwall, was born
at his father's seat at Port Eliot in Cornwall in 1592. He matriculated
at Exeter College, Oxford, on the 4th of December 1607, and leaving the
university after a residence of three years he studied law at one of the
inns of court. He also spent some months travelling in France, Spain and
Italy, in company, for part of the time, with young George Villiers,
afterwards duke of Buckingham. He was only twenty-two when he began his
parliamentary career as member for St Germans in the "addled parliament"
of 1614. In 1618 he was knighted, and next year through the patronage of
Buckingham he obtained the appointment of vice-admiral of Devon, with
large powers for the defence and control of the commerce of the county.
It was not long before the characteristic energy with which he performed
the duties in his office involved him in difficulties. After many
attempts, in 1623 he succeeded by a clever but dangerous manoeuvre in
entrapping the famous pirate John Nutt, who had for years infested the
southern coast, inflicting immense damage upon English commerce. The
issue is noteworthy. The pirate, having a powerful protector at court in
Sir George Calvert, the secretary of state, was pardoned; while the
vice-admiral, upon charges which could not be substantiated, was flung
into the Marshalsea, and detained there nearly four months.
A few weeks after his release Eliot was elected member of parliament for
Newport (February 1624). On the 27th of February he delivered his first
speech, in which he at once revealed his great powers as an orator,
demanding boldly that the liberties and privileges of parliament,
repudiated by James I. in the former parliament, should be secured. In
the first parliament of Charles I., in 1625, he urged the enforcement of
the laws against the Roman Catholics. Meanwhile he had continued the
friend and supporter of Buckingham and greatly approved of the war with
Spain. Buckingham's incompetence, however, and the bad faith with which
both he and the king continued to treat the parliament, alienated Eliot
completely from the administration. Distrust of his former friend
quickly grew in Eliot's excitable mind to a certainty of his criminal
ambition and treason to his country. Returned to the parliament of 1626
as member for St Germans, he found himself, in the absence of other
chiefs of the opposition whom the king had secured by nominating them
sheriffs, the leader of the House. He immediately demanded an inquiry
into the recent disaster at Cadiz. On the 27th of March he made an open
and daring attack upon Buckingham and his evil administration. He was
not intimidated by the king's threatening intervention on the 29th, and
persuaded the House to defer the actual grant of the subsidies and to
present a remonstrance to the king, declaring its right to examine the
conduct of ministers. On the 8th of May he was one of the managers who
carried Buckingham's impeachment to the Lords, and on the 10th he
delivered the charges against him, comparing him in the course of his
speech to Sejanus. Next day Eliot was sent to the Tower. On the Commons
declining to proceed with business as long as Eliot and Sir Dudley
Digges (who had been imprisoned with him) were in confinement, they were
released, and parliament was dissolved on the 15th of June. Eliot was
immediately dismissed from his office of vice-admiral of Devon, and in
1627 he was again imprisoned for refusing to pay a forced loan, but
liberated shortly before the assembling of the parliament of 1628, to
which he was returned as member for Cornwall. He joined in the
resistance now organized to arbitrary taxation, was foremost in the
promotion of the Petition of Right, continued his outspoken censure of
Buckingham, and after the latter's assassination in August, led the
attack in the session of 1629 on the ritualists and Arminians.
In February the great question of the right of the king to levy tonnage
and poundage came up for discussion; and on the king ordering an
adjournment of parliament, the speaker, Sir John Finch, was held down in
the chair while Eliot's resolutions against illegal taxation and
innovations in religion were read to the House by Holles (q.v.). In
consequence, Eliot, with eight other members, was imprisoned on the 4th
of March in the Tower. He refused to answer in his examination, relying
on his privilege of parliament, and on the 29th of October was removed
to the Marshalsea. On the 26th of January he appeared at the bar of the
king's bench, with Holles and Valentine, to answer a charge of
conspiracy to resist the king's order, and refusing to acknowledge the
jurisdiction of the court he was fined L2000 and ordered to be
imprisoned during the king's pleasure and till he had made submission.
This he steadfastly refused. While some of the prisoners appear to have
had certain liberty allowed to them, Eliot's confinement in the Tower
was made exceptionally severe. Charles's anger had been from the first
directed chiefly against him, not only as his own political antagonist
but as the prosecutor and bitter enemy of Buckingham; "an outlawed man,"
he described him, "desperate in mind and fortune."
Eliot languished in prison for some time, during which he wrote several
works, his _Negotium posterorum_, an account of the parliament in 1625;
_The Monarchie of Man_, a political treatise; _De jure majestatis, a
Political Treatise of Government_; and _An Apology for Socrates_, his
own defence. In the spring of 1632 he fell into a decline. In October he
petitioned Charles for permission to go into the country, but leave
could only be obtained at the price of submission, and was finally
refused. He died on the 27th of November 1632. When his son requested
permission to move the body to Port Eliot, Charles, whose resentment
still survived, returned the curt refusal: "Let Sir John Eliot be buried
in the church of that parish where he died." The manner of Eliot's
death, not without suspicion of foul play, and as the result of the
king's implacability and the severe treatment to which he had been
subjected, had more effect, probably, than any other single incident in
embittering and precipitating the dispute between king and parliament;
and the tragic sacrifice of a man so gifted and patriotic, and actuated
originally by no antagonistic feeling against the monarchy or the
church, is the surest condemnation of the king's policy and
administration. Eliot was essentially a great orator, inspired by
enthusiasm and high ideals, which he was able to communicate to his
hearers by his eloquence, but, like Chatham afterwards, he had not only
the gifts but the failings of the orator, was incapable of well-reasoned
and balanced judgment, and, though one of the greatest personalities of
the time, was inferior to Pym both as a party leader and as a statesman.
Eliot married Rhadagund, daughter of Richard Gedie of Trebursye in
Cornwall, by whom he had five sons, from the youngest of whom Nicholas
the present earl of St Germans is descended, and four daughters.
The _Life of Sir J. Eliot_, by J. Forster (1864), is supplemented and
corrected by Gardiner's _History of England_, vols. v.-vii., and the
article in the _Dict. of Nat. Biog._, by the same author. Eliot's
writings, together with his Letter-Book, have been edited by Dr
Grosart.
ELIOT, JOHN (1604-1690), American colonial clergyman, known as the
"Apostle to the Indians," was born probably at Widford, Hertfordshire,
England, where he was baptized on the 5th of August 1604. He was the son
of Bennett Eliot, a middle-class farmer. Little is known of his boyhood
and early manhood except that he took his degree of B.A. at Jesus
College, Cambridge, in 1622. It seems probable that he entered the
ministry of the Established Church, but there is nothing definitely
known of him until 1629-1630, when he became an usher or assistant at
the school of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, at Little Baddow, near Chelmsford.
The influence of Hooker apparently determined him to become a Puritan,
but his connexion with the school ceased in 1630, when Laud's
persecutions drove Hooker into exile. The realization of the
difficulties in the way of a non-conforming clergyman in England
undoubtedly determined Eliot to emigrate to America in the autumn of
1631, where he settled first at Boston, assisting for a time at the
First Church. In November 1632 he became "teacher" to the church at
Roxbury, with which his connexion lasted until his death. There he
married Hannah Mulford, who had been betrothed to him in England, and
who became his constant helper. In the care of the Roxbury church he was
associated with Thomas Welde from 1632 to 1641, with Samuel Danforth
(1626-1674) from 1649 to 1674, and with Nehemiah Walter (1663-1750) from
1688 to 1690.
Inspired with the idea of converting the Indians, his first step was to
perfect himself in their dialects, which he did by the assistance of a
young Indian whom he received into his home. With his aid he translated
the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. He first successfully
preached to the Indians in their own tongue at Nonantum (Newton) in
October 1646. At the third meeting several Indians declared themselves
converted, and were soon followed by many others. Eliot induced the
Massachusetts General Court to set aside land for their residence, the
same body also voting him L10 to prosecute the work, and directing that
two clergymen be annually elected by the clergy as preachers to the
Indians. As soon as the success of Eliot's endeavours became known, the
necessary funds flowed in upon him from private sources in both Old and
New England. In July 1649 parliament incorporated the "Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel in New England," which henceforth supported
and directed the work inaugurated by Eliot. The first appeal for aid
brought contributions of L11,000. In 1651 the Christian Indian town
founded by Eliot was removed from Nonantum to Natick, where residences,
a meeting-house, and a school-house were erected, and where Eliot
preached, when able, once in every two weeks as long as he lived. To
this community Eliot applied a plan of government by means of tens,
fifties and hundreds, which he subsequently advocated as suitable for
all England. Eliot's missionary labours encouraged others to follow in
his footsteps. A second town under his direction was established at
Ponkapog (Stoughton) in 1654, in which he had the assistance of Daniel
Gookin (c. 1612-1687). His success was duplicated in Martha's Vineyard
and Nantucket by the Mayhews, and by 1674 the unofficial census of the
"praying Indians" numbered 4000. King Philip's War (1675-76) was a
staggering blow to all missionary enterprise; and although few of the
converted Indians proved disloyal, it was some years before adequate
support could again be enlisted. Yet at Eliot's death, which occurred at
Roxbury on the 21st of May 1690, the missions were at the height of
their prosperity, and that the results of his labours were not permanent
was due only to the racial traits of the New England tribes.
Of wider influence and more lasting value than his personal labours as a
missionary was Eliot's work as a translator of the Bible and various
religious works into the Massachusetts dialect of the Algonquian
language. The first work completed was the _Catechism_, published in
1653 at Cambridge, Massachusetts, the first book to be printed in the
Indian tongue. Several years elapsed before Eliot completed his task of
translating the Bible. The New Testament was at last issued in 1661, and
the Old Testament followed two years later. The New Testament was bound
with it, and thus the whole Bible was completed. To it were added a
Catechism and a metrical version of the Psalms. The title of this Bible,
now a great rarity, is _Mamussee Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God
naneeswe Nukkone Testament kah wonk Wusku Testament-Ne quoshkinnumuk
nashpe Wuttinneumoh Christ noh assoowesit John Eliot_; literally
translated, "The Whole Holy His-Bible God, both Old Testament and also
New Testament. This turned by the-servant-of-Christ, who is called John
Eliot."
This book was printed in 1663 at Cambridge, Mass., by Samuel Green and
Marmaduke Johnson, and was the first Bible printed in America. In 1685
appeared a second edition, in the preparation of which Eliot was
assisted by the Rev. John Cotton (1640-1699), the younger, of
Plymouth, who also had a wide knowledge of the Indian tongue.
Besides his Bible, Eliot published at Cambridge in 1664 a translation of
Baxter's _Call to the Unconverted_, and in 1665 an abridged translation
of Bishop Bayly's _Practice of Piety_. With the assistance of his sons
he completed (1664) his well-known Indian Grammar Begun, printed at
Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1666. It was reprinted in vol. ix. of the
_Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society_. _The Indian
Primer_, comprising an exposition of the Lord's Prayer and a translation
of the Larger Catechism, was published at Cambridge in 1669, and was
reprinted under the editorial superintendence of Mr John Small of the
university of Edinburgh in 1877. In 1671 Eliot printed in English a
little volume entitled _Indian Dialogues_, followed in 1672 by his
_Logick Primer_, both of which were intended for the instruction of the
Indians in English. His last translation was Thomas Shepard's _Sincere
Convert_, completed and published by Grindal Rawson in 1689. Eliot's
literary activity, however, extended into other fields than that of
Indian instruction. He was, with Richard Mather, one of the editors of
the _Bay Psalm Book_ (1640). Several tracts written wholly or in part by
him in the nature of reports to the society which supported his missions
were published at various times in England. In 1660 he published a
curious treatise on government entitled _The Christian Commonwealth_, in
which he found the ideal of government in the ancient Jewish state, and
proposed the reorganization of the English government on the basis of a
numerical subdivision of the inhabitants. His _Harmony of the Gospels_
(1678) was a life of Jesus Christ.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--An account of Eliot's life and work is contained in
Williston Walker's _Ten New England Leaders_ (New York, 1901). There
is a "Life of John Eliot," by Convers Francis, in _Sparks' American
Biography_, vol. v. (New York, 1853); another by N. Adams (Boston,
1847); and a sketch in Cotton Mather's _Magnalia_ (London, 1702). For
a good account of his publications in the Indian language see the
chapter on "The Indian Tongue and its Literature," by J.H. Trumbull,
in vol. i. of the _Memorial History of Boston_ (1882). (W. Wr.)
ELIS, or ELEIA, an ancient district of southern Greece, bounded on the
N. by Achaea, E. by Arcadia, S. by Messenia, and W. by the Ionian Sea.
The local form of the name was Valis, or Valeia, and its meaning, in all
probability, "the lowland." In its physical constitution Elis is
practically one with Achaea and Arcadia; its mountains are mere
offshoots of the Arcadian highlands, and its principal rivers are fed by
Arcadian springs. From Erymanthus in the north, Skollis (now known as
Mavri and Santameri in different parts of its length) stretches toward
the west, and Pholoe along the eastern frontier; in the south a
prolongation of Mount Lycaeon bore in ancient times the names of Minthe
and Lapithus, which have given place respectively to Alvena and to
Kaiapha and Smerna. These mountains are well clothed with vegetation,
and present a soft and pleasing appearance in contrast to the
picturesque wildness of the parent ranges. They gradually sink towards
the west and die off into what was one of the richest alluvial tracts in
the Peloponnesus. Except where it is broken by the rocky promontories of
Chelonatas (now Chlemutzi) and Ichthys (now Katakolo), the coast lies
low, with stretches of sand in the north and lagoons and marshes towards
the south. During the summer months communication with the sea being
established by means of canals, these lagoons yield a rich harvest of
fish to the inhabitants, who at the same time, however, are almost
driven from the coast by the swarms of gnats. The district for
administrative purposes forms part of the nome of Elis and Achaea (see
GREECE).
Elis was divided into three districts--Hollow or Lowland Elis ([Greek:
he kohile Elis]), Pisatis, or the territory of Pisa, and Triphylia, or
the country of the three tribes. (1) _Hollow Elis_, the largest and most
northern of the three, was watered by the Peneus and its tributary the
Ladon, whose united stream forms the modern Gastouni. It included not
only the champaign country originally designated by its name, but also
the mountainous region of Acrorea, occupied by the offshoots of
Erymanthus. Besides the capital city of Elis, it contained Cyllene, an
Arcadian settlement on the sea-coast, whose inhabitants worshipped
Hermes under the phallic symbol; Pylus, at the junction of the Peneus
and the Ladon, which, like so many other places of the same name,
claimed to be the city of Nestor, and the fortified frontier town of
Lasion, the ruins of which are still visible at Kuti, near the village
of Kumani. The district was famous in antiquity for its cattle and
horses; and its byssus, supposed to have been introduced by the
Phoenicians, was inferior only to that of Palestine. (2) _Pisatis_
extended south from Hollow Elis to the right bank of the Alpheus, and
was divided into eight departments called after as many towns. Of these
Salmone, Heraclea, Cicysion, Dyspontium and Harpina are known--the last
being the reputed burial-place of Marmax, the suitor of Hippodamia. From
the time of the early investigators it has been disputed whether Pisa,
which gave its name to the district, has ever been a city, or was only a
fountain or a hill. By far the most important spot in Pisatis was the
scene of the great Olympic games, on the northern bank of the Alpheus
(see OLYMPIA). (3) _Triphylia_ stretches south from the Alpheus to the
Neda, which forms the boundary towards Messenia. Of the nine towns
mentioned by Polybius, only two attained to any considerable
influence--Lepreum and Macistus, which gave the names of Lepreatis and
Macistia to the southern and northern halves of Triphylia. The former
was the seat of a strongly independent population, and continued to take
every opportunity of resisting the supremacy of the Eleans. In the time
of Pausanias it was in a very decadent condition, and possessed only a
poor brick-built temple of Demeter; but considerable remains of its
outer walls are still in existence near the village of Strovitzi, on a
part of the Minthe range.
The original inhabitants of Elis were called Caucones and Paroreatae.
They are mentioned for the first time in Greek history under the title
of Epeians, as setting out for the Trojan War, and they are described by
Homer as living in a state of constant hostility with their neighbours
the Pylians. At the close of the 11th century B.C. the Dorians invaded
the Peloponnesus, and Elis fell to the share of Oxylus and the
Aetolians. These people, amalgamating with the Epeians, formed a
powerful kingdom in the north of Elis. After this many changes took
place in the political distribution of the country, till at length it
came to acknowledge only three tribes, each independent of the others.
These tribes were the Epeians, Minyae and Eleans. Before the end of the
8th century B.C., however, the Eleans had vanquished both their rivals,
and established their supremacy over the whole country. Among the other
advantages which they thus gained was the right of celebrating the
Olympic games, which had formerly been the prerogative of the Pisatans.
The attempts which this people made to recover their lost privilege,
during a period of nearly two hundred years, ended at length in the
total destruction of their city by the Eleans. From the time of this
event (572 B.C.) till the Peloponnesian War, the peace of Elis remained
undisturbed. In that great contest Elis sided at first with Sparta; but
that power, jealous of the increasing prosperity of its ally, availed
itself of the first pretext to pick a quarrel. At the battle of Mantinea
(418 B.C.) the Eleans fought against the Spartans, who, as soon as the
war came to a close, took vengeance upon them by depriving them of
Triphylia and the towns of the Acrorea. The Eleans made no attempt to
re-establish their authority over these places, till the star of Thebes
rose in the ascendant after the battle of Leuctra (371 B.C.). It is not
unlikely that they would have effected their purpose had not the
Arcadian confederacy come to the assistance of the Triphylians. In 366
B.C. hostilities broke out between them, and though the Eleans were at
first successful, they were soon overpowered, and their capital very
nearly fell into the hands of the enemy. Unable to make head against
their opponents, they applied for assistance to the Spartans, who
invaded Arcadia, and forced the Arcadians to recall their troops from
Elis. The general result of this war was the restoration of their
territory to the Eleans, who were also again invested with the right of
holding the Olympic games. During the Macedonian supremacy in Greece
they sided with the victors, but refused to fight against their
countrymen. After the death of Alexander they renounced the Macedonian
alliance. At a subsequent period they joined the Aetolian League, but
persistently refused to identify themselves with the Achaeans. When the
whole of Greece fell under the Roman yoke, the sanctity of Olympia
secured for the Eleans a certain amount of indulgence. The games still
continued to attract to the country large numbers of strangers, until
they were finally put down by Theodosius in 394, two years previous to
the utter destruction of the country by the Gothic invasion under
Alaric. In later times Elis fell successively into the hands of the
Franks and the Venetians, under whose rule it recovered to some extent
its ancient prosperity. By the latter people the province of Belvedere
on the Peneus was called, in consequence of its fertility, "the milch
cow of the Morea."
ELIS, the chief city of the ancient Greek district of Elis, was situated
on the river Peneus, just where it passes from the mountainous district
of Acrorea into the champaign below. According to native tradition, it
was originally founded by Oxylus, the leader of the Aetolians, whose
statue stood in the market-place. In 471 B.C. it received a great
extension by the incorporation (synoecism) of various small hamlets,
whose inhabitants took up their abode in the city. Up to this date it
only occupied the ridge of the hill now called Kalaskopi, to the south
of the Peneus, but afterwards it spread out in several suburbs, and even
to the other side of the stream. As all the athletes who intended to
take part in the Olympic games were obliged to undergo a month's
training in the city, its gymnasiums were among its principal
institutions. They were three in number--the "Xystos," with its avenues
of plane-trees, its plethrion or wrestling-place, its altars to
Heracles, to Eros and Anteros, to Demeter and Kore (Cora), and its
cenotaph of Achilles; the "Tetragonon," appropriated to boxing
exercises; and the "Maltho," in the interior of which was a hall or
council chamber called Lalichmion after its founder. The market-place
was of the old-fashioned type, with porticoes at intervals and paths
leading between them. It was called the Hippodrome because it was
commonly used for exercising horses. Among the other objects of interest
were the temple of Artemis Philomirax; the Hellanodicaeon, or office of
the Hellanodicae; the Corcyrean Hall, a building in the Dorian style
with two facades, built of spoils from Corcyra; a temple of Apollo
Acesius; a temple of Silenus; an ancient structure supported on oaken
pillars and reputed to be the burial-place of Oxylus; the building where
the sixteen women of Elis were wont to weave a robe for the statue of
Hera at Olympia; the temple of Aphrodite, with a statue of the goddess
by Pheidias as Urania with a tortoise beneath her foot, and by Scopas as
Pandemos, riding on a goat; and the shrine of Dionysus, whose festival,
the Thyia, was yearly celebrated in the neighbourhood. On the acropolis
was a temple of Athena, with a gold and ivory statue by Pheidias. The
history of the town is closely identified with that of the country. In
399 B.C. it was occupied by Agis, king of Sparta. The acropolis was
fortified in 312 by Telesphorus, the admiral of Antigonus, but it was
shortly afterwards dismantled by Philemon, another of his generals. A
view of the site is given by Stanhope. It is now called Palaeopolis. No
traces of any buildings can be identified, the only remains visible
dating from Roman times.
See Pausanias vi. 23-26; J. Spencer Stanhope, _Olympia and Elis_
(1824), folio; W.M. Leake, _Morea_ (1830); E. Curtius, _Peloponnesus_
(1851-1852); Schiller, _Stamme und Staaten Griechenlands_; C. Bursian,
_Geographie von Griechenland_ (1868-1872); P. Gardner, "The Coins of
Elis," in _Num. Chr._ (1879). (E. Gr.)
ELIS, PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL OF. This school was founded by Phaedo, a
pupil of Socrates. It existed for a very short time and was then
transferred by Menedemus to Eretria, where it became known as the
Eretrian school. Its chief members, beside Phaedo, were Anchipylus,
Moschus and Pleistanus (see PHAEDO and MENEDEMUS).
ELISAVETGRAD, a fortress and town of Russia, in the government of
Kherson, 296 m. by rail N.E. of Odessa on the Balta-Kremenchug railway,
and on the Ingul river, in 48 deg. 31' N. and 32 deg. 10' E. The
population increased from 23,725 in 1860 to 66,182 in 1900. The town is
regularly built, with wide streets, some of them lined with trees, and
is a wealthy town, which has become an industrial centre for the region
especially on account of its steam flour-mills, in which it is second
only to Odessa, its distilleries, mechanical workshops, tobacco and
tallow factories and brickworks. It is an important centre for trade in
cereals and flour for export, and in sheep, cattle, wool, leather and
timber. Five fairs are held annually. It has a military school, a
first-class meteorological station and a botanical garden. The town was
founded in 1754 and named after the empress Elizabeth. The
fortifications are now decayed.
ELISAVETPOL, a government of Russia, Transcaucasia, having the
governments of Tiflis and Daghestan on the N., Baku on the E., and
Erivan and Tiflis on the W. and Persia on the S. Area, 16,721 sq. m. It
includes: (a) the southern slope of the main Caucasus range in the
north-east, where Bazardyuzi (14,770 ft.) and other peaks rise above the
snow-line; (b) the arid and unproductive steppes beside the Kura,
reaching 1000 ft. of altitude in the west and sinking to 100-200 ft. in
the east, where irrigation is necessary; and (c) the northern slopes of
the Transcaucasian escarpment and portions of the Armenian plateau,
which is intersected towards its western boundary, near Lake Gok-cha, by
chains of mountains consisting of trachytes and various crystalline
rocks, and reaching 12,845 ft. in Mount Kapujikh. Elsewhere the country
has the character of a plateau, 7000 to 8000 ft. high, deeply trenched
by tributaries of the Aras. All varieties of climate are found from that
of the snowclad peaks, Alpine meadows, and stony deserts of the high
levels, to that of the hill slopes, clothed with gardens and vineyards,
and of the arid Caspian steppes. Thus, at Shusha, on the plateau, at an
altitude of 3680 ft., the average temperatures are: year 48 deg.,
January 26 deg., July 66 deg.; annual rainfall, 26.4; while at
Elisavetpol, in the valley of the Kura, they are: year 55 deg., January
32 deg. 2, July 77 deg. and rainfall only 10.3 in. Nearly one-fifth of
the surface is under forests.
The population which was 885,379 in 1897 (only 392,124 women; 84,130
urban), and was estimated at 953,300 in 1906, consists chiefly of Tatars
(56%) and Armenians (33%). The remainder are Kurds (4.7%), Russians and
a few Germans, Jews, Kurins, Udins and Tates. Peasants form the great
bulk of the population. Some of the Tatars and the Kurds are nomadic.
Wheat, maize, barley, oats and rye are grown, also rice. Cultivation of
cotton has begun, but the rearing of silkworms is of old standing,
especially at Nukha (1650 tons of cocoons on the average are obtained
every year). Nearly 8000 acres are under vines, the yield of wine
averaging 82-1/2 million gallons annually. Gardening reaches a high
standard of perfection. Liquorice root is obtained to the extent of
about 35,000 tons annually. The rearing of live-stock is largely carried
on on the steppes. Copper, magnetic iron ore, cobalt and a small
quantity of naphtha are extracted, and nearly 10,000 persons are
employed in manufacturing industry--copper works and silk-mills.
Carpet-weaving is widely spread. Owing to the Transcaucasian railway,
which crosses the government, trade, both in the interior and with
Persia, is very brisk. The government is divided into eight districts,
Elisavetpol, Aresh, Jebrail, Jevanshir, Kazakh, Nukha, Shusha and
Zangezur. The only towns, besides the capital, are Nukha (24,811
inhabitants in 1897) and Shusha (25,656).
ELISAVETPOL (formerly _Ganja_, alternative names being KENJEH and
KANGA), a town of Russia, capital of the government of the same name,
118 m. by rail S.E. of Tiflis and 3-1/2 m. from the railway, at an
altitude of 1446 ft. Pop. (1873) 15,439; (1897) 33,090. It is a very old
town, which changed hands between Persians, Khazars and Arabs even in
the 7th century, and later fell into the possession of Mongols,
Georgians, Persians and Turks successively, until the Russians took it
in 1804, when the change of name was made. It is a badly built place,
with narrow streets and low-roofed, windowless houses, and is situated
in a very unhealthy locality, but has been much improved, a new European
quarter having been built on the site of the old fortress (erected by
the Turks in 1712-1724). The inhabitants are chiefly Tatars and
Armenians, famed for their excellent gardening, and also for silkworm
breeding. It has a beautiful mosque, built by Shah Abbas of Persia in
1620; and a renowned "Green Mosque" amidst the ruins of old Ganja, 4 m.
distant. The Persian poet, Shah Nizam (Nizam-ed-Din), was born here in
1141, and is said to have been buried (1203) close to the town. The
Persians were defeated by the Russians under Paskevich outside this town
in 1826.
ELISHA (a Hebrew name meaning "God is deliverance"), in the Bible, the
disciple and successor of Elijah, was the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah
in the valley of the Jordan. He was symbolically elected to the
prophetic office by Elijah some time during the reign of Ahab (1 Kings
xix. 19-21), and he survived until the reign of Joash. His career thus
appears to have extended over a period of nearly sixty years. The
relation between Elijah and Elisha was of a particularly close kind, but
the difference between them is much more striking than the resemblance.
Elijah is the prophet of the wilderness, wandering, rugged and austere;
Elisha is the prophet of civilized life, of the city and the court, with
the dress, manners and appearance of ordinary "grave citizens." Elijah
is the messenger of vengeance--sudden, fierce and overwhelming; Elisha
is the messenger of mercy and restoration. Elijah's miracles, with few
exceptions, are works of wrath and destruction; Elisha's miracles, with
but one notable exception, are works of beneficence and healing. Elijah
is the "prophet as fire" (Ecclus, xlviii. 1), an abnormal agent working
for exceptional ends; Elisha is the "holy man of God which passeth by us
continually" (2 Kings iv. 9), mixing in the common life of the people.
It is impossible to draw up a detailed chronology of his life. In most
of the events narrated no further indication of time is given than by
the words "the king of Israel," the name not being specified. There are
some instances in which the order of time is obviously the reverse of
the order of narrative, and there are other grounds for concluding that
the narrative as we now have it is confused and incomplete. This may
serve not only to explain the chronological difficulties, but also to
throw some light on the altogether exceptional character of the
miraculous element in Elisha's history. On the literary questions, see
further KINGS.
Not only are Elisha's miracles very numerous, even more so than those of
Elijah, but they stand in a peculiar relation to the man and his work.
With all the other prophets the primary function is spiritual teaching;
miracles, even though numerous and many of them symbolical like
Elisha's, are only accessory. With Elisha, on the other hand, miracles
seem the principal function, and the teaching is altogether subsidiary.
An explanation of the superabundance of miracles in Elisha's life is
suggested by the fact that several of them were merely repetitions or
doubles of those of his predecessor. Such were: his first miracle, when,
returning across the Jordan, he made a dry path for himself in the same
manner as Elijah (2 Kings ii. 14); the increase of the widow's pot of
oil (iv. 1-7); and the restoration of the son of the woman of Shunem to
life (iv. 18-37). The theory that stories from the earlier life have
been imported by mistake into the later, even if tenable, applies only
to three of the miracles, and leaves unexplained a much larger number
which are not only not repetitions of those of Elijah, but have an
entirely opposite character. The healing of the water of Jericho by
putting salt in it (ii. 19-22), the provision of water for the army of
Jehoshaphat in the arid desert (iii. 6-20), the neutralizing by meal of
the poison in the pottage of the famine-stricken sons of the prophets at
Jericho (iv. 38-41), the healing of Naaman the Syrian (v. 1-19), and the
recovery of the iron axehead that had sunk in the water (vi. 1-7), are
all instances of the beneficence which was the general characteristic of
Elisha's wonder-working activity in contrast to that of Elijah. Another
miracle of the same class, the feeding of a hundred men with twenty
loaves so that something was left over (iv. 42-44), deserves mention as
the most striking though not the only instance of a resemblance between
the work of Elisha and that of Jesus (Matt. xiv. 13-21). The one
distinct exception to the general beneficence of Elisha's activity--the
destruction of the forty-two children who mocked him as he was going up
to Bethel (2 Kings ii. 23-25)--presents an ethical difficulty which is
scarcely removed by the suggestion that the narrative has lost some
particulars which would have shown the real enormity of the children's
offence. We may prefer to imagine that among the homely stories told of
him was one which had for its main object the inculcation of respect for
one's elders.[1] The leprosy brought upon Gehazi (v. 20-27), though a
miracle of judgment, scarcely belongs to the same class as the other;
and it will be observed that Gehazi's subsequent relations with the
court (viii. 1-6) ignore the disease, a fatal hindrance to intercourse.
Further, the healing of Naaman (alluded to in Luke iv. 27) presupposes
peaceful relations between Israel and the Syrians, with which, however,
contrast ch. vi. The wonder-working power of Elisha is represented as
continuing even after his death. As the feeding of the hundred men and
the cure of leprosy connect his work with that of Jesus, so the story
that a dead man who was cast into his sepulchre was brought to life by
the mere contact with his bones (2 Kings xiii. 21, cf. Ecclus. xlviii.
12-14) is the most striking instance of an analogy between his miracles
and those recorded of medieval saints. Stanley (_Jewish Church_, 4th
ed., ii. 276) in reference to this has remarked that in the life of
Elisha alone "in the sacred history the gulf between biblical and
ecclesiastical miracles almost disappears."
The place which Elisha filled in contemporary history was one of great
influence and importance, and several narratives testify to his great
reputation in Israel. On one occasion, when he delivered the army that
had been brought out against Moab from a threatened dearth of water (2
Kings iii.),[2] he plainly intimates that, but for his regard to
Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, who was in alliance with Israel, he
would not have interfered. Whether he was with the army or was supposed
to be living in the desert is left obscure. An interesting touch is the
influence of music upon the prophetic mind (_v._ 15). His next signal
interference was during the incursions of the Syrians, when he disclosed
the plans of the invaders to the "king of Israel" with such effect that
they were again and again baffled. When the "king of Syria" was informed
that "Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel
the words that thou speakest in thy bed-chamber," he at once sent an
army to take him captive in Dothan. At Elisha's prayer his terrified
servant beheld an army of horses and chariots of fire surrounding the
prophet. At a second prayer the invaders were struck blind, and in this
state they were led by Elisha to Samaria, where their sight was
restored. Their lives were spared at the command of the prophet, and
they returned home so impressed that their incursions thenceforward
ceased (vi. 8-23). This is immediately followed by the siege of Samaria
by Benhadad which caused a famine of the severest kind. The calamity was
imputed by the "king of Israel" to the influence of Elisha, and he
ordered the prophet to be immediately put to death. Forewarned of the
danger, Elisha ordered the messenger who had been sent to slay him to be
detained at the door, and, when, immediately afterwards, the king
himself came ("messenger" in vi. 33 should rather be _king_), predicted
a great plenty within twenty-four hours. This was fulfilled by the
flight of the Syrian army under the circumstances stated in ch. vii.
After the episode with regard to the woman of Shunem (viii. 1-6), which
is out of its chronological order, Elisha is represented as at Damascus
(viii. 7-15). The reverence with which the foreign monarch Benhadad
addressed Elisha deserves to be noted as showing the extent of the
prophet's influence. In sending to know the issue of his illness, the
king caused himself to be styled "_thy son_ Benhadad." Equally
remarkable is the very ambiguous nature of Elisha's reply (viii.
10).[3] The most important interference of Elisha in the history of his
country constituted the fulfilment of the third of the commands laid
upon Elijah. The work of anointing Jehu to be king over Israel was
performed by deputy (ix. 1-3). During the forty-five years which the
chronological scheme allows for the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz the
narratives contain no notice of Elisha, but from the circumstances of
his death (xiii. 14-21) it is clear that he had continued to enjoy the
esteem of the dynasty which he had helped to found. Joash, the grandson
of Jehu, waited on him on his death-bed, and addressed him in the words
which he himself had used to Elijah: "My father, my father, the chariot
of Israel and the horsemen thereof" (cf. ii. 12). By the result of a
symbolic discharge of arrows he informed the king of his coming success
against Syria, and immediately thereafter he died. The explicit
statement that he was buried completes the contrast between him and his
greater predecessor.
On the narratives, see KINGS. In general those where "the prophet
appears as on friendly terms with the king, and possessed of influence
at court (e.g. 2 Kings iv. 13, vi. 9, vi. 21, compared with xiii. 14),
plainly belong to the time of Jehu's dynasty, though they are related
before the fall of the house of Omri. We can distinguish portions of
an historical narrative which speaks of Elisha in connexion with
events of public interest, without making him the central figure, and
a series of anecdotes of properly biographical character.... In the
latter we may distinguish one circle connected with Gilgal, Jericho
and the Jordan valley to which Abel-Meholah belongs (iv. 1-7? 38-44,
v.? vi. 1-7). Here Elisha appears as the head of the prophetic gilds,
having his fixed residence at Gilgal.[4] Another circle, which
presupposes the accession of the house of Jehu, places him at Dothan
or Carmel, and represents him as a personage of almost superhuman
dignity. Here there is an obvious parallelism with the history of
Elijah, especially with his ascension (cf. 2 Kings vi. 17 with ii. 11;
xiii. 14 with ii. 12); and it is to this group of narratives that the
ascension of Elijah forms the introduction" (Robertson Smith, _Ency.
Brit._, 9th ed., art. KINGS, vol. xiv. p. 186). This twofold
representation finds a parallel in the narratives of Samuel, whose
history and the conditions reflected therein are analogous to the life
and times of Elisha.
Elisha is canonized in the Orthodox Eastern Church, his festival being
on the 14th of June, under which date his life is entered in the _Acta
sanctorum_.
See especially, W.R. Smith, _Prophets of Israel_ (Index, s.v.), and
the literature to ELIJAH; KINGS, BOOKS OF; PROPHET.
(W. R. S.; S. A. C.)