(2) vii. 14-xi. 10. _The First Plagues of Egypt._--In this section the

analysis again reveals three main sources, which are clearly marked

off from one another both by their linguistic features and by their

difference of representation. The principal source is J, from which

are derived six plagues, viz. killing of the fish in the river (vii.

14, 16, 17a, 18, 21a, 24, 25), frogs (viii. 1-4, 8-150), insects

(viii. 20-32), murrain (ix. 1-7), hail (ix. 13-18, 23b, 24b, 25b-34),

locusts (x. 1a, 3-11, 13b, 14b, 15a, c-19, 24-26, 28, 29), the threat

to slay all the first-born (xi. 4-8). The most striking characteristic

of this narrative is that the plagues are represented as mainly due to

natural causes and follow a natural sequence. Thus Yahweh smites the

river so that the fish die and render the water undrinkable. This is

succeeded by a plague of frogs. The swarms of flies and insects, which

next appear, are the natural outcome of the decaying masses of frogs,

and these, in turn, would form a natural medium for the spread of

cattle disease. Destructive hailstorms, again, though rare, are not

unknown in Egypt, while the locusts are definitely stated to have been

brought by a strong east wind. Other distinctive features of J's

narrative are: (1) Moses alone is bidden to interview Pharaoh (vii. 14

f.; viii. 1 f., 20 f.; ix. 1 f., 13 f.; x. 1 f.); (2) on each occasion

he makes a formal demand; (3) on Pharaoh's refusal the plague is

announced, and takes place at a fixed time without any human

intervention; (4) when the plague is sent, Pharaoh sends for Moses and

entreats his intercession, promising in most cases to accede in part

to his request; when the plague is removed, however, the promise is

left unfulfilled, the standing phrase being "and Pharaoh's heart was

heavy ([Hebrew: kaved])," or "and Pharaoh made heavy ([Hebrew:

hihbid]) his heart"; (5) the plagues do not affect the children of

Israel in Goshen. E's account (water turned into blood, vii. 15, 17b,

20b, 23; hail, ix. 22, 23a, 24a, 25a, 35; locusts, x. 12, 13a, 14a,

15b) is more fragmentary, having been doubtless superseded in most

cases by the fuller and more graphic narrative of J, but the plague of

darkness (x. 20-23, 27) is found only in this source. As contrasted

with J the narrative emphasizes the miraculous character of the

plagues. They are brought about by "the rod of God," which Moses

wields, the effect being instantaneous and all-embracing. The

Israelites are represented as living among the Egyptians, and enjoy no

immunity from the plagues, except that of darkness. Their departure

from Egypt is deliberate; the people have time to borrow raiment and

jewels from their neighbours. E regularly uses the phrase "and

Pharaoh's heart was strong ([Hebrew: hazak])," or "and Yahweh made

strong ([Hebrew: hizek]) Pharaoh's heart" and "he would not let the

children of Israel (or, them) go." In the priestly narrative (P) the

plagues assume the form of a trial of skill between Aaron, who acts at

Moses' command, and the Egyptian magicians, and thus connect with vii.

8-13. The magicians succeed in turning the Nile water into blood (vii.

19, 20a, 21b, 22), and in bringing up frogs (viii. 5-7), but they fail

to bring forth lice (viii. 15b-19), and are themselves smitten with

boils (ix. 8-12): the two last-named plagues have no parallel either

in J or E. Throughout the P sections Aaron is associated with Moses,

and the regular command given to the latter is "Say unto Aaron": no

demand is ever made to Pharaoh, and the description of the plague is

quite short. The formula employed by P is "and Pharaoh's heart was

strong ([Hebrew: hazak])," or, "and Pharaoh made strong ([Hebrew:

hizek]) his heart," as in E, but it is distinguished from E's phrase

by the addition of "and he hearkened not unto them as Yahweh had

spoken."

(3) xii. i-xiii. 16. _The Last Plague, the Deliverance from Egypt, the

Institution of the Passover and of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes, the

Consecration of the First-born._--This section presents the usual

phenomena of a composite narrative, viz. repetitions and

inconsistencies. Thus J's regulations for the Passover (xii. 21-23,

27b) seem at first sight simply to repeat the commands given to Moses

and Aaron in xii. 1-13 (P), but in reality they are a parallel and

divergent account. In vv. 1-13 the choice of the lamb and the manner

in which it is to be eaten constitute the essential feature, the

smearing with the blood being quite secondary; in vv. 21 f. the latter

point is all-important, and no regulations are given for the paschal

meal (which, possibly, formed no part of J's original account).

Similarly the institution of the Feast of _Mazzoth_, or Unleavened

Cakes (xiii. 3-10J), does not form the sequel to the regulations laid

down in xii. 14-20 (P), but is independent of them: it omits all

reference to the "holy convocations" and to the abstinence from

labour, and is obviously simpler and more primitive. J's account,

again, makes important exceptions (xiii. 11-13) to the severe

enactment of P with reference to the first-born (xiii. 1). The

description of the smiting of the first-born of Egypt is derived from

J (xii. 29-34, 37-39), who clearly sees in the Feast of _Mazzoth_ a

perpetual reminder of the haste with which the Israelites fled from

Egypt; the editor of JE, however, has included some extracts from E

(xii. 31, 35, 36), which point to a more deliberate departure. The

section has been worked over by a Deuteronomistic editor, whose hand

can be clearly traced in the additions xii. 24-27a; xiii. 3b, 5, 8, 9,

14-16.

(4) xiii. 17-xv. 21. _The Crossing of the Red Sea._--According to J

the children of Israel departed from Egypt under the guidance of

Yahweh, who leads them by day in a pillar of cloud and by night in a

pillar of fire (xiii. 21, 22). On hearing of their flight Pharaoh at

once starts in pursuit. The Israelites, terrified by the approach of

the Egyptians, upbraid Moses, who promises them deliverance by the

hand of Yahweh (xiv. 5, 6,-7b, 10a, 11-14, 19b). Yahweh then causes a

strong east wind to blow all that night, which drives back the waters

from the shallows, and so renders it possible for the host of Israel

to cross over. The Egyptians follow, but the progress of their

chariots is hindered by the soft sand, and in the morning they are

caught by the returning waters (xiv. 21b, 24, 25, 27b, 28b, 30). The

story, however, has been combined with the somewhat different account

of E, which doubtless covered the same ground, and also with that of

P. According to the former, Elohim did not permit the Israelites to

take the shorter route to Canaan by the Mediterranean coast, for fear

of the Philistines, but led them southwards to the Red Sea, whither

they were pursued by the Egyptians (xiii. 17-19). The remainder of E's

account has only been preserved in a fragmentary form (xiv. 7aa, 10b,

15a, 19a, 20a), from which it may be gathered that Moses divided the

waters by stretching out his rod, thus presupposing that the crossing

took place by day, and that the dark cloud which divided the two hosts

was miraculously caused by the angel of God. P also represents the sea

as divided by means of Moses' rod, but heightens the effect by

describing the crossing as taking place between walls of water (xiii.

20; xiv. 1-4, 8, 9, 15b, 16b-18, 21a, c, 22, 23, 26, 27a, 28a, 29).

J's version of the Song of Moses probably does not extend beyond xv.

1, and has its counterpart in the very similar song of Miriam (E), in

vv. 20, 21. The rest of the song (vv. 2-18) is probably the work of a

later writer; for these verses set forth not only the deliverance from

Egypt, but also the entrance of Israel into Canaan (vv. 13-17), and

further presuppose the existence of the temple (vv. 13b, 17b). These

phenomena have been explained as due to later expansion, but the poem

has all the appearance of being a unity, and the language, style and

rhythm all point to a later age. Verse 19 is probably the work of the

redactor (R^P) who inserted the song.

(5) xv. 22-xviii. 27. _Incidents in the Wilderness._--The narrative of

the first journeying in the wilderness (xv. 22-xvii. 7) presents a

series of difficulties which probably owe their origin to the

editorial activity of R^P, who appears to have transferred to the

beginning of the wanderings a number of incidents which rightly belong

to the end. The concluding verses of ch. xv. contain J's account of

the sweetening of the waters of Marah, with which has been

incorporated a fragment of E's story of Massah (xv. 25b) and a

Deuteronomic expansion in v. 26. Then follows (ch. xvi.) P's version

of the sending of the manna and quails. In its present form, this

narrative contains a number of conflicting elements, which can only be

the result of editorial activity. Thus vv. 6, 7 must originally have

preceded vv. 11, 12, though the redactor has attempted to evade the

difficulty by inserting v. 8. Again, the account of the quails, which

is obviously incomplete, is undoubtedly derived from Num. xi.; but the

latter account, which admittedly belongs to JE, places the incident at

the end of the wanderings. Closer examination also of P's narrative of

the manna shows that its true-position is _after_ the departure from

Mt. Sinai; cf. the expressions used in vv. 9, 10, 33, 34, implying the

existence of the ark and the tabernacle. P's account of the manna,

however, can hardly have stood originally in close juxtaposition with

his account of the quails (cf. Num. xi. 6), but the two narratives

were probably combined by R^P before they were transferred to their

present position. The same redactor doubtless added v. 8 (and possibly

vv. 17, 18) by way of explanation, and vv. 5 and 22-30, which imply

that the law of the Sabbath was already known, and introduce a fresh

element into the story. A plausible explanation of R^P's action is

supplied by the theory that an earlier account of the giving of the

manna already existed at this point of the narrative. We know from

Deuteronomy viii. 2 f., 16 that JE contained an account of the manna,

which included the explanation of Ex. xvi. 15, and also emphasized, as

the motive for the gift, Yahweh's desire "to prove thee (i.e. test thy

disposition) ... whether thou wouldst keep his commandments, or no."

Fragments of this early story of Massah (testing) were incorporated by

R^P in his story of the manna and the quails, viz. xv. 25b; xvi. 4,

15, 16a, 19b-21. These verses must be assigned to E, for in xvii. 3,

2c (wherefore do ye tempt the Lord?), 7a (to _Massah_), c (because

they tempted ..., &c.), we find yet another version (J) of the same

incident, according to which the people tempted (tested) Yahweh. It

was owing to the combination of this latter account with E's further

description of the striving of the people for water at Meribah that

the double name Massah-Meribah arose, xvii. 1b-7 (1a belongs to P),

though Deut. xxxiii. 8 makes it clear that Massah and Meribah were

separate localities (cf. Deut. ix. 22, 2 f., 16, where Massah occurs

alone): P's version of striving at Meribah, in which traces of J's

account have been preserved, is given at Num. xx. 1-13.

xvii. 8-16. _The Battle with Amalek at Rephidim._--This incident is

derived from E, but is clearly out of place in its present context.

Its close connexion with the end of the wanderings is shown by (a) the

description of Moses as an infirm old man; (b) the role played by

Joshua in contrast with xxiv. 13, xxxiii. 11, where he is introduced

as a young man and Moses' minister; and (c) the references elsewhere

to the home of the Amalekites: according to Num. xiii. 29, xiv. 25,

xliii. 45, they dwelt in the S. or S.W. of Judah near Kadesh (cf. 1

Sam. xv. 6 f., 30; Gen. xiv. 7; xxxvi. 12).

Ch. xviii. _The visit of Jethro to Moses and the appointment of

judges._--This story, like the preceding one, is mainly derived from E

and is also out of place. Allusions in the chapter itself point

unmistakably to a time just before the departure from Sinai-Horeb, and

this date is confirmed both by Deut. i. 9-16 and by the parallel

account of J in Num. x. 29-32. The narrative, however, displays signs

of compilation, and it is not improbable that R^JE has incorporated in

vv. 7-11 part of J's account of the visit of Moses' father-in-law (cf.

the use of Yahweh).

(b) Ch. xix.-xxiv., xxxii., xxxiv.--The contents of these chapters,

which, owing to their contents, form the most important section in the

book of Exodus, may be briefly analysed as follows. In ch. xix. we

have a twofold description of the theophany on Mt. Sinai (or Horeb),

followed by the Decalogue in xx. 1-17. Alongside of this code we find

another, dealing in part with the civil and social (xxi. 2-xxii. 17),

in part with the religious life of Israel, the so-called Book of the

Covenant, xx. 22-xxiii. 19. Ch. xxiv. contains a composite narrative

of the ratification of the covenant. In chs. xxxii. and xxxiii. we

have again two narratives of the sin of the people and of Moses'

intercession, while in ch. xxxiv. we are confronted with yet another

early code, which is practically identical with the religious

enactments of xx. 22-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii. 10-19.

With but few exceptions the _provenance_ of the individual sections

may be said to have been finally determined by the labours of the

critics, but even a cursory examination of their contents makes it

evident that the sequence of events, which they now present, cannot be

original, but is rather the outcome of a long process of revision,

during which the text has suffered considerably from alterations,

omissions, dislocations and additions. Yet owing to the method of

composition employed by Hebrew editors, or revisers, it is possible in

this case, as in others, not only to determine the source of each

individual passage, but also to trace with considerable confidence the

various stages in the process by which it reached its final form and

position. It must, however, be admitted that the evidence at our

disposal is, in some cases, capable of more than one interpretation.

Hence a final conclusion can hardly be expected, but with certain

modifications in detail the following solution of the problem may be

accepted as representing the point of view of recent criticism.

Ch. xix. contains two parallel accounts of the theophany on

Horeb-Sinai, from E and J respectively, which differ materially from

one another. According to the former, Moses is instructed by God

(Elohim) to sanctify the _people_ against the third day (vv. 9a, 10,

11a). This is done and the people are brought by Moses to the foot of

the mountain (Horeb), where they hear the divine voice (14-17, 19). A

noticeable feature of this narrative, of which xx. 18-21 forms a

natural continuation, is the fact that the theophany is addressed to

the _people_, who are too frightened to remain near the mountain

itself. In J, on the other hand, it is the _priests_ who are

sanctified, and great care must be taken to prevent the people from

"breaking through to gaze" (20-22). In this account the mountain is

called "Sinai" throughout, and "Yahweh" appears instead of "Elohim"

(11b, 18, 20 f.). Moreover, Moses and Aaron and the priests are

summoned to the top of the mount (in v. 24b render "thou and Aaron

with thee, and the priests: but let not the people," &c.). Vv. 3b-8,

which have been expanded by a Deuteronomic editor, have been

transferred from their original context after xx. 21; the introductory

verses 1, 2a form part of P's itinerary.

Of the succeeding legislation in xx.-xxiii., xxxii.-xxxiv.,

undoubtedly the earlier sections are xx. 22-26; xxii. 29, 30; xxiii.

10-19, and xxxiv. 10-26, which contain regulations with regard to

worship and religious festivals, and form the basis of the covenant

made by Yahweh with Israel on Sinai-Horeb, as recorded by E and J

respectively. The narrative which introduces the covenant laws of J

has been preserved partly in its present context, ch. xxxiv., partly

in xxiv. 1, 2, 9-11; the narrative of E, on the other hand, has in

part disappeared owing to the interpolation of later material, in part

has been retained in xxiv. 3-8. J's narrative xxiv. 1 f., 9-11 clearly

forms the continuation of xix. 20 f., 11b, 13, 25, but the

introductory words of v. 1, "and unto Moses he said," point to some

omission. Originally, no doubt, it included the recital of the divine

instructions to the people in accordance with xix. 21 f., 11b-13, the

statement that Yahweh came down on the third day, and that a long

blast was blown on the trumpet (or ram's horn [[Hebrew: yovel], as

opposed to [Hebrew: shofar] E]). From xxiv. 1 f. we learn that Moses

and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders were summoned to

the top of the mountain, but that Moses alone was permitted to

approach Yahweh. Then followed the theophany, and, as the text stands,

the sacrificial meal (9-11).[5] The conclusion of J's narrative is

given in ch. xxxiv.,[6] which describes how Moses hewed two tables of

stone at Yahweh's command, and went up to the top of the mountain,

where he received the words of the covenant and wrote them on the

tables. As it stands, however, this chapter represents the legislation

which it contains as a renewal of a former covenant, also written on

tables of stone, which had been broken (1b, 4a). But the document from

which the chapter, as a whole, is derived, is certainly J, while the

previous references to tables of stone and to Moses' breaking them

belong to the parallel narrative of E. Moreover, the covenant here set

forth (v. 10 f.) is clearly a new one, and contains no hint of any

previous legislation, nor of any breach of it by the people. In view

of these facts we are forced to conclude that 1b ("like unto the first

... brakest"), 4a ("and he hewed ... the first") and v. 28 ("the ten

words") formed no part of the original narrative,[7] but were inserted

by a later Deuteronomic redactor. In the view of this editor the

Decalogue alone formed the basis of the covenant at Sinai-Horeb, and

in order to retain J's version, he represented it as a renewal of the

tables of stone which Moses had broken.[8]

The legislation contained in xxxiv. 10-26, which may be described as

the oldest legal code of the Hexateuch, is almost entirely religious.

It prohibits the making of molten images (v. 17), the use of leaven in

sacrifices (25a), the retention of the sacrifice until the morning

(25b),[9] and the seething of a kid in its mother's milk (26b); and

enjoins the observance of the three annual feasts and the Sabbath

(18a, 21-23), and the dedication of the first-born (19, 20, derived

from xiii. 11-13) and of the first-fruits (26a).

The parallel collection of E is preserved in xx. 24-26, xxiii. 10-19,

to which we should probably add xxii. 29-31 (for which xxiii. 19a was

afterwards substituted). The two collections resemble one another so

closely, both in form and extent, that they can only be regarded as

two versions of the same code. E has, however, preserved certain

additional regulations with regard to the building of altars (xx.

24-26) and the observance of the seventh year (xxiii. 10, 11), and

omits the prohibition of molten images (xx. 22, 23, appear to be the

work of a redactor); xxiii. 20-33, the promises attached to the

observance of the covenant, probably formed no part of the original

code, but were added by the Deuteronomic redactor; cf. especially vv.

23-25a, 27, 28, 31b-33. The narrative of E relative to the delivery of

these laws has disappeared,[10] but xxiv. 3-8 (which manifestly have

no connexion with their immediate context) clearly point back to some

such narrative. These verses describe how Moses wrote all the words of

the Lord in a book and recited them to the _people_ (v. 7) as the

basis of a covenant, which was solemnly ratified by the sprinkling of

the blood of the accompanying sacrifices.

In the existing text the covenant laws of E (xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31,

xxiii. 10-19) are combined with a mass of civil and other legislation;

hence the title "Book of the Covenant" (referred to above, xxiv. 7)

has usually been applied to the whole section, xx. 22-xxiii. 33. But

this section includes three distinct elements: (a) the "words"

([Hebrew: hadvarim]) found in xx. 24-26, xxii. 29-31, xxiii. 1-10; (b)

the "judgments" ([Hebrew: hamishpatim]), xxi. 2-xxii. 17; and (c) a

group of moral and ethical enactments, xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9; and an

examination of their contents makes it evident that, though the last

two groups are unmistakably derived from E, they cannot have formed

part of the original "Book of the Covenant"; for the "judgments,"

which are expressed in a hypothetical form, consist of a number of

legal decisions on points of civil law. The cases dealt with fall into

five divisions: (1) The rights of slaves, xxi. 2-11; (2) capital

offences, xxi. 12-16 (v. 17 has probably been added later); (3)

injuries inflicted by man or beast, xxi. 18-32; (4) losses incurred by

culpable negligence or theft, xxi. 33-xxii. 6; (5) cases arising out

of deposits, loans, seduction, xxii. 7-17. It is obvious, from their

very nature, that these legal precedents could not have been included

in the covenant which the _people_ (xxiv. 3) promised to observe, and

it is now generally admitted that the words "and the judgments"

(which are missing in c. 1 b) have been inserted in xxiv. 3a by the

redactor to whom the present position of the "judgments" is due.[11]

The majority of critics, therefore, adopt Kuenen's conjecture that the

"judgments" were originally delivered by Moses on the borders of Moab,

and that when D's revised version of Ex. xxi.-xxiii. was combined with

JE, the older code was placed alongside of E's other legislation at

Horeb. The third group of laws (xxii. 18-28, xxiii. 1-9) appears to

have been added somewhat later than the bulk of xxi.-xxiii. Some of

the regulations are couched in hypothetical form, but their contents

are of a different character to the "judgments," e.g. xxii. 25 f.,

xxiii. 4 f.; others, again, are of a similar nature, but differ in

form, e.g. xxii. 18 f. Lastly, xxii. 20-24, xxiii. 1-3 set forth a

number of moral injunctions affecting the individual, which cannot

have found place in a civil code. At the same time, these additions

must for the most part be prior to D, since many of them are included

in Deut. xii.-xxvi., though there are traces of Deuteronomic revision.

Now it is obvious that the results obtained by the foregoing analysis

of J and E have an important bearing on the history of the remaining

section of E's legislation, viz. the Decalogue (q.v.), Ex. xx. 1-17 (=

Deut. v. 6-21). At present the "Ten Words" stand in the forefront of

E's collection of laws, and it is evident that they were already found

in that position by the author of Deuteronomy, who treated them as the

sole basis of the covenant at Horeb. The evidence, however, afforded

(a) by the parallel version of Deuteronomy and (b) by the literary

analysis of J and E not only fails to support this tradition, but

excites the gravest suspicions as to the originality both of the

_form_ and of the _position_ in which the Decalogue now appears. For

when compared with Ex. xx. 1-17 the parallel version of Deut. v. 6 ff.

is found to exhibit a number of variations, and, in particular,

assigns an entirely different reason for the observance of the

Sabbath. But these variations are practically limited to the

explanatory comments attached to the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 10th

commandments; and the majority of critics are now agreed that these

comments were added at a later date, and that all the commandments,

like the 1st and the 6th to the 9th, were originally expressed in the

form of a single short sentence. This view is confirmed by the fact

that the additions, or comments, bear, for the most part, a close

resemblance to the style of D. They can scarcely, however, have been

transferred from Deuteronomy to Exodus (or vice versa), owing to the

variations between the two versions: we must rather regard them as the

work of a Deuteronomic redactor. But the expansion and revision of the

Decalogue were not limited to the Deuteronomic school. Literary traces

of J and E in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 10th commandments point to earlier

activity on the part of R^JE, while the addition of v. 11, which bases

the observance of the Sabbath on P 's narrative of the Creation (Gen.

ii. 1-3), can only be ascribed to a priestly writer: its absence from

Deut. v. 6 ff. is otherwise inexplicable. Thus the Decalogue, as given

in Exodus, would seem to have passed through at least three stages

before it assumed its present form. But even in its original form it

could hardly have formed part of E's Horeb legislation; for (a) both J

and E have preserved a different collection of laws (or "words")

inscribed by Moses, which are definitely set forth as the basis of the

covenant at Sinai-Horeb (Ex. xxxiv. 10, xxiv. 3 f.), and (b) the

further legislation of E in ch. xx.-xxiii. affords close parallels to

all the commandments (except the 7th and the 10th), and a comparison

of the two leaves no doubt as to which is the more primitive. Hence we

can only conclude that the Decalogue, in its original short form, came

into existence during the period after the completion of E, but before

the promulgation of Deuteronomy. Its present position is, doubtless,

to be ascribed to a redactor who was influenced by the same conception

as the author of Deuteronomy. This redactor, however, did not limit

the Horeb covenant to the Decalogue, but retained E's legislation

alongside of it. The insertion of the Decalogue, or rather the point

of view which prompted its insertion, naturally involved certain

consequential changes of the existing text. The most important of

these, viz. the harmonistic additions to ch. xxxiv., by means of which

J's version of the covenant was represented as a renewal of the

Decalogue, has already been discussed; other passages which show

traces of similar revision are xxiv. 12-15a, 18b, and xxxiv. 1-6.

The confusion introduced into the legislation by later additions, with

the consequent displacement of earlier material, has not been without

effect on the narratives belonging to the different sources. Hence the

sequence of events after the completion of the covenant on Sinai-Horeb

is not always easy to trace, though indications are not wanting in

both J and E of the probable course of the history. The two main

incidents that precede the departure of the children of Israel from

the mountain (Num. x. 29 ff.) are (1) the sin of the people, and (2)

the intercession of Moses, of both of which a double account has been

preserved.

(1) _The Sin of the People._--According to J (xxxii. 25-29) the

people, during the absence of Moses, "break loose," i.e. mutiny. Their

behaviour excites the anger of Moses on his return, and in response to

his appeal the sons of Levi arm themselves and slay a large number of

the people: as a reward for their services they are bidden to

consecrate themselves to Yahweh. The fragmentary form of the

narrative--we miss especially a fuller account of the "breaking

loose"--is doubtless due to the latter editor, who substituted the

story of the golden calf (xxxii. 1-6, 15-24, 35), according to which

the sin of the people consisted in direct violation of the 2nd

commandment. At the instigation of the people Aaron makes a molten

calf out of the golden ornaments brought from Egypt; Moses and Joshua,

on their return to the camp, find the people holding festival in

honour of the occasion; Moses in his anger breaks the tables of the

covenant which he is carrying: he then demolishes the golden calf, and

administers a severe rebuke to Aaron. The punishment of the people is

briefly recorded in v. 35. This latter narrative, which is obviously

inconsistent with the story of J, shows unmistakable traces of E. In

its present form, however, it can hardly be original, but must have

been revised in accordance with the later Deuteronomic conception

which represented the sin committed by the people as a breach of the

2nd commandment. Possibly vv. 7-14 are also to be treated as a

Deuteronomic expansion (cf. Deut. ix. 12-14). Though they show clear

traces of J, it is extremely difficult to fit them into that narrative

in view of Moses' action in vv. 25-29 and of his intercession in ch.

xxxiii.; in any case, vv. 8 and 13 must be regarded as redactional.

(2) _Moses' Intercession._--The time for departure from the Sacred

Mount had now arrived, and Moses is accordingly bidden to lead the

people to the promised land. Yahweh himself refuses to accompany

Israel owing to their disobedience, but in response to Moses'

passionate appeal finally consents to let his presence go with them.

The account of Moses' intercession has been preserved in J, though the

narrative has undergone considerable dislocation. The true sequence of

the narrative appears to be as follows: Moses is commanded to lead the

people to Canaan (xxxiii. 1-3); he pleads that he is unequal to the

task (Num. xi. 10c, 11, 12, 14, 15), and, presumably, asks for

assistance, which is promised (omitted). Moses then asks for a fuller

knowledge of Yahweh and his ways (xxxiii. 12, 13): this request also

is granted (v. 17), and he is emboldened to pray that he may see the

glory of Yahweh; Yahweh replies that his prayer can only be granted in

part, for "man shall not see me and live"; a partial revelation is

then vouchsafed to Moses (xxxiii. 18-23, xxxiv. 6-8): finally, Moses

beseeches Yahweh to go in the midst of his people, and is assured that

Yahweh's presence shall accompany them (xxxiv. 9, xxxiii. 14-16). The

passage from Numbers xi., which is here included, is obviously out of

place in its present context (the story of the quails), and supplies

in part the necessary antecedent to Ex. xxxiii. 12, 13; the passage is

now separated from Ex. xxxiii. by Ex. xxxiv. (J), which has been

wrongly transferred to the close of the Horeb-Sinai incidents (see

above), and by the priestly legislation of Ex. xxxv.-xl., Leviticus

and Num. i.-x.; but originally it must have stood in close connexion

with that chapter. A similar displacement has taken place with regard

to Ex. xxxiv. 6-9, which clearly forms the sequel to xxxiii. 17-23.

The latter passage, however, can hardly represent the conclusion of

the interview, which is found more naturally in xxxiii. 14-16. E's

account of Moses' intercession seems to have been retained, in part,

in xxxii. 30-34, but the passage has probably been revised by a later

hand; in any case its position _before_ instead of _after_ the

dismissal would seem to be redactional.

It is a plausible conjecture that the original narratives of J and E

also contained directions for the construction of an ark,[12] as a

substitute for the personal presence of Yahweh, and also for the

erection of a "tent of meeting" outside the camp, and that these

commands were omitted by R^P in favour of the more elaborate

instructions given in ch. xxv.-xxix. (P). The subsequent narrative of

J (Num. x. 33-36, xiv. 44) implies an account of the making of the

ark, while the remarkable description in Ex. xxxiii. 7-11 (E) of

Moses' practice in regard to the "tent of meeting" points no less

clearly to some earlier statement as to the making of this tent.

The history of Exodus in its original form doubtless concluded with

the visit of Moses' father-in-law and the appointment of judges (ch.

xviii.), the departure from the mountain and the battle with Amalek

(xvii. 8-16).

(c) _The Construction of the Tabernacle and its Furniture_ (ch.

xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl.).--It has long been recognized that the

elaborate description of the Tabernacle and its furniture, and the

accompanying directions for the dress and consecration of the priests,

contained in ch. xxv.-xxxi., have no claim to be regarded as an

historical presentment of the Mosaic Tabernacle and its service. The

language, style and contents of this section point unmistakably to the

hand of P; and it is now generally admitted that these chapters form

part of an ideal representation of the post-exilic ritual system,

which has been transferred to the Mosaic age. According to this

representation, Moses, on the seventh day after the conclusion of the

covenant, was summoned to the top of the mountain, and there received

instructions with regard to (a) the furniture of the sanctuary, viz.

the ark, the table and the lamp-stand (ch. xxv.); (b) the Tabernacle

(ch. xxvi.); (c) the court of the Tabernacle and the altar of

burnt-offering (ch. xxvii.); (d) the dress of the priests (ch.

xxviii.); (e) the consecration of Aaron and his sons (xxix. 1-37); and

(f) the daily burnt-offering (xxix. 38-42): the section ends with a

formal conclusion (xxix. 43-46). The two following chapters contain

further instructions relative to the altar of incense (xxx. 1-10), the

payment of the half-shekel (11-16), the brazen laver (17-21), the

anointing oil (22-33), the incense (34-38), the appointment of

Bezaleel and Oholiab (xxxi. 1-11) and the observance of the Sabbath

(12-17). It is hardly doubtful, however, that these two chapters

formed no part of P's original legislation, but were added by a later

hand.[13] For (1) the altar of incense is here mentioned for the first

time, and was apparently unknown to the author of ch. xxv.-xxix. Had

he known of its existence, he could hardly have failed to include it

with the rest of the Tabernacle furniture in ch. xxvi., and must have

mentioned it at xxvi. 34 f., where the relative positions of the

contents of the Tabernacle are defined: further, the ritual of the Day

of Atonement (Lev. xvi. referred to in xxx. 10) ignores this altar,

and mentions only _one_ altar (cf. "_the_ altar," xxvii. 1), viz. that

of burnt-offering; (2) the command as to the half-shekel presupposes

the census of Num. i., and appears to have been unknown in the time of

Nehemiah (Neh. x. 32) (Heb. 33); (3) the instructions as to the brazen

laver would naturally be expected alongside of those for the altar of

burnt-offering in ch. xxvii.; (4) the following section relating to

the anointing oil presupposes the altar of incense (v. 28), and

further extends the ceremony of anointing to Aaron's sons, though,

elsewhere, the ceremony is confined to Aaron (xxix. 7, Lev. viii. 12),

cf. the title "anointed priest" applied to the high priest (Lev. iv.

3, &c.); (5) the directions for compounding the incense connect

naturally with xxx. 1-10, while (6) the appointment of Bezaleel and

Oholiah cannot be separated from the rest of ch. xxx.-xxxi. The

concluding section on the Sabbath (xxxi. 12-17) shows marks of

resemblance to H (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.), especially in vv. 12-14a, which

appear to have been expanded, very possibly by the editor who inserted

the passage. The continuation of P's narrative is given in xxxiv.

29-35, which describe Moses' return from the mount. The subsequent

chapters (xxxv.-xl.), however, can hardly belong to the original

stratum of P, if only because they presuppose ch. xxx., xxxi., and

were probably added at a later stage than the latter chapters. They

narrate how the commands of ch. xxv.-xxxi. were carried out, and

practically repeat the earlier chapters _verbatim_, merely the tenses

being changed, the most noticeable omissions being xxvii. 20 f. (oil

for the lamps), xxviii. 30 (Urim and Thummim), xxix. 1-37 (the

consecration of the priests, which recurs in Lev. viii.) and xxix.

38-42 (the daily burnt-offering). Apart from the omissions the most

striking difference between the two sections is the variation in

order, the different sections of ch. xxv.-xxxi. being here set forth

in their natural sequence. The secondary character of these concluding

chapters receives considerable confirmation from a comparison of the

Septuagint text. For this version exhibits numerous cases of

variation, both as regards _order_ and _contents_, from the Hebrew

text; moreover the translation, more particularly of many technical

terms, differs from that of ch. xxv.-xxxi., and seems to be the work

of different translators. Hence it is by no means improbable that the

final recension of these chapters had not been completed when the

Alexandrine version was made.

AUTHORITIES.--In addition to the various English and German

commentaries on Exodus included under the head of the Pentateuch, the

following English works are especially worthy of mention: S.R. Driver,

_Introd. to the Literature of the O.T._, and "Exodus" in the _Camb.

Bible_; B.W. Bacon, _The Triple Tradition of the Exodus_ (Hartford,

U.S.A., 1894), and A.H. McNeile, _The Book of Exodus_ (Westminster

Commentaries) (1908); also the articles on "Exodus" by G.

Harford-Battersby (Hastings, _Dict. Bib._ vol. i.) and by G.F. Moore,

_Ency. Biblica_, vol. ii. (J. F. St.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The fact that the father-in-law of Moses is called Reuel in v.

18, as contrasted with the name Jethro, which occurs in iii. 1 f. and

in all subsequent passages from E, cannot be taken as conclusive on

this point, since critics are agreed that "Reuel" in this verse is a

later addition: had it been original we should have expected the name

to be given at v. 16 rather than at v. 18. But, if no argument can be

based on the discrepancy between the two names, we may at least

assume that the namelessness of the priest in v. 16 f. points to a

different source for those verses from that of iii. 1 f. Elsewhere J

speaks of "Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses'

father-in-law" (Num. x. 29); the addition, "the priest of Midian,"

only occurs in the (secondary) passages iii. 1, xviii. 1 (E).

Probably RJE omitted the name in ii. 16 and added "the priest of

Midian" in iii. 1, xviii 1, from harmonizing motives. Further, vv.

15^B-22 speak of _one_ son being born to Moses at this period, a

statement which is borne out by iv. 20, 25 ("sons" in iv. 20 is

obviously a correction), whereas ch. xviii. (E) mentions _two_ sons.

The original order of events in J seems to have been as follows:

after the death of Pharaoh (ii. 23a; the Septuagint repeats this

notice before iv. 19) Moses returns to Egypt with his wife and son

(iv. 19, 20) in obedience to Yahweh's command. On the way he is

seized with a sudden illness, which Zipporah attributes to the fact

that he has not been circumcised and seeks to avert by circumcising

her son (iv. 24-26). The scene of the theophany, therefore, according

to J, is to be placed on the way from Midian to Goshen. Probably the

displacement of iv. 19, 20, 24-26 is due to the editor of JE, who was

thus enabled to combine the two narratives of the theophany.

[2] Cf. iv. 30; Aaron had received no command to do the signs, and

the words "and he did the signs" are most naturally referred to

Moses.

[3] The expansion in iii. 8c, 15, 17b; iv. 22, 23, are probably the

work of a Deuteronomistic redactor.

[4] The genealogy of Moses and Aaron (vv. 14-27) appears to be a

later addition.

[5] Unless we follow Riedel and read simply "and worshipped"

([Hebrew: vaishtahavu]) instead of "and drank" ([Hebrew: vaishtu]),

treating "and ate" ([Hebrew: vaiohlu]) as a later addition; cf. HDB,

extra vol. p. 631 note.

[6] Vv. 6-9 are out of place here: they belong to the story of Moses'

intercession in ch. xxxiii.

[7] This view is confirmed by (a) a comparison of v. lb ("and I will

write") with vv. 27, 28; according to the latter, _Moses_ wrote the

words of the covenant; and (b) the tardy mention of Moses in 4b; the

name would naturally be given at the beginning of the verse.

[8] Others suppose that the present position of ch. xxxiv. is due, in

the first instance, to RJE, but in view of the other Deuteronomic

expansions in vv. 10b-16, 23, 24, it is more probable that J's

version was discarded by RJE in favour of E's, and was afterwards

restored by RD.

[9] Reading "the sacrifice of my feasts" for "the sacrifice of the

feast of the Passover."

[10] Unless, with Bacon, we are to regard xxiv. 12-14, 18b as

original. More probably a later editor has worked up old material of

E (of which there are unmistakable traces) in order to include the

whole of xx.-xxiii. in the covenant: xxiv. 15-18a are an addition

from P.

[11] The present text of xxiv. 12 also has probably been transposed

in accordance with the view that the "judgment" formed part of the

covenant, cf. Deut. v. 31. Originally the latter part of the verse

must have run, "That I may give thee the tables of stone which I have

written, and may teach thee the law and the commandment." For further

details see Bacon, _Triple Tradition of Exodus_, pp. 111 f., 132 f.

[12] According to Deut. x. 1 f., which is in the main a _verbal_

excerpt from Ex. xxxiv. 1 f., Yahweh ordered Moses to make an ark of

acacia wood _before_ he ascended the mountain.

[13] To the same hand are to be ascribed also xxvii. 6, 20, 21;

xxviii. 41; xxix. 21, 38-41.

EXODUS, THE, the name given to the journey (Gr. [Greek: exodos]) of the

Israelites from Egypt into Palestine, under the leadership of Moses and

Aaron, as described in the books of the Bible from Exodus to Joshua.

These books contain the great national epic of Judaism relating the

deliverance of the people from bondage in Egypt, the overthrow of the

pursuing Pharaoh and his army, the divinely guided wanderings through

the wilderness and the final entry into the promised land. Careful

criticism of the narratives[3] has resulted in the separation of later

accretions from the earliest records, and the tracing of the elaboration

of older traditions under the influence of developing religious and

social institutions. In the story of the Exodus there have been

incorporated codes of laws and institutions which were to be observed by

the descendants of the Israelites in their future home, and these,

really of later origin, have thus been thrown back to the earlier period

in order to give them the stamp of authority. So, although a certain

amount of the narrative _could_ date from the days of Moses, the Exodus

story has been made the vehicle for the aims and ideals of subsequent

ages, and has been adapted from time to time to the requirements of

later stages of thought. The work of criticism has brought to light

important examples of fluctuating tradition, singular lacunae in some

places and unusual wealth of tradition in others, and has demonstrated

that much of that which had long been felt to be impossible and

incredible was due to writers of the post-exilic age many centuries

after the presumed date of the events.

The book of Genesis closes with the migration of Jacob's family into

Egypt to escape the famine in Canaan. Jacob died and was buried in

Canaan by his sons, who, however, returned again to the pastures which

the Egyptian king had granted them in Goshen. Their brother Joseph on

his death-bed promised that God would bring them to the land promised to

their forefathers and solemnly adjured them to carry up his bones (Gen.

1.). In the book of Exodus the family has become a people.[2] The

Pharaoh is hostile, and Yahweh, the Israelite deity, is moved to send a

deliverer; on the events that followed see EXODUS, BOOK OF; MOSES. It

has been thought that dynastic changes occasioned the change in Egyptian

policy (e.g. the expulsion of the Hyksos), but if the Israelites built

Rameses and Pithom (Ex. i. 11), cities which, as excavation has shown,

belong to the time of Rameses II. (13th century B.C.), earlier dates are

inadmissible. On these grounds the Exodus may have taken place under one

of his successors, and since Mineptah or Merneptah (son of Rameses), in

relating his successes in Palestine, boasts that _Ysiraal_ is desolated,

it would seem that the Israelites had already returned. On the other

hand, it has been suggested that when Jacob and his family entered

Egypt, some Israelite tribes had remained behind and that it is to these

that Mineptah's inscription refers. The problem is complicated by the

fact that, from the Egyptian evidence, not only was there at this time

no remarkable emigration of oppressed Hebrews, but Bedouin tribes were

then receiving permission to enter Egypt and to feed their flocks upon

Egyptian soil. It might be assumed that the Israelites (or at least

those who had not remained behind in Palestine) effected their departure

at a somewhat later date, and in the time of Mineptah's successor, Seti

II., there is an Egyptian report of the pursuit of some fugitive slaves

over the eastern frontier. The value of all such evidence will naturally

depend largely upon the estimate formed of the biblical narratives, but

it is necessary to observe that these have not yet found Egyptian

testimony to support them. Although the information which has been

brought to bear upon Egyptian life and customs substantiates the general

accuracy of the local colouring in some of the biblical narratives, the

latter contain several inherent improbabilities, and whatever future

research may yield, no definite trace of Egyptian influence has so far

been found in Israelite institutions.

No allusions to Israelites in Egypt have yet been found on the

monuments; against the view that the Aperiu (or Apury) of the

inscriptions were Hebrews, see S.R. Driver in D.G. Hogarth, _Authority

and Archaeology_, pp. 56 sqq.; H.W. Hogg, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1310. The

plagues of Egypt have been shown to be those to which the land is

naturally subject (R. Thomson, _Plagues of Egypt_), but the

description of the relations of Moses and Aaron to the court raises

many difficult questions (H.P. Smith, _O.T. Hist._ pp. 57-60). Those

who reject Ex. i. 11 and hold that 480 years elapsed between the

Exodus and the foundation of the temple (I Kings vi. 1, see BIBLE:

Chronology) place the former about the time of Tethmosis (Thothmes)

III., and suppose that the hostile Habiri (Khabiri) who troubled

Palestine in the 15th century are no other than Hebrews (the equation

is philologically sound), i.e. the invading Israelites.[3] But

although the evidence of the Amarna tablets might thus support the

biblical tradition in its barest outlines, the view in question, if

correct, would necessitate the rejection of a great mass of the

biblical narratives as a whole.

In the absence of external evidence the study of the Exodus of the

Israelites must be based upon the Israelite records, and divergent or

contradictory views must be carefully noticed. Regarded simply as a

journey from Egypt into Palestine it is the most probable of

occurrences: the difficulty arises from the actual narratives. The first

stage is the escape from the land of Goshen (q.v.), the district

allotted to the family of Jacob (Gen. xlvi. 28-34, xlvii. 1, 4, 6).[4]

As to the route taken across the Red Sea (_Yam Suph_) scholars are not

agreed (see W.M. Muller, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1436 sqq.); it depends upon

the view held regarding the second stage of the journey, the road to the

mountain of Sinai or Horeb and thence to Kadesh. The last-mentioned

place is identified with Ain Kadis, about 50 m. south of Beersheba; but

the identification of the mountain is uncertain, and it is possible that

tradition confused two distinct places. According to one favourite view,

the journey was taken across the Sinaitic peninsula to Midian, the home

of Jethro. Others plead strongly for the traditional site Jebel Musa or

Serbal in the south of the peninsula (see J.R. Harris, _Dict. Bible_,

iv. pp. 536 sqq.; H. Winckler, _Ency. Bib._ col. 4641). The latter view

implies that the oppressed Israelites left Egypt for one of its

dependencies, and both theories find only conjectural identifications in

the various stations recorded in Num. xxxiii. But this list of forty

names, corresponding to the years of wandering, is from a post-exilic

source, and may be based merely upon a knowledge of caravan-routes; even

if it be of older origin, it is of secondary value since it represents a

tradition differing notably from that in the earlier narratives

themselves, and these on inspection confirm Judg. xi. 16 seq., where the

Israelites proceed immediately to Kadesh.

Ex. xvi.-xviii. presuppose a settled encampment and a law-giving, and

thus belong to a stage _after_ Sinai had been reached (Ex. xix. sqq.).

They are closely related, as regards subject matter, &c., to the

narratives in Num. x. 29-xi., xx. 1-13 (Sinai to Kadesh), and the

initial step is the recognition that the latter is their original

context (see G.F. Moore, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1443 v). Further, internal

peculiarities associating events now at Sinai-Horeb with those at

Kadesh support the view that Kadesh was their true scene, and it is to

be noticed that in Ex. xv. 22 seq. the Israelites already reach the

wilderness of Shur and accomplish the three days' journey which had

been their original aim (cf. Ex. iii. 18, v. 3, viii. 27). The

wilderness of Shur (Gen. xvi. 7, xx. 1; 1 Sam. xv. 7, xxvii. 8) is the

natural scene of conflicts with Amalekites (Ex. xvii. 8 sqq.), and its

sanctuary of Kadesh or En Mishpat ("well of judgment," Gen. xiv. 7)

was doubtless associated with traditions of the giving of statutes and

ordinances. The detour to Sinai-Horeb appears to belong to a later

stage of the tradition, and is connected with the introduction of laws

and institutions of relatively later form. It is foreshadowed by the

injunction to avoid the direct way into Palestine (see Ex. xiii.

17-19), since on reaching Kadesh the Israelites would be within reach

of hostile tribes, and the conflicts which it was proposed to avoid

actually ensued.[5] The forty years of wandering in the wilderness is

characteristic of the Deuteronomic and post-exilic narratives; in the

earlier sources the fruitful oasis of Kadesh is the centre, and even

after the tradition of a detour to Sinai-Horeb was developed, only a

brief period is spent at the holy mountain.

From Kadesh spies were sent into Palestine, and when the people were

dismayed at their tidings and incurred the wrath of Yahweh, the penalty

of the forty years' delay was pronounced (Num. xiii. seq.). Originally

Caleb alone was exempt and for his faith received a blessing; later

tradition adds Joshua and in Deut. i. 37 seq. alludes to some unknown

offence of Moses. According to Num. xxi. 1-3 the Israelites (a

generalizing amplification) captured Hormah, on the way to Beersheba,

and subsequently the clan Caleb and the Kenites (the clan of Moses'

father-in-law) are found in Judah (Judg. i. 16). Although the traditions

regard their efforts as part of a common movement (from Gilgal, see

below), it is more probable that these (notably Caleb) escaped the

punishment which befell the rest of the Israelites, and made their way

direct from Kadesh into the south of Palestine.[6] On the other hand,

according to the prevailing tradition, the attempt to break northwards

was frustrated by a defeat at Hormah (Num. xiv. 40-45), an endeavour to

pass Edom failed, and the people turned back to the _Yam Suph_ (here at

the head of the Gulf of Akabah) and proceeded up to the east of Edom and

Moab. Conflicting views are represented (on which see MOAB), but at

length Shittim was reached and preparations were made to cross the

Jordan into the promised land. This having been effected, Gilgal became

the base for a series of operations in which the united tribes took

part. But again the representations disagree, and to the overwhelming

campaigns depicted in the book of Joshua most critics prefer the account

of the more gradual process as related in the opening chapter of the

book of Judges (see JEWS: _History_, S 8).

Thus, whatever evidence may be supplied by archaeological research, the

problem of the Exodus must always be studied in the light of the

biblical narratives. That the religious life of Israel as portrayed

therein dates from this remote period cannot be maintained against the

results of excavation or against the later history, nor can we picture a

united people in the desert when subsequent vicissitudes represent the

union as the work of many years, and show that it lasted for a short

time only under David and Solomon. During the centuries in which the

narratives were taking shape many profound changes occurred to affect

the traditions. Developments associated with the Deuteronomic reform and

the reorganization of Judaism in post-exilic days can be unmistakably

recognized, and it would be unsafe to assume that other vicissitudes

have not also left their mark. Allowance must be made for the shifting

of boundaries or of spheres of influence (Egypt, Edom, Moab), for the

incorporation of tribes and of their own tribal traditions, and in

particular for other movements (e.g. from Arabia).[7] If certain clans

moved direct from Kadesh into Judah, it is improbable that others made

the lengthy detour from Kadesh by the Gulf of Akabah, but this may well

be an attempt to fuse the traditions of two distinct migrations. Among

the Joseph-tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), the most important of

Israelite divisions, the traditions of an ancestor who had lived and

died in Egypt would be a cherished possession, but although most writers

agree that not all the tribes were in Egypt, it is impossible to

determine their number with any certainty. At certain periods,

intercourse with Egypt was especially intimate, and there is much in

favour of the view that the name Mizraim (Egypt) extended beyond the

borders of Egypt proper. Reference has already been made to other cases

of geographical vagueness, and one must recognize that in a body of

traditions such as this there was room for the inclusion of the most

diverse elements which it is almost hopeless to separate, in view of the

scantiness of relevant evidence from other sources, and the literary

intricacy of the extant narratives. That many different beliefs have

influenced the tradition is apparent from what has been said above, and

is especially noticeable from a study of the general features. Thus,

although the Israelites possessed cattle (Ex. xvii. 3, xix. 13, xxiv. 5,

xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 3; Num. xx. 19), allusion is made to their lack of meat

in order to magnify the wonders of the journey, and among divinely sent

aids to guide and direct the people upon the march not only does Moses

require the assistance of a _human_ helper (Jethro or Hobab), but the

angel, the ark, the pillar of cloud and of fire and the mysterious

hornet are also provided.

In addition to the references already given, see J.W. Colenso,

_Pentateuch and Book of Joshua_ (on internal difficulties); A.

Jeremias, _Alte Test. im Lichte d. alt. Orients_[2] (pp. 402 sqq., on

later references in Manetho, &c., with which cf. also R.H. Charles,

_Jubilees_, p. 245 seq.); art. "Exodus" in _Ency. Bib._; Ed. Meyer,

_Israeliten_ (_passim_); Bonhoff, _Theolog. Stud. u. Krit._ (1907),

pp. 159-217; the histories of Israel and commentaries on the book of

Exodus. Among the numerous special works, mention may be made of G.

Ebers, _Durch Gosen zum Sinai_; E.H. Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_;

O.A. Toffteen, _The Historic Exodus_; fuller information is given in

L.B. Paton, _Hist. of Syria and Palestine_, p. 34 (also ch. viii.);

and C.F. Kent, _Beginnings of Heb. Hist._ p. 355 seq. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See the articles on the books in question.

[2] There is a lacuna between the oldest traditions in Genesis and

those in Exodus: the latter beginning simply "and there arose a new

king over Egypt which knew not Joseph." The interval between Jacob's

arrival in Egypt and the Exodus is given varyingly as 400 or 430

years (Gen. xv. 13, Ex. xii. 40 seq., Acts vii. 6); but the Samaritan

and Septuagint versions allow only 215 years (Ex. loc. cit.), and a

period of only four generations is presupposed in Gen. xv. 16 (cf.

the length of the genealogies between the contemporaries of Joseph

and those of Moses in Ex. vi. 16-20).

[3] Sec, e.g., J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ pp. 422 sqq.; Ed. Meyer,

_Die Israeliten_, pp. 222 sqq. Some, too, find in the Amarna tablets

the historical background for Joseph's high position at the Egyptian

court (see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "Joseph").

[4] For the varying traditions regarding the number of the people and

their residence (whether settled apart, cf., e.g., Gen. xlvi. 34, Ex.

viii. 22, ix. 26, x. 23, or in the midst of the Egyptians) see the

recent commentaries.

[5] See further J. Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_, pp. 342 sqq.; G.F.

Moore, Ency. Bib. col. 1443; S.A. Cook, _Jew. Quart. Rev._ (1906),

pp. 741 sqq. (1907), p. 122, and art. MOSES. Ex. xiii. 17-19 forbids

the compromise which would place Sinai-Horeb in the neighbourhood of

Kadesh (A.E. Haynes, _Pal. Explor. Fund, Quart. Statem._ (1896), pp.

175 sqq.; C.F. Kent [see _Lit._ below], p. 381).

[6] So B. Stade, Steuernagel, Guthe, G.F. Moore, H.P. Smith, C.F.

Kent, &c. See CALEB; JERAHMEEL; JUDAH; KENITES; LEVITES; and JEWS:

_History_, SS 5, 20 (end).

[7] An instructive parallel to the last-mentioned is afforded by

Dissard's account of the migration of Arab tribes into Palestine in

the 18th century A.D. (_Revue biblique_, July 1905).

EXOGAMY (Gr. [Greek: exo], outside; and [Greek: gamos], marriage), the

term proposed by J.F. McLennan for the custom compelling marriage "out

of the tribe" (or rather "out of the totem"); its converse is endogamy

(q.v.). McLennan would find an explanation of exogamy in the prevalence

of female infanticide, which, "rendering women scarce, led at once to

polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without."

Infanticide of girls is, and no doubt ever has been, a very common

practice among savages, and for obvious reasons. Among tribes in a

primitive stage of social organization girl-children must always have

been a hindrance and a source of weakness. They had to be fed and yet

they could not take part in the hunt for food, and they offered a

temptation to neighbouring tribes. Infanticide, however, is not proved

to have been so universal as McLennan suggests, and it is more probable

that the reason of exogamy is really to be found in that primitive

social system which made the "captured" woman the only wife in the

modern sense of the term. In the beginnings of human society children

were related only to their mother; and the women of a tribe were common

property. Thus no man might appropriate any female or attempt to

maintain proprietary rights over her. With women of other tribes it

would be different, and a warrior who captured a woman would doubtless

pass unchallenged in his claim to possess her absolutely. Infanticide,

the evil physical effects of "in-and-in" breeding, the natural strength

of the impulse to possess on the man's part, and the greater feeling of

security and a tendency to family life and affections on the woman's,

would combine to make exogamy increase and marriages within the tribe

decrease. A natural impulse would in a few generations tend to become a

law or a custom, the violation of which would be looked on with horror.

Physical capture, too, as soon as increasing civilization and tribal

intercommunication removed the necessity for violence, became symbolic

of the more permanent and individual relations of the sexes. An

additional explanation of the prevalence of exogamy may be found in the

natural tendency of exogamous tribes to increase in numbers and strength

at the expense of those communities which moved towards decadence by

in-breeding. Thus tradition would harden into a prejudice, strong as a

principle of religion, and exogamy would become the inviolable custom it

is found to be among many races. In Australia, Sir G. Grey writes: "One

of the most remarkable facts connected with the natives is that they are

divided into certain great families, all the members of which bear the

same name ... these family names are common over a great portion of the

continent and a man cannot marry a woman of his own family name." In

eastern Africa, Sir R. Burton says: "The Somal will not marry one of the

same, or even of a consanguineous family," and the Bakalahari have the

same rule. Paul B. du Chaillu found exogamy the rule and blood marriages

regarded as an abomination throughout western Equatorial Africa. In

India the Khasias, Juangs, Waralis, Otaons, Hos and other tribes are

strictly exogamous. The Kalmucks are divided into hordes, and no man may

marry a woman of the same horde. Circassians and Samoyedes have similar

rules. The Ostiaks regard endogamy (marriage within the clan) as a

crime, as do the Yakuts of Siberia. Among the Indians of America severe

rules prescribing exogamy prevail. The Tsimsheean Indians of British

Columbia are divided into tribes and totems, or "crests which are

common to all the tribes," says one writer. "The crests are the whale,

the porpoise, the eagle, the coon, the wolf and the frog.... The

relationship existing between persons of the same crest is nearer than

that between members of the same tribe.... Members of the same tribe may

marry, but those of the same crest are not allowed to under any

circumstances; that is, a whale may not marry a whale, but a whale may

marry a frog, &c." The Thlinkeets, the Mayas of Yucatan and the Indians

of Guiana are exogamous, observing a custom which is thus seen to exist

throughout Africa, in Siberia, China, India, Polynesia and the Americas.

AUTHORITIES.--J.F. McLennan, _Primitive Marriage_ (1865), and _Studies

in Anc. Hist._ (1896); Lord Avebury, _Origin of Civilization_ (1902);

Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_ (1894); A. Lang, _Social

Origins_ (1903); L.H. Morgan, _Ancient Society_ (1877); J.G. Frazer,

_Totemism and Exogamy_ (1910); see also TOTEM.

EXORCISM (Gr. [Greek: exorkizein], to conjure out), the expulsion of

evil spirits from persons or places by incantations, magical rites or

other means. As a corollary of the animistic theory of diseases and of

belief in Possession (q.v.), we find widely spread customs whose object

is to get rid of the evil influences. These customs may take the form of

a general expulsion of evils, either once a year or at irregular

intervals; the evils, which are often regarded as spirits, sometimes as

the souls of the dead, may be expelled, according to primitive

philosophy, either immediately by spells, purifications or some form of

coercion; or they may be put on the back of a scapegoat or other

material vehicle. Among the means of compelling the evil spirits are

assaults with warlike weapons or sticks, the noise of musical

instruments or of the human voice, the use of masks, the invocation of

more powerful good spirits, &c.; both fire and water are used to drive

them out, and the use of iron is a common means of holding them at bay.

The term exorcism is applied more especially to the freeing of an

individual from a possessing or disease-causing spirit; the means

adopted are frequently the same as those mentioned above; in the East

Indies the sufferer sometimes dances round a small ship, into which the

spirit passes and is then set adrift. The patient may be beaten or means

may be employed whose efficiency depends largely on their suggestive

nature. Among the Dakota Indians the medicine-man chants _hi-le-li-lah!_

at the bed of the sick man and accompanies his chant with the rattle; he

then sucks at the affected part till the possessing spirit is supposed

to come out and take its flight, when men fire guns at it from the door

of the tent. The Zulus believe that they can get rid of the souls of the

dead, which cause diseases, by sacrifices of cattle, or by expostulating

with the spirits; so too the _shaman_ or magician in other parts of the

world offers the possessing spirit objects or animals.

The professional exorcist was known among the Jews; in Greece the art

was practised by women, and it is recorded that the mothers of Epicurus

and Aeschines belonged to this class; both were bitterly reproached, the

one by the Stoics, the other by Demosthenes, with having taken part in

the practices in question. The prominence of exorcism in the early ages

of the Christian church appears from its frequent mention in the

writings of the fathers, and by the 3rd century there was an order of

exorcists (see EXORCIST). The ancient rite of exorcism in connexion with

baptism is still retained in the Roman ritual, as is also a form of

service for the exorcising of possessed persons. The exorcist signs the

possessed person with the figure of the cross, desires him to kneel, and

sprinkles him with holy water; after which the exorcist asks the devil

his name, and abjures him by the holy mysteries of the Christian

religion not to afflict the person possessed any more. Then, laying his

right hand on the demoniac's head, he repeats the form of exorcism as

follows: "I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ;

tremble, O Satan, thou enemy of the faith, thou foe of mankind, who hast

brought death into the world, who hast deprived men of life, and hast

rebelled against justice, thou seducer of mankind, thou root of evil,

thou source of avarice, discord and envy." Houses and other places

supposed to be haunted by unclean spirits are likewise to be exorcised

with similar rites, and in general exorcism has a place in all the

ceremonies for consecrating and blessing persons or things (see

BENEDICTION).

See Tylor, _Primitive Culture_; Skeat, _Malay Magic_, p. 427 seq.;

Frazer, _Golden Bough_, vol. iii. 189; Krafft, _Ausfuhrliche Historie

von Exorcismus_; Koldeweg, _Der Exorcismus im Herzogthum

Braunschweig_; Brecher, _Das Transcendentale, Magie, etc. im Talmud_,

pp. 195-203: _Zeitschr. fur Assyriologie_ (Dec. 1893, April 1894);

Herzog, _Realencykl., s.v._ "Exorcismus"; Waldmeier, _Autobiography_,

p. 64; L.W. King, _Babylonian Magic_; Maury, _La Magie_; R.C.

Thompson, _Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia_.

EXORCIST (Lat. _exorcista_, Gr. [Greek: exorkistes]), in the Roman

Catholic church, the third grade in the minor orders of the clergy,

between those of acolyte and reader. The office, which involves the

right of ceremonially exorcising devils (see Exorcism), is actually no

more than a preliminary stage of the priesthood. The earliest record of

the special ordination of exorcists is the 7th canon of the council of

Carthage (A.D. 256). "When they are ordained," it runs, "they receive

from the hand of the bishop a little book in which the exorcisms are

written, receiving power to lay hands on the _energumeni_, whether

baptized or catechumens." Whatever its present position, the office of

exorcist was, until comparatively recent times, by no means considered a

sinecure. "The exorcist a terror to demons" (Paulinus, _Epist._ 24)

survived the Reformation among Protestants, with the belief, expressed

by Firmilianus in his epistle to St Cyprian, that "through the

exorcists, by the voice of man and the power of God, the devil may be

whipped, and burnt and tortured."

EXOTIC (Gr. [Greek: exotikos], foreign, from [Greek: exo], outside), of

foreign origin, or belonging to another country. The term is now used in

the restricted sense of something not indigenous or native, and is

mostly applied to plants introduced from foreign countries, which have

not become acclimatized. Figuratively, "exotic" is used to convey the

sense of something rare, delicate or extravagant.

EXPATRIATION (from Late Lat. _expatriare_, to exile, and _patria_,

native land), a term used in a general sense for the banishment of a

person from his own country. In international law expatriation is the

renunciation or change of allegiance to one's native or adopted country.

It may take place either by a voluntary act or by operation of law. Some

countries, as France and England, disclaim their subjects if they become

naturalized in another country, others, again, passively permit

expatriation whether a new nationality has been acquired or not; others,

as Germany, make expatriation the consequence of continued absence from

their territory. (See ALIEN; ALLEGIANCE; NATURALIZATION.)

EXPERT (Lat. _expertus_, from _experiri_, to try), strictly, skilled, or

one who has special knowledge; as used in law, an expert is a person,

selected by a court, or adduced by a party to a cause, to give his

opinion on some point in issue with which he is peculiarly conversant.

In Roman law questions of disputed handwriting were referred to experts;

and in France, whenever the court considers that a report by experts is

necessary, it is ordered by a judgment clearly setting forth the objects

of the _expertise_ (Code Proc. Civ. art. 302). Three experts are then to

be appointed, unless the parties agree upon one only (art. 303). The

experts are required to take an oath (art. 305), but in practice this

requirement is frequently dispensed with. They may be challenged on the

same grounds as witnesses (art. 310). The necessary documentary and

other evidence is laid before them (art. 317), and they make a single

report to the court, even if they express different opinions: in that

case the grounds only of the different opinions are to be stated, and

not the personal opinion of each of the experts (art. 318). If the court

is not satisfied with the report, new experts may be appointed (art.

322); the judges are not bound to adopt the opinion of the experts (art.

323). "This procedure in regard to experts is common to both the civil

and commercial courts, but it is much more frequently resorted to in the

commercial court than in the civil court, and the investigation is

usually conducted by special experts officially attached to each of

these courts" (Bodington, _French Law of Evidence_, London, 1904, p.

102). A similar system is to be found in force in many other European

countries; see e.g. Codes of Civil Procedure of Holland, arts. 222 et

seq.; Belgium, arts. 302 et seq.; Italy, arts. 252 et seq.; as well as

in those colonies where French law has been followed (Codes of Civil

Procedure of Quebec, arts. 392 et seq.; St Lucia, arts. 286 et seq.). In

Mauritius the articles of the French law, summarized above, are still

nominally in force; but in practice each side calls its own expert

evidence, as in England.

There is some evidence that in England the courts were in early times in

the habit of summoning to their assistance, apparently as assessors,

persons specially qualified to advise upon any scientific or technical

question that required to be determined. Thus "in an appeal of maihem

(i.e. wounding) ... the court did not know how to adjudge because the

wound was new, and then the defendant took issue and prayed the court

that the maihem might be examined, on which a writ was sent to the

sheriff to cause to come _medicos chirurgieos de melioribus London, ad

informandum dominum regem el curiam de his quae eis ex parte domini

regis injungerentur_" (Year Book, 21 Hen. VII. pl. 30, p. 33). The

practice of calling in expert assistance in judicial inquiries was not

confined to medico-legal cases. "If matters arise," said Justice

Saunders in _Buckley_ v. _Rice Thomas_ (1554, Plowden, 124 a), "which

concern other faculties, we commonly apply for the aid of that science

or faculty which it concerns." English procedure, however, being

_litigious_, and not, like continental European procedure,

_inquisitorial_, in its character, the expert soon became, and still is,

simply a witness to speak to matters of opinion.

There is a considerable body of law in England as to expert evidence.

Only a few points can be touched upon here. (1) An expert is permitted

to refresh his memory in regard to any fact by referring to anything

written by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact

occurred or at a time when it was fresh in his memory. This is also law

generally in the United States (see e.g. New York Civil Code, s. 1843).

In Scotland, medical and other scientific reports are lodged in process

before the trial, and the witness reads them as part of his evidence and

is liable to be examined or cross-examined on their contents. (2) In

strictness, an expert will not be allowed, in cases of alleged insanity,

to say that a litigating or incriminated party is insane or the reverse,

and so to usurp the prerogative of the court or jury. But he may be

asked whether certain facts or symptoms, _assuming them to be proved_,

are or are not indicative of insanity. But in practice this rule is

relaxed both in England and in Scotland, and (where it exists) to a

still greater extent in America. (3) Foreign law can only be proved in

English courts--and the same rule applies in Scotland--(a) by obtaining

an opinion on the subject from a superior court of the country whose

laws are in dispute under the Foreign Law Ascertainment Act 1861 or the

British Law Ascertainment Act 1859, or (b) by the evidence of a lawyer

of the country whose law is in question, or who has studied it _in that

country_, or of an official whose position requires, and therefore

presumes, a sufficient knowledge of that law. (4) The weight of

authority both in England and in America supports the view that an

expert is not bound to give evidence as to matters of opinion unless

upon an undertaking by the party calling him to pay a reasonable

remuneration for his evidence.

Statutory provision has been made in England for the summoning of expert

assistance by the legal tribunals in various cases. In the county courts

the judge may, if he thinks fit, on the application of either party,

call in as assessor one or more persons of skill and experience as to

the matters in dispute (County Courts Act 1888, s. 103), and special

provision is made for calling in an assessor in employers' liability

cases (act of 1880, s. 6) and admiralty matters (see County Courts

Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts of 1868 and 1869). In the High Court and

court of appeal one or more specially qualified assessors may be called

in to assist in the hearing of any cause or matter except a criminal

proceeding by the crown (Judicature Acts 1873, s. 56), and a like power

is given to both these courts and the judicial committee of the privy

council in patent cases (Patents, &c., Act 1883., s. 28). Maritime

causes, whether original or on appeal from county courts, are usually

taken in the presence of Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, who advise

the judge without having any right to control or any responsibility for

his decision (see the "Beryl," 1884, 9 P.D. 1), and on appeal in

maritime causes nautical assessories are usually called in by the court

of appeal, and may be called in by the House of Lords (Judicature Act

1891, s. 3); a like provision is made as to maritime causes in Scottish

courts (Nautical Assessors [Scotland] Act 1894). The judicial committee

of the privy council, besides its power to call in assessors in patent

cases, is authorized to call them in in ecclesiastical causes (Appellate

Jurisdiction Act 1876, s. 14).

In addition to the authorities cited in the text, see Taylor, _Law of

Evidence_ (9th ed., London, 1895); J.D. Lawson, _Law of Expert and

Opinion Evidence_ (1900).

EXPLOSIVES, a general term for substances which by certain treatment

"explode," i.e. decompose or change in a violent manner so as to

generate force. From the manner and degree of violence of the

decomposition they are classified into "propellants" and "detonators,"

but this classification is not capable of sharp delimitation. In some

cases the same substance may be employed for either purpose under

altered external conditions; but there are some substances which could

not possibly be employed as propellants, and others which can scarcely

be induced to explode in the manner known as "detonation." A propellant

may be considered as a substance that on explosion produces such a

disturbance that neighbouring substances are thrown to some distance; a

detonator or disruptor may produce an extremely violent disturbance

within a limited area without projecting substances to any great

distance. Time is an important, perhaps the most important, factor in

this action. A propellant generally acts by _burning_ in a more or less

rapid and regular manner, producing from a comparatively small volume a

large volume of gases; during this action heat is also developed, which,

being expended mostly on the gaseous products, causes a further

expansion. The noise accompanying an explosion is due to an air wave,

and is markedly different in the case of a detonator from a real

propellant. Some cases of ordinary combustion can be accelerated into

explosions by increasing the area of contact between the combustible and

the oxygen supplier, for instance, ordinary gas or dust explosions.

Neither temperature nor quantity of heat energy necessarily gives an

explosive action. Some metals, e.g. aluminium and magnesium, will, in

oxidizing, produce a great thermal effect, but unless there be some

gaseous products no real explosive action.

Explosives may be mechanical mixtures of substances capable of chemical

interaction with the production of large volumes of gases, or definite

chemical compounds of a peculiar class known as "endothermic," the

decomposition of which is also attended with the evolution of gases in

large quantity.

All chemical compounds are either "endothermic" or "exothermic." In

endothermic compounds energy, in some form, has been taken up in the

act of formation of the compound. Some of this energy has become

potential, or rather the compound formed has been raised to a higher

potential. This case occurs when two elements can be united only under

some compulsion such as a very high temperature, by the aid of an

electric current, or spark, or as a secondary product whilst some

other reactions are proceeding. For example, oxygen and nitrogen

combine only under the influence of an electric spark, and carbon and

calcium in the electric furnace. The formation of chlorates by the

action of chlorine on boiling potash is a good instance of a complex

compound (potassium chlorate), being formed in small quantity as a

secondary product whilst a large quantity of primary and simpler

products (potassium chloride and water) is forming. In chlorate

formation the greater part of the reaction represents a running down

of energy and formation of exothermic compounds, with only a small

yield of an endothermic substance. Another idea of the meaning of

endothermic is obtained from acetylene. When 26 parts by weight of

this substance are burnt, the heat produced will warm up 310,450 parts

of water 1 deg. C. Acetylene consists of 24 parts of carbon and 2 of

hydrogen by weight. The 24 parts of carbon will, if in the form of

pure charcoal, heat 192,000 parts of water 1 deg., and the 2 parts of

hydrogen will heat 68,000 parts of water 1 deg., the total heat

production being 260,000 heat units. Thus 26 grams of acetylene give

an excess of 50,450 units over the amount given by the constituents.

This excess of heat energy[1] is due to some form of potential energy

in the compound which becomes actual heat energy at the moment of

dissolution of the chemical union. The manner in which a substance is

endothermic is of importance as regards the practical employment of

explosives. Some particular endothermic state or form results from the

mode of formation and the consequent internal structure of the

molecule. Physical structure alone can be the cause of a relative

endothermic state, as in the glass bulbs known as Rupert's drops, &c.,

or even in chilled steel. Rupert's drops fly in pieces on being

scratched or cut to a certain depth. The cause is undoubtedly to be

ascribed to the molecular state of the glass brought about by chilling

from the melted state. The molecules have not had time to separate or

arrange themselves in easy positions. In steel when melted the carbide

of iron is no doubt diffused equally throughout the liquid. When

cooled slowly some carbide separates out more or less, and the steel

is soft or annealed. When chilled the carbides are retained in solid

solution. The volume of chilled glass or steel differs slightly from

that in the annealed state.

Superfused substances are probably in a similar state of physical

potential or strain. Many metallic salts, and organic compounds

especially, will exhibit this state when completely melted and then

allowed to cool in a clean atmosphere. On touching with a little of

the same substance in a solid state the liquids will begin to

crystallize, at the same time becoming heated almost up to their

melting-points. The metal gallium shows this excellently well, keeping

liquid for years until touched with the solid metal, when there is a

considerable rise of temperature as solidification takes place.

All carbon compounds, excepting carbon dioxide, and many if not all

compounds of nitrogen, are endothermic. Most of the explosives in

common use contain nitrogen in some form.

Exothermic compounds are in a certain sense the reverse of

endothermic; they are relatively inert and react but slowly or not at

all, unless energy be expended upon them from outside. Water, carbon

dioxide and most of the common minerals belong to this class.

The explosives actually employed at the present time include mixtures,

such as gunpowders and some chlorate compositions, the ingredients of

which separately may be non-explosive; compounds used singly, as

guncotton, nitroglycerin (in the form of dynamite), picric acid (as

lyddite or melinite), trinitrotoluene, nitrocresols, mercury fulminate,

&c.; combinations of some explosive compounds, such as cordite and the

smokeless propellants in general use for military purposes; and,

finally, blasting and detonating or igniting compositions, some of which

contain inert diluting materials as well as one or more high explosives.

Many igniting compositions are examples of the last type, consisting of

a high explosive diluted with a neutral substance, and frequently

containing in addition a composition which is inflamed by the explosion

of the diluted high explosive, the flame in turn igniting the actual

propellant.

_Explosive Mixtures._--The explosive mixture longest known is

undoubtedly gunpowder (q.v.) in some form--that is, a mixture of

charcoal with sulphur and nitre, the last being the oxygen provider.

Besides the nitrates of metals and ammonium nitrate, there is a limited

number of other substances capable of serving in a sufficiently

energetic manner as oxygen providers. A few chlorates, perchlorates,

permanganates and chromates almost complete the list. Of these the

sodium, potassium and barium chlorates are best known and have been

actually tried, in admixture with some combustible substances, as

practical explosives. Most other metallic chlorates are barred from

practical employment owing to instability, deliquescence or other

property.

Of the chlorates those of potassium and sodium are the most stable, and

mixtures of either of these salts with sulphur or sulphides, phosphorus,

charcoal, sugar, starch, finely-ground cellulose, coal or almost any

kind of organic, i.e. carbon, compound, in certain proportions, yield an

explosive mixture. In many cases these mixtures are not only fired or

exploded by heating to a certain temperature, but also by quite moderate

friction or percussion. Consequently there is much danger in manufacture

and storage, and however these mixtures have been made up, they are

quite out of the question as propellants on account of their great

tendency to explode in the manner of a detonator. In addition they are

not smokeless, and leave a considerable residue which in a gun would

produce serious fouling.

Mixtures of chlorates with aromatic compounds such as the nitro- or

dinitro-benzenes or even naphthalene make very powerful blasting agents.

The violent action of a chlorate mixture is due first to the rapid

evolution of oxygen, and also to the fact that a chlorate can be

detonated when alone. A drop of sulphuric acid will start the combustion

of a chlorate mixture. In admixture with sulphur, sulphides and

especially phosphorus, chlorates give extremely sensitive compositions,

some of which form the basis of friction tube and firing mixtures.

Potassium and sodium perchlorates and permanganates make similar but

slightly less sensitive explosive mixtures with the above-mentioned

substances. Finely divided metals such as aluminium or magnesium give

also with permanganates, chlorates or perchlorates sensitive and

powerful explosives. Bichromates, although containing much available

oxygen, form but feeble explosive mixtures, but some compounds of

chromic acid with diazo compounds and some acetylides are extremely

powerful as well as sensitive. Ammonium bichromate is a self-combustible

after the type of ammonium nitrate, but scarcely an explosive.

_Explosive Compounds._--Nearly all the explosive compounds in actual use

either for blasting purposes or as propellants are nitrogen compounds,

and are obtained more or less directly from nitric acid. Most of the

propellants at present employed consist essentially of nitrates of some

organic compound, and may be viewed theoretically as nitric acid, the

hydrogen of which has been replaced by a carbon complex; such compounds

are expressed by M.O.NO2, which indicates that the carbon group is in

some manner united by means of oxygen to the nitrogen group. Guncotton

and nitroglycerin are of this class. Another large class of explosives

is formed by a more direct attachment of nitrogen to the carbon complex,

as represented by M.NO2. A number of explosives of the detonating type

are of this class. They contain the same proportions of oxygen and

nitrogen as nitrites, but are not nitrites. They have been termed

nitro-derivatives for distinction. One of the simplest and longest-known

members of this group is nitrobenzene, C6H5NO2, which is employed to

some extent as an explosive, being one ingredient in rack-a-rock and

other blasting compositions. The dinitro-benzenes, C6H4(NO2)2, made from

it are solids which are somewhat extensively employed as constituents of

some sporting powders, and in admixture with ammonium nitrate form a

blasting powder of a "flameless" variety which is comparatively safe in

dusty or "gassy" coal seams.

Picric acid or trinitrophenol, C6H2.OH.(NO2)3 is employed as a high

explosive for shell, &c. It requires, however, either to be enclosed and

heated, or to be started by a powerful detonator to develop its full

effect. Its compounds with metals, such as the potassium salt,

C6H2.OK.(NO2)3, are when dry very easily detonated by friction or

percussion and _always_ on heating, whereas picric acid itself will burn

very quietly when set fire to under ordinary conditions.

Trinitrotoluene, C6H2.CH3.(NO2)3, is a high explosive resembling picric

acid in the manner of its explosion (to which in fact it is a rival),

but differs therefrom in not forming salts with metals. The

nitronaphthols, C10H6.OH.NO2, and higher nitration products may be

counted in the list. Their salts with metals behave much like the

picrates.

All these nitro compounds can be reduced by the action of nascent

hydrogen to substances called amines (q.v.), which are not always

explosive in themselves, but in some cases can form nitrates of a

self-combustible nature. Aminoacetic acid, for instance, will form a

nitrate which burns rapidly but quietly, and might be employed as an

explosive. By the action of nitrous acid at low temperatures on aromatic

amines, e.g. aniline, C6H5NH2, diazo compounds are produced. These are

all highly explosive, and when in a dry state are for the most part also

extremely sensitive to friction, percussion or heat. As many of these

diazo compounds contain no oxygen their explosive nature must be

ascribed to the peculiar state of union of the nitrogen. This state is

attempted to be shown by the formulae such as, for instance, C6H5.N :

N.X, which maybe some compound of diazobenzene. Probably the most

vigorous high explosive at present known is the substance called

hydrazoic acid or azoimide (q.v.). It forms salts with metals such as

AgN3, which explode in a peculiar manner. The ammonium compound, NH4N3,

may become a practical explosive of great value.

Mercuric fulminate, HgC2N2O2, is one of the most useful high explosives

known. It is formed by the action of a solution of mercurous nitrate,

containing some nitrous acid, on alcohol. It is a white crystalline

substance almost insoluble in cold water and requiring 130 times its

weight of boiling water for solution. It may be heated to 180 deg. C.

before exploding, and the explosion so brought about is much milder than

that produced by percussion. It forms the principal ingredient in cap

compositions, in many fuses and in detonators. In many of these

compositions the fulminate is diluted by mixture with certain quantities

of inert powders so that its sensitiveness to friction or percussion is

just so much lowered, or slowed down, that it will fire another mixture

capable of burning with a hot flame. For detonating dynamite, guncotton,

&c., it is generally employed without admixture of a diluent.

_Smokeless Propellants._--Gunpowders and all other explosive mixtures or

compounds containing metallic salts must form smoke on combustion. The

solids produced by the resolution of the compounds are in an extremely

finely-divided state, and on being ejected into the atmosphere become

more or less attached to water vapour, which is so precipitated, and

consequently adds to the smoke. The simplest examples of propellants of

the smokeless class are compressed gases. Compressed air was the

propellant for the Zalinski dynamite gun. Liquefied carbon dioxide has

also been proposed and used to a slight extent with the same idea. It is

scarcely practical, however, because when a quantity of a gas liquefied

by pressure passes back again into the gaseous state, there is a great

absorption of heat, and any remaining liquid, and the containing vessel,

are considerably cooled. Steam guns were tried in the American Civil War

in 1864; but a steam gun is not smokeless, for the steam escaping from

the long tube or gun immediately condenses on expansion, forming white

mist or smoke.

At the earliest stage of the development of guncotton the advantage of

its smokeless combustion was fully appreciated (see GUNCOTTON). That it

did not at once take its position as _the_ smokeless propellant, was

simply due to its physical state--a fibrous porous mass--which burnt too

quickly or even detonated under the pressure required in fire-arms of

any kind. In the early eighties of the 19th century it was found that

several substances would partly dissolve or at least gelatinize

guncotton, and the moment when guncotton proper was obtained as a

colloid or jelly was the real start in the matter of smokeless

propellants.

Guncotton is converted into a gelatinous form by several substances,

such as esters, e.g. ethyl acetate or benzoate, acetone and other

ketones, and many benzene compounds, most of which are volatile liquids.

On contact with the guncotton a jelly is formed which stiffens as the

evaporation of the gelatinizing agent proceeds, and finally hardens when

the evaporation is complete. Whilst in a stiff pasty state it may be

cut, moulded or pressed into any desired shape without any danger of

ignition. In fact guncotton in the colloid state may be hammered on an

anvil, and, as a rule, only the portion struck will detonate or fire.

Guncotton alone makes a very hard and somewhat brittle mass after

treatment with the gelatinizing agent and complete drying, and small

quantities of camphor, vaseline, castor oil and other substances are

incorporated with the gelatinous guncotton to moderate this hard and

brittle state.

All the smokeless powders, of which gelatinized guncottons or nitrated

celluloses are the base, are moulded into some conveniently shaped

grain, e.g. tubes, cords, rods, disks or tablets, so that the rate of

burning may be controlled as desired. The Vieille powder, invented in

1887 and adopted in France for a magazine rifle, consisted of

gelatinized guncotton with a little picric acid. Later a mixture of two

varieties of guncotton gelatinized together was used. In addition to

guncottons other explosive or non-explosive substances are contained in

some of these powders. Guncotton alone in the colloid state burns very

slowly if in moderate-sized pieces, and when subdivided or made into

thin rods or strips it is still very mild as an explosive, partly from a

chemical reason, viz. there is not sufficient oxygen in it to burn the

carbon to dioxide. Many mixtures are consequently in use, and many more

have been proposed, which contain some metallic salt capable of

supplying oxygen, such as barium or ammonium nitrate, &c., the idea

being to accelerate the rate of burning of the guncotton and if possible

avoid the production of smoke.

The discovery by A. Nobel that nitroglycerin could be incorporated with

collodion cotton to form blasting gelatin (see DYNAMITE) led more or

less directly to the invention of ballistite, which differs from

blasting gelatin only in the relative amounts of collodion, or soluble

nitrated cotton, and nitroglycerin. Ballistite was adopted by the

Italian government in 1890 as a military powder. Very many substances

and mixtures have been proposed for smokeless powder, but the two

substances, guncotton and nitroglycerin, have for the most part kept the

field against all other combinations, and for several reasons.

Nitroglycerin contains a slight excess of oxygen over that necessary to

convert the whole of the carbon into carbon dioxide; it burns in a more

energetic manner than guncotton; the two can be incorporated together in

any proportion whilst the guncotton is in the gelatinous state; also all

the liquids which gelatinize guncotton dissolve nitroglycerin, and, as

these gelatinizing liquids evaporate, the nitroglycerin is left

entangled in the guncotton jelly, and then shares more or less its

colloidal character. In burning the nitroglycerin is protected from

detonation by the gelatinous state of the guncotton, but still adds to

the rate of burning and produces a higher temperature.

_Desirable Qualities._--Smokelessness is one only of the desirable

properties of a propellant. All the present so-called smokeless

powders produce a little fume or haze, mainly due to the condensation

of the steam which forms one of the combustion products. There is

often also a little vapour from the substances, such as oils, mineral

jelly, vaseline or other hydrocarbon added for lubrication or to

render the finished material pliable, &c. The gases produced should

neither be very poisonous nor exert a corrosive action on metals, &c.

The powder itself should have good keeping qualities, that is, not be

liable to chemical changes within ordinary ranges of temperature or in

different climates when stored for a few years. In these powders

slight chemical changes are generally followed by noticeable ballistic

changes. All the smokeless powders of the present day produce some

oxide of nitrogen, traces of which hang about the gun after firing and

change rapidly into nitrous and nitric acids. Nitrous acid is

particularly objectionable in connexion with metals, as it acts as a

carrier of oxygen. The fouling from modern smokeless powders is a

slight deposit of acid grease, and the remedy consists in washing out

the bore of the piece with an alkaline liquid. The castor oil, mineral

jelly or camphor, and similar substances added to smokeless powders

are supposed to act as lubricants to some extent. They are not as

effective in this respect as mineral salts, and the rifling of both

small-arms and ordnance using smokeless powders is severely gripped by

the metal of the projectile. The alkaline fouling produced by the

black and brown powders acted as a preventive of rusting to some

extent, as well as a lubricant in the bore.

_Danger in Manufacture._--In the case of the old gunpowders, the most

dangerous manufacturing operation was incorporation. With the modern

colloid propellants the most dangerous operations are the chemical

processes in the preparation of nitroglycerin, the drying of

guncotton, &c. After once the gelatinizing solvent has been added, all

the mechanical operations can be conducted, practically, with perfect

safety. This statement appears to be correct for all kinds of nitrated

cellulose powders, whether mixed with nitroglycerin or other

substances. Should they become ignited, which is possible by a rise of

temperature (to say 180 deg.) or contact with a flame, the mixture

burns quickly, but does not detonate.

As a rule naval and military smokeless powders are shaped into flakes,

cubes, cords or cylinders, with or without longitudinal perforations.

All the modifications in shape and size are intended to regulate the

rate of burning. Sporting powders are often coloured for trade

distinction. Some powders are blackleaded by glazing with pure

graphite, as is done with black powders. One object of this glazing is

to prevent the grains or pieces becoming joined by pressure; for rods

or pieces of some smokeless powders might possibly unite under

considerable pressure, producing larger pieces and thus altering the

rate of burning. Most smokeless powders are fairly insensitive to

shock. All these gelatinized powders are a little less easily ignited

than black powders. A slightly different cap composition is required

for small-arm cartridges, and cannon cartridges generally require a

small primer or starter of powdered black gunpowder.

It is desired that a propellant shall produce the maximum velocity

with the minimum pressure. The pressure should start gently so that

the inertia of the projectile is overcome without any undue local

strain on the breech near the powder chamber, and more especially that

as more and more space is given to the gases by the movement of the

projectile up the gun to the muzzle, gas should be produced with

sufficient rapidity to keep the pressure nearly uniform or slightly

increasing along the bore. The leading idea for improvements in

relation to propellants is to obtain the greatest possible pressure

regularly developed, and at the same time the lowest temperatures.

(W. R. E. H.)

_Law._--In 1860 an act was passed in England "to amend the law

concerning the making, keeping and carriage of gunpowder and

compositions of an explosive nature, and concerning the manufacture and

use of fireworks" (23 & 24 Vict. c. 139), whereby previous acts on the

same subject were repealed, and minute and stringent regulations

introduced. Amending acts were passed in 1861 and 1862. In 1875 was

passed the Explosives Act (38 & 39 Vict. c. 17), which repealed the

former acts, and dealt with the whole subject in a more comprehensive

manner. This act, containing 122 sections, and applying to Scotland and

Ireland, as well as to England, constitutes, with various orders in

council and home office orders, a complete code. The act of 1875 was

based on the report of a committee of the House of Commons, public

opinion having been greatly excited on the subject by a terrible

explosion on the Regent's Canal in 1874. Explosives are thus defined:

(1) Gunpowder, nitroglycerin, dynamite, guncotton, blasting powders,

fulminate of mercury or of other metals, coloured fires, and every other

substance, whether similar to those above-mentioned or not, used or

manufactured with a view to produce a practical effect by explosion or a

pyrotechnic effect, and including (2) fog-signals, fireworks, fuses,

rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridges, ammunition of all

descriptions, and every adaptation or preparation of an explosive as

above defined. Part i. deals with gunpowder, providing that it shall be

manufactured only at factories lawfully existing or licensed under the

act; that it shall be kept (except for private use) only in existing or

new magazines or stores, or in registered premises, licensed under the

act. Private persons may keep gunpowder for their own use to the amount

of thirty pounds. The act also prescribes rules for the proper keeping

of gunpowder on registered premises. Part ii. deals with nitroglycerin

and other explosives; part iii. with inspection, accidents, search, &c.;

part iv. contains various supplementary provisions. By order in council

the term "explosive" may be extended to any substance which appears to

be specially dangerous to life or property by reason of its explosive

properties, or to any process liable to explosion in the manufacture

thereof, and the provisions of the act then extend to such substance

just as if it were included in the term "explosive" in the act. The act

lays down minute and stringent regulations for the sale of gunpowder,

restricting the sale thereof in public thoroughfares or places, or to

any child apparently under the age of thirteen; requiring the sale of

gunpowder to be in closed packages labelled; it also lays down general

rules for conveyance, &c. The act also gives power by order in council

to define, from time to time, the composition, quality and character of

any explosive, and to classify explosives, and such orders in council

are frequently made including new substances; those in force will be

found in the _Statutory Rules and Orders_, tit. "explosive substance."

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894 imposes restrictions on the carriage of

dangerous goods in a British or foreign vessel, "dangerous goods"

meaning aquafortis, vitriol, naphtha, benzine, gunpowder, lucifer

matches, nitroglycerin, petroleum and any explosive within the meaning

of the Explosives Act 1875. The act is administered by the home office,

and an annual report is published containing the proceedings of the

inspectors of explosives and an account of the working of the act. Each

annual report gives a list of explosives at the time authorized for

manufacture or importation, and appendices containing information as to

accidents, experiments, &c.

Practically every European country has legislated on the lines of the

English act of 1875, Austria taking the lead, in 1877, with an

explosives ordinance almost identical with the English act. The United

States and the various English colonies also have explosives acts

regulating the manufacture, storage and importation of explosives. (See

also PETROLEUM.) (T. A. I.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--M. Berthelot, _Sur la force des matieres explosives_

(Paris, 1883); P.F. Chalon, _Les Explosifs modernes_ (Paris, 1886);

W.H. Wardell, _Handbook of Gunpowder and Guncotton_ (London, 1888);

J.P. Cundill, _A Dictionary of Explosives_ (London, 1889 and 1897); M.

Eissler, _A Handbook of Modern Explosives_ (London, 1896, new ed.

1903); J.A. Longridge, _Smokeless Powder and its Influence on Gun

Construction_ (London, 1890); C. Napier Hake and W. Macnab,

_Explosives and their Power_ (London, 1892); G. Coralys, _Les

Explosifs_ (Paris, 1893); A. Ponteaux, _La Poudre sans fumee et les

poudres anciennes_ (Paris, 1893); F. Salvati, _Vocabolario di polveri

ed explosivi_ (Rome, 1893); C. Guttmann, _The Manufacture of

Explosives_ (London, 1895 and later); S.J. von Romocki, _Geschichte

der Sprengstoffchemie, der Sprengtechnik und des Torpedowesens bis zum

Beginn der neusten Zeit_ (Berlin, 1895); _Geschichte der

Explosivstoffe, die rauchschwachen Pulver_ (Berlin, 1896); P.G.

Sanford, _Nitro-explosives_ (London, 1896); L. Gody, _Traite theorique

et pratique des matieres explosives_ (Namur, 1896); R. Wille, _Der

Plastomerite_ (Berlin, 1898); E. Sarrau, _Introduction a la theorie

des explosifs_ (1893); _Theorie des explosifs_ (1896); O. Guttmann,

_Manufacture of Explosives_ (London, 1895); E.M. Weaver, _Notes on

Military Explosives_ (New York, 1906); M. Eissler, _The Modern High

Explosives_ (New York, 1906); _Treatise on Service Explosives_,

published by order of the secretary of state for war (London, 1907).

Most of the literature on modern explosives, e.g. dynamite, &c., is to

be found in papers contributed to scientific journals and societies.

An index to those which have appeared in the _Journal of the Society

of Chemical Industry_ is to be found in the decennial index (1908)

compiled by F.W. Renant.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Not necessarily heat energy entirely. A number of

substances--acetylides and some nitrogen compounds, such as nitrogen

chloride--decompose with extreme violence, but _little heat_ is

produced.

EXPRESS (through the French from the past participle of the Lat.

_exprimere_, to press out, by transference used of representing objects

in painting or sculpture, or of thoughts, &c. in words), a word

signifying that which is clearly and definitely set forth or

represented, explicit, and thus used of a meaning, a law, a contract and

the like, being specially contrasted with "implied." Thus in law,

malice, for which there is actual evidence, as apart from that which may

be inferred from the acts of the person charged, is known as "express."

The word is most frequently used with the idea of something done with a

definite purpose; the term "express train," now meaning one that travels

at a high speed over long distances with few intermediate stoppages,

was, in the early days of railways, applied to what is now usually

called a "special," i.e. a train not running according to the ordinary

time-tables of the railway company, but for some specific purpose, or

engaged by a private person. About 1845 this term became used for a

train running to a particular place without stopping. Similarly in the

British postal service, express delivery is a special and immediate

delivery of a letter, parcel, &c., by an express messenger at a

particular increased rate. The system was adopted in 1891.