_Scleritis._--Inflammation of the sclera is confined to its anterior

part which is covered by conjunctiva. Scleritis may occur in

circumscribed patches or may be diffused in the shape of a belt round

the cornea. The former is usually more superficial and uncomplicated,

the latter deeper and complicated with corneal infiltration,

irido-cyclitis and anterior choroiditis. Superficial scleritis or, as it

is often called, _episcleritis_, is a long-continued disease which is

associated with very varying degrees of discomfort. The chronic nature

of the affection depends mainly upon the tendency that the inflammation

has to recur in successive patches at different parts of the sclera.

Often only one eye at a time is affected. Each patch lasts for a month

or two and is succeeded by another after an interval of varying

duration. Months or years may elapse between the attacks. The

cicatricial site of a previous patch is rarely again attacked. The

scleral infiltration causes a firm swelling, often sensitive to touch,

over which the conjunctiva is freely movable. The overlying conjunctiva

is always injected. The infiltration itself at the height of the process

is densely vascularized. Seen through the conjunctiva its vessels have a

darker, more purplish hue than the superficial ones. The swelling caused

by the infiltration gradually subsides, leaving a cicatrix to which the

overlying conjunctiva becomes adherent. The cicatrix has a slaty

porcellanous-looking colour. Superficial scleritis occurs in both sexes

with about equal frequency. No definite cause for the inflammation is

known. The treatment on the whole is unsatisfactory. Burning down the

nodules with the actual cautery, and subsequently a visit to such baths

as Harrogate, Buxton, Homburg and Wiesbaden, may be recommended.

Deep scleritis with its attendant complications is altogether a more

serious disease. Etiologically it is equally obscure. Both eyes are

almost always attacked. It more generally occurs in young people, mostly

in young women. Deep scleritis is more persistent and less subject to

periods of intermission than episcleritis. The deeper and more

wide-spread inflammatory infiltrations of the sclera lead eventually to

weakening of that coat, and cause it to yield to the intra-ocular

pressure. Vision suffers from extension of the infiltration to the

cornea, or from iritis with its attendant synechiae, or from anterior

choroiditis, and sometimes also from secondary glaucoma. The treatment

is on the whole unsatisfactory. Iridectomy, especially if done early in

the process, may be of use.

_The Aqueous Humour._--Intransparency of the aqueous humour is always

due to some exudation. This comes either from the iris or the ciliary

processes, and may be blood, pus or fibrin. An exudation in this

situation tends naturally to gravitate to the most dependent part, and,

in the case of blood or pus, is known as _kyphaema_ or _hypopyon_.

_The Crystalline Lens Cataract._--Intransparency of the crystalline lens

is technically known as _cataract_. Cataract may be idiopathic and

uncomplicated, or traumatic, or secondary to disease in the deeper

parts of the eye. The modified epithelial structure of which the lens is

composed is always being added to throughout life. The older portions of

the lens are consequently the more central. They are harder and less

elastic. This arrangement seems to predispose to difficulties of

nutrition. In many people, in the absence altogether of general or local

disease, the transparency of the lens is lost owing to degeneration of

the incompletely-nourished fibres. This idiopathic cataract mostly

occurs in old people; hence the term _senile cataract_. So-called

_senile_ cataract is not, however, necessarily associated with any

general senile changes. An idiopathic uncomplicated cataract is also met

with as a congenital defect due to faulty development of the crystalline

lens. A particular and not uncommon form of this kind of cataract, which

may also develop during infancy, is _lamellar_ or _zonular cataract_.

This is a partial and stationary form of cataract in which, while the

greater part of the lens retains its transparency, some of the lamellae

are intransparent. Traumatic cataract occurs in two ways: by laceration

or rupture of the lens capsule, or by nutritional changes consequent

upon injuries to the deeper structures of the eye. The transparency of

the lens is dependent upon the integrity of its capsule. Penetrating

wounds of the eye involving the capsule, or rupture of the capsule from

severe blows on the eye without perforation of its coats, are followed

by rapidly developing cataract. Severe non-penetrating injuries, which

do not cause rupture of the capsule, are sometimes followed, after a

time, by slowly-progressing cataract. Secondary cataract is due to

abnormalities in the nutrient matter supplied to the lens owing to

disease of the ciliary body, choroid or retina. In some diseases, as

diabetes, the altered general nutrition tells in the same way on the

crystalline lens. Cataract is then rapidly formed. All cases of cataract

in diabetes are not, however, necessarily true diabetic cataracts in the

above sense. _Dislocations of the lens_ are traumatic or congenital. In

old-standing disease of the eye the suspensory ligament may yield in

part, and thus lead to lens dislocation. The lens is practically always

cataractous before this takes place.

_The Vitreous Humour._--The vitreous humour loses its transparency owing

to exudation from the inflamed ciliary body or choroid. The exudation

may be fibrinous or purulent; the latter only as a result of injuries by

which foreign bodies or septic matter are introduced into the eye or in

metastatic choroiditis. Blood may also be effused into the vitreous from

rupture of retinal, ciliary or choroidal vessels. The pathological

significance of the various effusions into the vitreous depends greatly

upon the cause. In many cases effusion and absorption are constantly

taking place simultaneously. The extent of possible clearing depends

greatly upon the preponderance of the latter process.

_Diseases of the Iris and Ciliary Body._--Inflammation of the iris,

iritis, arises from different causes. The various idiopathic forms have

relations to constitutional disturbances such as rheumatism, gout,

albuminuria, tuberculosis, fevers, syphilis, gonorrhoea and others, or

they may come from cold alone. Traumatic and infected cases are

attributable to accidents, the presence of foreign bodies, operations,

&c. In addition, iritis may be secondary to keratitis, scleritis or

choroiditis. The beginning of an attack of inflammation of the iris is

characterized by alterations in its colour due to hyperaemia and by

circumcorneal injection. Later on, exudation takes place into the

substance of the iris, causing thickening and also a loss of gloss of

its surface. According to the nature and severity of the exudation there

may be deposits formed on the back of the cornea, attachments between

the iris and lens capsule (synechiae), or even gelatinous-looking

coagulations or pus in the anterior chamber.

The subjective symptoms to which the inflammation may give rise are

dread of light (_photophobia_), pain, generally most severe at night and

often very great, also more or less impairment of sight. Along with the

pain and photophobia there is lacrymation. An acute attack of iritis

usually lasts about six weeks. Some cases become chronic and last much

longer. Others are chronic from the first, and in one clinical type of

iritis, in which the ciliary body is also at the same time affected,

viz. _iritis serosa_, there is usually comparatively little injection of

the eye or pain, so that the patient's attention may only be directed to

the eye owing to the gradual impairment of sight which results. In some

cases, and more particularly in men, there is a tendency to the

recurrence at longer or shorter intervals of attacks of iritis

(_recurrent iritis_). In these cases, as well as in all cases of plastic

iritis which have not been properly treated, serious consequences to

sight are apt to follow from the binding down of the iris to the lens

capsule and the occlusion of the pupil by exudation.

Inflammation of the ciliary body, _cyclitis_, is frequently associated

with iritis. This association is probable in all cases where there are

deposits on the posterior surface of the cornea. It is certain where

there are changes in the intra-ocular tension. Often in cyclitis there

is a very marked diminution in tension. Cyclitis is also present when

the degree of visual disturbance is greater than can be accounted for by

the visible changes in the pupil and anterior chamber. The exudation

may, as in iritis, be serous, plastic or purulent. It passes from the

two free surfaces of the ciliary body into the posterior aqueous, and

into the vitreous, chambers. This produces, what is a constant sign of

cyclitis, more or less intransparency of the vitreous humour. Where

there has been excessive exudation into the vitreous, subsequent

shrinking and liquefaction take place, leading to detachment of the

retina and consequent blindness.

The treatment of iritis necessarily differs to some extent according to

the cause. The general treatment applicable to all cases need only be

here considered. What should be aimed at, at the time of the

inflammation, is to put the eye as far as possible at rest, to prevent

the formation of synechiae and alleviate the pain. An attempt should be

made to get the pupil thoroughly dilated with atropine. The dilatation

should be kept up as long as any circumcorneal injection lasts. If a

case of iritis be left to itself or treated without the use of a

mydriatic, posterior synechiae almost invariably form. Some fibrinous

exudation may even organize into a membrane stretching across, and more

or less completely occluding, the pupil. Synechiae, though not of

themselves causing impairment of vision, increase the risk that the eye

runs from subsequent attacks of iritis. It should however be remembered

that as the main call for a mydriatic is to prevent synechiae, the

_raison d'etre_ for its use no longer exists when, having been begun too

late, the pupil cannot properly be dilated by it. Under these conditions

it may even do harm. The eyes should also be kept shaded from the light

by the use of a shade or neutral-tinted glasses. During an attack any

use of the eyes for reading or sewing or work of any kind calling for

accommodation must be prohibited. This applies equally to the case of

inflammation in one eye alone and in both.

Pain is best relieved by hot fomentations, cocain, and in many cases the

internal use of salicin or phenacetin. The treatment sometimes required

for cases of old iritis is iridectomy. The operation is called for in

two different classes of cases. In the first place, to improve vision

where the pupil is small, and to a great extent occluded, though the

condition has not so far led to serious nutritive changes; and in the

second place, with the object as well of preventing the complete

destruction of vision which either the existing condition or the danger

of recurrence of the inflammation has threatened. Iridectomy for iritis

should be performed when the inflammation has entirely subsided. The

portion of iris excised should be large. The operation is urgently

called for where the condition of _iris bombans_ exists.

Iris tumours, either simple or malignant, are of rare occurrence.

A frequent result of a severe blow on the eye is a separation of a

portion of the iris from its peripheral attachment (_iridodialysis_). Of

congenital anomalies the most commonly met with are coloboma and more or

less persistence of the foetal pupillary membrane. The most serious form

of irido-cyclitis is that which may follow penetrating wounds of the

eye. Under certain conditions this leads to a similar inflammation in

the other eye. This so-called _sympathetic ophthalmitis_ is of a

malignant type, causing destruction of the sympathizing eye.

_The Retina._--Choroidal inflammations are generally patchy, various

foci of inflammation being scattered over the choroid. These patches may

in course of time become more or less confluent. The effect upon vision

depends upon the extent to which the external or percipient elements of

the retina become involved. It is especially serious when the more

central portions of the retina, are thus affected (_choroido-retinitis

centralis_).

A peculiar and grave pathological condition of the eye is what is known

as _glaucoma_. A characteristic of this condition is increase of the

intra-ocular tension, which has a deleterious effect on the optic nerve

end and its ramifications in the retina. The cause of the rise of

tension is partly congestive, partly mechanical. The effect of glaucoma,

when untreated, is to cause ever-increasing loss of sight, although the

time occupied by the process before it leads to complete blindness

varies within such extraordinary wide limits as from a few hours to many

years. The uveal tract may be the site of _sarcoma_.

The retina is subject to inflammation, to detachment from the choroid,

to haemorrhages from the blood-vessels and to tumour. Retinal

inflammation may primarily affect either the nerve elements or the

connective tissue framework. The former is usually associated with some

general disease such as albuminuria or diabetes and is bilateral. The

tissue changes are oedema, the formation of exudative patches, and

haemorrhage. Where the connective tissue elements are primarily

affected, the condition is a slow one, similar to _sclerosis_ of the

central nervous system. The gradual blindness which this causes is due

to compression of the retinal nerve elements by the connective tissue

hyperplasia, which is always associated with characteristic changes in

the disposition of the retinal pigment. This retinal sclerosis is

consequently generally known as _retinitis pigmentosa_, a disease to

which there is a hereditary predisposition. Besides occurring during

inflammation, haemorrhages into the retina are met with in phlebitis of

the central retinal vein, which is almost invariably unilateral, and in

certain conditions of the blood, as pernicious anaemia, when they are

always bilateral.

The optic nerve is subject to inflammation (optic neuritis) and atrophy.

Double optic neuritis, affecting, however, only the intra-ocular ends of

the nerves, is an almost constant accompaniment of brain tumour.

Unilateral neuritis has a different causation, depending upon an

inflammation, mainly perineuritic, of the nerve in the orbit. It is

analogous to peripheral inflammation of other nerves, such as the third,

fourth, sixth and seventh cranial nerves.

_Diseases of the Conjunctiva._--These are the most frequent diseases of

the eye with which the surgeon has to deal. They generally lead to more

or less interference with the functional activity of the eye and often

indeed to great impairment of vision owing to the tendency which there

is for the cornea to become implicated.

Many different micro-organisms are of pathogenetic importance in

connexion with the conjunctiva. Microbes exist in the normal

conjunctival sac. These are mostly harmless, though it is usual to find

at any rate a small proportion of others which are known to be

pyogenetic. This fact is of great importance in connexion both with

problems of etiology and the practical question of operations on the

eye.

_Hyperaemia._--When the conjunctiva becomes hyperaemic its colour is

heightened and its transparency lessened. Sometimes too it becomes

thickened and its surface altered in appearance. The often marked

heightening of colour is due to the very superficial position of the

dilated vessels. This is specially the case with that part of the

membrane which forms the transition fold between the palpebral and the

ocular conjunctiva. Consequently it is there that the redness is most

marked, while it is seen to diminish towards the cornea. An important

diagnostic mark is thus furnished between purely conjunctival hyperaemia

and what is called circumcorneal congestion, which is always an

indication of more deep-seated vascular dilatation. It also differs

materially from a scleral injection, in which there is a visible

dilatation of the superficial scleral vessels.

When a conjunctival hyperaemia has existed for some time the papillae

become swollen, and small blebs form on the surface of the membrane:

sometimes too, lymph follicles begin to show. The enlargement and

compression of adjacent papillae give rise to a velvety appearance of

the surface.

Hyperaemia of the conjunctiva where not followed by inflammation causes

more or less lacrymation but no alteration in the character of its

secretion. The hyperaemia may be acute and transitory or chronic. Much

depends upon the cause as well as upon the persistence of the irritation

which sets it up.

Traumata, the presence of foreign bodies in the conjunctival sac, or the

irritations of superficial chalky infarcts in the Meibomian ducts, cause

more or less severe transitory congestion. Continued subjection to

irritating particles such as flour, stones, dust, &c., causes a more

continued hyperaemia which is often circumscribed and less pronounced.

Bad air in schools, barracks, workhouses, &c., also causes a chronic

hyperaemia in which it is common to find a follicular hyperplasia. Long

exposure to too intense light, astigmatism and other ocular defects

which cause asthenopia lead also to chronic hyperaemia. Anaemic

individuals are often subject to discomfort from hyperaemia of this

nature.

The treatment of conjunctival hyperaemia consists first in the removal

of the cause when it can be discovered. Often this is difficult. In

addition the application of hot sterilized water is useful and soothing.

_Conjunctivitis._--When the conjunctiva is actually inflamed the

congested membrane is brought into a condition of heightened secreting

action. The secretions become more copious and more or less altered in

character. A sufficiently practical though by no means sharply defined

clinical division of cases of conjunctivitis is arrived at by taking

into consideration the character of the secretion from the inflamed

membrane and the visible tissue alterations which the membrane

undergoes. The common varieties of conjunctivitis which may thus be

distinguished are the following: ([alpha]) Catarrhal conjunctivitis,

([beta]) Purulent conjunctivitis, ([gamma]) Phlyctenular conjunctivitis,

([delta]) Granular conjunctivitis and ([epsilon]) Diphtheritic

conjunctivitis.

However desirable a truly etiological classification might appear to be,

it is doubtful whether such could satisfactorily be made. So much is

certain at all events, that not only can identically the same clinical

appearance result from the actions of quite different pathogenetic

organisms, but that various concomitant circumstances may lead to very

different clinical signs being set up by one and the same microbe. As

regards _contagion_ there is no doubt that the secretion in the case of

a true conjunctivitis (i.e. not merely a hyperaemia) is always more or

less contagious. The degree of virulence varies not only in different

cases, but the effect of contagion from the same source may be different

in different individuals. Healthy conjunctivae may thus react

differently, not only as regards the degree of severity, but even

according to different clinical types, when infected by secretion from

the same source. There are no doubt different reasons for this, such as

the stage at which the inflammation has arrived in the eye from which

the secretion is derived, differences in the surroundings and in the

susceptibility of the infected individuals, the presence of dormant

microbes of a virulent type in the healthy conjunctiva which has been

infected, &c. Many points in this connexion are very difficult to

investigate and much remains to be elucidated. Contagion usually takes

place directly and not through the air. Often in this way one eye is

first affected and may in some cases, when sufficient care is afterwards

taken, be the only one to suffer.

The treatment in all severer forms of conjunctivitis should be

undertaken with the primary object in view of preventing any implication

of the cornea.

_Catarrhal conjunctivitis_, which is characterized by an increased

mucoid secretion accompanying the hyperaemia, is usually bilateral and

may be either acute or chronic. Acute conjunctivitis lasts as a rule

only for a week or two: the chronic type may persist, with or without

occasional exacerbations, for years. The subjective symptoms vary in

intensity with the severity of the inflammation. There is always more or

less troublesome "burning" in the eyes with a tired heavy feeling in the

lids. This is aggravated by reading, which is most distressing in a

close or smoky atmosphere and by artificial light. In acute cases,

indeed, reading is altogether impossible. In all cases of catarrhal

conjunctivitis the symptoms are also more marked if the eyes have been

tied up, even though this may produce a temporary relief.

A curious variety of acute catarrhal conjunctivitis, in which the

hyperaemia and lacrymation are the predominant features, is the

so-called _hay-fever_. In this condition the mucous membrane of the nose

and throat are similarly affected, and there is at the same time more or

less constitutional disturbance. Hay-fever is due to irritation from the

pollen of many plants, but principally from that of the different

grasses. Some people are so susceptible to it that they invariably

suffer every year during the early summer months. Here it is difficult

to remove the cause, but many cases can be cured and almost all are

alleviated be means of a special antitoxin applied locally.

Other ectogenetic causes of catarrhal conjunctivitis which have been

studied are mostly microbic. Of these the most common are the

Morax-Axenfeld and the Koch-Weeks conjunctivitis.

The Morax-Axenfeld bacillus sets up a conjunctivitis which affects

individuals of all ages and conditions and which is contagious. The

inflammation is usually chronic, at most subacute. It is often

sufficiently characteristic to be recognized without a microscopical

examination of the secretions. In typical cases the lid margin,

palpebral conjunctiva, and it may be a patch of ocular conjunctiva at

the outer or inner angle are alone hyperaemic: the secretion is not

copious and is mostly found as a greyish coagulum lying at the inner

lid-margin. The subjective symptoms are usually slight. Complications

with other varieties of catarrhal conjunctivitis are not uncommon. This

mild form of conjunctivitis generally lasts for many months, subject to

more or less complete disappearance followed by recurrences. It can be

rapidly cured by the use of an oxide of zinc ointment, which should be

continued for some time after the appearances have altogether passed

off.

The conjunctivitis caused by the Koch-Weeks microbe is still more

common. It is a more acute type, affects mostly children, and is very

contagious and often epidemic. Here the hyperaemia involves both the

ocular and the palpebral conjunctiva, and usually there is considerable

swelling of the lids and a copious secretion. Both eyes are always

affected. Occasionally the engorged conjunctival vessels give way,

causing numerous small extravasations (ecchymoses). Complications with

phlyctenulae (_vide infra_) are common in children. The acute symptoms

last for a week or ten days, after which the course is more chronic.

Treatment with nitrate of silver in solution is generally satisfactory.

Other less frequent microbic causes of catarrhal conjunctivitis yield to

the same treatment.

A form of _epidemic muco-purulent conjunctivitis_ is not uncommon, in

which the swelling of the conjunctival folds and lids is much more

marked and the secretions copious. It is less amenable to treatment and

also apt to be complicated by corneal ulceration. The microbe which

gives rise to this condition has not been definitely established. This

inflammation is also known as _school ophthalmia_. This is extremely

contagious, so that isolation of cases becomes necessary. The treatment

with weak solutions of sub-acetate of lead during the acute stage,

provided there be no corneal complication, and subsequently with a weak

solution of tannic acid, may be recommended.

_Purulent Conjunctivitis._--Some of the severer forms of catarrhal

conjunctivitis are accompanied not only by a good deal of swelling of

both conjunctiva and lids but also by a decidedly muco-purulent

secretion. Nevertheless there is a sufficiently sharply-defined clinical

difference between the catarrhal and purulent types of inflammation. In

purulent conjunctivitis the oedema of the lids is always marked, often

excessive, the hyperaemia of the whole conjunctiva is intense: the

membrane is also infiltrated and swollen (chemosis), the papillae

enlarged and the secretion almost wholly purulent. Although this variety

of conjunctivitis is principally due to infection by gonococci, other

microbes, which more frequently set up a catarrhal type, may lead to the

purulent form.

All forms are contagious, and transference of the secretion to other

eyes usually sets up the same type of severe inflammation. The way in

which infection mostly takes place is by direct transference by means of

the hands, towels, &c., of secretions containing gonococci either from

the eye or from some other mucous membrane. The poison may also

sometimes be carried by flies. The dried secretion loses its virulence.

In new-born children (_ophthalmia neonatorum_) infection takes place

from the maternal passages during birth. Notwithstanding the great

changes which occur during the progress of a purulent conjunctivitis,

there is on recovery a complete _restitutio ad integrum_ so far as the

conjunctiva is concerned. Owing to the tendency to severe ulceration of

the cornea, more or less serious destructions of that membrane, and

consequently more or less interference with sight, may result before the

inflammation has passed off. This is a special danger in the case of

adults. For this reason when only one eye is affected the first point to

be attended to in the treatment is to secure the second eye from

contagion by efficient occlusion. The appliance known as Buller's

shield, a watch-glass strapped down by plaster, is the best for this

purpose. It not only admits of the patient seeing with the sound eye,

but allows the other to remain under direct observation. The treatment

otherwise consists in frequent removal of the secretions from the

affected eye, and the use of nitrate of silver solution as a bactericide

applied directly to the conjunctival surface; sometimes it is necessary

to cut away the chemotic conjunctiva immediately surrounding the cornea.

When the cornea has become affected efforts may be made with the

thermo-cautery or otherwise to limit the area of destruction and thus

admit of something being done to improve the vision after all

inflammation has subsided. The greatest cleanliness as well as proper

antiseptic precautions should of course be observed by every one in any

way connected with the treatment of such cases.

_Phlyctenular conjunctivitis_ is an acute inflammation of the ocular

conjunctiva, in which little blebs or phlyctenules form, more

particularly in the vicinity of the corneal margin, as well as on the

epithelial continuation of the conjunctiva which covers the cornea. The

inflammation is characterized by being distributed in little

circumscribed foci and not diffused as in all other forms of

conjunctivitis. In it the conjunctival secretion is not altered, unless

there should exist at the same time a complication with some other form

of conjunctivitis. This condition is most frequent in children,

particularly such as are ill-nourished or are recovering from some

illness, e.g. measles. The susceptibility occurs in fact mainly where

there exists what used to be called a "strumous" diathesis. In many

cases, therefore, there is some kind of tubercular basis for the

manifestations. This basis has to do with the susceptibility only, at

all events to begin with. The local changes are not tuberculous; their

exact origin has not been clearly established. They are in all

probability produced by staphylococci.

Many children suffering from phlyctenular conjunctivitis get after a

short time an eczematous excoriation of the skin of the nostrils. This

excoriated, scabby area contains crowds of staphylococci which find a

nidus here, where the copious tear-flow down the nostrils has excoriated

and irritated the skin. Lacrymation is indeed a very common concomitant

of phlyctenular conjunctivitis. Another frequently distressing symptom

is a pronounced dread of light (_photophobia_), which often leads to

convulsive and very persistent closing of the lids (_blepharospasm_).

Indeed the relief of the photophobia is often the most important point

to be considered in the treatment of phlyctenular conjunctivitis. The

photophobia may be very severe when the local changes are slight. The

eyes should be shaded but not bandaged. Cocain may be freely used. The

best local application is the yellow oxide of mercury used as an

ointment.

Phlyctenular conjunctivitis, and the corneal complications with which it

is so often associated, constitute a large proportion (from 1/4 to 1/3)

of all eye affections with which the surgeon has to deal.

_Granular Conjunctivitis._--This disease, which also goes by the name of

_trachoma_, is characterized by an inflammatory infiltration of the

adenoid tissue of the conjunctiva. The inflammation is accompanied by

the formation of so-called _granules_, and at the same time by a

hyperplasia of the papillae. The changes further lead in the course of

time to cicatricial transformations, so that a gradual and progressive

atrophy of the conjunctiva results. The disease takes its origin most

frequently in the conjunctival fold of the upper lid, but eventually as

a rule involves the corna and the deeper tissues of the lid,

particularly the tarsus.

The etiology of trachoma is unknown. Though a perfectly distinctive

affection when fully established, the differential diagnosis from other

forms of conjunctivitis, particularly those associated with much

follicular enlargement or which have begun as purulent inflammation, may

be difficult. Trachoma is mostly chronic. When occurring in an acute

form it is more amenable to treatment and less likely to end in

cicatricial changes. Fully half the cases of trachoma which occur are

complicated by _pannus_, which is the name given to the affection when

it has spread to the cornea. Pannus is a superficial vascularized

infiltration of the cornea. The veiling which it produces causes more or

less defect of sight.

Various methods of treatment are in use for trachoma. Expression by

means of roller-forceps or repeated grattage are amongst the more

effective means of surgical treatment, while local applications of

copper sulphate or of alum are certainly useful in suitable cases.

_Diphtheritic conjunctivitis_ is characterized by an infiltration into

the conjunctival tissues which, owing to great coagulability, rapidly

interferes with the nutrition of the invaded area and thus leads to

necrosis of the diphtheritic membrane. Conjunctival diphtheria may or

may not be associated with diphtheria of the throat. It is essentially a

disease of early childhood, not more than 10% of all cases occurring

after the age of four. The cornea is exposed to great risk, more

particularly during the first few days, and may be lost by necrosis.

Subsequent ulceration is not uncommon, but may often be arrested before

complete destruction has taken place. The disease is generally confined

to one eye, and complicated by swelling of the preauricular glands of

that side. It may prove fatal. In true conjunctival diphtheria the

exciting cause is the Klebs-Loffler bacillus. The inflammation occurs in

very varying degrees of severity. The secretion is at first thin and

scant, afterwards purulent and more copious. In severe cases there is

great chemosis with much tense swelling of the lids, which are often of

an ashy-grey colour. A streptococcus infection produces somewhat similar

and often quite as disastrous results.

The treatment must be both general with antitoxin and local with

antiseptics. Of rarer forms of conjunctivitis may be mentioned

Parinaud's conjunctivitis and the so-called spring catarrh.

_Non-inflammatory Conjunctival Affections._--These are of less

importance than conjunctivitis, either on account of their comparative

infrequency or because of their harmlessness. The following conditions

may be shortly referred to.

_Amyloid degeneration_, in which waxy-looking masses grow from the

palpebral conjunctiva of both lids, often attaining very considerable

dimensions. The condition is not uncommon in China and elsewhere in the

East.

_Essential Shrinking of the Conjunctiva._--This is the result of

pemphigus, in which the disease has attacked the conjunctiva and led to

its atrophy.

_Pterygium_ is a hypertrophic thickening of the conjunctiva of

triangular shape firmly attached by its apex to the superficial layers

of the cornea. It is a common condition in warm climates owing to

exposure to sun and dust, and often calls for operative interference.

_Tumours of the Conjunctiva._--These may be malignant or benign, also

syphilitic and tubercular. (G. A. Be.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Some embryologists regard the vitreous body as formed from the

ectoderm (see Quain's _Anatomy_, vol. i., 1908).

EYEMOUTH, a police burgh of Berwickshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 2436. It

is situated at the mouth of the Eye, 7-1/2 m. N.N.W. of Berwick-on-Tweed

by the North British railway via Burnmouth. Its public buildings are the

town hall, library and masonic hall. The main industry is the fishing

and allied trades. The harbour was enlarged in 1887, and the bay is

easily accessible and affords good anchorage. Owing to the rugged

character of the coast and its numerous ravines and caves the whole

district was once infested with smugglers. The promontory of St Abb's

Head is 3 m. to the N.W.

EYLAU (_Preussisch-Eylau_), a town of Germany, in east Prussia, on the

Pasmar, 23 m. S. by E. Of Konigsberg by rail on the line

Pillau-Prostken. It has an Evangelical church, a teachers' seminary, a

hospital, foundries and saw mills. Pop. 3200. Eylau was founded in 1336

by Arnolf von Eilenstein, a knight of the Teutonic Order. It is famous

as the scene of a battle between the army of Napoleon and the Russians

and Prussians commanded by General Bennigsen, fought on the 8th of

February 1807.

The battle was preceded by a severe general engagement on the 7th. The

head of Napoleon's column (cavalry and infantry), advancing from the

south-west, found itself opposed at the outlet of the Grunhofchen defile

by a strong Russian rearguard which held the (frozen) lakes on either

side of the Eylau road, and attacked at once, dislodging the enemy after

a sharp conflict. The French turned both wings of the enemy, and

Bagration, who commanded the Russian rearguard, retired through Eylau to

the main army, which was now arrayed for battle east of Eylau. Barclay

de Tolly made a strenuous resistance in Eylau itself, and in the

churchyard, and these localities changed hands several times before

remaining finally in possession of the French. It is very doubtful

whether Napoleon actually ordered this attack upon Eylau, and it is

suggested that the French soldiers were encouraged to a premature

assault by the hope of obtaining quarters in the village. There is,

however, no reason to suppose that this attack was prejudicial to

Napoleon's chance of success, for his own army was intended to pin the

enemy in front, while the outlying "masses of manoeuvre" closed upon his

flanks and rear (see NAPOLEONIC CAMPAIGNS). In this case the vigour of

the "general advanced guard" was superfluous, for Bennigsen stood to

fight of his own free will.

The foremost line of the French bivouacs extended, from Rothenen to

Freiheit, but a large proportion of the army spent the night in quarters

farther back. The Russian army on the other hand spent the night

bivouacked in order of battle, the right at Schloditten and the left at

Serpallen. The cold was extreme, 2 deg. F. being registered in the early

morning, and food was scarce in both armies. The ground was covered at

the time of battle with deep snow, and all the lakes and marshes were

frozen, so that troops of all arms could pass everywhere, so far as the

snow permitted. Two of Napoleon's corps (Davout and Ney) were still

absent, and Ney did not receive his orders until the morning of the 8th.

His task was to descend upon the Russian right, and also to prevent a

Prussian corps under Lestocq from coming on to the battlefield. Davout's

corps advancing from the south-east on Mollwitten was destined for the

attack of Bennigsen's left wing about Serpallen and Klein Sausgarten. In

the meantime Napoleon with his forces at and about Eylau made the

preparations for the frontal attack. His infantry extended from the

windmill, through Eylau, to Rothenen, and the artillery was deployed

along the whole front; behind each infantry corps and on the wings stood

the cavalry. The Guard was in second line south of Eylau, and an army

reserve stood near the Waschkeiten lake. Bennigsen's army was drawn up

in line from Schloditten to Klein Sausgarten, the front likewise covered

by guns, in which arm he was numerically much superior. A detachment

occupied Serpallen.

The battle opened in a dense snowstorm. About 8 A.M. Bennigsen's guns

opened fire on Eylau, and after a fierce but undecided artillery fight

the French delivered an infantry attack from Eylau. This was repulsed

with heavy losses, and the Russians advanced towards the windmill in

force. Thereupon Napoleon ordered his centre, the VII. corps of Augereau

to move forward from the church against the Russian front, the division

of St Hilaire on Augereau's right participating in the attack. If we

conceive of this first stage of the battle as the action of the "general

advanced guard," Augereau must be held to have overdone his part. The

VII. corps advanced in dense masses, but in the fierce snowstorm lost

its direction. St Hilaire attacked directly and unsupported; Augereau's

corps was still less fortunate. Crossing obliquely the front of the

Russian line, as if making for Schloditten, it came under a _feu

d'enfer_ and was practically annihilated. In the confusion the Russian

cavalry charged with the utmost fury downhill and with the wind behind

them. Three thousand men only out of about fourteen thousand appeared at

the evening parade of the corps. The rest were killed, wounded,

prisoners or dispersed. The marshal and every senior officer was amongst

the killed and wounded, and one regiment, the 14th of the Line, cut off

in the midst of the Russians and refusing to surrender, fell almost to a

man. The Russian counterstroke penetrated into Eylau itself and Napoleon

himself was in serious danger. With the utmost coolness, however, he

judged the pace of the Russian advance and ordered up a battalion of the

Guard at the exact moment required. In the streets of Eylau the Guard

had the Russians at their mercy, and few escaped. Still the situation

for the French was desperate and the battle had to be maintained at all

costs. Napoleon now sent forward the cavalry along the whole line. In

the centre the charge was led by Murat and Bessieres, and the Russian

horsemen were swept off the field. The Cuirassiers under D'Hautpoult

charged through the Russian guns, broke through the first line of

infantry and then through the second, penetrating to the woods of

Anklappen.

[Illustration: Map of Eylau.]

The shock of a second wave of cavalry broke the lines again, and though

in the final retirement the exhausted troopers lost terribly, they had

achieved their object. The wreck of Augereau's and other divisions had

been reformed, the Guard brought up into first line, and, above all,

Davout's leading troops had occupied Serpallen. Thence, with his left in

touch with Napoleon's right (St Hilaire), and his right extending

gradually towards Klein Sausgarten, the marshal pressed steadily upon

the Russian left, rolling it up before him, until his right had reached

Kutschitten and his centre Anklappen. By that time the troops under

Napoleon's immediate command, pivoting their left on Eylau church, had

wheeled gradually inward until the general line extended from the

church to Kutschitten. The Russian army was being driven westward, when

the advance of Lestocq gave them fresh steadiness. The Prussian corps

had been fighting a continuous flank-guard action against Marshal Ney to

the north-west of Althof, and Lestocq had finally succeeded in

disengaging his main body, Ney being held up at Althof by a small

rearguard, while the Prussians, gathering as they went the fugitives of

the Russian army, hastened to oppose Davout. The impetus of these fresh

troops led by Lestocq and his staff-officer Scharnhorst was such as to

check even the famous divisions of Davout's corps which had won the

battle of Auerstadt single-handed. The French were now gradually forced

back until their right was again at Sausgarten and their centre on the

Kreege Berg.

Both sides were now utterly exhausted, for the Prussians also had been

marching and fighting all day against Ney. The battle died away at

nightfall, Ney's corps being unable effectively to intervene owing to

the steadiness of the Prussian detachment left to oppose him, and the

extreme difficulty of the roads. A severe conflict between the Russian

extreme right and Ney's corps which at last appeared on the field at

Schloditten ended the battle. Bennigsen retreated during the night

through Schmoditten, Lestocq through Kutschitten. The numbers engaged in

the first stage of the battle may be taken as--Napoleon, 50,000,

Bennigsen, 67,000, to which later were added on the one side Ney and

Davout, 29,000, on the other Lestocq, 7000. The losses were roughly,

15,000 men to the French, 18,000 to the Allies, or 21 and 27%

respectively of the troops actually engaged. The French lost 5 eagles

and 7 other colours, the Russians 16 colours and 24 guns.

EYRA (_Felis eyra_), a South American wild cat, of weasel-like build,

and uniform coloration, varying in different individuals from

reddish-yellow to chestnut. It is found in Brazil, Guiana and Paraguay,

and extends its range to the Rio del Norte, but is rare north of the

isthmus of Panama. Little is known of its habits in a wild state, beyond

the fact that it is a forest-dweller, active in movement and fierce in

disposition. Several have been exhibited in the London Zoological

Gardens, and some have grown gentle in captivity. Don Felix de Azara

wrote of one which he kept on a chain that it was "as gentle and playful

as any kitten could be." The name is sometimes applied to the

jaguarondi.

EYRE, EDWARD JOHN (1815-1901), British colonial governor, the son of a

Yorkshire clergyman, was born on the 5th of August 1815. He was intended

for the army, but delays having arisen in producing a commission, he

went out to New South Wales, where he engaged in the difficult but very

necessary undertaking of transporting stock westward to the new colony

of South Australia, then in great distress, and where he became

magistrate and protector of the aborigines, whose interests he warmly

advocated. Already experienced as an Australian traveller, he undertook

the most extensive and difficult journeys in the desert country north

and west of Adelaide, and after encountering the greatest hardships,

proved the possibility of land communication between South and West

Australia. In 1845 he returned to England and published the narrative of

his travels. In 1846 he was appointed lieutenant-governor of New

Zealand, where he served under Sir George Grey. After successively

governing St Vincent and Antigua, he was in 1862 appointed

acting-governor of Jamaica and in 1864 governor. In October 1865 a negro

insurrection broke out and was repressed with laudable vigour, but the

unquestionable severity and alleged illegality of Eyre's subsequent

proceedings raised a storm at home which induced the government to

suspend him and to despatch a special commission of investigation, the

effect of whose inquiries, declared by his successor, Sir John Peter

Grant, to have been "admirably conducted," was that he should not be

reinstated in his office. The government, nevertheless, saw nothing in

Eyre's conduct to justify legal proceedings; indictments preferred by

amateur prosecutors at home against him and military officers who had

acted under his direction, resulted in failure, and he retired upon the

pension of a colonial governor. As an explorer Eyre must be classed in

the highest rank, but opinions are always likely to differ as to his

action in the Jamaica rebellion. He died on the 30th of November 1901.

EYRE, SIR JAMES (1734-1799), English judge, was the son of the Rev.

Thomas Eyre, of Wells, Somerset. He was educated at Winchester College

and at St John's College, Oxford, which, however, he left without taking

a degree. He was called to the bar at Gray's Inn in 1755, and commenced

practice in the lord mayor's and sheriffs' courts, having become by

purchase one of the four counsel to the corporation of London. He was

appointed recorder of London in 1763. He was counsel for the plaintiff

in the case of _Wilkes_ v. _Wood_, and made a brilliant speech in

condemnation of the execution of general search warrants. His refusal to

voice the remonstrances of the corporation against the exclusion of

Wilkes from parliament earned him the recognition of the ministry, and

he was appointed a judge of the exchequer in 1772. From June 1792 to

January 1793 he was chief commissioner of the great seal. In 1793 he was

made chief justice of the common pleas, and presided over the trials of

Horne Tooke, Thomas Crosfield and others, with great ability and

impartiality. He died on the 1st of July 1799 and was buried at

Ruscombe, Berkshire.

See Howell, _State Trials_, xix. (1154--1155); Foss, _Lives of the

Judges_.

EYRIE, the alternative English form of the words Aerie or Aery, the

lofty nest of a bird of prey, especially of an eagle, hence any lofty

place of abode; the term is also used of the brood of the bird. The word

derives from the Fr. _aire_, of the same meaning, which comes from the

Lat. _area_, an open space, but was early connected with _aerius_, high

in the air, airy, a confusion that has affected the spelling of the

word. The forms "eyrie" or "eyry" date from a 17th century attempt to

derive the word from the Teutonic _ey_, an egg.

EZEKIEL ([Hebrew: Ihezkel], "God strengthens" or "God is strong"; Sept.

[Greek: Iezekiel]; Vulg. Ezechiel), son of Buzi, one of the most

vigorous and impressive of the older Israelite thinkers. He was a priest

of the Jerusalem temple, probably a member of the dominant house of

Zadok, and doubtless had the literary training of the cultivated

priesthood of the time, including acquaintance with the national

historical, legal and ritual traditions and with the contemporary

history and customs of neighbouring peoples. In the year 597 (being

then, probably, not far from thirty years of age) he was carried off to

Babylonia by Nebuchadrezzar with King Jehoiachin and a large body of

nobles, military men and artisans, and there, it would seem, he spent

the rest of his life. His prophecies are dated from this year ("our

captivity," xl. 1), except in i. 1, where the meaning of the date

"thirtieth year" is obscure; it cannot refer to his age (which would be

otherwise expressed in Hebrew), or to the reform of Josiah, 621 (which

is not elsewhere employed as an epoch); possibly the reference is to the

era of Nabopolassar (626 according to the Canon of Ptolemy), if

chronological inexactness be supposed (34 or 33 years instead of 30), a

supposition not at all improbable. That the word "thirtieth" is old,

appears from the fact that a scribe has added a gloss (vv. 2, 3) to

bring this statement into accord with the usual way of reckoning in the

book: the "thirtieth" year, he explains, is the fifth year of the

captivity of Jehoiachin. The exiles dwelt at Tell-abib ("Hill of the

flood"), one of the mounds or ruins made by the great floods that

devastated the country,[1] near the "river" Chebar (Kebar), probably a

large canal not far south of the city of Babylon. Here they had their

own lands, and some form of local government by elders, and appear to

have been prosperous and contented; probably the only demand made on

them by the Babylonian government was the payment of taxes.

Ezekiel was married (xxiv. 18), had his own house, and comported himself

quietly as a Babylonian subject. But he was a profoundly interested

observer of affairs at home and among the exiles: as patriot and

ethical teacher he deplored alike the political blindness of the

Jerusalem government (King Zedekiah revolted in 588) and the immorality

and religious superficiality and apostasy of the people. He, like

Jeremiah, was friendly to Nebuchadrezzar, regarding him as Yahweh's

instrument for the chastisement of the nation. Convinced that opposition

to Babylonian rule was suicidal, and interpreting historical events, in

the manner of the times, as indications of the temper of the deity, he

held that the imminent political destruction of the nation was proof of

Yahweh's anger with the people on account of their moral and religious

depravity; Jerusalem was hopelessly corrupt and must be destroyed

(xxiv.). On the other hand, he was equally convinced that, as his

predecessors had taught (Hos. xi. 8, 9; Isa. vii. 3 al.), Yahweh's love

for his people would not suffer them to perish utterly--a remnant would

be saved, and this remnant he naturally found in the exiles in

Babylonia, a little band plucked from the burning and kept safe in a

foreign land till the wrath should have passed (xi. 14 ff.). This

conception of the exiles as the kernel of the restored nation he further

set forth in the great vision of ch. i., in which Yahweh is represented

as leaving Jerusalem and coming to take up his abode among them in

Babylonia for a time, intending, however, to return to his own city

(xliii. 7).

This, then, was Ezekiel's political creed--destruction of Jerusalem and

its inhabitants, restoration of the exiles, and meantime submission to

Babylon. His arraignment of the Judeans is violent, almost malignant

(vi. xvi. al.). The well-meaning but weak king Zedekiah he denounces

with bitter scorn as a perjured traitor (xvii). He does not discuss the

possibility of successful resistance to the Chaldeans; he simply assumes

that the attempt is foolish and wicked, and, like other prophets, he

identifies his political programme with the will of God. Probably his

judgment of the situation was correct; yet, in view of Sennacherib's

failure at Jerusalem in 701 and of the admitted strength of the city,

the hope of the Jewish nobles could not be considered wholly unfounded,

and in any case their patriotism (like that of the national party in the

Roman siege) was not unworthy of admiration. The prophet's predictions

of disaster continued, according to the record, up to the investment of

the city by the Chaldean army in 588 (i.-xxiv.); after the fall of the

city (586) his tone changed to one of consolation (xxxiii.-xxxix.)--the

destruction of the wicked mass accomplished, he turned to the task of

reconstruction. He describes the safe and happy establishment of the

people in their own land, and gives a sketch of a new constitution, of

which the main point is the absolute control of public religion by the

priesthood (xl.-xlviii.).

The discourses of the first period (i.-xxiv.) do not confine themselves

to political affairs, but contain much interesting ethical and religious

material. The picture given of Jerusalemite morals is an appalling one.

Society is described as honeycombed with crimes and vices; prophets,

priests, princes and the people generally are said to practise

unblushingly extortion, oppression, murder, falsehood, adultery (xxii.).

This description is doubtless exaggerated. It may be assumed that the

social corruption in Jerusalem was such as is usually found in wealthy

communities, made bolder in this case, perhaps, by the political unrest

and the weakness of the royal government under Zedekiah. No such charges

are brought by the prophet against the exiles, in whose simple life,

indeed, there was little or no opportunity for flagrant violation of

law. Ezekiel's own moral code is that of the prophets, which insists on

the practice of the fundamental civic virtues. He puts ritual offences,

however, in the same category with offences against the moral law, and

he does not distinguish between immorality and practices that are

survivals of old recognized customs: in ch. xxii. he mentions "eating

with the blood"[2] along with murder, and failure to observe ritual

regulations along with oppression of the fatherless and the widow; the

old customary law permitted marriage with a half-sister (father's

daughter), with a daughter-in-law, and with a father's wife (Gen. xx.

12, xxxviii. 26; 2 Sam. xvi. 21, 22), but the more refined feeling of

the later time frowned on the custom, and Ezekiel treats it as

adultery.[3] However, notwithstanding the insistence on ritual, natural

in a priest, his moral standard is high; following the prescription of

Ex. xxii. 21 [20] he regards oppression of resident aliens (a class that

had not then received full civil rights) as a crime (xxii. 7), and in

his new constitution (xlvii. 22, 23) gives them equal rights with the

homeborn. His strongest denunciation is directed against the religious

practices of the time in Judea--the worship of the Canaanite local

deities (the Baals), the Phoenician Tammuz, and the sun and other

Babylonian and Assyrian gods (vi., viii., xvi., xxiii.); he maintained

vigorously the prophetic struggle for the sole worship of Yahweh.

Probably he believed in the existence of other gods, though he does not

express himself clearly on this point; in any case he held that the

worship of other deities was destructive to Israel. His conception of

Yahweh shows a mingling of the high and the low. On the one hand, he

regards him as supreme in power, controlling the destinies of Babylonia

and Egypt as well as those of Israel, and as inflexibly just in dealing

with ordinary offences against morality. But he conceives of him, on the

other hand, as limited locally and morally--as having his special abode

in. the Jerusalem temple, or elsewhere in the midst of the Israelite

people, and as dealing with other nations solely in the interests of

Israel. The bitter invectives against Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia,

Tyre, Sidon and Egypt, put into Yahweh's mouth, are based wholly on the

fact that these peoples are regarded as hostile and hurtful to Israel;

Babylonia, though nowise superior to Egypt morally, is favoured and

applauded because it is believed to be the instrument for securing

ultimately the prosperity of Yahweh's people. The administration of the

affairs of the world by the God of Israel is represented, in a word, as

determined not by ethical considerations but by personal preferences.

There is no hint in Ezekiel's writings of the grandiose conception of

Isa. xl.-lv., that Israel's mission is to give the knowledge of

religious truth to the other nations of the world; he goes so far as to

say that Yahweh's object in restoring the fortunes of Israel is to

establish his reputation among the nations as a powerful deity (xxxvi.

20-23, xxxvii. 28, xxxix. 23). The prophet regards Yahweh's

administrative control as immediate: he introduces no angels or other

subordinate supernatural agents--the cherubs and the "men" of ix. 2 and

xl. 3 are merely imaginative symbols or representations of divine

activity. His high conception of God's transcendence, it may be

supposed, led him to ignore intermediary agencies, which are common in

the popular literature, and later, under the influence of this same

conception of transcendence, are freely employed.

The relations between the writings of Ezekiel and those of Jeremiah is

not clear. They have so much in common that they must have drawn from

the same current bodies of thought, or there must have been borrowing in

one direction or the other. In one point, however,--the attitude toward

the ritual--the two men differ radically. The finer mind of the nation,

represented mainly by the prophets from Amos onward, had denounced

unsparingly the superficial non-moral popular cult. The struggle between

ethical religion and the current worship became acute toward the end of

the 7th century. There were two possible solutions of the difficulty.

The ritual books of our Pentateuch were not then in existence, and the

sacrificial cult might be treated with contempt as not authoritative.

This is the course taken by Jeremiah, who says boldly that God requires

only obedience (Jer. vii. 21 ff.). On the other hand the better party

among the priests, believing the ritual to be necessary, might undertake

to moralize it; of such a movement, begun by Deuteronomy, Ezekiel is the

most eminent representative. Priest and prophet, he sought to unify the

national religious consciousness by preserving the sacrificial cult,

discarding its abuses and vitalizing it ethically. The event showed that

he judged the situation rightly--the religious scheme announced by him,

though not accepted in all its details, became the dominant policy of

the later time, and he has been justly called "the father of Judaism."

He speaks as a legislator, citing no authority; but he formulates,

doubtless, the ideas and perhaps the practices of the Jerusalem

priesthood. His ritual code (xliii.-xlvi.), which in elaborateness

stands midway between that of Deuteronomy and that of the middle books

of the Pentateuch (resembling most nearly the code of Lev. xvii.-xxvi.)

shows good judgment. Its most noteworthy features are two. Certain

priests of idolatrous Judean shrines (distinguished by him as "Levites")

he deprives of priestly functions, degrading them to the rank of temple

menials; and he takes from the civil ruler all authority over public

religion, permitting him merely to furnish material for sacrifices. He

is, however, much more than a ritual reformer. He is the first to

express clearly the conception of a sacred nation, isolated by its

religion from all others, the guardian of divine law and the abode of

divine majesty. This kingdom of God he conceives of as moral: Yahweh is

to put his own spirit into the people,[4] creating in them a disposition

to obey his commandments, which are moral as well as ritual (xxxvi. 26,

27). The conception of a sacred nation controlled the whole succeeding

Jewish development; if it was narrow in its exclusive regard for Israel,

its intensity saved the Jewish religion to the world.

_Text and Authorship._--The Hebrew text of the book of Ezekiel is not in

good condition--it is full of scribal inaccuracies and additions. Many

of the errors may be corrected with the aid of the Septuagint (e.g. the

430--390 + 40--of iv. 5, 6 is to be changed to 190), and none of them

affect the general thought. The substantial genuineness of the

discourses is now accepted by the great body of critics. The Talmudic

tradition (_Baba Bathra_ 14b) that the men of the Great Synagogue

"wrote" Ezekiel, may refer to editorial work by later scholars.[5] There

is no validity in the objections of Zunz (_Gottesdienstl. Vortr._) that

the specific prediction concerning Zedekiah (xii. 12 f.) is

non-Prophetic, and that the drawing-up of a new constitution soon after

the destruction of the city and the mention of Noah, Daniel, Job and

Persia are improbable. The prediction in question was doubtless added by

Ezekiel after the event; the code belongs precisely in his time, and the

constitution was natural for a priest; Noah, Daniel and Job are old

legendary Hebrew figures; and it is not probable that the prophet's

"Paras" is our "Persia." Havet's contention (in _La Modernite des

prophetes_) that Gog represents the Parthians (40 B.C.) has little or

nothing in its support. There are additions made _post eventum_, as in

the case mentioned above and in xxix. 17-20, and the description of the

commerce of Tyre (xxvii. 9b-25a), which interrupts the comparison of the

city to a ship, looks like an insertion whether by the prophet or by

some other; but there is no good reason to doubt that the book is

substantially the work of Ezekiel. Ezekiel's style is generally

impetuous and vigorous, somewhat smoother in the consolatory discourses

(xxxiv., xxxvi., xxxvii.); he produces a great effect by the cumulation

of details, and is a master of invective; he is fond of symbolic

pictures, proverbs and allegories; his "visions" are elaborate literary

productions, his prophecies show less spontaneity than those of any

preceding prophet (he receives his revelations in the form of a book,

ii. 9), and in their present shape were hardly pronounced in public--a

fact that seems to be hinted at in the statement that he was "dumb" till

the fall of Jerusalem (iii. 26, xxxiii. 22); in private interviews the

people did not take him seriously (xxxiii. 30-33). His book was accepted

early as part of the sacred literature: Ben-Sira (c. 180 B.C.) mentions

him along with Isaiah and Jeremiah (Ecclus. xlix. 8); he is not quoted

directly in the New Testament, but his imagery is employed largely in

the Apocalypse and elsewhere. His divergencies from the Pentateuchal

code gave rise to serious doubts, but, after prolonged study, the

discrepancies were explained, and the book was finally canonized (Shab.

13b). According to Jerome (Preface to _Comm. on Ezek._) the Jewish

youth were forbidden to read the mysterious first chapter (called the

_markaba_, the "chariot") and the concluding section (xl.-xlviii.) till

they reached the age of thirty years.

The book divides itself naturally into three parts: the arraignment of

Jerusalem (i.-xxiv.); denunciation of foreign enemies (xxv.-xxxii.);

consolatory construction of the future (xxxiii.-xlviii.). The opening

"vision" (i.), an elaborate symbolic picture, is of the nature of a

general preface, and was composed probably late in the prophet's life.

Out of the north (the Babylonian sacred mountain) comes a bright

cloud, wherein appear four Creatures (formed on the model of

Babylonian composite figures), each with four faces (man, lion, bull,

eagle) and attended by a wheel; the wheels are full of eyes, and move

straight forward, impelled by the spirit dwelling in the Creatures

(the spirit of Yahweh). Supported on their heads is something like a

crystalline firmament, above which is a form like a sapphire throne

(cf. Ex. xxiv. 10), and on the throne a man-like form (Yahweh)

surrounded by a rainbow brightness. The wheels symbolize divine

omniscience and control, and the whole vision represents the coming of

Yahweh to take up his abode among the exiles. The prophet then

receives his call (ii., iii.) in the shape of a roll of a book, which

he is required to eat (an indication of the literary form now taken by

prophecy). He is informed that the people to whom he is sent are

rebellious and stiff-necked (this indicates his opinion of the people,

and gives the keynote of the following discourses); he is appointed

watchman to warn men when they sin, and is to be held responsible for

the consequences if he fail in this duty. To this high conception of a

preacher's function the prophet was faithful throughout his career.

Next follow minatory discourses (iv.-vii.) predicting the siege and

capture of Jerusalem-perhaps revised after the event. There are

several symbolic acts descriptive of the siege. One of these (iv. 4

ff.) gives the duration of the national punishment in loose

chronological reckoning: 40 years (a round number) for Judah, and 150

more (according to the corrected text) for Israel, the starting-point,

probably, being the year 722, the date of the capture of Samaria; the

procedure described in v. 8 is not to be understood literally. In vi.

the idolatry of the nation is pictured in darkest colours. Next

follows (viii.-xi.) a detailed description, in the form of a vision,

of the sin of Jerusalem: within the temple-area elders and others are

worshipping beast-forms, Tammuz and the sun (probably actual cults of

the time); [6] men approach to defile the temple and slay the

inhabitants of the city (ix.). In ch. x. the imagery of ch. i.

reappears, and the Creatures are identified with the cherubs of

Solomon's temple. This appears to be an independent form of the

vision, which has been brought into connexion with that of i. by a

harmonizing editor. There follow a symbolic prediction of the exile

(xii.) and a denunciation of non-moral prophets and prophetesses

(xiii.)--though Yahweh deceive a prophet, yet he and those who consult

him will be punished; and so corrupt is the nation that the presence

of a few eminently good men will not save it (xiv.).[7] After a

comparison of Israel to a worthless wild vine (xv.) come two

allegories, one portraying idolatrous Jerusalem as the unfaithful

spouse of Yahweh (xvi.), the other describing the fate of Zedekiah

(xvii.). The fine insistence on individual moral responsibility in

xviii. (cf. Deut. xxiv. 16, Jer. xxxi. 29 f.), while it is a protest

against a superficial current view, is not to be understood as a

denial of all moral relations between successive generations. This

latter question had not presented itself to the prophet's mind; his

object was simply to correct the opinion of the people that their

present misfortunes were due not to their own faults but to those of

their predecessors. A more sympathetic attitude appears in two elegies

(xix.), one on the kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, the other on the

nation. These are followed by a scathing sketch of Israel's religious

career (xx. 1-26), in which, contrary to the view of earlier prophets,

it is declared that the nation had always been disobedient. From this

point to the end of xxiv. there is a mingling of threat and

promise.[8] The allegory of xxiii. is similar to that of xvi., except

that in the latter Samaria is relatively treated with favour, while in

the former it (Aholah) is involved in the same condemnation as that of

Jerusalem. At this point is introduced (xxv.-xxxii.) the series of

discourses directed against foreign nations. The description of the

king of Tyre (xxviii. 11-19) as dwelling in Eden, the garden of God,

the sacred mountain, under the protection of the cherub, bears a

curious resemblance to the narrative in Gen. ii., iii., of which,

however, it seems to be independent, using different Babylonian

material; the text is corrupt. The section dealing with Egypt is one

of remarkable imaginative power and rhetorical vigour: the king of

Egypt is compared to a magnificent cedar of Lebanon (in xxxi. 3 read:

"there was a cedar in Lebanon") and to the dragon of the Nile, and the

picture of his descent into Sheol is intensely tragic. Whether these

discourses were all uttered between the investment of Jerusalem and

its fall, or were here inserted by Ezekiel or by a scribe, it is not

possible to say. In xxxiii. the function of the prophet as watchman is

described at length (expansion of the description in iii.) and the

news of the capture of the city is received. The following chapters

(xxxiv.-xxxix.) are devoted to reconstruction: Edom, the detested

enemy of Israel, is to be crushed; the nation, politically raised from

the dead, with North and South united (xxxvii.), is to be established

under a Davidide king; a final assault, made by Gog, is to be

successfully met,[9] and then the people are to dwell in their own

land in peace for ever; this Gog section is regarded by some as the

beginning of Jewish apocalyptic writing. In the last section

(xl.-xlviii.), put as a vision, the temple is to be rebuilt, in

dimensions and arrangements a reproduction of the temple of Solomon

(cf. I Kings vi., vii.), the sacrifices and festivals and the

functions of priests and prince are prescribed, a stream issuing from

under the temple is to vivify the Dead Sea and fertilize the land

(this is meant literally), the land is divided into parallel strips

and assigned to the tribes. The prophet's thought is summed up in the

name of the city: _Yahweh Shammah_, "Yahweh is there," God dwelling

for ever in the midst of his people.

LITERATURE.--For the older works see the _Introductions_ of J.G.

Carpzov (1757) and C.H.H. Wright (1890). For _legends_:

Pseud.-Epiphan., _De vit. prophet._; Benjamin of Tudela, Itin.;

Hamburger, _Realencycl._; _Jew. Encycl._ On the Hebrew text; C.H.

Cornill, _Ezechiel_ (1886) (very valuable for text and ancient

versions); H. Graetz, _Emendationes_ (1893).; C.H. Toy, "Text of

Ezek." (1899) in Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old Test._ Commentaries:

F. Hitzig (1847); H. Ewald (1868); E. Reuss (French ed., 1876; Germ,

ed., 1892); Currey (1876) in _Speaker's Comm._; R. Smend (revision of

Hitzig) (1880) in _Kurzgefasst. exeget. Handbuch_; A.B. Davidson

(1882) in Cambr. _Bible for Schools_; J. Skinner (1895) in _Expos.

Bible_; A. Bertholet (1897) in Marti's _Kurz. Hand-Comm._; C.H. Toy

(1899) in Haupt's _Sacr. Bks._ (Eng. ed.); R. Kraetzschmar (1900) in

W. Nowack's _Handkommentar_. See also Duhm, _Theol. d. Propheten_

(1875); A. Kuenen, _Prophets and Prophecy_ (1877); Gautier, _La

Mission du prophete Ezechiel_ (1891); Montefiore, _Hibbert Lectures_

(1892); A. Bertholet, _Der Verfassungsentwurf des Hesekiel_ (1896);

articles in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencykl._; Hastings, _Bibl. Dict._;

Cheyne, _Encycl. Bibl., Jew. Encycl._; F. Bleek, _Introd._ (Eng. tr.,

1875), and Bleek-Wellhausen (Germ.) (1878); Wildeboer, _Letterkunde d.

Oud. Verbonds_ (1893), and Germ, transl., _Litt. d. Alt. Test._;

Perrot and Chipiez, _Hist. de l'art_, &c., in which, however, the

restoration of Ezekiel's temple (by Chipiez) is probably

untrustworthy. (C. H. T.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Assyrian term _abubu_ is used of the great primeval deluge

(in the Gilgamesh epic), and also of the local floods common in the

country.

[2] So we must read (as Robertson Smith has pointed out) in xxii. 9

and xviii. 6, instead of "eating on the mountains."

[3] The stricter marriage law is formulated in Lev. xviii. 8-15, xx.

11 ff.

[4] Yahweh's spirit, thought of as Yahweh's vital principle, as man's

spirit is man's vital principle, is to be breathed into them, as, in

Gen. ii. 7, Yahweh breathes his own breath into the lifeless body.

The spirit in the Old Testament is a refined material thing that may

come or be poured out on men.

[5] The "Great Synagogue" is semi-mythical.

[6] In viii. 17 the unintelligible expression "they put the branch to

their nose" is the rendering of a corrupt Hebrew text; a probable

emendation is: "they are sending a stench to my nostrils."

[7] The legendary figure of Daniel (xiv. 14) is later taken by the

author of the book of Daniel as his hero.

[8] For a reconstruction of the poem in xxi. 10, 11, see the English

Ezekiel in Haupt's _Sacred Books_.

[9] Gog probably represents a Scythian horde (though such an invasion

never took place)--certainly not Alexander the Great, who would have

been called "king of Greece," and would have been regarded not as an

enemy but as a friend.

EZRA (from a Hebrew word meaning "help"), in the Bible, the famous

scribe and priest at the time of the return of the Jews in the reign of

the Persian king Artaxerxes I. (458 B.C.). His book and that of Nehemiah

form one work (see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF), apart from which we

have little trustworthy evidence as to his life. Even in the beginning

of the 2nd century B.C., when Ben Sira praises notable figures of the

exilic and post-exilic age (Zerubbabel, Jeshua and Nehemiah), Ezra is

passed over (Ecclesiasticus xlix. 11-13), and he is not mentioned in a

still later and somewhat fanciful description of Nehemiah's work (2

Macc. i. 18-36). Already well known as a scribe, Ezra's labours were

magnified by subsequent tradition. He was regarded as the father of the

scribes and the founder of the Great Synagogue. According to the

apocryphal fourth book of Ezra (or 2 Esdras xiv.) he restored the law

which had been lost, and rewrote all the sacred records (which had been

destroyed) in addition to no fewer than seventy apocryphal works. The

former theory recurs elsewhere in Jewish tradition, and may be

associated with the representation in Ezra-Nehemiah which connects him

with the law. But the story of his many literary efforts, like the more

modern conjecture that he closed the canon of the Old Testament, rests

upon no ancient basis.

See BIBLE, sect. Old Testament (Canon and Criticism); JEWS (history,

S21 seq.). The apocryphal books, called 1 and 2 Esdras (the Greek form

of the name) in the English Bible, are dealt with below as EZRA, THIRD

BOOK OF, and EZRA, FOURTH BOOK OF, while the canonical book of Ezra is

dealt with under EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.

EZRA, THIRD BOOK OF [1 _Esdras_]. The titles of the various books of the

Ezra literature are very confusing. The Greek, the Old Latin, the

Syriac, and the English Bible from 1560 onwards designate this book as

1 Esdras, the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah being 2 Esdras in the

Greek. In the Vulgate, however, our author was, through the action of

Jerome, degraded into the third place and called 3 Esdras, whereas the

canonical books _Ezra_ and _Nehemiah_ (see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, BOOKS OF,

below) were called 1 and 2 Esdras, and the Apocalypse of Ezra 4 Esdras.

Thus the nomenclature of our book follows, and possibly wrongly, the

usage of the Vulgate.[1] In the Ethiopic version a different usage

prevails. The Apocalypse is called 1 Esdras, our author 2 Esdras, and

Ezra and Nehemiah 3 Esdras, or 3 and 4 Esdras. Throughout this article

we shall use the best attested designation of this book, i.e. 1 Esdras.

_Contents._--With the exception of one original section, namely, that of

Darius and the three young men, our author contains essentially the same

materials as the canonical Ezra and some sections of 2 Chronicles and

Nehemiah. To the various explanations of this phenomenon we shall recur

later. The book may be divided as follows (the verse division is that of

the Cambridge LXX):--

Chap. i. = 2 Chron. xxxv. 1-xxxvi. 21.--Great passover of Josiah; his

death at Megiddo. His successors down to the destruction of Jerusalem

and the Captivity. (Verses i. 21-22 are not found elsewhere, though

the LXX of 2 Chron. xxxv. 20 exhibits a very distant parallel.)

Chap. ii. 1-14 = Ezra i.--The edict of Cyrus. Restoration of the

sacred vessels through Sanabassar to Jerusalem.

Chap. ii. 15-25 = Ezra iv. 6-24.--First attempt to rebuild the Temple:

opposition of the Samaritans. Decree of Artaxerxes: work abandoned

till the second year of Darius.

Chap. iii. 1-v. 6.--This section is peculiar to our author. The

contest between the three pages waiting at the court of Darius and the

victory of the Jewish youth "Zerubbabel," to whom as a reward Darius

decrees the return of the Jews and the restoration of the Temple and

worship. Partial list of those who returned with "Joachim, son of

Zerubbabel."

Chap. v. 7-70 = Ezra ii.-iv. 5.--List of exiles who returned with

Zerubbabel. Work on the Temple begun. Offer of the Samaritans'

co-operation rejected. Suspension of the work through their

intervention till the reign of Darius.

Chap. vi. 1-vii. 9 = Ezra v. 1-vi. 18.--Work resumed in the second

year of Darius. Correspondence between Sisinnes and Darius with

reference to the building of the Temple. Darius' favourable decree.

Completion of the work by Zerubbabel.

Chap. vii. 10-15 =Ezra vi. 19-22.--Celebration of the completion of

the Temple.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 36 = Ezra vii.-x.--Return of the exiles under Ezra.

Mixed marriages forbidden.

Chap. ix. 37-55 = Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.--The reading of the Law.

Thus, apart from iii. 1-v. 3, which gives an account of the pages'

contest, the contents of the book are doublets of the canonical Ezra and

portions of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. The beginning of the book seems

imperfect, with its abrupt opening "And Josiah held the passover": its

conclusion is mutilated, as it breaks off in the middle of a sentence.

As Thackeray suggests, it probably continued the history of the feast of

Tabernacles described in Neh. viii.--a view that is supported by Joseph.

_Ant_. xi. 5. 5, "who describes that feast using an Esdras word [Greek:

epanorthosis] and ... having hitherto followed Esdras as his authority

passes on to the Book of Nehemiah."

_Claims to Canonicity._--It would seem that even greater value was

attached to 1 Esdras than to the Hebrew Ezra. (1) For in the best MSS.

(BA) it stands before 2 Esdras--the verbal translation of the Hebrew

Ezra and Nehemiah. (2) It is used by Josephus, who in fact does not seem

aware of the existence of 2 Esdras. (3) 1 Esdras is frequently quoted by

the Greek fathers--Clem. Alex., Origen, Eusebius, and by the

Latin--Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine. The adverse judgment of the

church is due to Jerome, who, from his firm attachment to the Hebrew Old

Testament, declined to translate the "dreams" of 3 and 4 Esdras. This

judgment influenced alike the Council of Trent and the Lutheran church

in Germany; for Luther also refused to translate Esdras and the

Apocalypse of Ezra.

_Origin and Relation to the Canonical Ezra._--Various theories have been

given as to the relation of the book and the canonical Ezra.

1. Some scholars, as Keil, Bissell and formerly Schurer, regarded 1

Esdras as a free compilation from the Greek of 2 Esdras (2 Chron. and

Ezra-Nehemiah). This theory has now given place to others more accordant

with the facts of the case.

2. Others, as Ewald, _Hist. of Isr._ v. 126-128, and Thackeray in

Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, assume a lost Greek version of Chronicles,

Ezra and Nehemiah, from which were derived 1 Esdras--a free redaction of

the former and 2 Esdras. Thackeray claims that we have "a satisfactory

explanation of the coincidences in translation and deviation from the

Hebrew in 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, if we suppose both are to some extent

dependent on a lost Greek original." But later in the same article

Thackeray is compelled to modify this view and admit that 1 Esdras is

not a mere redaction of a no longer extant version of the canonical

books, but shows not only an independent knowledge of the Hebrew text

but also of a Hebrew text superior in not a few passages to the

Massoretic text, where 2 Esdras gives either an inaccurate version or a

version reproducing the secondary Massoretic text.

3. Others like Michaelis, Trendelenburg, Pohlmann, Herzfeld, Fritzsche

hold it to be a direct and independent translation of the Hebrew. There

is much to be said in favour of this view. It presupposes in reality two

independent recensions of the Hebrew text, such as we cannot reasonably

doubt existed at one time of the Book of Daniel. Against this it has

been urged that the story of the three pages was written originally in

Greek (Ewald, Schurer, Thackeray). The only grounds for this theory are

the easiness of the Greek style and the paronomasia in iv. 62 [Greek:

hanesin kai haphesin]. But the former is no real objection, and the

latter may be purely accidental. On the other hand there are several

undoubted Semiticisms. Thus we have two instances Of the split relative

[Greek: ou] ... [Greek: autou] iii. 5; [Greek: ou] ... [Greek: ep' auto]

iv. 63 and the phrase pointed out by Fritzsche [Greek: ta dikaia poiei

apo panton] = [Hebrew: asa mishpat min]. It must, however, be admitted

that there are fewer Hebraisms in this section of the book than in the

rest.

4. Sir H.H. Howorth in the treatises referred to at the close of this

article has shown cogent grounds for regarding 1 Esdras as the original

and genuine Septuagint translation, and 2 Esdras as probably that of

Theodotion. For this view he adduces among others the following grounds:

(i.) Its use by Josephus, who apparently was not acquainted with 2

Esdras. (ii.) Its precedence of 2 Esdras in the great uncials. (iii.)

Its origin at a time when Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah formed a single

work. (iv.) Its preservation of a better Hebrew text in many instances

than 2 Esdras. (v.) The fact that 1 Esdras and the Septuagint of Daniel

go back to one and the same translator, as Dr Gwynn (_Dict. Christ.

Biog._ iv. 977) has pointed out (cf. 1 Esdr. vi. 31, and Dan. ii. 5).

This contention of Howorth has been accepted by Nestle, Cheyne,

Bertholet, Ginsburg and other scholars, though they regard the question

of an Aramaic original of chapters iii. 1-v. 6 as doubtful. Howorth's

further claim that he has established the historical credibility of the

book as a whole and its chronological accuracy as against the canonical

Ezra has not as yet met with acceptance; but his arguments have not been

fairly met and answered.

5. Volz (_Encyc. Bibl._ ii. 1490) thinks that the solution of the

problem is to be found in a different direction. The text is of unequal

value, and the inequalities are so great as to exclude the supposition

that the Greek version was produced _aus einem Guss._ iii. 1-v. 3 is an

independent narrative written originally in Greek and itself a composite

production, the praise of truth being an addition, vi. 1-vii. 15, ii.

15-25a is a fragment of an Aramaic narrative. Some in Josephus (_Ant._

xi. 4. 9) an account of Samaritan intrigues is introduced immediately

after 1 Esdras vii. 15, it is natural to infer that something of the

same kind has fallen out between vi. and ii. 15-25. The Aramaic text

behind 1 Esdras here is better than that behind the canonical Ezra.

Next, viii.-ix. is from the Ezra document (= Ezra vii.-x.; Neh. vii. 73,

viii. 1 sqq.), though implying a different Hebrew text. ii. 1-15; v.

7-73; vii. 2-4, 6-15 are from the Chronicles: likewise i. is from 2

Chron. xxxv.-vi., 2 Esdras being at the same time before the translator.

_Date._--The book must be placed between 300 B.C. and A.D. 100, when

it was used by Josephus. It is idle to attempt any nearer limits until

definite conclusions have been reached on the chief problems of the

book.

_MSS. and Versions._--The book is found in B and A. The latter seems to

have preserved the more ancient form of the text, as it is generally

that followed by Josephus. The Old Latin in two recensions is published

by Sabatier, _Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae_, iii.

Another Latin translation is given in Lagarde (_Septuag. Studien_, ii.,

1892). In Syriac the text is found only in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul of

Tella (A.D. 616). See Walton's Polyglott. There is also an Ethiopic

version edited by Dillmann (_Bibl. Vet. Test. Aeth_. v., 1894) and an

Armenian.

LITERATURE.--Exegesis: Fritzsche, _Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokr._

(1851); Zockler, _Die Apokryphen_, 155-161 (1891); Bissell in

Lange-Schaff's _Comm_. (1880); Lupton in _Speaker's Comm_. (1888);

Ball, notes to 1 Esdr. in the _Variorum Apocrypha_. Introduction and

critical Inquiries: Trendelenburg, "Apocr. Esra," in Eichhorn's

_Allgem. Bibl. der bibl. Litt._ i. 178-232 (1787); Pohlmann, "Uber das

Ansehen der apokr. dritten Buchs Esras," in _Tubingen Theol.

Quartalschrift_, 257-275 (1859); Sir H. Howorth, "Character and

Importance of 1 Esdras," in the _Academy_ (1893), pp. 13, 60, 106,

174, 326, 524; and further studies entitled "Some Unconventional Views

on the Text of the Bible," in the _Proceedings of the Society of

Biblical Archaeology_, 1901, pp. 147-159; 306-330, 1902, June and

November. (R. H. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] "At the Council of Trent (when the Septuagint Canon was virtually

accepted as authoritative), by a most curious aberration, Esdras iii.

and iv. and the Epistle of Manasseh were alone excluded from the

canon and remitted to our appendix."--Howorth, "Unconventional Views

on the Text of the Bible," in the _P.S.B.A._, 1901, p. 149.

EZRA, FOURTH BOOK (or APOCALYPSE) OF. This is the most profound and

touching of the Jewish Apocalypses. It stands in the relation of a

sister work to the Apocalypse of Baruch, but though the relation is so

close, they have many points of divergence. Thus, whereas the former

represents the ordinary Judaism of the 1st century of the Christian era,

the teaching of 4 Ezra on the Law, Works, Justification, Original Sin

and Free Will approximates to the school of Shammai and serves to

explain the Pauline doctrines on those subjects; but to this subject we

shall return.

_Original Language and Versions._--In the Latin version our book

consists of sixteen chapters, of which, however, only iii.-xiv. are

found in the other versions. To iii.-xiv., accordingly, the present

notice is confined. After the example of most of the Latin MSS. we

designate the book 4 Ezra (see Bensly-James, _Fourth Book of Ezra_, pp.

xxiv-xxvii). In the First Arabic and Ethiopic versions it is called 1

Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the English Authorized Version it is 2

Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra. Chapters i.-ii. are sometimes called 3

Ezra, and xv.-xvi. 5 Ezra. All the versions go back to a Greek text.

This is shown by the late Greek apocalypse of Ezra (Tischendorf,

_Apocalypses Apocryphae_, 1866, pp. 24-33), the author of which was

acquainted with the Greek of 4 Ezra; also by quotations from it in Barn,

iv. 4; xii. 1 = 4 Ezra xii. 10 sqq., v. 5; Clem. Alex. _Strom_. iii. 16

(here first expressly cited) = 4 Ezra v. 35, &c. (see Bensly-James, _op.

cit._ pp. xxvii-xxxviii). The derivation of the Latin version from the

Greek is obvious when we consider its very numerous Graecisms. Thus the

genitive is found after the comparative (v. 13) _horum majora_; xi. 29

_duorum capitum majus_, even the genitive absolute as in x. 9, the

double negative, _de_ and _ex_ with the genitive. Peculiar genders can

only be accounted for by the influence of the original forms in Greek,

as x. 23 _signaculum_ ([Greek: sphragis]) ... _tradita est_; xi. 4

_caput_ ([Greek: kephale]) ... _sed et ipsa_. In vi. 25 we have the

Greek attraction of the relative--_omnibus istis quibus praedixi tibi_.

In his _Messias Judaeorum_ (1869), pp. 36-110, Hilgenfeld has given a

reconstruction of the Greek text. Till 1896 only Ewald believed that 4

Ezra was written originally in Hebrew. In that year Wellhausen (_Gott.

Gel. Anz._ pp. 12-13) and Charles (_Apoc. Bar._ p. lxxii) pointed out

that a Hebrew original must be assumed on various grounds; and this

view the former established in his _Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten_, vi. 234-240

(1899). Of the numerous grounds for this assumption it will be necessary

only to adduce such constructions as "de quo me interrogas de eo," iv.

28, and xiii. 26, "qui per semet ipsum liberabit" (= [Hebrew: asher bo])

= "through whom he will deliver," or to point to such a mistranslation

as vii. 33, "longanimitas congregabitur," where for "congregabitur" (=

[Hebrew: yeasef]) we require "evanescet," which is another and the

actual meaning of the Hebrew verb in this passage. The same

mistranslation is found in the Vulgate in Hosea iv. 3. Gunkel has

adopted this view in his German translation of the book in Kautzsch's

_Apok. und Pseud, des A. Testaments_, ii. 332-333, and brought forward

in confirmation the following remarkable instance in viii. 23, where

though the Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic and Armenian Versions read

_testificatur_, the Second Arabic version and the Apostolic

Constitutions have [Greek: menei eis ton aiona], which are to be

explained as translations of [Hebrew: (lieh) emdat la'ad]. Another

interesting case is found in xiv. 3, where the Latin and all other

versions but Arabic[2] read _super rubum_ and the Arabic[2] _in monte

Sinai_. Here there is a corruption of [Hebrew: sneh] "bush" into

[Hebrew: sinai] "Sinai."

_Latin Version._--All the older editions of this version, as those of

Fabricius, Sabatier, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Fritzsche, as well as in the

older editions of the Bible, are based ultimately on only one MS., the

Codex Sangermanensis (written A.D. 822), as Gildemeister proved in

1865 from the fact that the large fragment between verses 36 and 37 in

chapter vii., which is omitted in all the above editions, originated

through the excision of a leaf in this MS. A splendid edition of this

version based on MSS. containing the missing fragment, which have been

subsequently discovered, has been published by Bensly-James, op. cit.

This edition has taken account of all the important MSS. known, save

one at Leon in Spain.

_Syriac Version._--This version, found in the Ambrosian Library in

Milan, was translated into Latin by Ceriani, _Monumenta sacra et

profana_, II. ii. pp. 99-124 (1866). Two years later this scholar

edited the Syriac text, op. cit. V. i. pp. 4-111, and in 1883

reproduced the MS. by photo-lithography (_Translatio Syra Peshitto

V.T._ II. iv. pp. 553-572). Hilgenfeld incorporated Ceriani's Latin

translation in his _Messias Judaeorum_. This translation needs

revision and correction.

_Ethiopic Version._--First edited and translated by Laurence, _Primi

Ezrae libri versio Aethiopica_ (1820). Laurence's Latin translation

was corrected by Praetorius and reprinted in Hilgenfeld's _Messias

Judaeorum_. In 1894 Dillmann's text based on ten MSS. was

published--_V.T. Aeth. libri apocryphi_, v. 153-193.

_Arabic Versions._--The First Arabic version was translated from a MS.

in the Bodleian Library into English by Ockley (in Whiston's Primitive

Christianity, vol. iv. 1711). This was done into Latin and corrected

by Steiner for Hilgenfeld's _Mess. Jud._ The Second Arabic version,

which is independent of the first, has been edited from a Vatican MS.

and translated into Latin by Gildemeister, 1877.

_Armenian Version._--First printed in the Armenian Bible (1805).

Translated into Latin by Petermann for Hilgenfeld's Mess. Jud.; next

with Armenian text and English translation by Issaverdens in the

_Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament_, pp. 488 sqq. (Venice,

1901).

_Georgian Version._--According to F.C. Conybeare an accurate Georgian

version made from the Greek exists in an 11th-century MS. at

Jerusalem.

_Relation of the above Versions._--These versions stand in the order

of worth as follows: Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic. The remaining versions

are paraphrastic and less accurate, and are guilty of additions and

omissions. All the versions, save the Second Arabic one, go back to

the same Greek version. The Second Arabic version presupposes a second

Greek version.

_Modern Versions._--All the English versions are now antiquated,

except those in the Variorum Apocrypha and the Revised Version of the

Apocrypha, and even these are far from satisfactory. Similarly, all

the German versions are behindhand, except the excellent version of

Gunkel in _Apok. u. Pseud._ ii. 252-401, which, however, needs

occasional correction.

_Contents._--The book (iii.-xiv.) consists of seven visions or parts,

like the apocalypse of Baruch. They are: (1) iii. 1-v. 19; (2) v. 20-vi.

34; (3) vi. 35-ix. 25; (4) ix. 26-x. 60; (5) xi. 1-xii. 51; (6) xiii.;

(7) xiv. These deal with (1) religious problems and speculations and (2)

eschatological questions. The first three are devoted to the discussion

of religious problems affecting in the main the individual. The

presuppositions underlying these are in many cases the same as those in

the Pauline Epistles. The next three visions are principally concerned

with eschatological problems which relate to the nation. The seventh

vision is a fragment of the Ezra Saga recounting the rewriting of the

Scriptures, which had been destroyed. This has no organic connexion with

what precedes.

_First Vision._ iii.-v. 19.--"In the thirtieth year after the ruin of

the city I Salathiel (the same is Ezra) was in Babylon and lay

troubled upon my bed." In a long prayer Ezra asks how the desolation

of Sion and the prosperity of Babylon can be in keeping with the

justice of God. The angel Uriel answers that God's ways are

unsearchable and past man's understanding. When Ezra asks when the end

will be and what are the signs of it, the angel answers that the end

is at hand and enumerates the signs of it.

_Second Vision._ v. 14-vi. 34.--Phaltiel, chief of the people,

reproaches Ezra for forsaking his flock. Ezra fasts, and in his prayer

asks why God had given up his people into the hands of the heathen.

Uriel replies: "Lovest thou that people better than He that made

them?" Man cannot find out God's judgment. The end is at hand; its

signs are recounted.

_Third Vision._ vi. 35-ix. 25.--Ezra recounts the works of creation,

and asks why Israel does not possess the world since the world was

made for Israel. The answer is that the present state is a necessary

stage to the coming one. Then follows an account of the Messianic age

and the resurrection: the punishment of the wicked and the blessings

of the righteous. There can be no intercession for the departed. Few

will be saved--only as it were a grape out of a cluster or a plant out

of a forest.

_Fourth Vision._ ix. 26-x. 60.--Ezra eats of herbs in the field of

Ardat, and sees in a vision a woman mourning for her only son. Ezra

reminds her of the greater desolation of Sion. Suddenly she is

transfigured and vanishes, and in her place appears a city. The woman,

Uriel explains, represents Sion.

_Fifth Vision._ xi. i-xii. 39.--Vision of an eagle with three heads,

twelve wings and eight winglets, which is rebuked by a lion and

destroyed. The eagle is the fourth kingdom seen by Daniel, and the

lion is the Messiah.

_Sixth Vision._ xiii.--Vision of a man (i.e. the Messiah) arising from

the sea, who destroys his enemies who assemble against him, and

gathers to him another multitude, i.e. the lost Ten Tribes.

_Seventh Vision._ xiv.--Ezra is told of his approaching translation.

He asks for the restoration of the Law, and is enabled by God to

dictate in forty days ninety-four books (the twenty-four canonical

books of the Old Testament that were lost, and seventy secret books

for the wise among the people).

Ezra's translation is found in the Canon only in the Oriental

Versions. In the Latin it was omitted when xv.-xvi. were added.

_Integrity._--According to Gunkel (_Apok. u. Pseud._ ii. 335-352) the

whole book is the work of one writer. Thus down to vii. 16 he deals with

the problem of the origin of suffering in the world, and from vii. 17 to

ix. 25 with the question who is worthy to share in the blessedness of

the next world. As regards the first problem the writer shows, in the

first vision, that suffering and death come from sin--no less truly on

the part of Israel than of all men, for God created man to be immortal;

that the end is nigh, when wrongs will be righted; God's rule will then

be recognized. In the second he emphasizes the consolation to be found

in the coming time, and in the third he speaks solely of the next world,

and then addresses himself to the second problem. The fourth, fifth and

sixth visions are eschatological. In these the writer turns aside from

the religious problems of the first three visions and concerns himself

only with the future national supremacy of Israel. Zion's glory will

certainly be revealed (vision four), Israel will destroy Rome (five) and

the hostile Gentiles (six). Then the book is brought to a close with the

legend of Ezra's restoration of the lost Old Testament Scriptures.

In the course of the above work there are many inconsistencies and

contradictions. These Gunkel explains by admitting that the writer has

drawn largely on tradition, both oral and written, for his materials.

Thus he concedes that eschatological materials in v. 1-13, vi; 18-28,

vii. 26 sqq., also ix. 1 sqq., are from this source, and apparently from

an originally independent work, as Kabisch urges, but that it is no

longer possible to separate the borrowed elements from the text. Again,

in the four last visions he is obliged to make the same concession on a

very large scale. Vision four is based on a current novel, which the

author has taken up and put into an allegorical form. Visions five and

six are drawn from oral or written tradition, and relate only to the

political expectations of Israel, and seven is a reproduction of a

legend, for the independent existence of which evidence is furnished by

the quotations in Bensly-James pp. xxxvii-xxxviii. Thus the chief

champion of the unity of the book makes so many concessions as to its

dependence on previously existing sources that, to the student of

eschatology, there is little to choose between his view and that of

Kabisch. In fact, if the true meaning of the borrowed materials is to be

discovered, the sources must be disentangled. Hence the need of some

such analysis as that of Kabisch (_Das vierte Buck Ezra_, 1889): S = an

Apocalypse of Salathiel, c. A.D. 100, preserved in a fragmentary

condition, iii. 1-31, iv. 1-51, v. 13b-vi. 10, 30-vii. 25, vii. 45-viii.

62, ix. 13-x. 57, xii. 40-48, xiv. 28-35. E = an Ezra Apocalypse, c. 31

B.C., iv. 52-v. 13a, vi. 13-28, vii. 26-44, viii. 63-ix. 12. A = an

Eagle Vision, c. A.D. 90, x. 60-xii. 35. M = a Son-of-Man Vision, xiii.

E^2 = an Ezra fragment, c. A.D. 100, xiv. 1-17a, 18-27, 36-47. All

these, according to Kabisch, were edited by a Zealot, c. 120, who

supplied the connecting links and made many small additions. In the main

this analysis is excellent. If we assume that the editor was also the

author of S, and that such a vigorous stylist, as he shows himself to

be, recast to some extent the materials he borrowed, there remains but

slight difference between the views of Kabisch and Gunkel. Neither view,

however, is quite satisfactory, and the problem still awaits solution.

Other attempts, such as Ewald's (_Gesch. d. Volkes Israel_[3], vii.

69-83) and De Faye's (_Apocalypses juives_, 155-165), make no

contribution.

_School of the Author._--The author or final redactor of the book was a

pessimist, and herein his book stands in strong contrast with the

Apocalypse of Baruch. Thus to the question propounded in the New

Testament--"Are there few that be saved?" he has no hesitation in

answering, "There be many created, but few that be saved" (viii. 3): "An

evil heart hath grown up in us which hath led us astray ... and that not

a few only but wellnigh all that have been created" (vii. 48). In the

Apocalypse of Baruch on the other hand it is definitely maintained that

not a few shall be saved (xxi. 11). Moreover, the sufferings of the

wicked are so great in the next world it were better, according to 4

Ezra (as also to the school of Shammai), that man had not been born. "It

is much better (for the beasts of the field) than for us; for they

expect not a judgment and know not of torments" (vii. 66): yet "it would

have been best not to have given a body to Adam, or that being done, to

have restrained him from sin; for what profit is there that man should

in the present life live in heaviness and after death look for

punishment" (vii. 116, 117). In iv. 12 the nexus of life, sin and

suffering just referred to, is put still more strongly: "It were better

we had not been at all than that we should be born and sin and

suffer."[1] The different attitude of these two writers towards this

question springs from their respective views on the question of free

will. The author of Baruch declares (iv. 15, 19): "For though Adam

sinned and brought untimely death upon all, yet of those who were born

from him each one of them prepared for his own soul torment to come, and

again each one of them has chosen for himself glories to come ... each

one of us has been the Adam of his own soul," Though the writer of Ezra

would admit the possibility of a few Israelites attaining to salvation

through the most strenuous endeavour, yet he holds that man is all but

predoomed through his original evil disposition or through the fall of

Adam (vii. 118). "O Adam, what hast thou done: for though it was thou

that sinned, the evil is not fallen on thee alone, but upon all of us

that come of thee."

Another contrast between the two books is that while Baruch shows some

mercy to the Gentiles (lxxii. 4-6) in the Messianic period, none

according to 4 Ezra and the Shammaites (Toseph. _Sanh._ xiii. 2) will be

extended to them, (iii. 30, ix. 22 sq., xii. 34, xiii. 37 sq.).

On the above grounds it is not unreasonable to conclude that whereas the

Apocalypse of Baruch owes its leading characteristics to a pupil of

Hillel's school, 4 Ezra shows just as clearly its derivation from that

of Shammai. Kohler (_Jewish Encyc._ v. 221) points out that the view of

4 Ezra that the Ten Tribes will return was held by the Shammaites,

whereas it was denied by Aqiba. The Apocalypse of Baruch is silent on

this point.

_Time and Place._--The work was written towards the close of the 1st

century (iii. 1, 29), and somewhere in the east.