Chapter XLVII: Section 6: , quoted above, gave rise to an immense amount of (6)

AEGINA (EGINA or ENGIA), an island of Greece in the Saronic Gulf, 20 m. from the Peiraeus Tradition derives the name from Aegina, the mother of Aeacus, who was born in and ruled the island. In Shape Aegina is triangular, 8 m. long from N.W. to S.E., and 6 m. broad, with an area of about 41 sq. m. The western side consists of stony but fertile plains, which are well cultivated and produce luxuriant crops of grain, with some cotton, vines, almonds and figs. The rest of the island is rugged and mountainous. The southern end rises in the conical Mount Oros, and the Panhellenian ridge stretches northward with narrow fertile valleys on either side. From the absence of marshes the climate is the most healthy in Greece. The island forms part of the modern Uomos of Attica and Boeotia, of which it forms an eparchy. The sponge fisheries are of considerable importance. The chief town is Aegina, situated at the north-west end of the island, the summer residence of many Athenian merchants. Capo d'Istria, to whom there is a statue in the principal square, erected there a large building, intended for a barracks, which was subsequently used as a museum, a library and a school. The museum was the first institution of its kind in Greece, but the collection was transferred to Athens in 1834.

Antiquities.--The archaeological interest of Aegina is centred in the well-known temlple on the ridge near the northern corner of the island. Excavations were made on its site in 1811 by Baron Haller von Hallerstein and the English architect C. R. Cockerell, who discovered a considerable amount of sculpture from the pediments, which was bought in 1812 by the crown prince Louis of Bavaria; the groups were set up in the Glyptothek at Munich after the figures had been restored by B. Thorvaldsen. Their restoration was somewhat drastic, the ancient parts being cut away to allow of additions in marble, and the new parts treated in imitation of the ancient weathering. Various conjectures were made as to the arrangement of the figures. That according to which they were set up at Munich was in the main suggested by Cockerell; in the middle of each pediment was a figure of Athena, set well back, and a fallen warrior at her feet; on each side were standing spearmen, kneel ing spearmen and bowmen, all facing towards the centre of the composition; the corners were filled with fallen warriors. In 1901 Professor Furtwangler began a more systematic excavation of the site, and the new discoveries he then made, together with a fresh and complete study of the figures and fragments in Munich, have led to a rearrangement of the whole, which, if not certain in all details, may be regarded as approaching finality. According to this the figures of combatants do not all face towards the centre, but are broken up, as in other early compositions, into a series of groups of two or three figures each. A figure of Athena still occupies the centre of each pediment, but is set farther forward than in the old reconstruction. On each side of this, in the western pediment, is a group of two combatants over a fallen warrior; in the eastern pediment, a warrior whose opponent is falling into the arms of a supporting figure; other figures also--the bowmen especially---face towards the angles, and so give more variety to the composition. The western pediment, which is more conservative in type, represents the earlier expedition of Heracles and Telamon against Troy; the eastern, which is bolder and more advanced, probably refers to episodes in the Trojan war. There are also remains of a third pediment, which may have been produced in competition, but never placed on the temple. For the character of the sculptures see GREEK ART. The plan of the temple is chiefly remarkable for the unsymmetrically placed door leading from the back of the cella into the opisthodomus. This opisthodomus was completely fenced in with bronze gratings; and the excavators believe it to have been adapted for use as an adytum (shrine). It was disputed in earlier times whether the temple was dedicated to Zeus or Athena. Inscriptions found by the recent excavations seem to prove that it must be identified as the shrine of the local goddess Aphaea, identified by Pausanias with Britomartis and Dictynna.

The excavations have laid bare several other buildings, including an altar, early propylaea, houses for the priests and remains of an earlier temple. The present temple probably dates from the time of the Persian wars. In the town of Aegina itself are the remains of another temple, dedicated to Aphrodite; one column of this still remains standing, and its foundations are fairly preserved.

AUTHORITIES.--Antiquities of Ionia (London, 1797), ii. pl. ii.-vii.; C. R. Cockerell, The Temples of Jupiter Panhellenius at Aegina, &c. (London, 186O); Ch. Gareier, Le Temple de Jupiter Panhellenien a Egine (Paris, 1884); Ad. Furtwangler and others, Aegina, Heiligtum der App Munich, 1906), where earlier authorities are collected and discussed. (E. GR.)

History.--(1) Ancient. Aegina, according to Herodotus (v. 83), was a colony of Epidaurus, to which state it was originally subject. The discovery in the island of a number of gold ornaments belonging to the latest period of Mycenaean art suggests the inference that the Mycenaean culture held its own in Aegina for some generations after the Dorian conquest of Argos and Lacedaemon (see A. J. Evans, in Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xiii. p. 195). It is probable that the island was not dorized before the 9th century B.C. One of the earliest facts known to us in its history is its membership in the League of Cabauria, which included, besides Aegina, Athens, the Minyan (Boeotian) Orchomenos, Troezen, Hermione, Nauplia and Prasiae, and was probably an organization of states which were still Mycenaean, for the oppression of the piracy which had sprung up in the Aegean as a result of the decay of the naval supremacy of the Mycenaean princes. It follows, therefore, that the maritime importance of the island dates back to pre-Dorian times. It is usually stated on the authority of Ephorus, that Pheidon (q.v.) of Argos established a mint in Aegina. Though this statement is probably to be rejected, it may be regarded as certain that Aegina was the first state of European Greece to coin money. Thus it was the Aeginetans who, within thirty or forty years of the invention of coinage by the Lydians (c. 700 B.C.), introduced to the western world a system of such incalculable value to trade. The fact that the Aeginetan scale of coins, weights and measures was one of the two scales in general use in the Greek world is sufficient evidence of the early commercial importance of the island. It appears to have belonged to the Eretrian league; hence, perhaps, we may explain the war with Samos, a leading member of the rival Chalcidian league in the reign of King Amphicrates (Herod. iii. 59), i.e. not later than the earlier half of the 7th century B.C. In the next century Aegina is one of the three principal states trading at the emporium of Naucratis (q.v.), and it is the only state of European Greece that has a share in this factory (Herod. ii. 178). At the beginning of the 5th century it seems to have been an entrepot of the Pontic grain trade, at a later date an Athenian monopoly (Herod. vii. 147). Unlike the other commercial states of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., e.g. Corinth, Chalcis, Eretria and Miletus, Aegina founded no colonies. The settlements to which Strabo refers (viii. 376) cannot be regarded as any real exceptions to this statement.

The history of Aegina, as it has come down to us, is almost exclusively a history of its relations with the neighbouring state of Athens. The history of these relations, as recorded by Herodotus (v. 79-89; vi. 49-51, 73, 85-94), involve critical problems of some difficulty and interest. He traces back the hostility of the two states to a dispute about the images of the goddesses Damia and Auxesia, which the Aeginetans had carried off from Epidaurus, their parent state. The Epidaurians had been accustomed to make annual offerings to the Athenian deities Athena and Erechtheus in payment for the Athenian olive-wood of which the statues were made. Upon the refusal of the Aeginetans to continue these offerings, the Athenians endeavoured to carry away the images. Their design was miraculously frustrated---according to the Aeginetan version, the statues fell upon their knees---and only a single survivor returned to Athens, there to fall a victim to the fury of his comrades' widows, who pierced him with their brooch-pins. No date is assigned by Herodotus for this ``old feud''; recent writers, e.g. J. B. Bury and R. W. Macan, suggest the period between Solon and Peisistratus, c. 570 B.C.. It may be questioned, however, whether the whole episode is not mythical. A critical analysis of the narrative seems to reveal little else than a series of aetiological traditions (explanatory of cults and customs, e.g. of the kneeling posture of the images of Damia and Auxesia, of the use of native ware instead of Athenian in their worship, and of the change in women's dress at Athens from the Dorian to the Ionian style. Thc account which Herodotus gives of the hostilities between the two states in the early years of the 5th century B.C. is to the following effect. Thebes, after the defeat by Athens about 507 B.C., appealed to Aegina for assistance. The Aeginetans at first contented themselves with sending the images of the Aeacidae, the tutelary heroes of their island. Subsequently, however, they entered into an alliance, and ravaged the sea-board of Attica. The Athenians were preparing to make reprisals, in spite of the advice of the Delphic oracle that they should desist from attacking Aegina for thirty years, and content themselves meanwhile with dedicating a precinct to Aeacus, when their projects were interrupted by the Spartan intrigues for the restoration of Hippias. In 401 B.C. Aegina was one of the states which gave the symbols of submission (``earth and water'') to Persia. Athens at once appealed to Sparta to punish this act of medism, and Cleomenes I. (q.v.), one of the Spartan kings, crossed over to the island, to arrest those who were responsible for it. His attempt was at first unsuccessful; but, after the deposition of Demaratus, he visited the island a second time, accompanied by his new colleague Leotychides, seized ten of the leading citizens and deposited them at Athens as hostages. After the death of Cleomenes and the refusal of the Athenians to restore the hostages to Leotychides, the Aeginetans retaliated by seizing a number of Athenians at a festival at Sunium. Thereupon the Athenians concerted a plot with Nicodromus, the leader of the democratic party in the island, for the betrayal of Aegina. He was to seize the old city, and they were to come to his aid on the same day with seventy vessels. The plot failed owing to the late arrival of the Athenian force, when Nicodromus had already fled the island. An engagement followed in which the Aeginetans were defeated. Subsequently, however, they succeeded in winning a victory over the Athenian fleet. Alf the incidents subsequent to the appeal of Athens to Sparta are expressly referred by Herodotus to the interval between the sending of the heralds in 491 B.C. and the invasion of Datis and Artaphernes in 490 B.C. (cf. Herod. vi. 49 with 94). There are difficulties in this story, of which the following are the principal:--(i.) Herodotus nowhere states or implies that peace was concluded between the two states before 481 B.C., nor does he distinguish between different wars during this period. Hence it would follow that the war lasted from shortly after 507 B.C. down to the congress at the Isthmus of Corinth in 481 B.C. (ii.) It is only for two years (490 and 491) out of the twenty-five that any details are given. It is the more remarkable that no incidents are recorded in the period between Marathon and Sabamis, seeing that at the time of the Isthmian Congress the war is described as the most important one then being waged in Greece (Herod. vii. 145). (iii.) It is improbable that Athens would have sent twenty vessels to the aid of the Ionians in 498 B.C. if at the time she was at war with Aegina. (iv.) There is an incidental indication of time, which points to the period after Marathon as the true date for the events which are referred by Herodotus to the year before Marathon, viz. the thirty years that were to elapse between the dedication of the precinct to Aeacus and the final victory of Athens (Herod. v. 89). As the final victory of Athens over Aegina was in 458 B.C., the thirty years of the oracle would carry us back to the year 488 B.C. as the date of the dedication of the precinct and the outbreak of hostilities. This inference is supported by the date of the building of the 200 triremes ``for the war against Aegina'' on the advice of Themistocles, which is given in the Constitutiom of Athens as 483-482 B.C. (Herod. vii. 144; Ath. Pol. r2. 7). It is probable, therefore, that Herodotus is in error both in tracing back the beginning of hostilities to an alliance between Thebes and Aegina (c. 507) and in putting the episode of Nicodromus before Marathon. Overtures were unquestionably made by Thebes for an alliance with Aegina c. 507 B.C., but they came to nothing. The refusal of Aegina was veiled under the diplomatic form of ``sending the Aeacidae.'' The real occasion of the outbreak of the war was the refusal of Athens to restore the hostages some twenty years later. There was but one war, and it lasted from 488 to 481. That Athens had the worst of it in this war is certain. Herodotus had no Athenian victories to record after the initial success, and the fact that Themistocles was able to carry his proposal to devote the surplus funds of the state to the building of so large a fleet seems to imply that the Athenians were themselves convinced that a supreme effort was necessary. It may be noted, in confirmation of this view, that the naval supremacy of Aegina is assigned by the ancient writers on chronology to precisely this period, i.e. the years 490-480 (Eusebius, Chron. Can. p. 337).

In the repulse of Xerxes it is possible that the Aeginetans played a larger part than is conceded to them by Herodotus. The Athenian tradition, which he follows in the main, would naturally seek to obscure their services. It was to Aegina rather than Athens that the prize of valour at Salamis was awarded, and the destruction of the Persian fleet appears to have been as much the work of the Aeginetan contingent as of the Athenian (Herod. viii. 91). There are other indications, too, of the importance of the Aeginetan fleet in the Greek scheme of defence. In view of these considerations it becomes difficult to credit the number of the vessels that is assigned to them by Herodotus (30 as against 180 Athenian vessels, cf. GREEK HISTORY, sect. Authorities). During the next twenty years the Philo-laconian policy of Cimon (q.v.) secured Aegina, as a member of the Spartan league, from attack. The change in Athenian foreign policy, which was consequent upon the ostracism of Cimon in 461, led to what is sometimes called the First Peloponnesian War, in which the brunt of the fighting fell upon Corinth and Aegina. The latter state was forced to surrender to Athens after a siege, and to accept the position of a subject-ally (c. 456 B.C.). The tribute was fixed at 30 talents. By the terms of the Thirty Years' Truce (445 B.C.) Athens covenanted to restore to Aegina her autonomy, but the clause remained a dead letter. In the first winter of the Peloponnesian War (431 B.C.) Athens expelled the Aeginetans, and established a cleruchy in their island. The exiles were settled by Sparta in Thyreatis, on the frontiers of Laconia and Argolis. Even in their new home they were not safe from Athenian rancour.1 A force landed under Nicias in 424, and put most of them to the sword. At the end of the Peloponnesian War Lysander restored the scattered remnants of the old inhabitants to the island, which was used by the Spartans as a base for operations against Athens in the Corinthian War. Its greatness, however, was at an end. The part which it plays henceforward is insignificant.

It would be a mistake to attribute the fall of Aegina solely to the development of the Athenian navy. It is probable that the powor of Aegina had steadily declined during the twenty years after Sabamis, and that it had declined absolutely, as well as relatively, to that of Athens. Commerce was the source of Aegina's greatness, and her trade, which appears to have been principally with the Levant, must have suffered seriously from the war with Persia. Her medism in 491 is to be explained by her commercial relations with the Persian Empire. She was forced into patriotism in spite of herself, and the glory won by Salamis was paid for by the loss of her trade and the decay of her marine. The completeness of the ruin of so powerful a state--we should look in vain for an analogous case in the history of the modern world--finds an explanation in the economic conditions of the island, the prosperity of which rested upon a basis of slave-labour. It is impossible, indeed, to accept Aristotle's (cf. Athenaeus vi. 272) estimate of 470,000 as the

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

number of the slave-population; it is clear, however, that the number must have been out of all proportion to that of the free inhabitants. In this respect the history of Aegina does but anticipate the history of Greece as a whole. The constitutional history of Aegina is unusually simple. So long as the island retained its independence the government was an oligarchy. There is no trace of the heroic monarchy and no tradition of a tyrannis. The story of Nicodromus, while it proves the existence of a democratic party, suggests, at the same time, that it could count upon little support.

(2) Modern.---Aegina passed with the rest of Greece under the successive dominations of Macedon, the Aetolians, Attalus of Pergamum and Rome. In 1537 the island, then a prosperous Venetian colony, was overrun and ruined by the pirate Barbarossa (Khair-ed-Din). One of the last Venetian strongholds in the Levant, it was ceded by the treaty of Passarowitz (1718) to the Turks. In 1826-1828 the town became for a time the capital of Greece and the centre of a large commercial population (about 10,000), which has dwindled to about 4300.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.---Herodotus loc. cit.; Thucydides i. 105, 108, ii. 27, iv. 56, 57. For the criticism of Herodotus's account of the relations of Athens and Aegina, Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, ii. 280-288, is indispensable. See also Macan, Herodotus iv.-vi., ii. 102-120. (E. M. W.)

AEGINETA, PAULUS, a celebrated surgeon of the island of Aegina, whence he derived his name. According to Le Clerc's calculation, he lived in the 4th century of the Christian era; but Abulfaragius (Barhebraeus) places him with more probability in the 7th. The title of his most important work, as given by Suidas, is Epitomes 'Iatrikes Biblia 'Epta (Synopsis of Medicine in Seven Books), the 6th book of which, treating of operative surgery, is of special interest for surgical history. The whole work in the original Greek was published at Venice in 1528, and another edition appeared at Basel in 1538. Several Latin translations have been published, and an excellent English version, with commentary, by Dr F. Adams (1844-1848).

AEGIS (Gr. Aigis), in Homer, the shield or buckler of Zeus, fashioned for him by Hephaestus, furnished with tassels and bearing the Gorgon's head in the centre. Originally symbolical of the storm-cloud, it is probably derived from aisso, signifying rapid, violent motion. When the god shakes it, Mount Ida is wrapped in clouds, the thunder rolls and men are smitten with fear. He sometimes lends it to Athene and (rarely) to Apollo. In the later story (Hyginus, Poet. Astronom. ii. 13) Zeus is said to have used the skin of the goat Amaltheia (aigis=goat-skin) which suckled him in Crete, as a buckler when he went forth to do battle against the giants. Another legend represents the aegis as a fire-breathing monster like the Chimaera, which was slain by Athene, who afterwards wore its skin as a cuirass (Diodorus Siculus iii. 70) It appears to have been really the goat's skin used as a belt to support the shield. When so used it would generally be fastened on the right shoulder, and would partially envelop the chest as it passed obliquely round in front and behind to be attached to the shield under the left arm. Hence, by transference, it would be employed to denote at times the shield which it supported, and at other times a cuirass, the purpose of which it in part served. In accordance with this double meaning the aegis appears in works of art sometimes as an animal's skin thrown over the shoulders and arms, sometimes as a cuirass, with a border of snakes corresponding to the tassels of Homer, usually with the Gorgon's head in the centre. It is often represented on the statues of Roman emperors, heroes and warriors, and on cameos and vases.

See F. G. Welcker, Griechische Gotterlehre (1857); L. Freller, Griechische Mythologie, i. (1887); articles in Pauly-Wissowa's Real Encyclopadie, Roscher's Lexikon der Mythologie Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionnaire des Antiquites, and Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (3rd ed., 1890).

AEGISTHUS, in Greek legend, was the son of Thyestes by his Own daughter Pelopia. Having been exposed by his mother to conceal her shame, he was found by shepherds and suckled by a goat-whence his name. His uncle Atreus, who had married Pelopia, took him to Mycenae, and brought him up as his own son. When he grew up Aegisthus slew Atreus, and ruled jointly with his father over Mycenae, until they were deposed by Agamemnon on his return from exile. After the departure of Agamemnon to the Trojan war, Aegisthus seduced his wife Clytaemnestra (more correctly Clytaemestra) and with her assistance slew him on his return. Eight years later his murder was avenged by his son Orestes.

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

AEGOSPOTAMI (i.e. ``Goat Streams''), a small creek issuing into the Hellespont, N.E. of Sestos, the scene of the decisive battle in 405 B.C. by which Lysander destroyed the last Athenian armament in the Peloponnesian War (q.v.). The township of that name, whose existence is attested by coins of the 5th and 4th centuries, must have been quite insignificant.

AEFRIC, called the ``Grammarian'' (c. 955-1020?), English abbot and author, was born about 955. He was educated in the Benedictine monastery at Winchester under AEthelwold, who was bishop there from 963 to 984. AEthelwold had Carried on the tradition of Dunstan in his government of the abbey of Abingdon, and at Winchester he continued his strenuous efforts. He seems to have actually taken part in the work of teaching. AElfric no doubt gained some reputation as a scholar at Winchester, for when, in 987, the abbey of Cernel (Cerne Abbas, Dorsetshire) was finished, he was sent by Bishop AElfheah (Alphege), AEthelwold's successor, at the request of the chief benefactor of the abbey, the ealdorman AEthelmaer, to teach the Benedictine monks there. He was then in priest's orders. AEthelmaer and his father AEthelweard were both enlightened patrons of learning, and became AElfric's faithful friends. It was at Cernel, and partly at the desire, it appears, of AEthelweard, that he planned the two series of his English homilies (ed. Benjamin Thorpe, 1844--1846, for the AElfric Society), come piled from the Christian fathers, and dedicated to Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury (990-994). The Latin preface to the first series enumerates some of AElfric's authorities, the chief of whom was Gregory the Great, but the short hst there given by no means exhausts the authors whom he consulted. In the preface to the first volume he regrets that except for Alfred's translations Englishmen had no means of learning the true doctrine as expounded by the Latin fathers. Professor Earle (A.S. Literature, 1884) thinks he aimed at correcting the apocryphal, and to modern ideas superstitious, teaching of the earlier Blickling Homilies. The first series of forty homilies is devoted to plain and direct exposition of the chief events of the Christian year; the second deals more fully with church doctrine and history, AElfric denied the immaculate birth of the Virgin (Homilies, ed. Thorpe, ii. 466), and his teaching on the Eucharist in the Canons and in the Sermo de sacrificio in die pascae (ibid. ii. 262 seq.) was appealed to by the Reformation writers as a proof that the early English church did not hold the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation.1 His Latin Grammar and Glossary 2 were written for his pupils after the two books of homilies. A third series of homilies, the Lives of the Saints, dates from 906 to 997. Some of the sermons in the second series had been written in a kind of rhythmical, alliterative prose, and in the Lives of the Saints (ed. W. W. Skeat, 1881-1900, for the Early English Text Society) the practice is so regular that most of them are arranged as verse by Professor Skeat. By the wish of AEthelweard he also began a paraphrase 3 of parts of the Old Testament, but under protest, for the stories related in it were not, he thought, suitable for simple minds. There is no certain proof that he remained at Cernel. It has been suggested that this part of his life was chiefly spent at Winchester; but his writings for the patrons of Cernel, and the fact that he wrote in 998 his Canons 4 as a pastoral letter for Wulfsige, the bishop of Sherborne, the diocese in which the abbey was situated, afford presumption of continued residence there. He became in 1005 the first abbot of Eynsham or Ensham, near Oxford, another foundation of AEthelmaer's. After his elevation he wrote an abridgment for his monks of AEthelwold's De consuetudine monachorum5, adapted to their rudimentary ideas of monastic life; a letter to Wulfgeat of Ylmandun6; an introduction to the study of the Old and New Testaments (about 1008, edited by William L'Isle in 1623); a Latin life of his master AEthelwold7; a pastoral letter for Wulfstan, archbishop of York and bishop of Worcester, in Latin and English; and an English version of Bede's De Temporibus8. The Colloquium9, a Latin dialogue designed to serve his scholars as a manual of Latin conversation, may date from his life at Cernel. It is safe to assume that the original draft of this, afterwards enlarged by his pupil, AElfric Bata, was by AElfric, and represents what his own scholar days were like. The last mention of AElfric Abbot, probably the grammarian, is in a will dating from about 1020.

There have been three suppositions about AElfric. (1) He was identified with AElfric (995--1005), archbishop of Canterbury. This view was upheld by John Bale (III. Maj. Bril. Scriptorum 2nd ed., Basel, 1557-1559; vol. i. p. 149, s.v, Alfric); by Humphrey Wanley (Catalogus librorum septentrionalium, &c., Oxford, 1705, forming vol. ii. of George Hickes's Antiquae literaturae septemtrionalis); by Elizabeth Elstob, The English Saxon Homily on the Birthday of St Gregory (1709; new edition, 1839); and by Edward Rowe Mores, AElfrico, Dorobernensi, archiepiscopo, Commentarius (ed. G. J. Thorkelin, 1789), in which the conclusions of earlier writers on AElfric are reviewed. Mores made him abbot of St Augustine's at Dover, and finally archbishop of Canterbury. (2) Sir Henry Spelman, in his Concina . . .(1639, vol. i. p. 583), printed the Canones ad Wulsinum episcopum, and suggested AElfric Putta or Putto, archbishop of York, as the author, adding some note of others bearing the name. The identity of AElfric the grammarian with AElfric archbishop of York was also discussed by Henry Wharton, in Anglia Sacra (1691, vol. i. pp. 125-134), in a dissertation reprinted in J. P. Migne's Patrologia (vol. 139, pp. 1459-70, Paris, 1853). (3) William of Malmesbuty (De gestis pontificum Anglorum, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, Rolls Series, 1870, p. 406) suggested that he was abbot of Malmesbury and bishop of Crediton. The main facts of his career were finally elucidated by Eduard Dietrich in a series of articles contributed to C. W. Niedner's Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie (vols. for 1855 and 1856, Gotha), which have formed the basis of all subsequent writings on the subject.

Sketches of AElfric's career are in B. Ten Brink's Early English Literature (to Wiclif) (trans. H. M. Kennedy, New York, 1883, pp. 105-112), and by J. S. Westlake in The Cambridge History of English Literature (vol. i., 1907, pp. 116-129). An excellent bibliography and account of the critical apparatus is given in Dr R. Wulker's Grundriss zur Geschichte der angelsachsischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1885; pp. 452-480). See also the account by Professor Skeat in Pt. iv. pp. 8-61 of his edition of the Lives of the Saints, already cited, which gives a full account of the MSS., and a discussion of AElfric's sources, with further bibliographical references; and AElfric, a New Study of his Life and Writings, by Miss C. L. White (Boston, New York and London, 1898) in the ``Yale Studies in English.'' Alcuini Interrogationes Sigewulfi Presebyteri in Genesin (ed. G. E. McLean, Halle, 1883) is attributed to AElfric by its editor. There are other isolated sermons and treatises by AElfric, printed in vol. iii. of Grein's Bibl. v. A.S. Prosa.

1 See A Testimonie of Antiquitie, shewing the auncient fayth in the Church of England touching the sacrament of the body and bloude of the Lord here publikely preached, printed by John Day (1567). It was quoted in John Foxe's Actes and Monuments (ed. 1610)) 2 Ed. J. Zupitza in Sammlung englischer Denkmaler (vol. i., Berlin, 1880). 3 Edited by Edward Thwaites as Heptateuchus (Oxford 1698); modern edition in Grein's Bibliothek der A. S. Prosa (vol. i. Cassel and Gottingen, 1872). See also B. Assmann, Abt AElfric's . . . Esther (Halle, 1885), and Abt AElfric's Judith (in Anglia, vol. x.). 4 Printed by Benjamin Thorpe in Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (1840), with the later pastoral for Wulfstan. 5 See E. Breck, A Fragment of AElfric; translation of AEthelwold's De Consuetudine Monachorum and its relation to other MSS. (Leipzig 1887). 6 Ilmington, on the borders of Warwickshire and Gloucestershire. 7 Included by J. Stevenson in the Chron. Monast. de Abingon (vol. ii. pp. 253-266, Rolls Series, 1858). 8 See Oswald Cockayne, Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft (vol. iii., 1866, pp. xiv.-xix. and pp. 233 et. seq.) in the Rolls Series. 9 See an article by J. Zupitza in the Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum (vol. xix., new series, 1887).

AELIA CAPITOLINA, the city built by the emperor Hadrian, A.D. 131, and occupied by a Roman colony, on the site of Jerusalem (q.v.), which was in ruins when he visited his Syrian dominions. Aelia is derived from the emperor's family name, and Capilolina from that of Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom a temple was built on the site of the Jewish temple.

AELIAN (AELIANUS TACTICUS), Greek military writer of the 2nd century A.D., resident at Rome. He is sometimes confused with Claudius Aelianus, the Roman writer referred to below. Aelian's military treatise, Taktike Theoria, is dedicated to Hadrian, though this is probably a mistake for Trajan, and the date A.D. 106 has been assigned to it. It is a handbook of Greek, i.e. Macedonian, drill and tactics as practised by the Hellenistic successors of Alexander the Great. The author claims to have consulted all the best authorities, the chief of which was a lost treatise on the subject by Polybius. Perhaps the chief value of Aelian's work lies in his critical account of preceding works on the art of war, and in the fulness of his technical details in matters of drill. Critics of the 18th century---Guichard Folard and the prince de Ligne--were unanimous in thinking Aelian greatly inferior to Arrian, but both on his immediate successors, the Byzantines, and on the Arabs, who translated the text for their own use, Aelian exercised a great influence. The emperor Leo VI. incorporated much of Aelian's text in his own work on the military art. The Arabic version of Aelian was made about 1350. In spite of its academic nature, the copious details to be found in the treatise rendered it of the highest value to the army organizers of the 16th century, who were engaged in fashioning a regular military system out of the semi-feudal systems of previous generations. The Macedonian phalanx of Aelian had many points of resemblance to the solid masses of pikemen and the ``squadrons'' of cavalry of the Spanish and Dutch systems, and the translations made in the 16th century formed the groundwork of numerous books on drill and tactics. Moreover, his works, with those of Xenophon, Polybius, Aeneas and Arrian, were minutely studied by every soldier of the 16th and 17th centuries who wished to be master of his profession. It has been suggested that Aellan was the real author of most of Arrian's Tactica, and that the Taktike Theoria is a later revision of this original, but the theory is not generally accepted.

The first edition of the Greek text is that of Robortelli (Venice, 1552); the Elzevir text (Leiden, 1613) has notes. The text in W. Rustow and H. Kochly's Gricchische Kriegsschriftsteller (1855) is accompanied by a translation, notes and reproductions of the original illustrations. A Latin translation by Theodore Gaza of Thessalonica was included in the famous collection Veteres de re mililari scriptores (Rome and Venice, 1487, Cologne, 1528, &c.). The French translation of Machault, included in his Milices des Grecs et Romains (Paris, 1615) and entitled De la Sergenterie des Grecs, a German translation from Theodore Gaza (Cologne, 1524), and the English version of Jo. B(ingham), which includes a drill-manual of the English troops in the Dutch service, Tacticks of Aelian (London, 1616) are of importance in the military literature of the period. A later French translation by Bouchard de Bussy. La Milice des Grecs on Tactique d'Elien (Paris 1737 and 1757); Baumgartner's German translation in his incomplete Sammlung aller Kriegsschriftsteller der Griechen (Mannheim and Frankenthal, 1779), reproduced in 1786 as Von Schlachtordnungen, and Viscount Dillon's English version (London, 1814) may also be mentioned. See also R. Forster, Studien zu den griechischen Taktikern (Hermes, xii., 1877, pp. 444-449); F. Wustenfeld, Das Heerwesen der Muhammedaner und die arabische Uebersetzung der Taktik des Aelianus (Gottingen, 1880); M. Jahns, Gesch. der Kriegswissenscharen, i. 95-97 (Munich, 1889); Rustow and Kochly, Gesch. des griechischen Kriegswesens (1852). A. de Lort-Serignan, La Phalange (1880); P. Serre, Etudes sur L'histoire militaire et maritime des Grecs et des Romains (1887); K. K. Muller, in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie (Stuttgart, 1894).

AELIAN (CLAUDIUS AELIANUS), Roman author and teacher of rhetoric, born at Praeneste, flourished under Septimius Severus and probably outlived Elagabalus (d. 222). He spoke Greek so perfectly that he was called ``honey-tongued'' (meliglossos); Although a Roman he preferred Greek authors, and wrote in Greek himself. His chief works are: On the Nature of Animals, curious and interesting stories of animal life, frequently used to convey moral lessons (ed. Schneider, 1784; Jacobs, 1832); Various History-for the most part preserved only in an abridged form--consisting mainly of anecdotes of men and customs (ed. Lunemann, 1811). Both works are valuable for the numerous excerpts from older writers. Considerable fragments of two other works On Providence and Divine Manifestations are preserved in Suidas; twenty Peasants' Letters, after the manner of Alciphron but inferior, are also attributed to him.

Editio princeps of complete works by Gesner, 1556; Hercher, 1864-1866. English translation of the Various History only by Fleming, 1576, and Stanley, 1665; of the Letters by Quillard (French), 1895.

AELRED, AILRED, ETHELRED (1100-1166), English theologian, historical writer and abbot of Rievaulx, was born at Hexham about the year 1109. In his youth he was at the court of Scotland as an attendant of Henry, son of David I. He was in high favour with that sovereign, but renounced the prospect of a bishopric to enter the Cistercian house of Rievaulx in Yorkshire, which was founded in 1131 by Walter Espec. Here AElred remained for some time as master of the novices, but between the years 1142 and 1146 was elected abbot of Revesby in Lincolnshire and migrated thither. In 1146 he became abbot of Rievaulx. He led a life of the severest asceticism, and was credited with the power of working miracles; owing to his reputation the numbers of Rievaulx were greatly increased. In 1164 he went as a missionary to the Picts of Galloway. He found their religion at a low ebb, the regular clergy apathetic and sensual, the bishop little obeyed, the laity divided by tho family feuds of their rulers, unchaste and ignorant. He induced a Galwegian chief to take the habit of religion, and restored the peace of the country. Two years later he died of a decline, at Rievaulx, in the fifty-seventh year of his age. In the year 1191 he was canonized. His writings are voluminous and have never been completely published. Amongst them are homilies ``on the burden of Babylon in Isaiah''; three books ``on spiritual friendship''; a life of Edward the Confessor; an account of miracles wrought at Hexham, and the tract called Relatio de Standardo. This last is an account of the Battle of the Standard (1138), better blown than the similar account by Richard of Hexham, but less trustworthy, and in places obscured by a peculiarly turgid rhetoric.

See the Vita Alredi in John of Tynemouth's Nova Legenda Anglie (ed. C. Horstmann, 1901, vol. i. p. 4i), whence it was taken by Capgrave. From Capgrave the work passed into the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum (Jan. ii p. 30). This life is anonymous, but of an early date. The most complete printed collection of AElred's works is in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. cxcv.; but this does not include the Miracula Hagulstatdensis Ecclesiae which are printed in J. Raine's Priory of Hexham, vol. i. (Surtees Society, 1864).--A complete list of works attributed to AElred is given in T. Tanner's Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (1748), pp. 247,248. The Relatio de Standardo has been critically edited by R. Howlett in Chronicles, &c., of Stephen, Henry II. and Richard I., vol. iii. (Rolls Series, 1886). . (H. W. C. D.)

AEMILIA VIA, or AEMILIAN WAY. (1) A highroad of Italy, constructed in 187 B.C. by the consul M. Aemilius Lepidus, from whom it taves its name; it ran from Ariminum to Placentia, a distance of 176 m. almost straight N.W., with the plain of the Po (Padus) and its tributaries on the right, and the Apennines on the left. The 79th milestone from Ariminum found in the bed of the Phenus at Bononia records the restoration of the road by Augustus from Ariminum to the river Trebia in 2 B.C. (Notiz. Scav., 1902, 539). The bridge by which it crossed the Sillaro was restored by Trajan in A.D. 100 (Notizie degli Scavi, 1888, 621). The modern highroad follows the ancient line, and some of the original bridges still exist. After Augustus, the road gave its name to the district which formed the eighth region of Italy (previously known as Gallia or Provincia Ariminum), at first in popular usage (as in Martial), but in official language as early as the 2nd century; it is still in use (see EMILIA). The district was bounded on the N. by the Padus, E. by the Adriatic, S. by the river Crustumium (mod. Conca), and W. by the Apennines and the Ira (mod. Staffora) at Iria (mod. Voghera), and corresponds approximately with the modern district.

(2) A road constructed in 109 B.C. by the censor M. Aemillus Scaurus from Vada Volaterrana and Luna to Vada Sabatia and thence over the Apennines to Ilertona (Tortona), where it joined the Via Postumia from Genua to Cremona. We must, however (as Mommsen points out in C.I.L. v. p. 885), suppose that the portion of the coast road from Vada Volaterrana to Genua at least must have existed before the construction of the Via Postumia in 148 B.C. Indeed Polybius (iii. 39. 8) tells us (and this must refer to the time of the Gracchi if not earlier) that the Romans had in his time built the coast road from the Rhone to Carthago Nova; and it is incredible that the coast road in Italy itself should not have been constructed previously. It is, however, a very different thing to open a road for traffic, and so to construct it that it takes its name from that construction in perpetuity. (, As.)

AEMILIUS, PAULUS (PAOLO EMILIO ) (d. 1529), Italian historian, was born at Verona. He obtained such reputation in his own country that he was invited to France in the reign of Charles VIII., in order to write in Latin the history of the kings of France, and was presented to a canonry in Notre Dame. He enjoyed the patronage and support of Louis XII. He died at Paris on the 5th of May 1529. His De Rebus gestis Francorum was translated into French in 1581, and has also been translated into Italian and German.

AENEAS, the famous Trojan hero, son of Anchises and Aphrodite, one of the most important figures in Greek and Roman legendary history. In Homer, he is represented as the chief bulwark of the Trojans next to Hector, and the favourite of the gods, who frequently interpose to save him from danger (Iliad, v. 311). The legend that he remained in the country after the fall of Troy, and founded a new kingdom (Iliad, xx. 308; Hymn to Aphrodite, 196) is now generally considered to be of comparatively late origin. The story of his emigration is post-Homeric, and set forth in its fullest development by Virgil in the Aeneid. Carrying his aged father and household gods on his back and leading his little son Ascanius by the hand, he makes his way to the coast, his wife Creusa being lost during the confusion of the flight. After a perilous voyage to Thrace, Delos, Crete and Sicily (where his father dies), he is cast up by a storm, sent by Juno, on the African coast. Refusing to remain with Dido, queen of Carthage, who in despair puts an end to her life, he sets sail from Africa, and after seven years' wandering lands at the mouth of the Tiber. He is hospitably received by Latinus, king of Latium, is betrothed to his daughter Lavinia, and founds a city called after her, Lavinium. Turnus, king of Rutuli, a rejected suitor, takes up arms against him and Latinus, but is defeated and slain by Aeneas on the river Numicius. The story of the Aeneid ends with the death of Turnus. According to (i. 1. 2), Aeneas, after reigning a few years over Latium, is slain by the Rutuli; after the battle, his body cannot be found, and he is supposed to have been carried up to heaven. He receives divine honours, and is worshipped under the name of Jupiter Indiges (Dionysius Halle. i. 64).

See J. A. Hild, La Legende d'Enee avant Vergile (1883); F. Cauer, De Fabuls Graecis ad Romam conditum pertinentibus (1884) and Die Romische Aeneassage, von Naevius bis Vergilius (1886); G. Boissier, ``La Legende d'Enee'' in Revue des Deux Mondes, Sept. 1883; A. Forstemann, Zur Geschichte des Aeneasmythus (1894); articles in Pauly-Wissowa's Realencyclopadie (new ed., 1894); Roscher's Lexicon der Mythologie; Daremberg and Saglio's Dictionnaire des antiquites; Preller's Griechische und romische Mythologie; and especially Schwegler, Romische Geschichte (1867).

Romances.---The story of Aeneas, as a sequel to the legend of Troy, formed the subject of several epic romances in the middle ages. The Roman d'Eneas (c. 1160, or later), of uncertain authorship (attributed by some to Benoit de Sainte-More), the first French poem directly imitated from the Aeneid, is a fairly close adaptation of the oriinal. The trouvere, however, omits the greater part of the wanderings of Aeneas, and adorns his narrative with gorgeous descriptions, with accounts of the marvellous properties of beasts and stones, and of single combats among the knights who figure in the story. He also elaborates the episodes most attractive to his audience, notably those of Dido and Aeneas and Lavinia, the last of whom plays a far more important part than in the Aeneid. Where possible, he substitutes human for divine intervention, and ignores the idea of the glorification of Rome and Augustus, which dominates the Virgilian epic. On this work were founded the Eneide or Eneit (between 1180 and 1190) of Heinrich von Veldeke, written in Flemish and now only extant in a version in the Thuringian dialect, and the Eneydos, written by William Caxton in 1490. See Eneas, ed. J. Salverdo de Grave (Halle, 1891); see also A. Litteraire de la France, xix.; Veldeke's Encide, ed. Ettmuller (Leipzig, 1852) and O. Behaghel (Heilbronn, 1882); Eneydos, ed. F. J. Furnivall (1890). For Italian versions see E. G. Parodi in Studi di filologia romanza (v. 1887).

AENEAS TACTICUS (4th century B.C.), one of the earliest Greek writers on the art of war. According to Aelianus Tacticus and Polybius, he wrote a number of treatises (Upomnemata) on the subject; the only one extant deals with the best methods of defending a fortified city. An epitome of the whole was made by Cineas, minister of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. The work is chiefly valuable as containing a large number of historical illustrations. Aeneas was considered by Casaubon to have been a contemporary of Xenophon and identical with the Arcadian general Aeneas of Stymphalus, whom Xenophon (Hellenica, vii. 3) mentions as fighting at the battle of Mantinea (362 B.C.). Editions in I. Casaubon's (1619), Gronovius' (1670) and Ernesti's (1763) editions of Polybius; also.separately, with notes, by J. C. Orelli (Leipzig, 1818). Other texts are those of W. Rustow and H. Kochly (Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, vol. i. Leipzig, 183S) and A. Hug, Prolegomena Critica ad Aeneae editionem (Zurich University, 1874). See also Count Beausobre, Commentaires sur la defense des places d'Aeneas (Amsterdam, 1757); A. Hug, Aeneas von Stymphalos (Zurich, 1877); C. C. Lange, De Aeneae commentario poliorcetico (Berlin, 1879); M. H. Meyer, Observationes in Aeneam Tacticum (Halle, 1835) ; Haase, in Jahns Jahrbuch, 1835, xiv. 1 ; Max Jahns, Gesch. der Kriegswissenschaften, i. pp. 26-28 (Munich, 1889) ; Ad. Bauer, in Zeitschrift fur allg. Geschichte, &c., 1886, i.; T. H. Williams in American Journal of Philology, xxv. 4; E. Schwartz in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie (Stuttgart, 1894).

AENESIDEMUS, Greek philosopher, was born at Cnossus in Crete and taught at Alexandria, probably during the first century B.C. He was the leader of what is sometimes known as the third sceptical school and revived to a great extent the doctrine of Pyrrho and Timon. His chief work was the Pyrrhonian Principles addressed to Lucius Tubero. His philosophy consisted of four main parts, the reasons for scepticism and doubt, the attack on causality and truth, a physical theory and a theory of morality. Of these the two former are important. The reasons for doubt are given in the form of the ten ``tropes'': (1) different animals manifest different modes of perception; (2) similar differences are seen among individual men; (3) even for the same man, sense-given data are self-contradictory, (4) vary from time to time with physical changes, and (5) accord- ing to local relations; (6) and (7) objects are known only in- directly through the medium of air, moisture, &c., and are in a condition of perpetual change in colour, temperature, size and motion; (8) all perceptions are relative and interact one upon another; (9) Our impressions become less deep by repetition and custom; and (10) all men are brought up with different beliefs, under different laws and social conditions. Truth varies infinitely under circumstances whose relative weight cannot be accurately gauged. There is, therefore, no absolute knowledge, for every man has different perceptions, and, further, arranges and groups his data in methods peculiar to himself; so that the sum total is a quantity with a purely subjective validity. The second part of his work consists in the attack upon the theory of causality, in which he adduces almost entirely those considerations which are the basis of modern scepticism. Cause has no existence apart from the mind which perceives; its validity is ideal, or, as Kant would have said, subjective. The relation between cause and effect is unthinkable. If the two things are different, they are either simultaneous or in succession. If simultaneous, cause is effect and effect cause. If not, since effect cannot precede cause, cause must precede effect, and there must be an instant when cause is not effective, that is, is not itself. By these and similar arguments he arrives at the fundamental principle of Scepticism, the radical and universal opposition tion of causes; panti logo logos antikeitai. Having reached this conclusion, he was able to assimilate the physical theory of Heraclitus, as is explained in the Hypotyposes of Sextus Empiricus. For admitting that contraries co-exist for the perceiving subject, he was able to assert the co-existence of contrary qualities in the same object. Having thus disposed of the ideas of truth and causality, he proceeds to undermine the ethical criterion, and denies that any man can aim at Good, Pleasure or Happiness as an absolute, concrete ideal. All actions are product of pleasure and pain, good and evil. The end of ethical endeavour is the conclusion that all endeavour is vain and illogical. The main tendency of this destructive scepticism is essentially the same from its first crystallization by Aenesidemus down to the most advanced sceptics of to-day (ree SCEPTICISM). For the immediate successors of Aenesidemus see AGRIPPA, SEXTUS EMPIRICUS. See also CARNEADES and ARCESILAUS. Of the Porroneioi logoi nothing remains; we have, however, an analysis in the Myriobiblion of Photius. See Zeller's History of Greek Philosophy; F. Saisset, AEnesideme, Pascal, Kant; Ritter and Preller, sec. sec. 364-87O.

AEOLIAN HARP (Fr. harpe eolienne; Ger. Aolsharfe, Windharfe; Ital. arpa d'Eolo), a stringed musical instrument, whose name is derived from Aeolus, god of the wind. The aeolian harp consists of a sound-box about 3 ft long, 5 in. wide, and 3 in. deep, made of thin deal, or preferably of pine, and having beech ends to hold the tuning-pins and hitch-pins. A dozen or less catgut strings of different thickness, but tuned in exact unison, and left rather slack, are attached to the pins, and stretched over two narrow bridges of hard wood, one at each end of the sound-board, which is generally provided with two rose sound-holes. To ensure a proper passage for the wind, another pine board is placed over the strings, resting on pegs at the ends of the sound-board, or on a continuation of the ends raised from 1 to 3 in. above the strings. Kaufmann of Dresden and Heinrich Christoph Koch, who improved the aeolian harp, introduced this contrivance, which was called by them Windfang and Windflugel; the upper board was prolonged beyond the sound-box in the shape of a funnel, in order to direct the current of air on to the strings. The aeolian harp is placed across a window so that the wind blows obliquely across the strings, causing them to vibrate in aliquot parts, i.e. (the fundamental note not being heard) the half or octave, the third or interval of the twelfth, the second Octave, and the third above it, in fact the upper partials of the strings in regular succession. With the increased pressure of the wind, the dissonances of the 11th and 13th overtones are heard in shrill discords, only to give place to beautiful harmonies as the force of the wind abates. The principle of the natural vibration of strings by the pressure of the wind was recognized in ancient times; King David, we hear from the Rabbinic records, used to hang his kinnor (kithara) over his bed at night, when it sounded in the midnight breeze. The same is related of St Dunstan of Canterbury, who was in consequence charged with sorcery. The Chinese at the present day fly kites of various sizes, having strings stretched across apertures in the paper, which produces the effect of an aerial chorus.

See Athanasius Kircher, Musurgia Universalis, where the aeolian harp is first described (1602-1608), p. 148; Mathew Young, Bishop of Clonfert, Enquiry into the Principal Phenomena of Sounds and Musical Strings pp. 170-182 (London, 1784); Gottingen Pocket Calendar (1792); Mendel's Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon, article ``Aeolsharfe.', An illustration is given in Rees' Encyclopedia, plates, vol. ii. Misc. pl. xxv (K. S.)

AEOLIS (AEOLIA), an ancient district of Asia Minor, colonized at a very early date by Aeolian Greeks. The name was applied to the coast from the river Hermus to the promontory of Lecture, i.o. between Ionia to S. and Troas to N. The Aeolians founded twelve cities on the mainland, including Cyme, and numerous towns in Mytilene: they were said also to have settled in the Troad and even within the Hellespont.