“Greater things than these may be performed by refracted vision. For it is easy to understand by the canons above mentioned that the greatest objects may appear exceedingly small, and the contrary, also that the most remote objects may appear just at hand, and the converse; for we can give such figures to transparent bodies, and dispose them in such order with respect to the eye and the objects, that the rays shall be refracted and bent towards any place we please, so that we shall see the object near at hand or at any distance under any angle we please. And thus from an incredible distance we may read the smallest letters, and may number the smallest particles of dust and sand, by reason of the greatness of the angle under which we see them. . . . Thus also the sun, moon, and stars may be made to descend hither in appearance, and to be visible over the heads of our enemies, and many things of the like sort, which persons unacquainted with such things would refuse to believe.”

Molyneux also cites from Bacon’s Epistola ad Pamsiensem, “Of the Secrets of Art and Nature,” chap. 5 :—

,, Glasses or diaphanous bodies may be so formed that the most remote objects may appear just at hand, and the contrary, so that we may read the smallest letters at an incredible distance, and may number things, though never so small, and may make the stars also appear as near as we please.”

These passages certainly prove that Bacon had very nearly, if not perfectly, arrived at theoretical proof of the possibility of constructing a telescope and a microscope; but his writings give no account of the trial of an actual telescope, nor any detailed results of the application of a telescope to an examination of the heavens. It has been pointed out by Dr Smith, in his Complete System of Optics, that Bacon imagines some effects of telescopes which cannot be performed by them, and his conclusion is that Bacon never actually looked through a telescope.

Giambattista della Porta, in his Hagia Naturalis, printed in 1558, makes the following remarkable statement :—

“If you do but know how to join the two (viz., the concave and the convex glasses) rightly together, you will see both remote and near objects larger than they otherwise appear, and withal very distinct.”

Wolfius infers from this passage that its author was the first actual constructor of a telescope, and it appears not improbable that by happy accident Porta really did make some primitive form of telescope which excited the wonder of his friends. Here, however, his interest in the matter appears to have ceased, and he was unable either to appreciate the importance of his discovery or to describe the means by which the object was attained. Kepler, who examined Porta’s account of his concave and convex lenses by desire of his patron the emperor Rudolph, declared that it was perfectly unintelligible. Poggendorff (Gesch. der Physik, p. 134) throws considerable doubt on the originality of Porta’s statement.

Thomas Digges, in his Stratioticus, p. 359, published in 1579, states that his father, Leonard Digges,

“among other curious practices had a method of discovering by perspective glasses set at due angles all objects pretty far distant that the sun shone upon, which lay in the country round about,” and that this was by the help of a manuscript book of Roger Bacon of Oxford, w ho he conceived was the only man besides his father who knew it. There is also the following passage in the Pantometria (bk. i. chap. 21) of Leonard Digges (originally published by his son Thomas in 1571, and again in 1591):—

“Marvellous are the conclusions that may be performed by glasses concave and convex, of circular and parabolic forms, using for multiplication of beams sometime the aid of glasses transparent, which, by fraction, should unite or dissipate the images or figures presented by the reflection of other.”

He then describes the effects of magnification from a combination of lenses or mirrors, adding :—

“But of these conclusions I minde not here to intreate, having at large in a volume by itselfe opened the miraculous effects of perspective glasses.”

It is impossible to discredit the significance of these quotations, for the works in which they occur were published more than twenty years before the original date claimed for the discovery of the telescope in Holland.

That Roger Bacon had tolerably clear ideas as to the practical possibility of constructing telescopes, and that Leonard Digges had access to some unpublished MSS. of Bacon, and by their aid constructed some form of telescope, seem to be obvious inferences from the preceding evidence. But it is quite certain that previous to 1600 the telescope was unknown, except possibly to individuals who failed to see its practical importance, and who confined its use to “curious practices” or to demonstrations of “natural magic.” The practical discovery of the instrument was certainly made in Holland about 1608, but the credit of the original invention has been claimed on behalf of three individuals, Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Jansen, spectacle-makers in Middelburg, and James Metius of Alkmaar (brother of Adrian Metius the mathematician).

Descartes, in his treatise on Dioptrics (1637), attributes the discovery to Metius “about thirty years ago,” whilst Schyraelus de Rheita, a Capuchin friar, in his Oculus Enoch et Elise (Antwerp, 1645), gives the credit to Lippershey about 1609. Peter Borel, physician to the king of France, published at The Hague, in 1655, a work De Vero Telescopii Inventore. He was assisted in its preparation by William Borel, Dutch envoy at the court of France, and the latter declares, as the result of patient investigation, that Jansen and his father were the real inventors of the telescope in 1610, and that Lippershey only made a telescope after hints accidentally communicated to him of the details of Jansen’s invention. But the most trustworthy information on the subject is to be got from the researches of Van S winden. Briefly summarized, this evidence is as follows. In the library of the university of Leyden, amongst the MSS. of Huygens there is an original copy of a document (dated 17th October 1608) addressed to the states-general by Jacob Andrianzoon (the same individual who is called James Metius by Descartes), petitioning for the exclusive right of selling an instrument of his invention by which distant objects appear larger and more distinct. He states that he had discovered the instrument by accident when engaged in making experiments, and had so far perfected it that distant objects were made as visible and distinct by his instrument as could be done with the one which had been lately offered to the states by a citizen and spectaclemaker of Middelburg. Among the Acts of the states-general preserved in the Government archives at The Hague, Van Swinden found that on 2d October 1608 the assembly of the states took into consideration the petition of Hans Lippershey, spectacle-maker, a native of Wesel and an inhabitant of Middelburg, inventor of an instrument for seeing at a distance. On 4th October a committee was appointed to test the instrument, and on the 6th of the same month the assembly agreed to give Lippershey 900 florins for his instrument. Further, on the 15th December of the same year they examined an instrument invented by Lippershey at their request to see with both eyes, and gave him orders to execute two similar instruments at 900 florins each; but, as many other persons had knowledge of this new invention to see at a distance, they did not deem it expedient to grant him an exclusive privilege to sell such instruments. The dates of these documents dispose effectually of Borel’s statement that Lippershey borrowed the ideas of Jansen in 1610. They also prove that, whilst Metius was in possession of a telescope, with which he may have expeιimented, about the time when Lippershey presented his application for patent rights, yet he makes no pretension that Lippershey borrowed the invention from him. The conclusion is that Lippershey was the first person who independently invented the telescope, and at the same time made the instrument known to the world. The common story is that Lippershey, happening one day, whilst holding a spectacle-lens in either hand, to direct them towards the steeple of a neighbouring church, was astonished, on looking through the nearer lens, to find that the weathercock appeared nearer and more distinct. He fitted the lenses in a tube, in order to adjust and preserve their relative distances, and thus constructed his first telescope. But doubt may be thrown on this traditional account owing to the further statement that the image of the weathercock so viewed was seen turned upside down. All the original Dutch telescopes were composed of a convex and a concave lens, and telescopes so constructed do not invert. The inverting telescope, composed of two convex lenses, was a later invention; still it is not impossible that the original experiment was made with two convex lenses.

Telescopes seem to have been made in Holland in considerable numbers soon after the date of their invention, and rapidly found their way over Europe. Sirturus, in his De Telescopio (1618), states that “a Frenchman proceeded to Milan in the month of May 1609 and offered a telescope for sale to Count di Fuentes”; and Lorenzi Pigorna writes, under date 31st August 1609, that “Galileo had been appointed lecturer at Padua for life on account of a perspective like the one which was sent from Flanders to Cardinal Borghese.” Simon Marius, the German astronomer, appears to have made astronomical observations in 1609 with a telescope which he procured from Holland, and Professor Rigaud of Oxford found from the MSS. of Harriot, the mathematician, that he had been making astronomical observations with a Dutch telescope as early as July 1609. Galileo, in his Nuncius Sidereus, states that, happening to be in Venice about the month of May 1609, he heard that a Belgian had invented a perspective instrument by means of which distant objects appeared nearer and larger, and that he discovered its construction by considering the effects of refraction. In his Saggiatore Galileo states that he solved the problem of the construction of a telescope the first night after his return to Padua from Venice, and made his first telescope next day by fitting a convex lens in one extremity of a leaden tube and a concave lens in the other one. A few days afterwards, having succeeded in making a better telescope than the first, he took it to Venice, where he communicated the details of his invention to the public, and presented the instrument itself to the doge Leonardo Donato, sitting in full council. The senate, in return, settled him for life in his lectureship at Padua and doubled his salary, which was previously 500 florins, and which then became treble that which any of his predecessors had enjoyed. Galileo may thus claim to have invented the telescope independently, but not till he had heard that others had done so. In fact the time was ripe; and, as often happens in similar circumstances, only a hint was necessary to complete the latent chain of thought. Galileo devoted all his time to improving and perfecting the telescope. Knowing the theory of his instrument, and possessed of much practical skill, coupled with unwearied patience, he conquered the difficulties of grinding and polishing the lenses, and soon succeeded in producing telescopes of greatly increased power. His first telescope magnified three diameters; but he soon made instruments which magnified eight diameters, and finally one that magnified thirty-three diameters. With this last instrument he discovered in 1610 the satellites of Jupiter, and soon afterwards the spots on the sun, the phases of Venus, and the hills and valleys on the moon. He demonstrated the rotation of the satellites of Jupiter round the planet, and gave rough predictions of their configurations, proved the rotation of the sun on its axis, established the general truth of the Copernican system as compared with that of Ptolemy, and fairly routed the fanciful dogmas of the philosophers. These brilliant achievements, together with the immense improvement of the instrument under the hands of Galileo, overshadowed in a great degree the credit due to the original discoverer, and led to the universal adoption of the name of the Galilean telescope for the form of the instrument invented by Lippershey.

Kepler first explained the theory and some of the practical advantages of a telescope constructed of two convex lenses in his Catoptrics (1611). The first person who actually constructed a telescope of this form was Father Scheiner, who gives a description of it in his Rosa Ursina (1630). William Gascoigne was the first who practically appreciated the chief advantages of the form of telescope suggested by Kepler, viz., the visibility of the image of a distant object simultaneously with that of a small material object placed in the common focus of the two lenses. This led to his invention of the micrometer and his application of telescopic sights to astronomical instruments of precision (see Micrometer, vol. xvi. p. 242). But it was not till about the middle of the 17th century that Kepler’s telescope came into general use, and then, not so much because of the advantages pointed out by Gascoigne, but because its field of view was much larger than in the Galilean telescope. The first powerful telescopes of this construction were made by Huygens, after much labour, in which he was assisted by his brother. With one of these, of 12-feet focal length, he discovered the brightest of Saturn’s satellites (Titan) in 1655, and in 1659 he published his Systema Saturnium, in which was given for the first time a true explanation of Saturn’s ring, founded on observations made with the same instrument. The sharpness of image in Kepler’s telescope is very inferior to that of the Galilean instrument, So that when a high magnifying power is required it becomes essential to increase the focal length. Cassini discovered Saturn’s fifth satellite (Rhea) in 1672 with a telescope of 35 feet, and the third and fourth satellites in 1684 with telescopes made by Campani of 100 and 136 feet focal length. Huygens states that he and his brother made object-glasses of 170 and 210 feet focal length, and he presented one of 123 feet to the Royal Society of London. Auzout and others are said to have made telescopes of from 300 to 600 feet focus, but it does not appear that they were ever able to use them in practical observations. Bradley, on 27th December 1722, actually measured the diameter of Venus with a telescope whose object-glass had a focal length of 212{ feet. In these very long telescopes no tube was employed, and they were consequently termed aerial telescopes. Huygens contrived some ingenious arrangements for directing such telescopes towards any object visible in the heavens,—the focal adjustment and centring of the eye-piece being preserved by a braced rod connecting the object-glass and eye-piece. Other contrivances for the same purpose are described by La Hire {Mem. deVAcad., 1715) and by Hartsoeker {Miscel. Berol., vol. i. p. 261). Telescopes of such great length were naturally difficult to use, and must have taxed to the utmost the skill and patience of the observers. One cannot but pay a passing tribute of admiration to the men who, with such troublesome tools, achieved such results.

Until Newton’s discovery of the different refrangibility of light of different colours, it was generally supposed that object-glasses of telescopes were subject to no other errors than those which arose from the spherical figure of their surfaces, and the efforts of opticians were chiefly directed to the construction of lenses of other forms of curvature. James Gregory, in his Optica Promota (1663), discusses the forms of images of objects produced by lenses and mirrors, and show s that when the surfaces of the lenses or mirrors are portions of spheres the images are curves concave towards the objective, but if the curves of the surfaces are conic sections the spherical aberration is corrected. He was well aware of the failures of all attempts to perfect telescopes by employing lenses of various forms of curvature, and accordingly proposed the form of reflecting telescope which bears his name. But Gregory, according to his own confession, had no practical skill; he could find no optician capable of realizing his ideas, and after some fruitless attempts was obliged to abandon all hope of bringing his telescope into practical use. Newton was the first to construct a reflecting telescope. When in 1666 he made his discovery of the different refrangibility of light of different colours, he soon perceived that the faults of the refracting telescope were due much more to this cause than to the spherical figure of the lenses. He over-hastily concluded from some rough experiments {Optics, bk. i. pt. ii. prop. 3) “that all refracting substances diverged the prismatic colours in a constant proportion to their mean refraction and he drew the natural conclusion “that refraction could not be produced without colour,” and therefore “that no improvement could be expected from the refracting telescope” {Treatise on Optics, p. 112). But, having ascertained by experiment that for all colours of light the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflexion, he turned his attention to the construction of reflecting telescopes. After much experiment he selected an alloy of tin and copper as the most suitable material for his specula, and he devised means for grinding and polishing them. He did not attempt the formation of a parabolic figure on account of the probable mechanical difficulties, and he had besides satisfied himself that the chromatic and not the spherical aberration formed the chief faults of previous telescopes. Newton’s first telescope so far realized his expectations that he could see with its aid the satellites of Jupiter and the horns of Venus. Encouraged by this success, he made a second telescope of 6∣-inches focal length, with a magnifying power of 38 diameters, which he presented to the Royal Society of London in December 1671. A third form of reflecting telescope was devised in 1672 by Cassegrain {Journal des Sçavans, 1672). No further practical advance appears to have been made in the design or construction of the instrument till the year 1723, when John Hadley (best known as the inventor of the sextant) presented to the Royal Society a reflecting telescope of the Newtonian construction, with a metallic speculum of 6-inches aperture and 62∣-inches focal length, having eye-pieces magnifying up to 230 diameters. The instrument was examined by Pound and Bradley, the former of whom reported upon it in Phil. Trans., 1723, No. 378, p. 382. After remarking that Newton’s telescope “had lain neglected these fifty years,” they stated that Hadley had sufficiently shown “that this noble invention does not consist in bare theory.” They compared its performance with that of the object-glass of 123-feet focal length presented to the Royal Society by Huygens, and found that Hadley’s reflector

“will bear such a charge as to make it magnify the object as many times as the latter with its due charge, and that it represents objects as distinct, though not altogether so clear and bright. . . . Notwithstanding this difference in the brightness of the objects, we were able with this reflecting telescope to see whatever we have hitherto discovered with the Hugenian,...

SYNOD OF SARDICA was held A. D. 347. The Emperors Constans and Constantius, being anxious to restore that peace to the church of which it was deprived by the continuance of Arius’s heresy, agreed to convene an ecclesiastical assembly in Sardica, a city of Mæsia on the verge of their respective empires. About a hundred western and seventy eastern bishops attended; but altercation, and not debate, ensued. The smaller party, apprehensive for their personal safety, withdrew to a town in Thrace; a circumstance that disclosed the first symptoms of discord and schism between the Greek and Latin churches. Before this period the right of appeal from all other churches to the see of Rome had not been claimed; but from it we date the first aspirations of Roman pontiffs to lordly preëminence, and they bent their restless energies to establish a spiritual tyranny over all the nations of the earth. Ecclesiastics, excommunicated by the oriental or African churches, fled to Rome for refuge, one after another; and as the bishop of that city afforded them his protection, gratified as he was at every occasion which made it necessary, they, in order to testify their gratitude, unwittingly compromised the rights of the clergy, when, to the extent of their individual sanction, they invested him with the appellant jurisdiction. Among the refugees at Rome was the celebrated bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius, persecuted by the Arian party in the east, knelt as a suppliant on the threshold of the Vatican. Julius gladly espoused his cause, and declared him to have been illegally condemned; a declaration that seemed to come with authority, but which the eastern bishops opposed as an usurpation of undue power. They went so far as even to excommunicate Hosius, Gaudentius, Julius the bishop of Rome, and others, on the alleged assumption of authority. They maintained the principle laid down in the canons, that the judgment passed on any individual, either by an eastern or western synod, ought to be confirmed by the other. And while they complained that the bishops of the west should disturb the whole church, on account of one or two troublesome fellows, they accused them of arrogantly attempting to establish a new law for the purpose of empowering themselves to reëxamine what had been already determined. Chrysostom, too, in his distress, implored, at a subsequent period, the interference of Innocent, the then occupant of the papal chair, with the emperor of the east, for the purpose of procuring a reversal of the sentence of deposition pronounced against him by an obscure synod in the suburbs of Chalcedon. But that father never once supposed that the Roman pontiff had any right to hear his cause. His appeal lay to the supreme tribunal of a free and general council, from a packed assembly which the empress Eudoxia had been instrumental in calling together, in order to effect his ruin. As these two cases of Athanasius and Chrysostom are pleaded by Romish writers in support of the appellant authority with which they invest the bishop of Rome, it is a matter of importance to examine the stability of this ground-work, on which is laid the immense structure of papal supremacy. Hosius, who presided in the Sardican synod, as he did at every council where he happened to be present, is reported to have proposed that an appeal should be made to Rome out of respect to the chair of St. Peter, and not, as was ruled at the council of Nice, to the bishops of the neighbouring province, when any decision had been come to in a provincial synod. But what is the language of the proposition made by Hosius? “If it be a favourite object with you, let us honour the memory of Peter, so that a letter may be addressed to Julius, bishop of Rome, by those who decided on the matter; that, if necessary, the judgment may be reviewed by the bishops in his neighbourhood, and that he may appoint some to hear the cause.” Here neither canon nor Scripture is referred to; while it is left optional with the assembly whether deference was or was not to be paid to Julius, who is simply styled συνεπίσκοπος, “a fellow bishop.” The fourth canon of this synod ordains, “that an archbishop, &c, deposed by a provincial synod, must not be expelled, until the bishop of Rome shall determine whether the cause shall be reëxamined;” and the fifth canon decrees, “that the bishop of Rome, if he deem it proper, shall order a rehearing of the matter; that, if convenient, he shall send deputies for the purpose; if not, that he should leave the decision of the case to the synod itself.” From the third and fourth canons it appears that a novelty in discipline is established, and made obligatory on the churches of both empires, but only by a handful of bishops belonging to one of them; and from the fifth, that the bishop of Rome, if he deemed a judgment erroneous, might convene a new council and send deputies to it, for the purpose of reconsidering the matter. These canons, no doubt, were very flattering to the ambition of the Roman pontiff, and, accordingly, they are pleaded in behalf of his supremacy; but how preposterous is it to ascribe that to a human law, which, it is asserted, belongs to him by the law of God! There are other canons regulating the intercourse between bishops and the imperial court; after such a manner, however, as to make the bishop of Rome the judge of the propriety of the petitions which they intended to prefer. Notwithstanding all this, they can never be rescued from the imputation of being forgeries. For, 1. They were never received by either the eastern or African church as general laws. At the sixth council of Carthage, Austin strenuously denied the right of appeal to the Roman see, although a letter has been forged in his name, strenuously contending for it, which is now deposited among the pious frauds of the Vatican. It happened, also, in the early part of the fifth century, that Appiarius, who had been excommunicated by the African bishops, applied to Zosimus, bishop of Rome. This pontiff forthwith sent them the Sardican canon, which conferred on him the right of appeal. This they indignantly rejected, inasmuch as their predecessors, who attended the council of Sardica, left no record of it; and because the eastern patriarchs, whom they consulted on the occasion, not only disclaimed all knowledge of any such canon being in existence, but furnished their brethren with an exact copy of the Nicene canons, among which the Sardican one was not to be found. 2. The Sardican canons were not inserted in the code of canons approved of by the council of Chalcedon. 3. The council which passed them is not reckoned, even by the church of Rome, as one of the eighteen general councils, whose authority it acknowledges; nor does Bellarmine himself say that it is one of those councils which his church receives in part and rejects in part. 4. When the western bishops entreated the Emperor Theodosius to summon a council, A.D. 407, so far were they from making any allusion to the doctrine of an appeal to the Roman see, that they distinctly disclaimed the thought of such a prerogative, and only sought the fellowship of a common arbitration. 5. Lastly, if, as the historian Sozomen says, the Sardican synod wrote to Julius, bishop of Rome, to apprize him of what they had done, and of their decrees being drawn up in the spirit of the council of Nice, the purport of the letter was not so strong as that which they addressed to the church of Alexandria, in which they pray it to give its suffrage to the determination of the council, additional suspicions are created. From all these circumstances taken together, it is evident that no value is to be attached to the decrees of this obscure council; and that, although due respect was paid to St. Peter’s chair, it was no acknowledgment of the superiority of its possessor as to ecclesiastical authority or jurisdiction.

SYNOD OF DORT. The Dutch churches forsook the communion of the corrupt church of Rome soon after the church of England had cast off the papal yoke; and they were generously aided in their endeavours to recover their civil and religious liberties by our good Queen Elizabeth and her wise counsellors. The first Christian teachers among them were Lutherans; but in process of time, the celebrity of Geneva as a place of public instruction for ministers of religion induced the majority of the candidates for the ministry to repair to that university; and, as might naturally be expected, they imported into the Low Countries the peculiar views of Calvin and Beza on the subject of predestination. It is justly observed by Le Vassor, “Some learned Hollanders had boldly defended this doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a professor at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him. Their writings are still extant; although it is true that certain ministers, who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their productions into disrepute; but the states of Holland uniformly checked this impetuous zeal. The professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melancthon; and when Arminius was called to that university, his opinions were generally known; for he had declared them in the church of Amsterdam, from the consistory of which he received very honourable testimonials. Gomarus, and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging immediately that the difference of sentiments which existed between them did not at all concern the foundations of the Reformation. True it is, that Gomarus did not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken umbrage at the reputation of his new colleague, or the enemies of Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man whom, some time before, he looked upon as orthodox.” The struggles of the party of Arminius in Holland, after the death of that great man, to obtain a toleration for their opinions, are matters of history. The political circumstances of that country and of Europe in general were at that period very peculiar, and exercised great influence in the convening and conducting of that famous ecclesiastical assembly, the synod of Dort; but in a sketch like this, they can only be briefly mentioned. Frederic, the elector Palatine, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of our King James the First; he was nephew to Maurice the prince of Orange: and he sent his Heidelberg divines to the synod to assist his uncle in the condemnation of the Remonstrant party, as the Arminians were generally called, and to gratify his polemical father-in-law in the overthrow of the heretical Vorstius. In return, he naturally expected both of his relations to aid him in his grand enterprise of seizing on the crown of Bohemia; in which, soon after the banishment of the Remonstrants, he completely succeeded,--though he subsequently lost that crown and all his hereditary possessions, and embroiled nearly the whole of Protestant Europe in the famous thirty years’ war. The Remonstrants, according to Nichols, in the ample notes to his translation of the “Works of Arminius,” had long wished to have their “Five Points” of doctrine brought for adjudication either before a _provincial_ synod, to prepare matters for a _national_ one; or to have them brought at once before a _general council_ of Protestant divines. But the Calvinists would listen to neither of these equitable proposals. If a _provincial synod_ were convened, especially in that province (Holland) which most needed such a remedy, these men well knew, from trial, how difficult it would be to combat and refute the strong and popular arguments of the Remonstrants, when both parties were placed nearly on an equality in the same assembly; and if a _general council_ of Protestants was summoned together, they were certain that the principles of Arminius would, without demur, be recognized as integral parts of Scripture verity, and consequently entitled not only to toleration, (which was all that the Remonstrants had desired,) but to the especial patronage of the civil authorities. The latter result was anticipated, from the immense preponderance which the Lutheran divines, from all the small states of Germany, and from other parts of the north of Europe, would have had in such a council. Numerous state papers on this subject were written by the public functionaries of the different provinces in the year 1617; among which those of the composition of the learned Grotius, who conducted the arguments in favour of a _general council_, are very conspicuous for the superior ability which they display. A _national synod_ was therefore the sole remedy which the wisdom, or rather the worldly prudence, of the Calvinists could discover for removing the maladies under which the churches of Holland were at that time labouring. In showing cause for their preference, they were placed in an awkward dilemma; for they perceived, that the strongest reasons to be adduced for the adoption of this measure would extend too far, and might, in the hands of their able antagonists, be made to apply with greater cogency to the convening of a general council. The designs which Prince Maurice had long cherished against the ancient liberties and internal jurisdiction of the states, (each of which possessed by the act of union the complete management of its own affairs,) were then in a course of execution. By the forcible and illegal removal of the old burgomasters and governors, and the appointment of new ones; by the preponderance which these newly elected individuals gave to their own party in their election of persons to fill the higher offices of state in the various towns which had been ill-affected toward Calvinism and arbitrary power; and by the untrue and scandalous reports which were invented and industriously propagated respecting the alleged secret intentions of Barnevelt and the Arminians to deliver up their country to the Spaniards; the prince was enabled to succeed in his ambitious enterprises. To the party, therefore, that had forwarded his views he willingly gave all the weight of his influence, and that of the States General, the majority of whom, in virtue of the late unlawful changes effected in the provinces, were favourable, not only to Calvinism, but to any measure which the prince might think fit to propose. It was in allusion to the revolution, thus craftily completed, that Bogerman, as president of the synod of Dort, told Episcopius, in a sarcastic style, as Hales tells us, “You may remember what you told the foreign divines in your letter to them, that there had of late been a great metamorphosis in the state; you are no longer judges and men in power, but persons under citation.” In such a state of affairs, an ordinance of government was easily obtained for convening a national synod, which was to consist of native divines appointed by the different classes and presbyteries, of civil deputies chosen out of each province by the states, and of foreign divines deputed by such churches as had adopted both the platform and the doctrine of Geneva. The temper and intolerant conduct of the various ecclesiastical meetings with whom rested the inland appointments, had been but too apparent; and time had not mollified their intolerant principles; for, under the new order of things, and with the sanction of the fresh race of magistrates, they were emboldened to effect a schism in many of the chief towns, and forcibly to exclude the Arminian ministers from the churches which they occupied. In other towns, in which these bold practices could not be attempted with any probability of success, they employed the ecclesiastical arms of the classes, provincial synods, and other packed vestry-meetings, the members of which (consisting generally of Calvinists) summoned before them all the chief Arminian pastors in the various districts, accused them of holding heterodox opinions on the subject of predestination, and suspended or expelled them from the ministry. This work of expulsion and suspension was carried on by the dominant party, even during the time in which the fate of Arminianism was in a course of determination by the synod of Dort: so that, had that far-famed and reverend assembly decided in favour of a toleration of the Arminian doctrines, the minor church meetings had left few ministers of that persecuted denomination to profit from such a decision. The Calvinistic account of this summary and iniquitous process is thus given, in the preface to the acts of the National Synod: “And since there were several pastors in that province, [Guelderland,] some of whom had been suspected of many other errors beside the Five Points of the Remonstrants, others of them had illegally intruded into the office of the ministry, while others were men of profligate habits; certain persons of this description being cited before the [provincial] synod [of Guelderland and Zutphen, held at Arnheim, in July, 1618,] were suspended from the ministry for some of the before-mentioned reasons, and by no means on account of the opinion contained in the Five Points of the Remonstrants, which was reserved for the cognizance of the national synod. The trial of the rest of these men being dismissed in the name of the synod, was committed to a deputation from their body, to whom the states added certain of their own delegates. When they had fully investigated the cases of these men in their classes, they suspended some of them from the ministry, and entirely removed others.” In the very able memorial which the Remonstrants, on their arrival at the synod, presented to the foreign members, it is justly observed, respecting those who were accused of having taught, beside the Five Points, those doctrines which were contrary to the fundamentals of faith: “Such particular cases do not in any manner affect the common cause of the Remonstrants, but concern those alone who may be found guilty of them. Nor are we adverse to the issuing of ecclesiastical censures against such persons, provided they be lawfully put upon their trials, and fairly heard in defence of themselves against such charges.” Because the members of these Calvinistic provincial synods could not be long absent from their respective congregations, such galloping commissions as these, endowed with ample powers, were appointed to traverse every province in which Arminianism had been planted; and they soon showed to the world the most compendious method of rooting out reputed heresies. Their track through the land resembled that of the angel of destruction; it was marked by anguish, mourning, and desolation. After this detail, established by the synodical documents themselves, few words will suffice to point out the purely Calvinistic constitution of the synod of Dort. When very few Remonstrant ministers remained in the land, except such as were ejected from the church or under suspension, it was no difficult matter to procure an assemblage of men that were of one heart respecting the main object that was then sought to be accomplished. In the original order for holding the synod, and in the list appended to it, as they were both passed by the States General, no mention was made of inviting any other churches, except those of England, France, the Palatinate, Hesse, and Switzerland, and it was a matter postponed for farther deliberation, whether any invitation should be transmitted to the churches of Bremen, Brandenburgh, Geneva, and Nassau. The clergy of the principality of Anhalt were not invited to the synod, because their opinions were understood to be similar to those of the Remonstrants, the ancient confession adopted by their churches being decided on the subject of conditional predestination. The divines of Bremen were viewed as men inclined too much to moderate counsels, and on that account improper representatives in an assembly that intended to carry every proposition with the unanimity of force. The divines of Brandenburgh were the last of those invited. Indeed no invitation was transmitted to them, till the state and temper of their churches had been ascertained with tolerable accuracy; and when it was generally thought that the deputies from that electorate were tractable and would follow in the train of the Contra-Remonstrants, it was determined to summon them to the synod. It was for some time a matter of doubt with the leading men of Holland, whether they ought to invite the divines of Geneva and Nassau, two of the greatest nurseries of Calvinism, to be present at the synod. The cause of this demur was, to avoid the appearance of partiality, which they justly thought all the world would have imputed to them had they convened an assembly consisting only of Calvinistic doctors. To keep up this semblance of moderation, the synodical summons was not transmitted to those divines when they were sent to the churches of other states and countries. But when Prince Maurice’s schemes of secular aggrandizement and political power had succeeded beyond his utmost wishes, they no longer studied to “avoid the appearance of evil,” but boldly summoned all those divines about whose presence at the synod they had formerly hesitated. This was a most notable and certain method of procuring a strict Calvinian uniformity in the members. On this topic, Hales, in his letters from Dort, to the English ambassador at the Hague, says, “For a general confession of faith, at least so far as those churches stretch who have delegates here in the synod, I think his project very possible, there being no point of faith in which they differ.” Great interest was made at the court of France, to procure the attendance of deputies from the reformed churches of that country; but the king of France prohibited the Protestant clergy within his dominions from becoming members of the synod, or assisting at its deliberations. The letters of the States General, inviting the foreign divines to the national synod, were issued on the 25th of June, 1618; and the members were summoned to meet together in the city of Dort, on the first day of November in the same year. The letters of invitation to the divines of the united provinces were dated Sept. 20th, and the synod of Dort was formally opened Nov. 13th. Whosoever casts his eye over the list of the foreign divines that composed this last of Protestant councils, will find scarcely one man who had not distinguished himself by his decided opposition to the doctrine of conditional predestination, and who was not consequently disqualified from acting the part of an impartial judge of the existing religious differences, or that of a peace-maker. This caused the famous Daniel Tilenus to observe, that “no persons were summoned to Dort who were not well known to be zealous promoters of Calvin’s predestination. In former ages, men were accustomed, first to go to the councils, and then to declare their sentiments: just the reverse of this is the practice in our days; for no one could be admitted into the synod of Dort unless he had previously manifested the bearing of his opinions.” It will be perceived from the preceding statement, by what kind of ecclesiastical management the Remonstrants had been excluded from having any deputies in the synod of Dort. So completely had the Calvinistic plan of exclusion succeeded, that three of the members from Utrecht were the only Remonstrants in that synod. The reason of their being there at all, was, because that province was almost equally divided between Remonstrant and Calvinist churches, and it had been agreed that three of each denomination should be summoned. But so obnoxious were the persons as well as the doctrines of the Remonstrants to their adversaries, that they would not allow even those three individuals to have a place in the seat of judgment. In the twenty-fourth session, it was unanimously declared, that they could only be reputed as cited persons; however, as the Acts express it, “that this synod might not be exposed to calumnies, as if they wished to exclude them, it was allowed them to sit among the judges” on five conditions, the chief of which were, “that while the affairs of the Remonstrants were under discussion, they should not disturb the proceedings of the synod by unseasonable interruptions, and not acquaint their party with any thing done or said in the synod, which concerned their cause.” Two of them, after a day’s deliberation, united themselves with their suffering brethren; and the third, who was a layman, had seen enough of the partial conduct of that venerable assembly to induce him to absent himself from their farther deliberations. As the Remonstrants formed no part of the members convened, it was debated, in the fourth session, how they ought to be summoned. It was proposed and resolved, that a letter should be composed and sent to the whole body, that they might depute three out of each province as deputies to the synod. The president Bogerman then inquired, if all the Remonstrants were to be admitted; the president of the lay commissioners answered, that the ecclesiastical president and the secretaries should receive a private explanation from him respecting their numbers. In the interview which the two presidents and the secretaries had together, they concerted matters so well, that next day the preceding resolution for writing to the whole body was withdrawn for amendment; and it was finally agreed, that it should be left to the determination of the lay commissioners, what persons, and how many, should be convened. These gentlemen selected thirteen of the Remonstrants, to each of whom they addressed a letter of citation, commanding them to appear before the synod, “within fourteen days after the receipt of it without any tergiversation, excuse, or exception, that in it they might freely propose, explain, and defend the before-mentioned five points as far as they were able and should deem to be necessary.” In the mean time the Remonstrants, without knowing the resolution of the synod, had deputed three of their body from Leyden, to obtain leave for their appearance at the synod, in a competent number and under safe conduct to defend their cause. On making their request known to the lay commissioners, they were informed of the resolution which had passed the synod only the preceding day. To which they replied, that it was unreasonable to cite those to justify themselves who were both ready and willing to come of their own accord; and that if they persisted in proceeding with their plan of citation, they would by that act furnish just cause, not only to them, but to all good men, to entertain strange notions and suspicions of the synodical proceedings. Not being permitted to choose those men from their own body whom they deemed the best qualified to state and defend their cause, they accounted it an additional hardship, that their enemies should assume that unlawful authority to themselves. But neither at that time nor afterward, when they wished to add two of the most accomplished of the brethren to their number, were their representations of the least avail. On the sixth of December these valiant defenders of the truth arrived, and requested, by a deputation, to be allowed a few days to unpack their books, arrange their papers, &c. But they were commanded immediately to appear in a body before the synod, and to prefer their own request. They were introduced by their brethren of Utrecht, and ordered to sit down at a long table placed in the middle of the hall. Episcopius then, with the permission of the president, addressed an apostolic greeting to the synod; and, having repeated the request previously made, he said, that “the cited Remonstrants appeared there to defend their good and righteous cause before that venerable assembly, by reasons and arguments drawn from the word of God,--or else to be confuted and better informed from the same word. In reference to the favour which they had asked, they left it to the discretion of the commissioners of the States General, being ready on their parts, immediately and without delay, to engage in a conference, if that should be required.” Then were they desired to withdraw into a chamber prepared for them adjoining the hall of the synod. After some time spent in deliberation, they were recalled, and informed by the president, that they would be expected at the synod next morning at nine o’clock. He added, according to Hales, “that they came not to conference, neither did the synod profess themselves an adverse party against them. Conferences had been heretofore held to no purpose. They ought to have heeded the words of the letters by which they were cited. They were called not to conference, but to propose their opinions with their reasons, and leave it with the synod to judge of them.” Episcopius replied, that it was not necessary so nicely to criticise the word conference, and that they had come there with no other view than to treat about the doctrines which were controverted, according to the summons which they had received. The next day, December 7th, the Remonstrants were called in, when after Episcopius had desired and obtained leave to speak, he uttered an oration, the delivery of which occupied nearly two hours, and which, on account of the noble sentiments contained in it, deserves to be recorded in letters of gold. The gracefulness, force, and energy with which it was spoken, made such an impression on the auditory as drew tears from several of them, and even from some of the states’ deputies. This effect gave mighty umbrage to the choleric Bogerman, who, as president, according to Mr. Hales’s account, “signified unto Episcopius, that, because there were in his speech many things considerable, he was therefore to deliver the copy of it. Episcopius replied, that he had none handsomely written: if the synod would have patience, he would cause a fair transcript to be drawn for them. But this excuse would not serve; fair or foul, deliver it up he must, and so he did.” In the session, December 10, after the president had ceased to speak, he desired the Remonstrants to proceed with their explanation and defence of the five points. They requested leave to have a paper read by Episcopius. Bogerman would not consent to this; but the lay president ordered another of the Remonstrants, Bernard Dwinglo, to read it. This very convincing document was addressed to the synod, and consisted of two parts. It may be seen at full length in the acts, and is in every respect worthy of the great men whose holy cause it defended. The first part declared, that the Remonstrants did not own the members of the synod for lawful judges, because the great majority of them, with the exception of the foreign divines, were their professed enemies; and that most of the inland divines then assembled, as well as those whose representatives they were, had been guilty of the unhappy schism which was made in the churches of Holland. The second part contained the twelve qualifications, of which the Remonstrants thought a well constituted synod should consist. The observance of the stipulations proposed in it, they would gladly have obtained from the synod, averring that they were exceedingly equitable, and that the Protestants had offered similar conditions for the guidance of the Papists, and the Calvinists for the direction of the Lutherans. The production of such a mass of evidence from writers of the Calvinistic persuasion, in favour of a toleration and moderate measures, and against the principle of interested parties usurping the place of judges,--gave dreadful offence to that powerful body in the synod, and especially when they were charged with being at once plaintiff, judge, and jury. No one can form an adequate conception of the scene which followed the reading of this document. Bogerman, the Remonstrants, the lay president, and the commissioners, were warm interlocutors during that session and the succeeding one which was held in the afternoon of the same day. Bogerman laboured hard to show, that, by denying the competency and impartial constitution of the tribunal before which they were summoned, they in reality were guilty of disaffection to the higher powers, who had appointed and convened the synod; and that, by charging the majority of the members with being the authors of the schism, they had in effect accused the prince of Orange and the States General, because those great personages had frequented the separate meetings. In reference to the latter circumstance, which exceedingly galled him and the inland divines, he said, “The proper time has not yet arrived for discussing it. But when it shall have been proved to the synod, what kind of doctrine is sanctioned by the church, those who have departed from it, and who are consequently guilty of the schism, will appear in their true colours.” Charles Niellius, one of the Walloon ministers, answered in behalf of the Remonstrants, that though they acknowledged the authority of the states, and held the synod in due estimation, yet it was as lawful for them to challenge this synod, as for several of the Christian fathers who challenged some of the ancient councils, and their ancestors that of Trent. The laws themselves allowed men for certain reasons to challenge even sworn judges. But it was never known, that any law allowed parties to be judges. Nor was it equitable, that those who had previously separated from the Remonstrants should sit in the synod to try them, after they had by such separation pre-judged their doctrine and entered into mutual engagements to procure its condemnation. Episcopius then said, “Mr. President, if you were in our places and we in yours, would you submit to our judgment?” Bogerman replied, “If it had so happened, we must have endured it; and since government has ordered matters in a different way, it becomes you to bear it with patience.” Episcopius rejoined, “It is one thing to acknowledge a person for a judge, and it is another to bear with patience the sentence which he may impose. We also will endure it; but our consciences cannot be persuaded to acknowledge you for the judges of our doctrines, since you are our sworn adversaries, and have churches totally separated from ours.” On the morning of the next day, the Remonstrants, being called in, were urged by the synod to present their objections in writing against the Confession and Catechism. Before they proceeded to do that, they craved permission to read another document: after some demur, leave was granted, when Dwinglo read a paper which commenced thus: “The celebrated Paræus, in his _Irenicum_, prudently observes, that he would advise no man to approach any council in which the same persons had to appear in the character of both adversaries and judges.” The rest of the paper was occupied in wiping off the aspersions which had been cast upon them in the four preceding sessions, and particularly the foul charge of their want of respect for the constituted authorities of their country. They declared, that in case men of peaceable dispositions had been deputed to the synod, as the States General had intended, and such men as had never been concerned in making or promoting these unhappy divisions, they would have had little reason to offer exceptions against such a synod. This document concluded with a protest. After the delivery of this protest, the synod invented various methods to vex the cited Remonstrants and to impede the prosecution of their cause. Among those methods one of the most artful was, to ask them questions singly, and not in a body, with an evident design to entrap them in their answers. They had with the greatest injustice chosen those Remonstrants whom they thought proper, to be cited as guilty persons at the bar of the synod, without the least regard to the useful or splendid qualifications of the individuals thus selected. Of the six prudent and accomplished men who had represented the Remonstrant party at the celebrated Hague Conference in 1611, only three were summoned to the present synod; and though those who appeared on this occasion were generally men of good natural talents and sound understandings, and well versed in the matters under discussion, yet they were not all endowed with the gift of rendering a ready and extempore reply in Latin to every question that might be suddenly asked; and if they had possessed such a gift in an eminent degree, it would still have been necessary that they should have had time for reflection, and for each to compare his own views and reasons with those of his brethren. This request, however, which cannot be viewed as a favour but as an act of justice, was almost without exception refused. Having presented to the synod their opinions relative to the Five Points and their remarks on the Catechism and Confession, the Remonstrants wished to enter on the “proposing, explanation, and defence of them, as far as they were able or should think necessary,” according to the very terms of the letters by which they had been cited; but the synod in opposition to the plain and obvious meaning which those expressions conveyed, decided that it was a privilege belonging to themselves alone to judge how far the Remonstrants might be permitted to enter into the explanation and defence of their doctrines. This was accounted an act of great injustice by the Remonstrants, who also alleged, that “they did not feel many scruples about the doctrine of election, but that it was reprobation in which the chief difficulty lay.” They were very desirous, therefore, of having reprobation discussed in the first instance: but the Calvinists

FALLOW OR SABBATIC YEAR. Agricultural labour among the Jews ceased every seventh year. Nothing was sown and nothing reaped; the vines and the olives were not pruned; there was no vintage and no gathering of fruits, even of what grew wild; but whatever spontaneous productions there were, were left to the poor, the traveller, and the wild beast, Lev. xxv, 1–7; Deut. xv, 1–10. The object of this regulation seems to have been, among others, to let the ground recover its strength, and to teach the Hebrews to be provident of their income and to look out for the future. It is true, that extraordinary fruitfulness was promised on the sixth year, but in such a way as not to exclude care and foresight, Lev. xxv, 20–24. We are not to suppose, however, that the Hebrews spent the seventh year in absolute idleness: they could fish, hunt, take care of their bees and flocks, repair their buildings and furniture, manufacture cloths of wool, linen, and of the hair of goats and camels, and carry on commerce. Finally, they were obliged to remain longer in the tabernacle or temple this year, during which the whole Mosaic law was read, in order to be instructed in religious and moral duties, and the history of their nation, and the wonderful works and blessings of God, Deut. xxxi, 10–13. This seventh year’s rest, as Moses predicted, Lev. xxvi, 34, 35, was for a long time neglected, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 21; after the captivity it was more scrupulously observed. As a period of seven days was every week completed by the Sabbath, so was a period of seven years completed by the sabbatic year. It seems to have been the design of this institution, to afford a longer opportunity than would otherwise have been enjoyed for impressing on the memory the great truth, that God the Creator is alone to be worshipped. The commencement of this year was on the first day of the seventh month Tishri, or October. During the continuance of the feast of tabernacles this year, the law was to be publicly read for eight days together, either in the tabernacle or temple, Deut. xxxi, 10–13. Debts, on account of there being no income from the soil, were not collected, Deut. xv, 1, 2; they were not, however, cancelled, as was imagined by the Talmudists, for we find in Deut. xv, 9, that the Hebrews are admonished not to deny money to the poor on account of the approach of the sabbatical year, during which it could not be exacted; but nothing farther than this can be educed from that passage. Nor were servants manumitted on this year, but on the seventh year of their service, Exodus xxi, 2; Deut. xv, 12; Jer. xxxiv, 14.

YEAR OF JUBILEE followed seven sabbatic years; it was on the fiftieth year, Lev. xxv, 8–11. To this statement agree the Jews generally, their rabbins, and the Caraites; and say farther, that the argument of those who maintain that it was on the forty-ninth, for the reason that the omission to till the ground for two years in succession, namely, the forty-ninth and fiftieth, would produce a famine, is not to be attended to. It is not to be attended to, simply because these years of rest being known long beforehand, the people would of course lay up provision for them. It may be remarked farther in reference to this point, that certain trees produced their fruits spontaneously, particularly the fig and sycamore, which yield half the year round, and that those fruits could be preserved for some months; which explains at once how a considerable number of the people might have obtained no inconsiderable portion of their support. The return of the year of jubilee was announced on the tenth day of the seventh month, or Tishri, October, being the day of propitiation or atonement, by the sound of trumpet, Lev. xxv, 8–13; xxvii, 24; Num. xxxvi, 4; Isa. lxi, 1, 2. Beside the regulations which obtained on the sabbatic year, there were others which concerned the year of jubilee exclusively: 1. All the servants of Hebrew origin on the year of jubilee obtained their freedom, Lev. xxv, 39–46; Jer. xxxiv, 7, &c. 2. All the fields throughout the country, and the houses in the cities and villages of the Levites and priests which had been sold on the preceding years, were returned on the year of jubilee to the sellers, with the exception of those which had been consecrated to God, and had not been redeemed before the return of the said year, Lev. xxv, 10, 13–17, 24–28; xxvii, 16–21. 3. Debtors, for the most part, pledged or mortgaged their lands to the creditor, and left it to his use till the time of payment, so that it was in effect sold to the creditor, and was, accordingly, restored to the debtor on the year of jubilee. In other words, the debts for which land was pledged were cancelled; the same as those of persons who had recovered their freedom after having been sold into slavery, on account of not being able to pay. Hence it usually happened in the later periods of Jewish history, as we learn from Josephus, that, at the return of jubilee, there was a general cancelling of debts.

Fig. 1 shows the plan of the existing theatre at Myra, in the south-east of Lycia, which, though late in date, is built after the old Greek model. The seats for the audience are arranged in concentric tiers, rising like steps one above the other (see fig. 2); these mainly rest on a cavity excavated in the hill-side, and the whole space occupied by the spectators was called the κoιλov (Lat.cαmz). About half-way up the slope is an encircling passage (διά- ζωμa, praecinctio). Flights of steps divide the seats into wedge-shaped blocks (κepκιδ∈ς, cunei). At the highest level behind the top row of seats ran a colonnade, forming a covered passage with a gallery at the top. Rows of niches were formed in the back wall of this, and also sometimes in the low wall encircling the διάζωμα ; in these niches a series of large bronze jars (⅞χ∈ια) were set: they were intended to catch and repeat the reverberation of the voices from the stage. Vitruvius (iii. 5) gives elaborate directions for the construction of these vases, which were to be tuned in a chromatic scale he mentions their use by the Greeks, but says he knows of no Roman theatre ’ which possessed these vases, the real utility of which is very problematical. The segmental floor space in a Greek theatre was called the ορχήστρα (orchestra), and was occupied by the chorus; in the centre of this was the θvpLλη, a platform slightly raised on steps, in the middle of which was an altar to Dionysus. The stage (πpοσκψιοv, proscenium) was a narrow platform, raised 3 to 5 feet above the orchestra, w ith which it communicated by stairs, so that the chorus could move from one place to the other; the centräl part of the stage, where the principal actors usually stood, was the λoγειov (pulpitum). The stage was also connected with a chamber under it (νποσκτ/ιαον) by a flight of stairs called χαpωvun κλίμακες, by which ghosts ascended. At the back of the stage was a lofty wall, which usually reached to the level of the colonnade behind the highest row of seats; this was the σκηvη (scena), in which were three doors leading into the stage from the actors’ dressing-rooms behind it. This wall was usually decorated with three orders of columns and entablatures, forming an architectural façade, which represented a palace or temple, before which the action of the play was supposed to take place. Other movable wooden scenery was in some cases added in front of the permanent scena; or curtains with woven or embroidered figures were hung against it to form a background to the actors (παρα-τri,τaσμa or αυλαιαι, aulaea or siparium). More elaborate painted scenes were also used, but, according to Aristotle (Poet., iv. 16), not before the time of Sophocles. Various kinds of machinery were used, such as the μηχαvη, to suspend in the air an actor who was playing the part of a god descending from heaven; and the βροvτειοv, an apparatus to imitate thunder by stones rolled in metal jars, probably in the ghost-chamber under the stage. Women were not excluded from the Greek tragic drama, but appear to have sat by themselves in the upper rows of seats (Athenaeus, xii. 534). At least in late times the chief priestesses of Athens occupied marble thrones in the προεδρία or front row.

The remains of the Dionysiae theatre at Athens, the prototype of all later theatres, were excavated in 1862, when the proscenium, orchestra, and lower rows of seats were found in a fair state of preservation. It must have held 30,000 people: the cavea reaches from the foot of the Acropolis hill to close under the upper circuit wall. The rock-cut cavern, which was faced with the choragic monument to Thrasyllus (320^ b.c.), seems to have opened behind the highest row of seats; the face of the rock is here scarped to a curve concentric with the lines of seats. The most interesting discovery was that of a row of 67 marble thrones in the front row, each inscribed with the name of one of the chief Athenian priests or with that of a secular official. The cavea was divided into 13 cunei; a low wall separated the auditorium from the orchestra. The front or “riser” of the stage is decorated with fine reliefs of deities on large marble slabs. These existing features are mostly restorations of the time of Hadrian, but the reliefs themselves are of much earlier date. The floor of the orchestra is very late, formed of roughly laid slabs of stone, with a large central lozenge in marble, which may mark the limits of the thymele, and is apparently part of an earlier pavement.

The position of the Dionysiac theatre, with many of the chief temples of Athens in sight, and with its glorious view of Mount Hymettus, the blue waters of the Aegean Sea, and the islands of Salamis and Aegina, should not be forgotten in reading the dramas of the great tragedians, with their impassioned appeals to the glories of nature and their allusions to the protective presence of the divine patrons of Attica.

Outside Athens the largest Greek theatres were those at Megalopolis (Paus., viii. 32), Cnidus, Syracuse, Argos, and Epidaurus. By the end of the 4th century b.c. every important Hellenic city possessed its theatre, and new ones were built or old ones restored throughout the whole period of Roman domination. The most perfect existing example is that at Aspendus in Pamphylia, a building of the 2d century of our era, in which the early Greek model has been closely followed. Aspendus is the only place where the whole scena with its three orders of columns is still standing, and every row of seats exists in almost perfect condition. In this theatre the whole interior appears to have been covered by an awning, supported along the top of the scena by wooden poles set in rows of perforated corbels like those on the Colosseum in Rome. The earlier Greek theatres were probably unsheltered from the sun. Next to Aspendus, the theatre of Tauromenium, in Sicily (see Taormina), is the best preserved, at least as far as regards the scena and the upper gallery round the cavea. That at Myra, in Lycia (fig. 1), is also in good preservation.

The Roman Theatre.· —In the main the theatres of the Romans were copied closely from those of the Greeks, but in the Greek theatre the orchestra occupied more than a semicircle, while the Romans made it exactly half a circle. The accompanying diagrams (see fig. 3) show the principle on which the plan of each was set out. The Romans also introduced another important change, in many cases constructing theatres on a level site, not scooped out of a hillside as in the case of Hellenic theatres. This necessitated an elaborate arrangement of substructures, with raking vaults to carry the seats of the cavea, and also an additional visible facade with tiers of arches following the semicircle of the auditorium. The design universally adopted for this appears to have been tiers, usually three in number, of open arches, with intermediate engaged columns, each tier being of a different order, as is still to be seen in the remains of the theatre of Marcellus in Rome. The development of the use of the stone arch, and still more the use of concrete for forming vaults, enabled the Romans to erect their theatres on any site. Those in Rome were placed in the level plain of the Campus Martius.

During the Republican period the erection of permanent theatres with seats for the spectators was thought to savour of Greek luxury and to be unworthy of the stern simplicity of the Roman citizens. Thus in 154 b.c. Scipio Nasica induced the senate to demolish the first stone theatre which had been begun by C. Cassius Longinus (“tanquam inutile et nociturum publicis moribus,” Liv., Epit., 48). Even in 55 b.c., when Pompey began the theatre of which remains still exist in Rome, he thought it wise to place a shrine to Venus Victrix at the top of the cavea, as a sort of excuse for having stone seats below it— the seats theoretically serving as steps to reach the temple. This theatre, which was completed in 52 b.c., is spoken of by Vitruvius as “the stone theatre” par excellence·, it is said in the Regionary catalogues to have held 40,000 people. It was also used as an amphitheatre for the bloody shows in which the Romans took greater pleasure than in the purer intellectual enjoyment of the drama. At its inauguration 500 lions and 20 elephants were killed by gladiators. Near it two other theatres were erected, one begun by Julius Caesar and finished by Augustus in 13 b.c., under the name of his nephew Marcellus, and another built about the same date by Cornelius Balbus (Suet., Aug., 29; Pliny, H. N., xxxvi. 16). Scanty remains exist of this last theatre, but the ruins of the theatre of Marcellus are among the most imposing of the buildings of ancient Rome.

A long account is given by Pliny (7/. N., xxxvi. 2 and 24) of a most magnificent temporary theatre built by the aedile M. Aemilius Scaurus in 58 b.c. It is said to have held the incredible number of 80,000 people, and was a work of the most costly splendour. Still less credible is the account which Pliny gives fH. N., xxxvi. 24) of two wooden theatres built by C. Curio in 50 b.c., which were made to revolve on pivots, so that the two together could form an amphitheatre in the afternoon, after having been used as two separate theatres in the morning.

In some cases the Romans built two theatres close together, one for the Greek and the other for the Latin drama, as is the case at Hadrian’s magnificent villa near Tivoli. The two theatres at Pompeii are still well preserved, and all Roman provincial towns of any importance seem to have possessed at least one theatre, designed with the semicircular orchestra after the Roman fashion (see fig. 3). The theatres built under the Roman rule in Hellenic cities seem, on the other hand, to have been usually constructed on the old Greek model, probably because they were designed by Greek architects. This is the case at Tauromenium, Aspendus, and Myra see (fig. 1). An important exception to this rule is the still well-preserved theatre of Herodes Atticus, at the south-west angle of the Athenian Acropolis, which has a semicircular orchestra. It was built in the reign of Hadrian by Herodes Atticus, a very wealthy Greek, who spent enormous sums in beautifying the city of Athens; he called it the Regillum, after his wife Regilla. Its cavea, which is excavated in the rock, held about 6000 people; it was connected with the great Dionysiae theatre by a long and lofty porticus or stoa, of which considerable remains still exist, probably a late restoration of the stoa built by Eumenes II. of Pergamum. In the Roman theatre the “orchestra” was occupied, not by the chorus, but by senators and other persons of rank (Vitr., iii. 6). The Romans used scenery and stage effects of more elaboration than was the custom in Greece. Vitruvius (iii. 7) mentions three sorts of movable scenery:—(1) for the tragic drama, façades with columns representing public buildings; (2) for comic plays, private houses with practicable windows and balconies; and (3) for the satyric drama, rustic scenes, with mountains, caverns, and trees.

The Modern Theatre.— During the Middle Ages miracle plays with sacred scenes were the favourite kind of drama; no special buildings were erected for these, as they were represented either in churches or in temporary booths. In the 16th century the revival of the secular drama, which, in the reign of Elizabeth, formed so important a part of the literature of England, was carried on in tents, wooden sheds, or courtyards of inns, mostly by strolling actors of a very low class. It was not till towards the close of the century that a permanent building was constructed and licensed for dramatic representations, under the management of Shakesneare and Burbage. In the 16th and 17th centuries a favourite kind of theatrical representation was in the form of “masques,” with processions of grotesquely attired actors and temporary scenic effects of great splendour and mechanical ingenuity. In the reigns of James I. and Charles I. Ben Jonson and the architect Inigo Jones worked together in the production of these “masques,” Jonson writing the words and Inigo Jones devising the scenic effects, the latter being very costly and complicated, with gorgeous buildings, landscapes, and clouds or mountains, which opened to display mimic deities, thrown into relief by coloured lights. These masques were a form of opera, in which Ben Jonson’s words were set to music. Ben Jonson received no more for his libretto than Inigo Jones did for his scenic devices, and was not unnaturally annoyed at the secondary place which he was made to occupy: he therefore revenged himself by writing severe satires on Inigo Jones and the system which placed the literary and mechanical parts of the opera on the same footing. In an autograph MS. which still exists this satirical line occurs—“Painting and carpentry are the soul of masque” (see Cunningham, Life of Inigo Jones, London, 1848).

In Italy, during the 16th century, the drama occupied a more important position, and several theatres w ere erected, professedly on the model of the classic theatre of Vitruvius. One of these, the Teatro 01impico at Vicenza, still exists; it was designed by Palladio, but was not completed till 1584, four years after his death. It has an architectural scena, with various orders of columns, rows of statues in niches, and the three doors of the classic theatre, but the whole is painted with strong perspective effects which are very unclassical in spirit. Scamozzi, Palladio’s pupil, who completed the Teatro Olimpico, built another pseudo-classical theatre in 1588 at Sabbionetta for the duke Vespasiano Gonzaga, but this does not now exist.

In France the miracle play developed into the secular drama rather earlier than in England. In the reign of Louis XL, about 1467, the “Brothers of the Passion” had a theatre which was partly religious and partly satirical. In the 16th century Catherine de’ Medici is said to have spent incredible sums on the dresses and scenery for the representation of the Italian ballet; and in the middle of the 17th century the regular opera was introduced at Paris.

At the end of the 18th century the theatres of San Carlo at Naples, La Scala at Milan, and La Fenice at Venice were the finest in Europe; all these have been rebuilt in the present century, but have been eclipsed by the theatres of Paris, St Petersburg, and other capitals, both in size and architectural splendour.

In the modern theatre the auditorium has changed comparatively little, except that the stalls have gradually encroached upon and almost absorbed the pit. The arrangement of the boxes, stalls, balcony, and gallery are too well known to need description. Few people, have, however, any notion of the immense size and extreme complication of the space and machinery behind the proscenium, of which the visible stage occupies but a very small proportion. The stage-floor slopes upwards away from the audience, so that it may appear deeper than it really is by diminishing the foreshortening. Its extent behind the most distant plane of scenery is usually quite as great as that which the audience sees. In addition to this extension of the visible stage there are three other enormous spaces filled with the machinery to work the scenery.

(1) Of these the first consists of the “wings” (Fr. coulisses'), a series of chambers or platforms on each side of the stage, arranged many stories high, and reaching to more than double the height of the proscenium.

(2) The “dock” or under-space (Fr. dessous), extending under the whole area of the stage floor, and about equal in height to the proscenium, is divided into three or four stories by successive floors, and contains long rows of immense windlasses (Fr. gril) for raising and lowering scenery, and also an elaborate arrangement of lifts by which actors can suddenly appear or vanish through the stage floor. A very ingenious device called the “star trap,” invented by an English mechanician (Fr. trappe Anglaise), allows an actor to vanish through the floor without any opening in it being visible. This is done by making the trap door of thin boards (something like a Venetian blind) fixed on to flexible bands of steel; the weight of the actor makes these open in the middle and let him through, while the steel springs close the opening as soon as they are released. The whole movement is so rapid that the actor seems to sink through the solid floor. In all mechanical appliances for theatrical purposes England is far ahead of other countries, many of which have adopted English methods.

(3) The third space, and the largest of all, is that above the proscenium—the “flies” (Fr. dessus or cintre), extending over the whole of the stage, and reaching sometimes to nearly double the height of the proscenium. This also is divided into many floors, and contains rows of great windlasses, by which scenery can be hoisted up out of sight, without folding or bending it. All these three parts of the building are filled with a complicated but most orderly series of ropes, lifts, and machinery of every sort, of which it is impossible here to give a detailed description.

The old method of fixing scenery was to slide it in two halves from the wings in grooves formed in the stage floor: these are no longer used, as much more realistic effects can be gained by supporting scenery from the top, or by building it up with supports of its own, so that, instead of a series of painted planes set parallel to the stage front, castles, cathedrals, or even whole streets are actually built upon the stage, and give striking effects of real perspective.

A rapidly growing tendency now exists to increase the mechanical perfection of the theatre. The extended use of iron instead of wood for the stage floor and the various machines has been a great gain in space and rapidity of working. It is now considered a great object to drop the curtain as seldom as possible, and even the Grand Opera House of Paris is now left far behind in the modern competition for mechanical perfection, though from an architectural point of view it is the most magnificent and costly of all existing buildings of its kind. See fig. 4.

The latest improvement to prevent delay between the scenes has been introduced in the Madison Square theatre in New York city, which has two stages, one above the other. During the performance of a scene the second stage floor is

“tireynge-howse.” The upper galleries or boxes completely surrounded the stage, even the space over the green-room being occupied by boxes. This being the arrangement, it is easy to see why the octagonal plan was selected in most cases, though not in all,—the Fortune theatre, for example, was square. An interesting specification and contract for the building of the Fortune theatre is printed by Halliwell-Phillipps {op. cU. infra, p. 164). In all its details the Fortune is specified to be like the Globe, except that it is to be square in plan, and with timbers of heavier scantling. The walls are to be of wood and plaster, the roof tiled, with lead gutters, the stage of oak, with a “shadow” or cover over it, and the “tireynge-howse” to have glazed windows. Two sorts of boxes are mentioned, viz., “gentlemen’s...