Chapter VIII: Act 1894: is important as the first practical attempt of any importance (4)

While gold as a metal was known in Europe, even before copper, it is a curious fact that silver was almost unknown, and hardly ever used. One of the most interesting sites for the metal, at about the same period of which we have just been speaking in Ireland, was the Mediterranean coast of Spain. Here in the neighbourhood of Almeria have been found remains of a large and apparently prosperous population ranging from the Stone Age to the end of the Bronze Age, with houses and tombs, besides the fortifications rendered necessary, in the later period, by their possession of the rare and precious metal, silver. Rare it certainly was, for the quantity found was exceedingly small, tiny slender rings for the fingers or the ears, and rivets to hold the axe-blade in its handle; but nothing to compare with the lavish richness of the American mines. The interesting race who occupied these dwellings and finally were laid to rest in the adjoining graves were evidently connected more or less closely with the peoples inhabiting the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean.

Recent discoveries in the central Mediterranean area not only furnish new and trustworthy (though none the less surprising) dates in ancient history, but may also bridge the distance between the Levant and the Pillars of Hercules. The results achieved by Arthur Evans and other distinguished explorers in Crete (q.v.) opened a new chapter in the history of European civilization, and may fitly be compared with the excavation of Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns by Schliemann some thirty years before. The progress of archaeology in the interval can be well tested by a comparison of the discussions to which the two series of discoveries gave rise. The mistaken attributions and unfortunate animosities in connexion with earlier excavations are almost forgotten, while the brilliant discoveries in the island of King Minos have not only themselves been made on scientific principles, but are illumined by the splendid revelation of the civilizations of the Mycenaean and the pre-Mycenaean era.

Classical.

A great change indeed took place in the methods of classical study during the last decade of the 19th century, a change which affected the entire character of future classical research. It was formerly the common habit among students and professors of archaeology to confine their attention and their interests entirely to classical texts and even to classical sites, rejecting as outside the scope of their studies anything that was not manifestly beautiful as art. Whatever was primitive in its aspect, or wanting in the familiar characteristics that had for centuries been associated with Greek art, was either rejected entirely or at any rate relegated to a second place, as having but a poor claim to be classed with objects of the finer periods. The result was necessarily misleading. The uninstructed majority very naturally regarded the art of Pheidian times as a thing of supernatural growth, which had been bestowed by divine favour upon a chosen spot on the earth, without a human parentage, and almost without leaving any descendants. The evolutionary methods of other branches of science, however, were by degrees brought to bear upon the sacred precincts of pure Greek art. It was found that the crude products of the second millennium B.C., the formless images evolved by the uncultured dwellers in the Mediterranean area more than a thousand years before the time of Pheidias, were in truth the prototypes of the creations of himself and his contemporaries. This step being taken, the rest became easy. The most commonplace and ordinary relics were collected with as much avidity as they had formerly been rejected, in the belief that their simple forms would aid in the elucidation of their more complex and highly elaborated descendants. This minute attention, moreover, was not only given to the works of man, but even the remains of humanity received the attention they merited. It has been rightly thought, during recent years, that the question of race was a factor that deserved treatment in dealing with works of art of early times; and that natural evolution due to man's tendency to change with time, might not be sufficient to account for the differences of type observed in human remains from the same country. For this reason, not only the objects associated with the burial have been preserved, but also the skeleton itself. This has been examined, measurements taken and recorded for comparison, and inferences made, sometimes of a surprising character. For example, if a cemetery be found with a preponderance of tall, long-headed skeletons in a district where the prevailing type of skeleton is short and brachycephalic (short-headed), the observer may reasonably expect a different kind of burial-furniture, and suspect an intruding race. In this particular respect, archaeology owes a signal debt to physical anthropology and to anthropological methods in general. The combination of the two is far more likely to lead to a reasonable and satisfactory conclusion than would be possible if the one branch of science had been pursued alone.

Value of ethnology.

When once the existence of abundant remains of prehistoric man had been admitted, and their study had received recognition as a branch of science, the evidence supplied by the relics themselves and by their relation to extinct or existing animals would have sufficed to give a considerable insight into the conditions of primitive life. But, fortunately, corroborative evidence of the most useful kind was at hand, and has been of the greatest service in solving what might otherwise have been insoluble problems. Though the progress of civilization, and more especially the ever increasing rapidity of communication are rapidly changing the habits of life among the primitive peoples in various parts of the world, yet till past the middle of the 19th century, a certain number of tribes, if not races, were still in the Stone Age. Even at the present day stone-using tribes still exist, although by chance metal may be known to them. The importance of the study of their conditions of life and their technical processes, and of the collecting of their implements for the express purpose of illustrating prehistoric man, was recognized by Henry Christy (1810-1865), who had made extensive investigations and collected relics in conjunction with Edouard Lartet in the now famous caverns of the Dordogne, at a time when such explorations were somewhat of a novelty; and concurrently he formed a large collection of the productions of existing savage peoples, both collections after his death passing to the British Museum, his intention being that the one should elucidate the ether. (It is only fair to his memory, however, to state here that, by his express wish, the most important of the relics that he had obtained from the Dordogne caves were returned to France where they now are. Such instances of international courtesy are rare enough to deserve mention.) The value and interest of such a series can scarcely be over-rated. Almost till the 20th century, the Indians of North America, the Australian and Tasmanian natives, as well as those of New Zealand and the many archipelagoes of the Pacific, were, if not ignorant of the use of metals, at least habitually using stone where civilized man would use metal. The Maori made his war club of jade and the pounders for preparing his food of stone. The Australian had his stone axe-blade; and low as he stands in the culture scale, his spear-heads are chipped with an exquisite precision. The Papuan of inland New Guinea is still making his weapons of stone and wood; while until quite recently the North American Indian was making his delicate stone arrow points, and the Solomon islander his beautiful polished stone axe-blades. The knowledge gained by the study of a large series of such objects enables us to fill up very many gaps in the story of early man as told by his own remains. In fact, in this respect, the value of the comparison is much greater than could reasonably be expected; for, whatever may be the reason, nothing is more marked than the extraordinary similarity of stone implements at all times and over the whole world. An arrow-point made by a Patagonian Indian, one from a Japanese shell mound, and a third of the Stone Age from Ireland, are found to be practically identical. Whether it is that the same material and the same necessity naturally produce a like result, or whether there has existed throughout a continuity of type, is a question that will never be satisfactorily answered. The results, however, are of eminently practical value. The arrow-heads of neolithic man, which are found by hundreds all over Europe, may be seen fixed in their shafts in the hands of an American Indian; rude pieces of quartz, which unmounted would escape notice as implements, are seen to make excellent tools when mounted in a handle by the Australian black, while flakes of slate find a use when mounted as skinning knives by the Eskimo.

Organized study.

Now that the narrower conception of archaeology as a minor branch of classical studies has been given up, the new science has gradually won its way to universal recognition; and anthropology, a still wider subject but in many points closely allied to the scientific study of ancient remains, has still more recently found favour at all the leading universities, and practical measures have been taken to establish the study on a firm and scientific basis. Apart from this official encouragement, much has been done towards the systematization and teaching of archaeology by practical excavators, whose pupils have attained considerable numbers and celebrity. Something has been done, too, in the national and provincial museums, to present the relics of past ages in an intelligible manner, so that the collections no longer consist of curiosities but of documents rich in instruction and interest even to the general visitor. The progress of photography, as well as the improvement and cheapening of methods of illustration, have also assisted enormously in the advance of archaeology; and similarly, the antiquities exhibited in museums and private collections to illustrate and amplify written records, have in the last generation received much attention on their own account, and have reacted in various ways on the teaching of ancient history. In some countries a further step in general education has been taken, and the lamentable waste of archaeological material arrested to some extent by the distribution of pictures and diagrams among schools and institutions, to call attention to the more ordinary local types, and to encourage those who are likely to discover them in the soil to save them from destruction and render them available for scientific study. A certain familiarity on the part of the young with the mere appearance of antiquities that come to light continually and are almost as often discarded or destroyed, would probably result in valuable additions being made to the available data.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The most useful general works are the
following:--Salomon Reinach, _Epoque des alluvions et des cavernes_
(Musee de St Germain); Hoernes, _Der diluviale Mensch in Europa;_ Sir
John Evans, _Stone Implements of Great Britain_, and _Bronze
Implements of Great Britain;_ Boyd Dawkins, _Cave-hunting_, and _Early
Man in Britain;_ Greenwell, _British Barrows;_ W.G. Smith, _Man the
Primeval Savage;_ James Geikie, _Prehistoric Europe;_ Mortillet, _Le
Prehistorique;_ Robert Munro, _Lake Dwellings of Europe;_ Ridgeway,
_Early Age of Greece;_ Jos. Anderson, _Scotland in Pagan Times;_ the
works of Oscar Montelius and Sophus Muller; _L'Anthropologie,
Materiaux pour l'histoire primitive de l'homme;_ Christy and Lartet,
_Reliquiae Aquitanicae;_ A. Michaelis, _A Century of Archaeological
Discovery_ (Eng. trans., 1908). See also ANTHROPOLOGY, and authorities
mentioned there; STONE AGE; BRONZE AGE; IRON AGE, &c.; GEOLOGY; and
the articles on different countries and sites. (C. H. Rd.)

ARCHAEOPTERYX. The name of _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ was based by Hermann von Meyer upon a feather (Gr. [Greek: pteryx], wing) found in 1861 in the lithographic slate quarries of Solenhofen in Bavaria, the geological horizon being that of the Kimmeridge clay of the Upper Oolite or Jurassic system. In the same year and at the same place was discovered the specimen (figs. 1 and 3) now in the British Museum, named by Andreas Wagner _Griphosaurus._ Sir R. Owen has described it as _A. macroura._ Stimulated by the high price paid by the British Museum, the quarry owners diligently searched, and in 1872 another, much finer, preserved specimen was found. This was bought by K.W. v. Siemens, who presented it to the Berlin Museum. The late W. Dames has written an excellent monograph on it.

_Archaeopteryx_ was a bird, without any doubt, but still with so many low, essentially reptilian characters that it forms a link between these two classes. About the size of a rook, its most obvious peculiarity is the long reptilian tail, composed of 20 vertebrae and not ending in a pygostyle. The last dozen vertebrae each carry a pair of well-developed typical quills. Upon these features of the tail E. Haeckel established the subclass Saururae, containing solely Archaeopteryx, in opposition to the Ornithurae, comprising all the other birds. Herein he has been followed by many zoologists. However, the fact that various recent birds possess the same kind of caudal skeleton, likewise without a pygostyle, although reduced to at least 13 vertebrae, shows that the two terms do not express a fundamental difference.

The importance of _Archaeopteryx_ justifies the following descriptive detail. Vertebral column composed of about 50 vertebrae, viz. 10-11 cervical, 12-11 thoracic, 2 lumbar, 5-6 sacral, and 20 or 21 caudal, with a total caudal length of the Berlin specimen of 7 in. The cervical and thoracic vertebrae seem to be biconcave; the cervical ribs are much reduced and were apparently still movable; the thoracic ribs are devoid of uncinate processes. Paired abdominal ribs are doubtful. Scarcely anything is known of the sternum, and little of the shoulder-girdle, except the very stout furcula; scapula typically bird-like. Humerus about 2-1/2 in. long, with a strong crista lateralis, which indicates a strongly developed great pectoral muscle and hence, by inference, the presence of a keel to the sternum. Radius and ulna typically avine, 2.1 in. in length. Carpus with two separate bones. The hand skeleton consists of 3 completely separate metacarpals, each carrying a complete, likewise free, finger; the shortened thumb with 2, the index with 3, the third with 4 phalanges; each finger with a curved claw. The whole wing is consequently, although essentially avine, still reptilian in the unfused state of the metacarpals and the numbers of the phalanges. The pelvis is imperfectly known. The preacetabular portion of the ilium is shorter than the posterior half. The hind-limb is typically avine, with intertarsal joint, distally reduced fibula, and the three elongated metatarsals which show already considerable anchylosis; reduction of the toes to four, with 2, 3, 4 and 5 phalanges; the hallux is separate, and as usual in recent birds posterior in position. Skull bird-like, except that the short bill cannot have been enclosed in a horny rhamphotheca, since the upper jaw shows a row of 13, the lower jaw 3 conical teeth, all implanted in distinct sockets.

The remiges and rectrices indicate perfect feathers, with shaft and complete vanes which were so neatly finished that they must have possessed typical radii and hooklets. Some of the quills measure fully 5 in. in length. Six or seven remiges were attached to the hand, ten to the ulna.

It is idle to speculate on the habits of this earliest of known birds. That it could fly is certain, and the feet show it to have been well adapted to arboreal life. The clawed slender fingers did not make _Archaeopteryx_ any more quadrupedal or bat-like in its habits than is a kestrel hawk, with its equally large, or even larger thumb-claw.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--H. v. Meyer, _Neues Jahrb.f. Mineralog._ (1861), p.
679; Sir R. Owen, "On the Archaeopteryx von Meyer..." _Phil. Trans._,
1863, pp. 33-47, pls. i.-iv.; T.H. Huxley, "Remarks on the Skeleton of
the Archaeopteryx and on the relations of the bird to the reptile,"
_Geol. Mag. i._, 1864, pp. 55-57; C. Vogt, "L'Archaeopteryx macrura,"
_Revue scient. de la France et de l'etranger_, 1879, pp. 241-248; W.
Dames, "Uber Archaeopteryx," _Palaeontol. Abhandl._ ii. (Berlin,
1884); _Idem_, "Uber Brustbein Schulter- und Beckengurtel der
Archaeopteryx," _Math. naturw. Mitth._ Berlin. vii. (1897), pp.
476-492. (H. F. G.)

ARCHAISM (adj. "archaic"; from Gr. [Greek: harchaios], old), an old-fashioned usage, or the deliberate employment of an out-of-date and ancient mode of expression.

ARCHANGEL (ARCHANGELSK), a government of European Russia, bounded N. by the White Sea and Arctic Ocean, W. by Finland and Olonets, S. by Vologda, and E. by the Ural mountains. It comprehends the islands of Novaya-Zemlya, Vaygach and Kolguev, and the peninsula of Kola. Its area is 331,505 sq. m., and its population in 1867 was 275,779 and in 1897, 349,943. The part which lies within the Arctic Circle is very desolate and sterile, consisting chiefly of sand and reindeer moss. The winter is long and severe, and even in summer the soil is frozen. The rivers (Tuloma, Onega, Dvina, Mezen and Pechora) are closed in September and scarcely thaw before July. The Kola peninsula is, however, diversified by hills exceeding 3000 ft. in altitude and by large lakes (e.g. Imandra), and its coast enjoys a much more genial climate. South of the Arctic Circle the greater part of the country is covered with forests, intermingled with lakes and morasses, though in places there is excellent pasturage. Here the spring is moist, with cold, frosty nights; the summer a succession of long foggy days; the autumn again moist. The rivers are closed from October to April. The inhabitants of the northern districts--nomad tribes of Samoyedes, Zyryans, Lapps, and the Finnish tribes of Karelians and Chudes--support themselves by fishing and hunting. In the southern districts hemp and flax are raised, but grain crops are little cultivated, so that the bark of trees has often to be ground up to eke out the scanty supply of flour. Potatoes are grown as far north as 65 deg. Shipbuilding is carried on, and the forests yield timber, pitch and tar. Excellent cattle are raised in the district of Kholmogory on the Dvina, veal being supplied to St Petersburg. Gold is found in the districts of Kola, naphtha and salt in those of Kem and Pinega, and lignite in Mezen. Sulphurous springs exist in the districts of Kholmogory and Shenkursk. The industry and commerce are noticed below in the article on the town Archangel, which is the capital. The government is divided into nine districts, the chief towns of which are--Alexandrovsk or Kola (pop. 300), Archangel (q.v.), Kem (1825), Kholmogory (1465), Mezen (2040), Novaya-Zemlya (island), Pechora, Pinega (1000) and Shenkursk (1308).

See A.P. Engelhardt, _A Russian Province of the North_ (Eng. trans.,
by H. Cooke, 1899).

ARCHANGEL (ARCHANGELSK), chief town of the government of Archangel, Russia, at the head of the delta of the Dvina, on the right bank of the river, in lat. 64 deg. 32' N. and long. 40 deg. 33' E. Pop. (1867) 19,936; (1897) 20,933. As early as the 10th century, if not earlier, the Norsemen frequented this part of the world (Bjarmeland) on trading expeditions; the best-known is that made by Ottar or Othere between 880 and 900 and described (or translated) by Alfred the Great, king of England. The modern town dates, however, from the visit of the English voyager, Richard Chancellor, in 1553. An English factory was erected on the lower Dvina soon after that date, and in 1584 a fort was built, around which the town grew up. Archangel was for long the only seaport of Russia (or Muscovy). The tsar Boris Godunov (1598-1605) threw the trade open to all nations; and the chief participants in it were England, Holland and Germany. In 1668-1684 the great bazaar and trading hall was built, principally by Tatar prisoners. In 1691-1700 the exports to England averaged L112,210 annually. After Peter the Great made St Petersburg the capital of his dominions (1702), he placed Archangel under vexatious commercial disabilities, and consequently its trade declined. In 1762 it was granted the same privileges as St Petersburg, and since then it has gradually recovered its former prosperity. It is the seat of a bishop, and has a cathedral (1709-1743), a museum, the monastery of the Archangel Michael (whence the city gets its name), an ecclesiastical seminary, a school of navigation and a naval hospital. Linen, leather, canvas, cordage, mats, tallow, potash and beer are manufactured. There is a lively trade with St Petersburg, and the sea-borne exports, which consist chiefly of timber, flax, linseed, oats, flour, pitch, tar, skins and mats, amount in value to about 1-1/2 millions sterling annually (82-1/2 % for timber), but the imports (mostly fish) are worth only about L200,000. A fish fair is held every year on the 1st (15th) of September. Archangel communicates with the interior of Russia by river and canal, and has a railway line (522 m.) to Yaroslavl. The harbour, deepened to 18-1/4 ft., is about a mile below the city, and is accessible from May to October. About 12 m. lower down there are a government dockyard and merchants' warehouses. A new military harbour, Alexandrovsk or Port Catherine, has been made on Catherine (Ekaterininsk) Bay, on the Murman coast of the Kola peninsula. The shortest day at Archangel has only 3 hrs. 12 min., the longest 21 hrs. 48 min. of daylight.

ARCHBALD, a borough of Lackawanna county, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in the N.E. part of the state, 10 m. N.E. of Scranton. Pop. (1890) 4032; (1900) 5396; (1869 foreign-born); (1910) 7194. It is served by the Delaware & Hudson, and the New York, Ontario & Western railways, and by an interurban electric line. It is about 900 ft. above sea-level; in the vicinity are extensive deposits of anthracite coal, the mining and breaking of which is the principal industry; silk throwing and weaving is another industry of the borough. At Archbald is a large glacial "pot hole," about 20 ft. in diameter and 40 ft. in depth. Archbald, named in honour of James Archbald, formerly chief engineer of the Delaware & Hudson railway, was a part of Blakely township (incorporated in 1818) until 1877, when it became a borough.

ARCHBISHOP (Lat. _archiepiscopus_, from Gr. [Greek: harchiepiskopos]), in the Christian Church, the title of a bishop of superior rank, implying usually jurisdiction over other bishops, but no superiority of order over them. The functions of the archbishop, as at present exercised, developed out of those of the metropolitan (q.v.); though the title of archbishop, when it first appeared, implied no metropolitan jurisdiction. Nor are the terms interchangeable now; for not all metropolitans are archbishops,[1] nor all archbishops metropolitans. The title seems to have been introduced first in the East, in the 4th century, as an honorary distinction implying no superiority of jurisdiction. Its first recorded use is by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, who applied it to his predecessor Alexander as a mark of respect. In the same way Gregory of Nazianzus bestowed it upon Athanasius himself. In the next century its use would seem to have been more common as the title of bishops of important sees; for several archbishops are stated to have been present at the council of Chalcedon in 451. In the Western Church the title was hardly known before the 7th century, and did not become common until the Carolingian emperors revived the right of the metropolitans to summon provincial synods. The metropolitans now commonly assumed the title of archbishop to mark their pre-eminence over the other bishops; at the same time the obligation imposed upon them, mainly at the instance of St Boniface, to receive the _pallium_ (q.v.) from Rome, definitely marked the defeat of their claim to exercise metropolitan jurisdiction independently of the pope.

At the present day, the title of archbishop is retained in the Roman Catholic Church, the various oriental churches, the Anglican Church, and certain branches of the Lutheran (Evangelical) Church.

Roman Catholic Church.

In the Roman Catholic Church the powers of the archbishop are considerably less extensive than they were in the middle ages. According to the medieval canon law, based on the decretals, and codified in the 13th century in the _Corpus juris canonici_, by which the earlier powers of metropolitans had been greatly curtailed, the powers of the archbishop consisted in the right (1) to confirm and consecrate suffragan bishops; (2) to summon and preside over provincial synods; (3) to superintend the suffragans and visit their dioceses, as well as to censure and punish bishops in the interests of discipline, the right of deprivation, however, being reserved to the pope; (4) to act as a court of appeal from the diocesan courts; (5) to exercise the _jus devolutionis_, i.e. present to benefices in the gift of bishops, if these neglect their duty in this respect. These rights were greatly curtailed by the council of Trent. The confirmation and consecration of bishops (q.v.) is now reserved to the Holy See. The summoning of provincial synods, which was made obligatory every three years by the council, was long neglected, but is now more common wherever the political conditions, e.g. in the United States, Great Britain and France, are favourable. The disciplinary powers of the archbishop, on the other hand, can scarcely be said to survive. The right to hold a visitation of a suffragan's diocese or to issue censures against him was, by Sess. xxiv. c. 3 _de ref._, of the council of Trent, made dependent upon the consent of the provincial synod after cause shown (_causa cognita et probata_); and the only two powers left to the archbishop in this respect are to watch over the diocesan seminaries and to compel the residence of the bishop in his diocese. The right of the archbishop to exercise a certain disciplinary power over the regular orders is possessed by him, not as archbishop, but as the delegate _ad hoc_ of the pope. Finally, the function of the archbishop as judge in a court of appeal, though it still subsists, is of little practical importance now that the clergy, in civil matters, are universally subject to the secular courts.

Besides archbishops who are metropolitans there are in the Roman Catholic Church others who have no metropolitan jurisdiction. Such are the titular archbishops _in partibus_, and certain archbishops of Italian sees who have no bishops under them. Archbishops rank immediately after patriarchs and have the same precedence as primates. The right to wear the _pallium_ is confined to those archbishops who are not merely titular. It must be applied for, either in person or by proxy, at Rome by the archbishop within three months of his consecration or enthronement, and, before receiving it, he must take the oaths of fidelity and obedience to the Holy See. Until the _pallium_ is granted, the archbishop is known only as archbishop-elect, and is not empowered to exercise his _potestas ordinis_ in the archdiocese nor to summon the provincial synod and exercise the jurisdiction dependent upon this. He may, however, exercise his purely _episcopal_ functions. The special ensign of his office is the cross, _crux erecta_ or _gestatoria_, carried before him on solemn occasions (see CROSS).

Eastern Church.

In the Orthodox and other churches of the East the title of archbishop is of far more common occurrence than in the West, and is less consistently associated with metropolitan functions. Thus in Greece there are eleven archbishops to thirteen bishops, the archbishop of Athens alone being metropolitan; in Cyprus, where there are four bishops and only one archbishop, all five are of metropolitan rank.

Lutheran church.

In the Protestant churches of continental Europe the title of archbishop has fallen into almost complete disuse. It is, however, still borne by the Lutheran bishop of Upsala, who is metropolitan of Sweden, and by the Lutheran bishop of Abo in Finland. In Prussia the title has occasionally been bestowed by the king on general superintendents of the Lutheran church, as in 1829, when Frederick William III. gave it to his friend and spiritual adviser, the celebrated preacher, Ludwig Ernst Borowski (1740-1831), general superintendent of Prussia (1812) and bishop (1816).

Church of England.

In the Church of England and its sister and daughter churches the position of the archbishop is defined by the medieval canon law as confirmed or modified by statute since the Reformation. It is, therefore, as regards both the _potestas ordinis_ and jurisdiction, substantially the same as in the Roman Catholic Church, save as modified on the one hand by the substitution of the supremacy of the crown for that of the Holy See, and on the other by the restrictions imposed by the council of Trent.

The ecclesiastical government of the Church of England is divided between two archbishops--the archbishop of Canterbury, who is "primate of all England" and metropolitan of the province of Canterbury, and the archbishop of York, who is "primate of England" and metropolitan of the province of York. The jurisdiction of the archbishop of Canterbury as primate of all England extends in certain matters into the province of York. He exercised the jurisdiction of _legatus natus_ of the pope throughout all England before the Reformation, and since that event he has been empowered, by 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21, to exercise certain powers of dispensation in cases formerly sued for in the court of Rome. Under this statute the archbishop continues to grant special licences to marry, which are valid in both provinces; he appoints notaries public, who may practise in both provinces; and he grants dispensations to clerks to hold more than one benefice, subject to certain restrictions which have been imposed by later statutes. The archbishop also continues to grant degrees in the faculties of theology, music and law, which are known as Lambeth degrees. His power to grant degrees in medicine, qualifying the recipients to practise, was practically restrained by the Medical Act 1858.

The archbishop of Canterbury exercises the twofold jurisdiction of a metropolitan and a diocesan bishop. As metropolitan he is the guardian of the spiritualities of every vacant see within the province, he presents to all benefices which fall vacant during the vacancy of the see, and through his special commissary exercises the ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop within the vacant diocese. He exercises also an appellate jurisdiction over each bishop, which, in cases of licensed curates, he exercises personally under the Pluralities Act 1838; but his ordinary appellate jurisdiction is exercised by the judge of the Arches court (see ARCHES, COURT OF). The archbishop had formerly exclusive jurisdiction in all causes of wills and intestacies, where parties died having personal property in more than one diocese of the province of Canterbury, and he had concurrent jurisdiction in other cases. This jurisdiction, which he exercised through the judge of the Prerogative court, was transferred to the crown by the Court of Probate Act 1857. The Arches court was also the court of appeal from the consistory courts of the bishops of the province in all testamentary and matrimonial causes. The matrimonial jurisdiction was transferred to the crown by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. The court of Audience, in which the archbishop presided personally, attended by his vicar-general, and sometimes by episcopal assessors, has fallen into desuetude. The vicar-general, however, exercises jurisdiction in matters of ordinary marriage licences and of institutions to benefices. The master of the faculties regulates the appointment of notaries public, and all dispensations which fall under 25 Hen. VIII. c. 21.

A right very rarely exercised by the archbishop of Canterbury, but one of great importance, is that of the visitation and deprivation of inferior bishops. Since there is no example of the archbishop of York exercising or being reputed to have such disciplinary jurisdiction over his suffragans,[2] and this right could, according to the canon law cited above, in the middle ages only be exercised normally in concert with the provincial synod, it would seem to be a survival of the special jurisdiction enjoyed by the pre-Reformation archbishop as _legatus natus_ of the pope. It was somewhat freely exercised by Cranmer and his successors immediately after the Reformation; but the main precedent now relied upon is that of Dr Watson, bishop of St Davids, who was deprived in 1695 by Archbishop Tennison for simony and other offences, the legality of the sentence being finally confirmed by the House of Lords on the 25th of January 1705. It was proved in the course of the long argument in this case that the archbishop of Canterbury had undoubtedly exercised such independent power of visitation both before and after the Reformation; and it was on this precedent that in 1888 the judicial committee of the privy council mainly relied in deciding that the archbishop had the right to cite before him the bishop of Lincoln (Dr Edward King), who was accused of certain irregular ritual practices. The trial began on the 12th of February 1889 before the archbishop and certain assessors, the protest of Dr King, based on the claim that he could only be tried in a provincial synod, being overruled by Archbishop Benson on the grounds above stated. The main importance of the "Lincoln Judgment," delivered on the 21st of November 1890, is that it set a new precedent for the effective jurisdiction of the archbishop, based on the ancient canon law, and so did something towards the establishment of a purely "spiritual" court, the absence of which had been one of the main grievances of a large body of the clergy.

It is the privilege of the archbishop of Canterbury to crown the kings and queens of England. He is entitled to consecrate all the bishops within his province and was formerly entitled, upon consecrating a bishop, to select a benefice within his diocese at his option for one of his chaplains, but this practice was indirectly abolished by 3 and 4 Vict. c. III, S 42. He is entitled to nominate eight chaplains, who had formerly certain statutory privileges, which are now abolished. He is _ex officio_ an ecclesiastical commissioner for England, and has by statute the right of nominating one of the salaried ecclesiastical commissioners.

The archbishop exercises the ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop over his diocese through his consistory court at Canterbury, the judge of which court is styled the commissary-general of the city and diocese of Canterbury. The archbishop holds a visitation of his diocese personally every three years, and he is the only diocesan who has kept up the triennial visitation of the dean and chapter of his cathedral.[3] The archbishop of Canterbury takes precedence immediately after princes of the blood royal and over every peer of parliament, including the lord chancellor.

The archbishop of York has immediate spiritual jurisdiction as metropolitan in the case of all vacant sees within the province of York, analogous to that which is exercised by the archbishop of Canterbury within the province of Canterbury. He has also an appellate jurisdiction of an analogous character, which he exercises through his provincial court, whilst his diocesan jurisdiction is exercised through his consistorial court, the judges of both courts being nominated by the archbishop. His ancient testamentary and matrimonial jurisdiction was transferred to the crown by the same statutes which divested the see of Canterbury of its jurisdiction in similar matters. It is the privilege of the archbishop of York to crown the queen consort and to be her perpetual chaplain. The archbishop of York takes precedence over all subjects of the crown not of royal blood, but after the lord high chancellor of England. He is ex officio an ecclesiastical commissioner for England (see further ENGLAND, CHURCH OF).

The Church of Ireland had at the time of the Act of Union four archbishops, who took their titles from Armagh, Dublin, Cashel and Tuam. By acts of 1833 and 1834, the metropolitans of Cashel and of Tuam were reduced to the status of diocesan bishops. The two archbishoprics of Armagh and Dublin are maintained in the disestablished Church of Ireland.

The title archbishop has been used in certain of the colonial churches, e.g. Australia, South Africa, Canada, and the West Indies, since 1893, when it was assumed by the metropolitans of Canada and Rupert's Land (see ANGLICAN COMMUNION). Archbishops have the title of His (or Your) Grace and Most Reverend Father in God.

See Hinschius, _System des katholischen Kirchenrechts_ (Berlin, 1869),
also article "Erzbischof," in Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (1898);
Phillimore, _The Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England_, and
authorities there cited. (W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In the Roman Church it is safe to say that all metropolitans are
archbishops. In, e.g., the Scottish and American episcopal churches,
however, the metropolitan is the senior bishop _pro tem._

[2] Unless the case of the claim of Mark, bishop of Carlisle, to be
tried by his ordinary instead of by a temporal court, be a precedent
(Phillimore, _Eccles. Law_, p. 74, ed. 1895).

[3] The court of Peculiars is no longer held, inasmuch as the
peculiars have been placed by acts of parliament under the ordinary
jurisdiction of the bishops of the respective dioceses in which they
are situated.

ARCHCHANCELLOR (Lat. _Archicancellarius_; Ger. _Erzkanzler_), or chief chancellor, a title given to the highest dignitary of the Holy Roman Empire, and also used occasionally during the middle ages to denote an official who supervised the work of chancellors or notaries.

In the 9th century Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, in his work, _De ordine palatii et regni_, speaks of a _summus cancellarius_, evidently an official at the court of the Carolingian emperors and kings. A charter of the emperor Lothair I. dated 844 refers to Agilmar, archbishop of Vienne, as archchancellor, and there are several other references to archchancellors in various chronicles. This office existed in the German kingdom of Otto the Great, and about this time it appears to have become an appanage of the archbishopric of Mainz. When the Empire was restored by Otto in 962, a separate chancery seems to have been organized for Italian affairs, and early in the 11th century the office of archchancellor for the kingdom of Italy was in the hands of the archbishop of Cologne. The theory was that all the imperial business in Germany was supervised by the elector of Mainz, and for Italy by the elector of Cologne. However, the duties of archchancellor for Italy were generally discharged by deputy, and after the virtual separation of Italy and Germany, the title alone was retained by the elector. When the kingdom of Burgundy or Arles was acquired by the emperor Conrad II. in 1032 it is possible that a separate chancery was established for this kingdom. However this may be, during the 12th century the elector of Trier took the title of archchancellor for the kingdom of Arles, although it is doubtful if he ever performed any duties in connexion with this office. This threefold division of the office of imperial archchancellor was acknowledged in 1356 by the Golden Bull of the emperor Charles IV., but the duties of the office were performed by the elector of Mainz. The office in this form was part of the constitution of the Empire until 1803 when the archbishopric of Mainz was secularized. The last elector, Karl Theodor von Dalberg, however, retained the title of archchancellor until the dissolution of the Empire in 1806. H. Reincke in _Der alte Reichstag und der neue Bundesrat_ (Tubingen, 1906) points out a marked resemblance between the medieval archchancellor and the German imperial chancellor of the present day.

See du Cange, _Glossarium_, s. "Archicancellarius"; and CHANCELLOR.

ARCHDEACON (Lat. _archidiaconus_, Gr. [Greek: archidiakonos]), a high official of the Christian Church. The office of archdeacon is of great antiquity. So early as the 4th century it is mentioned as an established office, and it is probable that it was in existence in the 3rd. Originally the archdeacon was, as the name implies, the chief of the deacons attached to the bishop's cathedral, his duty being, besides preaching, to supervise the deacons and their work, i.e. more especially the care of the sick and the arrangement of the externals of divine worship. Even thus early their close relation to the bishop and their employment in matters of episcopal administration gave them, though only in deacons' orders, great importance, which continually developed. In the East, in the 5th century, the archdeacons were already charged with the proof of the qualifications of candidates for ordination; they attended the bishops at ecclesiastical synods, and sometimes acted as their representatives; they shared in the administration of sees during a vacancy. In the West, in the 6th and 7th centuries, besides the original functions of their office, archdeacons had certain well-defined rights of visitation and supervision, being responsible for the good order of the lower clergy, the upkeep of ecclesiastical buildings and the safe-guarding of the church furniture--functions which involved a considerable disciplinary power. During the 8th and 9th centuries the office tended to become more and more exclusively purely administrative, the archdeacon by his visitations relieving the bishop of the minutiae of government and keeping him informed in detail of the condition of his diocese. The archdeacon had thus become, on the one hand, the _oculus episcopi_, but on the other hand, armed as he was with powers of imposing penance and, in case of stubborn disobedience, of excommunicating offenders, his power tended more and more to grow at the bishop's expense. This process received a great impulse from the erection in the 11th and 12th centuries of defined territorial jurisdictions for the archdeacons, who had hitherto been itinerant representatives of the central power of the diocese. The dioceses were now mapped out into several archdeaconries (_archidiaconatus_), which corresponded with the political divisions of the countries; and these defined spheres, in accordance with the prevailing feudal tendencies of the age, gradually came to be regarded as independent centres of jurisdiction.[1] The bishops, now increasingly absorbed in secular affairs, were content with a somewhat theoretical power of control, while the archdeacons rigorously asserted an independent position which implied great power and possibilities of wealth. The custom, moreover, had grown up of bestowing the coveted office of archdeacon on the provosts, deans and canons of the cathedral churches, and the archdeacons were thus involved in the struggle of the chapters against the episcopal authority. By the 12th century the archdeacon had become practically independent of the bishop, whose consent was only required in certain specified cases.

The power of the archdeacon reached its zenith at the outset of the 13th century. Innocent III. describes him as _judex ordinarius_, and he possesses in his own right the powers of visitation, of holding courts and imposing penalties, of deciding in matrimonial causes and cases of disputed jurisdiction, of testing candidates for orders, of inducting into benefices. He has the right to certain procurations, and to appoint and depose archpriests and rural deans. And these powers he may exercise through delegated _officiales_. His jurisdiction has become, in fact, not subordinate to, but co-ordinate with that of the bishop. Yet, so far as orders were concerned, he remained a deacon; and if archdeacons were often priests, this was because priests who were members of chapters were appointed to the office.

From the 13th century onward a reaction set in. The power of the archdeacons rested upon custom and prescription, not upon the canon law; and though the bishops could not break, they could circumvent it. This they did by appointing new officials to exercise in their name the rights still reserved to them, or to which they laid claim. These were the _officiales:_ the _officiales foranei_, whose jurisdiction was parallel with that of the archdeacons, and the _officiales principales_ and vicars-general, who presided over the courts of appeal. The clergy having thus another authority, and one moreover more canonical, to appeal to, the power of the archdeacons gradually declined; and, so far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, it received its death-blow from the council of Trent (1564), which withdrew all matrimonial and criminal causes from the competence of the archdeacons, forbade them to pronounce excommunications, and allowed them only to hold visitations in connexion with those of the bishop and with his consent. These decrees were not, indeed, at once universally enforced; but the convulsions of the Revolutionary epoch and the religious reorganization that followed completed the work. In the Roman Church to-day the office of archdeacon is merely titular, his sole function being to present the candidates for ordination to the bishop. The title, indeed, hardly exists save in Italy, where the archdeacon is no more than a dignified member of a chapter, who takes rank after the bishop. The ancient functions of the archdeacon are exercised by the vicar-general. In the Lutheran church the title _Archidiakonus_ is given in some places to the senior assistant pastor of a church.

In the Church of England, on the other hand, the office of archdeacon, which was first introduced at the Norman conquest, survives, with many of its ancient duties and prerogatives. Since 1836 there have been at least two archdeaconries in each diocese, and in some dioceses there are four archdeacons. The archdeacons are appointed by their respective bishops, and they are, by an act of 1840, required to have been six full years in priest's orders. The functions of the archdeacon are in the present day ancillary in a general way to those of the bishop of the diocese. It is his especial duty to inspect the churches within his archdeaconry, to see that the fabrics are kept in repair, and to hold annual visitations of the clergy and churchwardens of each parish, for the purpose of ascertaining that the clergy are in residence, of admitting the newly elected churchwardens into office, and of receiving the presentments of the outgoing churchwardens. It is his privilege to present all candidates for ordination to the bishop of the diocese. It is his duty also to induct the clergy of his archdeaconry into the temporalities of their benefices after they have been instituted into the spiritualities by the bishop or his vicar-general. Every archdeacon is entitled to appoint an official to preside over his archidiaconal court, from which there is an appeal to the consistory court of the bishop. The archdeacons are _ex officio_ members of the convocations of their respective provinces.

It is the privilege of the archdeacon of Canterbury to induct the archbishop and all the bishops of the province of Canterbury into their respective bishoprics, and this he does in the case of a bishop under a mandate from the archbishop of Canterbury, directing him to induct the bishop into the real, actual, and corporal possession of the bishopric, and to install and to enthrone him; and in the case of the archbishop, under an analogous mandate from the dean and chapter of Canterbury, as being guardians of the spiritualities during the vacancy of the archiepiscopal see. In the colonies there are two or more archdeacons in each diocese, and their functions correspond to those of English archdeacons. In the Episcopal church of America the office of archdeacon exists in only one or two dioceses.

See Hinschius, _Kirchenrecht_, ii., SS 86. 87; Schroder, _Die
Entwicklung des Archdiakonats bis zum 11. Jahrhundert_ (Munich, 1890);
Wetzer and Welte, _Kirchenlexikon_ (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1882-1901);
Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (ed. 1896); Phillimore,
_Ecclesiastical Law_, part ii. chap. v. (London, 1895). (W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Archdeaconries were, indeed, sometimes treated as ordinary fiefs
and were held as such by laymen. Thus Ordericus Vitalis says that
"(Fulk) granted to the monks the archdeaconry which he and his
predecessors held in fee of the archbishop of Rouen" (_Hist. Eccl._
iii. 12).

ARCHDUKE (Lat. _archidux_, Ger. _Erzherzog_,) a title peculiar now to the Austrian royal family. According to Selden it denotes "an excellency or pre-eminence only, not a superiority or power over other dukes, as in archbishop it doth over other bishops." Yet in this latter sense it would seem to have been assumed by Bruno of Saxony, archbishop of Cologne, and duke of Lorraine (953-965), when he divided his duchy into the dukedoms of Upper and Lower Lorraine. The designation was, however, exceedingly rare during the middle ages. The title of archduke of Lorraine ceased with the circumstances which had produced it. The later dynasties of Brabant and Lorraine, when these fiefs became hereditary, bore only the title of duke. The house of Habsburg, therefore, did not acquire this title with the inheritance of the dukes of Lorraine. Nor does it occur in any of the charters granted to the dukes of Austria by the emperors; though in that creating the first duke of Austria the _archiduces palatii, i.e._ the principal dukes of the court, are mentioned. The "Archidux Austriae, seu Austriae inferioris" is spoken of by Abbot Rudolph (d. 1138) in his chronicles of the abbey of St Trond (_Gesta Abbatum Trudonensium_) but this is no more than a rhetorical flourish, and the title of "archduke palatine" (Pfalz-Erzherzog) was, in fact, assumed first by Duke Rudolph IV. (d. 1365), and was one of the rights and privileges included in his famous forgery of the year 1358, the _privilegium maius_, which purported to have been bestowed by the emperor Frederick I. on the dukes of Austria in extension of the genuine _privilegium minus_ of 1156, granted to the margrave Henry II. Rudolph IV. used the title on his seals and charters till he was compelled to desist by the emperor Charles IV. The title was also assumed for a time, probably on the strength of the _privilegium maius_, by Duke Ernest of Styria (d. 1424); but it did not legally belong to the house of Habsburg until 1453, when Duke Ernest's son, the emperor Frederick III. (Frederick V., duke of Styria and Carinthia, 1424-1493, of Austria, 1463-1493), confirmed the _privilegium maius_ and conferred the title of archduke of Austria on his son Maximilian and his heirs. The title archduke (or archduchess) is now borne by all members of the Austrian imperial house.

See John Selden, _Titles of Honor_ (1672); Antonius Matthaeus, _De
nobilititate, de principibus, deducibus, &c., libriquatuor_ (Amsterdam
and Leiden, 1696, lib. i. cap. 6); Pfeffel, _Abrege chronologique de
l'hist, el du droit public d'Allemagne_ (Paris, 1766); Brinckmeier,
_Glossarium diplomaticum, &c._ (1850-1863, 2 vols.); J.F. Joachim,
"Abhandlung von dem Titel 'Erzherzog,' welchen das Haus Oesterreich
fuhrt." in _Prufende Gesellschaft zu Halle, 7_; F. Wachter, art.
"Erzherzog," in _Allgem. Encykl. der Wissenschiften u. Kunste_ (1842,
pub. by Ersch and Gruber); A. Huber, _Ueber die Entstehungszeit der
oesterreichischen Freiheitsbriefe_ (Vienna, 1860); W. Erben, _Das
Privilegium Friedrichs I. fur das Herzogtum Osterreich_ (Vienna,
1902).

ARCHEAN SYSTEM (from [Greek: archae], beginning), in geology. Below the lowest distinctly fossiliferous strata, that is, below those Cambrian rocks which bear the _Olenellus_ fauna, there lies a great mass of stratified, metamorphic and igneous rock, to which the non-committal epithet "pre-Cambrian" is often applied; and indeed in not a few instances this general term is sufficiently precise for the present state of our knowledge. Nevertheless there are large tracts, both in the Old World and in the New, in which a subdivision of this assemblage of ancient rocks is not only possible but desirable. It is quite clear in certain regions that there is a lowermost group with a prevailing granitoid, gneissic and schistose facies, mainly of igneous origin, above which there are one or several groups bearing a distinctly sedimentary aspect. It is to this lowermost gneissic group that the term "Archean" may be conveniently limited.

Thus, while the name "pre-Cambrian" may be used to indicate all these very old rocks whenever there is still any difficulty in subdividing them further, it is an advantage to have a special appellation for the oldest group where this can be distinguished.

It must be pointed out that the term "Archean" has been used as a synonym for pre-Cambrian; and that the expressions _Azoic_ (from [alpha]-, privative; [Greek: zoae], life), _Eozoic_ (from [Greek: aeos], dawn), and _Fundamental Complex_, have been employed in somewhat the same sense. _Archeozoic_ has been proposed by American writers to apply to the lowest pre-Cambrian rocks with the same significance as "Archean" in the restricted sense employed here; but it is perhaps safer to avoid any reference to the supposed stage of life development where all direct evidence is non-existent. The so-called "Azoic" rocks have already been made to yield evidence of life, and there is no reason to presuppose the impossibility of finding other records of still earlier organisms.

The prevailing rocks of the Archean system are igneous, with metamorphosed varieties of the same; sedimentary rocks, distinctly recognizable as such, are scarce, though highly metamorphosed rocks supposed to be sediments, in some regions, take an important place.