Chapter XXIII: Act 1895: , No. 20 of 1895) (9)

4. _Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra._--The memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah do not appear to have been incorporated without some adjustment. The lapse of time between Neh. i. 1 and ii. 1 is noteworthy, and with the prayer in i. 5-11 cf. Ezr. ix. 6-15, Dan. ix. 4 sqq. (also parallels in Deuteronomy); chap. i. in its present form may be a compiler's introduction. The important topographical list in ch. iii. is probably from another source; the styie is different, Nehemiah is absent, and the high-priest is unusually prominent.[5] Chap, v., where Nehemiah reviews his _past_ conduct as governor, turns aside to economic reforms and scarcely falls within the fifty-two days of the building of the walls. The chapter is closely associated with the contents of xiii. and breaks the account of the opposition. Anticipated already in ii. 10, the hostility partly arises from the repudiation of Samaritan religious claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezr. iv. 3) and is partly political. It is difficult to follow its progress clearly, and the account ceases abruptly in. vi. 17-19 with the notice of the conspiracy of Tobiah and the nobles of Judah. The chronicler's style can be recognized in vii. 1-5 (in its present form), where steps are taken to protect and to people Jerusalem; the older sequel is now found in ch. xi. Whilst the account of the dedication of the walls is marked by the use of the pronoun "I" (xii. 31, 38, 40), it is probably now due as a whole to the chronicler, and when the more trustworthy memoirs of Nehemiah are resumed (xiii. 4 sqq.) the episodes, although placed twelve years later (ver. 6), are intimately connected with the preceding reforms (cf. xii. 44-xiii. 3 with xiii. 10 sqq., 23 sqq.).[6] Nehemiah's attitude towards intermarriage is markedly moderate in contrast to the drastic measures of Ezra, whose mission and work the simpler and perhaps earlier narratives of Nehemiah originally ignored, and the relation between the two is complicated further by the literary character of the memoir of Ezra.

To the last mentioned are prefixed (a) the scribe's genealogy, which traces him back to Aaron and names as his immediate ancestor, Seraiah, who had been slain 130 years previously (Ezr. vii. 1-5), and (b) an independent account of the return (_vv._ 6-10) with a reference to Ezra's renown, obviously not from the hand of Ezra himself. Whatever the original prelude to Ezra's thanksgiving may have been (vii. 27 seq.), we now have the essentially Jewish account of the letter of Artaxerxes with its unusual concessions.[7] The list of those who returned amounts to the moderate total of 1496 males (viii., but 1690 in 1 Esdr. viii. 30 sqq.). Ezra's mission was obviously concerned with the Law and Temple service (vii. 6, 10, 14 sqq., 25; viii. 17, 24-30, 33 sq.), but four months elapse between his return in the fifth month (vii. 9) and the preparations for the marriage reforms in the ninth (x. 9), and there is a delay of twelve years before the Law is read (Neh. viii.). The Septuagint version (1 Esdr. ix.; cf. Josephus, _Antiq._ xi. 5. 5 and some modern scholars) would place the latter after Ezr. x., but more probably this event (dated in the seventh month) should precede the great undertaking in Ezr. ix.[8] That the adjustment was attended with considerable revision of the passages appears from a careful comparison of Neh. viii. sq. with Ezr. ix. sq. With Ezra's confession (ix. 6 sqq.) compare the prayer in Neh. ix. 5 sqq., which the Septuagint ascribes to him. In Ezr. x. (written in the third person) the number of those that had intermarried with the heathen is relatively small considering the general trend of the preliminaries, and the list bears a marked resemblance to that in ch. ii. It ends abruptly and obscurely (x. 44; cf. 1 Esdr. ix. 36), and whilst as a whole the memoirs of Ezra point to ideas later than those of Nehemiah, the present close literary connexion between them is seen in the isolated reference to Johanan the son of Eliashib in Ezra x. 6, which seems to be connected with Neh. xiii. 7, and (after W.R. Smith) in the suitability of _ib._ xiii. 1, 2 between Ezr. x. 9 and 10. The list of signatories in Neh. x. 1-27 should be compared with the names in xii. and 1 Chron. xxiv.; the true connexion of ix. 38 is very obscure, and the relation to Ezr. ix. seq. is complicated by the reference to the separation from the heathen in Neh. ix. 2. The description of the covenant (Neh. x. 28 sqq., marked by the use of "we") is closely connected with xii. 43-xiii. 3 (from the same or an allied source), and anticipates the parallel though somewhat preliminary measures detailed in the more genuine memoirs (Neh. xiii. 4 sqq.). Finally, the specific allusion in xiii. 1-3 to Ammon and Moab is possibly intended as an introduction to the references to Tobiah and Sanballat respectively (_vv._ 4 seq., 28).

5. _Summary._--The literary and historical criticism of Ezra-Nehemiah is closely bound up with that of Chronicles, whose characteristic features it shares. Although the three formed a unit at one stage it may seem doubtful whether two so closely related chapters as 1 Chron. ix. and Neh. xi. would have appeared in one single work, while the repetition of Neh. vii. 6-viii. 1 in Ezr. ii.-iii. 1 is less unnatural if they had originally appeared in distinct sources. Thus other hands apart from the compiler of Chronicles may have helped to shape the narratives, either before their union with that book or after their separation.[9] The present intricacy is also due partly to specific historical theories regarding the post-exilic period. Here the recension in 1 Esdras especially merits attention for its text, literary structure and for its variant traditions.[10] Its account of a return in the time of Darius scarcely arose _after_ Ezr. i.-iii. (Cyrus); the reverse seems more probable, and the possibility of some confusion or of an intentional adjustment to the earlier date is emphasized by the relation between the popular feeling in Ezr. iii. 12 (Cyrus) and Hag. ii. 3 (Darius), and between the grant by Cyrus in iii. 7 (it is not certain that he held Phoenicia) and the permit of Darius in 1 Esdr. iv. 47-57 (see v. 48). To the latter context belongs the list of names which reappears in Ezr. ii. (Cyrus). But from the independent testimony of Haggai and Zechariah it is doubtful whether the chronicler's account of the return under Cyrus is at all trustworthy. The list in 1 Esdr. v., Ezr. ii., as already observed, appears to be in its more original context in Neh. vii., i.e. in the time of Artaxerxes, and it is questionable whether the earliest of the surviving detailed traditions in Ezra-Nehemiah went back before this reign. It is precisely at this age that there is evidence for a return, apparently other than that of Ezra or Nehemiah (see Ezr. iv. 12), yet no account seems to be preserved unless the records were used for the history of earlier periods (cf. generally Ezr. iii. 12 sq. with Neh. viii. 9-11; Ezr. iii. 7 with the special favour enlisted on behalf of the Jews in vi. 7 sq., 13, vii. 21; Neh. ii. 7 sq.). But the account of the events in the reign of Artaxerxes is extremely perplexing. Since the building of the walls of Jerusalem must have begun early in the fifth month (Neh. vi. 15), an allowance of three days (ii. 11) makes the date of Nehemiah's arrival practically the anniversary of Ezra's return (Ezr. vii. 9, viii. 32). Considering the close connexion between the work of the two men this can hardly be accidental. The compiler, however, clearly intends Neh. vi. 15 (25th of sixth month) to be the prelude to the events in Neh. vii. 73, viii. (seventh month), but the true sequence of Neh. vi. sqq. is uncertain, and the possibility of artificiality is suggested by the unembellished statement of Josephus that the building of the walls occupied, not fifty-two days, but two years four months (_Ant_. xi. 5. 8). The present chronological order of Nehemiah's work is confused (cf. S4, n. 3), and the obscure interval of twelve years in his work corresponds very closely to that which now separates the records of Ezra's labours. However, both the recovery of the compilers' aims and attempted reconstructions are precluded from finality by the scantiness of independent historical evidence. (See further JEWS: _History_, S21 seq.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--S.R. Driver, _Lit. of the O.T._ (1909), pp. 540 sqq.
and the commentaries of H.E. Ryle (_Camb. Bible_, 1893), C. Siegfried
(1901), A. Bertholet (1902), and T.W. Davies (_Cent. Bible_, 1909).
Impetus to recent criticism of these books starts with Van Hoonacker
(_Neh. et Esd_. [1890]; see also _Expos. Times_ [1897], pp. 351-354,
and M.-J. Lagrange, _Rev. biblique_, iii. 561-585 [1894], iv. 186-202
[1895]) and W.H. Kosters (Germ. ed., _Wiederherstellung Israels_,
1895). The latter's important conclusions (for which see his article
with Cheyne's additions in _Ency. Bib_. col. 1473 sqq., 3380 sqq.)
have been adversely criticized, especially by J. Wellhausen
(_Nachrichten_ of the Univ. of Gottingen, 1895, pp. 166-186), E. Meyer
(_Entstehung d. Judentums_, 1896), J. Nikel (_Wiederherstellung d.
jud. Gemein._, 1900), and S. Jampel in _Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u.
Wissens. d. Judentums_, vols. xlvi.-xlvii. (1902-1903). The negative
criticisms of Kosters have, however, been strengthened by his replies
(in the Dutch _Theolog. Tijdschrift_), and by the discussions of C.C.
Torrey and C.F. Kent (op. cit) and of G. Jahn (_Esra u. Neh._ pp.
i-lxxviii; 1909), and his general position appears to do more justice
to the biblical evidence as a whole. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] References to 1 Esdras in this article are to the book discussed
above as EZRA, THIRD BOOK OF.

[2] With Neh. xi. 4-19 cf. 1 Chron. ix. 3-17; with the list xii. 1-7
cf. _vv._ 12-21 and x. 3-9; and with xii. 10 sq. cf. 1 Chron. vi.
3-13 (to which it forms the sequel). See further Smend, _Listen d.
Esra u. Neh._ (1881).

[3] Sometimes wrongly styled Chaldee (q.v.); see SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

[4] Its real position in the history of this period is not certain.
Against the supposition that the names refer to Cambyses and
Pseudo-Smerdis who reigned after Cyrus and before Darius, see H.E.
Ryle, _Camb. Bible_, "Ezra and Neh.," p. 65 sq. Against the view that
Darius is D. ii. Nothus of 423-404 B.C., see G.A. Smith, _Minor
Prophets_, ii. 191 sqq. The ignorance of the compiler regarding the
sequence of the kings finds a parallel in that of the author of the
book of Daniel (q.v.); see C.C. Torrey, _Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang._
(1907), p. 178, n. 1.

[5] See further H.G. Mitchell, _Journ. of Bibl. Lit._ (1903), pp. 88
sqq.

[6] The chronological difficulties will be seen from xiii. 6 ("before
this"), which would imply that the dedication of the walls was on the
occasion of Nehemiah's later visit (see G.A. Smith, _Expositor_, July
1906, p. 12). His previous departure is perhaps foreshadowed in vii.
2.

[7] See _Ency. Bib._ col. 1480. Papyri from a Jewish colony in
Elephantine (407 B.C.) clearly show the form which royal permits
could take, and what the Jews were prepared to give in return; the
points of resemblance are extremely interesting, but compared with
the biblical documents the papyri reveal some striking differences.

[8] C.C. Torrey, _Comp. and Hist. Value of Ezra-Neh._ (Beihefte of
_Zeit. f. alttest. Wissens._, 1896), pp. 30-34; C.F. Kent, _Israel's
Hist. and Biog. Narratives_, pp. 32, 369. Since Neh. vii. 70-73 is
closely joined to viii., the suggested transposition would place its
account of the contributions to the temple in a more appropriate
context (cf. Ezr. viii. 24-30, 33 sq.).

[9] For linguistic evidence reference should be made to J. Geissler,
_Die litterarischen Beziehungen d. Esramemoiren_ (Chemnitz, 1899).

[10] See especially Sir Henry Howorth, _Proc. of Society of Bibl.
Arch._ (1901-1904), _passim_; C.C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_ (Chicago,
1910). For the text, see A. Klostermann, _Real-Ency. f. prot. Theol._
v. 501 sqq.; H. Guthe in Haupt's _Sacred Books of Old Testament_
(1899); and S.A. Cook in R.H. Charles, _Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha_.

EZZO, or EHRENFRIED (c. 954-1024), count palatine in Lorraine, was the son of a certain Hermann (d. c. 1000), also a count palatine in Lorraine who had possessions in the neighbourhood of Bonn. Having married Matilda (d. 1025), a daughter of the emperor Otto II., Ezzo came to the front during the reign of his brother-in-law, the emperor Otto III. (983-1002); his power was increased owing to the liberal grant of lands in Thuringia and Franconia which he received with his wife, and some time later his position as count palatine was recognized as an hereditary dignity. Otto's successor, the emperor Henry II., was less friendly towards the powerful count palatine, though there was no serious trouble between them until 1011; but some disturbances in Lorraine quickly compelled the emperor to come to terms, and the assistance of Ezzo was purchased by a gift of lands. Henceforward the relations between Henry and his vassal appear to have been satisfactory. Very little is known about Ezzo's later life, but we are told that he died at a great age at Saalfeld on the 21st of March 1024. He left three sons, among them being Hermann, who was archbishop of Cologne from 1036 to 1056, and Otto, who was for a short time duke of Swabia; and seven daughters, six of whom became abbesses. Ezzo founded a monastery at Brauweiler near Cologne, the place where his marriage had been celebrated. This was dedicated in 1028 by Piligrim, archbishop of Cologne, and here both Ezzo and his wife were buried.

EZZOLIED, or ANEGENGE, an old German poem, written by Ezzo, a scholar of Bamberg. It was written about 1060, but not, as one authority asserts, composed while the author was making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The subject of the poem is the life of Christ. Very popular during the later middle ages, the _Ezzolied_ had a great influence on the poetry of south Germany, and is valuable as a monument of the poetical literature of the time.

The text is printed in the _Denkmaler deutscher Poesie und Prosa aus
dem 8-12. Jahrhundert_ (Berlin, 1892) of C.V. Mullenhoff and W.
Scherer.

F This is the sixth letter of the English alphabet as it was of the Latin. In the ordinary Greek alphabet the symbol has disappeared, although it survived far into historical times in many Greek dialects as F, the digamma, the use of which in early times was inductively proved by Bentley, when comparatively little was known of the local alphabets and dialects of Greece. The so-called _stigma_ [symbol], which serves for the numeral 6, is all that remains to represent it. This symbol derives its name from its resemblance in medieval MSS. to the abbreviation for [Greek: st]. The symbol occupying the same position in the Phoenician alphabet was Vau ([symbol] [symbol]), which seems to be represented by the Greek [Upsilon], the Latin V, at the end of the early alphabet. Many authorities therefore contend that F is only a modification of the preceding symbol E and has nothing to do with the symbol Vau. In some early Latin inscriptions F is represented by [symbol], as E is by [symbol]. It must be admitted that the resemblance between the sixth symbol of the Phoenician alphabet and the corresponding symbol of the European alphabet is not striking. But the position of the limbs of symbols in early alphabets often varies surprisingly. In Greek, besides F we find for _f_ in Pamphylia (the only Greek district in Asia which possesses the symbol) [symbol], and in Boeotia, Thessaly, Tarentum, Cumae and on Chalcidian vases of Italy the form [symbol], though except at Cumae and on the vases the form F exists contemporaneously with [symbol] or even earlier. At the little town of Falerii (Civita Castellana), whose alphabet is undoubtedly of the same origin as the Latin, F takes the form [symbol]. Though uncertain, therefore, it seems not impossible that the original symbol of the Phoenician alphabet, which was a consonant like the English _w_, may have been differentiated in Greek into two symbols, one indicating the consonant value _w_ and retaining the position of the Phoenician consonant Vau, the other having the vowel value _u_, which ultimately most dialects changed to a modified sound like French _u_ or German _u_. Be this as it may, the value of the symbol F in Greek was _w_, a bilabial voiced sound, not the labio-dental unvoiced sound which we call _f_. When the Romans adopted the Greek alphabet they took over the symbols with their Greek values. But Greek had no sound corresponding to the Latin _f_, for [phi] was pronounced _p-h_, like the final sound of _lip_ in ordinary English or the initial sound of _pig_ in Irish English. Consequently in the very old inscription on a gold fibula found at Praeneste and published in 1887 (see ALPHABET) the Latin _f_ is represented by FB. Later, as Latin did not use F for the consonant written as _v_ in _vis_, &c., H was dropped and F received a new special value in Latin as representative of the unvoiced labio-dental spirant. In the Oscan and Umbrian dialects, whose alphabet was borrowed from Etruscan, a special form appears for _f_, viz. 8, the old form [symbol] being kept for the other consonant _v_ (i.e. English _w_). The 8 has generally been asserted to be developed out of the second element in the combination FB, its upper and lower halves being first converted into lozenges, [symbol], which naturally changed to 8 when inscribed without lifting the writing or incising implement. Recent discoveries, however, make this doubtful (see ALPHABET). (P. Gi.)

FABBRONI, ANGELO (1732-1803), Italian biographer, was born at Marradi in Tuscany on the 25th of September 1732. After studying at Faenza he entered the Roman college founded for the education of young Tuscans. On the conclusion of his studies he continued his stay in Rome, and having been introduced to the celebrated Jansenist Bottari, received from him the canonry of Santa Teresa in Trastevere. Some time after this he was chosen to preach a discourse in the pontifical chapel before Benedict XIV. and made such a favourable impression that the pontiff settled on him an annuity, with the possession of which Fabbroni was able to devote his whole time to study. He was intimate with Leopold I., grand-duke of Tuscany, but the Jesuits disliked him on account of his Jansenist views. Besides his other literary labours he began at Pisa in 1771 a literary journal, which he continued till 1796. About 1772 he made a journey to Paris, where he formed the acquaintance of Condorcet, Diderot, d'Alembert, Rousseau and most of the other eminent Frenchmen of the day. He also spent four months in London. He died at Pisa on the 22nd of September 1803.

The following are his principal works:--_Vitae Italorum doctrina
excellentium qui saeculis XVII. et XVIII. floruerunt_ (20 vols., Pisa,
1778-1799, 1804-1805), the last two vols., published posthumously,
contain a life of the author; _Laurentii Medicei Magnifici Vita_ (2
vols., Pisa, 1784), a work which served as a basis for H. Roscoe's
_Life of Lorenzo dei Medici_; _Leonis X. pontificis maximi Vita_
(Pisa, 1797); and _Elogi di Dante Alighieri, di Angelo Poliziano, di
Lodovico Ariosto, e di Torq. Tasso_ (Parma, 1800).

FABER, the name of a family of German lead-pencil manufacturers. Their business was founded in 1760 at Stein, near Nuremberg, by Kaspar Faber (d. 1784). It was then inherited by his son Anton Wilhelm (d. 1819). Georg Leonhard Faber succeeded in 1810 (d. 1839), and the business passed to Johann Lothar von Faber (1817-1896), the great-grandson of the founder. At the time of his assuming control about twenty hands were employed, under old-fashioned conditions, and owing to the invention of the French _crayons Contes_ of Nicolas Jacques Conte (q.v.) competition had reduced the entire Nuremberg industry to a low ebb (see PENCIL). Johann introduced improvements in machinery and methods, brought his factory to the highest state of efficiency, and it became a model for all the other German and Austrian manufacturers. He established branches in New York, Paris, London and Berlin, and agencies in Vienna, St Petersburg and Hamburg, and made his greatest _coup_ in 1856, when he contracted for the exclusive control of the graphite obtained from the East Siberian mines. Faber had also branched out into the manufacture of water-colour and oil paints, inks, slates and slate-pencils, and engineers' and architects' drawing instruments, and built additional factories to house his various industries at New York and at Noisy-le-Sec, near Paris, and had his own cedar mills in Florida. For his services to German industry he received a patent of nobility and an appointment as councillor of state. After the death of his widow (1903) the business was inherited by his grand-daughter Countess Otilie von Faber-Castell and her husband, Count Alexander.

FABER, BASIL (1520--c. 1576), Lutheran schoolmaster and theologian, was born at Sorau, in lower Lusatia, in 1520. In 1538 he entered the university of Wittenberg, studying as _pauper gratis_ under Melanchthon. Choosing the schoolmaster's profession, he became successively rector of the schools at Nordhausen, Tennstadt (1555), Magdeburg (1557) and Quedlinburg (1560). From this last post he was removed in December 1570 as a Crypto-Calvinist. In 1571 he was appointed to the Raths-gymnasium at Erfurt, not as rector, but as director (_Vorsteher_). In this situation he remained till his death in 1575 or 1576. His translation of the first twenty-five chapters of Luther's commentary on Genesis was published in 1557; in other ways he promoted the spread of Lutheran views. He was a contributor to the first four of the _Magdeburg Centuries_. He is best known by his _Thesaurus eruditionis scholasticae_ (1571; last edition, improved by J.H. Leich, 1749, folio, 2 vols.); this was followed by his _Libellus de disciplina scholastica_ (1572).

See Wagenmann and G. Muller in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_
(1898). (A. Go.*)

FABER, FREDERICK WILLIAM (1814-1863), British hymn writer and theologian, was born on the 28th of June 1814 at Calverley, Yorkshire, of which place his grandfather, Thomas Faber, was vicar. He attended the grammar school of Bishop Auckland for a short time, but a large portion of his boyhood was spent in Westmorland. He afterwards went to Harrow and to Balliol College, Oxford. In 1835 he obtained a scholarship at University College; and in 1836 he gained the Newdigate prize for a poem on "The Knights of St John," which elicited special praise from Keble. Among his college friends were Dean Stanley and Roundell Palmer, 1st earl of Selborne. In January 1837 he was elected fellow of University College. Meanwhile he had given up the Calvinistic views of his youth, and had become an enthusiastic follower of John Henry Newman. In 1841 a travelling tutorship took him to the continent; and on his return a book appeared called _Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches and among Foreign Peoples_ (London, 1842), with a dedication to his friend the poet Wordsworth. He accepted the rectory of Elton in Huntingdonshire, but soon after went again to the continent, in order to study the methods of the Roman Catholic Church; and after a prolonged mental struggle he joined the Roman Catholic communion in November 1845. He founded a religious community at Birmingham, called Wilfridians, which was ultimately merged in the oratory of St Philip Neri, with John Henry Newman as Superior. In 1849 a branch of the oratory--subsequently independent--was established in London, first in King William Street, and afterwards at Brompton, over which Faber presided till his death on the 26th of September 1863. In spite of his weak health, an almost incredible amount of work was crowded into those years. He published a number of theological works, and edited the _Oratorian Lives of the Saints_. He was an eloquent preacher, and a man of great charm of character. It is mainly as a hymn-writer, however, that Faber is remembered. Among his best-known hymns are:--"The Greatness of God," "The Will of God," "The Eternal Father," "The God of my Childhood," "Jesus is God," "The Pilgrims of the Night," "The Land beyond the Sea," "Sweet Saviour, bless us ere we go," "I was wandering and weary," and "The Shadow of the Rock." The hymns are largely used in Protestant collections. In addition to many pamphlets and translations, Faber published the following works: _All for Jesus_; _The Precious Blood_; _Bethlehem_; _The Blessed Sacrament_; _The Creator and the Creature_; _Growth of Holiness; Spiritual Conferences_; _The Foot of the Cross_ (8 vols., London, 1853-1860).

See his _Life and Letters_, by Father J.E. Bowden (London, 1869), and
_A Brief Sketch of the Early Life of the late F.W. Faber_, D.D., by
his brother the Rev. F.A. Faber (London, 1869).

FABER, Fabri or Fabry (surnamed STAPULENSIS), JACOBUS [Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples] (c. 1455--c. 1536), a pioneer of the Protestant movement in France, was born of humble parents at Etaples, in Pas de Calais, Picardy, about 1455. He appears to have been possessed of considerable means. He had already been ordained priest when he entered the university of Paris for higher education. Hermonymus of Sparta was his master in Greek. He visited Italy before 1486, for he heard the lectures of Argyropulus, who died in that year; he formed a friendship with Paulus Aemilius of Verona. In 1492 he again travelled in Italy, studying in Florence, Rome and Venice, making himself familiar with the writings of Aristotle, though greatly influenced by the Platonic philosophy. Returning to Paris, he became professor in the college of Cardinal Lemoine. Among his famous pupils were F.W. Vatable and Farel; his connexion with the latter drew him to the Calvinistic side of the movement of reform. At this time he began the publication, with critical apparatus, of Boetius (_De Arithmetica_), and Aristotle's _Physics_ (1492), _Ethics_ (1497), _Metaphysics_ (1501) and _Politics_ (1506). In 1507 he took up his residence in the Benedictine Abbey of St Germain des Pres, near Paris; this was due to his connexion with the family of Briconnet (one of whom was the superior), especially with William Briconnet, cardinal bishop of St Malo (Meaux). He now began to give himself to Biblical studies, the first-fruit of which was his _Quintuplex Psalterium: Gallicum, Romanum, Hebraicum, Vetus, Conciliatum_ (1509); the _Conciliatum_ was his own version. This was followed by _S. Pauli Epistolae xiv. ex vulgata editione, adjecta intelligentia ex Graeco cum commentariis_ (1512), a work of great independence and judgment. His _De Maria Magdalena et triduo Christi disceptatio_ (1517) provoked violent controversy and was condemned by the Sorbonne (1521). He had left Paris during the whole of 1520, and, removing to Meaux, was appointed (May 1, 1523) vicar-general to Bishop Briconnet, and published his French version of the New Testament (1523). This (contemporary with Luther's German version) has been the basis of all subsequent translations into French. From this, in the same year, he extracted the versions of the Gospels and Epistles "a l'usage du diocese de Meaux." The prefaces and notes to both these expressed the view that Holy Scripture is the only rule of doctrine, and that justification is by faith alone. He incurred much hostility, but was protected by Francis I. and the princess Margaret. Francis being in captivity after the battle of Pavia (February 25, 1525), Faber was condemned and his works suppressed by commission of the parlement; these measures were quashed on the return of Francis some months later. He issued _Le Psautier de David_ (1525), and was appointed royal librarian at Blois (1526); his version of the Pentateuch appeared two years later. His complete version of the Bible (1530), on the basis of Jerome, took the same place as his version of the New Testament. Margaret (now queen of Navarre) led him to take refuge (1531) at Nerac from persecution. He is said to have been visited (1533) by Calvin on his flight from France. He died in 1536 or 1537.

See C.H. Graf, _Essai sur la vie et les ecrits_ (1842); G.
Bonet-Maury, in A. Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1898).
(A. Go.*)

FABER (or LEFEVRE), JOHANN (1478-1541), German theologian, styled from the title of one of his works "Malleus Haereticorum," son of one Heigerlin, a smith (_faber_), was born at Leutkirch, in Swabia, in 1478. His early life is obscure; the tradition that he joined the Dominicans is untenable. He studied theology and canon law at Tubingen and at Freiburg im Breisgau, where he matriculated on the 26th of July 1509, and graduated M.A. and doctor of canon law. He was soon appointed vicar of Lindau and Leutkirch, and shortly afterwards canon of Basel. In 1518 Hugo von Landenberg, bishop of Constance, made him one of his vicars-general, and Pope Leo X. appointed him papal protonotary. He was an advocate of reforms, in sympathy with Erasmus, and corresponded (1519-1520) with Zwingli. While he defended Luther against Eck, he was as little inclined to adopt the position of Luther as of Carlstadt. His journey to Rome in the autumn of 1521 had the result of estranging him from the views of the Protestant leaders. He published _Opus adversus nova quaedam dogmata Lutheri_ (1522), and appeared as a disputant against Zwingli at Zurich (1523). Then followed his _Malleus in haeresin Lutheranam_ (1524). Among his efforts to stem the tide of Protestant innovation was the establishment of a training-house for the maintenance and instruction of popular preachers, drawn from the lower ranks, to compete with the orators of reform. In 1526 he became court preacher to the emperor Ferdinand, and in 1527 and 1528 was sent by him as envoy to Spain and England. He approved the death by burning of Balthasar Hubmeier, the Baptist, at Vienna on the 10th of March 1528. In 1531 he was consecrated bishop of Vienna, and combined with this (till 1538) the administration of the diocese of Neustadt. He died at Vienna on the 21st of May 1541. His works were collected in three volumes, 1537, 1539 and 1541.

See C.E. Kettner, _Diss. de J. Fabri Vita Scriptisque_ (1737);
Wagenmann and Egli in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ (1898).
(A. Go.*)

FABERT, ABRAHAM DE (1599-1660), marshal of France, was the son of Abraham Fabert, seigneur de Moulins (d. 1638), a famous printer who rendered great services, civil and military, to Henry IV. At the age of fourteen he entered the _Gardes francaises_, and in 1618 received a commission in the Piedmont regiment, becoming major in 1627. He distinguished himself repeatedly in the constant wars of the period, notably in La Rochelle and at the siege of Exilles in 1630. His bravery and engineering skill were again displayed in the sieges of Avesnes and Maubeuge in 1637, and in 1642 Louis XIII. made him governor of the recently-acquired fortress of Sedan. In 1651 he became lieutenant-general, and in 1654 at the siege of Stenay he introduced new methods of siegecraft which anticipated in a measure the great improvements of Vauban. In 1658 Fabert was made a marshal of France, being the first commoner to attain that rank. He died at Sedan on the 17th of May 1660.

See _Histoire du marechal de Fabert_ (Amsterdam, 1697); P. Barre, _Vie
de Fabert_ (Paris, 1752); A. Feillet, _Le Premier Marechal de France
plebeien_ (Paris, 1869); Bourelly, _Le Marechal Fabert_ (Paris, 1880).

FABIAN [FABIANUS], SAINT (d. 250), pope and martyr, was chosen pope, or bishop of Rome, in January 236 in succession to Anteros. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 29) relates how the Christians, having assembled in Rome to elect a new bishop, saw a dove alight upon the head of Fabian, a stranger to the city, who was thus marked out for this dignity, and was at once proclaimed bishop, although there were several famous men among the candidates for the vacant position. Fabian was martyred during the persecution under the emperor Decius, his death taking place on the 20th of January 250, and was buried in the catacomb of Calixtus, where a memorial has been found. He is said to have baptized the emperor Philip and his son, to have done some building in the catacombs, to have improved the organization of the church in Rome, to have appointed officials to register the deeds of the martyrs, and to have founded several churches in France. His deeds are thus described in the _Liber Pontificalis_: "Hic regiones dividit diaconibus et fecit vii subdiacones, qui vii notariis imminerent, ut gestas martyrum integro fideliter colligerent, et multas fabricas per cymiteria fieri praecepit." Although there is very little authentic information about Fabian, there is evidence that his episcopate was one of great importance in the history of the early church. He was highly esteemed by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage; Novatian refers to his _nobilissimae memoriae_, and he corresponded with Origen. One authority refers to him as Flavian.

See the article on "Fabian" by A. Harnack in Herzog-Hauck's
_Realencyklopadie_, Band v. (Leipzig, 1898).

FABIUS, the name of a number of Roman soldiers and statesmen. The Fabian gens was one of the oldest and most distinguished patrician families of Rome. Its members claimed descent from Hercules and a daughter of the Arcadian Evander. From the earliest times it played a prominent part in Roman history, and was one of the two gentes exclusively charged with the management of the most ancient festival in Rome--the Lupercalia (Ovid, _Fasti_, ii. 375). The chief family names of the Fabian gens or clan, in republican times, were Vibulanus, Ambustus, Maximus, Buteo, Pictor, Dorso, Labeo; with surnames Verrucosus, Rullianus, Gurges, Aemilianus, Allobrogicus (all of the Maximus branch). The most important members of the family are the following:--

1. MARCUS FABIUS AMBUSTUS, pontifex maximus in the year of the capture of Rome by the Gauls (390). His three sons, Quintus, Numerius and Caeso, although they had been sent as ambassadors to the Gauls when they were besieging Clusium, subsequently took part in hostilities (Livy v. 35). The Gauls thereupon demanded their surrender, on the ground that they had violated the law of nations; the Romans, by way of reply, elected them consular tribunes in the following year. The result was the march of the Gauls upon Rome, the battle of the Allia, and the capture of the city (Livy vi. 1).

2. Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS, surnamed _Rullianus_ or _Rullus_, master of the horse in the second Samnite War to L. Papirius Cursor, by whom he was degraded for having fought the Samnites contrary to orders (Livy viii. 30), in spite of the fact that he gained a victory. In 315, when dictator, he was defeated by the Samnites at Lautulae (Livy ix. 23). In 310 he defeated the Etruscans at the Vadimonian Lake. In 295, consul for the fifth time, he defeated, at the great battle of Sentinum, the combined forces of the Etrurians, Umbrians, Samnites and Gauls (see ROME: _History_, II. "The Republic"). As censor (304) he altered the arrangement of Appius Claudius Caecus, whereby the freedmen were taken into all the tribes, and limited them to the four city tribes. For this he is said to have received the title of _Maximus_, as the deliverer of the comitia from the rule of the mob (Livy ix. 46), but there is reason to think that this title was first conferred on his grandson. It is probable that his achievements are greatly exaggerated by historians favourable to the Fabian house.

3. QUINTUS FABIUS MAXIMUS, surnamed _Verrucosus_ (from a wart on his lip), _Ovicula_ ("the lamb," from his mild disposition), and _Cunctator_ ("the delayer," from his cautious tactics in the war against Hannibal), grandson of the preceding. He served his first consulship in Liguria (233 B.C.), was censor (230) and consul for the second time (228). In 218 he was sent to Carthage to demand satisfaction for the attack on Saguntum (Livy xxi. 18). According to the well-known story, he held up a fold of his toga and offered the Carthaginians the choice between peace and war. When they declared themselves indifferent, he let fall his toga with the words, "Then take war." After the disastrous campaign on the Trebia, and the defeat on the banks of the Trasimene Lake, Fabius was named dictator (Livy calls him pro-dictator, since he was nominated, not by the consul, but by the people) in 217, and began his tactics of "masterly inactivity." Manoeuvring among the hills, where Hannibal's cavalry were useless, he cut off his supplies, harassed him incessantly, and did everything except fight. His steady adherence to his plan caused dissatisfaction at Rome and in his own camp, and aroused the suspicion that he was merely endeavouring to prolong his command. Minucius Rufus, his master of the horse, seized the opportunity, during the absence of Fabius at Rome, to make an attack upon the enemy which proved successful. The people, more than ever convinced that a forward movement was necessary, divided the command between Minucius and Fabius (Livy xxii. 15. 24; Polybius iii. 88). Minucius was led into an ambuscade by Hannibal, and his army was only saved by the opportune arrival of Fabius. Minucius confessed his mistake and henceforth submitted to the orders of Fabius (Livy xxiii. 32). At the end of the legal time of six months Fabius resigned the dictatorship and the war was carried on by the consuls. The result of the abandonment of Fabian tactics was the disaster of Cannae (216). In 215 and 214 (as consul for the third and fourth times) he was in charge of the operations against Hannibal together with Claudius Marcellus (Livy xxiii. 39). He laid siege to Capua, which had gone over to Hannibal after Cannae, and captured the important position of Casilinum; in his fifth consulship (209) he retook Tarentum, which had been occupied by Hannibal for three years (Livy xxvii. 15; Polybius xiii. 4; Plutarch, _Fabius_). He died in 203. Fabius was a strenuous opponent of the new aggressive policy, and did all he could to prevent the invasion of Africa by Scipio. He was distinguished for calmness and prudence, while by no means lacking in courage when it was required. In his later years, however, he became morose, and showed jealousy of rising young men, especially Scipio (_Life_ by Plutarch; Livy xx.-xxx.; Polybius iii. 87-106).

4. Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS AEMILIANUS, eldest son of L. Aemilius Paullus, adopted by Fabius Cunctator. He served in the last Macedonian War (168), and, as consul, defeated Viriathus in Spain (Livy, _Epit_. 52). He was the pupil and patron of Polybius (Polybius xviii., xxix. 6, xxxii. 8-10; Livy xliv. 35).

5. Q. FABIUS MAXIMUS ALLOBROGICUS, son of the above, consul 121 in Gaul. He obtained his surname from his victory over the Allobroges and Arverni in that year (Vell. Pat. ii. 10; Eutropius iv. 22). As censor (108) he erected the first triumphal arch.

6. Q. FABIUS VIBULANUS, with his brothers Caeso and Marcus, filled the consulship for seven years in succession (485-479 B.C.). In the last year there was a reaction against the family, in consequence of Caeso espousing the cause of the plebeians. Thereupon the Fabii--to the number, it is said, of 306 patricians, with some 5000 dependents--emigrated from Rome under the leadership of Caeso, and settled on the banks of the Cremera, a few miles above Rome. For two years the exiles continued to be the city's chief defence against the Veientes, until at last they were surprised and cut off. The only survivor of the gens was Quintus, the sen of Marcus, who apparently took no part in the battle. The story that he had been left behind at Rome on account of his youth cannot be true, as he was consul ten years afterwards. This Quintus was consul in 467, 465 and 459, and a member of the second decemvirate in 450, on the fall of which he went into voluntary exile (Livy ii. 42, 48-50, iii. 1, 9, 41, 58, vi. 1; Dion. Halic. viii. 82-86, ix. 14-22: Ovid, _Fasti_, ii. 195).

The Fabian name is met with as late as the 2nd century A.D. A complete
list of the Fabii will be found in de Vit's _Onomasticon_; see also
W.N. du Rieu, _Disputatio de Gente Fabia_ (1856), containing an
account of 57 members of the family.

FABIUS PICTOR, QUINTUS, the father of Roman history, was born about 254 B.C. He was the grandson of Gaius Fabius, who received the surname _Pictor_ for his painting of the temple of Salus (302). He took an active part in the subjugation of the Gauls in the north of Italy (225), and after the battle of Cannae (216) was employed by the Romans to proceed to Delphi in order to consult the oracle of Apollo. He was the earliest prose writer of Roman history. His materials consisted of the _Annales Maximi_, _Commentarii Consulares_, and similar records; the chronicles of the great Roman families; and his own experiences in the Second Punic War. He is also said to have made much use of the Greek historian Diodes of Peparethus. His work, which was written in Greek, began with the arrival of Aeneas in Italy, and ended with the Hannibalic war. Although Polybius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus frequently find fault with him, the first uses him as his chief authority for the Second Punic War. A Latin version of the work was in existence in the time of Cicero, but it is doubtful whether it was by Fabius Pictor or by a later writer with whom he was confused--Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus (consul 142); or there may have been two annalists of the name of Fabius Pictor.

Fragments in H. Peter, _Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta_ (1883); see
also ANNALISTS and LIVY, and Teuffel-Schwabe, _History of Roman
Literature_, S 116.

FABLE (Fr. _fable_, Lat. _fabula_). With certain restrictions, the necessity of which will be shown in the course of the article, we may accept the definition of "fable" which Dr Johnson proposes in his _Life of Gay_: "A _fable_ or _apologue_ seems to be, in its genuine state, a narrative in which beings irrational, and sometimes inanimate (_arbores loquuntur, non tantum ferae_), are, for the purpose of moral instruction, feigned to act and speak with human interests and passions." The description of La Fontaine, the greatest of fabulists, is a poetic rendering of Johnson's definition:

"Fables in sooth are not what they appear;
Our moralists are mice, and such small deer.
We yawn at sermons, but we gladly turn
To moral tales, and so amused we learn."

The fable is distinguished from the myth, which grows and is not made, the spontaneous and unconscious product of primitive fancy as it plays round some phenomenon of natural or historical fact. The literary myth, such as, for instance, the legend of Pandora in Hesiod or the tale of Er in the _Republic_ of Plato, is really an allegory, and differs from the fable in so far as it is self-interpreting; the story and the moral are intermingled throughout. Between the parable and the fable there is no clear line of demarcation, and theologians like Trench have unwarrantably narrowed their definition of a parable to fit those of the New Testament. The soundest distinction is drawn by Neander. In the fable human passions and actions are attributed to beasts; in the parable the lower creation is employed only to illustrate the higher life and never transgresses the laws of its kind. But whether Jotham's apologue of the trees choosing a king, perhaps the first recorded in literature, should be classed as a fable or a parable is hardly worth disputing. Lastly, we may point out the close affinity between the fable and the proverb. A proverb is often a condensed or fossilized fable, and not a few fables are amplified or elaborated proverbs.

The history of the fable goes back to the remotest antiquity, and Aesop has even less claim to be reckoned the father of the fable than has Homer to be entitled the father of poetry. The fable has its origin in the universal impulse of men to express their thoughts in concrete images, and is strictly parallel to the use of metaphor in language. It is the most widely diffused if not the most primitive form of literature. Though it has fallen from its high place it still survives, as in J. Chandler Harris's _Uncle Remus_ and Rudyard Kipling's _Jungle Book_. The Arab of to-day will invent a fable at every turn of the conversation as the readiest form of argument, and in the _Life_ of Coventry Patmore it is told how an impromptu fable of his about the pious dormouse found its way into Catholic books of devotion.

With the fable, as we know it, the moral is indispensable. As La Fontaine puts it, an apologue is composed of two parts, body and soul. The body is the story, the soul the morality. But if we revert to the earliest type we shall find that this is no longer the case. In the primitive beast-fable, which is the direct progenitor of the Aesopian fable, the story is told simply for its own sake, and is as innocent of any moral as the fairy tales of Little Red Riding-Hood and Jack and the Beanstalk. Thus, in a legend of the Flathead Indians, the Little Wolf found in cloud-land his grandsires the Spiders with their grizzled hair and long crooked nails, and they spun balls of thread to let him down to earth; when he came down and found his wife the Speckled Duck, whom the Old Wolf had taken from him, she fled in confusion, and this is why she lives and dives alone to this very day. Such animal myths are as common in the New World as in the Old, and abound from Finland and Kamtchatka to the Hottentots and Australasians. From the story invented, as the one above quoted, to account for some peculiarity of the animal world, or told as a pure exercise of the imagination, just as a sailor spins a yarn about the sea-serpent, to the moral apologue the transition is easy; and that it has been effected by savages unaided by the example of higher races seems sufficiently proved by the tales quoted by E.B. Tylor (_Primitive Culture_, vol. i. p. 411). From the beast-fables of savages we come next to the Oriental apologues, which we still possess in their original form. The East, the land of myth and legend, is the natural home of the fable, and Hindustan was the birthplace, if not of the original of these tales, at least of the oldest shape in which they still exist. The _Pancha Tantra_ (2nd century B.C.), or fables of the Brahma Vishnu Sarman, have been translated from Sanskrit into almost every language and adapted by most modern fabulists. The _Kalilah_ and _Dimna_ (names of two jackals), or fables of Bidpai (or Pilpai), passed from India to western Europe through the successive stages of Pahlavi (ancient Persian), Arabic, Greek, Latin. By the end of the 16th century there were Italian, French and English versions. There is an excellent Arabic edition (Paris, 1816) with an introduction by Sylvestre de Sacy. The _Hitopadesa_, or "friendly instruction," is a modernized form of the same work, and of it there are three translations into English by Dr Charles Wilkins, Sir William Jones and Professor F. Johnson. The _Hitopadesa_ is a complete chaplet of fables loosely strung together, but connected so as to form something of a continuous story, with moral reflections freely interspersed, purporting to be written for the instruction of some dissolute young princes. Thus, in the first fable a flock of pigeons see the grains of rice which a fowler has scattered, and are about to descend on them, when the king of the pigeons warns them by telling the fable of a traveller who being greedy of a bracelet was devoured by a tiger. They neglect his warning and are caught in the net, but are afterwards delivered by the king of the mice, who tells the story of the Deer, the Jackal and the Crow, to show that no real friendship can exist between the strong and the weak, the beast of prey and his quarry, and so on to the end of the volume. Another book of Eastern fables is well worthy of notice, _Buddhaghosha's Parables_, a commentary on the _Dhammapada_ or _Buddha's Paths of Virtue_. The original is in Pali, but an English translation of the Burmese version was made by Captain T. Rogers, R.E.

From Hindustan the Sanskrit fables passed to China, Tibet and Persia; and they must have reached Greece at an early age, for many of the fables which passed under the name of Aesop are identical with those of the East. Aesop to us is little more than a name, though, if we may trust a passing notice in Herodotus (ii. 134), he must have lived in the 6th century B.C. Probably his fables were never written down, though several are ascribed to him by Xenophon, Aristotle, Plutarch and other Greek writers, and Plato represents Socrates as beguiling his last days by versifying such as he remembered. Aristophanes alludes to them as merry tales, and Plato, while excluding the poets from his ideal republic, admits Aesop as a moral teacher. Of the various versions of _Aesop's Fables_, by far the most trustworthy is that of Babrius or Babrias, a Greek probably of the 3rd century A.D., who rendered them in choliambic verse. These, which were long known in fragments only, were recovered in a MS. found by M. Minas in a monastery on Mount Athos in 1842, now in the British Museum.[1] An inferior version of the same in Latin iambics was made by Phaedrus, a slave of Thracian origin, brought to Rome in the time of Augustus and manumitted by him. Phaedrus professes to polish in senarian verse the rough-hewn blocks from Aesop's quarry; but the numerous allusions to contemporary events, as, for example, his hit at Sejanus in the Frogs and the Sun, which brought upon the author disgrace and imprisonment, show that many of them are original or free adaptations. For some time scholars doubted as to the genuineness of Phaedrus's fables, but their doubts have been lately dispelled by a closer examination of the MSS. and by the discovery of two verses of a fable on a tomb at Apulum in Dacia. Phaedrus's style is simple, clear and brief, but dry and unpoetical; and, as Lessing has pointed out, he often falls into absurdities when he deserts his original. For instance, in Aesop the dog with the meat in his mouth sees his reflection in the water as he passes over a bridge; Phaedrus makes him see it as he swims across the river.

To sum up the characteristics of the Aesopian fable, it is artless, simple and transparent. It affects no graces of style, and we hardly need the text with which each concludes, [Greek: ho mythos deloi hoti, k.t.l.] The moral inculcated is that of _Proverbial Philosophy_ and _Poor Richard's Almanacks_. Aesop is no maker of phrases, but an orator who wishes to gain some point or induce some course of action. It is the Aesopian type that Aristotle has in view when he treats of the fable as a branch of rhetoric, not of poetry.

The Latin race was given to moralizing, and the language lent itself to crisp and pointed narrative, but they lacked the free play of fancy, the childlike "make-believe," to produce a national body of fables. With the doubtful exception of Phaedrus, we possess nothing but solitary examples, such as the famous apologue of Menenius Agrippa to the Plebs and the exquisite Town Mouse and Country Mouse of Horace's _Satires_.

The fables of the rhetorician Aphthonius about A.D. 400 in Greek prose, and those in Latin elegiac verse by Avianus, used for centuries as a text-book in schools, form in the history of the apologue a link between classical and medieval times. In a Latin dress, sometimes in prose, sometimes in regular verse, and sometimes in rhymed stanzas, the fable contributed, with other kinds of narratives, to make up the huge mass of stories which has been bequeathed to us by the monastic libraries. These served more uses than one. They were at once easier and safer reading than the classics. To the lazy monk they stood in place of novels; to the more industrious and gifted they furnished an exercise on a par with Latin verse composition in our public schools; the more original transformed them into _fabliaux_, or embodied them in edifying stories, as in the _Gesta Romanorum_. It is not in the _Speculum Doctrinale_ of Vincent de Beauvais, a Dominican of the 12th century, nor in the collection of his contemporary Odo de Cerinton, an English Cistercian, nor in Planudes of the 14th century, whose one distinction is to have added to the fables a life of Aesop, that the direct lineage of La Fontaine must be traced. It is the _fabliaux_ that inspired some of his best fables--the Lion's Court, the Young Widow, the Coach and the Fly.

As the supremacy of Latin declined and modern languages began to be turned to literary uses, the fable took a new life. Not only were there numerous adaptations of Aesop, known as Ysopets, but Marie de France in the 13th century composed many original fables, some rivalling La Fontaine's in simplicity and gracefulness. Later, also, fables were not wanting, though not numerous, in the English tongue. Chaucer has given us one, in his Nonne Preste's Tale, which is an expansion of the fable _Don Coc et don Werpil_ of Marie de France; another is Lydgate's tale of The Churl and the Bird.