Chapter I: Part 1

Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.

(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
letters.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XIV, SLICE VIII

ISABNORMAL LINES to ITALIC

ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:

ISABNORMAL LINES ISMAIL HADJI MAULVI-MOHAMMED
ISAEUS ISMAILIA
ISAIAH ISMAY, THOMAS HENRY
ISAIAH, ASCENSION OF ISMID, or ISNIKMID
ISANDHLWANA ISNARD, MAXIMIN
ISAR ISOBAR
ISATIN ISOCLINIC LINES
ISAURIA ISOCRATES
ISCHIA ISODYNAMIC LINES
ISCHL ISOGONIC LINES
ISEO, LAKE OF ISOLA DEL LIRI
ISERE (river in France) ISOMERISM
ISERE (department of France) ISOTHERM
ISERLOHN ISOXAZOLES
ISFAHAN ISRAEL
ISHIM ISRAELI, ISAAC BEN SOLOMON
ISHMAEL ISRAELS, JOSEF
ISHPEMING ISSACHAR
ISHTAR ISSEDONES
ISHTIB ISSERLEIN, ISRAEL
ISIDORE OF ALEXANDRIA ISSERLES, MOSES BEN ISRAEL
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE ISSOIRE
ISINGLASS ISSOUDUN
ISIS ISSYK-KUL
ISKELIB ISTAHBANAT
ISLA, JOSE FRANCISCO DE ISTHMUS
ISLAM ISTRIA
ISLAMABAD ISYLLUS
ISLAND ITACOLUMITE
ISLAY ITAGAKI, TAISUKE
ISLES OF THE BLEST ITALIAN LANGUAGE
ISLINGTON ITALIAN LITERATURE
ISLIP ITALIAN WARS
ISLY ITALIC
ISMAIL

ISABNORMAL (or ISANOMALOUS) LINES, in physical geography, lines upon a map or chart connecting places having an abnormal temperature. Each place has, theoretically, a proper temperature due to its latitude, and modified by its configuration. Its mean temperature for a particular period is decided by observation and called its normal temperature. Isabnormal lines may be used to denote the variations due to warm winds or currents, great altitudes or depressions, or great land masses as compared with sea. Or they may be used to indicate the abnormal result of weather observations made in an area such as the British Isles for a particular period.

ISAEUS (c. 420 B.C.-c. 350 B.C.), Attic orator, the chronological limits of whose extant work fall between the years 390 and 353 B.C., is described in the Plutarchic life as a Chalcidian; by Suidas, whom Dionysius follows, as an Athenian. The accounts have been reconciled by supposing that his family sprang from the settlement ([Greek: klerouchia]) of Athenian citizens among whom the lands of the Chalcidian _hippobotae_ (knights) had been divided about 509 B.C. In 411 B.C. Euboea (except Oreos) revolted from Athens; and it would not have been strange if residents of Athenian origin had then migrated from the hostile island to Attica. Such a connexion with Euboea would explain the non-Athenian name Diagoras which is borne by the father of Isaeus, while the latter is said to have been "an Athenian by descent" ([Greek: Athenaios to genos]). So far as we know, Isaeus took no part in the public affairs of Athens. "I cannot tell," says Dionysius, "what were the politics of Isaeus--or whether he had any politics at all." Those words strikingly attest the profound change which was passing over the life of the Greek cities. It would have been scarcely possible, fifty years earlier, that an eminent Athenian with the powers of Isaeus should have failed to leave on record some proof of his interest in the political concerns of Athens or of Greece. But now, with the decline of personal devotion to the state, the life of an active citizen had ceased to have any necessary contact with political affairs. Already we are at the beginning of that transition which is to lead from the old life of Hellenic citizenship to that Hellenism whose children are citizens of the world.

Isaeus (who was born probably about 420 B.C.) is believed to have been an early pupil of Isocrates, and he certainly was a student of Lysias. A passage of Photius has been understood as meaning that personal relations had existed between Isaeus and Plato, but this view appears erroneous.[1] The profession of Isaeus was that of which Antiphon had been the first representative at Athens--that of a [Greek: logographos], who composed speeches which his clients were to deliver in the law-courts. But, while Antiphon had written such speeches chiefly (as Lysias frequently) for public causes, it was with private causes that Isaeus was almost exclusively concerned. The fact marks the progressive subdivision of labour in his calling, and the extent to which the smaller interests of private life now absorbed the attention of the citizen.

The most interesting recorded event in the career of Isaeus is one which belongs to its middle period--his connexion with Demosthenes. Born in 384 B.C., Demosthenes attained his civic majority in 366. At this time he had already resolved to prosecute the fraudulent guardians who had stripped him of his patrimony. In prospect of such a legal contest, he could have found no better ally than Isaeus. That the young Demosthenes actually resorted to his aid is beyond reasonable doubt. But the pseudo-Plutarch embellishes the story after his fashion. He says that Demosthenes, on coming of age, took Isaeus into his house, and studied with him for four years--paying him the sum of 10,000 drachmas (about L400), on condition that Isaeus should withdraw from a school of rhetoric which he had opened, and devote himself wholly to his new pupil. The real Plutarch gives us a more sober and a more probable version. He simply states that Demosthenes "employed Isaeus as his master in rhetoric, though Isocrates was then teaching, either (as some say) because he could not pay Isocrates the prescribed fee of ten minae, or because he preferred the style of Isaeus for his purpose, as being _vigorous and astute_" ([Greek: drasterion kai panourgon]). It may be observed that, except by the pseudo-Plutarch, a school of Isaeus is not mentioned,--for a notice in Plutarch need mean no more than that he had written a textbook, or that his speeches were read in schools;[2] nor is any other pupil named. As to Demosthenes, his own speeches against Aphobus and Onetor (363-362 B.C.) afford the best possible gauge of the sense and the measure in which he was the disciple of Isaeus; the intercourse between them can scarcely have been either very close or very long. The date at which Isaeus died can only be conjectured from his work; it may be placed about 350 B.C.

Isaeus has a double claim on the student of Greek literature. He is
the first Greek writer who comes before us as a consummate master of
strict forensic controversy. He also holds a most important place in
the general development of practical oratory, and therefore in the
history of Attic prose. Antiphon marks the beginning of that
development, Demosthenes its consummation. Between them stand Lysias
and Isaeus. The open, even ostentatious, art of Antiphon had been
austere and rigid. The concealed art of Lysias had charmed and
persuaded by a versatile semblance of natural grace and simplicity.
Isaeus brings us to a final stage of transition, in which the gifts
distinctive of Lysias were to be fused into a perfect harmony with
that masterly art which receives its most powerful expression in
Demosthenes. Here, then, are the two cardinal points by which the
place of Isaeus must be determined. We must consider, first, his
relation to Lysias; secondly, his relation to Demosthenes.

A comparison of Isaeus and Lysias must set out from the distinction
between choice of words ([Greek: lexis]) and mode of putting words
together ([Greek: synthesis]). In choice of words, _diction_, Lysias
and Isaeus are closely alike. Both are clear, pure, simple, concise;
both have the stamp of persuasive plainness ([Greek: apheleia]), and
both combine it with graphic power ([Greek: enargeia]). In mode of
putting words together, _composition_, there is, however a striking
difference. Lysias threw off the stiff restraints of the earlier
periodic style, with its wooden monotony; he is too fond indeed of
antithesis always to avoid a rigid effect; but, on the whole, his
style is easy, flexible and various; above all, its subtle art usually
succeeds in appearing natural. Now this is just what the art of Isaeus
does not achieve. With less love of antithesis than Lysias, and with a
diction almost equally pure and plain, he yet habitually conveys the
impression of conscious and confident art. Hence he is least effective
in adapting his style to those characters in which Lysias peculiarly
excelled--the ingenuous youth, the homely and peace-loving citizen. On
the other hand, his more open and vigorous art does not interfere with
his moral persuasiveness where there is scope for reasoned
remonstrance, for keen argument or for powerful denunciation. Passing
from the formal to the real side of his work, from diction and
composition to the treatment of subject-matter, we find the divergence
wider still. Lysias usually adheres to a simple four-fold
division--proem, narrative, proof, epilogue. Isaeus frequently
interweaves the narrative with the proof.[3] He shows the most
dexterous ingenuity in adapting his manifold tactics to the case in
hand, and often "out-generals" ([Greek: katastrategei]) his adversary
by some novel and daring disposition of his forces. Lysias, again,
usually contents himself with a merely rhetorical or sketchy proof;
Isaeus aims at strict logical demonstration, worked out through all
its steps. As Sir William Jones well remarks, Isaeus lays close siege
to the understandings of the jury.[4]

Such is the general relation of Isaeus to Lysias. What, we must next
ask, is the relation of Isaeus to Demosthenes? The Greek critic who
had so carefully studied both authors states his own view in broad
terms when he declares that "the power of Demosthenes took its seeds
and its beginnings from Isaeus" (Dion. Halic. _Isaeus_, 20). A closer
examination will show that within certain limits the statement may be
allowed. Attic prose expression had been continuously developed as an
art; the true link between Isaeus and Demosthenes is technical,
depending on their continuity. Isaeus had made some original
contributions to the resources of the art; and Demosthenes had not
failed to profit by these. The _composition_ of Demosthenes resembles
that of Isaeus in blending terse and vigorous periods with passages of
more lax and fluent ease, as well as in that dramatic vivacity which
is given by rhetorical question and similar devices. In the versatile
disposition of subject-matter, the divisions of "narrative" and
"proof" being shifted and interwoven according to circumstances,
Demosthenes has clearly been instructed by the example of Isaeus.
Still more plainly and strikingly is this so in regard to the
elaboration of systematic, proof; here Demosthenes invites direct and
close comparison with Isaeus by his method of drawing out a chain of
arguments, or enforcing a proposition by strict legal argument. And,
more generally, Demosthenes is the pupil of Isaeus, though here the
pupil became even greater than the master, in that faculty of
grappling with an adversary's case point by point, in that aptitude
for close and strenuous conflict which is expressed by the words
[Greek: agon, enagonios].[5]

The pseudo-Plutarch, in his life of Isaeus, mentions an _Art of
Rhetoric_ and sixty-four speeches, of which fifty were accounted
genuine. From a passage of Photius it appears that at least[6] the
fifty speeches of recognized authenticity were extant as late as A.D.
850. Only eleven, with a large part of a twelfth, have come down to
us; but the titles of forty-two[7] others are known.[8]

The titles of the lost speeches confirm the statement of Dionysius
that the speeches of Isaeus were exclusively forensic; and only three
titles indicate speeches made in public causes. The remainder,
concerned with private causes, may be classed under six heads:--(1)
[Greek: klerikoi]--cases of claim to an inheritance; (2) [Greek:
epiklerikoi]--cases of claim to the hand of an heiress; (3) [Greek:
diadikasiai]--cases of claim of property; (4) [Greek:
apostasiou]--cases of claim to the ownership of a slave; (5) [Greek:
eggyes]--action brought against a surety whose principal had made
default; (6) [Greek: antomosia] (as = [Greek: paragraphe])--a special
plea; (7) [Greek: ephesis]--appeal from one jurisdiction to another.

Eleven of the twelve extant speeches belong to class (1), the [Greek:
klerikoi], or claims to an inheritance. This was probably the branch
of practice in which Isaeus had done his most important and most
characteristic work. And, according to the ancient custom, this class
of speeches would therefore stand first in the manuscript collections
of his writings. The case of Antiphon is parallel: his speeches in
cases of homicide ([Greek: phonikoi]) were those on which his
reputation mainly depended, and stood first in the manuscripts. Their
exclusive preservation, like that of the speeches made by Isaeus in
will-cases, is thus primarily an accident of manuscript tradition, but
partly also the result of the writer's special prestige.

Six of the twelve extant speeches are directly concerned with claims
to an estate; five others are connected with legal proceedings arising
out of such a claim. They may be classified thus (the name given in
each case being that of the person whose estate is in dispute):

I. _Trials of Claim to an Inheritance_ ([Greek: diadikasiai]).
1. Or. i., Cleonymus. Date between 360 and 353 B.C.
2. Or. iv., Nicostratus. Date uncertain.
3. Or. vii., Apollodorus. 353 B.C.
4. Or. viii., Ciron. 375 B.C.
5. Or. ix., Astyphilus. 369 B.C. (c. 390, Schomann).
6. Or. x., Aristarchus. 377-371 B.C. (386-384, Schomann).

II. _Actions for False Witness_ ([Greek: dikai pseudomartyrion]).
1. Or. ii., Menecles. 354 B.C.
2. Or. iii., Pyrrhus. Date uncertain, but comparatively late.
3. Or. vi., Philoctemon. 364-363 B.C.

III. _Action to Compel the Discharge of a Suretyship_ ([Greek: eggyes
dike]).
Or. v., Dicaeogenes. 390 B.C.

IV. _Indictment of a Guardian for Maltreatment of a Ward_ ([Greek:
eisaggelia kakoseos orphanou]).
Or. xi., Hagnias. 359 B.C.

V. _Appeal from Arbitration to a Dicastery_ ([Greek: ephesis]).
Or. xii., For Euphiletus. (Incomplete.) Date uncertain.

The speeches of Isaeus supply valuable illustrations to the early
history of testamentary law. They show us the faculty of adoption,
still, indeed, associated with the religious motive in which it
originated, as a mode of securing that the sacred rites of the family
shall continue to be discharged by one who can call himself the son of
the deceased. But practically the civil aspect of adoption is, for the
Athenian citizen, predominant over the religious; he adopts a son in
order to bestow property on a person to whom he wishes to bequeath it.
The Athenian system, as interpreted by Isaeus, is thus intermediate,
at least in spirit, between the purely religious standpoint of the
Hindu and the maturer form which Roman testamentary law had reached
before the time of Cicero.[9] As to the form of the speeches, it is
remarkable for its variety. There are three which, taken together, may
be considered as best representing the diversity and range of their
author's power. The fifth, with its simple but lively diction, its
graceful and persuasive narrative, recalls the qualities of Lysias.
The eleventh, with its sustained and impetuous power, has no slight
resemblance to the manner of Demosthenes. The eighth is, of all, the
most characteristic, alike in narrative and in argument. Isaeus is
here seen at his best. No reader who is interested in the social life
of ancient Greece need find Isaeus dull. If the glimpses of Greek
society which he gives us are seldom so gay and picturesque as those
which enliven the pages of Lysias, they are certainly not less
suggestive. Here, where the innermost relations and central interests
of the family are in question, we touch the springs of social life; we
are not merely presented with scenic details of dress and furniture,
but are enabled in no small degree to conceive the feelings of the
actors.

The best manuscript of Isaeus is in the British Museum,--Crippsianus A
(= Burneianus 95, 13th century), which contains also Antiphon,
Andocides, Lycurgus and Dinarchus. The next best is Bekker's
Laurentianus B (Florence), of the 15th century. Besides these, he used
Marcianus L (Venice), saec. 14, Vratislaviensis Z saec. 14[10] and two
very inferior MSS. Ambrosianus A. 99, P (which he dismissed after Or.
i.), and Ambrosianus D. 42, Q (which contains only Or. i., ii.).
Schomann, in his edition of 1831, generally followed Bekker's text; he
had no fresh apparatus beyond a collation of a Paris MS. R in part of
Or. i.; but he had sifted the Aldine more carefully. Baiter and Sauppe
(1850) had a new collation of A, and also used a collation of
Burneianus 96, M, given by Dobson in vol. iv. of his edition (1828).
C. Scheibe (Teubner, 1860) made it his especial aim to complete the
work of his predecessors by restoring the correct Attic forms of
words; thus (e.g.) he gives [Greek: eggya] for [Greek: enegya],
[Greek: dedimen] for [Greek: dediamen], and the like,--following the
consent of the MSS., however, in such forms as the accusative of
proper names in [Greek: -en] rather than [Greek: -e], or (e.g.) the
future [Greek: phanesomai] rather than [Greek: phanoumai], &c., and on
such doubtful points as [Greek: phrateres] instead of [Greek:
phratores], or [Greek: Eilethyias] instead of [Greek: Eileithyias].

EDITIONS.--_Editio princeps_ (Aldus, Venice, 1513); in _Oratores
Attici_, by I. Bekker (1823-1828); W. S. Dobson (1828); J. G. Baiter
and Hermann Sauppe (1850); separately, by G. F. Schomann, with
commentary (1831); C. Scheibe (1860) (Teubner series, new ed. by T.
Thalheim, 1903); H. Buermann (1883); W. Wyse (1904). English
translation by Sir William Jones, 1779.

On Isaeus generally see Wyse's edition; R. C. Jebb, _Attic Orators_;
F. Blass, _Die attische Beredsamkeit_ (2nd ed., 1887-1893); and L.
Moy, _Etude sur les plaidoyers d'Isee_ (1876). (R. C. J.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See further Jebb's _Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeus_, (ii.
264).

[2] Plut. _De glor. Athen._ p. 350 c, where he mentions [Greek: tous
Isokrateis kai Antiphontas kai Isaious] among [Greek: tous en tais
scholais ta meirakia prodidaskontas].

[3] Here he was probably influenced by the teaching of Isocrates. The
forensic speech of Isocrates known as the _Aegineticus_ (Or. xix.),
which belongs to the peculiar province of Isaeus, as dealing with a
claim to property ([Greek: epidikasia]), affords perhaps the earliest
example of narrative and proof thus interwoven. Earlier forensic
writers had kept the [Greek: diegesis] and [Greek: pisteis] distinct,
as Lysias does.

[4] This is what Dionysius means when he says (_Isaeus_, 61) that
Isaeus differs from Lysias--[Greek: to me kat' enthymema ti legein
alla kat' epicheirema]. Here the "enthymeme" means a rhetorical
syllogism with one premiss suppressed (_curtum_, Juv. vi. 449);
"epicheireme," such a syllogism stated in full. Cf. R. Volkmann,
_Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer_, 1872, pp. 153 f.

[5] Cleon's speech in Thuc. iii. 37, 38, works out this image with
remarkable force; within a short space we have [Greek: xyneseos
agon--ton toionde agonon--agonistes--agonizesthai--antagonizesthai--
agonothetein]. See _Attic Orators_, vol. i. 39; ii. 304.

[6] For the words of Photius (cod. 263), [Greek: touton de oi to
gnesion martyrethentes n' kataleipontai monon], might be so rendered
as to imply that, besides these fifty, others also were extant. See
_Att. Orat._ ii. 311, note 2.

[7] Forty-four are given in Thalheim's ed.

[8] The second of our speeches (the Meneclean) was discovered in the
Laurentian Library in 1785, and was edited in that year by Tyrwhitt.
In editions previous to that date, Oration i. is made to conclude
with a few lines which really belong to the end of Orat. ii. (S 47,
[Greek: all' epeide to pragma ... psethisasthe]), and this
arrangement is followed in the translation of Isaeus by Sir William
Jones, to whom our second oration, was, of course, then (1779)
unknown. In Oration i. all that follows the words [Greek: me
poiesantes] in S 22 was first published in 1815 by Mai, from a MS. in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan.

[9] Cf. Maine's _Ancient Law_, ch. vi., and the _Tagore Law Lectures_
(1870) by Herbert Cowell, lect. ix., "On the Rite of Adoption," pp.
208 f.

[10] The date of L and Z is given as the end of the 15th century in
the introduction to Wyse's edition.

ISAIAH. I. _Life and Period._--Isaiah is the name of the greatest, and both in life and in death the most influential of the Old Testament prophets. We do not forget Jeremiah, but Jeremiah's literary and religious influence is secondary compared with that of Isaiah. Unfortunately we are reduced to inference and conjecture with regard both to his life and to the extent of his literary activity. In the heading (i. 1) of what we may call the occasional prophecies of Isaiah (i.e. those which were called forth by passing events), the author is called "the son of Amoz" and Rabbinical legend identifies this Amoz with a brother of Amaziah, king of Judah; but this is evidently based on a mere etymological fancy. We know from his works that (unlike Jeremiah) he was married (viii. 3), and that he had at least two sons, whose names he regarded as, together with his own, symbolic by divine appointment of certain decisive events or religious truths--Isaiah (Yesha'-yahu), meaning "Salvation--Yahweh"; Shear-Yashub, "a remnant shall return"; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "swift (swiftly cometh) spoil, speedy (speedily cometh) prey" (vii. 3, viii. 3, 4, 18). He lived at Jerusalem, perhaps in the "middle" or "lower city" (2 Kings xx. 4), exercised at one time great influence at court (chap. xxxvii.), and could venture to address a king unbidden (vii. 4), and utter the most unpleasant truths, unassailed, in the plainest fashion. Presumably therefore his social rank was far above that of Amos and Micah; certainly the high degree of rhetorical skill displayed in his discourses implies a long course of literary discipline, not improbably in the school of some older prophet (Amos vii. 14 suggests that "schools" or companies "of the prophets" existed in the southern kingdom). We know but little of Isaiah's predecessors and models in the prophetic art (it were fanaticism to exclude the element of human preparation); but certainly even the acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah (and much more the disputed ones) could no more have come into existence suddenly and without warning than the masterpieces of Shakespeare. In the more recent commentaries (e.g. Cheyne's _Prophecies of Isaiah_, ii. 218) lists are generally given of the points of contact both in phraseology and in ideas between Isaiah and the prophets nearly contemporary with him. For Isaiah cannot be studied by himself.

The same heading already referred to gives us our only traditional information as to the period during which Isaiah prophesied; it refers to Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah as the contemporary kings. It is, however, to say the least, doubtful whether any of the extant prophecies are as early as the reign of Uzziah. Exegesis, the only safe basis of criticism for the prophetic literature, is unfavourable to the view that even chap. i. belongs to the reign of this king, and we must therefore regard it as most probable that the heading in i. 1 is (like those of the Psalms) the work of one or more of the Sopherim (or students and editors of Scripture) in post-exilic times, apparently the same writer (or company of writers) who prefixed the headings of Hosea and Micah, and perhaps of some of the other books. Chronological study had already begun in his time. But he would be a bold man who would profess to give trustworthy dates either for the kings of Israel or for the prophetic writers. (See BIBLE, _Old Testament_, Chronology; the article "Chronology" in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_; and cf. H. P. Smith, _Old Testament History_, Edin., 1903, p. 202, note 2.)

II. _Chronological Arrangement, how far possible._--Let us now briefly sketch the progress of Isaiah's prophesying on the basis of philological exegesis, and a comparison of the sound results of the study of the inscriptions. If our results are imperfect and liable to correction, that is only to be expected in the present position of the historical study of the Bible. Chap. vi., which describes a vision of Isaiah "in the death-year of King Uzziah" (740 or 734 B.C.?) may possibly have arisen out of notes put down in the reign of Jotham; but for several reasons it is not an acceptable view that, in its present form, this striking chapter is earlier than the reign of Ahaz. It seems, in short, to have originally formed the preface to the small group of prophecies which now follows it, viz. vii. i.-ix. 7. The portions which may represent discourses of Jotham's reign are chap. ii. and chap. ix. 8-x. 4--stern denunciations which remind us somewhat of Amos. But the allusions in the greater part of chaps. ii.-v. correspond to no period so closely as the reign of Ahaz, and the same remark applies still more self-evidently to vii. 1-ix. 7.[1] Chap. xvii. 1-11 ought undoubtedly to be read in immediate connexion with chap. vii.; it presupposes the alliance of Syria and northern Israel, whose destruction it predicts, though opening a door of hope for a remnant of Israel. The fatal siege of Samaria (724-722 B.C.) seems to have given occasion to chap. xxviii.; but the following prophecies (chaps. xxix.-xxxiii.) point in the main to Sennacherib's invasion, 701 B.C., which evidently stirred Isaiah's deepest feelings and was the occasion of some of his greatest prophecies. It is, however, the vengeance taken by Sargon upon Ashdod (711) which seems to be preserved in chap. xx., and the striking little prophecy in xxi. 1-10, sometimes referred of late to a supposed invasion of Judah by Sargon, rather belongs to some one of the many prophetic personages who wrote, but did not speak like the greater prophets, during and after the Exile. It is also an opinion largely held that the prophetic epilogue in xvi. 13, 14, was attached by Isaiah to an oracle on archaic style by another prophet (Isaiah's hand has, however, been traced by some in xvi. 4b, 5). In fact no progress can be expected in the accurate study of the prophets until the editorial activity both of the great prophets themselves and of their more reflective and studious successors is fully recognized.

Thus there were two great political events (the Syro-Israelitish invasion under Ahaz, and the great Assyrian invasion of Sennacherib) which called forth the spiritual and oratorical faculties of our prophet, and quickened his faculty of insight into the future. The Sennacherib prophecies must be taken in connexion with the historical appendix, chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix. The beauty and incisiveness of the poetic prophecy in xxxvii. 21-32 have, by some critics, been regarded as evidence for its authenticity. This, however, is, on critical grounds, most questionable.

A special reference seems needed at this point to the oracle on Egypt, chap. xix. The comparative feebleness of the style has led to the conjecture that, even if the basis of the prophecy be Isaianic, yet in its present form it must have undergone the manipulation of a scribe. More probably, however, it belongs to the early Persian period. It should be added that the Isaianic origin of the appendix in xix. 18-24 is, if possible, even more doubtful, because of the precise, circumstantial details of the prophecy which are not like Isaiah's work. It is plausible to regard v. 18 as a fictitious prophecy in the interests of Onias, the founder of the rival Egyptian temple to Yahweh at Leontopolis in the name of Heliopolis (Josephus, _Ant._ xii. 9, 7).

III. _Disintegration Theories._--We must now enter more fully into the question whether the whole of the so-called Book of Isaiah was really written by that prophet. The question relates, at any rate, to xiii.-xiv. 23, xxi. 1-10, xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv., xxxv. and xl.-lxvi. The father of the controversy may be said to be the Jewish rabbi, Aben Ezra, who died A.D. 1167. We need not, however, spend much time on the well-worn but inconclusive arguments of the older critics. The existence of a tradition in the last three centuries before Christ as to the authorship of any book is (to those acquainted with the habits of thought of that age) of but little critical moment; the _Sopherim_, i.e. students of Scripture, in those times were simply anxious for the authority of the Scriptures, not for the ascertainment of their precise historical origin. It was of the utmost importance to declare that (especially) Isaiah xl.-lxvi. was a prophetic work of the highest order; this was reason sufficient (apart from any presumed phraseological affinities in xl.-lxvi.) for ascribing them to the royal prophet Isaiah. When the view had once obtained currency, it would naturally become a tradition. The question of the Isaianic or non-Isaianic origin of the disputed prophecies (especially xl.-lxvi.) must be decided on grounds of exegesis alone. It matters little, therefore, when the older critics appeal to Ezra i. 2 (interpreted by Josephus, _Ant._ xi. 1, 1-2), to the Septuagint version of the book (produced between 260 and 130 B.C.), in which the disputed prophecies are already found, and to the Greek translation of the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, which distinctly refers to Isaiah as the comforter of those that mourned in Zion (Eccles. xlviii. 24, 25).

The fault of the controversialists on both sides has been that each party has only seen "one side of the shield." It will be admitted by philological students that the exegetical data supplied by (at any rate) Isa. xl.-lxvi. are conflicting, and therefore susceptible of no simple solution. This remark applies, it is true, chiefly to the portion which begins at lii. 13. The earlier part of Isa. xl.-lxvi. admits of a perfectly consistent interpretation from first to last. There is nothing in it to indicate that the author's standing-point is earlier than the Babylonian captivity. His object is (as most scholars, probably, believe) to warn, stimulate or console the captive Jews, some full believers, some semi-believers, some unbelievers or idolaters. The development of the prophet's message is full of contrasts and surprises: the vanity of the idol-gods and the omnipotence of Israel's helper, the sinfulness and infirmity of Israel and her high spiritual destiny, and the selection (so offensive to patriotic Jews, xlv. 9, 10) of the heathen Cyrus as the instrument of Yahweh's purposes, as in fact his Messiah or Anointed One (xlv. 1), are brought successively before us. Hence the semi-dramatic character of the style. Already in the opening passage mysterious voices are heard crying, "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people"; the plural indicates that there were other prophets among the exiles besides the author of Isa. xl.-xlviii. Then the Jews and the Asiatic nations in general are introduced trembling at the imminent downfall of the Babylonian empire. The former are reasoned with and exhorted to believe; the latter are contemptuously silenced by an exhibition of the futility of their religion. Then another mysterious form appears on the scene, bearing the honourable title of "Servant of Yahweh," through whom God's gracious purposes for Israel and the world are to be realized. The cycle of poetic passages on the character and work of this "Servant," or commissioned agent of the Most High, may have formed originally a separate collation which was somewhat later inserted in the Prophecy of Restoration (i.e. chaps. xl.-xlviii., and its appendix chaps. xlix.-lv.).

The new section which begins at chap. xlix. is written in much the same delightfully flowing style. We are still among the exiles at the close of the captivity, or, as others think, amidst a poor community in Jerusalem, whose members have now been dispersed among the Gentiles. The latter view is not so strange as it may at first appear, for the new book has this peculiarity, that Babylon and Cyrus are not mentioned in it at all. [True, there was not so much said about Babylon as we should have expected even in the first book; the paucity of references to the local characteristics of Babylonia is in fact one of the negative arguments urged by older scholars in favour of the Isaianic origin of the prophecy.] Israel himself, with all his inconsistent qualities, becomes the absorbing subject of the prophet's meditations. The section opens with a soliloquy of the "Servant of Yahweh," which leads on to a glorious comforting discourse, "Can a woman forget her sucking child," &c. (xlix. 1, comp. li. 12, 13). Then his tone rises, Jerusalem can and must be redeemed; he even seems to see the great divine act in process of accomplishment. Is it possible, one cannot help asking, that the abrupt description of the strange fortunes of the "Servant"--by this time entirely personalized--was written to follow chap. lii. 1-12?

The whole difficulty seems to arise from the long prevalent assumption that chaps. xl.-lxvi. form a whole in themselves. Natural as the feeling against disintegration may be, the difficulties in the way of admitting the unity of chaps. xl.-lxvi. are insurmountable. Even if, by a bold assumption, we grant the unity of authorship, it is plain upon the face of it that the chapters in question cannot have been composed at the same time or under the same circumstances; literary and artistic unity is wholly wanting. But once admit (as it is only reasonable to do) the extension of Jewish editorial activity to the prophetic books and all becomes clear. The record before us gives no information as to its origin. It is without a heading, and by its abrupt transitions, and honestly preserved variations of style, invites us to such a theory as we are now indicating. It is only the inveterate habit of reading Isa. xlix.-lxvi. as a part of a work relating to the close of the Exile that prevents us from seeing how inconsistent are the tone and details with this presupposition.

The present article in its original form introduced here a survey of
the portions of Isa. xl.-lxvi. which were plainly of Palestinian
origin. It is needless to reproduce this here, because the information
is now readily accessible elsewhere; in 1881 there was an originality
in this survey, which gave promise of a still more radical treatment
such as that of Bernhard Duhm, a fascinating commentary published in
1892. See also Cheyne, _Jewish Quarterly Review_, July and October
1891; _Introd. to Book of Isaiah_ (1895), which also point forward,
like Stade's _Geschichte_ in Germany, to a bolder criticism of Isaiah.

IV. _Non-Isaianic Elements in Chaps. i.-xxxix._--We have said nothing hitherto, except by way of allusion, of the disputed prophecies scattered up and down the first half of the book of Isaiah. There is only one of these prophecies which may, with any degree of apparent plausibility, be referred to the age of Isaiah, and that is chaps. xxiv.-xxvii. The grounds are (1) that according to xxv. 6 the author dwells on Mount Zion; (2) that Moab is referred to as an enemy (xxv. 10); and (3) that at the close of the prophecy, Assyria and Egypt are apparently mentioned as the principal foes of Israel (xxvii. 12, 13). A careful and thorough exegesis will show the hollowness of this justification. The tone and spirit of the prophecy as a whole point to the same late apocalyptic period to which chap. xxxiv. and the book of Joel; and also the last chapter (especially) of the book of Zechariah, may unhesitatingly be referred.

A word or two may perhaps be expected on Isa. xiii., xiv. and xxxiv., xxxv. These two oracles agree in the elaborateness of their description of the fearful fate of the enemies of Yahweh (Babylon and Edom are merely representatives of a class), and also in their view of the deliverance and restoration of Israel as an epoch for the whole human race. There is also an unrelieved sternness, which pains us by its contrast with Isa. xl.-lxvi. (except those passages of this portion which are probably not homogeneous with the bulk of the prophecy). They have also affinities with Jer. l. li., a prophecy (as most now agree) of post-exilic origin.

There is only one passage which seems in some degree to make up for the aesthetic drawbacks of the greater part of these late compositions. It is the ode on the fall of the king of Babylon in chap. xiv. 4-21, which is as brilliant with the glow of lyric enthusiasm as the stern prophecy which precedes it is, from the same point of view, dull and uninspiring. It is in fact worthy to be put by the side of the finest passages of chaps. xl.-lxvi.--of those passages which irresistibly rise in the memory when we think of "Isaiah."

V. _Prophetic Contrasts in Isaiah._--From a religious point of view there is a wide difference, not only between the acknowledged and the disputed prophecies of the book of Isaiah, but also between those of the latter which occur in chaps. i.-xxxix., on the one hand, and the greater and more striking part of chaps. xl.-lxvi. on the other. We may say, upon the whole, with Duhm, that Isaiah represents a synthesis of Amos and Hosea, though not without important additions of his own. And if we cannot without much hesitation admit that Isaiah was really the first preacher of a personal Messiah whose record has come down to us, yet his editors certainly had good reason for thinking him capable of such a lofty height of prophecy. It is not because Isaiah could not have conceived of a personal Messiah, but because the Messiah-passages are not plainly Isaiah's either in style or in thought. If Isaiah had had those bright visions, they would have affected him more.

Perhaps the most characteristic religious peculiarities of the various disputed prophecies are--(1) the emphasis laid on the uniqueness, eternity, creatorship and predictive power of Yahweh (xl. 18, 25, xli. 4, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12, xlv. 5, 6, 18, 22, xlvi. 9, xlii. 5, xlv. 18, xli. 26, xliii. 9, xliv. 7, xlv. 21, xlviii. 14); (2) the conception of the "Servant of Yahweh"; (3) the ironical descriptions of idolatry (Isaiah in the acknowledged prophecies only refers incidentally to idolatry) xl. 19, 20, xli. 7, xliv. 9-17, xlvi. 6; (4) the personality of the Spirit of Yahweh (mentioned no less than seven times, see especially xl. 3, xlviii. 16, lxiii. 10, 14); (5) the influence of the angelic powers (xxiv. 21); (6) the resurrection of the body (xxvi. 19); (7) the everlasting punishment of the wicked (lxvi. 24); (8) vicarious atonement (chap. liii.).

We cannot here do more than chronicle the attempts of a Jewish scholar, the late Dr Kohut, in the _Z.D.M.G._ for 1876 to prove a Zoroastrian influence on chaps. xl.-lxvi. The idea is not in itself inadmissible, at least for post-exilic portions, for Zoroastrian ideas were in the intellectual atmosphere of Jewish writers in the Persian age.

There is an equally striking difference among the disputed prophecies themselves, and one of no small moment as a subsidiary indication of their origin. We have already spoken of the difference of tone between parts of the latter half of the book; and, when we compare the disputed prophecies of the former half with the Prophecy of Israel's Restoration, how inferior (with all reverence be it said) do they appear! Truly "in many parts and many manners did God speak" in this composite book of Isaiah! To the Prophecy of Restoration we may fitly apply the words, too gracious and too subtly chosen to be translated, of Renan, "ce second Isaie, dont l'ame lumineuse semble comme impregnee, six cent ans d'avance, de toutes les rosees, de tous les parfums de l'avenir" (_L'Antechrist_, p. 464); though, indeed, the common verdict of sympathetic readers sums up the sentence in a single phrase--"the Evangelical Prophet." The freedom and the inexhaustibleness of the undeserved grace of God is a subject to which this gifted son constantly returns with "a monotony which is never monotonous." The defect of the disputed prophecies in the former part of the book (a defect, as long as we regard them in isolation, and not as supplemented by those which come after) is that they emphasize too much for the Christian sentiment the stern, destructive side of the series of divine interpositions in the latter days.

VI. _The Cyrus Inscriptions._--Perhaps one of the most important contributions to the study of II. Isaiah has been the discovery of two cuneiform texts relative to the fall of Babylon and the religious policy of Cyrus. The results are not favourable to a mechanical view of prophecy as involving absolute accuracy of statement. Cyrus appears in the unassailably authentic cylinder inscription "as a complete religious indifferentist, willing to go through any amount of ceremonies to soothe the prejudices of a susceptible population." He preserves a strange and significant silence with regard to Ahura-mazda, the supreme God of Zoroastrianism, and in fact can hardly have been a Zoroastrian believer at all. On the historical and religious bearings of these two inscriptions the reader may be referred to the article "Cyrus" in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_ and the essay on "II. Isaiah and the Inscriptions" in Cheyne's _Prophecies of Isaiah_, vol. ii. It may, with all reverence, be added that our estimate of prophecy must be brought into harmony with facts, not facts with our preconceived theory of inspiration.

AUTHORITIES.--Lowth, _Isaiah: a new translation, with a preliminary
dissertation and notes_ (1778); Gesenius, _Der Proph. Jes._ (1821);
Hitzig, _Der Proph. Jes._ (1833); Delitzsch, _Der Pr. Jes._ (4th ed.,
1889); Dillmann-Kittel, _Isaiah_ (1898); Duhm (1892; 2nd ed., 1902);
Marti (1900); Cheyne, _The Prophecies of Isaiah_ (2 vols., 1880-1881);
_Introd. to Book of Isaiah_ (1898); "The Book of the Prophet Isaiah,"
in Paul Haupt's _Polychrome Bible_ (1898); S. R. Driver, _Isaiah, his
life and times_ (1888); J. Skinner, "The Book of Isaiah," in
_Cambridge Bible_ (2 vols., 1896, 1898); G. A. Smith, in _Expositor's
Bible_ (2 vols., 1888, 1890); Condamin (Rom. Cath.) (1905); G. H. Box
(1908); Article on Isaiah in _Ency. Bib._ by Cheyne; in Hastings'
_Dict. of the Bible_ by Prof. G. A. Smith. R. H. Kennett's Schweich
Lecture (1909), _The Composition of the Book of Isaiah in the Light of
Archaeology and History_, an interesting attempt at a synthesis of
results, is a brightly written but scholarly sketch of the growth of
the book of Isaiah, which went on till the great success of the Jews
under Judas Maccabaeus. The outbursts of triumph (e.g. Isa. ix. 2-7)
are assigned to this period. The most original statement is perhaps
the view that the words of Isaiah were preserved orally by his
disciples, and did not see the light (in a revised form) till a
considerable time after the crystallization of the reforms of Josiah
into laws. (T. K. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] On the question of the Isaianic origin of the prophecy, ix. 1-6,
and the companion passage, xi. 1-8, see Cheyne _Introd. to the Book
of Isaiah_, 1895, pp. 44, 45 and 62-66. Cf., however, J. Skinner
"Isaiah i.-xxxix." in _Cambridge Bible_.

ISAIAH, ASCENSION OF, an apocryphal book of the Old Testament. The _Ascension of Isaiah_ is a composite work of very great interest. In its present form it is probably not older than the latter half of the 2nd century of our era. Its various constituents, however, and of these there were three--the _Martyrdom of Isaiah_, the _Testament of Hezekiah_ and the _Vision of Isaiah_--circulated independently as early as the 1st century. The first of these was of Jewish origin, and is of less interest than the other two, which were the work of Christian writers. The _Vision of Isaiah_ is important for the knowledge it affords us of 1st-century beliefs in certain circles as to the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Seven Heavens, &c. The long lost _Testament of Hezekiah_, which is, in the opinion of R. H. Charles, to be identified with iii. 13b-iv. 18, of our present work, is unquestionably of great value owing to the insight it gives us into the history of the Christian Church at the close of the 1st century. Its descriptions of the worldliness and lawlessness which prevailed among the elders and pastors, i.e. the bishops and priests, of the wide-spread covetousness and vainglory as well as the growing heresies among Christians generally, agree with similar accounts in 2 Peter, 2 Timothy and Clement of Rome.

_Various Titles._--Origen in his commentary on Matt. xiii. 57
(Lommatzsch iii. 4, 9) calls it _Apocryph of Isaiah_--[Greek:
Apokryphon Hesaiou], Epiphanius (_Haer._ xl. 2) terms it the
_Ascension of Isaiah_--[Greek: to anabatikon Hesaiou], and similarly
Jerome--_Ascensio Isaiae_. It was also known as the _Vision of Isaiah_
and finally as the _Testament of Hezekiah_ (see Charles, _The
Ascension of Isaiah_, pp. xii.-xv.).

_The Greek Original and the Versions._--The book was written in Greek,
though not improbably the middle portion, the _Testament of Hezekiah_,
was originally composed in Semitic. The Greek in its original form,
which we may denote by G, is lost. It has, however, been in part
preserved to us in two of its recensions, G^1 and G^2. From G^1 the
Ethiopic Version and the first Latin Version (consisting of ii.
14-iii. 13, vii. 1-19) were translated, and of this recension the
actual Greek has survived in a multitude of phrases in the _Greek
Legend_. G^2 denotes the Greek text from which the Slavonic and the
second Latin Version (consisting of vi.-xi.) were translated. Of this
recension ii. 4-iv. 2 have been discovered by Grenfell and Hunt.[1]
For complete details see Charles, _op. cit._ pp. xviii.-xxxiii.; also
Flemming in Hennecke's _NTliche Apok_.

_Latin Version._--The first Latin Version (L^1) is fragmentary (=ii.
14-iii. 13, vii. 1-19). It was discovered and edited by Mai in 1828
(Script. _vet. nova collectio_ III. ii. 238), and reprinted by
Dillmann in his edition of 1877, and subsequently in a more correct
form by Charles in his edition of 1900. The second version (L^2), which
consists of vi.-xi., was first printed at Venice in 1522, by Gieseler
in 1832, Dillmann in 1877 and Charles in 1900.

_Ethiopic Version._--There are three MSS. This version is on the whole
a faithful reproduction of G^1. These were used by Dillmann and
subsequently by Charles in their editions.

_Different Elements in the Book._--The compositeness of this work is
universally recognized. Dillmann's analysis is as follows, (i.)
_Martyrdom of Isaiah_, of Jewish origin; ii. 1-iii. 12, v. 2-14. (ii.)
The _Vision of Isaiah_, of Christian origin, vi. 1-xi. 1, 23-40.
(iii.) The above two constituents were put together by a Christian
writer, who prefixed i. 1, 2, 4b-13 and appended xi. 42, 43. (iv.)
Finally a later Christian editor incorporated the two sections iii.
13-v. 1 and xi. 2-22, and added i. 3, 4a, v. 15, 16, xi. 41.

This analysis has on the whole been accepted by Harnack, Schurer,
Deane and Beer. These scholars have been influenced by Gebhardt's
statement that in the _Greek Legend_ there is not a trace of iii.
13-v. 1, xi. 2-22, and that accordingly these sections were absent
from the text when the _Greek Legend_ was composed. But this statement
is wrong, for at least five phrases or clauses in the _Greek Legend_
are derived from the sections in question. Hence R. H. Charles has
examined (_op. cit._ pp. xxxviii.-xlvii.) the problem _de novo_, and
arrived at the following conclusions. The book is highly composite,
and arbitrariness and disorder are found in every section. There are
three original documents at its base, (i.) The _Martyrdom of Isaiah_ =
i. 1, 2a, 6b-13a, ii. 1-8, 10-iii. 12, v. 1b-14. This is but an
imperfect survival of the original work. Part of the original work
omitted by the final editor of our book is preserved in the _Opus
imperfectum_, which goes back _not to our text, but to the original
Martyrdom_, (ii.) The _Testament of Hezekiah_ = iii. 13b-iv. 18. This
work is mutilated and without beginning or end. (iii.) The _Vision of
Isaiah_ = vi.-xi. 1-40. The archetype of this section existed
independently in Greek; for the second Latin and the Slavonic Versions
presuppose an independent circulation of their Greek archetype in
western and Slavonic countries. This archetype differs in many
respects from the form in which it was republished by the editor of
the entire work.

We may, in short, put this complex matter as follows: The conditions
of the problem are sufficiently satisfied by supposing a single
editor, who had three works at his disposal, the _Martyrdom of
Isaiah_, of Jewish origin, and the _Testament of Hezekiah_ and the
_Vision of Isaiah_, of Christian origin. These he reduced or enlarged
as it suited his purpose, and put them together as they stand in our
text. Some of the editorial additions are obvious, as i. 2b-6a, 13a,
ii. 9, iii. 13a, iv. 1a, 19-v. 1a, 15, 16, xi. 41-43.

_Dates of the Various Constituents of the Ascension._--(a) The
_Martyrdom_ is quoted by the _Opus Imperfectum_, Ambrose, Jerome,
Origen, Tertullian and by Justin Martyr. It was probably known to the
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thus we are brought back to the
1st century A.D. if the last reference is trustworthy. And this is no
doubt the right date, for works written by Jews in the 2nd century
would not be likely to become current in the Christian Church. (b) The
_Testament of Hezekiah_ was written between A.D. 88-100. The grounds
for this date will be found in Charles, _op. cit._ pp. lxxi.-lxxii.
and 30-31. (c) The _Vision of Isaiah_. The later recension of this
Vision was used by Jerome, and a more primitive form of the text by
the Archontici according to Epiphanius. It is still earlier attested
by the _Actus Petri Vercellenses_. Since the Protevangel of James was
apparently acquainted with it, and likewise Ignatius (_ad. Ephes._
xix.), the composition of the primitive form of the Vision goes back
to the close of the 1st century.

The work of combining and editing these three independent writings may
go back to early in the 3rd or even to the 2nd century.

LITERATURE.--_Editions of the Ethiopic Text_: Laurence, _Ascensio
Isaiae vatis_ (1819); Dillmann, _Ascensio Isaiae Aethiopice et Latine,
cum prolegomenis, adnotationibus criticis et exegeticis, additis
versionum Latinarum reliquiis edita_ (1877); Charles, _Ascension of
Isaiah, translated from the Ethiopic Version, which, together with the
new Greek Fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin translation of
the Slavonic, is here published in full, edited with Introduction,
Notes and Indices_ (1900); Flemming, in Hennecke's _NTliche Apok._
292-305; _NTliche Apok.-Handbuch_, 323-331. This translation is made
from Charles's text, and his analysis of the text is in the main
accepted by this scholar. _Translations_: In addition to the
translations given in the preceding editions, Basset, _Les Apocryphes
ethiopiens_, iii. "L'Ascension d'Isaie" (1894); Beer, _Apok. und
Pseud._ (1900) ii. 124-127. The latter is a German rendering of
ii.-iii. 1-12, v. 2-14, of Dillmann's text. _Critical Inquiries_:
Stokes, art. "Isaiah, Ascension of," in Smith's _Dict. of Christian
Biography_ (1882), iii. 298-301; Robinson, "The Ascension of Isaiah"
in Hastings' _Bible Dict._ ii. 499-501. For complete bibliography see
Schurer,[3] _Gesch. des jud. Volks_, iii. 280-285; Charles, _op. cit._
(R. H. C.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Published by them in the _Amherst Papyri_, an account of the
Greek papyri in the collection of Lord Amherst (1900), and by Charles
in his edition.

ISANDHLWANA, an isolated hill in Zululand, 8 m. S.E. of Rorke's Drift across the Tugela river, and 105 m. N. by W. of Durban. On the 22nd of January 1879 a British force encamped at the foot of the hill was attacked by about 10,000 Zulus, the flower of Cetewayo's army, and destroyed. Of eight hundred Europeans engaged about forty escaped (see ZULULAND: _History_).

ISAR (identical with _Isere_, in Celtic "the rapid"), a river of Bavaria. It rises in the Tirolese Alps N.E. from Innsbruck, at an altitude of 5840 ft. It first winds in deep, narrow glens and gorges through the Alps, and at Tolz (2100 ft.), due north from its source, enters the Bavarian plain, which it traverses in a generally north and north-east direction, and pours its waters into the Danube immediately below Deggendorf after a course of 219 m. The area of its drainage basin is 38,200 sq. m. Below Munich the stream is 140 to 350 yards wide, and is studded with islands. It is not navigable, except for rafts. The total fall of the river is 4816 ft. The Isar is essentially the national stream of the Bavarians. It has belonged from the earliest times to the Bavarian people and traverses the finest corn land in the kingdom. On its banks lie the cities of Munich and Landshut, and the venerable episcopal see of Freising, and the inhabitants of the district it waters are reckoned the core of the Bavarian race.

See C. Gruber, _Die Isar nach ihrer Entwickelung und ihren
hydrologischen Verhaltnissen_ (Munich, 1889); and _Die Bedeutung der
Isar als Verkehrsstrasse_ (Munich, 1890).