VOLUME IV SLICE I Bisharin to Bohea (continued 11)

For a detailed history of body-snatching, see The Diary of a Resurrectionist, edited by J.B. Bailey (London, 1896), which also contains a full bibliography and the regulations in force in foreign countries for the supply of bodies for anatomical purposes.

BOECE (or Boyce), HECTOR (c. 1465-c. 1536), Scottish historian, was born at Dundee about the year 1465, being descended of a family which for several generations had possessed the barony of Panbride in Forfarshire. He received his early education at Dundee, and completed his course of study in the university of Paris, where he took the degree of B.D. He was appointed regent, or professor, of philosophy in the college of Montaigu; and there he was a contemporary of Erasmus, who in two epistles has spoken of him in the highest terms. When William Elphinstone, bishop of Aberdeen, was laying his plans for the foundation of the university of Aberdeen (King’s College) he made Boece his chief adviser; and the latter was persuaded, after receipt of the papal bull erecting the university (1494), to be the first principal. He was in Aberdeen about 1500 when lectures began in the new buildings, and he appears to have been well received by the canons of the cathedral, several of whom he has commemorated as men of learning. It was a part of his duty as principal to read lectures on divinity.

The emoluments of his office were poor, but he also enjoyed the income of a canonry at Aberdeen and of the vicarage of Tullynessle. Under the date of 14th July 1527, we find a “grant to Maister Hector” of an annual pension of £50, to be paid by the sheriff of Aberdeen out of the king’s casualties; and on the 26th of July 1529 was issued a “precept for a lettre to Mr Hector Boys, professor of theology, of a pension of £50 Scots yearly, until the king promote him to a benefice of 100 marks Scots of yearly value; the said pension to be paid him by the custumars of Aberdeen.” In 1533 and 1534, one-half of his pension was, however, paid by the king’s treasurer, and the other half by the comptroller; and as no payment subsequent to that of Whitsuntide 1534 has been traced in the treasurer’s accounts, he is supposed to have obtained the benefice soon after that period. This benefice was the rectorship of Tyrie.

In 1528, soon after the publication of his history, Boece received the degree of D.D. at Aberdeen; and on this occasion the magistrates voted him a present of a tun of wine when the new wines should arrive, or, according to his option, the sum of £20 to purchase bonnets. He appears to have survived till the year 1536; for on the 22nd of November in that year, the king presented John Garden to the rectory of Tyrie, vacant by the death of “Mr Hector Boiss.” He died at Aberdeen, and was buried before the high altar at King’s College, beside the tomb of his patron Bishop Elphinstone.

His earliest publication, Episcoporum Murthlacensium et Aberdonensium per Hectorem Boetium Vitae, was printed at the press of Jodocus Badius (Paris, 1522). The notices of the early prelates are of little value, but the portion of the book in which he speaks of Bishop Elphinstone is of enduring merit. Here we likewise find an account of the foundation and constitution of the college, together with some notices of its earliest members. His fame rests chiefly on his History of Scotland, published in 1527 under the title Scotorum Historiae a prima gentis origine cum aliarum et rerum et gentium illustratione non vulgari. This edition contains seventeen books. Another edition, containing the eighteenth book and a fragment of the nineteenth, was published by Ferrerius, who has added an appendix of thirty-five pages (Paris, 1574).

The composition of the history displays much ability; but Boece’s imagination was, however, stronger than his judgment: of the extent of the historian’s credulity, his narrative exhibits many unequivocal proofs; and of deliberate invention or distortion of facts not a few, though the latter are less flagrant and intentional than early 19th-century criticism has assumed. He professed to have obtained from the monastery of Icolmkill, through the good offices of the earl of Argyll, and his brother, John Campbell of Lundy, the treasurer, certain original historians of Scotland, and among the rest Veremundus, of whose writings not a single vestige is now to be found. In his dedication to the king he is pleased to state that Veremundus, a Spaniard by birth, was archdeacon of St Andrews, and that he wrote in Latin a history of Scotland from the origin of the nation to the reign of Malcolm III., to whom he inscribed his work. His propensity to the marvellous was at an early period exposed in the following verses by Leland:—

“Hectoris historici tot quot mendacia scripsit Si vis ut numerem, lector amice, tibi, Me jubeas etiam fluctus numerare marinos Et liquidi Stellas connumerare poli.”

Boece’s History of Scotland was translated into Scottish prose by John Bellenden, and into verse by William Stewart. The Lives of the Bishops was reprinted for the Bannatyne Club, Edin., 1825, in a limited edition of sixty copies. A commonplace verse-rendering of the Life of Bishop Elphinstone, which was written by Alexander Gardyne in 1619, remains in MS. There is no modern edition of the history, though the versions of Bellenden and Stewart have been edited.

BOEHM, SIR JOSEPH EDGAR, Bart. (1834-1890), British sculptor, was born of Hungarian parentage on the 4th of July 1834 at Vienna, where his father was director of the imperial mint. After studying the plastic art in Italy and at Paris, he worked for a few years as a medallist in his native city. After a further period of study in England, he was so successful as an exhibitor at the Exhibition of 1862 that he determined to abandon the execution of coins and medals, and to give his mind to portrait busts and statuettes, chiefly equestrian. The colossal statue of Queen Victoria, executed in marble (1869) for Windsor Castle, and the monument of the duke of Kent in St George’s chapel, were his earliest great works, and so entirely to the taste of his royal patrons that he rose rapidly in favour with the court. He was made A.R.A. in 1878, and produced soon afterwards the statue of Carlyle on the Thames embankment at Chelsea. In 1881 he was appointed sculptor in ordinary to the queen, and in the ensuing year became full Academician. On the death of Dean Stanley, Boehm was commissioned to execute his sarcophagus in Westminster Abbey, and his achievement, a recumbent statue, has been pronounced to be one of the best portraits in modern sculpture. Less successful was his monument to General Gordon in St Paul’s cathedral. He executed the equestrian statue of the duke of Wellington at Hyde Park Corner, and designed the coinage for the Jubilee of Queen Victoria in 1887. Among his ideal subjects should be noted the “Herdsman and Bull.” He died suddenly in his studio at South Kensington on the 12th of December 1890.

BOEHM VON BAWERK, EUGEN (1851- ), Austrian economist and statesman, was born at Brünn on the 12th of February 1851. Entering the Austrian department of finance in 1872, he held various posts until 1880, when he became qualified as a teacher of political economy in the university of Vienna. The following year, however, he transferred his services to the university of Innsbruck, where he became professor in 1884. In 1889 he became councillor in the ministry of finance, and represented the government in the Lower House on all questions of taxation. In 1895 and again in 1897-1898 he was minister of finance. In 1899 he was made a member of the Upper House, and in 1900 again became minister of finance. One of the leaders of the Austrian school of economists, he has made notable criticisms on the theory of value in relation to cost as laid down by the “classical school.” His more important works are Kapital und Kapitalzins (Innsbruck, 1884-1889), in two parts, translated by W. Smart, viz. Capital and Interest (part i., 1890), and The Positive Theory of Capital (part ii., 1891); Karl Marx and the Close of his System (trans. A.M. Macdonald, 1898); Recent Literature on Interest (trans. W.A. Scott and S. Feilbogen, 1903).

BOEHME (or Behmen), JAKOB (1575-1624), German mystical writer, whose surname (of which Fechner gives eight German varieties) appears in English literature as Beem, Behmont, &c., and notably Behmen, was born at Altseidenberg, in Upper Lusatia, a straggling hamlet among the hills, some 10 m. S.E. of Görlitz. His father was a well-to-do peasant, and his first employment was that of herd boy on the Landskrone, a hill in the neighbourhood of Görlitz; the only education he received was at the town-school of Seidenberg, a mile from his home. Seidenberg, to this day, is filled with shoemakers, and to a shoemaker Jakob was apprenticed in his fourteenth year (1589), being judged not robust enough for husbandry. Ten years later (1599) we find him settled at Görlitz as master-shoemaker, and married to Katharina, daughter of Hans Kuntzschmann, a thriving butcher in the town. After industriously pursuing his vocation for ten years, he bought (1610) the substantial house, which still preserves his name, close by the bridge, in the Neiss-Vorstadt. Two or three years later he gave up business, and did not resume it as a shoemaker; but for some years before his death he made and sold woollen gloves, regularly visiting Prague fair for this purpose.

Boehme’s authorship began in his 37th year (1612) with a treatise, Aurora, oder die Morgenröte im Aufgang, which though unfinished was surreptitiously copied, and eagerly circulated in MS. by Karl von Ender. This raised him at once out of his homely sphere, and made him the centre of a local circle of liberal thinkers, considerably above him in station and culture. The charge of heresy was, however, soon directed against him by Gregorius Richter, then pastor primarius of Görlitz. Feeling ran so high after Richter’s pulpit denunciations, that, in July 1613, the municipal council, fearing a disturbance of the peace, made a show of examining Boehme, took possession of his fragmentary quarto, and dismissed the writer with an admonition to meddle no more with such matters. For five years he obeyed this injunction. But in 1618 began a second period of authorship; he poured forth, but did not publish, treatise after treatise, expository and polemical, in the next and the two following years. In 1622 he composed nothing but a few short pieces on true repentance, resignation, &c., which, however, devotionally speaking, are the most precious of all his writings. They were the only pieces offered to the public in his lifetime and with his permission, a fact which is evidence of the essentially religious and practical character of his mind. Their publication at Görlitz, on New Year’s day 1624, under the title of Der Weg zu Christo, was the signal for renewed clerical hostility. Boehme had by this time entered on the third and most prolific though the shortest period (1623-1624) of his speculation. His labours at the desk were interrupted in May 1624 by a summons to Dresden, where his famous “colloquy” with the Upper Consistorial court was made the occasion of a flattering but transient ovation on the part of a new circle of admirers. Richter died in August 1624, and Boehme did not long survive his pertinacious foe. Seized with a fever when away from home, he was with difficulty conveyed to Görlitz. His wife was at Dresden on business; and during the first week of his malady he was nursed by a literary friend. He died, after receiving the rites of the church, grudgingly administered by the authorities, on Sunday, the 17th of November.

Boehme always professed that a direct inward opening or illumination was the only source of his speculative power. He pretended to no other revelation. Ecstatic raptures we should not expect, for he was essentially a Protestant mystic. No “thus saith the Lord” was claimed as his warrant, after the manner of Antoinette Bourignon, or Ludowick Muggleton; no spirits or angels held converse with him as with Swedenborg. It is needless to dwell, in the way either of acceptance or rejection, on the very few occasions in which his outward life seemed to him to come into contact with the invisible world. The apparition of the pail of gold to the herd boy on the Landskrone, the visit of the mysterious stranger to the young apprentice, the fascination of the luminous sheen, reflected from a common pewter dish, which first, in 1600, gave an intuitive turn to his meditations, the heavenly music which filled his ears as he lay dying—none of these matters is connected organically with the secret of his special power. The mysteries of which he discoursed were not reported to him: he “beheld” them. He saw the root of all mysteries, the Ungrund or Urgrund, whence issue all contrasts and discordant principles, hardness and softness, severity and mildness, sweet and bitter, love and sorrow, heaven and hell. These he “saw” in their origin; these he attempted to describe in their issue, and to reconcile in their eternal result. He saw into the being of God; whence the birth or going forth of the divine manifestation. Nature lay unveiled to him, he was at home in the heart of things. “His own book, which he himself was,” the microcosm of man, with his threefold life, was patent to his vision. Such was his own account of his qualification. If he failed it was in expression; he confessed himself a poor mouthpiece, though he saw with a sure spiritual eye.

It must not be supposed that the form in which Boehme’s pneumatic realism worked itself out in detail was shaped entirely from within. In his writings we trace the influence of Theophr. Bombast von Hohenheim, known as Paracelsus (1493-1541), of Kaspar Schwenkfeld (1490-1561), the first Protestant mystic, and of Valentin Weigel (1533-1588). From the school of Paracelsus came much of his puzzling phraseology,—his Turba and Tinctur and so forth,—a phraseology embarrassing to himself as well as to his readers. His friends plied him with foreign terms, which he was delighted to receive, interpreting them by an instinct, and using them often in a corrupted form and always in a sense of his own. Thus the word Idea called up before him the image of “a very fair, heavenly, and chaste virgin.” The title Aurora, by which his earliest treatise is best known, was furnished by Dr Balthasar Walther. These, however, were false helps, which only serve to obscure a difficult study, like the Flagrat and Lubet, with which his English translator veiled Boehme’s own honest Schreck and Lust. There is danger lest his crude science and his crude philosophical vocabulary conceal the fertility of Boehme’s ideas and the transcendent greatness of his religious insight. Few will take the pains to follow him through the interminable account of his seven Quellgeister, which remind us of Gnosticism; or even of his three first properties of eternal nature, in which his disciples find Newton’s formulae anticipated, and which certainly bear a marvellous resemblance to the three ἀρχαί of Schelling’s Theogonische Natur. Boehme is always greatest when he breaks away from his fancies and his trammels, and allows speech to the voice of his heart. Then he is artless, clear and strong; and no man can help listening to him, whether he dive deep down with the conviction “ohne Gift und Grimm kein Leben,” or rise with the belief that “the being of all beings is a wrestling power,” or soar with the persuasion that Love “in its height is as high as God.” The mystical poet of Silesia, Angelus Silesius, discerned where Boehme’s truest power lay when he sang—

“Im Wasser lebt der Fisch, die Pflanze in der Erden, Der Vogel in der Luft, die Sonn’ am Firmament, Der Salamander muss im Feu’r erhalten werden, Und Gottes Herz ist Jakob Böhme’s Element.”

The three periods of Boehme’s authorship constitute three distinct stages in the development of his philosophy. He himself marks a threefold division of his subject-matter:—1. Philosophia, i.e. the pursuit of the divine Sophia, a study of God in himself; this was attempted in the Aurora. 2. Astrologia, i.e., in the largest sense, cosmology, the manifestation of the divine in the structure of the world and of man; hereto belong, with others, Die drei Principien göttlichen Wesens; Vom dreifachen Leben der Menschen; Von der Menschwerdung Christi;, Von der Geburt und Bezeichnung alter Wesen (known as Signatura Rerum). 3. Theologia, i.e., in Scougall’s phrase, “the life of God in the soul of man.” Of the speculative writings under this head the most important are Von der Gnadenwahl; Mysterium Magnum (a spiritual commentary on Genesis); Von Christi Testamenten (the Sacraments).

Although Boehme’s philosophy is essentially theological, and his theology essentially philosophical, one would hardly describe him as a philosophical theologian; and, indeed, his position is not one in which either the philosopher or the theologian finds it easy to make himself completely at home. The philosopher finds no trace in Boehme of a conception of God which rests its own validity on an accord with the highest canons of reason or of morals; it is in the actual not in the ideal that Boehme seeks God, whom he discovers as the spring of natural powers and forces, rather than as the goal of advancing thought. The theologian is staggered by a language which breaks the fixed association of theological phrases, and strangely reversing the usual point of view, characteristically pictures God as underneath rather than above. Nature rises out of Him; we sink into Him. The Ungrund of the unmanifested Godhead is boldly represented in the English translations of Boehme by the word Abyss, in a sense altogether unexplained by its Biblical use. In the Theologia Germanica this tendency to regard God as the substantia, the underlying ground of all things, is accepted as a foundation for piety; the same view, when offered in the colder logic of Spinoza, is sometimes set aside as atheistical. The procession of spiritual forces and natural phenomena out of the Ungrund is described by Boehme in terms of a threefold manifestation, commended no doubt by the constitution of the Christian Trinity, but exhibited in a form derived from the school of Paracelsus. From Weigel he learned a purely idealistic explanation of the universe, according to which it is not the resultant of material forces, but the expression of spiritual principles. These two explanations were fused in his mind till they issued forth as equivalent forms of one and the same thought. Further, Schwenkfeld supplied him with the germs of a transcendental exegesis, whereby the Christian Scriptures and the dogmata of Lutheran orthodoxy were opened up in harmony with his new-found views. Thus equipped, Boehme’s own genius did the rest. A primary effort of Boehme’s philosophy is to show how material powers are substantially one with moral forces. This is the object with which he draws out the dogmatic scheme which dictates the arrangement of his seven Quellgeister. Translating Boehme’s thought out of the uncouth dialect of material symbols (as to which one doubts sometimes whether he means them as concrete instances, or as pictorial illustrations, or as a mere memoria technica), we find that Boehme conceives of the correlation of two triads of forces. Each triad consists of a thesis, an antithesis and a synthesis; and the two are connected by an important link. In the hidden life of the Godhead, which is at once Nichts and Alles, exists the original triad, viz. Attraction, Diffusion, and their resultant, the Agony of the unmanifested Godhead. The transition is made; by an act of will the divine Spirit comes to Light; and immediately the manifested life appears in the triad of Love, Expression, and their resultant, Visible Variety. As the action of contraries and their resultant are explained the relations of soul, body and spirit; of good, evil and free will; of the spheres of the angels, of Lucifer, and of this world. It is a more difficult problem to account on this philosophy for the introduction of evil. Boehme does not resort to dualism, nor has he the smallest sympathy with a pantheistic repudiation of the fact of sin. That the difficulty presses him is clear from the progressive changes in his attempted solution of the problem. In the Aurora nothing save good proceeds from the Ungrund, though there is good that abides and good that fall;—Christ and Lucifer. In the second stage of his writing the antithesis is directly generated as such; good and its contrary are coincidently given from the one creative source, as factors of life and movement; while in the third period evil is a direct outcome of the primary principle of divine manifestation—it is the wrath side of God. Corresponding to this change we trace a significant variation in the moral end contemplated by Boehme as the object of this world’s life and history. In the first stage the world is created in remedy of a decline; in the second, for the adjustment of a balance of forces; in the third, to exhibit the eternal victory of good over evil, of love over wrath.

Editions of Boehme’s works were published by H. Betke (Amsterdam, 1675); by J.G. Gichtel (Amsterdam, 1682-1683, 10 vols.); by K.W. Schiebler (Leipzig, 1831-1847, 7 vols.). Translations of sundry treatises have been made into Latin (by J.A. Werdenhagen, 1632), Dutch (complete, by W. v. Bayerland, 1634-1641), and French (by Jean Macle, c. 1640, and L.C. de Saint-Martin, 1800-1809). Between 1644 and 1662 all Boehme’s works were translated by John Ellistone (d. 1652) and John Sparrow, assisted by Durand Hotham and Humphrey Blunden, who paid for the undertaking. At that time regular societies of Behmenists, embracing not only the cultivated but the vulgar, existed in England and in Holland. They merged into the Quaker movement, holding already in common with Friends that salvation is nothing short of the very presence and life of Christ in the believer, and only kept apart by an objective doctrine of the sacraments which exposed them to the polemic of Quakers (e.g. J. Anderdon). Muggleton led an anthropomorphic reaction against them, and between the two currents they were swept away. The Philadelphian Society at the beginning of the 18th century consisted of cultured mystics, Jane Lead, Pordage, Francis Lee, Bromley, &c., who fed upon Boehme. William Law (1686-1761) somewhat later recurred to the same spring, with the result, however, in those dry times of bringing his own good sense into question rather than of reviving the credit of his author. After Law’s death the old English translation was in great part re-edited (4 vols., 1762-1784) as a tribute to his memory, by George Ward and Thomas Langcake, with plates from the designs of D.A. Freher (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 5767-5794). This forms what is commonly called Law’s translation; to complete it a 5th vol. (12mo, Dublin, 1820) is needed.

See also J. Hambetger, Die Lehre des deutschen Philosophen J. Boehmes (1844); Alb. Peip, J. Boehme der deutsche Philosoph (1860); von Harless, J. Boehme und die Alchimisten (1870, 2nd ed. 1882). For Boehme’s life see the Memoirs by Abraham von Frankenberg (d. 1652) and others, trans, by F. Okely (1870); La Motte Fouqué, J. Boehm, ein biographischer Denkstein (1831); H.A. Fechner, J. Boehme, sein Leben und seine Schriften (1857); H.L. Martensen, J. Boehme, Theosophiske Studier (Copenhagen, 1881; English trans. 1885); J. Claassen, J. Boehme, sein Leben und seine theosophische Werke (Güterslöh, 1885); P. Deussen, J. Boehme, über sein Leben und seine Philosophie (Kiel, 1897).

BOEOTIA, a district of central Greece, stretching from Phocis and Locris in the W. and N. to Attica and Megaris in the S. between the strait of Euboea and the Corinthian Gulf. This area, amounting in all to 1100 sq. m., naturally falls into two main divisions. In the north the basin of the Cephissus and Lake Copaïs lies between parallel mountain-walls continuing eastward the line of Parnassus in the extensive ridge of Helicon, the “Mountain of the Muses” (5470 ft.) and the east Locrian range in Mts. Ptoüm, Messapium and other smaller peaks. These ranges, which mostly lie close to the seaboard, form by their projecting spurs a narrow defile on the Phocian frontier, near the famous battlefield of Chaeroneia, and shut in Copaïs closely on the south between Coronea and Haliartus. The north-east barrier was pierced by underground passages (katavothra) which carried off the overflow from Copaïs. The southern portion of the land forms a plateau which slopes to Mt. Cithaeron, the frontier range between Boeotia and Attica. Within this territory the low ridge of Teumessus separates the plain of Ismenus and Dirce, commanded by the citadel of Thebes, from the upland plain of the Asopus, the only Boeotian river that finds the eastern sea. Though the Boeotian climate suffered from the exhalations of Copaïs, which produced a heavy atmosphere with foggy winters and sultry summers, its rich soil was suited alike for crops, plantations and pasture; the Copaïs plain, though able to turn into marsh when the choking of the katavothra caused the lake to encroach, being among the most fertile in Greece. The central position of Boeotia between two seas, the strategic strength of its frontiers and the ease of communication within its extensive area were calculated to enhance its political importance. On the other hand the lack of good harbours hindered its maritime development; and the Boeotian nation, although it produced great men like Pindar, Epaminondas, Pelopidas and Plutarch, was proverbially as dull as its native air. But credit should be given to the people for their splendid military qualities: both their cavalry and heavy infantry achieved a glorious record.

In the mythical days Boeotia played a prominent part. Of the two great centres of legends, Thebes with its Cadmean population figures as a military stronghold, and Orchomenus, the home of the Minyae, as an enterprising commercial city. The latter’s prosperity is still attested by its archaeological remains (notably the “Treasury of Minyas”) and the traces of artificial conduits by which its engineers supplemented the natural outlets. The “Boeotian” population seems to have entered the land from the north at a date probably anterior to the Dorian invasion. With the exception of the Minyae, the original peoples were soon absorbed by these immigrants, and the Boeotians henceforth appear as a homogeneous nation. In historical times the leading city of Boeotia was Thebes, whose central position and military strength made it a suitable capital. It was the constant ambition of the Thebans to absorb the other townships into a single state, just as Athens had annexed the Attic communities. But the outlying cities successfully resisted this policy, and only allowed the formation of a loose federation which in early times seems to have possessed a merely religious character. While the Boeotians, unlike the Arcadians, generally acted as a united whole against foreign enemies, the constant struggle between the forces of centralization and disruption perhaps went further than any other cause to check their development into a really powerful nation. Boeotia hardly figures in history before the late 6th century. Previous to this its people is chiefly known as the producer of a type of geometric pottery similar to the Dipylon ware of Athens. About 519 the resistance of Plataea to the federating policy of Thebes led to the interference of Athens on behalf of the former; on this occasion, and again in 507, the Athenians defeated the Boeotian levy. During the Persian invasion of 480, while some of the cities fought whole-heartedly in the ranks of the patriots, Thebes assisted the invaders. For a time the presidency of the Boeotian League was taken away from Thebes, but in 457 the Spartans reinstated that city as a bulwark against Athenian aggression. Athens retaliated by a sudden advance upon Boeotia, and after the victory of Oenophyta brought under its power the whole country excepting the capital. For ten years the land remained under Athenian control, which was exercised through the newly installed democracies; but in 447 the oligarchic majority raised an insurrection, and after a victory at Coronea regained their freedom and restored the old constitutions. In the Peloponnesian War the Boeotians, embittered by the early conflicts round Plataea, fought zealously against Athens. Though slightly estranged from Sparta after the peace of Nicias, they never abated their enmity against their neighbours. They rendered good service at Syracuse and Arginusae; but their greatest achievement was the decisive victory at Delium over the flower of the Athenian army (424), in which both their heavy infantry and their cavalry displayed unusual efficiency.

About this time the Boeotian League comprised eleven groups of sovereign cities and associated townships, each of which elected one Boeotarch or minister of war and foreign affairs, contributed sixty delegates to the federal council at Thebes, and supplied a contingent of about a thousand foot and a hundred horse to the federal army. A safeguard against undue encroachment on the part of the central government was provided in the councils of the individual cities, to which all important questions of policy had to be submitted for ratification. These local councils, to which the propertied classes alone were eligible, were subdivided into four sections, resembling the prytaneis of the Athenian council, which took it in turns to take previous cognizance of all new measures.1

Boeotia took a prominent part in the war of the Corinthian League against Sparta, especially at Haliartus and Coronea (395-394). This change of policy seems due mainly to the national resentment against foreign interference. Yet disaffection against Thebes was now growing rife, and Sparta fostered this feeling by stipulating for the complete independence of all the cities in the peace of Antalcidas (387). In 374 Pelopidas restored the Theban dominion. Boeotian contingents fought in all the campaigns of Epaminondas, and in the later wars against Phocis (356-346); while in the dealings with Philip of Macedon the federal cities appear merely as the tools of Thebes. The federal constitution was also brought into accord with the democratic governments now prevalent throughout the land. The sovereign power was vested in the popular assembly, which elected the Boeotarchs (between seven and twelve in number), and sanctioned all laws. After the battle of Chaeroneia, in which the Boeotian heavy infantry once again distinguished itself, the land never rose again to prosperity. The destruction of Thebes by Alexander (335) seems to have paralysed the political energy of the Boeotians, though it led to an improvement in the federal constitution, by which each city received an equal vote. Henceforth they never pursued an independent policy, but followed the lead of protecting powers. Though the old military training and organization continued, the people proved unable to defend the frontiers, and the land became more than ever the “dancing-ground of Ares.” Though enrolled for a short time in the Aetolian League (about 245 B.C.) Boeotia was generally loyal to Macedonia, and supported its later kings against Rome. In return for the excesses of the democracies Rome dissolved the league, which, however, was allowed to revive under Augustus, and merged with the other central Greek federations in the Achaean synod. The death-blow to the country’s prosperity was given by the devastations during the first Mithradatic War.

Save for a short period of prosperity under the Frankish rulers of Athens (1205-1310), who repaired the katavothra and fostered agriculture, Boeotia long continued in a state of decay, aggravated by occasional barbarian incursions. The first step towards the country’s recovery was not until 1895, when the outlets of Copaïs were again put into working order. Since then the northern plain has been largely reclaimed for agriculture, and the natural riches of the whole land are likely to develop under the influence of the railway to Athens. Boeotia is at present a Nomos with Livadia (the old Turkish capital) for its centre; the other surviving townships are quite unimportant. The population (65,816 in 1907) is largely Albanian.

Authorities.—Thuc. iv. 76-101; Xenophon, Hellenica, iii.-vii.; Strabo, pp. 400-412; Pausanias ix.; Theopompus (or Cratippus) in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. v. (London, 1908), No. 842, col. 12; W.M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, chs. xi.-xix. (London, 1835); H.F. Tozer, Geography of Greece (London, 1873), pp. 233-238; W. Rhys Roberts, The Ancient Boeotians (Cambridge, 1895); E.A. Freeman. Federal Government (ed. 1893, London), ch. iv. § 2; B.V. Head, Historia Numorum, pp. 291 sqq. (Oxford, 1887); W. Larfeld, Sylloge Inscriptionum Boeoticarum (Berlin, 1883). (See also Thebes.)

1 Thucydides (v. 38), in speaking of the “four councils of the Boeotians,” is referring to the plenary bodies in the various states.

BOER, the Dutch form of the Eng. “boor,” in its original signification of husbandman (Ger. Bauer), a name given to the Dutch farmers of South Africa, and especially to the Dutch population of the Transvaal and Orange River States. (See South Africa and Transvaal.)

BOERHAAVE, HERMANN (1668-1738), Dutch physician and man of science, was born at Voorhout near Leiden on the 31st of December 1668. Entering the university of Leiden he took his degree in philosophy in 1689, with a dissertation De distinctione mentis a corpore, in which he attacked the doctrines of Epicurus, Hobbes and Spinoza. He then turned to the study of medicine, in which he graduated in 1693 at Harderwyck in Guelderland. In 1701 he was appointed lecturer on the institutes of medicine at Leiden; in his inaugural discourse, De commendando Hippocratis studio, he recommended to his pupils that great physician as their model. In 1709 he became professor of botany and medicine, and in that capacity he did good service, not only to his own university, but also to botanical science, by his improvements and additions to the botanic garden of Leiden, and by the publication of numerous works descriptive of new species of plants. In 1714, when he was appointed rector of the university, he succeeded Govert Bidloo (1649-1713) in the chair of practical medicine, and in this capacity he had the merit of introducing the modern system of clinical instruction. Four years later he was appointed also to the chair of chemistry. In 1728 he was elected into the French Academy of Sciences, and two years later into the Royal Society of London. In 1729 declining health obliged him to resign the chairs of chemistry and botany; and he died, after a lingering and painful illness, on the 23rd of September 1738 at Leiden. His genius so raised the fame of the university of Leiden, especially as a school of medicine, that it became a resort of strangers from every part of Europe. All the princes of Europe sent him disciples, who found in this skilful professor not only an indefatigable teacher, but an affectionate guardian. When Peter the Great went to Holland in 1715, to instruct himself in maritime affairs, he also took lessons from Boerhaave. His reputation was not confined to Europe; a Chinese mandarin wrote him a letter directed “To the illustrious Boerhaave, physician in Europe,” and it reached him in due course.

His principal works are—Institutiones medicae (Leiden, 1708); Aphorismi de cognoscendis et curandis morbis (Leiden, 1709), on which his pupil and assistant, Gerard van Swieten (1700-1772) published a commentary in 5 vols.; and Elementa chemiae (Paris, 1724).

BOETHUS, a sculptor of the Hellenistic age, a native of Carthage (or possibly Chalcedon). His date cannot be accurately fixed, but was probably the 2nd century B.C. He was noted for his representations of children, in dealing with whom earlier Greek art had not been very successful; and especially for a group representing a boy struggling with a goose, of which several copies survive in museums.

BOETIUS (or Boethius), ANICIUS MANLIUS SEVERINUS (c. A.D. 480-524), Roman philosopher and statesman, described by Gibbon as “the last of the Romans whom Cato or Tully could have acknowledged for their countryman.” The historians of the day give us but imperfect records or make unsatisfactory allusions. Later chroniclers indulged in the fictitious and the marvellous, and it is almost exclusively from his own books that trustworthy information can be obtained. There is considerable diversity among authorities as to his name. One editor of his De Consolatione, Bertius, thinks that he bore the praenomen of Flavius, but there is no authority for this supposition. His father was Flavius Manlius Boetius, and it is probable that the Flavius Boetius, the praetorian prefect who was put to death in A.D. 455 by order of Valentinian III., was his grandfather, but these facts do not prove that he also had the praenomen of Flavius. Many of the earlier editions inserted the name of Torquatus, but it is not found in any of the best manuscripts. The last name is commonly written Boethius, from the idea that it is connected with the Greek βοηθος; but the best manuscripts agree in reading Boetius.

His boyhood was spent in Rome during the reign of Odoacer. We know nothing of his early years. A passage in a treatise falsely ascribed to him (De Disciplina Scholarium) and a misinterpretation of a passage in Cassiodorus led early scholars to suppose that he spent some eighteen years in Athens pursuing his studies, but there is no foundation for this opinion. His father, consul in 487, seems to have died soon after; for Boetius states that, when he was bereaved of his parent, men of the highest rank took him under their charge (De Con. lib. ii. c. 3), especially the senator Q. Aur. Memmius Symmachus, whose daughter Rusticiana he married. By her he had two sons, Anicius Manlius Severinus Boetius and Q. Aurelius Memmius Symmachus. He became a favourite with Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, who ruled in Rome from 500, and was one of his intimate friends. Boetius was consul in 510, and his sons, while still young, held the same honour together (522). Boetius regarded it as the height of his good fortune when he witnessed his two sons, consuls at the same time, convoyed from their home to the senate-house amid the enthusiasm of the masses. On that day, he tells us, while his sons occupied the curule chairs in the senate-house, he himself had the honour of pronouncing a panegyric on the monarch. But his good fortune did not last, and he attributes the calamities that came upon him to the ill-will which his bold maintenance of justice had caused, and to his opposition to every oppressive measure. Of this he mentions particular cases. A famine had begun to rage. The prefect of the praetorium was determined to satisfy the soldiers, regardless altogether of the feelings of the provincials. He accordingly issued an edict for a coemptio, that is, an order compelling the provincials to sell their corn to the government, whether they would or not. This edict would have utterly ruined Campania. Boetius interfered. The case was brought before the king, and Boetius succeeded in averting the coemptio from the Campanians. And he gives as a crowning instance that he exposed himself to the hatred of the informer Cyprianus by preventing the punishment of Albinus, a man of consular rank. He mentions in another place that when at Verona the king was anxious to transfer the accusation of treason brought against Albinus to the whole senate, he defended the senate at great risk. In consequence of the ill-will that Boetius had thus roused, he was accused of treason towards the end of the reign of Theodoric. The charges were that he had conspired against the king, that he was anxious to maintain the integrity of the senate, and to restore Rome to liberty, and that for this purpose he had written to the emperor Justin. Justin had, no doubt, special reasons for wishing to see an end to the reign of Theodoric. Justin was orthodox, Theodoric was an Arian. The orthodox subjects of Theodoric were suspicious of their ruler; and many would gladly have joined in a plot to displace him. The knowledge of this fact may have rendered Theodoric suspicious. But Boetius denied the accusation in unequivocal terms. He did indeed wish the integrity of the senate. He would fain have desired liberty, but all hope of it was gone. The letters addressed by him to Justin were forgeries, and he had not been guilty of any conspiracy. Notwithstanding his innocence he was condemned and sent to Ticinum (Pavia) where he was thrown into prison. It was during his confinement in this prison that he wrote his famous work De Consolatione Philosophiae. His goods were confiscated, and after an imprisonment of considerable duration he was put to death in 524. Procopius relates that Theodoric soon repented of his cruel deed, and that his death, which took place soon after, was hastened by remorse for the crime he had committed against his great counsellor.

Two or three centuries after the death of Boetius writers began to view his death as a martyrdom. Several Christian books were ascribed to him, and there was one especially on the Trinity (see below) which was regarded as proof that he had taken an active part against the heresy of Theodoric. It was therefore for his orthodoxy that Boetius was put to death. And these writers delight to paint with minuteness the horrible tortures to which he was exposed and the marvellous actions which the saint performed at his death. He was locally regarded as a saint, but he was not canonized. The brick tower in Pavia in which he was confined was, and still is, an object of reverence to the country people. Finally, in the year 996, Otho III. ordered the bones of Boetius to be taken out of the place in which they had lain hid, and to be placed in the church of S. Pietro in Ciel d’Oro within a splendid tomb, for which Gerbert, afterwards Pope Silvester II., wrote an inscription. Thence they were subsequently removed to a tomb beneath the high altar of the cathedral. It should be mentioned also that some have given him a decidedly Christian wife, of the name of Elpis, who wrote hymns, two of which are still extant (Daniel, Thes. Hymn. i. p. 156). This is a pure supposition inconsistent with chronology, and based only on a misinterpretation of a passage in the De Consolatione.

The contemporaries of Boetius regarded him as a man of profound learning. Priscian the grammarian speaks of him as having attained the summit of honesty and of all sciences. Cassiodorus, magister officiorum under Theodoric and the intimate acquaintance of the philosopher, employs language equally strong, and Ennodius, the bishop of Pavia, knows no bounds for his admiration. Theodoric had a profound respect for his scientific abilities. He employed him in setting right the coinage. When he visited Rome with Gunibald, king of the Burgundians, he took him to Boetius, who showed them, amongst other mechanical contrivances, a sun-dial and a water-clock. The foreign monarch was astonished, and, at the request of Theodoric, Boetius had to prepare others of a similar nature, which were sent as presents to Gunibald.

The fame of Boetius increased after his death, and his influence during the middle ages was exceedingly powerful. His circumstances peculiarly favoured this influence. He appeared at a time when contempt for intellectual pursuits had begun to pervade society. In his early years he was seized with a passionate enthusiasm for Greek literature, and this continued through life. Even amidst the cares of the consulship he found time for commenting on the Categories of Aristotle. The idea laid hold of him of reviving the spirit of his countrymen by imbuing them with the thoughts of the great Greek writers. He formed the resolution to translate all the works of Aristotle and all the dialogues of Plato, and to reconcile the philosophy of Plato with that of Aristotle. He did not succeed in all that he designed; but he did a great part of his work. He translated into Latin Aristotle’s Analytica Priora et Posteriora, the Topica, and Elenchi Sophistici; and he wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories, on his book περὶ ἑρμηνείας, also a commentary on the Isagoge of Porphyrius. These works formed to a large extent the source from which the middle ages derived their knowledge of Aristotle. (See Stahr, Aristoteles bei den Römern, pp. 196-234.) Boetius wrote also a commentary on the Topica of Cicero; and he was also the author of independent works on logic:—Introductio ad Categoricos Syllogismos, in one book; De Syllogismis Categoricis, in two books; De Syllogismis Hypotheticis, in two books; De Divisione, in one book; De Definitione, in one book; De Differentiis Topicis, in four books.

We see from a statement of Cassiodorus that he furnished manuals for the quadrivium of the schools of the middle ages (the “quattuor matheseos disciplinae,” as Boetius calls them) on arithmetic, music, geometry and astronomy. The statement of Cassiodorus that he translated Nicomachus is rhetorical. Boetius himself tells us in his preface addressed to his father-in-law Symmachus that he had taken liberties with the text of Nicomachus, that he had abridged the work when necessary, and that he had introduced formulae and diagrams of his own where he thought them useful for bringing out the meaning. His work on music also is not a translation from Pythagoras, who left no writing behind him. But Boetius belonged to the school of musical writers who based their science on the method of Pythagoras. They thought that it was not sufficient to trust to the ear alone, to determine the principles of music, as did practical musicians like Aristoxenus, but that along with the ear, physical experiments should be employed. The work of Boetius is in five books and is a very complete exposition of the subject. It long remained a text-book of music in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It is still very valuable as a help in ascertaining the principles of ancient music, and gives us the opinions of some of the best ancient writers on the art. The manuscripts of the geometry of Boetius differ widely from each other. One editor, Godofredus Friedlein, thinks that there are only two manuscripts which can at all lay claim to contain the work of Boetius. He published the Ars Geometriae, in two books, as given in these manuscripts; but critics are generally inclined to doubt the genuineness even of these. Professor Rand, Georgius Ernst and A.P. McKinlay regard the Ars as certainly inauthentic, while they accept the Interpretatio Euclidis (see works quoted in bibliography).

By far the most important and most famous of the works of Boetius is his book De Consolatione Philosophiae. Gibbon justly describes it as “a golden volume, not unworthy of the leisure of Plato or Tully, but which claims incomparable merit from the barbarism of the times and the situation of the author.” The high reputation it had in medieval times is attested by the numerous translations, commentaries and imitations of it which then appeared. Among others Asser, the instructor of Alfred the Great, and Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, commented on it. Alfred translated it into Anglo-Saxon. Versions of it appeared in German, French, Italian, Spanish and Greek before the end of the 15th century. Chaucer translated it into English prose before the year 1382; and this translation was published by Caxton at Westminster, 1480. Lydgate followed in the wake of Chaucer. It is said that, after the invention of printing, amongst others Queen Elizabeth translated it, and that the work was well known to Shakespeare. It was the basis of the earliest specimen of Provençal literature.

This famous work consists of five books. Its form is peculiar, and is an imitation of a similar work by Marcianus Capella, De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii. It is alternately in prose and verse. The verse shows great facility of metrical composition, but a considerable portion of it is transferred from the tragedies of Seneca. The first book opens with a few verses, in which Boetius describes how his sorrows had brought him to a premature old age. As he is thus lamenting, a woman appears to him of dignified mien, whom he recognizes as his guardian, Philosophy. She, resolving to apply the remedy for his grief, questions him for that purpose. She finds that he believes that God rules the world, but does not know what he himself is; and this absence of self-knowledge is the cause of his weakness. In the second book Philosophy presents to Boetius Fortune, who is made to state to him the blessings he has enjoyed, and after that proceeds to discuss with him the kind of blessings that fortune can bestow, which are shown to be unsatisfactory and uncertain. In the third book Philosophy promises to lead him to true happiness, which is to be found in God alone, for since God is the highest good, and the highest good is true happiness, God is true happiness. Nor can real evil exist, for since God is all-powerful, and since he does not wish evil, evil must be non-existent. In the fourth book Boetius raises the question, Why, if the governor of the universe is good, do evils exist, and why is virtue often punished and vice rewarded? Philosophy proceeds to show that in fact vice is never unpunished nor virtue unrewarded. From this Philosophy passes into a discussion in regard to the nature of providence and fate, and shows that every fortune is good. The fifth and last book takes up the question of man’s free will and God’s foreknowledge, and, by an exposition of the nature of God, attempts to show that these doctrines are not subversive of each other; and the conclusion is drawn that God remains a foreknowing spectator of all events, and the ever-present eternity of his vision agrees with the future quality of our actions, dispensing rewards to the good and punishments to the wicked.

Several theological works have been ascribed to Boetius, as has been already mentioned. The Consolatio affords conclusive proof that the author was not a practical believer in Christianity. The book contains expressions such as daemones, angelica virtus, and purgatoria dementia, which have been thought to be derived from the Christian faith; but they are used in a heathen sense, and are explained sufficiently by the circumstance that Boetius was on intimate terms with Christians. The writer nowhere finds consolation in any Christian belief, and Christ is never named in the work. It is not impossible, however, that Boetius may have been brought up a Christian, and that in his early years he may have written some Christian books. Peiper thinks that the first three treatises are the productions of the early years of Boetius. The first, De Sancta Trinitate, is addressed to Symmachus (Domino Patri Symmacho), and the result of the short discussion, which is of an abstract nature, and deals partly with the ten categories, is that unity is predicated absolutely, or, in regard to the substance of the Deity, trinity is predicated relatively. The second treatise is addressed to John the deacon (“Ad Joannem Diaconum”), and its subject is “Utrum Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus de divinitate substantialiter praedicentur.” This treatise is shorter than the first, occupying only two or three pages, and the conclusion of the argument is the same. The third treatise bears the title, Quomodo substantiae in eo quod sint bonae sint cum non sint substantialia bona. It contains nothing distinctly Christian, and it contains nothing of great value; therefore its authorship is a matter of little consequence. Peiper thinks that, as the best MSS. uniformly assign these treatises to Boetius, they are to be regarded as his; that it is probable that Symmachus and John (who afterwards became Pope) were the men of highest distinction who took charge of him when he lost his father; and that these treatises are the first-fruits of his studies, which he dedicates to his guardians and benefactors. He thinks that the variations in the inscriptions of the fifth treatise which is not found in the best manuscript, are so great that the name of Boetius could not have originally been in the title. The fourth book is also not found in the best manuscript, and two manuscripts have no inscription. He infers, from these facts, that there is no sure evidence for the authorship of the fourth and fifth treatises. The fifth treatise is Contra Eutychen et Nestorium. Both Eutyches and Nestorius are spoken of as living. A council is mentioned, in which a letter was read, expounding the opinion of the Eutychians for the first time. The novelty of the opinion is also alluded to. All these circumstances point to the council of Chalcedon (451). The treatise was therefore written before the birth of Boetius, if it be not a forgery; but there is no reason to suppose that the treatise was not a genuine production of the time to which it professes to belong. The fourth treatise, De Fide Catholica, does not contain any distinct chronological data; but the tone and opinions of the treatise produce the impression that it probably belonged to the same period as the treatise against Eutyches and Nestorius. Several inscriptions ascribe both these treatises to Boetius. It will be seen from this statement that Peiper bases his conclusions on grounds far too narrow; and on the whole it is perhaps more probable that Boetius wrote none of the four Christian treatises, particularly as they are not ascribed to him by any of his contemporaries. Three of them express in the strongest language the orthodox faith of the church in opposition to the Arian heresy, and these three put in unmistakable language the procession of the Holy Spirit from both Father and Son. The fourth argues for the orthodox belief of the two natures and one person of Christ. When the desire arose that it should be believed that Boetius perished from his opposition to the heresy of Theodoric, it was natural to ascribe to him works which were in harmony with this supposed fact. The works may really have been written by one Boetius, a bishop of Africa, as Jourdain supposes, or by some Saint Severinus, as Nitzsch conjectures, and the similarity of name may have aided the transference of them to the heathen or neutral Boetius.

Important and, if genuine, decisive evidence upon this point is afforded by a passage in the Anecdoton Holderi, a fragment contained in a 10th-century MS. (ed. H. Usener, Leipzig, 1877). The fragment gives an extract from a previously unknown letter of Cassiodorus, the important words being “Scripsit (i.e. Boetius) librum de sancta trinitate, et capita quaedam dogmatica, et librum contra Nestorium.” Nitzsch, however, held that this was a copyist’s gloss, harmonizing with the received Boetius legend, which had been transferred to the text, and did not consider that it outweighed the opposing internal evidence from De Cons. Phil.

Editions.—The first collected edition of the works of Boetius was published at Venice in 1492 (Basel, 1570); the last in J.P. Migne’s Patrologia, lxiii., lxiv. (Paris, 1847). Of the numerous editions of the De Consolatione the best are those of Theodorus Obbarius (Jena, 1843) and R. Peiper (Leipzig, 1871). The first contains prolegomena on the life and writings of Boetius, on his religion and philosophy, and on the manuscripts and editions, a critical apparatus, and notes. The text of the second was based on the fullest collation of MSS. up to that time, though a considerable number of MSS. still remained to be collated. In addition to an account of the MSS. used, it gives the Book of Lupus, “De Metris Boetii,” the “Vita Boetii” contained in some MSS., “Elogia Boetii,” and a short list of the commentators, translators and imitators of the Consolatio. It contains also an account of the metres used by Boetius in the Consolatio, and a list of the passages which he has borrowed from the tragedies of Seneca. The work also includes the five treatises, four of them Christian, of which mention has been made above. King Alfred’s Anglo-Saxon version of the De Consolatione, with literal English translation, notes and glossary, was published by S. Fox (1835) and again by W.J. Sedgefield (1900); that of G. Colville (Colvile, Coldewel, 1556) was republished by E.B. Bax (1897); translation (mixed prose and verse) by H.R. James (1897). Queen Elizabeth’s “Englishings” was reprinted in 1899; on the style, see A. Engelbrecht in Sitzungsber. der Wiener Akad. der Wissenschaften (1902), pp. 15-36. The De Institutione Arithmetica, De Institutione Musica, and the doubtful Geometria (for which see G. Ernst, De Geometricis illis quae sub Boethii nomine nobis tradita sunt quaestiones, 1903; A.P. McKinlay in Harvard Classical Studies, 1907; M. Cantor, Geschichte der Mathematik, i., Leipzig, 1894; G. Friedlein, Gerbert, die Geometric des Boethius, und die indischen Ziffern, Erlangen, 1861, are edited by G. Friedlein (Leipzig, 1867); German translation of the De Musica, with explanatory notes, by O. Paul (Leipzig, 1872), and on the sources W. Miekley, De Boethii libri de musica primi fontibus (Jena, 1899). Commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione περι ἑρμηνείας), ed. C. Meiser (Leipzig, 1877), and on Porphyry’s Isagoge, ed. S. Brandt (Vienna, 1906).

Authorities.—On Boetius generally, see J.G. Sutterer, Der letzte Romer (Eichstadt, 1852); H. Usener, Anecdoton Holderi (Leipzig, 1877); H.F. Stewart, Boethius: an Essay (Edinburgh, 1891); T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, iii. bk. iv. ch. xii. (1896); A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Litt. des Mittelalters, i. (1889); Teuffel-Schwabe, Hist. of Roman Literature (Eng. trans., 1900), §478: on the date and order of his works, S. Brandt in Philologus, lxii. pp. 141-154, 234-279, and A.P. McKinlay, as above, with refs.: on his “Songs,” H. Hüttinger, Studia in Boetii carmina collata (Regensburg, 1900): on his style, G. Bednarz, De universo orationis colore Boethii (Breslau, 1883): on his theological attitude and works, F.A.B. Nitzsch, Das System des Boethius und die ihm zugeschriebenen theologischen Schriften (Berlin, 1860), and art. in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (1897); C. Jourdain, De l’Origine des traditions sur le christianisme de Boèce (1861); Gaston Boissier, “Le Christianisme de Boèce,” in Journal des Savants (1889), pp. 449-462; A. Hildebrand, Boethius und seine Stellung zum Christentume (Regensburg, 1885); G. Schepps, “Zu Pseudo-Boethius de fide catholica,” in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, xxxviii. (1895).

BOG (from Ir. and Gael, bogach, bog, soft), a tract of soft, spongy, water-logged ground, composed of vegetation, chiefly mosses, in various stages of decomposition. This vegetable matter when partially decomposed forms the substance known as “peat” (q.v.). When the accumulation of water is rapidly increased by excessive rainfall, there is a danger of a “bog-slide,” or “bog-burst,” which may obliterate the neighbouring cultivated land with a deposit of the contents of the bog. Destructive bog-slides have occurred in Ireland, such as that of the Knocknageeha Bog, Rathmore, Kerry, in 1896, at Castlerea, Roscommon, 1901, and at Kilmore, Galway, 1909.

There is a French game of cards called “bog,” said to be of Italian origin, played with a piquet pack on a table with six divisions, one of which is known by the name of the game and forms the pool. It was fashionable during the Second Empire.

BOGATZKY, KARL HEINRICH VON (1690-1774), German hymn-writer, was born at Jankowe in Lower Silesia on the 7th of September 1690. At first a page at the ducal court of Saxe-Weissenfels, he next studied law and theology at Jena and Halle; but ill-health preventing his preferment he settled at Glancha in Silesia, where he founded an orphanage. After living for a time at Köstritz, and from 1740 to 1745 at the court of Christian Ernst, duke of Saxe-Coburg, at Saalfeld, he made his home at the Waisenhaus (orphanage) at Halle, where he engaged in spiritual work and in composing hymns and sacred songs, until his death on the 15th of June 1774. Bogatzky’s chief works are Güldenes Schatzkästlein der Kinder Gottes (1718), which has reached more than sixty editions; and Übung der Gottseligkeit in allerlei geistlichen Liedern (1750).

See Bogatzky’s autobiography—Lebenslauf von ihm selbst geschrieben (Halle, 1801; new ed., Berlin, 1872); and Ledderhose, Das Leben Bogatzky’s (Heidelberg, 1846); also Kelly, C.H. von Bogatzky’s Life and Work (London, 1889).

BOGHAZ KEUI, a small village in Asia Minor, north-west of Yuzgat in the Angora vilayet, remarkable for the ruins and rock-sculptures in its vicinity. The ruins are those of a ruling city of the oriental type which flourished in the pre-Greek period; and they are generally identified with Pteria (q.v.), a place taken by Croesus after he had crossed the Halys (Herodotus i. 76).

BOGIE, a northern English dialect word of unknown origin, applied to a kind of low truck or “trolly.” In railway engineering it is applied to an under-truck, most frequently with four wheels, which is often provided at one end of a locomotive or both ends of a carriage. It is pivoted or swivelled on the main frames, so that it can turn relatively to the body of the vehicle or engine, and thus it enables the wheels readily to follow the curves of the line. It has no connexion with the series of words, such as “bogey” or “bogy,” “bogle,” “boggle,” “bogart” (in Shakespeare “bug,” “bugs and goblins”), which are probably connected with the Welsh bwg, a spectre; hence the verb to “boggle,” properly applied to a horse which shies at supposed spectres, and so meaning to hesitate, bungle.

BOGNOR, a seaside resort in the Chichester parliamentary division of Sussex, England, 66 m. S.S.W. from London by the London, Brighton & South Coast railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 6180. Besides the parish church there is a Roman Catholic priory and church. The town possesses a pier and promenade, a theatre, assembly rooms, and numerous convalescent homes, including an establishment belonging to the Merchant Taylors’ Company. The church of the mother parish of South Bersted is Norman and Early English, and retains a fresco of the 16th century.

BOGÓ, a town of the province of Cebú, island of Cebú, Philippine Islands, on Bogó Bay at the mouth of the Bulac river, in the north-east part of the island. Pop. (1903) 14,915. The climate is hot but healthy. The surrounding country is fertile, producing sugar, Indian corn, and maguay in abundance; rice, cacao and fruits are also produced. Hats, baskets, cloths and rope are woven and are exported to a limited extent; small quantities of copra are also exported. The fisheries are of considerable local importance. The language is Cebú-Visayan.

BOGODUKHOV, a town of Russia, in the government of Kharkov, 45 m. by rail N.W. of the city of that name, in 49° 58′ N. lat. and 36° 9′ E. long., was formerly fortified. Pop. (1860) 10,522; (1897) 11,928. There seems to have been a settlement on this site as early as 1571. In 1709, at the time of the Russo-Swedish War, Bogodukhov was taken by Menshikov and the emperor Alexius. It contains a cathedral, built in 1793. Boots, caps and furred gowns are manufactured, and gardening and tanning are carried on. The trade is principally in grain, cattle and fish.

BOGOMILS, the name of an ancient religious community which had its origin in Bulgaria. It is difficult to ascertain whether the name was taken from the reputed founder of that sect, a certain pope Bogumil or Bogomil, or whether he assumed that name after it had been given to the whole sect. The word is a direct translation into Slavonic of Massaliani, the Syrian name of the sect corresponding to the Greek Euchites. The Bogomils are identified with the Massaliani in Slavonic documents of the 13th century. They are also known as Pavlikeni, i.e. Paulicians. It is a complicated task to determine the true character and the tenets of any ancient sect, considering that almost all the information that has reached us has come from the opponents. The heretical literature has to a great extent either perished or been completely changed; but much has also survived in a modified written form or through oral tradition. Concerning the Bogomils something can be gathered from the information collected by Euthymius Zygadenus in the 12th century, and from the polemic Against the Heretics written in Slavonic by St Kozma during the 10th century. The old Slavonic lists of forbidden books of the 15th and 16th centuries also give us a clue to the discovery of this heretical literature and of the means the Bogomils employed to carry on their propaganda. Much may also be learnt from the doctrines of the numerous heretical sects which arose in Russia after the 11th century.

The Bogomils were without doubt the connecting link between the so-called heretical sects of the East and those of the West. They were, moreover, the most active agents in disseminating such teachings in Russia and among all the nations of Europe. They may have found in some places a soil already prepared by more ancient tenets which had been preserved in spite of the persecution of the official Church, and handed down from the period of primitive Christianity. In the 12th and 13th centuries the Bogomils were already known in the West as “Bulgari.” In 1207 the Bulgarornm heresis is mentioned. In 1223 the Albigenses are declared to be the local Bougres, and at the same period mention is made of the “Pope of the Albigenses who resided within the confines of Bulgaria.” The Cathars and Patarenes, the Waldenses, the Anabaptists, and in Russia the Strigolniki, Molokani and Dukhobortsi, have all at different times been either identified with the Bogomils or closely connected with them.

Doctrine.—From the imperfect and conflicting data which are alone available one positive result can be gathered, viz. that the Bogomils were both Adoptionists and Manichaeans. They had accepted the teaching of Paul of Samosata, though at a later period the name of Paul was believed to be that of the Apostle; and they were not quite free from the Dualistic principle of the Gnostics, at a later period too much identified with the teaching of Mani. They rejected the pneumatic Christianity of the orthodox churches and did not accept the docetic teaching of some of the other sects. Taking as our starting-point the teaching of the heretical sects in Russia, notably those of the 14th century, which are a direct continuation of the doctrines held by the Bogomils, we find that they denied the divine birth of Christ, the personal coexistence of the Son with the Father and Holy Ghost, and the validity of sacraments and ceremonies. The miracles performed by Jesus were interpreted in a spiritual sense, not as real material occurrences; the Church was the interior spiritual church in which all held equal share. Baptism was only to be practised on grown men and women. The Bogomils repudiated infant baptism, and considered the baptismal rite to be of a spiritual character neither by water nor by oil but by self-abnegation, prayers and chanting of hymns. Carp Strigolnik, who in the 14th century preached this doctrine in Novgorod, explained that St Paul had taught that simple-minded men should instruct one another; therefore they elected their “teachers” from among themselves to be their spiritual guides, and had no special priests. Prayers were to be said in private houses, not in separate buildings such as churches. Ordination was conferred by the congregation and not by any specially appointed minister. The congregation were the “elect,” and each member could obtain the perfection of Christ and become a Christ or “Chlist.” Marriage was not a sacrament. The Bogomils refused to fast on Mondays and Fridays. They rejected monachism. They declared Christ to be the Son of God only through grace like other prophets, and that the bread and wine of the eucharist were not transformed into flesh and blood; that the last judgment would be executed by God and not by Jesus; that the images and the cross were idols and the worship of saints and relics idolatry.

These Paulician doctrines have survived in the great Russian sects, and can be traced back to the teachings and practice of the Bogomils. But in addition to these doctrines of an adoptionist origin, they held the Manichaean dualistic conception of the origin of the world. This has been partly preserved in some of their literary remains, and has taken deep root in the beliefs and traditions of the Bulgarians and other nations with whom they had come into close contact. The chief literature of all the heretical sects throughout the ages has been that of apocryphal Biblical narratives, and the popes Jeremiah or Bogumil are directly mentioned as authors of such forbidden books “which no orthodox dare read.” Though these writings are mostly the same in origin as are known from the older lists of apocryphal books, they underwent in this case a certain modification at the hands of their Bogomil editors, so as to be used for the propagation of their own specific doctrines. In its most simple and attractive form—one at the same time invested with the authority of the reputed holy author—their account of the creation of the world and of man; the origin of sin and redemption, the history of the Cross, and the disputes between body and soul, right and wrong, heaven and hell, were embodied either in “Historiated Bibles” (Paleya1) or in special dialogues held between Christ and his disciples, or between renowned Fathers of the Church who expounded these views in a simple manner adapted to the understanding of the people (Lucidaria). The Bogomils taught that God had two sons, the elder Satanail and the younger Michael. The elder son rebelled against the father and became the evil spirit. After his fall he created the lower heavens and the earth and tried in vain to create man; in the end he had to appeal to God for the Spirit. After creation Adam was allowed to till the ground on condition that he sold himself and his posterity to the owner of the earth. Then Michael was sent in the form of a man; he became identified with Jesus, and was “elected” by God after the baptism in the Jordan. When the Holy Ghost (Michael) appeared in the shape of the dove, Jesus received power to break the covenant in the form of a clay tablet (hierographon) held by Satanail from Adam. He had now become the angel Michael in a human form; as such he vanquished Satanail, and deprived him of the termination -il = God, in which his power resided. Satanail was thus transformed into Satan. Through his machinations the crucifixion took place, and Satan was the originator of the whole Orthodox community with its churches, vestments, ceremonies, sacraments and fasts, with its monks and priests. This world being the work of Satan, the perfect must eschew any and every excess of its pleasure. But the Bogomils did not go as far as to recommend asceticism. They held the “Lord’s Prayer” in high respect as the most potent weapon against Satan, and had a number of conjurations against “evil spirits.” Each community had its own twelve “apostles,” and women could be raised to the rank of “elect.” The Bogomils wore garments like mendicant friars and were known as keen missionaries, travelling far and wide to propagate their doctrines. Healing the sick and conjuring the evil spirit, they traversed different countries and spread their apocryphal literature along with some of the books of the Old Testament, deeply influencing the religious spirit of the nations, and preparing them for the Reformation. They sowed the seeds of a rich religious popular literature in the East as well as in the West. The Historiated Bible, the Letter from Heaven, the Wanderings through Heaven and Hell, the numerous Adam and Cross legends, the religious poems of the “Kalëki perehozhie” and other similar productions owe their dissemination to a large extent to the activity of the Bogomils of Bulgaria, and their successors in other lands.

History.—The Bogomil propaganda follows the mountain chains of central Europe, starting from the Balkans and continuing along the Carpathian Mountains, the Alps and the Pyrenees, with ramifications north and south (Germany, England and Spain). In the middle of the 8th century the emperor Constantine Copronymus settled a number of Armenian Paulicians in Thracia. These were noted heretics and were persecuted by the Greek Church with fire and sword. The empress Theodora killed, drowned or hanged no fewer than 100,000. In the 10th century the emperor John Zimisces, himself of Armenian origin, transplanted no less than 200,000 Armenian Paulicians to Europe and settled them in the neighbourhood of Philippopolis, which henceforth became the centre of a far-reaching propaganda. Settled along the Balkans as a kind of bulwark against the invading Bulgars, the Armenians on the contrary soon fraternized with the newcomers, whom they converted to their own views; even a prince of the Bulgarians adopted their teaching. According to Slavonic documents the founder of this sect was a certain priest Bogumil, who “imbibed the Manichaean teaching and flourished at the time of the Bulgarian emperor Peter” (927-968). According to another source the founder was called Jeremiah (or there was another priest associated with him by the name of Jeremiah). The Slavonic sources are unanimous on the point that his teaching was Manichaean. A Synodikon from the year 1210 adds the names of his pupils or “apostles,” Mihail, Todur, Dobri, Stefan, Vasilie and Peter, all thoroughly Slavonic names. Zealous missionaries carried their doctrines far and wide. In 1004, scarcely 15 years after the introduction of Christianity into Russia, we hear of a priest Adrian teaching the same doctrines as the Bogomils. He was imprisoned by Leontie, bishop of Kiev. In 1125 the Church in the south of Russia had to combat another heresiarch named Dmitri. The Church in Bulgaria also tried to extirpate Bogomilism. The popes in Rome whilst leading the Crusade against the Albigenses did not forget their counterpart in the Balkans and recommended the annihilation of the heretics.

The Bogomils spread westwards, and settled first in Servia; but at the end of the 12th century Stephen Nemanya, king of Servia, persecuted them and expelled them from the country. Large numbers took refuge in Bosnia, where they were known under the name of Patarenes (q.v.) or Patareni. From Bosnia their influence extended into Italy (Piedmont). The Hungarians undertook many crusades against the heretics in Bosnia, but towards the close of the 15th century the conquest of that country by the Turks put an end to their persecution. It is alleged that a large number of the Bosnian Paterenes, and especially the nobles, embraced Islam (see Bosnia and Herzegovina: History). Few or no remnants of Bogomilism have survived in Bosnia. The Ritual in Slavonic written by the Bosnian Radoslavov, and published in vol. xv. of the Starine of the South Slavonic Academy at Agram, shows great resemblance to the Cathar ritual published by Cunitz, 1853. See F. Racki, “Bogomili i Paternai” in Rad, vols. vii., viii. and x. (Agram, 1870); Döllinger, Beiträge zur Ketzergeschichte d. Mittelalters, 2 vols. (Munich, 1890).

Under Turkish rule the Bogomils lived unmolested as Pavlikeni in their ancient stronghold near Philippopolis, and farther northward. In 1650 the Roman Catholic Church gathered them into its fold. No less than fourteen villages near Nicopolis embraced Catholicism, and a colony of Pavlikeni in the village of Cioplea near Bucharest followed the example of their brethren across the Danube.

Bibliography.—Euthymius Zygadenus, Narratio de Bogomilis, ed. Gieseler (Göttingen, 1842); J.C. Wolf, Historia Bogomilorum (Wittenberg, 1712); “Slovo svyatago Kozmyi na eretiki,” in Kukuljević Sakcinski, Arkiv zapovyestnicu jugoslavensku, vol. iv. pp. 69-97 (Agram, 1859); C.J. Jireček, Geschichte d. Bulgaren, pp. 155, 174-175 (Prague, 1876); Korolev, “Dogmatichesko-to uchenie na Bogomil-tie,” in Periodichesko spisanie, vols. vii.-viii. pp. 75-106 (Braila, 1873); A. Lombard, Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bons-hommes (Geneva, 1879); Episcopul Melchisedek, Lipovenismul, pp. 265 sqq. (Bucharest, 1871); B.P. Hasdeu, Cuvente den bătrăni, vol. ii. pp. 247 sqq. (Bucharest, 1879); F.C. Conybeare, The Key of Truth, pp. 73 sqq. and specially pp. 138 sqq. (Oxford, 1898); M. Gaster, Greeko-Slavonic Literature, pp. 17 sqq. (London, 1887); O. Dähnhardt, Natursagen, vol. i. pp. 38 sqq. (Leipzig and Berlin, 1907).

(M. G.)

1 These betray their Gnostic (Marcianite) spirit by the anti-Jewish tone of the oldest MSS. extant, though this prejudice tends to decrease in later MSS.

BOGORODSK, a town of central Russia, in the government of Moscow, and 38 m. by rail E.N.E. of the city of Moscow, on the Klyazma. It has woollen, cotton and silk mills, chemical factories and dye-works, and is famous for its gold brocade. Pop. (1897) 11,210.

BOGOS (Bilens), a pastoral race of mixed Hamitic descent, occupying the highlands immediately north of Abyssinia, now part of the Italian colony of Eritrea. They were formerly a self-governing community, though subject to Abyssinia. The community is divided into two classes, the Shumaglieh or “elders” and Tigré or “clients.” The latter are serfs of the former, who, however, cannot sell them. The Tigré goes with the land, and his master must protect him. In blood-money he is worth another Tigré or ninety-three cows, while an elder’s life is valued at one hundred and fifty-eight cattle or one of his own caste. The eldest son of a Shumaglieh inherits his father’s two-edged sword, white cows, lands and slaves, but the house goes to the youngest son. Female chastity is much valued, but women have no rights, inherit nothing, and are classed with the hyaena, the most despised animal throughout Abyssinia. The Bogo husband never sees the face or pronounces the name of his mother-in-law, while it is a crime for a wife to utter her husband’s or father-in-law’s name.

BOGOTÁ, or Santa Fé de Bogotá, the capital of the republic of Colombia, and of the interior department of Cundinamarca, in 4° 6′ N. lat. and 78° 30′ W. long. Pop. about 125,000. The city is on the eastern margin of a large elevated plateau 8563 ft. above sea-level. The plateau may be described as a great bench or shelf on the western slope of the oriental Cordilleras, about 70 m. long and 30 m. wide, with a low rim on its western margin and backed by a high ridge on the east. The plain forming the plateau is well watered with numerous small lakes and streams. These several small streams, one of which, the San Francisco, passes through the city, unite near the south-western extremity of the plateau and form the Rio Funza, or Bogotá, which finally plunges over the edge at Tequendama in a beautiful, perpendicular fall of about 475 ft. The city is built upon a sloping plain at the base of two high mountains La Gaudalupe and Monserrate, upon whose crests stand two imposing churches. From a broad avenue on the upper side downward to the west slope the streets, through which run streams of cool, fresh water from the mountains above. The north and south streets cross these at right angles, and the blocks thus formed are like great terraces. A number of handsomely-laid-out plazas, or squares, ornamented with gardens and statuary, have been preserved; on these face the principal public buildings and churches. In Plaza Bolivar is a statue of Bolivar by Pietro Tenerani (1789-1869), a pupil of Canova, and in Plaza Santandér is one of General Francisco de Paula Santandér (1792-1840). Facing on Plaza de la Constitución are the capitol and cathedral. The streets are narrow and straight, but as a rule they are clean and well paved. Owing to the prevalence of earthquakes, private houses are usually of one storey only, and are built of sun-dried bricks, white-washed. But few of the public buildings are imposing in appearance, though good taste in style and decoration are often shown.

The city occupies an area of about 2½ × 1½ m. It has street cars, electric light and telephones. Short lines of railway connect it with Facatativa (24 m.) on the road to Honda, and with Zipaquira, where extensive salt mines are worked. A line of railway was also under construction in 1906 to Jirardot, at the head of navigation on the upper Magdalena. Bogotá is an archiepiscopal see, founded in 1561, and is one of the strongholds of medieval clericalism in South America. It has a cathedral, rebuilt in 1814, and some 30 other churches, together with many old conventual buildings now used for secular purposes, their religious communities having been dissolved by Mosquera and their revenues devoted in great measure to education. The capitol, which is occupied by the executive and legislative departments, is an elegant and spacious building, erected since 1875. The interest which Bogotá has always taken in education, and because of which she has been called the “Athens of South America,” is shown in the number and character of her institutions of learning—a university, three endowed colleges, a school of chemistry and mineralogy, a national academy, a military school, a public library with some 50,000 volumes, a national observatory, a natural history museum and a botanic garden. The city also possesses a well-equipped mint, little used in recent years. The plain surrounding the city is very fertile, and pastures cattle and produces cereals, vegetables and fruit in abundance. It was the centre of Chibcha civilization before the Spanish conquest and sustained a large population. The climate is mild and temperate, the average annual temperature being about 58° and the rainfall about 43½ in. The geographical location of the city is unfavourable to any great development in commerce and manufactures beyond local needs.

Bogotá was founded in 1538 by Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada and was named Santa Fé de Bogotá after his birthplace Santa Fé, and after the southern capital of the Chibchas, Bacatá (or Funza). It was made the capital of the viceroyalty of Nueva Granada, and soon became one of the centres of Spanish colonial power and civilization on the South American continent. In 1811 its citizens revolted against Spanish rule and set up a government of their own, but in 1816 the city was occupied by Pablo Morillo (1777-1838), the Spanish general, who subjected it to a ruthless military government until 1819, when Bolivar’s victory at Boyacá compelled its evacuation. On the creation of the republic of Colombia, Bogotá became its capital, and when that republic was dissolved into its three constituent parts it remained the capital of Nueva Granada. It has been the scene of many important events in the chequered history of Colombia.

(A. J. L.)

BOGRA, or Bagura, a town and district of British India, in the Rajshahi division of eastern Bengal and Assam. The town is situated on the right bank of the river Karatoya. Pop. (1901) 7094. The District of Bogra, which was first formed in 1821, lies west of the main channel of the Brahmaputra. It contains an area of 1359 sq. m. In 1901 the population (on a reduced area) was 854,533, showing an increase of 11% in the decade. The district stretches out in a level plain, intersected by numerous streams and dotted with patches of jungle. The Karatoya river flows from north to south, dividing it into two portions, possessing very distinct characteristics. The eastern tract consists of rich alluvial soil, well watered, and subject to fertilizing inundations, yielding heavy crops of coarse rice, oil-seeds and jute. The western portion of the district is high-lying and produces the finer qualities of rice. The principal rivers are formed by the different channels of the Brahmaputra, which river here bears the local names of the Konai, the Daokoba and the Jamuna, the last forming a portion of the eastern boundary of the district. Its bed is studded with alluvial islands. The Brahmaputra and its channels, together with three minor streams, the Bangali, Karatoya and Atrai, afford admirable facilities for commerce, and render every part of the district accessible to native cargo boats of large burden. The rivers swarm with fish. The former production of indigo is extinct, and the industry of silk-spinning is decaying. There is no town with as many as 10,000 inhabitants, trade being conducted at riverside marts. Nor are there any metalled roads. Several lines of railway (the Eastern Bengal, &c.), however, serve the district.

BOGUE, DAVID (1750-1825), British nonconformist divine, was born in the parish of Coldingham, Berwickshire. After a course of study in Edinburgh, he was licensed to preach by the Church of Scotland, but made his way to London (1721), where he taught in schools at Edmonton, Hampstead and Camberwell. He then settled as minister of the Congregational church at Gosport in Hampshire (1777), and to his pastoral duties added the charge of an institution for preparing men for the ministry. It was the age of the new-born missionary enterprise, and Bogue’s academy was in a very large measure the seed from which the London Missionary Society took its growth. Bogue himself would have gone to India in 1796 but for the opposition of the East India Company. He also had much to do with founding the British and Foreign Bible Society and the Religious Tract Society, and in conjunction with James Bennet, minister at Romsey, wrote a well-known History of Dissenters (3 vols., 1809). Another of his writings was an Essay on the Divine Authority of the New Testament. He died at Brighton on the 25th of October 1825.

BOGUS (of uncertain origin, possibly connected with the Fr. bagasse, sugar-cane refuse), a slang word, originally used in America of the apparatus employed in counterfeiting coins, and now generally of any sham or spurious transaction.

BOHEA (a word derived from the Wu-i hills in the Fuhkien province of China, b being substituted for W or V), a kind of black tea (q.v.), or, in the 18th and early 19th centuries, tea generally, as in Pope’s line, “So past her time ’twixt reading and bohea.” Later the name “bohea” has been applied to an inferior quality of tea grown late in the season.