Of the origin of the name "agnostic'' to cover this attitude, Huxley gave (Coll. Ess. v. pp. 237-239) the following account:—

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain 'gnosis'—had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there; most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another; and I, the man without a rag of a belief to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic.' It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.''

This account is confirmed by R. H. Hutton, who in 1881 wrote that the word "was suggested by Huxley at a meeting held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society at Mr Knowles's house on Clapham Common in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St Paul's mention of the altar to the Unknown God.'' Hutton here gives a variant etymology for the word, which may be therefore taken as partly derived from agnostos (the "unknown'' God), and partly from an antithesis to "gnostic''; but the meaning remains the same in either case. The name, as Huxley said, "took''; it was constantly used by Hutton in the Spectator and became a fashionable label for contemporary unbelief in Christian dogma. Hutton himself frequently misrepresented the doctrine by describing it as "belief in an unknown and unknowable God''; but agnosticism as defined by Huxley meant not belief, but absence of belief, as much distinct from belief on the one hand as from disbelief on the other; it was the half-way house between the two, where all questions were "open.'' All that Huxley asked for was evidence, either for or against; but this he believed it impossible to get. Occasionally he too mis-stated the meaning of the word he had invented, and described agnosticism as meaning "that a man shall not say he knows or believes what he has no scientific ground for professing to know or believe.'' But as the late Rev. A. W. Momerie remarked, this would merely be "a definition of honesty; in that sense we ought all to be agnostics.''

Agnosticism really rests on the doctrine of the Unknowable, the assertion that concerning certain objects—among them the Deity—we never can have any "scientific'' ground for belief. This way of solving, or passing over, the ultimate problems of thought has had many followers in cultured circles imbued with the new physical science of the day, and with disgust for the dogmatic creeds of contemporary orthodoxy; and its outspoken and even aggressive vindication by physicists of the eminence of Huxley had a potent influence upon the attitude taken towards metaphysics, and upon the form which subsequent Christian apologetics adopted. As a nickname the term "agnostic'' was soon misused to cover any and every variation of scepticism, and just as popular preachers confused it with atheism (q.v.) in their denunciations, so the callow freethinker—following Tennyson's path of "honest doubt''—classed himself with the agnostics, even while he combined an instinctively Christian theism with a facile rejection of the historical evidences for Christianity.

The term is now less fashionable, though the state of mind persists. Huxley's agnosticism was a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 'sixties, when clerical intolerance was trying to excommunicate scientific discovery because it appeared to clash with the book of Genesis. But as the theory of evolution was accepted, a new spirit was gradually introduced into Christian theology, which has turned the controversies between religion and science into other channels and removed the temptation to flaunt a disagreement. A similar effect has been produced by the philosophical reaction against Herbert Spencer, and by the perception that the canons of evidence required in physical science must not be exalted into universal rules of thought. It does not follow that justification by faith must be eliminated in spiritual matters where sight cannot follow, because the physicist's duty and success lie in pinning belief solely on verification by physical phenomena, when they alone are in question; and for mankind generally, though possibly not for an exceptional man like Huxley, an impotent suspension of judgment on such issues as a future life or the Being of God is both unsatisfying and demoralizing.

It is impossible here to do more than indicate the path out of the difficulties raised by Huxley in the letter to Kingsley quoted above. They involve an elaborate discussion, not only of Christian evidences, but of the entire subject-matter alike of Ethics and Metaphysics, of Philosophy as a whole, and of the philosophies of individual writers who have dealt in their different ways with the problems of existence and epistemology. It is, however, permissible to point out that, as has been exhaustively argued by Professor J. Ward in his Gifford lectures for 1896-1898 (Naturalism and Agnosticism, 1899), Huxley's challenge ( "I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions'') is one which a spiritualistic philosophy need not shrink from accepting at the hands of naturalistic agnosticism. If, as Huxley admits, even putting it with unnecessary force against himself,"the immortality of man is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter,'' the question then is, how far a critical analysis of our belief in the last-named doctrines will leave us in a position to regard them as the last stage in systematic thinking. It is the pitfall of physical science, immersed as its students are apt to be in problems dealing with tangible facts in the world of experience, that there is a tendency among them to claim a superior status of objective reality and finality for the laws to which their data are found to conform. But these generalizations are not ultimate truths, when we have to consider the nature of experience itself. "Because reference to the Deity will not serve for a physical explanation in physics, or a chemical explanation in chemistry, it does not therefore follow,'' as Professor Ward says (op. cit. vol. i. p. 24), "that the sum total of scientific knowledge is equally intelligible whether we accept the theistic hypothesis or not. It is true that every item of scientific knowledge is concerned with some definite relation of definite phenomena, and with nothing else; but, for all that, the systematic organization of such items may quite well yield further knowledge, which transcends the special relations of definite phenomena.''

At the opening of the era of modern scientific discovery, with all its fruitful new generalizations, the still more highly generalized laws of epistemology and of the spiritual constitution of man might well baffle the physicist and lead his intellect to "flounder.'' It is fundamentally necessary, in order to avoid such floundering, that the "knowledge'' of things sensible should be kept distinct from the "knowledge'' of things spiritual; yet in practice they are constantly confused. When the physicist limits the term "knowledge', to the conclusions from physical apprehensions, his refusal to extend it to conclusions from moral and spiritual apprehensions is merely the consequence of an illegitimate definition. He relies on the validity of his perceptions of physical facts; but the saint and the theologian are no less entitled to rely on the validity of their moral and spiritual experiences. In each case the data rest on an ultimate basis, undemonstrable, indeed to any one who denies them (even if he be called mad for doing so), except by the continuous process of working out their own proofs, and showing their consistency with, or necessity in, the scheme of things terrestrial on the one hand, or the mind and happiness of man on the other. The tests in each case differ; and it is as irrelevant for the theologian to dispute the "knowledge'' of the physicist, by arguments from faith and religion, as it is for the physicist to deny the "knowledge'' of the theologian from the point of view of one who ignores the possibility of spiritual apprehension altogether. On the ground of secular history and secular evidence both might reasonably meet, as regards the facts, though not perhaps as to their interpretation; but the reason why they ultimately differ is to be found simply in the difference of their mental attitude towards the nature of "knowledge,'-itself a difference of opinion as to the nature of man.

In addition to the literature cited above, see L. Stephen, An Agnostic's Apology (1893); R. Flint, Agnosticism (1903); T. Bailey Saunders, The Quest of Faith, chap. ii. (1899); A. W. Benn, English Rationalism in the XIXth Century (London, 1906). (H. CH.)

AGNUS DEI, the figure of a lamb bearing a cross, symbolical of the Saviour as the "Lamb of God.'' The device is common in ecclesiastical art, but the name is especially given in the Church of Rome to a small cake made of the wax of the Easter candles and impressed with this figure. Since the 9th century it has been customary for the popes to bless these cakes, and distribute them on the Sunday after Easter among the faithful, by whom they are highly prized as having the power to avert evil. In modern times the distribution has been limited to persons of distinction, and is made by the pope on his accession and every seven years thereafter.

Agnus Dei is also the popular name for the anthem beginning with these words, which is said to have been introduced into the missal by Pope Sergius I. (687-701). Based upon John i. 29, the Latin form is Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. In the celebration of the mass it is repeated three times before the communion, and it is also appended to many of the litanies. By the judgment in the case of "Read and others v. The Bishop of Lincoln'' it was decided in 1890 that the singing of the Agnus Dei in English by the choir during the administration of the Holy Communion, provided that the reception of the elements be not delayed till its conclusion, is not illegal in the Church of England.

For the various ceremonies in the blessing of the Agnus Dei see A. Vacant, Dict. de theologie (cols. 605-613).

AGOBARD (c. 779-840), Carolingian prelate and reformer, became coadjutor to Leidrad, archbishop of Lyons, in 813, and on the death of the latter succeeded him in the see (816). We know nothing of his early life nor of his descent. He pursued the same vigorous policy as his predecessor, who had been one of Charlemagne's most active agents in the reformation of the Church. He was strongly opposed to the schemes of the empress Judith for a redivision of the empire in favour of her son Charles the Bald, Which he regarded as the cause of all the subsequent evils, and supported Lothair and Pippin against their father the emperor Louis I. Deposed in 835 by the council of Thionville, he made his peace with the emperor and was reinstated in 837. Agobard occupies an important place in the Carolingian renaissance. He wrote extensively not only theological works but also political pamphlets and dissertations directed against popular superstitions. These last works are unique in the literature of the time. He denounced the trial by ordeal of fire and water, the belief in witchcraft, and the ascription of tempests to magic, maintained the Carolingian opposition to image-worship, but carried his logic farther and opposed the adoration of the saints. The basis for this crusade was theological, not scientific; but it reveals a clear intellect and independent judgment In his purely theological works Agobard was strictly orthodox, except that he denied the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Agobard was reverenced as a saint in Lyons, and although his canonization is disputed his life is given by the Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum, Jun. ii. 748.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.—Agobard's works were lost until 1605, when a manuscript was discovered in Lyons and published by Papirius Masson, again by Baluze in 1666. For later editions see Potthast, Bibliotheca Historica Medii Aevi. The life of Agobard in Ebert's Geschichte der Litteratur des Mittelalters (1880), Band ii., is still one the best to consult. For further indications see A. Molinier, Sources de l'histoire de France, i. p. 235.

AGONALIA, in ancient Rome, festivals celebrated on the 9th of January, 17th of March, 21st of May, and 11th of December in each year in honour of various divinities (Ovid, Fasti, i. 319-332). The word is derived either from agonia, "a victim,'' or from agonium, "a festival.''

AGONIC LINES (from Gr. a-, privative, and gonia, an angle), the term given to the imaginary lines on the earth's surface connecting points at which the magnetic needle points to the geographical north and south. (See MAGNETISM, TERRESTRIAL.)

AGONOTHETES, in ancient Greece, the president or superintendent of the sacred games. At first the person who instituted the games and defrayed the expenses was the Agonothetes; but in the great public games, such as the Olympic and Pythian, these presidents were the representatives of different states, or were chosen from the people in whose country the games were celebrated; thus at the Panathenaic festival at Athens ten athlothetae were elected for four years to superintend the various contests. They were variously called aisumnetai, brabeutai, agonarchai, agonodikai, athlothetai (at Athens), eabdouchoi or eabdonomoi (from the rod or sceptre emblematic of their authority), but their functions were generally the same.

AGORA, originally, in primitive times, the assembly of the Greek people, convoked by the king or one of his nobles. The right of speech and vote was restricted to the nobles, the people being permitted to express their opinion only by signs of applause or disapproval. The word then came to be used for the place where assemblies were held, and thus from its convenience as a meeting-place the agora became in most of the cities of Greece the general resort for public and especially commercial intercourse, corresponding in general with the Roman forum. At Athens, with the increase of commerce and political interest, it was found advisable to call public meetings at the Pnyx or the temple of Dionysus; but the important assemblies, such as meetings for ostracism, were held in the agora. In the best days of Greece the agora was the place where nearly all public traffic was conducted. It was most frequented in the forenoon, and then only by men. Slaves did the greater part of the purchasing, though even the noblest citizens of Athens did not scruple to buy and sell there. Citizens were allowed a free market; foreigners and metics had to pay a toll. Public festivals also were celebrated in the open area of the agora. At Athens the agora of classical times was adorned with trees planted by Cimon; around it numerous public buildings were erected, such as the council chamber and the law courts (for its topography, see ATHENS.) Pausanias (especially vi. 24) is the great architectural authority on the agorae of various Greek cities, and details are also given by Vitruvius (v. 1).

AGORACRITUS, a Parian and Athenian sculptor of the age of Phidias, and said to have been his favourite pupil. His most noted work was the statue at Rhamnus of Nemesis, by some attributed to Phidias himself. Of this statue part of the head is in the British Museum; some fragments of the reliefs which adorned the pedestal are in the museum at Athens.

AGORANOMI, magistrates in the republics of Greece, whose position and duties were in many respects similar to those of the aediles of Rome. In Athens there were ten, chosen annually by lot, five of whom took charge of the city and five of the Peiraeus. They maintained order in the markets, settled disputes, examined the quality of the articles exposed for sale, tested weights and measures, collected the harbour dues and enforced the shipping regulations.

AGORDAT, a town of Eritrea, N.E. Africa, on the route between Massawa and Kassala. At Agordat on the 21st of December 1893 the Italian troops under Colonel Arimondi inflicted a severe defeat on the followers of the khalifa. Agordat is protected by a strong fort. (See ERITREA and SUDAN, History.)

AGOSTINI, LEONARDO, Italian antiquary of the 17th century, was born at Siena. After being employed for some time to collect works of art for the Barberini palace, he was appointed by Pope Alexander VII. superintendent of antiquities in the Roman states. He issued a new edition of Paruta's Sicilian Medals, with engravings of 400 additional specimens; and in conjunction with Giovanni Bellori (1615-1696) he also published a work on antique sculptured gems, which was translated into Latin by Jakob Gronovius (Amsterdam, 1685).

AGOSTINO, or AGOSTINI [AUGUSTINUS], PAOLO (1593-1629), Italian musician, was born at Valerano, and studied under G. B. Nanini, as we learn from the dedication in the third and fourth books of his masses, subsequently becoming the son-in-law of his master. He succeeded Ugolini as conductor of the pope's orchestra in St. Peter's. His musical compositions are numerous and of great merit, an Agnus Dei for eight voices being specially admired.

AGOSTINO and AGNOLO (or ANGELO) DA SIENA, Italian architects and sculptors in the first half of the 14th century. Della Valle and other commentators deny that they were brothers. They certainly studied together under Giovanni Pisano, and in 1317 were jointly appointed architects of their native town, for which they designed the Porto Romana, the church and convent of St Francis, and other buildings. On the recommendation of the celebrated Giotto, who styled them the best sculptors of the time, they executed in 1330 the tomb of Bishop Guido Tarlati in the cathedral of Arezzo, which Giotto had designed. It was esteemed one of the finest artistic works of the 14th century, but unfortunately was destroyed by the French under the duke of Anjou.

AGOULT, MARIE CATHERINE SOPHIE DE FLAVIGNY, COMTESSE D' (1805-1876), French author, whose nom de plume was "Daniel Stern,'' was born at Frankfort-on-Main on the 31st of December 1805. Her father was a French officer who had served in the army of the emigrant princes, and her mother was the daughter of a Frankfort banker. She was married in 1827 to the comte Charles d'Agoult. In Paris she gathered round her a brilliant society which included Alfred de Vigny, Sainte-Beuve, Ingres, Chopin, Meyerbeer, Heine and others. She was separated from her husband, and became the mistress of Franz Liszt. During her frequent travels in Switzerland, France and Italy she made the acquaintance of George Sand, and figures in the Lettres d'un voyageur as''Arabella.'' By Liszt she had three children—a son who died young; Blandine, who married M. Emile Ollivier; and Cosima, who married first Hans von Bulow and later Richard Wagner. The story of her breach with Liszt is told under a very slight disguise in her novel Nelida (1845). On her return to Paris in 1841 she began to write art criticisms for the Presse, and in 1844 she contributed to the Revue des deux Mondes articles on Bettina von Arnim and on Heinrich Heine, but her views were not acceptable to the editor, and Daniel Stern withdrew to become a contributor to the Revue independante. Mme. d'Agoult was an ardent apostle of the ideas of' 48, and from this date her salon, which had been literary and artistic, took on a more political tone; revolutionists of various nationalities were welcomed by her, and she had an especial friendship and sympathy for Daniele Manin. In 1857 she produced a national drama, Jeanne Darc, which was translated into Italian and presented with brilliant success at Turin. The most important section of Daniel Stern's work is her political and historical essays: Lettres republicaines (1848), Esquisses morales et politiques (1849), Histoire de la Revolution de 1848 (3 vols., 1850-1853), Histoire des commencements de la Republique aux Pays-Bas (1872). Mme. d'Agoult died in Paris on the 5th of March 1876. Her daughter Claire Christine (b. 1830), who married Guy de Charnace, is known as a writer.

See Mme. d'Agoult, Mes Souvenirs (1806-1833), 1877; A. Cuvillier Fleury, Portraits revolutionnaires, vol. i. (1889); J. Mazzini, Lettres de Joseph Mazzini a Daniel Stern (1872): A. Pommier, Madame la comtesse d'Agoult (Daniel Stern), 1876; A. Ungherini, "Daniel Stern'' in the Revista repubblicana (1880, No. 9); S. Rocheblave, Une Amitie romanesque, George Sand et Madame d'Agoult (1895).

AGOUTI, or AGUTI, the West Indian name of Dasyprocta aguti, a terrestrial rodent of the size of a rabbit, common to Trinidad and Guiana, and classed in the family Caviidae. Under the same term may be included the other species of Dasyprocta, of which there are about half a score in tropical America. Agoutis are slender-limbed rodents, with five front and three hind toes (the first front toe very minute), and very short tails. The hair, especially on the hind-quarters, is coarse and somewhat rough; the colour being generally rufous brown. The molar teeth have cylindrical crowns, with several islands and a single lateral fold of enamel when worn. In habits agoutis are nocturnal, dwelling in forests, where they conceal themselves during the day in hollow tree-trunks, or in burrows among roots. Active and graceful in their movements, their pace is either a kind of trot or a series of springs following one another so rapidly as to look like a gallop. They take readily to water, in which they swim well. Their food comprises leaves, roots, nuts and other fruits. They do much harm to plantations of sugar-cane and bananas. In captivity the females produce only one or two young at a birth.

AGRA, an ancient city of India, which gives its name to a district and division in the United Provinces. It is famous for containing the most perfect specimens of Mogul architecture. Agra, like Delhi, owes much of its importance in both historical and modern times to the Commercial and strategical advantages of its position. The river Jumna, which washes the walls of its fort, was the natural highway for the traffic of the rich delta of Bengal to the heart of India, and it formed, moreover, from very ancient times, the frontier defence of the Aryan stock settled in the plain between the Ganges and the Jumna against their western neighbours, hereditary freebooters who occupied the highlands of Central India. No place was better fitted for both an emporium and a frontier fortress. The river formed an unfordable barrier and also a useful means of communication. Jehangir tells us in his autobiography that before his father Akbar built the present fort, the town was defended by a citadel of great antiquity. For three hundred years the Afghans and other tribes came down from the north and founded kingdoms; and their power radiated from Delhi and Agra. It was Sikandar, of the house of Lodi (A.D. 1500), the last of the Afghan dynasties, who realized the strategic importance of Agra as a point for keeping in check his rebellious vassals to the south. He removed his court there, and Agra from being "a mere village of old standing,'' says a Persian chronicler, became the capital of a kingdom. In 1526 the city was captured by the emperor Baber, the famous Koh-i-noor diamond being part of the loot; and it was here that Baber announced that his invasion was to be a permanent conquest, and not a mere temporary inroad. It was Baber's grandson Akbar that built the present fort, whose strong and lofty walls of red sandstone are a mile and a,half in circumference. The building was completed in 1665, when Charles II. was on the throne of England and the plague was devastating London. Another building of much the same date is the red stone palace generally attributed to Akbar, but probably of an earlier time, which is the finest example of pure Hindu architecture; while the Moti Masjid, or Pearl Mosque, is an equally perfect example of the Mahommedan style.

But the glory of Agra, the most splendidly poetic building in the world, is the Taj Mahal, the mausoleum built (A.D. 1632) by

Taj Mahal.

the emperor Shah Jahan for the remains of his favourite wife, Mumtaz Manal, in which he himself also also lies buried. The building is of white marble throughout, crowned with a great white dome in the centre, and with a smaller dome at each of its four corners. From the marble terrace which surrounds it rise four tall minarets of the same material, one at each corner. The Taj has been modelled and painted more frequently than any other building in the world, and the word pictures of it are numberless. But it can only be described as a dream in marble. It amply justifies the saying that the Moguls designed like Titans and finished like jewellers. In regard to colour and design the Taj ranks first in the world for purely decorative workmanship; while the perfect symmetry of its exterior once seen can never be forgotten, nor the aerial grace of its domes, rising like marble bubbles into the azure sky. In his History of Architecture, Fergusson says of it:—

"This building is an early example of that system of inlaying with precious stones which became the great characteristic of the style of the Moghals aftrer the death of Akbar. All the spandrils of the Taj, all the angles and more important architectural details, are heightened by being inlaid with precious stones such as agates, bloodstones, jaspers and the like. These are combined in wreaths, scrolls and frets, as exquisite in design as they are beautiful in colour, and relieved by the pure white marble in which they are inlaid, they form the most beautiful and precious style of ornament ever adopted in architecture. 1t is lavishly bestowed on the tombs themselves and the screens which surround them, but more sparingly introduced on the mosque that forms one wing of the Taj, and on the fountains and surrounding buildings. The judgment, indeed, with which this style of ornament is apportioned to the various parts, is almost as remarkable as the ornament itself, and conveys a high idea of the taste and skill of the architects of this age.''

Of the Taj as a whole Lord Roberts says in his Forty-one Years in India:—

"Neither words nor pencil could give to the most imaginative reader the slightest idea of the all-satisfying beauty and purity of this glorious conception. To those who have not already seen it I would say, 'Go to India. The Taj alone is well worth the journey.'''

The Taj was designed by Ustad Isa, variously described as a Byzantine Turk and a native of Shiraz in Persia. The pietra dura work belongs to the Persian school and the common belief that it was designed by Austin de Bordeaux, a French architect in the service of Shah Jahan, is probably incorrect.

Agra was formerly the capital of the North-West Provinces, but after the Mutiny the seat of government was removed to Allahabad. Situated 841 m. from Calcutta it is now an important railway centre, whence two main lines diverge southwards towards Bombay. In 1901 the population was 188,022, showing an increase of 12% during the decade. The city contains cotton mills, factories for ginning and pressing cotton, a tannery and boot factory and flour mill. There are also two missionary colleges.

The DISTRICT OF AGRA has an area of 1856 sq. m. Its general appearance is that common to the Doab, a level plain intersected by watercourses and ravines. Its general elevation is estimated at from 650 to 700 ft. above the level of the sea. The district is intersected by the Jumna, and is also watered by the Agra canal. The principal crops are millets, pulses, barley, wheat, cotton and a little indigo. The population in 1901 was 1,060,528, showing an increase of 6% during the decade.

The DIVISION OF AGRA has an area of 10,154 sq. m. In 1901 the population was 5,249,542, showing an increase of 10% during the decade, attributed to the extension of irrigation from canals. It comprises the six districts of Muttra, Agra, Farukhabad, Mainpuri, Etawah and Etah.

For an account of the architecture of Agra see Fergusson's History of Architecture; Cities of India (1903) by G. W. Forest; Enchanted India (1899), by Prince Bojidar Karageorgevitch; and E. B. Havelln, Handbook to Agra and the Taj (1904).

AGRA CANAL, an important Indian irrigation work, available also for navigation, in Delhi, Gurgaon, Muttra and Agra districts, and Bharatpur state. The canal receives its water from the Jumna river at Okia, about 10 m. below Delhi. The weir across the Jumna was the first attempted in Upper India upon a foundation of fine sand; it is about 800 yds. long, and rises 7 ft. above the summer level of the river. From Okla the canal follows the high land between the Khari-nadi and the Jumna, and finally joins the Banganga river about 20 m. below Agra. Navigable branches connect the canal with Muttra and Agra. It was opened in 1874.

AGRAM (Hungarian Zagrab, Croatian Zagreb), the capital of Croatia-Slavonia, and a royal free town of Hungary; pleasantly situated between the north bank of the Save and the mountains which culminate in Sljeme (3396 ft.); 187 m. by rail S. of Vienna. Pop. (1890) 38,742; (1900) 57,930, or with garrison 61,002. Agram is the seat of the ban, or viceroy, of Croatia-Slavonia, of the Banal and Septemviral courts, the highest in the land, and of a chamber of commerce. It is also the meeting-place of the parliament; but local affairs are conducted by a municipal council. The city is divided into three districts. The Kapitel-Stadt, sometimes called the Bishop's Town, with the palace of the Roman Catholic archbishop, and his late Gothic cathedral, dating from the 15th century, lies eastward of the Medvescak, a brook which flows into the Save. The Upper Town, on high ground west of the Medvescak, contains the palace of the ban and the natural history museum. On the south, the Lower Town is separated from the other districts by the Inca, a long street traversed by a cable tramway. In it are the business and industrial quarters; the palace of justice; the academy of science, with picture-galleries, a library and a collection of antiquities; the theatre; the Franz Josef University, founded in 1874 to teach theology, law and philosophy; the synagogue; and the only Protestant church existing in the country at the beginning of the 20th century. Roman Catholic churches and schools are numerous. Besides the large Maximir park and botanical gardens, many of the squares are planted with trees and adorned with statues; while the whole city is surrounded by vineyards and country houses. Tobacco, leather, linen, carpets and war-material are manufactured in Agram, which also contains the works of the Hungarian state railways, and has a brisk trade in grain, wine, potash, honey, silk and porcelain.

In 1094 Agram was founded by Ladislaus I. of Hungary, as the seat of a bishop; and on the expulsion of its Mongol colony, in 1242, it was raised to the rank of a royal free city. For centuries a bitter feud raged between the Kapitel-Stadt and the Upper Town, until these rivals were forced to join hands against the Turks. Agram, already the political centre of Croatia-Slavonia, was selected as the capital in 1867. It suffered severely from earthquake in 1880 and 1901.

AGRAPHA (i.e. "unwritten''), the name given to certain utterances ascribed, with some degree of certainty, to Jesus, which have been preserved in documents other than the Gospels, e.g. Acts xx. 35; 1 Tim. v. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 10-12, and the Logia (q.v.) discovered in 1897 and 1903 at Oxyrhyncus. Two interesting examples of such sayings may be quoted: (1) "That which is weak shall be saved by that which is strong''; (2) "Jesus, on whom be peace, has said: 'The world is merely a bridge; ye are to pass over it, and not to build your dwellings upon it.''' The first of these is from the Apostolic Canons (c. A.D. 300), the second was found by the missionary Alexander Duff inscribed in Arabic on the gateway of the mosque at Fatehpur Sikri.

The earliest modern collection of such sayings was by Cotelerius, Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta (1677-1688), followed by J. E. Grabe, Spicelegium (1698 and 1700), and J. B. Fabricius, Codex Apocryph. N. T. (2nd ed., 1719). See also A. Resch, Agrapha (Leipzig, 1889); J. H. Ropes, Die Spruche Jesu (Leipzig, 1896); and the article "Sayings'' in J. Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.

AGRARIAN LAWS (Lat. ager, land). Under this heading we deal with the disposal of the public land (ager publicus) of ancient Rome. It was a principle of the Republican constitution that no gratuitous disposition of state property should be made without the consent of the people. Hence many of the ordinances affecting the public land were laws (leges) in the strictest sense of that word. It is, however, both justifiable and convenient to consider in this article all the regulations that were made for the administration of the public land by the executive authorities, as well as by the people during the Republic, and by the commands of the emperor, which had the force of law during the Principate.

The existence of public land, first in Italy, and then in the Mediterranean world, was the outcome of two ideas which are very familiar to students of antiquity. This land was the prize of conquest and was one of the means of defraying the current expenses of state-administration. For the latter purpose land is often leased or allowed to be occupied on the condition of the payment of dues. But it may be made to fulfil another purpose as well—this purpose being the satisfaction of the individual needs of poorer citizens. To meet this object the land is usually assigned, and on assignment generally ceases to be the property of the state. But it often happens that the state is not wholly disinterested in undertaking such acts of assignment. It gains security and territorial control by planting garrisons in conquered country, and it relieves itself of the necessity of providing for its poorer classes whether by state-aid or by a hazardous tampering with the rights of private property. In this use to which public land could be turned we see at once the connexion between agrarian legislation and colonization—a connexion which was so close that when a Roman spoke of an agrarian law he seems generally to have understood by it a law establishing a colony—and also the two aspects of colonization, the military and the social. These two objects were indissolubly connected throughout the whole of the earlier period of Roman agrarian assignation. They only became separated in the period subsequent to the Gracchi in so far as social motives still continued to be operative when military precautions had ceased to be necessary. It is probable that one of the chief motives which prompted infant Rome to war with her neighbours was the land-hunger of her citizens. This hunger she satisfied after conquest by annexing a portion of the enemy's territory. The amount thus confiscated varied from time to time. It was usually a third, but sometimes a half or even two-thirds, and after the fall of Capua in the Second Punic War the whole territory of the state was annexed. It is possible that by the close of the 2nd century B.C. one-half of the land of Italy belonged to Rome whether in private ownership or as the property of the state. Annexation was carried on in the provinces on a relatively smaller scale: but Rome retained as domain-land much of the territory of communities which had been destroyed, such as Carthage and Corinth, and the estates of former kings, such as the lands of the Attalids in the Chersonese. Other domains in Sicily and Greece, such as the territory of Leontini in the former, or Oropus in the latter case, are also found. This peculiar property of the Roman state in the provinces must be carefully distinguished from the general overlordship which Rome was supposed to hold over all provincial soil, expressed in the statement that provincials had only possession or usufruct of their land (Gaius ii. 7; Gromatici, p. 36, Lachmann). This overlordship was probably merely a legal fiction by which the juristic mind assigned a reason for the fact that the provincials paid a land tax from which Italians were exempt.

Such portions of the territories of conquered cities as were not claimed by Rome were as a matter of course left in the undisturbed possession of these cities. If the city was a federate state (civitas foederata), his possession was guaranteed by a treaty; if it was a free city, the guarantee was made by charter; if it was neither federate nor free, the abandonment of the territory by Rome must have been taken as a sufficient guarantee of the city's right to possess, although statements relative to the surrender may have been contained in the charter of the province (lex provinciae) to which the city belonged. But, whether the states were federate, free or stipendiary, there was only one case in which it was important to specify precisely that land had been restored (redditus) to its former occupants. This was the case where Rome had marked out a territory for assignment to her own citizens, but where in or near the limits of the assignment some of the land had been left in the hands or its former proprietors. Such land was noted in the state registers as redditus veteri possessori. Sometimes it was found that such an ancient possessor owned pieces of land separated from one another. In such cases an exchange might be effected between him and some other possessor, so that his possessions might be continuous. The fact of such an exchange was symbolized in the registers by the entry of land redditus et commutatus pro suo.

When the claims of earlier owners had been satisfied, the state proceeded to deal with such land as it retained. It dealt with it in two ways. It either alienated it, whether in exchange for a price or gratuitously; or it kept it as a source of revenue, whether on a system of lease or on some system of remunerative occupation. We may first consider the cases in which the state decided to alienate. The land might be sold for the benefit of the treasury. Typical instances of this treatment are furnished by the sale of some Campanian land during the Second Punic War (Livy xxviii. 46, xxxii. 7). The censors may have directed the sale, but it was executed by the quaestors as the regular officials of the treasury. Hence such land was described as ager quaestorius. The land was sold in definitely marked out plots, and we must suppose that, as a rule, when this sale had been effected, the lots fell under the absolute ownership of their purchasers. Yet there was some period of Roman history when this ownership was (at least in certain cases) conditioned. The Roman writers on agriculture speak of conditions and their neglect (Gromatici, p. 115). The conditions were probably those of military service or frontier defence. The epoch of history at which this conditioned ownership was recognized cannot be determined. It is a form of tenure that would be equally appropriate to the needs of the earliest period of Roman history and to those of imperial times.

The second mode of alienation was that by assignation. Lands thus assigned were known as agri dati assignati. The gift on the part of the state was gratuitous, and ownership passed wholly to the assignee. The land so given was definitely surveyed, marked out and registered. Such an assignment might take one of two possible forms. It might be the means of establishing a new "plantation'' (colonia), with some independent political organization of its own, however slight—a settlement, therefore, which could be thought of as an entity separate from the city of Rome and from any other municipality. Or it might be the means of providing allotments for individuals who remained domiciled at Rome or continued to be members of some already existing municipality. It has been frequently held in modern times that this latter method of assignment is the one which our ancient authorities describe as assignment to individuals (viritim), and that the antithesis lies between the "colonial'' and the "viritane'' method of distribution. It is true that the passages which speak of the latter mode of assignation need not, and perhaps cannot, be interpreted as presenting the antithesis (Varro, de Re Rustica, i. 2. 7, i. 10. 2; Livy iv. 48, v. 24; Festus, p. 373; Gromatici, pp. 154, 160); yet it is not improbable that the antithesis is latent in this specific use of the term. It seems clear that the idea of assignation to, and, therefore, of ownership by, individuals must originally have been developed in contrast to the idea of ownership by some larger group (see ROMAN LAW). When the stage of individual ownership was reached, all assignation was "viritane,'' but only some assignation was "colonial.'' "Viritane'' was, therefore, the wider term which would cover, and may sometimes have been used specially to denote, the system of non-colonial assignment. The amount granted to individuals in assignments of both types varied from time to time. It was reckoned in terms of the jugerum, which was approximately 5/8 of an English acre. The earliest and smallest assignment was 2 jugera—an amount so small that it seems to presuppose on the part of the recipient some share in common or gentile property or some additional private property of his own. Other quotas were 3, 3 7/12, 7, 10 + 14 jugera. The last was the maximum amount granted before the time of Ti. Gracchus (133 B.C.), and it was held by representatives of the old school that 7 jugera were as much as any frugal Roman should want (Pliny, Historia Naturalis, xviii. 18). The division was carried out by commissions of 3, 5 or 10 men appointed by the people (Cicero, de Lege Agraria ii. 7. 17). The land which the state retained as ager publicus was always placed in the hands of individuals, who occupied it in some manner remunerative to the state. These individuals (possessores) were never regarded as owners of the land thus occupied. It remained the property of the state, was held without a contract (precario) and could be resumed by the state at will. But though the possessors had no claim against the state, their ownership could be defended against all other individual claimants; and it seems probable that from an early date the praetor's possessory interdict was used to protect all occupiers, provided their tenure had been acquired neither by force (vi) nor by seizure of land in its occupiers, absence (clam), nor by mere permission of the previous holder to occupy (precario alter ab altero.) Moreover, Appian says that possessors of this type could transfer their land by inheritance, and that the land was accepted as security by creditors. This kind of occupation, therefore, though clearly distinguished from ownership (dominium), was yet regarded as a perfectly secure form of tenure. All occupiers of public land paid dues to the state through a state contractor (publicanus.) These dues varied in amount, and in the method of their collection. We learn from Appian that the ordinary dues paid by occupiers of arable land in Italy were 1/10 of seed crops and 1/5 of plant produce. Owners who turned cattle or sheep on pasture land belonging to the state also paid fixed dues to the treasury. The occupiers of the Roman public land in Campania paid a large rent (Cic. de leg. Agr. i. 7. 21). Appian's account of the public land (Bell. Civ. i. 7) would lead us to suppose that the amount of tax paid by the occupier, and the method adopted by the state for the collection of the revenues, depended upon the nature of the land at the time when it first passed to a possessor. He says that some of the public land which was in a good state of cultivation was let on lease; but that with regard to the poor or devastated land proclamation was made that anyone might squat on it and till it in return for the small payment in kind mentioned above. It has been questioned whether the land described by Appian and by Cicero as let on lease, of which the Campanian land and some lands in Sicily are typical, represents a legally distinct class. It seems probable that the distinction is one of practice rather than of law, and that the difference lay not in the relation between the state and the possessor (as would be the case if the leased land were really let to individuals by the censor, while the occupied land was held by mere permission of the state without any contract) but in the details of the contract between the censor and the publicanus with regard to the collection of the dues. The conditions of the tenure of the Roman public land in Africa are known to us from the Lex Agraria of 111 B.C. (Bruns, Fontes, i. 3. 11, vv. 85 foll.). Here the publicanus is the middleman between the state and the possessor, and purchases from the censor the right of collecting dues. The law places no restriction on bargaining between the censor and the publicanus, but enacts that no possessor or pastor shall ever be required by the publicanus to pay more than the amount prescribed by the censors of 115 B.C. These conditions may be regarded as typical for the occupation of public lands. And when Cicero speaks of public land as let on lease (locatus) by the censor, he no doubt refers to the farming of the taxes to a publicanus for a fixed period, and not to the letting of the land. This seems clear from a passage (in Verr. iii. 6. 12) where he speaks of land in Sicily which had been restored by Rome to former owners as being leased. The land itself could not be leased by Rome if it belonged not to Rome but to the Sicilian inhabitants; but the collection of the revenues due to Rome could be so leased to Publicani (q.v..) And the same explanation would apply to Cicero's statements that the Campanian land was let on lease by the censors (cf. Festus, s.v. venditiones.) The view that there was a distinct class of the public land which was let out for a fixed term of years to tenants on a definite lease, unlike the ordinary public land which was always held in occupation merely at will (precario), has been maintained by W. A. Becker, and seems to be supported, with the help of conjecture, by a few passages in Cicero and by Hyginus (Gromatici, p. 116). But the passage of Hyginus is barely intelligible even on this supposition; and Cicero's repeated statement that the Campanian land was expressly exempted from the legislation of the Gracchi (cf. Lex Agraria, Bruns, loc. cit. v. 6) shows that there was not sufficient distinction between the Campanian tenure and that of other public land in Italy to make this definite exception by name superfluous. The Sempronian law could obviously not touch land which the state had leased to occupiers on the basis of a definite contract. Moreover, we have absolutely no evidence for such a contract, even in Cicero's speeches against Rullus, when he might be expected to mention it as an objection to Rullus's bill. That there were some distinctive characteristics about the tenure of certain lands, of which the Campanian land is typical, seems proved by the repeated association of these lands with certain special lands in the provinces, especially at Leontini in Sicily, and by some passages in the Gromatici where agri vectigales are spoken of as a distinct class. But what these characteristics were cannot be clearly determined. It seems certain that in every case the possessor occupied precario, and that only in the bargain between the censor and the middleman was there room for contract. Thus the state was justified in the claim to resume public land which it made in many of the Agrarian laws.

The earliest agrarian measures of which we have any record are the distributions of land conquered in war to poor citizens, which later authorities attribute to Numa and Servius Tullius. Such assignments, however, are not the result of legislative acts, but of a voluntary surrender on the king's part of his own portion of the spoils. It is probable that the agrarian law which resulted from the proposals of Spurius Cassius (consul 486 B.C.) was the first attempt made by the Roman people to exercise its control over the occupation of state territory. According to the traditional account, Cassius proposed that such portion of lands lately conquered from the Hernici as fell to the Roman state should be divided in equal shares between the Roman plebs and the Latins; and further that poor citizens should receive allotments of land previously conquered, and occupied without any legal right by the Patricians. The inclusion of the Latins in the distribution was afterwards dropped; but the law in its final form certainly asserted the right of the Plebeians to take their share in the public land. The accounts given of it by Livy and Dionysius are no doubt coloured by their knowledge of later agrarian legislation, and it seems hardly likely that the proposal to resume and redistribute public land already occupied was made at this early stage; but it probably challenged the exclusive claim of Patricians to occupy. We hear of another agrarian law proposed by the tribune Lucius Icilius in 456 B.C. (Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando) which regulated in some way the tenure of public land on the Aventine. In 376 B.C. the tribunes Licinius and Sextius introduced into their laws, for the promotion of the privileges of the plebs, a clause enacting that no more than 500 jugera of land should be occupied by a single cultivator. It seems almost certain from Livy's account that this measure referred only to the occupation of ager publicus, though some modern authorities have upheld the view that it dealt with land held on any kind of tenure, others again that it dealtonlywith private property in land. According to Appian, the law also enacted that only 100 cattle and 500 sheep might be turned by one owner on the public pastures. But it failed of its object because it did not provide any adequate machinery for the resumption by the state of land held in excess of the prescribed amount, and was therefore easily evaded. The next agrarian law we hear of was a more special measure dealing with lands conquered from the Senones and Picentines. In 232 B.C. C. Flaminius, then tribune of the plebs, proposed to resume these lands for the state, although they were already occupied by large landholders, and to distribute them in allotments to poor citizens. The measure met with much opposition from the richer classes, and did not gain the sanction of the senate; but C. Flaminius ignored constitutional usage and brought it direct before the council of the plebs, by which it was made law. In 133 B.C. the tribune Tiberius Gracchus (q.v.) re-enacted the earlier measure of Licinius and Sextius, with the additional provisions that each owner might occupy 250 jugera for each son, in addition to the original 500, and that a commission of three (iii. viri agris dandis adsignandis) should be appointed to carry out the terms of the law. He also enacted that the land occupied in excess of the prescribed amount, and on that account resumed for the state by the land commission, should be distributed in inalienable lots to poor citizens. Subsequent modifications of those provisions which dealt with the powers of the land commission led to a re-enactment of the whole by C. Gracchus, the brother of Tiberius, tribune in 123 B.C. But within 15 years from the tribunate of C. Gracchus the whole of his law had been rendered null by three further enactments. The first of these permitted the sale of land allotted under the law, which thus tended to return into the hands of its former occupiers as private property, which the state had no longer any right to resume. The second abolished the commission appointed to carry out the terms of the law, thus putting a stop to further resumption and distribution, and also transformed existing occupiers into owners of the land they occupied, paying only a small due to the treasury. The third (probably the surviving Lex Agraria, Bruns, loc. cit.) abolished the payment. This law belongs to the year 111 B.C. The dates of the two former laws are uncertain, but it is probable that the first was passed in 121, the second in 119 or 118. From this time forward a change comes over land legislation. The ordinary public land in Italy, in the hands of occupiers, which had given rise to all the agrarian legislation between 376 and 111, had practically ceased to exist. The Campanian land still remained, but the same reasons which led to its exemption from the Gracchan legislation seem to have continued to protect its holders until 63 B.C. In the meantime several agrarian laws were passed which provided for the distribution of land placed in some other way at the disposal of the state. In 100 B.C. Appuleius Saturninus (q.v.), tribune of the plebs, proposed the allotment of lands recently taken from the Cimbri in Gaul. This law was passed, but eventually declared null by the senate, with the rest of Saturninus's laws. A more dangerous precedent was set by Sulla in his dictatorship (82-81 B.C..) He was the first to confiscate the lands of his political foes, and of communities which had resisted him, and treating them as ager publicus, assign them to his veterans as a prize. This example was followed by Octavian (Augustus) and Antony (M. Antonius) after their proscriptions in 43 B.C. A third method of providing land for distribution was that adopted by Servilius Rullus (q.v.) in 63 B.C. His bill enacted that land should be purchased in Italy with money gained by the sale of Roman territories abroad, and allotted to citizens. A commission of ten (x. viri agris dandis adsignandis), annually elected by 9 out of the 35 tribes, was to carry out the terms of the law. Rullus also ventured to propose the distribution of the Campanian land, which had hitherto been respected by all agrarian reformers. It was chiefly on this ground that Cicero in his three speeches on the Agrarian law succeeded in exciting such a general feeling against it that it was eventually withdrawn. In 60 B.C. the tribune L. Flavius brought forward a bill for the distribution of lands to Pompey's veterans. The Campanian land was certainly to be included in the distribution, and it is clear from Cicero that the bill in some way dealt violently with the rights of private owners. It also, however, enacted that land should be purchased by the state with the wealth which Pompey's conquests had brought into the treasury. The last proposal was supported by Cicero, but the bill seems to have been dropped, only to reappear in more moderate form in the following year. A consular bill, the lex Julia Campana, was passed by Julius Caesar in 59 B.C., which provided for the settlement of Pompey's veterans on the Campanian land, and other lands purchased by the state from private owners in Italy with the full consent of the latter. In its original form, the bill omitted all reference to the Campanian land, which seems to have been included by Caesar in the distribution only when the continued and unreasoning opposition of the senate had goaded him to extreme measures. A commission of twenty was to be appointed to carry out the law, from which Caesar himself was expressly excluded. This measure finally settled the question of the Campanian land, which now passed out of the category of ager publicus. The last agrarian law of the republic was that passed in 44 B.C. on the proposal of the consul M. Antonius, or of his brother L. Antonius. We have no detailed account of the measure, but it seems to have provided grants of land for veterans, and was to be administered by seven commissioners. The law was afterwards cancelled by decree of the senate, probably on the ground of some technical flaw. The emperor Vespasian attempted to reclaim for the state small oddments of land (subseciva) which were held by neighbouring owners to whom they had never been definitely assigned. The attempt met with violent opposition, and though resumed by Titus, was finally crushed by Domitian, who issued an edict recognizing all oddments of land thus held to be private property.

AUTHORITIES.—Niebuhr, History of Rome (English translation), ii. p. 129 foll. (Cambridge, 1832); Becker, Handbuch der romischen Alterthumer, iii. 2, p. 142 (Leipzig, 1843); Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, i. p. 96 foll. (Leipzig, 1881); Madvig, Verfassung und Verwaltung des romischen Staates, ii. p. 364 foll. (Leipzig, 1882), (See also ROME, History.) (A. H. J. G; A. M. CL.)

AGREDA, MARIA FERNANDEZ CORONEL, ABBESS OF, known in religion as Sor (Sister) Maria de Jesus (1602-1665), was the daughter of Don Francisco Coronel and of his wife Catalina de Arana. She was born at Agreda, on the borders of Navarre and Aragon, on the 2nd of April 1602. All her family were powerfully influenced by the ecstatic piety of Spain in that age. Her biographer, Samaniego, records that even as an infant in arms she was filled with divine knowledge. Her stupidity as a child is piously accounted for by extreme humility. From childhood she was favoured by ecstasies and visions. When she was fifteen the whole family entered religion. The father, now an old man, and the two sons entered the Franciscan house of San Antonio de Nalda. Maria, her mother and sister established a Franciscan nunnery in the family house at Agreda, which, when Maria's reputation had extended, was replaced by the existing building. She began it with one hundred reals (one pound sterling) lent her by a devotee, and it was completed in fourteen years by voluntary gifts. Much against her own wish, we are told, she was appointed abbess at the age of twenty-five. In 1668, four years after her death, the Franciscans published a story that at the age of twenty-two she had been miraculously conveyed to Mexico, to convert a native people, and had made five hundred journeys through the air for that purpose in one year. Though the rule required the abbess to be changed every three years, Maria remained the effective ruler of Agreda till her death. The Virgin was declared abbess, and Maria acted as her locus tenens. In her later years she inclined to the "internal prayer,'' and neglect of the outward offices of the church, which was usual with the "alumbrados'' or Quietists. The Inquisition took notice of her, but she was not proceeded against with severity. Maria's importance in religion and Spanish history is based on two grounds. In the earlier part of her life, while the Franciscan, Francisco Andres de la Torre, was her confessor, she wrote an Introduction to the History of the Most Blessed Virgin. It was destroyed by the direction of another confessor. Later on, by the order of her superiors, and under the guidance of her Franciscan confessor, Andres de Fuen Mayor, she wrote The Mystic City of God. It is an extraordinary book, full of apocryphal history, visions and scholasticism, which professes to have been written by divine inspiration, and is devoted to praise of the Virgin. In 1642 she sent to Philip IV. an account of a vision she had had, of a council of the infernal powers for the destruction of Catholicism and Spain. The king visited her when on his way to Aragon to suppress the rebellion of Catalonia. A long correspondence, which lasted till her death on the 29th of March 1665, was begun. The king folded a sheet of paper down the middle and wrote on the one side of the division. The answers were to be written on the other and the sheet returned. By a pious fraud copies were kept at Agreda. How far Maria was only the mouthpiece of the Franciscans must of course be a matter of doubt. Her correspondence was apparently suspended whenever her confessor was absent. She must, however, have co-operated at least, and it is certain that the Franciscans, who were very unfortunate in some of their pious women, owed not a little to her. The letters are in excellent Spanish, are curious reading, and are invaluable as illustrations for the second part of the reign of Philip IV.

The correspondence of Sor Maria with the king has been published in full by Don F. Siluela, Cartas de la Venerable Madre Sor Maria de Agreda y del Senor Rey Don Filipe IV. (Madrid, 1885). The Mystic City of God is one of the most characteristic monuments of Mariolatry, and has continued to be much in favour with supporters of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It appeared in Madrid in 1668, with a biographical introduction by Samaniego, has been often reprinted, and was translated into French and Italian. It was for a time reserved by the Index, both Spanish and Papal, but was taken off by the influence of the Franciscans and of Spain, the chief supporters of the immaculate Conception. An account of Maria de Agreda will be found in the Tracts of Michael Geddes (London, 1706),vol. iii., written by a competent critic and Anglican divine of the 18th century who detested "enthusiasm.'' (D. H.)

AGRICOLA, CHRISTOPH LUDWIG (1667-1719), German landscape painter, was born and died at Regensburg (Ratisbon). He spent a great part of his life in travel, visiting England, Holland and France, and residing for a considerable period at Naples. His numerous landscapes, chiefly cabinet pictures, are remarkable for fidelity to nature, and especially for their skilful representation of varied phases of climate. In composition his style shows the influence of Caspar Poussin, while in light and colour he imitates Claude Lorraine. His pictures are to be found in Dresden, Brunswick, Vienna, Florence, Naples and many other towns of both Germany and Italy.

AGRICOLA (the Latinized form of the name BAUER), GEORG (1490-1555), German scholar and man of science, known as "the father of mineralogy,'' was born at Glauchau in Saxony on the 24th of March 1490. Gifted with a precocious intellect, he early threw himself into the pursuit of the "new learning,'' with such effect that at the age of twenty he was appointed Rector extraordinarius of Greek at the so-called Great School of Zwickau, and made his appearance as a writer on philology. After two years he gave up his appointment in order to pursue his studies at Leipzig, where, as rector, he received the powerful support of the professor of classics, Peter Mosellanus (1493-1524), a celebrated humanist of the time, with whom he had already been in correspondence. Here he also devoted himself to the study of medicine, physics and chemistry. After the death of Mosellanus he went for a short time to Italy, where he took his doctor's degree. On his return he settled as practising physician in the Joachimstal, a centre of mining and smelting works, his object being partly "to fill in the gaps in the art of healing,'' partly to test what had been written about mineralogy by careful observation of ores and the methods of their treatment. His thorough grounding in philology and philosophy had accustomed him to systematic thinking, and this enabled him to construct out of his studies and observations of minerals a logical system which he began to publish in 1528. Bermannus, sive de re metallica dialogus, the first attempt to reduce to scientific order the knowledge won by practical work, brought Agricola into notice. In 1530 Prince Maurice of Saxony appointed him historiographer with an annual allowance, and he migrated to Chemnitz, the centre of the mining industry, in order to widen the range of his observations. The citizens showed their appreciation of his learning by appointing him town physician and electing him burgomaster. His popularity was, however, short-lived. Chemnitz was a violent centre of the Protestant movement, while Agricola never wavered in his allegiance to the old religion; and he was forced to resign his office. He now lived apart from the contentious movements of the time, devoting himself wholly to learning. His chief interest was still in mineralogy; but he occupied himself also with medical, mathematical, theological and historical subjects, his chief historical work being the Dominatores Saxonici a prima origine ad hanc aetatem, published at Freiberg. In 1544 he published the De ortu et causis subterraneorum, in which he laid the first foundations of a physical geology, and criticized the theories of the ancients. In 1545 followed the De natura eorum quae effluunt e terra; in 1546 the De veteribus et novis metallis, a comprehensive account of the discovery and occurrence of minerals; in 1548 the De animantibus subterraneis; and in the two following years a number of smaller works on the metals. His most famous work, the De re metallica, libri xii., was published in 1556, though apparently finished several years before, since the dedication to the elector and his brother is dated 1550. It is a complete and systematic treatise on mining and metallurgy, illustrated with many fine and interesting woodcuts and containing, in an appendix, the German equivalents for the technical terms used in the Latin text. It long remained a standard work, and marks its author as one of the most accomplished chemists of his time. Believing the black rock of the Schlossberg at Stolpen to be the same as Pliny's basalt, he applied this name to it, and thus originated a petrological term which has been permanently incorporated in the vocabulary of science.

In spite of the early proof that Agricola had given of the tolerance of his own religious attitude, he was not suffered to end his days in peace. He remained to the end a staunch Catholic, though all Chemnitz had gone over to the Lutheran creed; and it is said that his life was ended by a fit of apoplexy brought on by a heated discussion with a Protestant divine. He died at Chemnitz on the 21st of November 1555, and so violent was the theological feeling against him, that he was not suffered to rest in the town to which he had added lustre. Amidst hostile demonstrations he was carried to Zeitz, seven miles from Chemnitz, and there buried.

See article by Gumbel in Allgem. Deutsche Biog. (1875); F. L. Becher, Georg Agricola und Werner (Freiberg, 1819); F. A. Schmidt, Georg Agricola's Bermannus mit Einleitung (Freiberg, 1806); Poggendorff, Biographisches Handworterbuch; Agricola's works passim.

AGRICOLA, GNAEUS JULIUS (A.D. 37-93), Roman statesman and general, father-in-law of the historian Tacitus, was born on the 13th of June A.D. 37 (according to others, 39) at Forum Julii (Frejus) in Gallia Narbonensis. His father, Julius Graecinus, having been put to death by Caligula, Agricola was brought up by his mother Julia Procilla. After studying philosophy at Massilia, he entered the army and served (59) under Suetonius Paulinus in Britain. In 61 he returned to Rome, where he married Domitia Decidiana, a Roman lady of distinction. In 63 he was quaestor in Asia, in 65 tribune, in 68 praetor, and when Vespasian was proclaimed emperor, he immediately declared himself his supporter. In 70 he was appointed to the command of the 20th legion in Britain, then stationed at Deva (Chester). On his return to Rome at the end of three years he was made censor, raised to the rank of patrician, and appointed governor of Aquitania (74-78). Appointed consul suffectus in the following year, he was admitted into the college of pontiffs and made governor of Britain. In the same year he betrothed his daughter to Tacitus. Although the legation of Britain lasted as a rule only three years, Agricola held the post for at least seven and succeeded in reconciling the inhabitants to Roman rule and inducing them to adopt the customs and civilization of their conquerors. His military achievements were equally brilliant. After conquering the Ordovices in North Wales and the island of Mona (Anglesey), during the next two years he carried his victorious arms to the Taus (Tay; others read Tanaus, perhaps the north Tyne), and in his fourth campaign fortified the country between Clota and Bodotria (the firths of Clyde and Forth) as a protection against the attacks of the Caledonians. Having explored the coasts of Fife and Forfar, he gained a decisive victory over the Caledonians under Galgacus at the Graupian hill (see BRITAIN, Roman.) His successes, however, had aroused the envy and suspicion of Domitian. He was recalled to Rome, where he lived a life of studied retirement, to avoid the possibility of giving offence to the tyrant. He died in 93, poisoned, it was rumoured, by the emperor's orders. The Life of Agricola by his son-in-law Tacitus is practically a panegyric or funeral oration.

See Urlichs, De Vita et Honoribus Agricolae (1868); Dio Cassius xxxix. 50, lxvi. 20: Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire (Eng. trans., 1886), i. 183-184, 194.

AGRICOLA, JOHANN FRIEDRICH (1720-1774), German musician, was born at Dobitschen in Saxe-Altenburg, on the 4th of January 1720. While a student of law at Leipzig he studied music under Johann Sebastian Bach. In 1741 he went to Berlin, where he studied musical composition. He was soon generally recognized as one of the most skilful organists of his time; and in 1751, as the result of a comic opera, Il Filosofo convinto in amore, performed at Potsdam, he was made court composer to Frederick the Great. He died in Berlin on the 1st of December 1774. In 1759, on the death of Karl Heinrich Graun, he was appointed conductor of the royal orchestra. Besides several operas of merit, he composed instrumental pieces and church music. His reputation chiefly rests, however, on his theoretical and critical writings on musical subjects. He wrote under the pseudonym of Flavio Anicio Olibrio.

AGRICOLA (originally SCHNEIDER, then SCHNITTER), JOHANNES (1494-1566), German Protestant reformer, was born on the 20th of April 1494, at Eisleben, whence he is sometimes called Magister Islebius. He studied at Wittenberg, where he soon gained the friendship of Luther. In 1519 he accompanied Luther to the great assembly of German divines at Leipzig, and acted as recording secretary. After teaching for some time in Wittenberg, he went to Frankfort in 1525 to establish the reformed mode of worship. He had resided there only a month when he was called to Eisleben, where he remained till 1526 as teacher in the school of St Andrew, and preacher in the Nicolai church. In 1536 he was recalled to teach in Wittenberg, and was welcomed by Luther. Almost immediately, however, a controversy, which had been begun ten years before and been temporarily silenced, broke out more violently than ever. Agricola was the first to teach the views which Luther was the first to stigmatize by the now well-known name Antinomian (q.v.), maintaining that while the unregenerate were still under the Mosaic law, Christians were entirely free from it, being under the gospel alone. In consequence of the bitter controversy with Luther that resulted, Agricola in 1540 left Wittenberg secretly for Berlin, where he published a letter addressed to the elector of Saxony, which was generally interpreted as a recantation of his obnoxious views. Luther, however, seems not to have so accepted it, and Agricola remained at Berlin. The elector Joachim II. of Brandenburg, having taken him into his favour, appointed him court preacher and general superintendent. He held both offices until his death in 1566, and his career in Brandenburg was one of great activity and influence. Along with Julius von Pflug, bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, and Michael Helding, titular bishop of Sidon. he prepared the Augsburg Interim of 1548. He endeavoured in vain to appease the Adiaphoristic controversy (see ADIAPHORISTS.) He died during an epidemic of plague on the 22nd of September 1566. Agricola wrote a number of theological works which are now of little interest. He was the first to make a collection of German proverbs which he illustrated with a commentary. The most complete edition, which contains seven hundred and fifty proverbs, is that published at Wittenberg in 1592; a modern one is that of Latendorf, 1862.

See Cordes, Joh. Agricola's Schriften moglichst verzeichnet (Altona, 1817); Life by G. Kawerau (1881), who also wrote the notice in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyk. fur prot. Theol., where other literature is cited.

AGRICOLA, MARTIN (c. 1500-1556), German musician, was born about 1500 in Lower Silesia. His German name was Sohr or Sore. From 1524 till his death he lived at Magdeburg, where he occupied the post of teacher or cantor in the Protestant school. The senator and music-printer Rhau, of Wittenberg, was a close friend of Agricola, whose theoretical works, providing valuable material concerning the change from the old to the new system of notation, he published. Agricola was also the first to harmonize in four parts Luther's chorale, Ein' feste Burg.

Four other Agricolas1 are known as composers between the end of the 15th century and the middle of the 17th.

In the 18th century we find Burney, in the course of his tour in Germany (1772), much impressed by JOHANN FRIEDRICH AGRICOLA (1720-1774), court composer and director of the royal chapel to Frederick the Great. This Agricola was a pupil of Bach, and a fine organist and clever writer on music, especially on operatic style, the problems of which were beginning to be raised by French writers-and composers in preparation for the work of Gluck.

AGRICOLA, RODOLPHUS (properly ROELOF HUYSMANN) (1443-1485), Dutch scholar, was born at Baflo, near Groningen, in 1443. He was educated at Louvain, where he graduated as master of arts. After residing for some time in Paris, he went in 1476 to Ferrara in Italy, and attended the lectures of the celebrated Theodorus Gaza (1400-1478) on the Greek language. Having visited Pavia and Rome, he returned to his native country about 1479, and was soon afterwards appointed syndic of Groningen. In 1482, on the invitation of Johann von Dalberg, bishop of Worms (1445-1503), whose friendship he had gained in Italy, he accepted a professorship at Heidelberg, and for three years delivered lectures there and at Worms on the literature of Greece and Rome. By his personal influence much more than by his writings he did much for the promotion of learning in Germany; and Erasmus and other critics of the generation immediately succeeding his own are full of his praises. In his opposition to the scholastic philosophy he in some degree anticipated the great intellectual revolution in which many of his pupils were conspicuous actors. He died at Heidelberg on the 28th of October 1485. His principal work is De inventione dialectica, libri iii., in which he attempts to change the scholastic philosophy of the day.

See T. F. Tresling, Vita et Merita Rudolphi Agricolae (Groningen, 1830); v. Bezold, R. Agricola (Munchen, 1884): and Ihm, Der Humanist R. Agricola, sein Leben und seine Schriften (Paderb., 1893).

AGRICULTURAL GANGS, groups of women, girls and boys organized by an independent gang-master, under whose supervision they execute agricultural piece-work for farmers in certain parts of England. They are sometimes called "public gangs'' to distinguish them from "private gangs'' consisting of workers engaged by the farmer himself, and undertaking work solely for him, under his own supervision or under that of one of his men. The system was for long prevalent in the counties of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and is still to be found in a much modified form in the fen district. The practice dates from the latter years of the reign of George III., when the low-lying, marshy lands surrounding the basin of the Wash were being rapidly drained and converted into rich alluvial districts. The unreformed condition of the poor-law, under which the support of the poor fell upon each individual parish, instead of a union of parishes, made landlords reluctant to erect cottages on the reclaimed land for the benefit of their tenants. Labour had to be obtained for the cultivation of these new lands, and that of women, girls and boys, being cheaper than the labour of men, was consequently very largely employed. The tendency to moral and physical ruin which resulted from this nomadic life was so great that an inquiry into the condition of agricultural child-labour was included in the reference to the commission on child-labour appointed in 1862, and the results were so startling that the Agricultural Gangs Act was passed in 1867, forbidding the employment of any child under eight years old, and of any female under a male gangmaster unless a female licensed to act as gang-mistress were also

1 Alexander, died 1506; Johann, flor. 1600; Wolfgang Christoph, flor. 1630; and George Ludwig, 1643-1676. present. Gang-masters must be licensed by two justices, and may not hold a liquor license. The distance to be traversed on foot is fixed by the justices, and the licenses must be renewed every six months. Later legislation made more stringent the regulations under which children are employed in agricultural gangs. By the Elementary Education Act 1876, repealing and re-enacting the principal provisions of the Agricultural (Children) Act 1873, no child shall be employed under the age of eleven years, and none between eleven years and thirteen years before the child has obtained a certificate of having reached the standard of education fixed by a by-law in force in the district.

AGRICULTURE (from Lat. ager, field, and colere, to cultivate), the science, art and industry of utilizing the soil so as to produce the means of human subsistence, embracing in its widest sense the rearing of live-stock as well as the raising of crops. The history of agriculture is the history of man in his most primitive, and most permanent aspect. Hence the nations of antiquity ascribed to it a divine origin; Brahma in Hindustan, Isis in Egypt, Demeter in Greece, and Ceres in Italy, were its founders. The simplest form of agriculture is that in which crops are raised from one patch of ground till it is exhausted, when it is allowed to go wild and abandoned for another. This "extensive'' husbandry is found in combination with a nomadic or semi-nomadic and pastoral organization, such as that of the German tribes described by Caesar and Tacitus (see especially Germania, 26). The discovery of the uses of the bare fallow and of manure, by making it possible to raise crops from the same area for an indefinite period, marks a stage of progress. This "intensive'' culture in a more or less developed form was practised by the great nations of antiquity, and little decided advance was made till after the middle ages. The introduction of new plants, which made it possible to dispense with the bare fallow, and still later the application to husbandry of scientific discoveries as to soils, plant constituents and manures, brought about a revolution in farming. But the progress of husbandry, evidenced by the production of larger and better crops with more certainty, is due to that rationalizing of agricultural practices which is the work of modern times. What before was done in the light of experience is nowadays done in the light of knowledge. Even the earliest forms of intensive cultivation demand the practice of the fundamental processes of husbandry—ploughing, manuring, sowing, weeding, reaping. It is the improvements in methods, implements and materials, brought about by the application of science, that distinguish the husbandry of the 20th century from that of medieval and ancient times.

Ancient Husbandry.—The monumental records of Egypt are the source of the earliest information on farming. The Egypt

Egypt.

of the Pharaohs was a country of great estates farmed either by tenants or by slaves or labourers under the superintendence of stewards. It owed its fertility to the Nile, which, inundating the land near its banks, was distributed by means of canals over more distant portions of its valley. The autumnal subsidence of the river was followed by shallow ploughing performed by oxen yoked to clumsy wooden ploughs, the clods being afterwards levelled with wooden hoes by hand. Next came the sowing, the seed being pressed into the soil by the feet of sheep which were driven over the fields. At harvest the corn was cut high on the stalk with short sickles and put up in sheaves, after which it was carried to the threshing-floor and there trodden out by the hoofs of oxen. Winnowing was done by women, who tossed the grain into the air with small wooden boards, the chaff being blown away by the winds. Wheat and barley were the chief crops, and another plant, perhaps identical with the durra, i.e. millet, of modern Egypt, was also cultivated. The latter, when ripe, was pulled up by the roots, and the grain was separated by means of an implement resembling a comb. To these crops may be added peas, beans and many herbs and esculent roots. Oxen were much prized, and breeding was carried on with a careful eye to selection. Immense numbers of ducks and geese were reared.