represents the work as written under Domitian and even towards the close of his reign. This tradition rests on very ancient testimony, that of Irenæus,1 but has met with no approval from critics of the present century; only the traditionalists who reject the historical interpretation accept it. It is the only case in the whole range of the New Testament where criticism assigns to a writing a higher antiquity than is allowed it by tradition. Whether criticism has not been too hasty in setting aside the statement of Irenæus will appear in the sequel.

In support of the supposition that the Apocalypse was written before August 70 A.D., the chief argument adduced is that ch. xi. assumes that Jerusalem and the temple are still uninjured. Mommsen (Röm. Gesch., v. 521) has not succeeded in satisfactorily disposing of this argument. The Apocalypse is cognizant of the flight of the Jewish Christians into the country beyond Jordan towards Pella (ch. xii.); it expects the partial destruction of Jerusalem in the immediate future.2 But this very expectation as well as the confidence that the temple would remain uninjured shows that at that time city and temple were still standing. Hence, as ch. xi. was written before August 70, most critics, assuming that the whole book dates from one and the same time, conclude that it was composed under Galba, that is, between autumn 68 and spring 69. In their view the five emperors who have fallen are Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Caligula, and Nero, therefore the reigning emperor is Galba, and the reason why the author does not make antichrist (the returning Nero) immediately succeed Galba is a wish to carry on the number seven, and because“, even a prophet owes some consideration to the powers that be"; but he allows this unknown successor only a short reign, and then comes the returned Nero and the end of the world.4 Lastly, these critics point to the fact that a false Nero appeared immediately after the death of the real Nero (Tacitus, Hist., ii. 8, 9). This position is very strong, but there are two objections to it,-in the first place, it is uncertain whether Galba should be included in the list of emperors at all-so eminent an authority as Mommsen is against including him, and reckons Vespasian as the sixth, and, secondly, the author of the Apocalypse thinks of a false Nero who will ally himself with the Parthians (see ch. ix. and elsewhere). Therefore his false Nero appears not to be that of Tacitus, but the one who in the last years of Vespasian found a following in the Euphrates district and was acknowledged in the reign of Titus by King Artabanus, who prepared to restore him at Rome by force of arms, but was at last surrendered by the Parthians, about 88, to Domitian (so Mommsen; compare PERSIA, vol. xviii. p. 603). On this view the Apocalypse was written about 75-79. Thus we see that we have here two discrepant calculations (autumn 68 to spring 69; about 75-79); each has much in favour of it, but also at least one strong argument against it-against the first calculation there is the argument that the false Nero who best suits the case did not appear till about 75, while against the second calculation there is the argument that according to ch. xi. the destruction of Jerusalem had not yet taken place.5 In these 1 Tren. v. 30, 3: ἡ ἀποκάλυψις οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομιτιανοῦ ἀρχῆς.

2 The three and a half years in xi. 2, xii. 14, xiii. 5 are taken from the Apocalypse of Daniel, and no deeper meaning is to be sought

circumstances it appears perhaps best to assume that the Apocalypse was written under Galba, that is, that the conception and the first draught of it date from this time, but that the seventeenth chapter was afterwards revised in the last years of the reign of Vespasian, about 75– 79. Now it is to be remembered that Irenæus asserts most explicitly that it was revealed in the last years of Domitian. Such a statement is not to be simply set aside, especially when it seems to make a writing later, and not earlier, and when there is internal evidence that the book underwent revisions. Further exact investigation of the details of the Apocalypse will perhaps supply positive proofs; at present the following can be put forward merely as an hypothesis, for which only a certain probability is claimed:-the Apocalypse was written under Galba, but afterwards underwent revisions under Vespasian, about 75-79, and perhaps in Domitian's reign of terror, about 93-96 (compare what has been said above on the unity and integrity).

Place of Composition-Authorship.—That the Apocalypse was written at some place on the west coast of Asia Minor has never, so far as known to the present writer, been doubted by any critic of note.

7

The tradition of the church ascribes the Apocalypse to the apostle John, and the Tübingen school has felt bound in this case to agree with tradition. Within the last twenty years or so the question has been much complicated by being mixed up with the question of the origin of the Fourth Gospel; all, however, agree that the book was written by a born Jew. At present the following views are maintained: (1) the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John are by the apostle John (Ebrard, Hengstenberg and his school, Hofmann and his school, Kliefoth); (2) the Gospel is by an unknown author, the Apocalypse is by the apostle John (Baur, Schwegler, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld); (3) the Gospel is by the apostle John, the Apocalypse is by a man called John, the otherwise known presbyter, who had no wish to be taken for the apostle (Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, Credner, De Wette, Neander, Reuss, Düsterdieck, Keim, Holtzmann, &c.); (4) the Apocalypse is by another John, one of the apostle's disciples, who afterwards received the tacit approval of the apostle, so that the Revelation passed in the church as a work of the apostle (Renan); (5) the Apocalypse was foisted on the apostle John without his knowledge (Volckmar, &c.). Of these views the first and fourth may be summarily dismissed, the latter because Renan has not brought forward even the shadow of a proof, the former because the differences between the Apocalypse and the Gospel in language and opinions are too great to allow us to suppose that the books are by the same author. It is true that on the other hand both writings have much in common, nay, even that there is a profound affinity between them, but this only proves that their authors lived in the same country, and were to some extent subject to the same intellectual influences. Even Hase, who formerly thought it possible to refer Gospel and Apocalypse to the apostle John (see his work, Die Tübinger Schule, 1855), has renounced this view. But what is to prevent us from ascribing at least the Apocalypse to the apostle 69 and August 70, hence in the beginning of Vespasian's reign, has least to recommend it. Some of the critics who have maintained it are much biased. Thus Düsterdieck regards the sixth emperor (xvii. 10) as Vespasian, the seventh, who is to remain for only a short time, as Titus, and the eighth as Nero. But, as the book was written, according to Düsterdieck, shortly before 70, it follows that

we have here a prophecy which definitely announces certain historical events beforehand.' Thus the claim of the Apocalypse to be an actual prophecy is justified, though only in one verse.

6 So Justin; see Dial. c. Tryph., 81.

7 Some of these scholars also deny that the Gospel is by John. 8 This was observed by Dionysius of Alexandria (in Euseb., H. E., vii. 27).

known as Binjh, which overlook the valley of the Ganges. This plateau is for the most part cultivated and well peopled; the soil varies from a rich black loam to a sandy laterite; but in the greater part of this area good land predominates, and rich harvests both of kharif and rabi crops are generally obtained. Water is plentiful, and the country is full of large tanks and reservoirs, which, however, are not used for irrigation purposes; the only system of wet cultivation which has any favour with the villagers is that of bandhs, or mounds of earth raised at the lower ends of sloping fields to retain the rain water for some time after the monsoon rains cease. The Rewah plateau is reported to possess every natural advantage, and the whole of its area could be brought under rich cultivation. The country to the south of the Kaimur Hills comprises by far the largest portion of the state; but here cultivation is restricted to the valley between the hills and the Sone river, and to a few isolated patches in scattered parts of the wild and magnificent forest wastes. Rewah is rich in minerals and forests. Operations lately undertaken to determine the extent of its coal fields have

proved highly successful. Until very recently Rewah possessed no roads to speak of or means of internal communication; but good progress is now being made, and by this means it is anticipated that the state will soon develop its rich resources. The principal river is the Sone, which, receiving the Mahanadi from the south, flows through the state in a north and north-easterly direction into Mirzapur district; another important river is the Tons; but none of the rivers are navigable. The average rainfall at Rewah is about 571⁄2 inches.

The population of the state in 1881 was 1,305,124 (654,182 males, 650,942 females); Hindus in the same year numbered 971,788, Mohammedans 31,107, and aboriginals 302,107. The inhabitants of Rewah are reported to be a singularly simple, pleasant, and well-disposed race, and they greatly appreciate the efforts which are now being made to benefit them. The revenue of the state in 1882-83 amounted to £110,946, of which the land contributed £71,798. The chief town is Rewah, situated in

24° 31′ 30′′ N. lat. and 81° 20' E. long., and containing in 1881 a population of 22,016.

The state came under British influence in 1812, when the first formal treaty was made with Jai Sinh Deo, by which he was acknowledged as ruler of his dominions and was brought under the protection of the British Government. The raja, however, failed to full, his obligations, and a second treaty was made confirming the first and defining more clearly his relations with the British Government. The administration of Rewah is now entirely in the hands of the British owing to the death of the maharaja Raghuraj Sinh and the succession of his infant son.

REYNOLDS, SIR JOSHUA (1723–1792), English portrait-painter, was born at Plympton Earl, in Devonshire, on July 16, 1723. He was educated by his father, a clergyman and the master of the free grammar school of the place, who designed his son for the medical profession. But the boy showed a distinct preference for painting. He was constantly copying the plates in Dryden's Plutarch and Cat's Emblems, and poring over Jonathan Richardson's Treatise on Art. At the age of eight, aided by the instructions in The Jesuit's Perspective, he made a sufficiently correct drawing of the Plympton schoolhouse, which greatly astonished his father. It was at length decided that the lad should devote himself to art, and in October 1741 he proceeded to London to study under Thomas Hudson, a mediocre artist, a native of Devonshire, who was popular in the metropolis as a portrait painter. Reynolds remained with Hudson for only two years, acquiring with uncommon aptitude the technicalities of the craft, and in 1743 he returned to Devonshire, where, settling at Plymouth Dock, he employed himself in portrait painting. By the end of 1744 he was again in London. He was well received by his old master, from whom he appears previously to have parted with some cold

ness on both sides. Hudson introduced him to the artists' club that met in Old Slaughters, St Martin's Lane, and gave him much advice as to his work. Reynolds now painted his portraits of Captain Hamilton, father of the marquis of Abercorn, of Mrs Field, of Alderman Tracey, now in the Plymouth Athenæum, and of the notorious Miss Chudleigh, afterwards duchess of Kingston. To this period, or perhaps to one slightly later, is referable the artist's excellent oval bust portrait of himself, which was included in the Grosvenor Gallery Exhibition of 1884. At Christmas 1746 he was recalled to Plympton to attend the last hours of his father, after whose death he again established himself, now with two of his sisters, at Plymouth Dock, where he painted portraits, and, as he has himself recorded, derived much in tinction from an examination of some works by William Candy of Exeter, whose broad and forcible execution must have been an excellent corrective to the example of ludson's dry and hard method. Meanwhile the pleasant urbanity of manner which distinguished Reynolds throughout life had been winning for him friends. He had made the acquaintance of Lord Edgcumbe, and by him was introduced to Captain (afterwards Viscount Keppel), who was to play an important and helpful part in the career of the young painter. Keppel was soon made aware of Reynolds's artent desire to visit Italy; and, as he had just been appointed to the command of the Mediterranean squadron, he gracefully invited the artist to accompany him in his own ship, the "Centurion." The offer was gladly accepted. While Keppel was conducting his tedious negotiations with the dey of Algier relative to the piracy with which that potentate was charged, Reynolds resided at Port Mahon, the guest of the governor of Minorca, painting portraits of the principal inhaugrats and, in December 1749, he sailed for Leghorn, and thenge, with all eagerness, made his way to Rome.

He has confessed that his first sight of the works of Raphael was a grievous disappointment, and that it required lengthened study before he could appreciate the correctness and grace of the master. By the dignity and imagination of Michelangelo he was deeply impressed; to the end of life the great Florentine remained for Reynolds the supreme figure in art; his name was constantly upon his lips, and, as he had wished, it was the last that he pronounced to the students of the Royal Academy. Of the influence of Correggio, of his sweetness of expression, of his method of chiaroscuro, we find frequent traces in the works of Sir Joshua, especially in his paintings of children; but after all it was from the Venetians that the English painter learned most. His own strongest instincts were towards richness and splendour of colour, and in these qualities he found unsurpassable examples in the productions of Titian and Veronese.

While in Rome he avoided, as far as possible, the temptation to spend his time in copying specific pictures, which he considered "a delusive kind of industry," by which " the student satisfies himself with an appearance of doing something, and falls into the dangerous habit of imitating without selecting." His method of becoming acquainted with the old masters, and of assimilating their excellences, was by diligent examination and comparison, aided by studies of general effect and of individual parts. His knowledge of the Roman art treasures was dearly purchased. While working in the corridors of the Vatican he caught a severe cold, which resulted in the deafness that clung to him for the rest of his life, and rendered necessary the ear-trumpet which he used in conversation.

After a residence of two years in Rome, Reynolds, in the spring of 1752, spent four months in visiting Parma, Florence, Venice, and other important cities of Italy; and, after a brief stay in Devonshire, he established himself as

one.

His first reception on his return was hardly a favourable Hudson called to see his productions and told him, "Reynolds, you don't paint so well as when you left England." Ellis, another accepted portrait painter of the time, who had studied under Kneller, exclaimed, "This will never answer. Why, you don't paint in the least like Sir Godfrey,"-adding, as he abruptly left the room, "Shakespeare in poetry, Kneller in painting." The verdict of the public, however, was all on the side of the young innovator. Lord Edgcumbe played the part of the generous patron, and exerted himself to obtain commissions for his protégé, of whose ability the portraits which he now produced-of the duchess of Hamilton, the countess of Coventry, Lord Holderness, and especially of his old friend Keppel-were sufficient guarantee. The artist's painting-room was thronged with the wealth and fashion of London, " with women who wished to be transmitted as angels, and with men who wished to appear as heroes and philosophers"; and he was already afloat upon that tide of prosperity which never ebbed till the day of his death. Various other artists contested with him for popular applause. First the Swiss Liotard had his moment of popularity; and at a later period there was Opie, and the more formidable and sustained rivalry of Gainsborough and of Romney; but in the midst of all, then as now, Reynolds maintained an admitted supremacy. And, if the magic of his brush brought him crowds of sitters, his charm of manner gathered round him numerous friends. During the first year of his residence in London he had made the acquaintance of Dr Johnson, which, diverse as the two men were, became a friendship for life. To him Burke and Goldsmith, Garrick, Sterne, Bishop Percy, and, it seems, Hogarth, were before long added. At the hospitable dinner table of Reynolds such distinguished men enjoyed the freest and most unconstrained companionship, and most of them were members of the "Literary Club," established, at the painter's suggestion, in 1764.

In 1760 the London world of art was greatly interested by the novel proposal of the Society of Artists to exhibit their works to the public. The hall of the society was at their disposal for the purpose; and in the month of April an exceedingly successful exhibition was opened, the precursor of many that followed. To this display Reynolds contributed four portraits. In 1765 the association obtained a royal charter, and became known as The Incorporated Society of Artists"; but much rivalry and jealousy was occasioned by the management of the various exhibitions, and an influential body of painters withdrew from the society, and proceeded to consider the steps that should be taken in order that their corporate existence might be recognized. They had access to the young king, George III., who promised his patronage and help. In December 1768 the Royal Academy was founded, and Reynolds was elected, by acclamation, its first president, an honour which more than compensated for his failure to obtain the appointment of king's painter, which, the previous year, had been bestowed on Allan Ramsay, a more courtly but more commonplace artist. In a few months the king signified his approval of the election by knighting the new president, and intimating that the queen and himself would honour him with sittings for portraits to be presented to the Academy.

Reynolds was fitted for his new position no less by his urbane and courteous manner and by his wide general culture than by his eminence as an artist. With unwearied

furthering the interests of the new Academy. It was at his suggestion that the annual banquet was instituted. To the specified duties of his post he added the delivery of a presidential address at the distribution of the prizes, and his speeches on these occasions form the well-known "discourses" of Sir Joshua. Expressed as they are with simple elegance and perspicuous directness, these discourses alone would be sufficient to entitle their author to literary distinction; indeed, when they were first delivered, it was thought impossible that they could be the production of a painter, and Johnson and Burke have been credited with their composition, in spite of the specific denials of both, and of Dr Johnson's indignant exclamation-"Sir Joshua, sir, would as soon get me to paint for him as to write for him!"

In the unwearied pursuit of his art, and in the calm enjoyment of his varied friendships, Sir Joshua's life flowed on peacefully and happily enough. He was too prosperous and successful an artist altogether to escape the jealousy of his less fortunate and less capable brethren, and he suffered in this way sometimes, especially from the attacks of Barry, a painter who lived long enough to regret and, so far as he was able, to rectify his fault. In 1784, on the death of Ramsay, Reynolds was appointed painter to the king. Two years previously he had suffered from a paralytic attack; but, after a month of rest, he was able to resume his painting with unabated energy and power. In the summer of 1789 his sight began to fail; he was affected by the gutta serena, but the progress of the malady was gradual, and he continued occasionally to practise his art till about the end of 1790. His last years were embittered by a most unfortunate disagreement with the Royal Academy, relative to the appointment of a professor of perspective. Under the impression that there was a conspiracy against him among the various members, he signified his intention of leaving the presidential chair, a resignation which he was afterwards induced to withdraw, and his final discourse was delivered on the 10th December 1790. He was still able to enjoy the companionship of his friends, and he exerted himself in an effort to raise funds for the erection of a monument in St Paul's to Dr Johnson, who had died in 1784. Towards the end of 1791 it was evident to the friends of Reynolds that he was gradually sinking. For a few months he suffered from extreme depression of spirits, the result of a severe form of liver complaint, and on the 23d February 1792 this great artist and blameless gentleman passed peacefully away.

In the

Reynolds's first discourse deals with the establishment of an academy for the fine arts, and of its value as being a repository of the traditions of the best of bygone practice, of the principles which many artists have spent their lives in ascertaining. second lecture the study of the painter is divided into three stages, in the first of which he is busied with processes and technicalities, with the grammar of art, while in the second he examines what has been done by other artists, and in the last compares these results with nature herself. In the third discourse Reynolds treats of "the great and leading principles of the grand style"; and succeeding addresses are devoted to such subjects as "Moderation," "Taste," Genius," and Sculpture." The fourteenth has an especial interest as containing an appreciative but discriminating notice of Gainsborough, who had died shortly before its delivery; while the concluding discourse is mainly occupied with a panegyric on Michelangelo.

"

The other literary works of the president comprise his three and "On the True Idea of Beauty"), his notes to Du Fresnoy's Art essays in The Idler for 1759-60 ("On the Grand Style in Painting," of Painting, his Remarks on the Art of the Low Countries, his brief notes in Johnson's Shakespeare, and two singularly witty and brilliant fragments, imaginary conversations with Johnson, which were never intended by their author for publication, but, found niece, the marchioness of Thomond. among his papers after his death, were given to the world by his

But the literary works of Reynolds, excellent as these are, were