polygamy, and to enforce observance of canonical consecration for all churches. These examples show the
close relations of the two churches in the Middle Ages.
But late in the 15th century, the church was taken captive
by a Portuguese mission. In 1439 an Abyssinian embassy
to Home had resulted in the despatch of a mission under
Alvarez. Later, Ignatius Loyola wished to essay the task
of conversion, but was forbidden. Instead, the Pope sent
out Barret as patriarch of the East Indies, with Oviedo as
bishop; and from Goa envoys went to Abyssinia, followed
by Oviedo himself, to secure the king’s adherence to Rome.
After repeated failures some measure of success was
achieved, but not till 1604 did the king make formal
submission to the Pope. Then the people rebelled and
the king was slain. Fresh Jesuit victories were followed
sooner or later by fresh revolt, and Roman rule hardly
triumphed, when once for all it was overthrown. In 1633
the Jesuits were expelled and allegiance to Alexandria
resumed.
There are many early rock-cut churches in Abyssinia, closely resembling the Coptic. After these, two main types of architecture are found—one basilican, the other native. The cathedral at Axum is basilican, though the early basilicas are nearly all in ruins—e.g., that at Adulis and that of Martula Mariam in Gojam, rebuilt in the 16th century, on the ancient foundations. These examples show the influence of those architects who, in the 6th century, built the splendid basilicas at Sana and elsewhere in Arabia. Of native churches there are two forms—one square or oblong, found in Tigré; the other circular, found in Amhara and Shoa. In both, the sanctuary is square and stands clear in the centre. An outer court, circular or rectangular, surrounds the body of the church. The square type may be due to basilican influence, the circular is a mere adaptation of the native hut: in both, the arrangements are obviously based on Jewish tradition. Church and outer court are usually thatched, with wattled or mud-built walls adorned with rude frescoes. The altar is a board on four wooden pillars having upon it a small slab (tabut) of alabaster, marble, or shittim wood, which forms its essential part. At Martula Mariam, the wooden altar overlaid with gold had two slabs of solid gold, one 500, the other 800 ounces in weight. The ark kept at Axum is described as 2 feet high, covered with gold and gems. The liturgy was celebrated on it in the king’s palace at Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Feast of the Cross.
Generally the Abyssinians agree with the Copts in ritual and practice. The LXX. version was translated into Geez, the literary language, which is used for all services, though hardly understood. Saints and angels are highly revered, if not adored, but graven images are forbidden. Fasts are long and rigid. Confession and absolution, strictly enforced, give great power to the priesthood. The clergy must marry, but once only. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem is a religious duty and covers many sins. (See also under Abyssinia.)
Authorities.—Tellez. Historia de Ethiopia. Coimbra, 1660.—Alvarez. Trans, by Lord Stanley of Alderley. London, 1880.—Ludolphus. History of Ethiopia, London, 1684, and other works.—T. Wright. Christianity of Arabia. London, 1855.—C. T. Beke. “Christianity among the Gallas,” Brit. Mag. London, 1847.—J. C. Hotten. Abyssinia Described. London, 1868.—“Abyssinian Church Architecture,” Royal. Inst. Brit. Arch. Transactions, 1869. Ibid. Journal, March 1897.—Archæologia, vol. xxxii.
Academy, French.—The history of the French Academy has continued its tranquil course since 1875, marked perhaps in later years by a greater desire to respond to the purely literary dictates of its composite conscience. Its elections, under the Republic, have been social functions of a highly fashionable character. One alteration in its methods has to be chronicled: in 1869 it became the custom to discuss the claims of the candidates at a preliminary meeting of the members. In 1880, on the instance of the philosopher Caro, supported by A. Dumas fils, and by the aged Désiré Nisard, it was decided to abandon this method, which led to great inconvenience in practice. A point upon which much stress is often laid, and regarding which the most inaccurate statements are put forth, is the degree in which, since its foundation, the French Academy has or has not represented the best literary life of France. On this subject it may be well to supply some supplementary information. It appears from an examination of the lists of members that a surprising number of authors of the highest excellence have, from one cause or another, escaped the honour of academic “immortality.” When the Academy was founded in 1634, the moment was not a very brilliant one in French letters. Among the forty original members we find only ten who are remembered in literary history; of these there are four who may reasonably be considered famous still—Balzac, Chapelain, Racan, and Voiture. In that generation Scarron was never one of the forty, nor do the names of Descartes, Malebranche, or Pascal occur; it must not be supposed that any lack of honour was intended to these philosophers, but the French Academy had not come to consider its doors open to this class of writers. The duke of Rochefoucauld declined the honour from a proud modesty, and Rotrou died too soon to be elected. The one astounding omission of the 17th century, however, is the name of Molière, who was excluded by his profession as an actor. On the other hand, the French Academy was never more thoroughly representative of letters than when Boileau, Corneille, La Fontaine, Racine, and Quinault were all members of its body. Of the great theologians of that and the subsequent age, the Academy contained Bossuet, Fléchier, Fénelon, and Massillon, but not Bourdaloue. La Bruyère and Fontenelle were among the forty, but not Saint-Simon, whose claims as a man of letters were unknown to his contemporaries. Early in the 18th century almost every literary personage of eminence found his place naturally in the Academy. The only exceptions of importance were Vauvenargues, who died too early for the honour, and two men of genius of dubious social position, Lesage and the Abbé Prévost d’Exiles. As the Revolution approached, the personnel of the Academy became greatly disturbed. Montesquieu and Voltaire belonged to it, but not Rousseau or Beaumarchais. Of the Encyclopædists, the French Academy opened its doors to D’Alembert, Condorcet, Volney, Marmontel, and La Harpe, but not to Diderot, Rollin, Condillac, Helvetius, or the Baron d’Holbach. It is to be supposed that, the claims of Turgot and of Quesnay did not appear to the Academy sufficiently literary, since neither was elected. In the transitional period, when the social life of Paris was distracted and the French Academy provisionally closed, neither Andre Chenier nor Benjamin Constant, nor Joseph de Maistre became enrolled among its members. In the early years of the 19th century considerations of various kinds excluded from the ranks of the forty the dissimilar names of Lamennais, Prudhon, Comte, and Beranger. Critics of the French Academy are fond of pointing out that neither Stendhal, nor Balzac, nor Théophile Gautier, nor Flaubert, penetrated into the Mazarine Palace. It is not so often remembered that writers so academic as Thierry, and Michelet, and Quinet, suffered the same exclusion. In later times neither Alphonse Daudet nor Edmond de Goncourt, Guy de
