Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/371

 CAPUA

319

CAPUA

a matter of considerable dispute. The obscurity in- volving the point arises from the fact that the books of Esdras and Nehemias, the chief inspired sources for the history of the Restoration, mention in several places a King Artaxerxes, without specifying which of the three Persian monarchs of that name is meant, viz. whether the first, surnamed Longimanus (465- 424 n. c.)i ''"' second, Mnemon (405-362), or the third, Ochus (362^338). The controversy turns on the point whether the expedition of Esdras, referred to in the Hrst book of that name (viii), preceded or followed the first governorship of Nehemias. The hitherto accepted order places the Esdras gola in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 B. a), and hence betore the appointment of Nehemias, which occurred in the twentieth year of an Artaxerxes. But several exegetes have recently advanced strong reasons for reversing this order. Van Hoonacker, the leading

advocate of the priority of Nehemias to Esdras, as- signs the latter's expedition to the seventh year of Artaxerxes II, i. e. to 398. Lagrange, according to whom the mission of Nehemias took place under the second Artaxerxes, fixes the Esdras migration as late as 355, a little more than a century after the prevalent date. ( it" course a revision of the temporal relations of the missions of Esdras and Nehemias postulates a seri- ous confusion in the text and arrangement of the books bearing those names, as they have come down to us. More or less involved in this chronological question is that of the respective parts of Nehemias and Esdras in the reconstruction of the Jewish theocracy. Van Hoonacker contends that the co-operation of Esdras with Nehemias, described in II Esdras (also called Nehemias), viii, occurred before Esdras had, as he claims, gone to Babylon to organize the expedition in order to strengthen the new community, and that we must allow that the priest-scribe's place in the task of reorganization was minor ami supplementary to thai of Nehemias, tin' gi ivernor. According to this view — and herein it is largely borne out by the terms of commission as given by the Persian king (I Esd., vii, 13-26) — the charge of the priest-scribe was not the promulgation of the Law, but the embellish- ment and improvement of the Temple service, the constitution of judges, and other administrative measures. The question is not without an important bearing on the validity of the Graf-Wellhausen hy- potli, i- of the origin of the Pentateuch. (See Esdras, Nehemias, Books of.)

III. The Roman ('activity. — Jerusalem fell before the Roman arms in August, A. D. 70, after a long and dreadful iege conducted by Titus, the son of the

ror Vespasian, and himself later emperor. Hosts of prisoners were taken in this war; the number was estimated at 97, (MID, being substantially all that re- mained of the nation in Palestine. The severity of treatment meted out to these unfortunates tells of thl " ration caused by the stubborn defence of

Jem. The weak and sickly prisoners were at i! to death. The rest of the concourse were

gathered in the Gentile's Court of the ruined Temple

and told off into various classes. All those recognized

or reported as active in the rebellion were set aside

except seven hundred young men of the

ace, who were spared to grace the triumph

at Lome. The remainder of the capt ives were di\ ided

into those over and those under seventeen. Of the

i. pari were put in chains and sent to labour in

iiers. including thousands of

ex, were dispersed among the Roman

cities to be victims "I 'lie inhuman public games.

below seventeen were sold as slaves. The

leal- i Uion, John of Gishkhala and Simon

of Gei iptives to Rome to appear in

the triumph of Titus; John was afterwards put to

death.

ndon. 1878. ti 1880), IV, V:

\\ II. I II M '.' ',. , h ' It,', |

1S9S); McOurdy, History, I'rophrcii and the Monuments (Lon- don and New York, 1898, 1801), I. 3S3, sq., III. For the cuneiform evidence sec: /':. A> ■',„, ■/, ,- „„,/ das .1 T : Winck- i.i-.k. History of Israel Berlin, I'm.; the following works deal mainly with the period ol the Return and Restoration:

V in HnoN.u-Ki it, .V.'.m i el Esdras in the .1/ i (] ouvain,

1890); Idem. Zerubabel ■■ U second tempi Low un, 1892): li.iM. Nouv ■'■■ if ci restauration j i Pai no

I.ouvain, 1S9I)'; Ii-im. Xntis snr I' histoui d. ion

juive in Rev. Bib chin., 1901), being a reply to certain argu- ments of Nikk.l, ]>n ICl" brio > <;< no iiiin :n /!„■ iioel* dim babi/lonisriu a Exit in Biblisclir Stud. (Freiburg, 1900).

George J. Reid.

Capua, Archdiocese of (Capuana). — The city of Capua is situated in the province of Caserta, South- ern Italy. Of Etruscan foundation, it was formerly known as VMurnwm and was capital of Campania Felix. About 424 b. c. it was captured by the 8am- nites and in 343 B. c. implored Roman help against its conquerors. During the Second Punic War, after Hannibal's victory at Cannae (216 b. c), he and his army were voluntarily received by Capua, where the Carthagimans became demoralized by luxurious living. The city was recaptured by the Romans (211 B. c), its inhabitants were killed or enslaved, and the territory declared common kind iai/cr publi- cus). Julius Caesar made Capua a Roman colony under the name of Jidia Felix. In a. d. 456 the Vandals under Genseric sacked the city. During the Gothic war Capua suffered greatly, and similarly a little later from the Lombards. About 840 it was burned to the ground by the .Saracens, after which it was rebuilt, but at some distance from the former site, wdiere, however, another city was built and called Santa Maria in Capua Vetere. In 1058, the Norman, Richard, Prince of Aversa, conquered it; thenceforth its history is linked with that of the Two Sicilies.

Christianity, it is said, was iirst preached tit Capua by St. Priscus, a disciple of St. Peter. In the mar- tyrology mention is made of many Capuan martyrs, and it is probable that, owing to its position and im- portance, Capua received the Christian doctrine at a very early period. The first bishop of whom there is positive record is Protasius, present tit the Roman Council under Pope Melchiades (313); he was suc- ceeded by Protus Vincent ins, a. Roman deacon and legate of Pope Sylvester I at Nica?a, who took a prominent part in the Arian controversies, and was present at the Council of Sardica (343). At the con- ciliabulum of Aries (353) he was led astray by Con- stantius and consented to the deposition of St. Athanasius, an error for which he made amends at Rimini. Bishop Memorius, \\ ho held a council to deal with the Schism of Antioch and the heresy of Bonosus, is often mentioned in the letters of SI. Augustine and St. Paulinus, and was the father of that ardent Pela- gian, Julian of Eclanum. In 443, Priscus, an exile from North Africa and a man of great sanctity, was elected bishop; possibly it is his name thai popular tradition carried back to the head of the list of Capuan bishops. Another incumbent nl this see was

Germanus, whom Pope Hormisdas sent twice to Con- stantinople to restore unity with the Roman Church. In 541, Bishop Benedictus died and was ever after- wards held in repute of sanctity. His successor, Vic- tor, was a learned exegete. In Otis John NIII took refuge in Capua, and in "latitude raised tin- see to

archiepiscopal rank. In UIN7. under Vict or III. and in Ills, under Gelasius 11. councils were held in Capua; at the latter Henry V and tin- antipope, Gregory VIII (Burdinus), were excommunicated. Among other bishops, nearly all famous for their learning, are: M. Marino (1252), a disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas; Filippo dc Berilli (1506), who suffered for justice' sake; Kra Nieolo Scliomberg (1520), a distinguished theologian; Cesare Co-la (1573), active as a reformer of the clergy, and a learned canonist; Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1602);