Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/69

 the bleak, was introduced from China about the middle of the 17th century.

 BLEEK, FRIEDRICH (1793–1859), German Biblical scholar, was born on the 4th of July 1793, at Ahrensbök, in Holstein, a village near Lübeck. His father sent him in his sixteenth year to the gymnasium at Lübeck, where he became so much interested in ancient languages that he abandoned his idea of a legal career and resolved to devote himself to the study of theology. After spending some time at the university of Kiel, he went to Berlin, where, from 1814 to 1817, he studied under De Wette, Neander and Schleiermacher. So highly were his merits appreciated by his professors—Schleiermacher was accustomed to say that he possessed a special charisma for the science of “Introduction”—that in 1818 after he had passed the examinations for entering the ministry he was recalled to Berlin as Repetent or tutorial fellow in theology, a temporary post which the theological faculty had obtained for him. Besides discharging his duties in the theological seminary, he published two dissertations in Schleiermacher’s and G. C. F. Lücke’s Journal (1819–1820, 1822), one on the origin and composition of the Sibylline Oracles “Über die Entstehung und Zusammensetzung der Sibyllinischen Orakel,” and another on the authorship and design of the Book of Daniel, “Über Verfasser und Zweck des Buches Daniel.” These articles attracted much attention, and were distinguished by those qualities of solid learning, thorough investigation and candour of judgment which characterized all his writings. Bleek’s merits as a rising scholar were recognized by the minister of public instruction, who continued his stipend as Repetent for a third year, and promised further advancement in due time. But the attitude of the political authority underwent a change. De Wette was dismissed from his professorship in 1819, and Bleek, a favourite pupil, incurred the suspicion of the government as an extreme democrat. Not only was his stipend as Repetent discontinued, but his nomination to the office of professor extraordinarius, which had already been signed by the minister Karl Altenstein, was withheld. At length it was found that Bleek had been confounded with a certain Baueleven Blech, and in 1823 he received the appointment.

During the six years that Bleek remained at Berlin, he twice declined a call to the office of professor ordinarius of theology, once to Greifswald and once to Königsberg. In 1829, however, he was induced to accept Lücke’s chair in the recently-founded university of Bonn, and entered upon his duties there in the summer of the same year. For thirty years he laboured with ever-increasing success, due not to any attractions of manner or to the enunciation of novel or bizarre opinions, but to the soundness of his investigations, the impartiality of his judgments, and the clearness of his method. In 1843 he was raised to the office of consistorial councillor, and was selected by the university to hold the office of rector, a distinction which has not since been conferred upon any theologian of the Reformed Church. He died suddenly of apoplexy on the 27th of February 1859.

Bleek’s works belong entirely to the departments of Biblical criticism and exegesis. His views on questions of Old Testament criticism were “advanced” in his own day; for on all the disputed points concerning the unity and authorship of the books of the Old Covenant he was opposed to received opinion. But with respect to the New Testament his position was conservative. An opponent of the Tübingen school, his defence of the genuineness and authenticity of the gospel of St. John is among the ablest that have been written; and although on some minor points his views did not altogether coincide with those of the traditional school, his critical labours on the New Testament must nevertheless be regarded as among the most important contributions to the maintenance of orthodox opinions. His greatest work, his commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews (Brief an die Hebräer erläutert durch Einleitung, Übersetzung, und fortlaufenden Commentar, in three parts, 1828, 1836 and 1840) won the highest praise from men like De Wette and Fr. Delitzsch. This work was abridged by Bleek for his college lectures, and was published in that condensed form in 1868. In 1846 he published his contributions to the criticism of the gospels (Beiträge zur Evangelien Kritik, pt. i.), which contained his defence of St John’s gospel, and arose out of a review of J. H. A. Ebrard’s Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte (1842).

After his death were published:—(1) His Introduction to the Old Testament (Einleitung in das Alte Testament), (3rd ed., 1869); Eng. trans. by G. H. Venables (from 2nd ed., 1869); in 1878 a new edition (the 4th) appeared under the editorship of J. Wellhausen, who made extensive alterations and additions; (2) his Introduction to the New Testament (3rd ed., W. Mangold, 1875), Eng. trans. (from 2nd German ed.) by William Urwick (1869, 1870); (3) his Exposition of the First Three Gospels (Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien), by H. Holtzmann (1862); (4) his Lectures on the Apocalypse (Vorlesungen über die Apokalypse), (Eng. trans. 1875). Besides these there has also appeared a small volume containing Lectures on Colossians, Philemon and Ephesians (Berlin, 1865). Bleek also contributed many articles to the Studien und Kritiken. For further information as to Bleek’s life and writings, see Kamphausen’s article in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie; Frédéric Lichtenberger’s Histoire des idées religieuses en Allemagne, vol. iii.; Diestel’s Geschichte des Allen Testamentes (1869); and T. K. Cheyne’s Founders of Old Testament Criticism (1893).

 BLEEK, WILHELM HEINRICH IMMANUEL (1827–1875), German philologist, son of Friedrich Bleek, was born in 1827 at Berlin. He studied first at Bonn and afterwards at Berlin, where his attention was directed towards the philological peculiarities of the South African languages. In his doctor’s dissertation (Bonn, 1851), De nominum generibus linguarum Africae Australis, he endeavoured to show that the Hottentot language was of North African descent. In 1854 his health prevented him accompanying Dr W. B. Baikie in the expedition to the Niger; but in the following year he accompanied Bishop Colenso to Natal, and was enabled to prosecute his researches into the language and customs of the Kaffirs. Towards the close of 1856 he settled at Cape Town, and in 1857 was appointed interpreter by Sir George Grey. In 1859 he was compelled by ill health to visit Europe, and on his return in the following year he was made librarian of the valuable collection of books presented to the colony by Sir George Grey. In 1869 he visited England, where the value of his services was recognized by a pension from the civil list. He died at Cape Town on the 17th of August 1875. His works, which are of considerable importance for African and Australian philology, consist of the Vocabulary of the Mozambique Language (London, 1856); Handbook of African, Australian and Polynesian Philology (Cape Town and London, 3 vols., 1858–1863); Comparative Grammar of the South African Languages (vol. i., London, 1869); Reynard the Fox in South Africa, or Hottentot Fables and Tales (London, 1864); Origin of Language (London, 1869).

  BLENDE, or, a naturally occurring zinc sulphide, ZnS, and an important ore of zinc. The name blende was used by G. Agricola in 1546, and is from the German blenden, to blind, or deceive, because the mineral resembles lead ore in appearance but contains no lead, and was consequently often rejected as worthless. Sphalerite, introduced by E. F. Glocker in 1847, has the same meaning (, deceptive), and so have the miners’ terms “mock ore,” “false lead,” and “blackjack.” The term “blende” was at one time used in a generic sense, and as such enters into the construction of several old names of German origin; the species under consideration is therefore sometimes distinguished as zinc-blende.

Crystals of blende belong to that subclass of the cubic system in which there are six planes of symmetry parallel to the faces of the rhombic dodecahedron and none parallel to the cubic faces; in other words, the crystals are cubic with inclined hemihedrism, and have no centre of symmetry. The fundamental form is the tetrahedron. Fig. 1 shows a combination of two tetrahedra, in which the four faces of one tetrahedron are larger than the four faces of the other: further, the two sets of faces differ in surface