Part 17

BAUR, FERDINAND CHRISTIAN (1792-1860), leader of the Tubingen school of theology, was born at Schmiden, near Canstatt, on the 21st of June 1792. After receiving an early training in the theological seminary at Blaubeuren, he went in 1809 to the university of Tubingen. Here he studied for a time under Ernst Bengel, grandson of the eminent New Testament critic, Johann Albrecht Bengel, and at this early stage in his career he seems to have been under the influence of the old Tubingen school. But at the same time the philosophers Immanuel Fichte and Friedrich Schelling were creating a wide and deep impression. In 1817 Baur returned to the theological seminary at Blaubeuren as professor. This move marked a turning-point in his life, for he was now able to set to work upon those investigations on which his reputation rests. He had already, in 1817, written a review of G. Kaiser's _Biblische Theologie_ for Bengel's _Archiv fur Theologie_ (ii. 656); its tone was moderate and conservative. When, a few years after his appointment at Blaubeuren, he published his first important, work, _Symbolik und Mythologie oder die Naturreligion des Altertums_ (1824-1825), it became evident that he had made a deeper study of philosophy, and had come under the influence of Schelling and more particularly of Friedrich Schleiermacher. The learning of the work was fully recognized, and in 1826 the author was called to Tubingen as professor of theology. It is with Tubingen that his greatest literary achievements are associated. His earlier publications here treated of mythology and the history of dogma. _Das manichaische Religionssystem_ appeared in 1831, _Apollonius von Tyana_ in 1832, _Die christliche Gnosis_ in 1835, and _Uber das Christliche im Platonismus oder Socrates und Christus_ in 1837. As Otto Pfleiderer (_Development of Theology_, p. 285) observes, "the choice not less than the treatment of these subjects is indicative of the large breadth of view and the insight of the historian into the comparative history of religion." Meantime Baur had exchanged one master in philosophy for another, Schleiermacher for Hegel. In doing so, he had adopted completely the Hegelian philosophy of history. "Without philosophy," he has said, "history is always for me dead and dumb." The change of view is illustrated clearly in the essay, published in the _Tubinger Zeitschrift_ for 1831, on the Christ-party in the Corinthian Church, _Die Chrislusparlei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des paulinischen und petrinischen in der alsten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom_, the trend of which is suggested by the title. Baur contends that St Paul was opposed in Corinth by a Jewish-Christian party which wished to set up its own form of Christian religion instead of his universal Christianity. He finds traces of a keen conflict of parties in the post-apostolic age. The theory is further developed in a later work (1835, the year in which David Strauss' _Leben Jesu_ was published), _Uber die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe_. In this Baur attempts to prove that the false teachers mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are the Gnostics, particularly the Marcionites, of the second century, and consequently that the Epistles were produced in the middle of this century in opposition to Gnosticism. He next proceeded to investigate the Pauline Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles in the same manner, publishing his results in 1845 under the title _Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre_. In this he contends that only the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians and Romans are genuinely Pauline, and that the Paul of Acts is a different person from the Paul of these genuine Epistles, the author being a Paulinist who, with an eye to the different parties in the Church, is at pains to represent Peter as far as possible as a Paulinist and Paul as far as possible as a Petrinist. Thus it becomes clear that Baur is prepared to apply his theory to the whole of the New Testament; in the words of H.S. Nash, "he carried a sweeping hypothesis into the examination of the New Testament." Those writings alone he considers genuine in which the conflict between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians is clearly marked. In his _Kritische Untersuchungen uber die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhaltniss zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung_ (1847) he turns his attention to the Gospels, and here again finds that the authors were conscious of the conflict of

## parties; the Gospels reveal a mediating or conciliatory tendency

(_Tendenz_) on the part of the writers or redactors. The Gospels, in fact, are adaptations or redactions of an older Gospel, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, of Peter, of the Egyptians, or of the Ebionites. The Petrine Matthew bears the closest relationship to this original Gospel (_Urevangelium_); the Pauline Luke is later and arose independently; Mark represents a still later development; the account in John is idealistic: it "does not possess historical truth, and cannot and does not really lay claim to it." Baur's whole theory indeed starts with the supposition that Christianity was gradually developed out of Judaism. Before it could become a universal religion, it had to struggle with Jewish limitations and to overcome them. The early Christians were Jewish-Christians, to whom Jesus was the Messiah. Paul, on the other hand, represented a breach with Judaism, the Temple, and the Law. Thus there was some antagonism between the Jewish apostles, Peter, James and John and the Gentile apostle Paul, and this struggle continued down to the middle of the 2nd century. In short, the conflict between Petrinism and Paulinism is, as Carl Schwarz puts it, the key to the literature of the 1st and 2nd century.

But Baur was a theologian and historian as well as a Biblical critic. As early as 1834 he published a strictly theological work, _Gegensatz des Katholicismus und Protestantismus nach den Prinzipien und Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe_, a strong defence of Protestantism on the lines of Schleiermacher's _Glaubenslehre_, and a vigorous reply to J. Mohler's _Symbolik_ (1833). This was followed by his larger histories of dogma, _Die christliche Lehre van der Versohnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung bis auf die neueste Zeit_ (1838), _Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung_ (3 vols., 1841-1843), and the _Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte_ (1847). The value of these works is impaired somewhat by Baur's habit of making the history of dogma conform to the formulae of Hegel's philosophy, a procedure "which only served to obscure the truth and profundity of his conception of history as a true development of the human mind" (Pfleiderer). Baur, however, soon came to attach more importance to personality, and to distinguish more carefully between religion and philosophy. The change is marked in his _Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung_ (1852), _Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_ (1853), and _Die christliche Kirche von Anfang des vierten bis zum Ende des sechsten Jahrhunderts_ (1859), works preparatory to his _Kirchengeschichte_, in which the change of view is specially pronounced. The _Kirchengeschichte_ was published in five volumes during the years 1853-1863, partly by Baur himself, partly by his son, Ferdinand Baur, and his son-in-law, Eduard Zeller, from notes and lectures which the author left behind him. Pfleiderer describes this work, especially the first volume, as "a classic for all time." "Taken as a whole, it is the first thorough and satisfactory attempt to explain the rise of Christianity and the Church on _strictly historical_ lines, i.e. as a natural development of the religious spirit of our race under the combined operation of various human causes" (_Development of Theology_, p. 288). Baur's lectures on the history of dogma, _Ausfuhrlichere Vorlesungen uber die christliche Dogmengeschichte_, were published later by his son (1865-1868).

Baur's views were revolutionary and often extreme; but, whatever may be thought of them, it is admitted that as a critic he rendered a great service to theological science. "One thing is certain: New Testament study, since his time, has had a different colour" (H.S. Nash). He has had a number of disciples or followers, who have in many cases modified his positions.

A full account of F.C. Baur's labours, and a complete list of his writings will be found in the article in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_, in which his work is divided into three periods: (1) "Philosophy of Religion," (2) "Biblical criticism," (3) "Church History." See also H.S. Nash, _The History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament_ (New York, 1901); Otto Pfleiderer, _The Development of Theology in Germany since Kant_ (trans., 1890); Carl Schwarz, _Zur Geschichte der neuesten Theologie_ (Leipzig, 1869); R.W. Mackay, _The Tubingen School and its Antecedents_ (1863); A.S. Farrar, _A Critical History of Free Thought in reference to the Christian Religion_ (Bampton Lectures, 1862); and cf. the article on "The Tubingen Historical School," in _Bibliotheca Sacra_, vol. xix. No. 73, 1862. (M. A. C.)

BAUTAIN, LOUIS EUGENE MARIE (1796-1867), French philosopher and theologian, was born at Paris. At the Ecole Normale he came under the influence of Cousin. In 1816 he adopted the profession of higher teaching, and was soon after called to the chair of philosophy in the university of Strassburg. He held this position for many years, and gave a parallel course of lectures as professor of the literary faculty in the same city. The reaction against speculative philosophy, which carried away De Maistre and Lamennais, influenced him also. In 1828 he took orders, and resigned his chair at the university. For several years he remained at Strassburg, lecturing at the Faculty and at the college of Juilly, but in 1840 he set out for Paris as vicar of the diocese. At Paris he obtained considerable reputation as an orator, and in 1853 was made professor of moral theology at the theological faculty. This post he held till his death. Like the Scholastics, he distinguished reason and faith, and held that revelation supplies facts, otherwise unattainable, which philosophy is able to group by scientific methods. Theology and philosophy thus form one comprehensive science. Yet Bautain was no rationalist; like Pascal and Newman he exalted faith above reason. He pointed out, following chiefly the Kantian criticism, that reason can never yield knowledge of things in themselves. But there exists in addition to reason another faculty which may be called intelligence, through which we are put in connexion with spiritual and invisible truth. This intelligence does not of itself yield a body of truth; it merely contains the germs of the higher ideas, and these are made productive by being brought into contact with revealed facts. This fundamental conception Bautain worked out in the departments of psychology and morals. The details of this theology are highly imaginative. He says, for instance, that there is a spirit of the world and a spirit of nature; the latter gives birth to a physical and psychical spirit, and the physical spirit to the animal and vegetable spirits. His theories may well be compared with the arbitrary mysticism of van Helmont and the Gnostics. The most important of his works are:--_Philosophie du Christianisme_ (1835); _Psychologic experimentale_ (1839), new edition entitled _Esprit humain et ses facultes_ (1859); _Philosophie morale_ (1840); _Religion et liberte_ (1848); _La Morale de l'evangile comparee aux divers systemes de morale_ (Strassburg, 1827; Paris, 1855); _De l'education publique en France au XIX^e siecle_ (Paris, 1876).

BAUTZEN (Wendish _Budissin_, "town"), a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Saxony and the capital of Saxon Upper Lusatia. Pop. (1890) 21,515; (1905) 29,412. It occupies an eminence on the right bank of the Spree, 680 ft. above the level of the sea, 32 m. E.N.E. from Dresden, on the Dresden-Gorlitz-Breslau main line of railway, and at the junction of lines from Schandau and Konigswartha. The town is surrounded by walls, and outside these again by ramparts, now in great measure turned into promenades, and has extensive suburbs partly lying on the left bank of the river. Among its churches the most remarkable is the cathedral of St Peter, dating from the 15th century, with a tower 300 ft. in height. It is used by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, an iron screen separating the parts assigned to each. There are five other churches, a handsome town hall, an orphan-asylum, several hospitals, a mechanics' institute, a famous grammar school (gymnasium), a normal and several other schools, and two public libraries. The general trade and manufactures are considerable, including woollen (stockings and cloth), linen and cotton goods, leather, paper, saltpetre, and dyeing. It has also iron foundries, potteries, distilleries, breweries, cigar factories, &c.

Bautzen was already in existence when Henry I., the Fowler, conquered Lusatia in 928. It became a town and fortress under Otto I., his successor, and speedily attained considerable wealth and importance, for a good share of which it was indebted to the pilgrimages which were made to the "arm of St Peter," preserved in one of the churches. It suffered greatly during the Hussite war, and still more during the Thirty Years' War, in the course of which it was besieged and captured by the elector of Brandenburg, John George (1620), fell into the hands of Wallenstein (1633), and, in the following year was burned by its commander before being surrendered to the elector of Saxony. At the peace of Prague in 1635 it passed with Lusatia to Saxony as a war indemnity.

Battle of Bautzen, 1813.

The town gives its name to a great battle in which, on the 20th and 21st of May 1813, Napoleon I. defeated an allied army of Russians and Prussians (see NAPOLEONIC CAMPAIGNS). The position chosen by the allies as that in which to receive the attack of Napoleon ran S.W. to N.E. from Bautzen on the left to the village of Gleina on the right. Bautzen itself was held as an advanced post of the left wing (Russians), the main body of which lay 2 m. to the rear (E.) near Jenkwitz. On the heights of Burk, 2-1/2 m. N.E. of Bautzen, was Kleist's Prussian corps, with Yorck's in support. On Kleist's right at Pliskowitz (3 m. N.E. of Burk) lay Blucher's corps, and on Blucher's right, formed at an angle to him, and refused towards Gleina (7 m. N.E. by E. of Bautzen), were the Russians of Barclay de Tolly. The country on which the battle was fought abounded in strong defensive positions, some of which were famous as battlegrounds of the Seven Years' War. The whole line was covered by the river Spree, which served as an immediate defence for the left and centre, and an obstacle to any force moving to attack the right; moreover the interval between the river and the position on this side was covered with a network of ponds and watercourses. Napoleon's right and centre approached (on a broad front owing to the want of cavalry) from Dresden by Bischofswerda and Kamenz; the left under Ney, which was separated by nearly 40 m. from the left of the main body at Luckau, was ordered to march via Hoyerswerda, Weissig and Klix to strike the allies' right. At noon on the 20th, Napoleon, after a prolonged reconnaissance, advanced the main army against Bautzen and Burk, leaving the enemy's right to be dealt with by Ney on the morrow. He equally neglected the extreme left of the allies in the mountains, judging it impossible to move his artillery and cavalry in the broken ground there. Oudinot's (XII.) corps, the extreme right wing, was to work round by the hilly country to Jenkwitz in rear of Bautzen, Macdonald's (XI.) corps was to assault Bautzen, and Marmont, with the VI. corps, to cross the Spree and attack the Prussians posted about Burk. These three corps were directed by Soult. Farther to the left, Bertrand's (IV.) corps was held back to connect with Ney, who had then reached Weissig with the head of his column. The Guard and other general reserves were in rear of Macdonald and Marmont. Bautzen was taken without difficulty; Oudinot and Marmont easily passed the Spree on either side, and were formed up on the other bank of the river by about 4 P.M. A heavy and indecisive combat took place in the evening between Oudinot and the Russian left, directed by the tsar in person, in which Oudinot's men made a little progress towards Jenkwitz. Marmont's battle was more serious. The Prussians were not experienced troops, but were full of ardour and hatred of the French. Kleist made a most stubborn resistance on the Burk ridge, and Bertrand's corps was called up by Napoleon to join in the battle; but part of Blucher's corps fiercely engaged Bertrand, and Burk was not taken till 7 P.M. The French attack was much impeded by the ground and by want of room to deploy between the river and the enemy. But Napoleon's object in thus forcing the fighting in the centre was achieved. The allies, feeling there the weight of the French attack, gradually drew upon the reserves of their left and right to sustain the shock. At nightfall Bautzen and Burk were in possession of the French, and the allied line now stretched from Jenkwitz northward to Pliskowitz, Blucher and Barclay maintaining their original positions at Pliskowitz and Gleina. The night of the 20th-21st was spent by both armies on the battlefield. Napoleon cared little that the French centre was almost fought out; it had fulfilled its mission, and on the 21st the decisive point was to be Barclay's position. Soon after daybreak fighting was renewed along the whole line; but Napoleon lay down to sleep until the time appointed for Ney's attack. To a heavy counter-stroke against Oudinot, which completely drove that marshal from the ground won on the 20th, the emperor paid no more heed than to order Macdonald to support the XII corps. For in this second position of the allies, which was far more formidable than the original line, the decisive result could be brought about only by Ney. That commander had his own (III) corps, the corps of Victor and of Lauriston and the Saxons under Reynier, a total force of 60,000 men. Lauriston, at the head of the column, had been sharply engaged on the 19th, but had spent the 20th in calculated inaction. Early on the 21st the flank attack opened; Ney and Lauriston moving direct upon Gleina, while Reynier and Victor operated by a wide turning movement against Barclay's right rear. The advance was carried out with precision; the Russians were quickly dislodged, and Ney was now closing upon the rear of Blucher's corps at the village of Preititz. Napoleon at once ordered Soult's four corps to renew their attacks in order to prevent the allies from reinforcing their right. But at the critical moment Ney halted; his orders were to be in Preititz at 11 A.M. and he reached that place an hour earlier. The respite of an hour enabled the allies to organize a fierce counter-attack; Ney was checked until the flanking columns of Victor and Reynier could come upon the scene. At 1 P.M., when Ney resumed his advance, it was too late to cut off the retreat of the allies. Napoleon now made his final stroke. The Imperial Guard and all other troops in the centre, 80,000 strong and covered by a great mass of artillery, moved forward to the attack; and shortly the allied centre, depleted of its reserves, which had been sent to oppose Ney, was broken through and driven off the field. Blucher, now almost surrounded, called back the troops opposing Ney to make head against Soult, and Ney's four corps then carried all before them. Preparations had been made by the allies, ever since Ney's appearance, to break off the engagement, and now the tsar ordered a general retreat eastwards, himself with the utmost skill and bravery directing the rearguard. Thus the allies drew off unharmed, leaving no trophies in the hands of Napoleon, whose success, tactically unquestionable, was, for a variety of reasons, and above all owing to the want of cavalry, a _coup manque_ strategically. The troops engaged were, on the French side 163,000 men, on that of the allies about 100,000; and the losses respectively about 20,000 and 13,500 killed and wounded.

BAUXITE, a substance which has been considered to be a mineral species, having the composition Al2O(OH)4 (corresponding with alumina 73.9, water 26.1%), and thus to be distinct from the crystallized aluminium hydroxides, diaspore (AlO(OH)) and gibbsite (= hydrargillite, Al(OH)3). It was first described by P. Berthier in 1821 as "alumine hydratee de Beaux," and was named beauxite by P.A. Dufrenoy in 1847 and bauxite by E.H. Sainte-Claire Deville in 1861; this name being derived from the original locality, the village of Les Baux (or Beaux), near Arles, dep. Bouches-du-Rhone in the south of France, where the material has been for many years extensively mined as an ore of aluminium. It is never found in a crystallized state, but always as earthy, clay-like or concretionary masses, often with a pisolitic structure. In colour it varies from white through yellow and brown to red, depending on the amount and the degree of hydration of the iron present. The specific gravity also varies with the amount of iron; that of the variety known as wocheinite (from near Lake Wochein, near Radmannsdorf, in northern Carniola) is given as 2.55. The numerous chemical analyses, which have mostly been made for technical purposes, show that material known as bauxite varies very widely in composition, the maximum and minimum percentages of each constituent being as follows: alumina (Al2O3) 33.2-76.9; water (H2O) 8.6-31.4; iron oxide (Fe2O3) 0.1-48.8; silica (SiO2) 0.3-37.8; titanic acid (TiO2) up to 4. The material is thus usually very impure, being mixed with clay, quartz-sand and hydroxides of iron in variable amounts, the presence of which may be seen by a microscopical examination. Analyses of purer material often approximate to diaspore or gibbsite in composition, and minute crystalline scales of these minerals have been detected under the microscope.

Bauxite can therefore scarcely be regarded as a simple mineral, but rather as a mixture of gibbsite and diaspore with various impurities; it is in fact strikingly like laterite, both in chemical composition and in microscopical structure. Laterite is admittedly a decomposition-product of igneous or other crystalline rocks, and the same is no doubt also true of bauxite. The deposits in Co. Antrim occur with pisolitic iron ore inter-bedded with the Tertiary basalts, and similar deposits are met with in connexion with the basaltic rocks of the Westerwald in Germany. On the other hand, the more extensive deposits in the south of France (departments Bouches-du-Rhone, Ariege, Herault, Var) and the southern United States (Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas) are often associated with limestones; in this case the origin of the bauxite has been ascribed to the chemical action of solutions of aluminium sulphate on the limestones.

Bauxite is of value chiefly as a source of metallic aluminium (q.v.); the material is first purified by chemical processes, after which the aluminium hydroxide is reduced in the electric furnace. Bauxite is also largely used in the manufacture of alum and other aluminium salts used in dyeing. Its refractory qualities render it available for the manufacture of fire-bricks and crucibles. (L. J. S.)

BAVAI, a town of northern France in the department of Nord, 15 m. E.S.E. of Valenciennes by rail. Pop. (1906) 1622. The town carries on the manufacture of iron goods and of fertilizers. Under the name of _Bagacum_ or _Bavacum_ it was the capital of the Nervii and, under the Romans, an important centre of roads, the meeting-place of which was marked by a milestone, destroyed in the 17th century and replaced in the 19th century by a column. Bavai was destroyed during the barbarian invasions and never recovered its old importance. It suffered much during the wars of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.