Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 3.djvu/520

dung, or a dunghill, is applied to an idol or idolatry and the verb וְבַל, to dung, to sacrificing to an idol,^[1] so that בַּצל-וְבוּל is not a proper name, but a general and common one, equivalent to the lord of idolatry, prince of the demons, the most devilized of all devils = ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων. In this way the word וְבוּל has the secondary sense of idol, and Baalzebul has no connection with the proper name Beelzebub. The passages in question are far from supporting the hypothesis. Zebul is not a Hebrew word. It has not the sense of idol in Chaldee. In the Targums zebel has no other signification than dung. A nickname or opprobrious epithet is not a real name or the signification of a word properly so called. All that the quotations fairly imply is, that an ignominious name was sometimes given to idols or idolatry, dung, or a thing of dung. Hence Lightfoot and those who follow him, such as Gesenius and Schleusner, are in error. If zebul be a part of the name Beelzebul added to it designedly, it is more probable that it was meant to express contempt for a leading god of the heathen. But it is exceedingly doubtful whether it was common as early as the New Testament. According to the Gospels, the Jews attributed the power of expelling demons which Jesus possessed to his connection with Satan, the ruler of the demons; and their notions of Satanic influence forbid the idea of applying the name dung-god (if such was its meaning) to a being like the devil. We reject the two leading derivations of the word Beelzebul, whether that sanctioned by Lightfoot and Buxtorf, lord of dung, which is adopted by Fritzsche and De Wette; or lord of the dwelling, followed by Paulus, Jahn, and Hitzig. Meyer ingeniously supposes that the latter is favoured by the words of Matthew x. 25, where οἰκοδεσπότης is thought to be assigned to Jesus significantly, in allusion to Βεελζεβούλ; and as δεσπότης corresponds to בַּצל, an analogous word must be found for οἶκος, viz., וְבוּל. The reasoning, however, is fallacious. The reading in Matthew x. 25 is not certain,—Lachmann following the Vatican MS. in giving τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ instead of the usual τὸν οἰκοδεσπότην. Then, again, the passage is unique in saying that the Jews gave Jesus the surname Beelzebul. We learn from Matth. xii. 24 that they said he cast out demons "by Beelzebul, prince of the demons," which does not agree with x. 25, but is a more intelligible and likely statement. That they actually called Jesus Beelzebul is a doubtful assertion, notwithstanding Meyer's affirmation to the contrary. The change of the final letter from b to l seems to have been accidental. Such alterations are not unusual, as Bab-el-mandel from Bab-el-mandeb, Rabbuli from Rabbuni, Ambakum from Habakkuk. L, being a softer sound than b, was a natural change. Why the name Beelzebul was applied to Satan at the time of Christ is obscure. Probably it originated in no specific reason. The appellation of a leading god was readily transferred to the devil. It is therefore idle to inquire on what grounds the Jews assigned to the Beelzebub of Ekron the peculiar position of "prince of the demons." The Philistine god had become but a name.

Beer. See Brewing.

Beersheba, now Bir-es-Seba, a place in the southernmost part of Canaan, 27 miles S.E. from Gaza, celebrated for the sojourn of the patriarchs. The name, signifying the well of the oath, was bestowed in allusion to the covenant made there between Abraham and Abimelech, and is frequently referred to in the Scriptures in describing the extent of the country—"from Dan to Beersheba." The place is mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome in the 4th century as a large village, and the seat of a Roman garrison. At a later period it seems to have been one of the episcopal cities of Palestine, and some of its churches were standing in the 14th century. Hardly any remains of its buildings are now left, but its two wells are still open, and afford an abundant supply of pure water, which stands in the larger at a depth of 44½ feet, and in the smaller at a depth of 12. (See Robinson's Researches, i. 301.)

Beet. A considerable number of varieties of the genus Beta (Nat. Ord. Chenopodiaceæ) are cultivated for use on account of their large fleshy roots. The beets which are grown as root-plants, under the names of mangel-wurzel or mangold, field-beet, and garden beet, are generally supposed to be cultivated varieties of the sea-beet (B. maritima). The cultivation of beet as a field crop is treated under Agriculture (vol. i. p. 381); and in relation to the production of sugar, for which purpose certain varieties of beet stand next in importance to the sugar cane, see Sugar. The garden-beet has been cultivated from very remote times as a salad plant, and for general use as a table vegetable. The variety most generally grown has long, tapering, carrot-shaped roots, the "flesh" of which is of a uniform deep red colour throughout, and the leaves brownish red. It is boiled and cut into slices for being eaten cold; and it is also prepared as a pickle, as well as in various other forms. Beet is in much more common use on the Continent as a culinary vegetable than in Great Britain, where it has, however, been cultivated for upwards of two centuries. The leaves of the white Sicilian beet and the Swiss chard beet, both varieties of Beta cicla, are used for salads and otherwise as culinary vegetables.

Beethoven, Ludwig van, is in music what Shakespeare is in poetry, a name before the greatness of which all other names, however great, seem to dwindle. He stands at the end of an epoch in musical history, marking its climax; but his works at the same time have ushered in a new phase of progress, from which everything that is great in modern music has taken its rise. This historic side of his genius will have to be further dealt with when the progress of musical art is traced in its continuity. (See article Music, historic section.) At present we have to consider Beethoven chiefly as a man and an individual artist, showing at the same time the reciprocal relations between his life and his work. For although the most ideal artist in that most ideal of arts—music—he is always inspired by the deepest sense of truth and reality. The grand note of sadness resounding in his compositions is the reverberation of personal suffering. He was a great artist only because he was a great man, and a sad man withal.

The family of Beethoven is traceable to a village near Lowen in Belgium, in the 17th century. In 1650 a member of this family, a lineal ancestor of our composer, settled in Antwerp. Beethoven's grandfather, Louis, owing to a quarrel with his family, left Belgium for Germany, and came to Bonn in 1732, where his musical talents and his beautiful voice did not long remain unnoticed. The archbishop of Cologne, an art-loving prelate, received him amongst his court-musicians; and the same position after wards was held by Ludwig's son, Johann, our composer's father. The latter was married to Maria Magdalena Keverich, daughter of a cook, and widow of a valet-de-chambre of the elector of Trèves. The day of our composer's birth is uncertain; he was baptised Dec. 17, 1770, and received