Still vaster than these was a recumbent figure, 2 m. east of Bamian, representing Sakya Buddha entering Nirvāna, i.e. in act of death. This was “about 1000 ft. in length.” No traces of this are alluded to by modern travellers, but in all likelihood it was only formed of rubble plastered (as is the case still with such Nirvāna figures in Indo-China) and of no durability. For a city so notable Bamian has a very obscure history. It does not seem possible to identify it with any city in classical geography; Alexandria ad Caucasum it certainly was not. The first known mention of it seems to be that by Hsuan-Tsang, at a time when apparently it had already passed its meridian, and was the head of one of the small states into which the empire of the White Huns had broken up. At a later period Bamian was for half a century, ending A.D. 1214, the seat of a branch of the Ghori dynasty, ruling over Tokharistan, or the basin of the Upper Oxus. The place was long besieged, and finally annihilated (1222) by Jenghiz Khan, whose wrath was exasperated at the death of a favourite grandson by an arrow from its walls. There appears to be no further record of Bamian as a city; but the character of ruins at Ghulgulah agrees with traditions on the spot in indicating that the city must have been rebuilt after the time of the Mongols and again perished. In 1840, during the British occupation of Kabul, Bamian was the scene of an action in which Colonel William H. Dennie with a small force routed Dost Mahommed Khan, accompanied by a number of Uzbeg chiefs.
See Hon. M. G. Talbot, “The Rock-cut Caves and Statues of Bamian,” Journal R. Austral. Soc. vol. xviii. part 3; J. A. Gray, At the Court of the Amir (1895). (T. H. H.*)
BAMPTON, JOHN (c. 1690–1751), English divine, was a member of Trinity College, Oxford, where he graduated M.A. in 1712, and for some time canon of Salisbury. He died on the 2nd of June 1751, aged 61. His will directs that eight lectures shall be delivered annually at Oxford in the University Church on as many Sunday mornings in full term, “between the commencement of the last month in Lent term and the end of the third week in Act term, upon either of the following subjects:—to confirm and establish the Christian faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics; upon the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures; upon the authority of the writings of the primitive fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church; upon the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; upon the divinity of the Holy Ghost; upon the articles of the Christian faith as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.” The lecturer, who must be at least a Master of Arts of Oxford or Cambridge, was formerly chosen yearly by the heads of colleges, on the fourth Tuesday in Easter term, and no one can be chosen a second time. The series of lectures began in 1780, and is still continued, though since 1895 elections are only made in alternate years through a depreciation of the revenue of the fund. The endowment provides £120 for each lecturer, and the lectures have to be published within two months of their delivery. Among the lecturers have been Heber in 1815 (The Personality and Office of the Christian Comforter); R. Whately in 1822 (Party Feeling in Religion); R. D. Hampden in 1832 (The Scholastic Philosophy in relation to Christian Theology); E. M. Goulburn in 1850 (The Resurrection of the Body); H. L. Mansel in 1858 (The Limits of Religious Thought); H. P. Liddon in 1866 (The Divinity of our Lord); E. Hatch in 1880 (The Organization of the Early Christian Churches); C. Bigg in 1886 (Christian Platonists of Alexandria); C. Gore in 1891 (The Incarnation); W. Sanday in 1893 (Inspiration); J. R. Illingworth in 1894 (Personality, Human and Divine); W. R. Inge in 1899 (Christian Mysticism), &c. A complete list is given in the Oxford Historical Register. The institution has done much to preserve a high standard in English theology; and the lectures as a whole form a historically interesting collection of apologetic literature.
BAMPŪR, a town of Persia, in the province of Baluchistan, 330 m. S.E. of Kerman, in 27° 12′ N., 60° 24′ E., at an elevation of 1720 ft. Pop. about 2000. It is the capital of the province and situated on the banks of the Bampūr river which flows from east to west and empties itself about 70 m. W. into a hamun, or depression, 50 m. in length, and called Jaz-morian. The old citadel of Bampūr which crowned an elevation about 100 ft. in height, 3 m. north of the river, having completely fallen in ruins, a new fort called Kalah Nāsseri, was built at Fahraj, 15 m. further east, in the eighties; and Fahraj, which now has a population of about 2500, has become more important than Bampūr. Fahraj, which is also known as Pahura, Paharu, Puhra, is by some identified as the Poura where Alexander the Great halted on his march from India, but others are more in favour of another Fahraj near Bam, or even of Bampūr itself.
BAMRA, a feudatory state of India, in the province of Bengal. Area 1988 sq. m.; pop. (1901) 123,378; estimated revenue £5000; tribute £100. Most of the country is forest, producing only timber and lac but said to be rich in iron ore. The northern border is touched by the Bengal-Nagpur railway, with a station at Bamra town. The state is one of the five Uriya feudatories, which were transferred from the Central Provinces to Bengal, on the reconstitution of that province in October 1905. The capital is Deogarh.
BAN, a word taken from the root of a verb common to many Teutonic languages and meaning originally “to proclaim” or “to announce.” The Late Lat. form of the word is bannum.
In the laws of the Franks and kindred tribes the word had three main uses: first in the general sense of a proclamation, secondly, for the fine incurred for disobeying such proclamation, and thirdly for the district over which proclamations were issued.
It was the frequent use of proclamations or bans, commanding or forbidding certain actions under a threat of punishment, which caused the second of these uses to arise out of the first, as the idea of wrong-doing became associated with the proclamation or ban. This bannum dominicum, as it was called, was employed by all feudal lords, from the king downwards, against offenders, and played an important part in the administration of justice in feudal times. It usually took the form of an order to make some amend for wrong-doing, which, if not complied with, was followed by the withdrawal of all protection from the offender, i.e. by outlawry.
After the break-up of the Carolingian empire another use of the word arose in France. “Ban” had occasionally been used in a restricted sense referring only to the summons calling out the host; and as France became separated from the Empire, French law and custom seized upon this use, and soon the men liable to military service were known as “the ban.” A variant form of this word was heriban or ariban, and it is possible that some confusion between the early syllables of this word and the word arrière led to a distinction between the ban and the arrière-ban or retro-bannum. At all events this distinction arose; the ban referring to the vassals called out by the king, and the arrière-ban to the sub-vassals called upon by the vassals in their turn. As in England, the liability to military service was often commuted for a monetary payment, and there were various exemptions. In the 17th and 18th centuries the ban and arrière-ban were lacking in discipline when called out, and were last summoned in 1758. Local levies, however, called out between this date and the Revolution were sometimes referred to by these names.
In the medieval Empire and in Germany the word “ban” retained the special sense of punishment. The German equivalent of ban is Acht, and the sentence soon became practically one of outlawry. Connected possibly with the power enjoyed in earlier times by the assemblies of freemen of outlawing an offender, it was frequently used by the emperor, or German king, and the phrase “under the ban” is very common in medieval history. The execution of this sentence of placing an offender under the imperial ban, or Reichsacht, was usually entrusted to some prince or noble, who was often rewarded with a portion of the outlaw’s lands. It was, however, only a serious punishment when the king or his supporters were strong enough to enforce its execution. Employed not only against individuals but also against towns and districts, it was sometimes divided into the Acht and the Oberacht, i.e. partial or complete outlawry. Documents of the time show that the person placed under the imperial ban drew down absolute destitution upon his relatives and frequently death upon himself. At first this sentence was the act of the
