their quality, except those connected with electrical work and display, automobiles and iron-work. The number of exhibitors in the industrial section from the British empire, including India and the colonies, was 1250, who obtained 1647 awards, as many persons exhibited in several classes. There were, in addition, 465 awards for “collaborateurs,” that is, assistants, engineers, foremen, craftsmen and workmen who had co-operated in the production of the exhibits. In the British Fine Arts section there were 429 exhibits by 282 exhibitors and 175 awards.
In later years, important international exhibitions have been held at Glasgow, and at Buffalo, New York, in 1901, at St Louis (commemorating the Louisiana purchase) in 1904, at Liége in 1905, at Milan in 1906, at Dublin in 1907, and in London (Franco-British), 1908. In the artistic taste and magnificence of their buildings and the interest of their exhibits these took their cue from the great Paris Exhibition, and even in some cases went beyond it, notably at Buffalo (q.v.), St Louis (q.v.) and London. And it might well be thought that the evolution of this type of public show had reached its limits. (G. C. L.)
EXHUMATION (from Med. Lat. exhumare; ex, out of, and
humus, ground), the act of digging up and removing an object
from the ground. The word is particularly applied to the
removal of a dead body from its place of burial. For the offence
of exhuming a body without legal authority, and the process of
obtaining such authority, see Burial and Burial Acts.
EXILARCH, in Jewish history, “Chief or Prince of the
Captivity.” The Jews of Babylonia, after the fall of the first
temple, were termed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel the people of the
“Exile.” Hence the head of the Babylonian Jews was the
exilarch (in Aramaic Resh Galutha). The office was hereditary
and carried with it considerable power. Some traditions regarded
the last king of Davidic descent (Jehoiachin) as the first exilarch,
and all the later holders of the dignity claimed to be scions of the
royal house of Judah. Under the Arsacids and Sassanids the
office continued. In the 6th century an attempt was made to
secure by force political autonomy for the Jews, but the exilarch
who led the movement (Mar Zutra) was executed. For some time
thereafter the office was in abeyance, but under Arabic rule there
was a considerable revival of its dignity. From the middle of
the 7th till the 11th centuries the exilarchs were all descendants
of Bostanai, through whom “the splendour of the office was
renewed and its political position made secure” (Bacher). The
last exilarch of importance was David, son of Zakkai, whose
contest with Seadiah (q.v.) had momentous consequences.
Hezekiah (c. 1040) was the last Babylonian exilarch, though
the title left its traces in later ages. Benjamin of Tudela
(Itinerary, p. 61) names an exilarch Daniel b. Hisdai in the 12th
century. Petahiah (Travels, p. 17) records that this Daniel’s
nephew succeeded to the office jointly with a R. Samuel. The
latter, according to Petahiah, had a learned daughter who
“gave instruction, through a window, remaining in the house
while the disciples were below, unable to see her.”
Our chief knowledge of the position and function of the exilarch concerns the period beginning with the Arabic rule in Persia. In the age succeeding the Mahommedan conquest the exilarch was noted for the stately retinue that accompanied him, the luxurious banquets given at his abode, and the courtly etiquette that prevailed there. A brilliant account has come down of the ceremonies at the installation of a new exilarch. Homage was paid to him by the rabbinical heads of the colleges (each of whom was called Gaon, q.v.); rich gifts were presented; he visited the synagogue in state, where a costly canopy had been erected over his seat. The exilarch then delivered a discourse, and in the benediction or doxology (Qaddish) his name was inserted. Thereafter he never left his house except in a carriage of state and in the company of a large retinue. He would frequently have audiences of the king, by whom he was graciously received. He derived a revenue from taxes which he was empowered to exact. The exilarch could excommunicate, and no doubt had considerable jurisdiction over the Jews. A spirited description of the glories of the exilarch is given in D’Israeli’s novel Alroy.
See Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, ii. 68 seq.; Zacuto, Yuhasin; Graetz, Geschichte, vols. iv.-vi.; Benjamin of Tudela, Itinerary, ed. Adler, pp. 39 seq.; Bacher, Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. v. 288. (I. A.)
EXILE (Lat. exsilium or exilium, from exsul or exul, which is
derived from ex, out of, and the root sal, to go, seen in salire, to
leap, consul, &c. ; the connexion with solum, soil, country is now
generally considered wrong), banishment from one’s native
country by the compulsion of authority. In a general sense
exile is applied to prolonged absence from one’s country either
through force of circumstances or when undergone voluntarily.
Among the Greeks, in the Homeric age, banishment (φυγή) was
sometimes inflicted as a punishment by the authorities for
crimes affecting the general interests, but is chiefly known in
connexion with cases of homicide. With these the state had
nothing to do; the punishment of the murderer was the duty
and privilege of the relatives of the murdered man. Unless the
relatives could be induced to accept a money payment by way
of compensation (ποινή, weregeld; see especially Homer, Iliad,
xviii. 497), in which case the murderer was allowed to remain in
the country, his only means of escaping punishment was flight
to a foreign land. If, during his self-imposed exile, the relatives
expressed their willingness to accept the indemnity, he was at
liberty to return and resume his position in society.
In later times banishment is (1) a legal punishment for particular offences; (2) voluntary.
1. Banishment for life with confiscation of property was inflicted upon those who destroyed or uprooted the sacred olives at Athens; upon those who remained neutral during a sedition (by a law of Solon, which subsequently fell into abeyance); upon those who gave refuge to or received on board ship a man who had fled to avoid punishment; upon those who wounded with intent to kill and those who prompted them to such an act (it is uncertain whether in this case exile was for life or temporary); upon any one who wilfully murdered an alien; for impiety. Certain political crimes were also similarly punished—treason, laconism, sycophancy (see Sycophant), attempts to subvert existing decrees. For the peculiar form of banishment called Ostracism, see separate article.
In cases of voluntary homicide the punishment was death; but (except in cases of parricide) the murderer could leave the country unmolested after the first day of the trial. He was bound to remain outside Attica, and when on foreign soil was not allowed to appear at the public games, to enter the temples or take part in sacrifices; but provided that he adhered to the prescribed regulations, he was accorded a certain amount of protection. Even when a general amnesty was proclaimed, he was not allowed to return; if he did so, he might at once be put to death.
Temporary exile (the period of which is uncertain) without confiscation, was the punishment for involuntary homicide. As soon as the relatives of the deceased became reconciled to the man who had slain him, the latter was permitted to return; further, since banishment was only temporary, it is reasonable to suppose that the law insisted upon such reconciliation.
2. Citizens sometimes voluntarily left the country for other reasons (debt, inability to pay a fine). Since extradition was only demanded in cases of high treason or other serious offences against the state, the fugitive was not interfered with. He was at liberty to return after a certain time had elapsed.
Little is known about exile as it affected Sparta and other Greek towns, but it is probable that the same conditions prevailed as at Athens.
At Rome, in early times, exile was not a punishment, but rather a means of escaping punishment. Before judgment had been finally pronounced it was open to any Roman citizen condemned to death to escape the penalty by voluntary exile (solum vertere exsilii causa). To prevent his return, he was interdicted from the use of fire and water; if he broke the interdict and returned, any one had the right to put him to death. The aquae et ignis (to which et tecti “shelter” is sometimes added) interdictio is variously explained as exclusion from the necessaries of life,
