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, from the symbols of civic communion, or from "the marks of a pure society, which the criminal would defile by his further use of them." Subsequently (probably at the time of the Gracchi) it became a recognized legal penalty, practically equivalent to "exile," taking the place of capital punishment. The criminal was permitted to withdraw from the city _after_ sentence was pronounced; but in order that this withdrawal might as far as possible bear the character of a punishment, his departure was sanctioned by a decree of the people which declared his exile permanent. Authorities are not agreed whether this exile by interdiction entailed loss of _civitas_; according to some this did not ensue until (as in earlier times) the criminal had assumed the citizenship of the state in which he had taken refuge and thereby lost his rights as a citizen of Rome, while others hold that it was not until the time of Tiberius (A.D. 23) that _capitis deminutio media_ became the direct consequence of trial and conviction. _Interdictio_ was the punishment for treason, murder, arson and other serious offences which came under the cognizance of the _quaestiones perpetuae_ (permanent judicial commissions for certain offences); confiscation of property was only inflicted in extreme cases.

Under the Empire _interdictio_ gradually fell into disuse and a new form of banishment, introduced by Augustus, called _deportatio_, generally _in insulam_, took its place. For some time the two probably existed side by side. _Deportatio_ consisted in transportation for life to an island (or some place prescribed on the mainland, not of Italy), accompanied by loss of _civitas_ and all civil rights, and confiscation of property. The most dreaded places of exile were the islands of Gyarus, Sardinia, an oasis in the desert (_quasi in insulam_) of Libya; Crete, Cyprus and Rhodes were considered more tolerable. Large bodies of persons were also transported in this manner; thus Tiberius sent 4000 freedmen to Sardinia for Jewish or Egyptian superstitious practices. _Deportatio_ was originally inflicted upon political criminals, but in course of time became more particularly a means of removing those whose wealth and popularity rendered them objects of suspicion. It was also a punishment for the following offences: adultery, murder, poisoning, forgery, embezzlement, sacrilege and certain cases of immorality.

_Relegatio_ was a milder form of _deportatio_. It either excluded the person banished from one specified district only, with permission to choose a residence elsewhere, or the place of exile was fixed. _Relegatio_ could be either temporary or for life, but it did not in either case carry with it loss of _civitas_ or property, nor was the exile under military surveillance, as in the case of _deportatio_. Thus, Ovid, when in exile at Tomi, says (_Tristia_, v. ii): "he (i.e. the emperor) has not deprived me of life, nor of wealth, nor of the rights of a citizen ... he has simply ordered me to leave my home." He calls himself _relegatus_, not _exsul_.

In later writers the word _exsilium_ is used in the sense of all its three forms--_aquae et ignis interdictio_, _deportatio_ and _relegatio_.

In England the first enactment legalizing banishment dates from the reign of Elizabeth (39 Eliz. c. 4), which gave power to banish from the realm "such rogues as are dangerous to the inferior people." A statute of Charles II. (18 Car. II. c. 3) gave power to execute or to transport to America for life the mosstroopers of Cumberland and Northumberland. Banishment or transportation for criminal offences was regulated by an act of 1824 (5 Geo. IV. s. 84) and finally abolished by the Penal Servitude Acts 1853 and 1857 (see further DEPORTATION). The word exile has sometimes, though wrongly, been applied to the sending away from a country of those who are not natives of it, but who may be temporary or even permanent residents in it (see ALIEN; EXPATRIATION; EXPULSION).

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--J.J. Thonissen, _Le Droit penal de la republique athenienne_ (Brussels, 1875); G.F. Schomann, _Griechische Altertumer_ (4th ed., 1897), p. 46; T. Mommsen, _Ronmisches Strafrecht_ (1899), pp. 68, 964, and _Romisches Staatsrecht_ (1887), iii. p. 48; L.M. Hartmann, _De exilio apud Rumanos_ (Berlin, 1887); F. von Holtzendorff-Vietmansdorf, _Die Deportationsstrafe im romischen Alterthum_ (Leipzig, 1859); articles in Smith's _Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities_ (3rd ed., 1890) and Daremberg and Saglio's _Dict. des antiquites_ (C. Lecrivain and G. Humbert).

EXILI, an Italian chemist and poisoner in the 17th century. His real name was probably Nicolo Egidi or Eggidio. Few authentic details of his life exist. Tradition, however, credits him with having been originally the salaried poisoner at Rome of Olympia Maidalchina, the mistress of Pope Innocent X. Subsequently he became a gentleman in waiting to Queen Christina of Sweden, whose taste for chemistry may have influenced this appointment. In 1663 his presence in France aroused the suspicions of the French government, and he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Here he is said to have made the acquaintance of Godin de Sainte-Croix, the lover of the marquise de Brin-villiers (q.v.). After three months' imprisonment, powerful influences secured Exili's release, and he left France for England. In 1681 he was again in Italy, where he married the countess Fantaguzzi, second cousin of Duke Francis of Modena.

EXMOOR FOREST, a high moorland in Somersetshire and Devonshire, England. The uplands of this district are bounded by the low alluvial plain of Sedgemoor on the east, by the lower basin of the Exe on the south, by the basin of the Taw (in part) on the west, and by the Bristol Channel on the north. The area thus defined, however, includes not only Exmoor but the Brendon and Quantock Hills east of it. Excluding these, the total area in the district lying at an elevation exceeding 1000 ft. is about 120 sq. m. The geological formation is Devonian. The ancient forest had an area of about 20,000 acres, and was enclosed in 1815. Large tracts are still uncultivated; and the wild red deer and native Exmoor pony are characteristic of the district. The highest point is Dunkery Beacon in the east (1707 ft.), but Span Head in the south-west is 1618 ft., and a height of 1500 ft. is exceeded at several points. The Exe, Barle, Lyn and other streams, traversing deep picturesque valleys except in their uppermost courses, are in favour with trout fishermen. The few villages, such as Exford, Withypool and Simonsbath, with Lynton and Lynmouth on the coast, afford centres for tourists and sportsmen. Exmoor is noted for its stag hunting. The district has a further fame through Richard Blackmore's novel, _Lorna Doone_.

EXMOUTH, EDWARD PELLEW, 1ST VISCOUNT (1757-1833), English admiral, was descended from a family which came originally from Normandy, but had for many centuries been settled in the west of Cornwall. He was born at Dover, on the 19th of April 1757. At the age of thirteen he entered the navy, and even then his smartness and activity, his feats of daring, and his spirit of resolute independence awakened remark, and pointed him out as one specially fitted to distinguish himself in his profession. He had, however, no opportunity of active service till 1776, when, at the battle of Lake Champlain, his gallantry, promptitude and skill, not only saved the "Carleton"--whose command had devolved upon him during the progress of the battle--from imminent danger, but enabled her to take a prominent part in sinking two of the enemy's ships. For his services on this occasion he obtained a lieutenant's commission, and the command of the schooner in which he had so bravely done his duty. The following year, in command of a brigade of seamen, he shared in the hardships and perils of the American campaign of General Burgoyne. In 1782, in command of the "Pelican," he attacked three French privateers inside the Ile de Batz, and compelled them to run themselves on shore--a feat for which he was rewarded by the rank of post-captain. On the outbreak of the French War in 1793, he was appointed to the "Nymphe," a frigate of 36 guns; and, notwithstanding that for the sake of expedition she was manned chiefly by Cornish miners, he captured, after a desperate conflict, the French frigate "La Cleopatre," a vessel of equal strength. For this act he obtained the honour of knighthood. In 1794 he received the command of the "Arethusa" (38), and in a fight with the French frigate squadron off the Ile de Batz he compelled the "Pomona" (44) to surrender. The same year the western squadron was increased and its command divided, the second squadron being given to Sir Edward Pellew in the "Indefatigable" (44). While in command of this squadron he, on several occasions, performed acts of great personal daring; and for his bravery in boarding the wrecked transport "Dutton," and his promptitude and resolution in adopting measures so as to save the lives of all on board, he was in 1796 created a baronet. In 1798 he joined the channel fleet, and in command of the "Impetueux" (74) took part in several actions with great distinction. In 1802 Sir Edward Pellew was elected member of parliament for Dunstable, and during the time that he sat in the Commons he was a strenuous supporter of Pitt. In 1804 he was made rear-admiral of the blue, and appointed commander-in-chief in India, where, by his vigilance and rapidity of movement, he entirely cleared the seas of French cruisers, and secured complete protection to English commerce. He returned to England in 1809, and in 1810 was appointed commander-in-chief in the North Sea, and in 1811 commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean. In 1814 he was created Baron Exmouth of Canonteign, and in the following year was made K.C.B., and a little later G.C.B. When the dey of Algiers, in 1816, violated the treaty for the abolition of slavery, Exmouth was directed to attack the town. Accordingly, on the 26th of August, he engaged the Algerine battery and fleet, and after a severe action of nine hours' duration, he set on fire the arsenal and every vessel of the enemy's fleet, and shattered the sea defences into ruins. At the close of the action the dey apologized for his conduct, and agreed to a renewal of the treaty, at the same time delivering up over three thousand persons of various nationalities who had been Algerine slaves. For this splendid victory Exmouth was advanced to the dignity of viscount. Shortly before his death, which took place on the 23rd of January 1833, he was made vice-admiral.

He had married Susan (d. 1837), daughter of James Frowde of Knoyle, Wiltshire, who bore him four sons and two daughters. His eldest son, Pownoll Bastard Pellew (1786-1833), became 2nd Viscount Exmouth, and his descendant, Edward Addington Hargreaves Pellew (b. 1890), became the 5th viscount in 1899.

Exmouth's second son, Sir Fleetwood Broughton Reynolds Pellew (1789-1861), was like his father an admiral. The third son was George Pellew (1793-1866), author and divine, who married Frances (d. 1870), daughter of the prime minister, Lord Sidmouth, and wrote his father-in-law's life (_The Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth_, 1847).

Exmouth had a brother, Sir Israel Pellew (1758-1832), also an admiral, who was present at the battle of Trafalgar.

A _Life_ of the 1st viscount, by Edward Osler, was published in 1835.

EXMOUTH, a market-town, seaport and watering-place in the Honiton parliamentary division of Devonshire, England, at the mouth of the river Exe, 10-1/2 m. S.E. by S. of Exeter by the London & South-Western railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 10,485. In the 18th century it consisted of a primitive fishing village at the base of Beacon Hill, a height commanding fine views over the estuary and the English Channel. After its more modern terraces were built up the hillside, Exmouth became the first seaside resort in Devon. Its excellent bathing and the beauty of its coast and moorland scenery attract many visitors in summer, while it is frequented in winter by sufferers from pulmonary disease. The climate is unusually mild, as a range of hills shelters the town on the east. A promenade runs along the sea wall; there are golf links and public gardens, and the port is a favourite yachting centre, a regatta being held annually. Near the town is a natural harbour called the Bight. The local industries include fishing, brick-making and the manufacture of Honiton lace. Exmouth was early a place of importance, and in 1347 contributed 10 vessels to the fleet sent to attack Calais. It once possessed a fort or "castelet," designed to command the estuary of the Exe. This fort, which was garrisoned for the king during the Civil War, was blockaded and captured by Colonel Shapcoate in 1646.

EXODUS, BOOK OF, in the Bible, a book of the Old Testament which derives its name, through the Greek, from the event which forms the most prominent feature of the history it narrates, viz. the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Strictly speaking, however, this title is applicable to the first half only, the historical portion of the book, and takes no account of those chapters which describe the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, nor of those which deal with the Tabernacle and its furniture. By the Jews it is usually styled after its opening words [Hebrew: We'eleh Shemoth] (_We'eleh Shemoth_) or, more briefly, [Hebrew: Shemoth] (_Shemoth_).

In its present form the book sets forth (a) the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt (ch. i.), (b) the birth and education of Moses, and his flight to the land of Midian (ch. ii.), (c) the theophany at Mt. Horeb (the Burning Bush), and the subsequent commission of Moses and Aaron (iii. 1-iv. 17), (d) the return of Moses to Egypt, and his appeal to Pharaoh which results in the further oppression of Israel (iv. 18-vii. 7), (e) the plagues of Egypt (vii. 8-xi. 10), (f) the institution of the Passover and of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes, the last plague, and Israel's departure from Egypt (xii. 1-xiii. 16), (g) the crossing of the Red Sea and the discomfiture of the Egyptians, the Song of Triumph, the sending of the manna and other incidents of the journeying through the wilderness (xiii. 17-xviii. 27), (h) the giving of the Law, including the Decalogue and the so-called Book of the Covenant, on Sinai-Horeb (xix.-xxiv.), (i) directions for the building of the Tabernacle and for the consecration of the priests (xxv.-xxxi.), (j) the sin of the Golden Calf, and another earlier version of the first legislation (xxxii.-xxxiv.), (k) the construction of the Tabernacle and its erection (xxxv.-xl.). The book of Exodus, however, like the other books of the Hexateuch, is a composite work which has passed, so to speak, through many editions; hence the order of events given above cannot lay claim to any higher authority than that of the latest editor. Moreover, the documents from which the book has been compiled belong to different periods in the history of Israel, and each of them, admittedly, reflects the standpoint of the age in which it was written. Hence it follows that the contents of the book are not of equal historical value; and though the claim of a passage to be considered historical is not necessarily determined by the age of the source from which it is derived, yet, in view of the known practice of Hebrew writers, greater weight naturally attaches to the earlier documents in those cases in which the sources are at variance with one another. Any attempt, therefore, at restoring the actual course of history must be preceded by an inquiry into the source of the various contents of the book.

The sources from which the book of Exodus has been compiled are the same as those which form the basis of the book of Genesis, while the method of composition is very similar. Here, too, the strongly marked characteristics of P, or the Priestly Document, as opposed to JE, enable us to determine the extent of that document with comparative ease; but the absence, in some cases, of conclusive criteria prevents any final judgment as to the exact limits of the two strands which have been united in the composite JE. The latter statement applies especially to the legislative portions of the book: in the historical sections the separation of the two sources gives rise to fewer difficulties. It does not, however, lie within the scope of the present article to examine the various sources underlying the narrative with any minuteness, but rather to sum up those results of modern criticism which have been generally accepted by Old Testament scholars. To this end it will be convenient to treat the subject-matter of the book under three main heads: (a) the historical portion (ch. i.-xviii.), (b) the sections dealing with the giving of the Law (xix.-xxiv., xxxii.-xxxiv.), and (c) the construction of the Tabernacle and its furniture (xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl.).

(a) _Israel in Egypt and the Exodus_ (ch. i.-xviii.). (1) i. 1-vii. 13.--The analysis of these chapters shows that the history, in the main, has been derived from the two sources J and E, chiefly the former, and that a later editor has included certain passages from P, besides introducing a slight alteration of the original order and other redactional changes. The combined narrative of JE sets forth the rise of a new king in Egypt, who endeavoured to check the growing strength of the children of Israel; it thus prepares the way for the birth of Moses, his early life in Egypt, his flight to Midian and marriage with Zipporah, the theophany at Mt. Horeb, and his divine commission to deliver Israel from Egypt.

At the very outset the two sources betray their divergent origin and point of view. According to J (i. 6, 8-12, 20b) the Israelites dwell apart in the province of Goshen, and their numbers become so great as to call for severe measures of repression, the method employed being that of forced labour. E, on the other hand (i. 15-20a, 21, 22), represents them as living among the Egyptians, and so few in number that two midwives satisfy their requirements. It is to this latter source that we owe the account of the birth of Moses and of his education at the court of Pharaoh (ii. 1-10). On reaching manhood Moses openly displays his sympathy with his brethren by slaying an Egyptian, and has, in consequence, to flee to Midian, where he marries Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian (ii. 11-22). In this section the editor has undoubtedly made use of the parallel narrative of J, though it is impossible to determine the exact point at which J's account is introduced: certainly ii. 15b-22 belong to that source.[1] The narrative of the call of Moses is by no means uniform, and shows obvious traces of twofold origin (J iii. 2-4a, 5, 7, 8, 16-18; iv. 1-12 (13-16), 29-31; E iii. 1, 4b, 6, 9-14, 21, 22; iv. 17, 18, 20b, 27, 28). These two sources present striking points of difference, which reappear in the subsequent narrative. According to E, Moses with Aaron is to demand from Pharaoh the release of Israel, which will be effected in spite of his opposition; in assurance thereof the promise is given that they shall serve God upon this mountain; moreover, the people on their departure are to borrow raiment and jewels from their Egyptian neighbours. According to J, on the other hand, the spokesmen are to be Moses and the elders; and their request is for a temporary departure only, viz. "three days' journey into the wilderness"; their departure from Egypt is a hurried one. Yet another difficulty, which disappears as soon as the composite character of the narrative is recognized, is that of the signs. In J three signs are given for the purpose of reassuring Moses, only one of which is wrought with the rod (iv. 1-9), but in iv. 17 (E) the reference is clearly to entirely different signs, probably the plagues of Egypt, which according to E were invariably wrought by "the rod of God." Further, it is questionable if the passage iv. 13-16 really forms part of the original narrative of J, and is not rather to be ascribed to the redactor of JE. The name of Aaron has certainly been introduced by a later hand in J's account of the plague of frogs (viii. 12), and the only passage in J in which Aaron is represented as taking an active part is iv. 29-31, where the mention of his name causes no little difficulty.[2] In E, on the other hand, Aaron is sent by God to meet Moses at Mt. Horeb, after the latter had taken leave of Jethro, and, later on, accompanies him into the presence of Pharaoh. The succeeding narrative (v. 1-vi. 1) is mainly taken from J, though E's account of the first interview with Pharaoh has been partially retained in v. 1, 2, 4. Moses and the elders ask leave to go three days' journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, a request which is met by an increase of the burdensome work of brick-making: henceforward the Israelites have to provide their own straw. The people complain bitterly to Moses, who appeals to Yahweh and is assured by him of the future deliverance of Israel "by a strong hand."

With the exception of the genealogical list (i. 1-5) and the brief notices of the increase of Israel (i. 7) and of its oppression at the hands of the Egyptians (i. 13, 14; ii. 23b-25), the narrative so far exhibits no traces of P[3]. But in vi. 2-vii. 13 we are confronted with a narrative which carries us back to ii. 23b-25 and gives practically a parallel account to that of JE in ch. iii.-v. Thus the revelation of the divine name, vi. 2f., finds its counterpart in iii. 10f., the message to be delivered to Israel (vi. 6f.) is very similar to that of ch. iii. 16f., while the demand which is to be addressed to Pharaoh is identical with that which had been already refused in ch.